Conservatives and climate change

[jj]

Easy = high school or typical college math thru 2nd year

Hard = Phd level math or math as used by Phd candidates in earth science disciplines

Ok, I'm not a PhD.

I think the math required to show global warming is actually quite trivial, and doable (although there are better ways) with high-school math. It takes trivial first-year physics math (college) to show why.

So, even by your own standard, all it takes is simple math and an ability to understand cause and effect. Hmm, maybe that common sense part is what's missing?

 

[mhaze]

What about my question? What math exactly are you talking about? Again, though, reframing of question noted.

"Math of climate science easy".

to...

"math of Global Worming easy".

<< Another Nit For Clinger!! >>

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Dude. You are the one who has pursued post after post the (IMO) off-topic issue of exactly who is capable of understanding the math behind Climate Change.

I think mhaze has been providing evidence for one of the points made by Peter Wehner:

But rather than offer constructive ideas on how to deal with global warming, some conservatives simply deny global warming has occurred.

For example...

Computational fluid mechanics. What's a Pdh? It's a mis spelling. Etc, etc.

Want the prize for picking nits?

I'm just trying to follow your argument. If I understand you aright, the red text I added below corrects and/or clarifies your original text I've struck out:

I think someone with one semester of CFM computational fluid mechanics wouldn't be competent in the least at "climate science math". Some one with a Pdh PhD in the subject, yes.

Apparently some here think that a PdD PhD in engineering or math is "easy".

People who want to do doctoral research in computational fluid mechanics generally enter a PhD program in mathematics or mechanical or aerospace engineering or something like that. After earning their PhD, they generally say their PhD is in mathematics or mechanical engineering or whatever.

If your main purpose here were to cast doubt on climate science, that could explain why you've been trying so hard to suggest that only those who had specialized in one particular area are qualified to understand the math.

I never suggested that getting a PhD in engineering or math is "easy". As a matter of fact, I entered this conversation because I thought you were suggesting that research scientists who had earned their PhD in a relevant discipline would have trouble figuring out whether the Navier-Stokes equations are applicable to problems in fluid dynamics.

If you now agree that the relevant math isn't hard for properly trained research scientists, then I think you've changed your tune.

Earth’s temperatures have increased and human activity has contributed to it. To deny this is to deny reality, to subordinate truth to ideology. And in the long run that can only damage conservatism.

 

[lomiller]

Thanks. You've reframed the question so as to be able to answer it in a relatively simple manner.

The question was

"What are the effects of this?"

Which I explained is not very hard to answer.

 

[jj]

What about my question? What math exactly are you talking about? Again, though, reframing of question noted.

"Math of climate science easy".

to...

"math of Global Worming easy".

<< Another Nit For Clinger!! >>

No, you asked for an opinion, and I hold a qualified opinion, which I stipulate is not expert, but that is quite sufficient to analyze the actual physical data and note the evidence.

And now you have my opinion. I am not going to waste time playing with your dancing goalposts.

 

[Trakar]

...Now we see in the bolded sections about your attempt to reframe the conversation from Travis's initial direct and simple statement:

"Climate math is easy"...

no, we see me consistently stating the same thing I stated in my initial (edit correction - 2nd posting) posting to this thread which you challenged and now seem to be trying to back away from and dodge because you understand that the basic elements of AGW theories and general climate science are relatively simple and straight forward in concept, explanation and compelling evidentiary support. Now why would you behave in such a manner?

The maths needed to grasp the basics of climate science are learned by tens of millions of high school students each and every year. I would consider this level of mathematical understanding and prowess to be fairly simple and basic.

Uhh...no, it's not. Why not just come clean and agree that "Climate math ain't easy" then we can move on. Otherwise, this discussion is pretty hilarious. In fact, since it's likely to get stricken from the public records by the mods, I'm saving a copy right now.

Sounds like a brilliant strategery. Make a bunch of unsupportable, wild assertions, then attack and and insult people while derailing discussion and then reporting the derail in the attempt to hide your behavior. Highlarious indeed.

 

[Trakar]

I'd say you underestimate the problem ... if you want models.

http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/climate-models-irreducibly-imprecise

Seriously!? another pseudoscience, political blog?

I see your wootastical amazingness and raise you a dose of reality!

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm

 

[Francesca R]

I knew it was coming in '72 when I was leafletting for Nixon, and haven't changed that opinion since. At the time I thought nuclear war a more likely outcome than roasting slowly.

Since the consensus of the academic community did not know it was coming in 1972, you've corroborated my hypothesis.

 

[Francesca R]

Yes, but consider the OP. Here's a conservative who accepts AGW based on science.

It is not a perfect predictor. Seems to be too strong to be a fluke though. Particularly since climate change views frequently end up getting more polarised ("deniers vs warmers") than the literature would justify.

 

[mhaze]

No, you asked for an opinion, and I hold a qualified opinion, which I stipulate is not expert, but that is quite sufficient to analyze the actual physical data and note the evidence.

And now you have my opinion. I am not going to waste time playing with your dancing goalposts.

Suit yourself. But analyzing and noting and so forth is not "math". Math has a hundred varieties, some can only be taught at advanced levels. Some is easy, some cannot be said to be "easy". In many cases, a subject in math cannot be understood with out having previously gone through a dozen topics in math sequentially..
Going down this line, you soon will get past what a human of average intelligence - IQ 100 - can handle. Period. No if, ands, or buts. That sort of indicates "climate math ISN'T easy". Oh, and those dancing goalposts? I have not deviated on bit from the initial comment: Climate math is easy.

Seriously!? another pseudoscience, political blog?

I see your wootastical amazingness and raise you a dose of reality!

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm

Why, thank you.

An article and an analysis with NO MATH, presented in response to an article that did in fact discuss problems of boundary conditions and setup of a model with heavy chaotic components. Hmm...

....If your main purpose here were to cast doubt on climate science, that could explain why you've been trying so hard to suggest that only those who had specialized in one particular area are qualified to understand the math.

I never suggested that getting a PhD in engineering or math is "easy". As a matter of fact, I entered this conversation because I thought you were suggesting that research scientists who had earned their PhD in a relevant discipline would have trouble figuring out whether the Navier-Stokes equations are applicable to problems in fluid dynamics.

If you now agree that the relevant math isn't hard for properly trained research scientists, then I think you've changed your tune.

I've excerpted the sections of your comments which are NON AD HOMINEM.

BWHAHAHAHAHA!

Hey look at the good side! There more than one or two sentences which are Not Ad Hominems. Geez, some day you could be a debator. Nawww....

Now, back to the Very Serious Subject which you discuss.

You are now claiming that N/S isn't hard for "properly trained research scientists". But Trakar is claiming that math for climate science isn't hard for "Tens of millions of high school students". Gee I don't know. One of you two is right and the other is wrong. Which could it be?

Second. You've brought up a very good point, which I bolded. Of course that's the thing that has you all riled up. Some Denier might be "Casting doubt on climate science". So...you can't have anyone "casting doubt on climate science"

---> You can't engage in a scientific discussion, dude. You are incapable of it, with all those beliefs and dogmas.

Any rational person could discuss easily the proposition

"Climate science math is easy: Yes or No?"
​

You can't do it because "doubt" can't be allowed. Thanks for revealing this problem. It's pretty common - A "True Believer" trait. I'm not focusing on you in particular.

I'm saving a copy of this ridiculous thread. You are immortalized, Clinger.

 

[mhaze]

The question was ...

"What are the effects of this?"

Which I explained is not very hard to answer.

Frankly, you are about the only person in this discussion who has attempted to actually show a means of showing an issue in climate science in a simplified fashion that isn't "over simplified".

I disagree for the reasons previously stated. We do not know the Sun's radiative losses during a "quiet period" that extended several solar cycles. It seems a real stretch to ASSUME that that is simply the integration of the variation in intensity under "normal solar conditions".

But with that qualification stated clearly and also relating the history of the Little Ice Age and that sunspots vanished at that time also, I would accept your math as "Easy". If your math was presented as conclusively showing that as we enter a period of "a quiet sun" the influence on Earth will certainly be minimal, then that's pretty much baldfaced lying.

 

[DC]

Suit yourself. But analyzing and noting and so forth is not "math". Math has a hundred varieties, some can only be taught at advanced levels. Some is easy, some cannot be said to be "easy". In many cases, a subject in math cannot be understood with out having previously gone through a dozen topics in math sequentially..
Going down this line, you soon will get past what a human of average intelligence - IQ 100 - can handle. Period. No if, ands, or buts. That sort of indicates "climate math ISN'T easy". Oh, and those dancing goalposts? I have not deviated on bit from the initial comment: Climate math is easy.

Why, thank you.

An article and an analysis with NO MATH, presented in response to an article that did in fact discuss problems of boundary conditions and setup of a model with heavy chaotic components. Hmm...



I've excerpted the sections of your comments which are NON AD HOMINEM.
BWHAHAHAHAHA!
Hey look at the good side! There more than one or two sentences which are Not Ad Hominems. Geez, some day you could be a debator. Nawww....

Now, back to the Very Serious Subject which you discuss.

You are now claiming that N/S isn't hard for "properly trained research scientists". But Trakar is claiming that math for climate science isn't hard for "Tens of millions of high school students". Gee I don't know. One of you two is right and the other is wrong. Which could it be?

Second. You've brought up a very good point, which I bolded. Of course that's the thing that has you all riled up. Some Denier might be "Casting doubt on climate science". So...you can't have anyone "casting doubt on climate science"

---> You can't engage in a scientific discussion, dude. You are incapable of it, with all those beliefs and dogmas.
Any rational person could discuss easily the proposition

"Climate science math is easy: Yes or No?"
​

You can't do it because "doubt" can't be allowed. Thanks for revealing this problem. It's pretty common - A "True Believer" trait. I'm not focusing on you in particular.

I'm saving a copy of this ridiculous thread. You are immortalized, Clinger.

the irony, a AGW denier claims others are not able to discuss science. classic

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Suit yourself. But analyzing and noting and so forth is not "math". Math has a hundred varieties, some can only be taught at advanced levels. Some is easy, some cannot be said to be "easy".

Some math is easy, some is not.

That's an important point, because mhaze is about to commit a fallacy of equivocation by pretending Trakar and I were talking about the same math:

You are now claiming that N/S isn't hard for "properly trained research scientists". But Trakar is claiming that math for climate science isn't hard for "Tens of millions of high school students". Gee I don't know. One of you two is right and the other is wrong. Which could it be?

That's easy: mhaze is wrong.

Trakar and I were talking about different math. I was talking about the Navier-Stokes equations, which aren't hard. Trakar was talking about math that's taught in high school:

The maths needed to grasp the basics of climate science are learned by tens of millions of high school students each and every year. I would consider this level of mathematical understanding and prowess to be fairly simple and basic.

I agree that the math needed to understand the basics of climate science is easy. I signalled that agreement during my first post in this thread:

When you say the "math is easy", I can only assume you're talking about the grade-school arithmetic required to calculate that we humans have been dumping about 100 times as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as has been released by volcanoes and other natural processes.

In that same post, I also responded to mhaze's attempt to suggest that climate scientists have a hard time deciding whether the Navier-Stokes equations are applicable:

I wouldn't say the math is easy or simple. I'd say the math is not hard.

mhaze wouldn't accept that nuanced answer to his simplistic question. He accused me of over-simplifying, began a game of dancing goal posts while accusing me of seeking to reframe/redirect the conversation, and resorted to fallacies of equivocation such as the example given above.

mhaze also accused me of over-reacting to his transparent attempts to cast doubt on climate science by any means possible, regardless of merit:

Second. You've brought up a very good point, which I bolded. Of course that's the thing that has you all riled up. Some Denier might be "Casting doubt on climate science". So...you can't have anyone "casting doubt on climate science"

"Casting doubt" is part of the scientific process, but the casting of doubt is no more exempt from critical examination than the work being criticized.

In this thread, mhaze tried to cast doubt on climate science by suggesting that climate researchers would have trouble figuring out whether the Navier-Stokes equations are applicable to problems of fluid dynamics. That was silly.

When corrected on that point, mhaze didn't drop that line of argument. He escalated. Along the way, he revealed ignorance of the mathematical topics he had gone out of his way to mention.

When mhaze knew he couldn't hold his own in a technical argument, he resorted to childish ridicule and projection:

---> You can't engage in a scientific discussion, dude. You are incapable of it, with all those beliefs and dogmas.

Any rational person could discuss easily the proposition

"Climate science math is easy: Yes or No?"
​

You can't do it because "doubt" can't be allowed. Thanks for revealing this problem. It's pretty common - A "True Believer" trait. I'm not focusing on you in particular.

I'm saving a copy of this ridiculous thread. You are immortalized, Clinger.

Peter Wehner, a conservative who advised Ronald Reagan and both Bushes, offered this plausible explanation for mhaze's behavior:

But rather than offer constructive ideas on how to deal with global warming, some conservatives simply deny global warming has occurred. Their concern is that admitting global warming is real opens the door to government restriction on liberty, so it’s simply better to keep the door bolted shut....Nevertheless, the problem for those who deny global warming is empirical: Earth’s temperatures have increased and human activity has contributed to it. To deny this is to deny reality, to subordinate truth to ideology. And in the long run that can only damage conservatism.

 

[BenBurch]

Only really stupid and/or uneducated people will find the basics of this problem hard.

Those people are not worthy of our time.

 

[BenBurch]

Since the consensus of the academic community did not know it was coming in 1972, you've corroborated my hypothesis.

Back Squeeze.

You have not studied this issue and are demagoguing shamelessly.

I can show you a Scientific American article from 1959.

And I can show you other popular science press articles from earlier in the 1950s.

Svante Arrhenius outlined the mechanism in the late 19th century. I can shown you his paper if you think you might be able to understand that.

And even before that John Tyndall had the basics in 1861.

Everybody who was in the very small field at the time DID have a consensus of how the Earth maintained its temperature, and the effects of adding CO2 to that atmosphere.

You want a lit of cites longer than your arm, just ask.

The fact that you did not know this is either shameful or dishonest.

Which is it?

If neither of the above, explain your statement, and give me citations to literature to support your conclusion?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Getting back to the main point of the original post, Jonathan S Tobin responded to Peter Wehner's two posts with his own post at the Commentary site.

Tobin blames the scientists:

Rather than the onus being on conservatives to bow to the dictates of warming science, it is the responsibility of those who wish to convince skeptics to make their case in a more accountable fashion. The problem with the debate about warming is not so much a matter of denial or hyper-skepticism on the part of conservatives as it is with the warmers’ tendency to transform theories and computer models into a catechism.

Peter Wehner responded to Tobin with yet another thoughtful post in which he makes these two points:

Our task is to win the debate on the merits, to employ, as best we can, honest and credible arguments in order to ascertain the reality of things. And if the science shows that Earth is warming and that humans have played a role in that, then we need to accept it, even if that puts us on the same side with some individuals we don’t find particularly appealing.

...snip...

They make a scientific, not a polemical, case for AGW. It’s possible they are wrong. But their case has been made in a persuasive and empirical manner. And while there are some serious scientists who dissent from this finding, and their concerns are certainly worth taking into account, it matters that all the world’s major science academies have said that AGW is occurring, and they have supplied the empirical case for their findings. The challenge for conservatives is to engage the most serious and honest arguments of those who believe in AGW, not simply lock in on the global alarmists. And the temptation conservatives need to resist is to portray the entire climate change movement as consisting of individuals who are more interested in ideology than science.

 

[JihadJane]

Mine have entirely to do with the views of the vast majority of climate scientists and the National Academy of Sciences. If they revise their position, I will revise mine. My areas of expertise are genetics, cell biology, and genomic analysis. My views in that area are based on the views of recognized experts, and my 20 years experience. In the areas of climate science, economics, geology, etc., I rely on experts in the field, not talk show hosts and industry scientists. Those are the two sides of this coin.

Daredelvis

Economics isn't a science.

The phrase "politically conservative" has nothing to do with science. The earth may be very slightly warming in certain regions for a lot of reasons, mostly natural. Melting ice caps and high seas that devastate coastal cities is Chicken Little Hysteria backed by nothing but politically correct junk science.

Is "Chicken Little Hysteria" a scientific term?

 

[Francesca R]

[ . . . ]

The consensus of academia did not know that climate change was coming in 1972.

That you exaggerate the position to unrepresentative certainty corroborates the hypothesis in the linked thread. You just did it again.

 

[TimCallahan]

. . . Look, do me, or us all, a giant favor in the direction of honest conversation by not putting words in other peoples' mouths.

It's clear that when "So you're saying<<followed by totally unrelated stuff>>" is a disingenuous method of making a comment or forcing a defense of a position not made or adopted.

Like I said, I'm saving a copy of this thread which is rapidly headed for abandon-all-hope as it embarrasses the very concept of critical thinking.

You're completely missing the point. You have stated that anthropogenic global warming is some sort o liberal plot, that its entirely based on a political / ideological agenda and that it's junk science. My point is that the man referred to in the OP is both a reputable scientist and a bona fide conservative. So, did he suddenly get brainwashed? If not, then his stan contradicts and, I thing, invalidates your argument.

 

[BenBurch]

The consensus of academia did not know that climate change was coming in 1972.

That you exaggerate the position to unrepresentative certainty corroborates the hypothesis in the linked thread. You just did it again.

For those involved in study of the atmosphere, the physics of climate change had been canon for over 75 years by that time.

Did the majority know it was coming? No, because the realization that we had the ability to make that sort of change to the atmosphere had not been reached by most, and CO2 increases in the atmosphere were not well-known except in those circles that were studying the matter.

Within those who studied the matter there was a consensus, however.

I was exposed to the issue by way of planetology studies, btw. These laws are essential for understanding of the terrestrial planets with atmospheres, Mars, Earth, and Venus.

I am not overstating the degree of scientific confidence here on iota. YOU are the one who is trying to make a cold scientific issue political, and it's unseemly bordering on disgusting.