Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[CapelDodger]

Really? That was absolutely not my experience as an undergraduate; while their wasn't a separate course/module in "the scientific method" there were classes, as part of a core module, that covered logic, reasoning, scientific analysis and problem solving.

My point is precisely that there "wasn't a separate course/module in 'the scientific method' ". It remains unsaid because it doesn't need saying. If you do put it into words you end up something like Karl Popper's "hypothesis, experiment ..." which kicks astrophysics out of the window straight off; then you have to endlessly row yourself back (like Popper) and it's all just a complete waste of effort.

(Before we all get diverted, I know that's a broad-brush approach . If anyone has a problem with that they can take it to the Philosophy Forum where I won't join them.)

 

[CapelDodger]

Well, we should probably distinguish between cultural/general population expectations, and what those degreed in science actually expect and understand about their peers.

I always distinguish between the culture of the masses and the culture of my peers.

Popular culture has a great deal of inertia, and the priest-figure bedded itself in over thousands of years by fitting comfortably in the human psyche. When that priest-figure is taken away and replaced by the scientist-figure the shape remains the same and the scientist is expected to fit it. They naturally don't. (Heck, even Anglican priests don't fit it.)

This, of course, is why the uncertainty built into Science hands an early rhetorical victory to expert manipulators of the human psyche when Science is under attack. Then they always find they've woken the bear ...

 

[CapelDodger]

I guess this is dependent on what they taught you, but the scientific method itself is takes the form:
Make a hypothesis A
Make a prediction based in the hypothesis (if A then B)
Test the prediction (Is B true? If it is your hypothesis is “correct”)

The scientific method I've heard of discards a hypothesis if B is false; it doesn't asssign correctness under any circumstances. The best a hypothesis can rate is "possibly worth further consideration".

This is what gives denial argument their power over many people. Unless they are versed in the rules under which science is accepted/rejected you can reject anything by appealing to classic reasoning.

I would argue that denial arguments don't appeal to reason at all. A common technique is to extort an agreement that there is no certainty in Science in principle, and represent that lack of certainty as failure. People fall for it (even other scientists who behave perfectly rationally in their own fields of expertise).

 

[lomiller]

I would argue that denial arguments don't appeal to reason at all. A common technique is to extort an agreement that there is no certainty in Science in principle, and represent that lack of certainty as failure. People fall for it (even other scientists who behave perfectly rationally in their own fields of expertise).

Yup

The scientific method I've heard of discards a hypothesis if B is false; it doesn't asssign correctness under any circumstances. The best a hypothesis can rate is "possibly worth further consideration".

Obviously it’s a lot more complicated than the simple presentation but yes technically we don’t accept the hypothesis but accept it provisionally and all science is provisional.

It’s also worth pointing out that we don’t exactly reject the hypotheses if the test fails, there as plenty of cases where theories fail and are still used because they pass other tests and have explanatory power. We keep theories until they are no longer useful rather than discarding them after they have been falsified.

Typically we don’t discard a theory until a better one comes along that explains everything the first did. Sometimes we don’t even discard it then. We may keep a theory simply because it’s easy to work with and offers sufficient explanatory power to be useful, long after a better theory is available.

 

[aleCcowaN]

...

The UN 62nd General assembly in July 2008 said: …it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010.

...

Yes, 20l0, a typo. The typical typo watts and his bunch exploit.

 

[CapelDodger]

Yes, 20l0, a typo. The typical typo watts and his bunch exploit.

(No posts for three days?!? Anybody'd think global warming had stopped .)

Was it a typo? It certainly wouldn't surprise me. On the other hand it wouldn't surprise me if there were 50 million climate-driven migrants by 2010.

 

[CapelDodger]

Typically we don’t discard a theory until a better one comes along that explains everything the first did. Sometimes we don’t even discard it then. We may keep a theory simply because it’s easy to work with and offers sufficient explanatory power to be useful, long after a better theory is available.

"Better" meaning "more complete", presumably, and indeed you don't always need all the bells and whistles. An artilleryman doesn't need to factor in relativistic effects, for instance.

In climate science there really aren't any basic theories up for discussion (hence personalisation of the debate by deniers, occassionally punctuated by increasingly deranged new crank-science and repeats of old favourites). Now it's just a question of how the change evolves and how sensitive the physical environment is to AGW, something we've been directly observing for a few decades now. So far the physical environment is changing rather more quickly than was expected even twenty years ago, but that's the natural conservatism of science for you.

I've noticed that conservatism wearing very thin recently. Scientists (like Ents) are slow to rouse but they are definitely roused now, wise to their enemies' tactics, and not to be trifled with.

 

[aleCcowaN]

(No posts for three days?!? Anybody'd think global warming had stopped .)

Was it a typo? It certainly wouldn't surprise me. On the other hand it wouldn't surprise me if there were 50 million climate-driven migrants by 2010.

I remember a recurring sketch of The Kids in the Hall called "Thirty Hellens Agree" in which 30 women stood in a field and declared their agreement about some platitude:

Announcer: -30 Hellens agree
30 Hellens (in unison) -Tattoos are not for everyone! (They all nod in agreement)
Annoucer: -30 Hellens agree: Tattos are not for everyone!

Well, in a similar way, in 2008 some international assembly said (subject: an entire assembly, actions: saying a phrase): "it had been said" (action: things occurred, but something had been said previously; subject: undetermined, it could be the Martians, a bunch of talking cats, Corky on acid, a chap awarded with the Nobel Prize, my aunt Eulalia, etc.), all followed by a round number: 50 to 200 millions, not 43.2 to 156, nor 5.29 to 12.7, with the charmingly infantile approach that any kind of calculation following a method gives a couple of coarse round numbers, one multiple of the other.

So, it is a typo, a typo probably happened during a hiccup attack (I have no certainty of the last part).

30 Hellens agree: The humidity is so oppressive lately!

[Meaning: the worst mistake in this thread and fora is replying using carefully weighted arguments to posts that are simply humbug]

 

[Trakar]

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread.

Was it a typo? It certainly wouldn't surprise me. On the other hand it wouldn't surprise me if there were 50 million climate-driven migrants by 2010.

Agreed, I suspect that this number is a conservative estimate, depending upon what you consider "climate-driven." I believe that many of these causes are more weather related than strictly speaking climate-related.

 

[DC]

A few days ago i made a huge misstake. I replyed to a post of an AGW denier on a video about AGW on YT. but however during the debate, the denier came up with a claim i have not heard yet.

He claims that the Robert W. Wood Greenhosue experiment from 1909 totaly debunks the greenhouse effect.

wich i find a bit strange that obviously the most respected scientific institutes around the world seem to be not aware of that.
but actually after googling around i didn't find any good rebutals as to why his experiment does not apply to the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

does anyone of you got a good source for this?

 

[paulhutch]

Robert Wood's experiment was about actual greenhouses, not the earths atmosphere.

From http://www.biocab.org/Wood_Experiment_Repeated.html:

In 1909, Professor Wood conducted an experiment consisting of testing the effect of the longwave infrared radiation trapped inside a greenhouse with respect to the elevated temperature inside a greenhouse during insolation.
...
From his experiment, Professor Wood found that the increase in temperature inside a greenhouse was not due to trapped radiation but to the blockage of convective heat transfer between the interior of the greenhouse and the open atmosphere.

About the only thing greenhouses and greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere have in common is the end result, increased temperatures. The mechanisms for the temperature increases are not the same. The AGW deniers harping on this is similar to evolution deniers saying "but evolution is only a theory".

 

[Trakar]

[Meaning: the worst mistake in this thread and fora is replying using carefully weighted arguments to posts that are simply humbug]

Almost caused me to waste some very tasty rum right there, and while I largely agree that there is a great deal of casual estimation in some of the UN political rhetoric and it is silly to argue against woosters that are at home believing in secret government coverups, conspiracies, and delusional fairytale pseudoscience alchemies,...but, ultimately, with regards to truely changing opinions and considerations, it is a battle of inches. Refusing to engage in the effort to challenge and expose every falsely framed logical fallacy forming the foundations of every single denier/contrarian argument, concedes ground in the determination of the public policy response debate.

Optimal survival (minimal disruption) is the primary first concern, the most efficient and least expensive means to accomplish that primary objective are second and third on the list.

 

[aleCcowaN]

...but, ultimately, with regards to truely changing opinions and considerations, it is a battle of inches. Refusing to engage in the effort to challenge and expose every falsely framed logical fallacy forming the foundations of every single denier/contrarian argument, concedes ground in the determination of the public policy response debate.

...

I would agree if culture were a "perfect competition market" and building and destroying had the same energy consumption and entropic output.

AGW denialism exploits the lack of education and interest of Average Joe, who is more concern with his daily needs and appetites and only turns his eyes to the stars wondering where his beloved ones are gone and what is expecting him before he cease to exist in this "plane". So the core of it is not what is said -which is elusive to Average Joe- but the context it is said.

I'm not much worried about this thread because little or no public come here in search of information to make their mind, but from an Average Joe point of view an elaborated reply to a simple assertion is on the losing side, specially when he has no means to detect the simple assertion is some humbug wrapped in propaganda, and least of all to follow the reasoning in such elaborated reply: a guffaw is the right reply to humbug in such realistic context.

Remember that AGW denialism is basically the constant exploit of common inabilities for understanding together with the constant recycling of isolated pieces of information that have dropped to the lowest level in the jungle. Be careful of not being adding to that cycle when you think you are helping to elucidate something.

It is more appropriate to a JREF spirit to debunk via showing the means of the cheaters and not by reasoning about the possibility of the matters involved. Have you seen Randi explaining by reason why the mind can't bend a spoon or have you seen him showing how the trick is done? These fora have been colonized by Uri Gellers, why do you insist in not following the teachings of our numen Randi?

 

[aleCcowaN]

... experiment from 1909 totaly debunks the greenhouse effect.

...

Wow, it totally debunks! I thought it just debunks -or tries to-. What would be of AGW denialism with less adjectives and adverbs to dress their nouns. Do not repeat their verbal weaponry.

The goal of pieces of information like this experiment by Wood is to engage in a war of manpower and economic resources like World War I, but they carefully chose a position most of those resources will be yours. That's why they go back to 1909 to remove the cobwebs from material like this when it clearly lacked of elemental instruments to measure what he was theorising about, like LWOR.

In a nutshell, the whole Wood experiment is like saying "sound can't be transmitted by electrical means" using a youtube video for that. Case closed. Unless there are some dull jurors that can be taken advantage of. Then call in lawyers as stars and physicists as extras.

 

[r-j]

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html

It looks like a huge scientific blunder has occurred, and since it never was addressed, the continued use of the terms "greenhouse effect" as well as "greenhouse gases" leaves a very wide hole for reason to escape the argument. Not because increased water vapor doesn't hold heat, (the main erroneously named greenhouse gas), but that the effect of increased water vapor, (which does allow heat to be retained in the atmosphere) is labeled and explained as the same physical event as plate glass (or plastic) preventing heat from escaping an actual greenhouse.

This isn't some minor point to be lightly hand waved away, as it no doubt has been for some time. If a basic premise, a fundamental error, that is obvious, and the top scientists keep insisting it doesn't matter, it weakens the whole story. It cast doubt on everything else after you keep talking, having blithely ignored the quite righteous objection from someone who is not only questioning the terminology, but your entire conclusion. Hence hand waving it away hurts the effort, not the other way around.

The AGW deniers harping on this is similar to evolution deniers saying "but evolution is only a theory".

Such a response does nothing but strengthen the opposition, it does nothing for your cause. Nothing at all, in fact it may well damage you.

It's not anything like the evolution "debate", which has deep roots in some divine intervention, and a willingness to ignore all scientific thought and theory, as well as credible experiments and evidence from all corners.

I've watched the video that shows CO2 in a tube preventing infrared radiation from reaching the detector/camera setup. It's a reproduction of the original discovery that certain gases absorb heat energy, and it might be that somewhere a blind mouth breathing fool denies this. But those aren't the arguments I see from skeptics. They focus on more scientific objections, like the one currently on the table, despite the fanning of hands and turning away with a one line response.

Reading about the 1909 experiment, and the reproduction of, the scientific response seems obvious enough. Change the amounts of CO2 in the box, show with utter clarity the actual response of air with increasing amounts of CO2 in it, and include other boxes with water in it, so water vapor also is involved. Measure the outgoing radiation and show the doubters/deniers of science itself, how we know something is true.

Sure there may be all kinds of trouble getting an experiment to reveal natures truths in this matter, but that is often the problem with demonstrations of scientific matters. Certainly the small volume of air in a box won't represent the miles of air above us, so calculations of how much CO2 is needed to represent the effect would be done. Larger volumes, careful control of all variables, but certainly rather than cede the matter, strike with the full power of modern technology and show, not tell, those who may be on the fence. Instead of passing a vexing wind in their direction.

 

[CapelDodger]

About the only thing greenhouses and greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere have in common is the end result, increased temperatures.

It's an unfortunate name (I suspect the hand of a journalist) but it's probably too late to popularise the Tyndall Effect. I use it myself sometimes; it can open up the opportunity to mention Tyndall's work in the 1850's, and far too many people think the effect is a new idea.

The mechanisms for the temperature increases are not the same. The AGW deniers harping on this is similar to evolution deniers saying "but evolution is only a theory".

They're like people who thrash an analogy way beyond its usefulness. Sympathetic magic for the modern world .

 

[uke2se]

Such a response does nothing but strengthen the opposition, it does nothing for your cause. Nothing at all, in fact it may well damage you.

It's not anything like the evolution "debate", which has deep roots in some divine intervention, and a willingness to ignore all scientific thought and theory, as well as credible experiments and evidence from all corners.

I would argue that it is exactly like the evolution "debate" for precisely those reasons.

I've watched the video that shows CO2 in a tube preventing infrared radiation from reaching the detector/camera setup. It's a reproduction of the original discovery that certain gases absorb heat energy, and it might be that somewhere a blind mouth breathing fool denies this. But those aren't the arguments I see from skeptics. They focus on more scientific objections, like the one currently on the table, despite the fanning of hands and turning away with a one line response.

[rest snipped]

Please provide such a scientific objection. I have followed this "debate" closely, and all I see is outright denial and harping on about "climategate" and a global conspiracy. The scientific objections that have been put forth have been shown to be either based on faulty premises, minor quibbles or complete strawmen.

 

[CapelDodger]

It looks like a huge scientific blunder has occurred ...

No, it doesn't.

... and since it never was addressed, the continued use of the terms "greenhouse effect" as well as "greenhouse gases" leaves a very wide hole for reason to escape the argument.

Not within the scientific world it doesn't, and that's where the work has been done since the 1850's (and indeed earlier by Fourier, who identified that something like Tyndall effect must exist). The odd emeritus scientist does fail to grasp the concept and makes an idiot of himself, but those aren't huge blunders. Those are personal embarrassments.

Now that the Tyndall effect (once so uncontroversial and insignificant) has reached a wide audience, like nuclear fission did in 1945, the greehouse analogy is a useful one. The only problem is that deniers make a big issue about the analogy not being perfect, and can even use it to deny that the Tyndall effect exists at all. But who saw that coming before about 1980? The deniers were busy then lyig about tobacco and acid rain, if you recall.

Not because increased water vapor doesn't hold heat, (the main erroneously named greenhouse gas), but that the effect of increased water vapor, (which does allow heat to be retained in the atmosphere) is labeled and explained as the same physical event as plate glass (or plastic) preventing heat from escaping an actual greenhouse.

This isn't some minor point to be lightly hand waved away, as it no doubt has been for some time.

It is a vanishingly minor point. If people want to know exactly how the Tyndall effect works they can easily find out - they could ask on this Forum even. Most people don't and the greenhouse analogy serves perfectly well.

If a basic premise, a fundamental error, that is obvious, and the top scientists keep insisting it doesn't matter, it weakens the whole story.

Only with constant misrepresentation by deniers to people who want to believe. But let's imagine we do manage to replace "greenhouse effect" with Tyndall effect; what might we expect? Well, considering how deniers accuse scientists of changing "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" for nefarious purposes we can be sure the same thing would happen. Deniers seize on anything, as you'll no doubt have noticed, and in this warming world they only get scraps.

It cast doubt on everything else after you keep talking, having blithely ignored the quite righteous objection from someone who is not only questioning the terminology, but your entire conclusion. Hence hand waving it away hurts the effort, not the other way around.

It is used to cast doubt on everything else and susceptible minds can fall for it. Meanwhile even in the US a large majority of people believe in the Tyndall effect.

Such a response does nothing but strengthen the opposition, it does nothing for your cause. Nothing at all, in fact it may well damage you.

We don't get damaged. Fox News, the Daily Mail, the US Republican Party, they do damage every day by straight-up lying.

It's not anything like the evolution "debate", which has deep roots in some divine intervention, and a willingness to ignore all scientific thought and theory, as well as credible experiments and evidence from all corners.

It is very much like that, with ideology as the religion and the Chicago School as the Apostles.

I've watched the video that shows CO2 in a tube preventing infrared radiation from reaching the detector/camera setup. It's a reproduction of the original discovery that certain gases absorb heat energy, and it might be that somewhere a blind mouth breathing fool denies this. But those aren't the arguments I see from skeptics. They focus on more scientific objections, like the one currently on the table, despite the fanning of hands and turning away with a one line response.

What scientific objection is currently on the table? You're talking about the use of rhetoric and sophistry, not science (the gullibility of the masses goes without saying, of course).

Reading about the 1909 experiment, and the reproduction of, the scientific response seems obvious enough. Change the amounts of CO2 in the box, show with utter clarity the actual response of air with increasing amounts of CO2 in it, and include other boxes with water in it, so water vapor also is involved. Measure the outgoing radiation and show the doubters/deniers of science itself, how we know something is true.

How many people do you think will watch? Realistically? People who want to know can find out, those who don't can watch FoxNews or read WSJ op-eds if they're literate.

Sure there may be all kinds of trouble getting an experiment to reveal natures truths in this matter, but that is often the problem with demonstrations of scientific matters.

It's no trouble for scientists in laboratories. Getting people to watch experiments in the numbers who watch FoxNews would be impossible.

Certainly the small volume of air in a box won't represent the miles of air above us, so calculations of how much CO2 is needed to represent the effect would be done.

So McIntyre can lie about how the calculations are fixed, which will work excellently. Deniers can lie about the instruments, the scientists and technicians, the people who produce the videos ... there's no end of scraps to latch onto in this idea of yours.

Larger volumes, careful control of all variables, but certainly rather than cede the matter, strike with the full power of modern technology and show, not tell, those who may be on the fence. Instead of passing a vexing wind in their direction.

This was all done by the US Air Force back in the 50's. Not for public consumption, of course, for obvious reasons. Apart from anything else it doesn't make great TV.

The fact that you're making such a big thing about this imperfect analogy is a perfect example of how scrappy the denier diet is in this warming world. When everything goes pear-shaped the deniers will blame scientists for being shifty-looking and nor sufficiently persuasive, and I rather suspect you'll lap it up.

 

[DC]

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html

It looks like a huge scientific blunder has occurred, and since it never was addressed, the continued use of the terms "greenhouse effect" as well as "greenhouse gases" leaves a very wide hole for reason to escape the argument. Not because increased water vapor doesn't hold heat, (the main erroneously named greenhouse gas), but that the effect of increased water vapor, (which does allow heat to be retained in the atmosphere) is labeled and explained as the same physical event as plate glass (or plastic) preventing heat from escaping an actual greenhouse.

This isn't some minor point to be lightly hand waved away, as it no doubt has been for some time. If a basic premise, a fundamental error, that is obvious, and the top scientists keep insisting it doesn't matter, it weakens the whole story. It cast doubt on everything else after you keep talking, having blithely ignored the quite righteous objection from someone who is not only questioning the terminology, but your entire conclusion. Hence hand waving it away hurts the effort, not the other way around.



Such a response does nothing but strengthen the opposition, it does nothing for your cause. Nothing at all, in fact it may well damage you.

It's not anything like the evolution "debate", which has deep roots in some divine intervention, and a willingness to ignore all scientific thought and theory, as well as credible experiments and evidence from all corners.

I've watched the video that shows CO2 in a tube preventing infrared radiation from reaching the detector/camera setup. It's a reproduction of the original discovery that certain gases absorb heat energy, and it might be that somewhere a blind mouth breathing fool denies this. But those aren't the arguments I see from skeptics. They focus on more scientific objections, like the one currently on the table, despite the fanning of hands and turning away with a one line response.

Reading about the 1909 experiment, and the reproduction of, the scientific response seems obvious enough. Change the amounts of CO2 in the box, show with utter clarity the actual response of air with increasing amounts of CO2 in it, and include other boxes with water in it, so water vapor also is involved. Measure the outgoing radiation and show the doubters/deniers of science itself, how we know something is true.

Sure there may be all kinds of trouble getting an experiment to reveal natures truths in this matter, but that is often the problem with demonstrations of scientific matters. Certainly the small volume of air in a box won't represent the miles of air above us, so calculations of how much CO2 is needed to represent the effect would be done. Larger volumes, careful control of all variables, but certainly rather than cede the matter, strike with the full power of modern technology and show, not tell, those who may be on the fence. Instead of passing a vexing wind in their direction.

this experiment does not invovle different gas compositions

 

[Trakar]

I would agree if culture were a "perfect competition market" and building and destroying had the same energy consumption and entropic output.

AGW denialism exploits the lack of education and interest of Average Joe, who is more concern with his daily needs and appetites and only turns his eyes to the stars wondering where his beloved ones are gone and what is expecting him before he cease to exist in this "plane". So the core of it is not what is said -which is elusive to Average Joe- but the context it is said.

I'm not much worried about this thread because little or no public come here in search of information to make their mind, but from an Average Joe point of view an elaborated reply to a simple assertion is on the losing side, specially when he has no means to detect the simple assertion is some humbug wrapped in propaganda, and least of all to follow the reasoning in such elaborated reply: a guffaw is the right reply to humbug in such realistic context.

Remember that AGW denialism is basically the constant exploit of common inabilities for understanding together with the constant recycling of isolated pieces of information that have dropped to the lowest level in the jungle. Be careful of not being adding to that cycle when you think you are helping to elucidate something.

It is more appropriate to a JREF spirit to debunk via showing the means of the cheaters and not by reasoning about the possibility of the matters involved. Have you seen Randi explaining by reason why the mind can't bend a spoon or have you seen him showing how the trick is done? These fora have been colonized by Uri Gellers, why do you insist in not following the teachings of our numen Randi?

Well, you are of course welcome to your perspective, I have a different perception of people, I don't believe intelligence is merely the pervue of the the educated and knowledgeable. Sometimes all people need are a few people willing to explain things to them in a manner they can grasp and understand without embarassing or demeaning them. Once they are on the proper path, they can find the details on their own, it's just a matter of getting them to the point where they can consider the issues without all the baggage (politics, economics and ideological influences) that was wrapped around the topic when they first discovered or heard about the concept. For different folks, different methods are needed. Mostly it requires finding the key of what works for any particular individual. A focus on the science, can break through the barriers of those who generally respect and grasp the world of science, but even for those whose keys are political, there are approaches to allow them to see that the issue ifself is not politically black and white despite the extremist partisans (left and right) who try to portray it as such.