A Message from CSICOP: Global Warming is REAL!

[a_unique_person]

You seem to have surrendered "proof" and fallen back to the "overwhelming evidence" trench.

So it is for much of science, that doesn't invalidate much of it, it just means you have to give a margin of error for your predictions.

The standard of proof is nothing other than using unquestioned, verified facts from credible sources, and applying to them the methods of induction to show that they necessarlily imply the conclusion that industrial processes etc cause at least a substantial portion of global warming.

You are exactly correct that you can't have a model world in a test tube - and that that's what makes it so difficult to prove. And that's why it hasn't been proven, it's extremely difficult or impossible to prove.

As for simulation, I've been involved in that in the past, e.g. stellar interior models of stars, or in the aerospace industry models of contained plasmas and nuclear burn codes. (I also worked in discrete event simulation.) In my experience, such simulations require the simultaneous solution of differential or integro-differential equations. Everyone who has been involved with this type of work knows that the solutions obtained can be very sensitive to the constants and boundary conditions used - let alone whether the equations used are a near correct and complete model. Sometimes they can be extremely sensitive. I remember seeing an animated film that showed the wide variety of results in number and distribution of sizes of planets in the solar system, employing the standard Descartes/Kant model and tweaking a few parameters slightly. Sometimes people make simplifications motivated only by lack of computer power (and "lack" can mean not a sufficiently large array of supercomputers).

In plain english, if you lack integrity it's easy to "get" the result you want, and impress the uniformed with a lot of scientific terms, charts, and other decoration.

If we have now left "proof" behind, I am not convinced there is "overwhelming evidence" - I think there is overwhelming propaganda. Note that I said that what they say may turn out to be true - I just don't think there has been any demonstration of that.

What I'm very convinced of is the economic destruction that the Kyoto treaty would cause the U.S., and its basic unfairness.

They have demonstrated their models explain the known world, it is a fair guess that they will predict the future climate. Don't forget, climate predictin is not weather prediction.

But you have no 'proof' that this would happen, do you?

Think about this: everything that isn't purely spiritual depends on economics. Think what you are doing when you adopt an economy destroying treaty based upon unconvincing science: you are lowering the standards of living for everyone. You are taking money away (obtained from tax revenues and contributions) from scientific research on diseases. You are taking away from the arts. You are taking away from money to help the poor. You are taking away from the level of medical care and how much can be done for the aging. You are taking away from education.

BS. Much economic activity is just turnover on non essential items. Directing some of that activity to conservation is not going to be the end of the world.

The question for YOU is, are you so sure about the warming evidence that you are willing to support policies that for certain have all the effects I decribed above, and more?

[/b][/quote]

All of a sudden, you know for a fact that this is what will happen. Now, what proof do you have.

 

[dsm]

What I'm very convinced of is the economic destruction that the Kyoto treaty would cause the U.S., and its basic unfairness. Think about this: everything that isn't purely spiritual depends on economics. Think what you are doing when you adopt an economy destroying treaty based upon unconvincing science: you are lowering the standards of living for everyone. You are taking money away (obtained from tax revenues and contributions) from scientific research on diseases. You are taking away from the arts. You are taking away from money to help the poor. You are taking away from the level of medical care and how much can be done for the aging. You are taking away from education.

Or maybe we'd just eliminating (most?) all of the development of WMDs.

The question for YOU is, are you so sure about the warming evidence that you are willing to support policies that for certain have all the effects I decribed above, and more?

Your "for certain" is by no means "certain".

 

[Patrick]

Your "for certain" is by no means "certain".

The effects of lowering profitabilty, lowering wages, lowering employment, lowering global competitiveness, lowering stockholder return by government regulation, and paying taxes to feed the bureaucrats who create it is certain - for example in california it has decimated businesses who are jumping in their trucks and heading as fast as they can for friendlier states. The effects of government regulations' effects on productivity, innovation etc, has been observed endlessly from china to the U.S. to the soviet union, it is the exact precise reason why economies all over the world are deregulating (except for kyoto treaty). The global warming theory on the other hand remains an unproven theory.

 

[SlippyToad]

They take a more objective, less-biased view (sort of like the president) by casting aside preconceptions and waiting for ALL the evidence to come in.

I have this image of someone standing on the beach, at the foot of the barnacle-encrusted pilings, a clear line of white scunge rising at least three feet above their head, busily building a hammock to sleep in, saying "Tide? What tide? I'll believe it when I see it come in!"

 

[SlippyToad]

You seem to have surrendered "proof" and fallen back to the "overwhelming evidence" trench.

Yes, just like those ridiculous Evolutionists.

 

[Stumpy]

If you want, the IPCC explains all the science behind their conclusions, and they use exactly the same scientific principles and procedures that other scientists use.

Eh? Do other scientists really use linear equations to explain non-linear, chaotic and poorly understood systems?

 

[Drooper]

I think I deserve the right to kick shanek in the balls right now.


This is from the latest CSICOP mailing:



Wake Up Call

Leading scientists say climate change must finally receive the attention it deserves. True skeptics should agree with them.

Chris Mooney

http://www.chriscmooney.com

Oh, that's all right then. We can all go home and check our brains in at the desk on the way out.

Maybe Mr Moore shouold try chasing some of these deniers. He can start with my link below.

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: A Message from CSICOP: Global Warming is REAL!

Oh, that's all right then. We can all go home and check our brains in at the desk on the way out.

Maybe Mr Moore shouold try chasing some of these deniers. He can start with my link below.

He won't have many to chase. The overall scientific consensus, based on scientific process and standards, is that GW is real, and a significant part of it can be attributed to human activity, it's just a matter of working out how much.

You can cherry pick an organisation here and there, if it will make you feel happy.

 

[a_unique_person]

from the csicop article

Skeptics should recognize many of these traits: We've seen them before not just in anti-evolutionists but among a wide variety of fringe scientists. At the very least, then, it seems to me that anyone who claims to be a science defender, but questions the reality of human-induced climate change, should have to answer the following question: Why trust the mainstream scientific community on other issues but not this one? One possible response--dismissing today's climate science as warped by environmentalist alarmism--strikes me as simply untenable. If we truly believe that ideology can so corrupt the scientific method in one field, then why place any more trust in the rest of science?

There is one reason why GW is treated with such disdain, because it means we would have to change our lifestyle in some way, and that is just totally unaccetable.

 

[dsm]

The effects of lowering profitabilty, lowering wages, lowering employment, lowering global competitiveness, lowering stockholder return by government regulation, and paying taxes to feed the bureaucrats who create it is certain

Is that a permanent change or a temporary shift in the way the economy will work? Would the economy find new and potentially better ways of turning a profit?

for example in california it has decimated businesses who are jumping in their trucks and heading as fast as they can for friendlier states.

Don't write off California completely yet. There's still a lot going on here.

The effects of government regulations' effects on productivity, innovation etc, has been observed endlessly from china to the U.S. to the soviet union, it is the exact precise reason why economies all over the world are deregulating (except for kyoto treaty). The global warming theory on the other hand remains an unproven theory.

The problem is finding the proper balance between regulation and no regulation. A totally regulated society has problems, but so does a totally unregulated society. This also has been shown in many ways in the past.