Playing to the ignorant or actually that ignorant?

[leftysergeant]

Oh come on, you didn't think ABC was a bit dishonest?

Oh, I see how I missed that. It was buried under the droppings from some dancing right-wing monkey.

There is nothing wrong with ABC's piece.

I have just added Noel Sheppard to my list of right-wing bloviating apes without a clue.

 

[leftysergeant]

When someone's reply to a year inconsistent with their personal beliefs is "weather is not climate," they've said something wrong.

You clearly have still not gotten the differencer between weather and climate.

The snow to a tall man's eyeballs in D.C. is weather. The fact that the snow pack on Kilimanjaro has been less than twenty-five percent of normal for over five years is climate.

 

[Cynic]

When someone's reply to a year inconsistent with their personal beliefs is "weather is not climate," they've said something wrong.

Well, again, I'm not necessarily sticking up for them because I'm not them and for all I know, they're actually as mistaken as you say. But the concept of "weather is not climate" is a kin to "a data point is not a trend". Because weather really is climate, long term, and that analogy holds. Temperature drives air and water currents, influences gases, etc -- climate drives weather.

Because of this, I think it's not only reasonable but also likely correct to say that "ABC" was saying what I pointed out -- that a string of unusually hot days is part of the warming trend (by definition) and that an unusually cold day doesn't signify anything on its own. Nothing in what you quoted suggests that the previous statement -- that the warm days were part of the trend -- implies that those warm days suggest a warming trend. The warming trend is assumed in that instance (from other data and scientific consensus) and the connecting is, again, by definition. Saying, later on, that a single data point -- the cold days -- refutes the trend is nonsense, and that was pointed out in the statement "weather is not climate" (a data point is not a trend).

ETA: Man, I need to stop digressing so much! Sorry for the clarity issues above.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Back to the gloating. . .

There was an exchange between Lisa and Homer Simpson on a recent episode that has been repeated in similar terms here on the JREF forum.

Homer: See, Lisa, looks like tomorrow I'll be shoveling ten feet of global warming.
Lisa: Global warming can cause weather at both extremes, hot and cold.
Homer: I see, so you're saying warming makes it colder. Well aren't you the queen of crazy land. Everything the's opposite of everything.

Seriously. Check out this thread. Especially where the OP responds to the challenge that he doesn't seem to know the difference between climate and weather with, "I can tell the difference between hot and cold. Can you?" Repeatedly.

At least Homer is lovable!

 

[dudalb]

The real problem is the Global Warming issue has been politicised beyond belief by Both Sides. A lot of the Anti AGW people seem to be motivated by a basic hatred of Any Government Regulations, and a lot of the pro AGW people seem to not like Capitalism much in the first place and are happy to find a new club to beat it with.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The real problem is the Global Warming issue has been politicised beyond belief by Both Sides. A lot of the Anti AGW people seem to be motivated by a basic hatred of Any Government Regulations, and a lot of the pro AGW people seem to not like Capitalism much in the first place and are happy to find a new club to beat it with.

This may well be true, but it's basically an argument based on motivations and not on the content of the arguments proffered.

For example, if I point out that since capitalism requires continuous growth, it is by definition unsustainable (at least as long as we're confined to the planet), it really doesn't matter if I was opposed to capitalism prior to making this argument.

However, as has been pointed out, it's just as wrong to point to a single weather event as evidence of global warming as it is to point to it as evidence against global warming. Best I can tell, this is an erroneous argument that is not made equally by both sides. And even those who I've heard using a heat wave to support global warming quickly back off when I point out that they're mixing up weather and climate.

Not so with those on the other side. (But then again, this is just based on my own subjective judgment of how these arguments typically go.)

 

[daredelvis]

Whoops. False. You blew it

Your logic and evidence runs circles around me, and the National Academy of Science, and The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the >900 peer reviewed studies outlined in my previous post.... The scientific consensus is overwhelming.


Daredelvis

 

[Newtons Bit]

Your logic and evidence runs circles around me, and the National Academy of Science, and The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the >900 peer reviewed studies outlined in my previous post.... The scientific consensus is overwhelming.


Daredelvis

Actually, that's can only be a described as a large amount of information supporting. You can't call it a consensus unless you show that the number of disagreeing institutions and peer reviewed studies are insignificant in comparison.

Thus ends my rhetorical quibble.

 

[MikeMangum]

For example, if I point out that since capitalism requires continuous growth, it is by definition unsustainable (at least as long as we're confined to the planet), it really doesn't matter if I was opposed to capitalism prior to making this argument.

I'm curious where you get the idea that capitalism requires continuous growth.

 

[daredelvis]

The real problem is the Global Warming issue has been politicised beyond belief by Both Sides. A lot of the Anti AGW people seem to be motivated by a basic hatred of Any Government Regulations, and a lot of the pro AGW people seem to not like Capitalism much in the first place and are happy to find a new club to beat it with.

I disagree. I think a more accurate statement would be...

A lot of the Anti AGW people seem to be motivated by a basic hatred of Any Government Regulations and/or an economic interest in the status quo that is presumed to outweigh the economic consequences of addressing the issue. This does not address the political panderers. (That is not to say the people who believe the scientist are not also concerned about the economic impact of action.)

Very few of the pro AGW people seem to not like Capitalism much in the first place and are happy to find a new club to beat it with. Most are concerned that the consequences of inaction outweigh the consequences of action, and many like me, are disgusted by the discredited canards repeatedly trotted out by many of the far right AGW deniers.

Daredelvis

 

[Cynic]

I'm curious where you get the idea that capitalism requires continuous growth.

Consider the rationale behind the "spend our way out of a sagging economy" strategy.

 

[daredelvis]

Actually, that's can only be a described as a large amount of information supporting. You can't call it a consensus unless you show that the number of disagreeing institutions and peer reviewed studies are insignificant in comparison.

Thus ends my rhetorical quibble.

They are insignificant in comparison. From wiki.

With the release of the revised statement[78] by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[2][79]

link
Daredelvis

 

[Sporanox]

You clearly have still not gotten the differencer between weather and climate.

The snow to a tall man's eyeballs in D.C. is weather. The fact that the snow pack on Kilimanjaro has been less than twenty-five percent of normal for over five years is climate.

The problem is that to believe as ABC does requires a prediction of future weather patterns.

Well, again, I'm not necessarily sticking up for them because I'm not them and for all I know, they're actually as mistaken as you say. But the concept of "weather is not climate" is a kin to "a data point is not a trend". Because weather really is climate, long term, and that analogy holds. Temperature drives air and water currents, influences gases, etc -- climate drives weather.

Because of this, I think it's not only reasonable but also likely correct to say that "ABC" was saying what I pointed out -- that a string of unusually hot days is part of the warming trend (by definition) and that an unusually cold day doesn't signify anything on its own. Nothing in what you quoted suggests that the previous statement -- that the warm days were part of the trend -- implies that those warm days suggest a warming trend. The warming trend is assumed in that instance (from other data and scientific consensus) and the connecting is, again, by definition. Saying, later on, that a single data point -- the cold days -- refutes the trend is nonsense, and that was pointed out in the statement "weather is not climate" (a data point is not a trend).

ETA: Man, I need to stop digressing so much! Sorry for the clarity issues above.

No problem. Where I believe ABC went wrong is explicitly tying a heat wave to global warming. Just as with the analysis of the current spate of cold weather, temperature spikes may be due to fluctuations in weather rather than a trend either way. Do you see what I mean? To paraphrase, I dispute your statement that a spike of very hot days is "by definition" part of the overall trend.

 

[dudalb]

I disagree. I think a more accurate statement would be...

A lot of the Anti AGW people seem to be motivated by a basic hatred of Any Government Regulations and/or an economic interest in the status quo that is presumed to outweigh the economic consequences of addressing the issue. This does not address the political panderers. (That is not to say the people who believe the scientist are not also concerned about the economic impact of action.)

Very few of the pro AGW people seem to not like Capitalism much in the first place and are happy to find a new club to beat it with. Most are concerned that the consequences of inaction outweigh the consequences of action, and many like me, are disgusted by the discredited canards repeatedly trotted out by many of the far right AGW deniers.

Daredelvis

My Irony meter just exploded.

 

[Sporanox]

They are insignificant in comparison. From wiki.

link
Daredelvis

That misses actions like this:

It shouldn't be surprising that members around Will Happer, a renowned Princeton physicist (see the picture), wrote an

Open Letter to the American Physical Society (click)

where they mention that the climate has always been changing and warming and trace gases have many positive effects, according to scientific literature. The proposed new statement also discusses the unreliability of the existing climate models and urges the scientists to investigate all these effects objectively, and to study technological options related to the climate that are independent of the cause.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/07/aps-is-reviewing-its-statements-on.html

 

[daredelvis]

That misses actions like this:



http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/07/aps-is-reviewing-its-statements-on.html

So out of 47,189 members of the APS 50 have written a letter disagreeing with the APS statement.

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

I remained unconvinced.

Daredelvis

 

[daredelvis]

My Irony meter just exploded.

Oh please. You suggest that "a lot" those who agree with the scientific consensus are "seem to not like Capitalism much in the first place and are happy to find a new club to beat it with" and my position that the AGW deniers on the far right trot out "discredited canards" is ironic?

Go back and reread what I wrote. You will see that I gave a far more charitable explanation for the motivations of a majority of AGW deniers than you did in your initial post.

Daredelvis

 

[Cynic]

The problem is that to believe as ABC does requires a prediction of future weather patterns.



No problem. Where I believe ABC went wrong is explicitly tying a heat wave to global warming. Just as with the analysis of the current spate of cold weather, temperature spikes may be due to fluctuations in weather rather than a trend either way. Do you see what I mean? To paraphrase, I dispute your statement that a spike of very hot days is "by definition" part of the overall trend.

Let's look at their quote again then:

Yes. Chris, it's been 21 days of brutal heat, a coast-to-coast double heat wave leaving at least 186 people dead, massive damage to crops and livestock. And yes, it's got folks everywhere asking if it's part of global warming, and thus a sign that Earth will keep getting hotter. The scientists say yes, global warming is involved. First, it fits the pattern predicted 30 years ago, more frequent and intense heat waves. More than 50 cities just broke records.

First, it's not dishonest to quote what scientists say, especially if you qualify it by saying that scientists say it. Second, according to what scientists say, they've got a future prediction model, have had it for 30 years, and the current trends match it -- namely that increases in both number and intensity of such hot spells would occur and that is what's happening.

If nothing else, all they're doing is reporting what scientists have told them. Disputing the scientists is one thing, but why shoot the messenger?

This all comes down to what a trend is. In any given set of data, a trend is anything that follows a pattern. Let's say were looking at body temperature stats in a group correlated to the severity of viral illness and identify a trend in which fevers are highest in accordance with severity. You seem to be indicating that you feel that it would be foolish to suggest that an infected patient with a high fever fits that trend.

There are going to be noise and fluctuation in any dataset. Of course you're right in that you can't point to any given point and declare it to be part of a trend -- trends are necessarily about multiple data points. But that's not what ABC did. They said that the hot spell was consistent with the predicted pattern. A cold spell is consistent with expectations but not the pattern, just as there are plenty of people who endure viral infections who do not get fevers.

 

[theprestige]

Wait -- how did hurricane get excepted from the category of seasonal weather patterns?

Read better: they didn't. I take it you missed my point not out of any failure of intellect, but rather because you have no coherent response.

 

[Cynic]

Read better: they didn't. I take it you missed my point not out of any failure of intellect, but rather because you have no coherent response.

And how dishonest is it, exactly, for you to imply that any crackpot idea about earthquakes or hurricanes is legitimate cause to be more confident in the "settled science" of global warming, but any doubt based on anything as simple and obvious as actual daily temperature readings or seasonal weather patterns is totally illegitimate and unscientific?

I admit that incoherency might be part of the problem, though it remains to be seen whose it is. To be sure, you didn't say that hurricanes weren't normal. Rather, you took their very normalcy to mean that any theory involving them relating to global warming was therefore crackpot. But whatever. Clarify that if you want to, or not. I don't like having my honesty challenged.