How to Adjust to Climate Change

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

So then: if you do not recognize “appeal to authority” as a valid rhetorical argument, then you can not recognize “appeal to consensus” either.
[/quote]

You have misunderstood. I recognize appeals to authority, and have in fact been making one large appeal to authoritative consensus throughout this discussion.

What I do not recognize is the lay tactic of appealing to authority when the authority happens to be useful in spite of the fact that it–i.e., the authority to which the appeal has been made–is a minority voice of dissent among a much larger body of authority which stands in demonstrable, decided, and direct opposition to the argument that the layman is struggling to evidence.

In other words, appeals to authority must account for the opinion of authority in toto if the former is at odds with the latter, and it must justify the acceptance of the former to the disregard of the latter.

To take another example, an anti-evolutionist flips off thousands of credentialed experts with one hand while he cherry-picks sentences and phrases from the heavily criticized and outdated work of one or two degree-holding denialists. If denials counts for something because they are attended by credentials, then so do the affirmations.

262

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Not by a long shot. I didn’t say the statue of liberty was going to be underwater. I didn’t say anything about “catastrophic” effects. I explicitly said that I’m in line with center-business on the issue. Eighty-five percent predicting moderate to catastrophic consequences is perfectly consistent with my view of things, and I’ve never said different.

[/quote]

You’re conflating the figures for ‘catastrophic’ and ‘moderate’ together to try to validate your claim. ‘Catastrophic’ and ‘moderate’ are at two opposite ends of the spectrum and should not be conflated.[/quote]

No, the end opposite “catastrophic” is “there is no AGW and there will thus be no consequences of it.” This, it has seemed to me throughout our debate, has been your contention. If you were instead arguing that AGW is the truth and that most climatologists expect it to have consequences but there is no clear consensus with regard to the scale and scope of those consequences in the relatively near future, then I’d have agreed with you and we could have skipped the whole thing.

I reiterate that I am not making, and have not made, a single claim with regard to catastrophe. I am not conflating the two scenarios, I am instead making the obvious point that the vast majority of the scientists in the survey you cited (which, by the way, is one of many) not only affirm the reality of anthropogenic climate change but also affirm that some kind of consequences of it await us within the century. This, I feel the need to say yet again, is precisely in line with my own view of the entire issue.

I don’t see the word “between” in my post, and I am not suggesting any such thing. My suggestion is simple: The consensus is that AGW is reality and that it will have consequences. You have evidenced this well.

On a broader note, ma I mistaken in saying that you moved the goal posts here? It was my impression that you were denying AGW outright just a few pages ago. I’m not telling you this; I’m asking you. I haven’t been reading along this entire time, so I could be mistaken.[/quote]

Perhaps I didn’t express myself well. I believe that AGW has a negligible effect on the climate. I also believe that climate is so complex that it is impossible to measure and predict the rate of change change - especially if trying to measure one variable in isolation such as AGW. That’s why I believe the entire field of climate science is a pseudoscience and why cutting CO2 emissions is a pointless thing to do.

263

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

So then: if you do not recognize “appeal to authority” as a valid rhetorical argument, then you can not recognize “appeal to consensus” either.
[/quote]

You have misunderstood. I recognize appeals to authority, and have in fact been making one large appeal to authoritative consensus throughout this discussion.

What I do not recognize is the lay tactic of appealing to authority when the authority happens to be useful in spite of the fact that it–i.e., the authority to which the appeal has been made–is a minority voice of dissent among a much larger body of authority which stands in demonstrable, decided, and direct opposition to the argument that the layman is struggling to evidence.

In other words, appeals to authority must account for the opinion of authority in toto if the former is at odds with the latter, and it must justify the acceptance of the former to the disregard of the latter.

To take another example, an anti-evolutionist flips off thousands of credentialed experts with one hand while he cherry-picks sentences and phrases from the heavily criticized and outdated work of one or two degree-holding denialists. If denials counts for something because they are attended by credentials, then so do the affirmations.[/quote]

Well, alrighty then.
Back to my main question:
Let’s regard the “authority.” Which model predicts what concrete outcomes that we measure today?

264

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Let’s regard the “authority.” Which model predicts what concrete outcomes that we measure today?
[/quote]

Is this some sine qua non in a way that the extant evidence is not? Is there nothing but dust and straw until I can tell you what the average temperature is going to be next decade?

265

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

To invert Confucius, life is really complicated, but we insist on making it simple.

Do I expect a mathematician to remake, with numbers, the Earth’s atmosphere simpliciter? No, I don’t.

266

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Let’s regard the “authority.” Which model predicts what concrete outcomes that we measure today?
[/quote]

Is this some sine qua non in a way that the extant evidence is not? Is there nothing but dust and straw until I can tell you what the average temperature is going to be next decade?[/quote]

What “preponderance of evidence?” Evidence can be explained in different ways–e.g., Greenland’s ice is melting because of soot and not CO2 from Cincinnati.

A theory and its model is of value only if its predictions are reasonably accurate.
And I am not asking you to predict the future. Connect the dots for me: Which model has predicted accurately the measurable climate events of the last, say, 4 years?

If no model fits that demand, then all we have is opinion, not fact; just dust and straw.

267

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

To invert Confucius, life is really complicated, but we insist on making it simple.

Do I expect a mathematician to remake, with numbers, the Earth’s atmosphere simpliciter? No, I don’t.[/quote]

Well that is quite an indigestible article, in contravention of Confucius.
You will note that in the last pages, it indicates that the various models explain past events (before 2005) with an accuracy of “+/- 25%”–whatever that means.
Of course their models explain the past–its called fudging–and anyone who believes that past models predict future returns has never invested in the stock market.

My question still stands: if these guys are so smart, does their modeling comport with current measures?
If not, they need a better model, and I ain’t investing in it.

268

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Let’s regard the “authority.” Which model predicts what concrete outcomes that we measure today?
[/quote]

Is this some sine qua non in a way that the extant evidence is not? Is there nothing but dust and straw until I can tell you what the average temperature is going to be next decade?[/quote]

What “preponderance of evidence?” Evidence can be explained in different ways–e.g., Greenland’s ice is melting because of soot and not CO2 from Cincinnati.

A theory and its model is of value only if its predictions are reasonably accurate.
And I am not asking you to predict the future. Connect the dots for me: Which model has predicted accurately the measurable climate events of the last, say, 4 years?

If no model fits that demand, then all we have is opinion, not fact; just dust and straw.[/quote]

The exact same thing could be said about the opposite side of the argument. What climate denier model has been proven accurate? Which climate change model that predicted there would be no climate change exists?

Turn your argument on the other side of the issue and all you have is straw and dust. And we know that both sides of the issue aren’t actually straw and dust, that someone is much closer to the truth of the matter than the other. I’ll side with the group that has most of the scientific community on its side. You can side with the contrarians.

269

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Dr. Leslie Woodcock, emeritus professor at the University of Manchester (UK) School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, is a former NASA scientist along with other impressive accomplishments on his distinguished professional resume…[/quote]

If appeals to authority are going to stand as evidence here, you are going to lose, in both quantity and quality.[/quote]

"Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chairman of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety
Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II…

“It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.” - from his letter of resignation

http://www.blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/[/quote]

He is of course quite correct about the IPCCs climategate, and I am quite revolted with them.

270

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Let’s regard the “authority.” Which model predicts what concrete outcomes that we measure today?
[/quote]

Is this some sine qua non in a way that the extant evidence is not? Is there nothing but dust and straw until I can tell you what the average temperature is going to be next decade?[/quote]

What “preponderance of evidence?” Evidence can be explained in different ways–e.g., Greenland’s ice is melting because of soot and not CO2 from Cincinnati.

A theory and its model is of value only if its predictions are reasonably accurate.
And I am not asking you to predict the future. Connect the dots for me: Which model has predicted accurately the measurable climate events of the last, say, 4 years?

If no model fits that demand, then all we have is opinion, not fact; just dust and straw.[/quote]

The exact same thing could be said about the opposite side of the argument. What climate denier model has been proven accurate? Which climate change model that predicted there would be no climate change exists?

Turn your argument on the other side of the issue and all you have is straw and dust. And we know that both sides of the issue aren’t actually straw and dust, that someone is much closer to the truth of the matter than the other. I’ll side with the group that has most of the scientific community on its side. You can side with the contrarians.[/quote]

Sense–this post makes none.

It is not I who is obliged to propose an alternative model of future climate based on past observations.
The fundamental point of science is that a theory be falsifiable. If a theory does not even account for observations, it does not amount to much of a theory–choose another. So be my guest, choose your theory which accounts for the events of say, the last 4 years.

271

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

To invert Confucius, life is really complicated, but we insist on making it simple.

Do I expect a mathematician to remake, with numbers, the Earth’s atmosphere simpliciter? No, I don’t.[/quote]

Well that is quite an indigestible article, in contravention of Confucius.
You will note that in the last pages, it indicates that the various models explain past events (before 2005) with an accuracy of “+/- 25%”–whatever that means.
Of course their models explain the past–its called fudging–and anyone who believes that past models predict future returns has never invested in the stock market.

My question still stands: if these guys are so smart, does their modeling comport with current measures?
If not, they need a better model, and I ain’t investing in it. [/quote]

What is egregiously forgotten about in your whole little argument here is that none of this happens in a static world. You have forgotten the most important part of your argument about these failed predictions. The predictions almost invariably come with the caveat that IF current trends/consumption/exhaustion/whatever continues, then we COULD see XYZ changes occur.

But we pay attention to those warnings and do something preventive about them. So they never occur, and then someone who lives in a vacuum comes along and says that those scientists were all completely corrupted by the political process because the worst of their scenarios never came true.

272

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

If I want to stop relying on the testimony of experts, I will have to go for a PhD. Maybe after I did that, I would conclude that there really is some vast conspiracy afoot, or at least that the consensus is mistaken. As of now, if I thought myself qualified to make such a claim, I’d be foolish.

[/quote]

I agree with you that laymen need to be able to rely on experts, but the experts I like to rely on can generally withstand heavy cross-examination by skilled examiners prepped by competing experts. I would really like to see some cross-examination with prep from the best experts from both sides and see where things sit after a few weeks of testimony. Some of the things Aragorn is posting are giving me some pause before blindly accepting the consensus; I’d feel better about accepting the consensus after I saw how the best weathered a direct assault.
[/quote]

Yeah, listen I’m not running down the street shouting about the end of the world here, and of course I’d like to see what you mention above. But I cannot, on the totality of the available, credentialed testimony, say anything other than that I know that the climate is changing, and I think humans are responsible.

…And what I certainly can’t do is accept nonsense about “pseudoscience” and “logic” launched–by people, mind you, who are not within a hundred thousand miles of being educated or employed in even a peripherally scientific capacity–at what is without doubt the present consensus of the scientific community.[/quote]

All I’m saying is that my ears perk up a bit when Aragon posts because he does represent to have some pretty good credentials. I would love to watch a few weeks of real honest-to-god combat in a courtroom over the issue to see where things shake out. Brutal cross forces experts to retreat to only what is defensible or they get ripped to shreds; it would be interesting to see how the best hold up live in a trial setting.

[/quote]

I would pay excellent money to see this cross fire. This used to be what peer review did, as well as the sections of journals replicating experiments from earlier papers to show reproducibility. In many areas peer review still does the job.

I am behind on this thread since my last post and I don’t particularly like where it is headed/gone but I will try to check back in tomorrow.

273

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

To invert Confucius, life is really complicated, but we insist on making it simple.

Do I expect a mathematician to remake, with numbers, the Earth’s atmosphere simpliciter? No, I don’t.[/quote]

Well that is quite an indigestible article, in contravention of Confucius.
You will note that in the last pages, it indicates that the various models explain past events (before 2005) with an accuracy of “+/- 25%”–whatever that means.
Of course their models explain the past–its called fudging–and anyone who believes that past models predict future returns has never invested in the stock market.

My question still stands: if these guys are so smart, does their modeling comport with current measures?
If not, they need a better model, and I ain’t investing in it. [/quote]

What is egregiously forgotten about in your whole little argument here is that none of this happens in a static world. You have forgotten the most important part of your argument about these failed predictions. The predictions almost invariably come with the caveat that IF current trends/consumption/exhaustion/whatever continues, then we COULD see XYZ changes occur.

But we pay attention to those warnings and do something preventive about them. So they never occur, and then someone who lives in a vacuum comes along and says that those scientists were all completely corrupted by the political process because the worst of their scenarios never came true.
[/quote]

You are again mistaken.
I ask that models drawn before, say 2005 or 2010, be tested against events that have occurred since.

No one has acted on those models, so there is no grand intervention which has changed events.

Last, you know nothing of my thoughts on the matter but you insist that by doubting, I must be “on the other side” of the issue. I am saying that I doubt that any current model reflects a reality upon which we all must act, at great expense.
If those models are wrong, we will have acted at great expense, and fruitlessly, or with unintended results.

I remind you that it is you that cannot prioritize your solutions, as I asked in my first post in this thread. Perhaps if you had a predictive model of the climate, you could propose and expense solutions.

274

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I believe that AGW has a negligible effect on the climate.
[/quote]

This belief stands in opposition to the evidence you yourself offered yesterday. “Negligent” isn’t “moderate” under any possible definition, and it sure as hell isn’t “catastrophic.” You’d fall in line with those 13 percent or whatever. Which is fine–13 in 100 of those climatologists think the same thing, who am I to call them idiots?–but the point that you are “against consensus” stands.

275

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

To invert Confucius, life is really complicated, but we insist on making it simple.

Do I expect a mathematician to remake, with numbers, the Earth’s atmosphere simpliciter? No, I don’t.[/quote]

Well that is quite an indigestible article, in contravention of Confucius.
You will note that in the last pages, it indicates that the various models explain past events (before 2005) with an accuracy of “+/- 25%”–whatever that means.
Of course their models explain the past–its called fudging–and anyone who believes that past models predict future returns has never invested in the stock market.

My question still stands: if these guys are so smart, does their modeling comport with current measures?
If not, they need a better model, and I ain’t investing in it. [/quote]

To be clear, I’m not calling for the implementation of a five-year plan here. In fact I’m less interested in climate change than I am in identifying specious argument.

My views on the actual matter are these: Because I am not a scientist, and am not willing to do the reading (of things like the report I linked to, no less) prerequisite of being able to form my own meaningful hypothesis, I have little choice but to figure out what “the scientific community” says, and go with that.

276

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

To invert Confucius, life is really complicated, but we insist on making it simple.

Do I expect a mathematician to remake, with numbers, the Earth’s atmosphere simpliciter? No, I don’t.[/quote]

Well that is quite an indigestible article, in contravention of Confucius.
You will note that in the last pages, it indicates that the various models explain past events (before 2005) with an accuracy of “+/- 25%”–whatever that means.
Of course their models explain the past–its called fudging–and anyone who believes that past models predict future returns has never invested in the stock market.

My question still stands: if these guys are so smart, does their modeling comport with current measures?
If not, they need a better model, and I ain’t investing in it. [/quote]

To be clear, I’m not calling for the implementation of a five-year plan here. In fact I’m less interested in climate change than I am in identifying specious argument.

My views on the actual matter are these: Because I am not a scientist, and am not willing to do the reading (of things like the report I linked to, no less) prerequisite of being able to form my own meaningful hypothesis, I have little choice but to figure out what “the scientific community” says, and go with that.[/quote]

Scientific consensus relies not just on majority opinion, but on reproducible results. Anyone who claims AGW is a ‘settled science’ doesn’t understand the nature of scientific enquiry. Science continually evolves and even where ‘consensus’ exists with reproducible results - ie Newtonian physics - it is often challenged and overturned.

277

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Scientific consensus relies not just on majority opinion, but on reproducible results. Anyone who claims AGW is a ‘settled science’ doesn’t understand the nature of scientific enquiry. Science continually evolves and even where ‘consensus’ exists with reproducible results - ie Newtonian physics - it is often challenged and overturned.[/quote]

This is fine–of course “going with the flow” has its dangers–but it’s the best option I’ve got, and unless you’ve done very serious independent study on the matter, I’d say it’s the best you’ve got too. Relatedly, I don’t exactly know where the points of contention between you and I are any longre. It seems that we are not in as direct a state of disagreement as it would have appeared in the recent past (a common theme lately).

278

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Scientific consensus relies not just on majority opinion, but on reproducible results. Anyone who claims AGW is a ‘settled science’ doesn’t understand the nature of scientific enquiry. Science continually evolves and even where ‘consensus’ exists with reproducible results - ie Newtonian physics - it is often challenged and overturned.[/quote]

This is fine–of course “going with the flow” has its dangers–but it’s the best option I’ve got, and unless you’ve done very serious independent study on the matter, I’d say it’s the best you’ve got too. Relatedly, I don’t exactly know where the points of contention between you and I are any longre. It seems that we are not in as direct a state of disagreement as it would have appeared in the recent past (a common theme lately).[/quote]

I difference lies in the fact that I’m not prepared to ensconce myself in tin foil hat territory with the majority of climate scientists.

279

To take your example, Newtonian physics finds itself in a strange and hairy spot now–an “approximation” of a deeper and truer physics. Does this mean that it would’ve been wise for a cobbler to deny classical mechanics in 1803? I say no.

280

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I difference lies in the fact that I’m not prepared to ensconce myself in tin foil hat territory with the majority of climate scientists.[/quote]

Please show me a single tinfoil hat opinion, belief, or suggestion I’ve offered in this thread. A single one.

Tinfoil hat territory is the calling of climatology “pseudoscience.”