The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Zak Smith]

Nope, you specifically stated the "even if" tool was a political/policy decision. It does not serve to prove a scientific thesis in this case.

As for the rest, it is not metaphysical at all. Simply put, the observations about actual temperate change since the industrial revolution cannot be used as evidence for man-made climate change because closed and chaotic system is not understood well enough in a predictable (ie, scientific way) as to separate collosal historical trends which have pruduced in the past changes dwarfing anything observed in the last 200 years, from components directly attributable to human behavior.

In other words.. that A causes B.

[Zak Smith]

Hell, even Carl Wunsch writes, in his rebuttal to the C4 piece, that the science is not mature enough to give definite answers. He characterizes taking precautions as "insurance" the same way "we take out homeowners insurance against fire."

The former is a statement about the thesis about global warming. The latter is a policy/political statement about hedging a bet about something that may or may not happen.

[Recon]

Nope, you specifically stated the "even if" tool was a political/policy decision. It does not serve to prove a scientific thesis in this case.

As for the rest, it is not metaphysical at all. Simply put, the observations about actual temperate change since the industrial revolution cannot be used as evidence for man-made climate change because closed and chaotic system is not understood well enough in a predictable (ie, scientific way) as to separate collosal historical trends which have pruduced in the past changes dwarfing anything observed in the last 200 years, from components directly attributable to human behavior.

In other words.. that A causes B.

Don’t confuse my use of the “even if” tool (a tool commonly used in science) with the science that does exist and which does address, in part, some of the chaotic ambiguities. The 30% figure I used (for man or nature) can be corrected to address, at least at some percentage, the data that we do have. Simply put, the science that does exist does not rise to your subjective level of proof. It does, however, not only meet the level of proof required by policy makers, but it also meets the level of proof required by the scientific community at large.

When you say “closed and chaotic system is not understood well enough” you have to understand that you don’t get to decide what “well enough” is for any given decision, be it scientific or politic.

Since I am not a scientist, I will defer to them on the merits of you unsubstantiated claims. In fact, even if you were to trot out a million web citations in support of your position, I could do little more than snipe at them like you have with the science in support of global warming. If you deny that green house gasses create a green house effect (A causes B), all other things being equal, then you are in denial. That’s cool. As I said before, the operative question relates to those other things that are not equal and those things have been addressed; perhaps not to your satisfaction, but that does not mean they have not been addressed.

[Recon]

Hell, even Carl Wunsch writes, in his rebuttal to the C4 piece, that the science is not mature enough to give definite answers. He characterizes taking precautions as "insurance" the same way "we take out homeowners insurance against fire."

The former is a statement about the thesis about global warming. The latter is a policy/political statement about hedging a bet about something that may or may not happen.

More proof of my point that, barring the metaphysical, science does not mandate a certain level of proof or "definite answers." And, not withstanding my request, you have failed to articulate a level necessary. It seems you must have absolute scientific certainty, and if it does not exist, then there is no science at all. That is illogical. Just because a decision is made does not mean everything is settled. Science does not require it.

When you fire your weapon, you don't know, with a "definite answer" that it will discharge a round. Just because you don't know it doesn't mean all the science that says a round will fire somehow must not exist. There is science out there that says it will. Good science. Good enough that you don't fire at people unless you intend to kill them.

[Zak Smith]

But I have tried to stay out of the `climate wars' because all nuance tends to be lost, and the distinction between what we know firmly, as scientists, and what we suspect is happening, is so difficult to maintain in the presence of rhetorical excess. In the long run, our credibility as scientists rests on being very careful of, and protective of, our authority and expertise.

[Recon]

But I have tried to stay out of the `climate wars' because all nuance tends to be lost, and the distinction between what we know firmly, as scientists, and what we suspect is happening, is so difficult to maintain in the presence of rhetorical excess. In the long run, our credibility as scientists rests on being very careful of, and protective of, our authority and expertise.

On that we can both agree. Although I suspect it was penned by one of "your" boys, it still cuts both ways. I see the above referenced distinction getting lost primarily due to the noise coming from outside of the community, and particularly from those who claim that somehow those scientists within the community are engaged in a world wide "feel good" conspiracy against real science. Even if you write well, like Crieghton and Card, it's still noise. Policy wonks on both sides spin the science but at this point the policy wonk in the White House has made a call, albeit against his gut. Science can do that sometimes. I'm sure better arguers than you and I have given it their best shot.

In the end, we don't "know" anything "firmly" we just suspect firmly. Science has stepped on it's dick too many times in the past to think otherwise, hence the author's reference to "being very careful of, and protective of, our authority and expertise."

[Zak Smith]

Wunsch wrote that. :mrgreen:

[Recon]

On that happy note, I'm outa here. Time to shoot some paper. [postal]

[Zak Smith]

After this entertaining flame war, I do plan to follow up with some additional reading on the subject.

If the weather holds, I'm off to Logan NM for two days of LR shooting this weekend, but there's also a Pueblo tac-rifle match on Sunday.

[postal]

[Recon]

After this entertaining flame war, I do plan to follow up with some additional reading on the subject.

If the weather holds, I'm off to Logan NM for two days of LR shooting this weekend, but there's also a Pueblo tac-rifle match on Sunday.

[postal]

I'm going to try to make it to one of those, one of these days. I have a RR Lower and an MGI QCB upper that needs some exersize. Just hope I don't get shot for my "strange" politics. :mrgreen: Have fun in Logan.