Conservatives and climate change

[Furcifer]

The question you ask has nothing to do with measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere or the IR performance of CO2.

Please address the simple, well-established mesurements and/or the IR performance of CO2, not repeat an attempt to disguise happenings under misleading attempts at error bars.

I see you don't really understand the question at all. It's not surprising.

Just to tie things in, you can measure all you want, if you can't use those measurements to accurately model the experiment in order to make accurate predictions it's useless.

To anyone familiar with science the complexity and the limitations in this example are immediately apparent.

 

[DC]

Depends on the field. I'd say it makes me "sensible" if the topic is over my head. Why pretend to understand something?

when Cardeology is above your head, will you listen to a fringe group of mechanics or will you listen to the Cardiologists when it comes to your heartproblems?

 

[DC]

I see you don't really understand the question at all. It's not surprising.

Just to tie things in, you can measure all you want, if you can't use those measurements to accurately model the experiment in order to make accurate predictions it's useless.

To anyone familiar with science the complexity and the limitations in this example are immediately apparent.

and the models are not accurate enough for you?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Just about any first year student in physics can tell you with a reasonable degree of certainty what will happen if you drop a 5g feather from a height of 5 meters in a vacuum.

Can anyone tell me what will happen to the same feather dropped from the same height standing on your back porch?

What if I had 3 feathers?

You either understand this question, or you don't know the first thing about climate science.

The question you ask has nothing to do with measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere or the IR performance of CO2.

Please address the simple, well-established mesurements and/or the IR performance of CO2, not repeat an attempt to disguise happenings under misleading attempts at error bars.

I see you don't really understand the question at all. It's not surprising.

Just to tie things in, you can measure all you want, if you can't use those measurements to accurately model the experiment in order to make accurate predictions it's useless.

To anyone familiar with science the complexity and the limitations in this example are immediately apparent.

Furcifer appears to be arguing that, because scientists are unable to predict which of three feathers will reach the ground fastest when falling through the atmosphere off your back porch, we should first reject all ballistic predictions, and should then reject all scientific predictions whatsoever.

The proper response to Furcifer's argument is to roll on the floor laughing uncontrollably.

 

[Furcifer]

and the models are not accurate enough for you?

Not enough to warrant the substantial down turn in the world economy it would require to bring emission in line with 1990.

Certainly not enough to impose the will to do so on China. Or India for that matter.

Not even close.

I don't think Alarmists fully grasp the implications of reducing energy use or what that would entail on the global scale it requires. Take a look at North Korea and tell me if you think 4 or 5 billion people in the same situation are going to look West and say "We'll wait our turn".

I'll wait until the science is a little more conclusive before I consider imposing my will on others.

 

[DC]

Not enough to warrant the substantial down turn in the world economy it would require to bring emission in line with 1990.

Certainly not enough to impose the will to do so on China. Or India for that matter.

Not even close.

I don't think Alarmists fully grasp the implications of reducing energy use or what that would entail on the global scale it requires. Take a look at North Korea and tell me if you think 4 or 5 billion people in the same situation are going to look West and say "We'll wait our turn".

I'll wait until the science is a little more conclusive before I consider imposing my will on others.

imposing your will on others? and they call me ecofascist.....
i don't think thats going to work anyway... lucky you will never be in a position to impose your will.

Amazing that you find the Models not accurate enough, but your prediction of
"the implications of reducing energy use or what that would entail on the global scale it requires." are good enough to risk a catastrophe

 

[Furcifer]

Furcifer appears to be arguing that, because scientists are unable to predict which of three feathers will reach the ground fastest when falling through the atmosphere off your back porch, we should first reject all ballistic predictions, and should then reject all scientific predictions whatsoever.

The proper response to Furcifer's argument is to roll on the floor laughing uncontrollably.

Strawman. And a reductio ad absurdum to boot. A blatant example of fallacious arguments.

Nobody said we should reject science. Anyone reading that with the most basic of comprehension skills can easily see this has nothing to do with rejecting science. It merely demonstrates the limitations in what we can accurately predict using science. It's a simple problem with a very complex solution. Climate science is a complex problem with a complex solution.

I don't think people who have studied science fully grasp how complex the most seemingly simple things are. It's not about rejecting anything, it's about knowing your limitations. Science isn't magic it doesn't work like that, mmmkay?

 

[uke2se]

Depends on the field. I'd say it makes me "sensible" if the topic is over my head. Why pretend to understand something?

So, you're having a go at us for not wanting to read your denialist blog, but you not reading the actual science under discussion is "understandable"?

Priceless...

 

[BenBurch]

Depends on the field. I'd say it makes me "sensible" if the topic is over my head. Why pretend to understand something?

But it's honest to criticize something you don't comprehend enough to read the papers on?

 

[Furcifer]

Amazing that you find the Models not accurate enough, but your prediction of
"the implications of reducing energy use or what that would entail on the global scale it requires." are good enough to risk a catastrophe

Again, your mistake is a result of your limited understanding of climate science. The correlation between energy use and economic prosperity is a rather simple calculation. The correlation between CO2 emissions and climate "catastrophe" is much more complex. You don't need time on a super computer to figure out if you don't use energy you don't have a GDP.

 

[DC]

Again, your mistake is a result of your limited understanding of climate science. The correlation between energy use and economic prosperity is a rather simple calculation. The correlation between CO2 emissions and climate "catastrophe" is much more complex. You don't need time on a super computer to figure out if you don't use energy you don't have a GDP.

I think the problem is more your extremely simplistic understanding of economy.

and where did you get the idea that we have to stop using energy?





and i aslo think that Climate predicitons are far more likely to be correctly predicted than economy. climate follows rules and contains no irrational decision while economy contains alot of those.

 

[DC]

Again, your mistake is a result of your limited understanding of climate science. The correlation between energy use and economic prosperity is a rather simple calculation. The correlation between CO2 emissions and climate "catastrophe" is much more complex. You don't need time on a super computer to figure out if you don't use energy you don't have a GDP.

but i must admit, here i have found some scinetists also telling me the model predictions were not accurate mmhhhh

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Furcifer appears to be arguing that, because scientists are unable to predict which of three feathers will reach the ground fastest when falling through the atmosphere off your back porch, we should first reject all ballistic predictions, and should then reject all scientific predictions whatsoever.

The proper response to Furcifer's argument is to roll on the floor laughing uncontrollably.

Strawman. And a reductio ad absurdum to boot. A blatant example of fallacious arguments.

No, it was not a strawman. I'm pretty sure I identified the point of your example (that scientists are unable to predict the outcome of your three-feather problem). I'm also pretty sure that I identified the conclusion you wanted us to draw (that scientific predictions should not always be trusted).

Reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate method of reasoning. It is the most direct way to prove a negation.

Reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy of any sort, let alone a "blatant example of fallacious arguments".

Before you accuse people of making fallacious arguments, you should learn to distinguish between fallacies and rigorously correct logic.

[size=-2]ETA: Because Furcifer supplied its punch line, I think I should explain the joke to him.

My earlier post was not an example of reductio ad absurdum. You're the one who said it was. The real purpose of my earlier post was to demonstrate the folly of forcing us to guess at the point of your three-feather problem. To do that, I provided a caricature of your reasoning. A caricature is seldom a reductio ad absurdum, partly because a caricature is seldom entirely faithful to the facts. In this case, however, my caricature was fully consistent with all the facts you had stated, and you could hardly object to its conclusion because you had invited us to fill in the conclusion for ourselves.

By characterizing that caricature as a reductio ad absurdum, however, you characterized it as a valid refutation of your argument.[/size]​

 

[Furcifer]

I think the problem is more your extremely simplistic understanding of economy.

and where did you get the idea that we have to stop using energy?

Science.

and i aslo think that Climate predicitons are far more likely to be correctly predicted than economy. climate follows rules and contains no irrational decision while economy contains alot of those.

lol. It's so cute that you think that.

 

[BenBurch]

Reductio ad absurdum is in fact one of the best ways to argue that point.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

I'm comparing the people who refuse to follow links to skeptic blogs to the people who refused to look through Galileo's telescope. They had their holy book and that was all the Truth they needed.

Haha. I wish I had a dollar for every time some anti-science numpty or conspiracy theorist compared themselves/the movement to Galileo.

 

[Furcifer]

No, it was not a strawman. I'm pretty sure I identified the point of your example (that scientists are unable to predict the outcome of your three-feather problem). I'm also pretty sure that I identified the conclusion you wanted us to draw (that scientific predictions should not always be trusted).

Reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate method of reasoning. It is the most direct way to prove a negation.

Reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy of any sort, let alone a "blatant example of fallacious arguments".

Before you accuse people of making fallacious arguments, you should learn to distinguish between fallacies and rigorously correct logic.

lmfao, so how did your logic process come to the conclusion that science should be abandoned by using a scientific example

That's just awesome. Well done.

Let me write out your logic sequence:

If science is not accurate then reject all science.

I've rigorously looked at this and it's absurd.

If you don't understand the example then just ask questions and I'll either explain it or simplify it for you.

 

[DC]

Science.



lol. It's so cute that you think that.

lol it's so cute that you think the paper you linked to supports your claim.
want to try again? must be the wrong link you posted, this paper does not support the idea that we have to stop using energy.

 

[DC]

lmfao, so how did your logic process come to the conclusion that science should be abandoned by using a scientific example

That's just awesome. Well done.

Let me write out your logic sequence:

If science is not accurate then reject all science.

I've rigorously looked at this and it's absurd.

If you don't understand the example then just ask questions and I'll either explain it or simplify it for you.

ok, i ask, what exactly did you want to show us with your feathers?

 

[Furcifer]

Reductio ad absurdum is in fact one of the best ways to argue that point.

Nonsense. Realizing there are limitations to the predictions that can be made with out current understanding of science does not require rejecting science.

My original username was just such an example. Unfortunately that was a little above the average pay grade around here.