| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
Parked Out
Member
Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles, WA |
| BigBrunyon wrote: | | Getting real sick of the confirmation bias perspective of all the climate change nay-sayers. in a problem the size of an elephant they zoom in on a spec of grass underneath a toenail and claim it disproves the whole problem. It's just another flavor of the "it was cold yesterday so it's a hoax" BS. |
Just curious - do you find this meme to be misleading?
 Climate change
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9512 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
 Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:01 pm |
|
|
| MtnGoat wrote: | | Since models are not empirical evidence, the claims made don't hold status as actual evidence. Treating them as empirical evidence is one of the logical fallacies. |
This is a disingenuous argument.
During the Apollo program mathematical methods were used to model orbital paths. This of course was not proof that the models were correct. But the models were sufficiently correct to be useful.
MtnGoat's argument reminds me of the old bad joke about the difference between a mathematician and an engineer. They are placed in a room with a beautiful woman on the other side of the room and the woman says may approach her, but only by half the distance remaining in each move. The mathematician gives up with the declaration I'll never get there, the engineer says I can get close enough.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Parked Out
Member
Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles, WA |
| RandyHiker wrote: | | During the Apollo program mathematical methods were used to model orbital paths. This of course was not proof that the models were correct. But the models were sufficiently correct to be useful. |
Poor analogy. We can mathematically model how fast a body falling toward earth accelerates because we understand very well the forces involved. But as the IPCC has stated, our climate is a non-linear chaotic system that does not lend itself to being accurately modeled. That doesn't mean models can't be useful, but in terms of having predictive validity, climate models are in a completely different class from models that are based on nothing but established physics.
The Michael Manns and Gavin Schmidts of the world never tire of proclaiming how well climate scientists understand the climate, but all you have to do is follow the literature to see how practically every month something new and unexpected is discovered.
E.g.,
Global-scale multidecadal variability missing in state-of-the-art climate models
Climate variability: Models missing a crucial North Atlantic signal
Climate models are in universal agreement that ongoing emissions of greenhouse gasses will lead to global warming. However, models often struggle to simulate realistic patterns of decadal climate variability, raising questions about their representation of key climate physics. Here, Sergey Kravtsov and colleagues show that a previously unknown pattern of climate variability can account for up to 0.3 °C of warming or cooling over the course of several decades. The climate signal originates in the North Atlantic and propagates throughout the world over the course of two to three decades. While numerous patterns of decadal variability are known to exist within the climate system, Kravtsov and colleagues suggest that global — rather than regional — climate variability is influenced by the North Atlantic. State-of-the-art climate models do not simulate the observed climate cycles, suggesting that key mechanisms remain to be discovered.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:26 am |
|
|
| RandyHiker wrote: | | This is a disingenuous argument.
During the Apollo program mathematical methods were used to model orbital paths. This of course was not proof that the models were correct. But the models were sufficiently correct to be useful.
MtnGoat's argument reminds me of the old bad joke about the difference between a mathematician and an engineer. They are placed in a room with a beautiful woman on the other side of the room and the woman says may approach her, but only by half the distance remaining in each move. The mathematician gives up with the declaration I'll never get there, the engineer says I can get close enough. |
There is nothing disingenous about truth, and the statement I made is factually correct. It is 100% true to point out the fact that models are not empirical evidence. Treating them as such is, in fact, a logical fallacy.
Apollo modeling was testable and falsifiable, based on known principles from top to bottom, all of which are testable.
This is not like the climate models which are so all over the map they must run multiple tests and *assume* they are close enough to correct for error to average out. The use of guesses and code replaces actual knowledge of the details, sign, and magnitude of a zillion interlocked processes.
We don't have any way of actually testing wether the models are 'close enough' for anything, especially what they are being used to justify.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sculpin
Member
Joined: 23 Apr 2015
Posts: 1382 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Sculpin
Member
|
Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:31 am |
|
|
| MtnGoat wrote: | | You are entitled to all the resources you can pay for, at free market prices, so long as you do not empirically violate innocent people's rights. The bit about principles is unintentionally funny, since what we read here and so many other places shows folks with claimed principles who refuse to actually live by them by choice because they provably place their own comfort, convenience, and affordability above what they claim are the Earth's needs. |
In other words, exactly what I thought. 
So now that we know where you are coming from (thanks for that), exactly what are you doing on a forum about stewardship and a thread about sustainability? You have zero interest in these topics, it is all about getting what you can while the getting is good. You are just trolling here.
| MtnGoat wrote: | | I'm very interested in these claims about principles and living by them. |
No you are not. 
Between every two pines is a doorway to the new world. - John Muir
Between every two pines is a doorway to the new world. - John Muir
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Parked Out
Member
Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles, WA |
| Sculpin wrote: | | MtnGoat wrote: | | You are entitled to all the resources you can pay for, at free market prices, so long as you do not empirically violate innocent people's rights. The bit about principles is unintentionally funny, since what we read here and so many other places shows folks with claimed principles who refuse to actually live by them by choice because they provably place their own comfort, convenience, and affordability above what they claim are the Earth's needs. |
In other words, exactly what I thought.
So now that we know where you are coming from (thanks for that), exactly what are you doing on a forum about stewardship and a thread about sustainability? You have zero interest in these topics, it is all about getting what you can while the getting is good. You are just trolling here.
| MtnGoat wrote: | | I'm very interested in these claims about principles and living by them. |
No you are not. |
I completely disagree. Just like the Fukushima radiation-fear evacuation, there's a good possibility that society's response to the supposed threat of climate change will be far more destructive than climate change itself, or at least a monumental waste of time & resources. If you're concerned about humanity's future then there are far more important issues to worry about. And if you don't think skeptics are crucial to scientific progress then I'd suggest you don't know the first thing about science.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:28 am |
|
|
| Sculpin wrote: | | In other words, exactly what I thought.
So now that we know where you are coming from (thanks for that), exactly what are you doing on a forum about stewardship and a thread about sustainability? You have zero interest in these topics, it is all about getting what you can while the getting is good. You are just trolling here. |
| Sculpin wrote: | | No you are not. |
Yes, what you thought. I make my arguments clearly and without reservation or subterfuge. And?
What am I doing here? Discussing stewardship from a perspective which is rational and arguing for the consistent application of actual science, not the atavistic, subjective free fall of scientism. The waste of resources on a non problem is *itself* the useless consumption of resources *and* the generation of waste.
This is not a thread about 'sustainability', a meaningless, subjective term which isn't even accurate.
Your pronouncement that i have zero interest in these topics is an example of presumption about people who simply disagree with you. I have an interest in seeing that science is not abused for political or moral advantage, and the 'theory' behind this topic is example number one of that abuse on both fronts.
It's not trolling to disagree, it's called...disagreement. You're merely using a shut up tactic because you don't like my arguments.
And yes, as I stated, I am very interested in the claims about principles and living by them. I do my best to live by the ones I state here, whereas I noted, others put themselves above the Earth, and other people as well because they want 'change' but won't do what they claim is necessary until other people are forced to do it too. Because then, it will be easier for them. We find their *own* comfort, ease, and convenience put above not only the Earth, but other innocent people's rights, lives, choices, and resources. But it won't be admitted.
You evaded a direct question on the matter of principles because you don't like it. It was not rhetorical, I don't do rhetorical. Questions do not become rhetorical because you don't want to answer them.
You can do better than to presume ill intent on someone else's part simply because you don't like the arguments. You can do better than imply discussion of the topics you note must mean all parties agree in an echo chamber. That's not discussion of any value.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:36 am |
|
|
| Parked Out wrote: | | I completely disagree. Just like the Fukushima radiation-fear evacuation, there's a good possibility that society's response to the supposed threat of climate change will be far more destructive than climate change itself, or at least a monumental waste of time & resources. If you're concerned about humanity's future then there are far more important issues to worry about. And if you don't think skeptics are crucial to scientific progress then I'd suggest you don't know the first thing about science. |
I disagree in a direct, effective manner on a topic of deep emotional concern.
Therefore, I'm 'trolling'. 
Because disagreement to the selfless, holy commitment to Earth based on lousy science cannot be legitimate, valid, or rational.
What I say about climate models not being empirical evidence: True
What I say about their 'tuning' via code then determining they must be accurate even when they don't understand the system: True
What I say about the entire 'theory' resting upon a very few highly questionable assertions: True
What I say about the vast bulk of 'change' evidence also being consistent with natural warming: True
What I say about the sheer volume of logical fallacies used to defend warmism: True
What I say about the fact that proponents refuse to take the steps necessary for the numbers needed in their own lives at their own cost and loss, by choice: True
What I say about the fact that it has been warmer for longer already in this interglacial: True
But it's trolling, you see, because truth is 'disingenous' when it's in contradiction to something they want to be true. Science doesn't mean proper method just when you want to...it means in every case, in every argument, always, all the way down.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:58 am |
|
|
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9512 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Tue Apr 23, 2019 11:25 am |
|
|
| MtnGoat wrote: | | Apollo modeling was testable and falsifiable, based on known principles from top to bottom, all of which are testable. |
Not really. They didn't have time or resources to launch robotic rockets into lunar orbit to verify whether the orbital calculations were correct before sending rockets with people in them. They had to have enough confidence in their models to place lives as risk
It's a similar issue with planet earth. We don't have an "earth B" that we can run experiments on to separate out the effect of anthropomorphic CO2 emissions from natural cycles.
The "models don't prove anything" argument is just a proxy for doing nothing -- which is is MtnGoat's goal in the first place.
I suspect we are already past the point where even if someone invents "Mr Fusion" this afternoon and it is cheap and easy to build and a retrofit kit for a F150 pickup truck costs less than 3 fill ups and as a result CO2 emissions are cut to zero in 2 years that we will still see major economic and environmental disruption from the CO2 already released over the last 150 years.
ButI think that's still no excuse for pretending that there isn't a problem.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
Tue Apr 23, 2019 11:52 am |
|
|
| RandyHiker wrote: | | Not really. They didn't have time or resources to launch robotic rockets into lunar orbit to verify whether the orbital calculations were correct before sending rockets with people in them. They had to have enough confidence in their models to place lives as risk
It's a similar issue with planet earth. We don't have an "earth B" that we can run experiments on to separate out the effect of anthropomorphic CO2 emissions from natural cycles.
The "models don't prove anything" argument is just a proxy for doing nothing -- which is is MtnGoat's goal in the first place.
I suspect we are already past the point where even if someone invents "Mr Fusion" this afternoon and it is cheap and easy to build and a retrofit kit for a F150 pickup truck costs less than 3 fill ups and as a result CO2 emissions are cut to zero in 2 years that we will still see major economic and environmental disruption from the CO2 already released over the last 150 years.
ButI think that's still no excuse for pretending that there isn't a problem. |
They *did* launch robotic rockets into lunar orbit and verify the principles, math, and models. They *landed* devices on the moon prior to the human landing...all of which is empirical verification. Then they orbited the moon with humans on a mission before even attempting a landing...another empirical validation of the simulations and math.
The fact that there is no planet B is the problem of those choosing to make claims which they cannot subject to the same rigors. You don't get a pass from following every part of proper scientific method because you chose arguments which are not consistent with same.
Noting that fact, inconvenient as it is, is not illegitimate. No more so than noting the same kinds of fact about the non falsifiability of ghost hunting. They too could claim that because their chosen concern is outside the field of proper method and logic, they should get a mulligan. When you claim to be doing science, which is not an outcome, but a process, you're either following it or you are not.
The models "don't prove anything" argument is fact. That they are not empirical evidence, is fact. Facts which contradict claims are not excuses, they are reasons. Contrary to your argument, I don't argue to 'do nothing'. I argue for you folks who are so concerned to do what you claim you want, in your own lives, at your own risk and cost. That's not nothing, but it may seem so because of the power you seek.
I 'pretend' nothing. I argue the case is far from clear and likely totally wrong. No pretending. The pretending going on here is on your part, where you pretend to know ...that I'm 'pretending'.
I applaud your take on a real argument when discussing the moon landing. At least you actually addressed a point. I realize the fact that that current changes are within the range of natural variation, is one that is a no go zone, likely because it cuts off the catastrophic take at the knees.
I don't argue to win using any means necessary. I argue to seek truth, using logic. I don't need to hide my thinking, or mask it, or pretend. If I thought the 'science' behind the models was valid, I'd say so, and then if I still opposed actions anyway, I'd say so there, too. I don't use the Trojan horse method of gaining agreement. I don't need to. Deception is not in my toolbox because deception is poison. The ends do not justify the means.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drm
Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR |
|
drm
Member
|
Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:51 pm |
|
|
| Parked Out wrote: | | The Michael Manns and Gavin Schmidts of the world never tire of proclaiming how well climate scientists understand the climate, but all you have to do is follow the literature to see how practically every month something new and unexpected is discovered. |
So? Models are by definition a simplification of reality, so as time goes we fill in more details. That something new and unexpected is discovered does not invalidate the model that existed before that discovery.
Climate models are evidence, but they are just one part of the evidence. We also have measurements we are making on the ground and we have historic evidence as well, gleaned from ice cores and the like.
Skeptics are critical to the scientific process, but genuine skepticism is based on plausible arguments, not half-baked conspiracy theories. There are plenty of skeptics of the climate consensus as it exists. And some of them think it's going to be a lot worse than the IPCC consensus.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9512 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Tue Apr 23, 2019 5:59 pm |
|
|
| MtnGoat wrote: | | The fact that there is no planet B is the problem of those choosing to make claims which they cannot subject to the same rigors. You don't get a pass from following every part of proper scientific method because you chose arguments which are not consistent with same. |
With no "planet B" to conduct experiments on what is your thinking on what is sufficient evidence for taking action? Waiting until Venice is completely underwater? But wouldn't you just assert at that point that this was due to "natural cycles"?
What evidence would be sufficient for you to reconsider whether whether human CO2 emissions are a factor in driving climate change?
Weather forecast models are widely used to forecast hurricane intensity and paths and sometimes redult in evacuation orders. These models aren't perfect and their forecasts aren't evidence. By the logic you assert hurricane evacuation orders should be ignored.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:10 pm |
|
|
| drm wrote: | | So? Models are by definition a simplification of reality, so as time goes we fill in more details. That something new and unexpected is discovered does not invalidate the model that existed before that discovery.
Climate models are evidence, but they are just one part of the evidence. We also have measurements we are making on the ground and we have historic evidence as well, gleaned from ice cores and the like.
Skeptics are critical to the scientific process, but genuine skepticism is based on plausible arguments, not half-baked conspiracy theories. There are plenty of skeptics of the climate consensus as it exists. And some of them think it's going to be a lot worse than the IPCC consensus. |
When something new is discovered which means the model is wrong, how does that not mean the model was wrong?
If the Earth had such sensitive positive feedback from CO2 it would have run off the rails long, long ago from any number of sudden CO2 perturbations. Positive feedback is inherently unstable.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:17 pm |
|
|
| RandyHiker wrote: | | With no "planet B" to conduct experiments on what is your thinking on what is sufficient evidence for taking action? Waiting until Venice is completely underwater? But wouldn't you just assert at that point that this was due to "natural cycles"?
What evidence would be sufficient for you to reconsider whether whether human CO2 emissions are a factor in driving climate change?
Weather forecast models are widely used to forecast hurricane intensity and paths and sometimes redult in evacuation orders. These models aren't perfect and their forecasts aren't evidence. By the logic you assert hurricane evacuation orders should be ignored. |
When there is sufficient evidence, gained *without* skipping steps or granting passes on established scientific practice, to falsifiably show that human causes are present. The same as any other scientific claim.
Wouldn't you admit that it is at least possible that what we see is in fact natural variation? I get from your arguments that you do not think that's likely, but I doubt you would say it is not possible.
Forecast models are inherently falsifiable because they are very short term. They fall apart weeks out, however. I do think there's a place for the discussion of falsifiability on the climate predictions however, because so many of them have been falsified...but the other half of falsifiability is the acceptance that a prediction was wrong, or acceptance that the failure to predict events like the pause, also shows faults with the modeling.
In any event, thank you for the actual discussion with arguments that are relevant, rather than the 'I don't like the source' kind of argument. Much more interesting.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate NWHikers.net earns from qualifying purchases when you use our link(s). |
