tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post5393390431154679774..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: My Craven Rave at LastMichael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-87465145051292370932009-08-28T02:39:24.923-07:002009-08-28T02:39:24.923-07:00"Yet this century the temperature has not cli..."Yet this century the temperature has not climbed so something is more than equalling (oppositely) the IPCC model forcing. I have no clue what it could be, but I'd hazard a guess that it's one of those areas of uncertainty you want to ignore."<br /><br />This thing certainly suggests otherwise:<br />http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1909/trend<br /><br />Or these:<br />http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1909/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1909/plot/uah/from:1909/plot/rss/from:1909/plot/none<br /><br />-<br /><br />1958-2009 CO2 rose to 1.24 fold. That's about 2^0.31, or roughly a third of the way to a doubling. <br /><br />With a 3 C sensitivity to doubling, that would mean 0.93 C.<br /><br />The temperature trend linear fit in GISS data is 0.6 C. Ie from that only, the sensitivity estimate could be 2 C per doubling.<br /><br />There's some disrepancy in this first order rough estimate, between 2 C and 3 C, but at least it's of the same sign and magnitude. :)<br /><br /><br />-<br /><br />Oh, this century meaning since 1999?<br />Well, it hasn't risen that much. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1999/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1999/trend/plot/uah/from:1999/trend/plot/rss/from:1999/trend<br /><br />or <br /><br />http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000/trend/plot/uah/from:2000/trend/plot/rss/from:2000/trend<br /><br />The trend does seem slightly positive, not negative. (You may mix up with the carefully timed "ten years" claims made in 2008; since 1998 was such a warm year, the global trend was probably low.)<br /><br />That's the problem with looking at short time scales. The individual years vary quite a lot for various reasons, and dwarf the CO2 induced trend. There are solar cycles and ocean circulation variations for example.<br /><br />I encourage people to play with that app, it's a great service!<br /><br />-<br /><br />I think you mix up "ignoring uncertainty" and "having enough certainty warranting acting".<br /><br />But even that is just playing your game - as Michael explained, the thinking is fallacious on a broader level.<br /><br />We are injecting large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere. The amount is already larger than at any time during the holocene, the warm stable time when civilization developed, and you cannot justify it being safe just by saying that "we don't know what will happen".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-22268633471971844032009-08-28T01:10:26.456-07:002009-08-28T01:10:26.456-07:00WonderingMind/Greg,
You touched the sore spot here...WonderingMind/Greg,<br />You touched the sore spot here: So far we're failing to reach Joe Schmoe (though I think you've done a great service on that front with your videos).<br />But are scientists the right people to do so? Isn't there's a fair bit of anti-intellectualism in small town America that make scientists pretty much unsuitable to reach out to them? I have no alternative directly, but the communication 2.0 idea (see the newest post here) perhaps has some promise: Put policies in place that demand a behavioral change. Because as you say, behavioral change by education and attitudal change go way to slow.<br /><br />BartAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-50584554468248770462009-08-27T23:46:56.399-07:002009-08-27T23:46:56.399-07:00Greg,
Thanks for coming by. I did mean my review ...Greg,<br /><br />Thanks for coming by. I did mean my review as a rave, actually.<br /><br />I'm a little confused as to what you are saying here, though, but hey, it's late. I'll think about it again some, later.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-80688125390591712312009-08-27T23:43:29.110-07:002009-08-27T23:43:29.110-07:00Alex, Lindzen and Choi was published on Wednesday....Alex, Lindzen and Choi was published on Wednesday. Nobody besides Lindzen, Choi, and the GRL reviewers has much idea about it yet, The fact that Morano thinks it is important is completely predictable.<br /><br />The fact that real scientists have not yet expressed an opinion either way may have something to do with intellectual honesty.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-63497776167060508932009-08-27T22:25:14.722-07:002009-08-27T22:25:14.722-07:00(Part 2 of 2)
Even though it is not written for an...(Part 2 of 2)<br />Even though it is not written for any of you (since you are not in group 4), I hope that you will find it a valuable tool in bringing about the end that you want. Because the fight lies with the masses. So please read it, remember that YOU are not the one it's trying to influence, but that you are powerful with it, because you can spread it to others who DO need it. That's part of how you ARE the target audience: to take this and run with it as fast and as far as you can, spreading the ideas to group 4. Because my publisher has hung me out to dry, and I've got nothing left in me to pursue the marketing myself. So I've got to leave it in your hands.<br /><br />Read it. Then lobby other climate blogs, websites, and media sources to review it. Besides the two climate blogs "In It" and "ClimateSight," there is only one major review of it out there: Chris Mooney's in the "New Scientist." Everyone who's read it has found it valuable (so they tell me, and I count Michael because even though he didn't gush, he at least said he wasn't too unhappy to buy a replacement copy :-), but the bottom line is: no one knows yet that it exists.<br /><br />Thanks for all the effort, energy, and thoughtfulness that you all put into the fight.<br /><br />P.S. Michael--I can't tell you how affirming it was to discover a quote from me at the top of your blog. :-D I've been bragging all week!wonderingmind42https://www.blogger.com/profile/14189792095602643196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-1439082647181182752009-08-27T22:24:34.320-07:002009-08-27T22:24:34.320-07:00Michael and all: Thanks for the review and discus...Michael and all: Thanks for the review and discussion. I'm sorry I don't have time to be eloquent here. My two cents on the discussion: (part 1 of 2)<br /><br />The battle is with the masses. With group 4. With soccer moms and NASCAR dads in "flyover country." In my experience in the popular debate in the last two years, I'm highly confident that any form of the argument "trust the scientists" (or policy makers, or whomever) will not succeed at the necessary rate. Libertarian/republican/pioneer/"Self Reliance" sentiment is too deeply ingrained in the national character of America. To be willing to make even perceived (but unreal) sacrifices, Joe Schmoe American will have to 1) stop feeling like he's being blamed as the bad guy, and 2) feel like *he's* making the decision, rather than handing over the power to some elitist intellectual (i.e. anybody with a degree higher than a Bachelor's, excepting MBA's and economists who tell him exactly what he wants to hear).<br /><br />That ain't the way that it should be, but I'm quite sure that's the way it is. This is no longer the Generation who persevered through the Great Depression, or mounted the greatest economic mobilization in the history of the world to fight and win WWII. We will either speak on their level, or lose.<br /><br />Some institutions are fighting the good fight, and change is happening at the normal rate of social change--punctuated linear. Unfortunately, seems to me that climate change may happen at a nonlinear rate. I fear that social change will not be sufficient to forestall possibly catastrophic and irreversible consequences. Instead I think we need to work to changing HOW social change happens. <br /><br />My proposal (in the Appendix of the book) is to try to spark a non-linear social change (what Malcom Gladwell calls a "social epidemic") by designing and spreading memes which will self-propagate (hence needing no organizations, funding, or campaigning) and create a wholesale change in the culture, so that a policy maker can't turn around without having a knot of constituents in their face, saying "What are we--you--going to do about climate change?!?" To catch the nonlinear curve of climate change with a nonlinear curve of cultural change. I don't think it's ever happened before in history, but I fear that it may be our only hope for making the probability of catastrophe tolerably negligible. I hope I'm wrong about that. But I don't think any of us want to bet our family's futures on that hope. <br /><br />I got the idea after my "Most Terrifying Video" went viral--7.2 million views for a 10-minute video of a whiteboard lecture on global warming. A proof of concept, if you will. The grid was my shot at a meme, and this book is my last, desperate attempt.<br />(cont.)wonderingmind42https://www.blogger.com/profile/14189792095602643196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-3028521860172903832009-08-27T18:09:53.314-07:002009-08-27T18:09:53.314-07:00Alex --- Current global warming is entirely anthro...Alex --- Current global warming is entirely anthropogenic in origin, except maybe a little due to currently low volcanism. Without human activities, the climate would be, on long term average, slowly cooling towards the next attempt at a stade (massive ice sheets) about 20,000 years from now.<br /><br />For more on this, plase read climatologist W.F. Ruddiman's popular "Plows, Plagues and Petroleum". More can be learned by reading his papers, obtainable from his web site.<br /><br />CERN's CLOUD experiment will settle a minor issue; the major players such as CO2 and water vapor have already been well studied. (Incidently, satellite data from two regions of the Pacfic Ocean appear to indicate that clouds are a small positive feedback; more warming, less low clouds.)David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-70827287709857411362009-08-27T14:03:06.695-07:002009-08-27T14:03:06.695-07:00I'm sure it was Richard Tol that said on a blo...I'm sure it was Richard Tol that said on a blog that changes in interest rates by gvts caused more economic losses than any sort of sensible scheme for dealing with global warming. <br />Certainly the chaos we have had over the last couple of years puts it all into perspective.guthriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17992984293423290387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-3280063092320785292009-08-27T12:41:32.560-07:002009-08-27T12:41:32.560-07:00Michael, Michael ... this thread is about trust. R...Michael, Michael ... this thread is about <b><i>trust</i></b>. Remember? And you've done it again: as soon as the discussion gets uncomfortable or difficult to rebut, you change the ground, and ask for a number based on science (stricty <b><i>your</i></b>understanding of the science) because that's in your comfort zone. It's probably best not to raise more philosophical subjects like trust in climate science if you're not comfortable with the answers.<br /><br />The same goes for intellectual honesty. I raised the subject as an adjunct to trust, or as another thread ... and no one said it wasn't appropriate. Yet no one has addressed the topic in a meaningful way; what should I make of that? <br /><br />But since you're determined to get something from me that will satisfy you, I'll tell you, so that you can have a good laugh, and mock me for my naivety.<br /><br />You obviously go along with the IPCC range (or higher, given your apocalyptic visions). Yet this century the temperature has not climbed (no tired memes about tired memes, from anyone,<b><i>please</i></b>, so <b><i>something</i></b> is more than equalling (oppositely) the IPCC model forcing. I have no clue what it could be, but I'd hazard a guess that it's one of those areas of uncertainty you want to ignore. <br /><br />In crude terms, that either means that the IPCC number is much less than estimated (because we don't know of anything else that could have that effect - yet) or there is another powerful and opposite feedback factor that we probably should be worrying about.<br /><br />I think the first option is the more likely. And conveniently, the Lindzen and Choi paper gives me a likely sounding answer: 0.5C. <br /><br />The paper has been available for a while, yet none of the usual suspects has rushed to demonstrate its fundamentally flawed assumptions. In fact, things are suspiciously quiet - there's a lot of head-scratching going on. <br /><br />So there's my answer: 0.5C. Now, could we get back to trust? Do you trust Lindzen and Choi? Respected scientists both. And have you got the intellectual honesty to factor their findings into your thinking about AGW?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02882281337772433507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-18836297717240479612009-08-27T12:23:24.179-07:002009-08-27T12:23:24.179-07:00"economically perilous courses of action"...<i>"economically perilous courses of action"</i><br />Now tell me who's the alarmist?<br />Where's the evidence suggesting economic ruin if we adopt a thoughtful carbon policy?<br />Also, let me remind you that build-up of CO2 isn't an exclusive atmospheric problem. There's a little thing called ocean acidification. <br />Let's also remember that carbon-based energy sources are headed towards depletion and that coal has a huge environmental and health impact.the_heat_is_onhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13506787236855540288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-33942968857766149422009-08-27T11:39:14.016-07:002009-08-27T11:39:14.016-07:00From a policy point of view, it is not enough to e...From a policy point of view, it is not enough to express a lack of confidence. To advocate inaction you have to express a very strong confidence that the sensitivity is much smaller than the consensus has it. <br /><br />Yes there is much to discuss about the individual streams of evidence that lead to a sensitivity (specifically a Charney sensitivity) of 2.5 - 3 C per CO2 doubling. And there are multiple uncertainties involved. <br /><br />But it's impossible to advocate for inaction without a much smaller sensitivity, say below 0.5 . So if you are equally uncertain about the consensus and the low-sensitivity gadflies (ignoring all high-sensitivity gadflies, of course), even that is plenty to support a vigorous carbon policy. <br /><br />Essentially you are irrationally shifting the burden of proof.<br /><br />If you want to talk science, we can talk science until you get bored of it. (You have already demonstrated in another thread that this happens very quickly.) But you don't you want to talk science. It;s clear you are not interested in science itself, but only in science as it impacts policy.<br /><br />But the policy argument is not based on certainty that the consensus is right. It only needs a significant likelihood that either the consensus is right, OR that the potential for error is not especially one-sided.<br /><br />The thing that makes you a concern troll in my view is not only that you question things you refuse to investigate, though that is problematic enough. It is that you are asking a policy related question, and yet make no effort to understand the fact-based reasoning behind that policy issues.<br /><br />Even though it's key to the whole business, you don't care what the greenhouse gas sensitivity number is. You've already said so. Your indifference to quantitative arguments precludes any discussion of details. For you to turn around and accuse people of ducking questions is bizarre, when you show every intention of ducking the answers.<br /><br />Look, even if you find nothing compelling on either "side", which is unfair because it counts gadflies on only one side, your risk matrix weighting has to be 50/50. But with a 50/50 risk weighting you still have nearly a 50% chance of globally catastrophic outcomes in the no-new-policy case. <br /><br />Try to act rationally in agreement with your stated beliefs and we'll have no argument.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-51945057863809427672009-08-27T11:11:19.910-07:002009-08-27T11:11:19.910-07:00OK guys, enough already. Don't shoot the messe...OK guys, enough already. Don't shoot the messenger! I guess I should have expected that you wouldn't like my lack of cultural references (culture? really?), my claims to scientific understanding ("high" means 50,000' level, not in-depth) and so on.<br /><br />In an earlier thread, I told you all my reasons for being an agnostic, listing the areas of uncertainty, and putting them into a narrative to show how why I couldn't feel confident in the AGW proposition. Not one of you could rebut it (or if you could, you remained very coy about it.) But instead I got a lot of snark, obviously. <br /><br />So I feel I, at least, have some intellectual honesty in saying that I can't trust pro-AGW scientists. This is all about trust, right? Conversely, I can't trust anti-AGW scientists either. And I have to ask you to examine your own AGW intellectual foundations, and broaden your perspective. If you can't be bothered to go back and revisit what I said before, there's a single example in this thread for you to consider: why do you think CERN are investing huge amounts of money in the CLOUD experiment if "the science is settled"? That shows that there is a very large hole in our understanding, which doesn't show up in the GCMs or Tamino's little exercise. Again, no one has said that this experiment is a waste of time.<br /><br />Please don't tell me I'm not as clever as I think (yes, I know that - I think) or I'm disingenuous, or that I've got the number of German scientists wrong (I'm right, it's 131, another 64 announced on Aug 09). These are all true-believer distractions.<br /><br />Instead, simply tell me why I should ignore the large areas of uncertainty, and tell me <b><i>why they're irrelevant</i></b>. (I don't think anyone has today, but it might have got lost in a large amount of noise.) If you can, I'll genuinely review my position, and upgrade my assessment of climate disaster. If you can't, well, it's probably not worth you replying.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02882281337772433507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-83633424053653829642009-08-27T08:11:17.051-07:002009-08-27T08:11:17.051-07:00Lets do this line by line, because I'm faffing...Lets do this line by line, because I'm faffing about.<br /><br />"The IPCC lists areas of uncertainties, but generally dismisses them (I think - it's a while since I looked.)"<br /><br />It quantified them quite clearly in a number of charts. It also lists the various things affecting climate, not just CO2 but other gases, land use changes, albedo, etc etc. <br /><br />"deep within the IPCC"<br />You mean within the scientific papers references by the IPCC. Its all there, in the report, if you care to look.<br /><br />"risk factors associated with each of the areas of uncertainty"<br />That in itself would probably require anotehr report in itself. Please contact your local gvt to persuade them to carry one out. The UK gvt got Stern to do a review, although you may disagree if it covers what you wanted it to cover. <br /><br />"If I'm right about the complete absence of debate about the uncertain areas in relation to the models"<br /><br />You mean all these scientific papers and debates at conferences aren't enough? You've presumably missed all the discussion about how models don't match observations precisely, and vice versa? Which planet are you on?<br /><br />"But are you sure that even the G8+5 is as unanimous as it first appears? I see Germany is a signatory, yet 130+ prominent German scientists (I quote from the news) wrote to Chancellor Merkel urging her to “strongly reconsider” her position on global warming and review the latest climate science developments. The signatories include IPCC scientists."<br />Firstly, you cannot conclude frmo a letter to a prime minister that a country itself, or its government, is at all shaky on AGW. Secondly, as we know the news media call everyone prominent, yet when you look here:<br />http://www.speroforum.com/a/20054/German-scientists-reject-manmade-global-warming<br />Its a mere 67 scientists, of whom 1, yes thats right, ONE, claims to have taken part in the TAR as a reviewer. That doesn't make them a climate expert, since you could become a reviewer if you asked. <br />Thirdly, it recycles the same tired old lies that we have answered many, many times before. If you do not see this, then I'm afraid you clearly don't have the knowledge you claim to have.guthriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17992984293423290387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-31054558787424637992009-08-27T07:54:09.877-07:002009-08-27T07:54:09.877-07:00Alex hrrmphed "Then, perhaps, you might be en...Alex hrrmphed "Then, perhaps, you might be entitled to style yourself King of the Road. "<br /><br />Not much on cultural references either, are you?Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-9812228578840358612009-08-27T04:41:06.986-07:002009-08-27T04:41:06.986-07:00I think that the debate in Lucia's blog has co...<em><br />I think that the debate in Lucia's blog has confirmed my instant presumption that he has just reworked the existing model assumptions ... anyway, it doesn't seem to be as clear as Tamino would like us to think.<br /></em><br /><br />This is what I would call "peephole credibility"... or lack of same. I happen to have on this matter the "serviceable and wide understanding of science at a high level" that you claim to have but are lacking. I actually produced Tamino's derivation independently a few years ago for my students. It's 100% correct. If you take Lucia seriously on this, you have problems mate.Martin Vermeerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04537045395760606324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-61665619456833004662009-08-27T04:15:26.834-07:002009-08-27T04:15:26.834-07:00"Yes, good points, Michael. I'd thought, ..."Yes, good points, Michael. I'd thought, in my loose non-scientific way, that the question was equivalent to the simple one about the existence of God: is Humankind solely responsible for global warming? But because I hope that we can all accept that there are some natural cycles involved, your rephrasing is much closer to what I now think it should be: "business as usual on emissions would lead to extremely dangerous climate outcomes within this century.""<br /><br />Note that the existence of god (as most currently view it), is not a question of science and evidence. Global warming is.<br /><br />Let's use a stupid example: retreating to an "agnostic" position in the question, is the Earth closer to a pancake or a sphere in shape, is either ignorance or lunacy, because nowadays so much evidence points to the quite spherical shape. Saying "I don't think the matter is certain" can actually be very very irresponsible and much less careful than saying something specific.<br /><br />Anthropogenic global warming is of course a more complicated and less directly observable thing, but nevertheless there is a lot of evidence, and I've seen very few other coherent models explaining it. I'm no expert, but for my engineer's mind, the model is very plausible.<br /><br />Some oversimplified models presented in high school and in popular science were very impossible by the way, to someone who knew basic physics and mathematics back then. Why are the rays going one way but suddenly blocked going the other way? I think an improvement in this regard is very very much required. The goal is not to make people believe - it is to make them *understand*. When a significant percentage of the population understands the basic mechanism, they can not be swayed by those whose primary way to deal with things is to deliberately misunderstand. This is true with evolution through random mutations and natural selection or the basic CO2 greenhouse effect by letting through visible light but absorbing heat radiation.<br /><br />Very simple, very powerful ideas.<br /><br />Our physics teacher used the Socratic method. We could ponder some problems for an hour, and people would suggest theories and solutions, and the unworkable ones would be shot down since they would show up not working upon closer examination. In the end, we would end up with how things are - and in mathematics, how they actually must be, given the assumptions. Mathematics is beautiful that way. I remember how even some of the usually less mathematically confident students in the class understood and explained some up to that point new concepts - how they must be like that and can not be in some other way.<br /><br />It takes time and curious minds though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-18772047198560347642009-08-26T18:45:54.130-07:002009-08-26T18:45:54.130-07:00"Sure enough, when you actually start countin..."Sure enough, when you actually start counting, the number of naysayers turns out to be, well, puny."<br /><br />I believe it was Joe Romm who said that skeptical scientists "remain a group small enough to fit into a typical home bathroom."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-20676462387999546312009-08-26T17:00:59.659-07:002009-08-26T17:00:59.659-07:00Alex,
It's irrelevant what I may label you. T...Alex,<br /><br />It's irrelevant what I may label you. The point is that I don't believe you. Neither you nor I are currently or able and willing to develop expert levels of knowledge in any pertinent field. Therefore we have to decide what "makes sense" and to who actually does have the relevant expertise.<br /><br />I claim that your statement regarding a serviceable and wide understanding of science at a high level is false based on the evidence you have presented. It may be that you believe it, if so you are wrong. It may be that you don't believe it, in that case you are disingenuous.<br /><br />This is not a discussion about the molecular pathways for a particular obscure chemical process or the aerodynamic behavior of a fairing on a hypersonic airfoil. Such a discussion would, in fact, revolve around small arguable details, and at the moment, the experts just may not know.<br /><br />This is a discussion about many well-understood areas of science coalescing around a conclusion. With which broad area (thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, radiation physics, statistical analysis, etc.) do you find fault?<br /><br />No one that I've read claims that 100% of the warming trend is caused by man made emissions of greenhouse gasses. Implying that climate scientists say so and that it can't be proven that other factors may not be at work is a straw man.<br /><br />It's clear that there are gaps in our knowledge of the behavior of the geophysical system, scientists are working to fill in these gaps. The same can be said of our knowledge of quantum mechanics, but that doesn't mean that scanning electron microscopes, magnetic resonance imagers, and Josephson Junctions may not work.King of the Roadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-74562776861460197052009-08-26T16:22:18.191-07:002009-08-26T16:22:18.191-07:00Alex, your model of "extremely dangerous"...Alex, your model of "extremely dangerous" must be different from mine. I mean causing or contributing to a catastrophic increase in global mortality leading to a rapid population decline, probably manifesting as war and anarchy.<br /><br />You probably mean "costing a few per cent of GDP". Talk about economic peril strikes me as ridiculous. This simply isn't about money. <br /><br />It's the difference between an amputation and a haircut. An economy will grow back. You're squawking about not treating your massively infected leg because you don't want to miss your barber's appointment. <br /><br />To put it another way, a planet will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no planet.<br /><br />The real category error is this: Economics is the instrument of policy, not its driver. Economics should be construed as an engineering discipline, not as a science.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-44109846830934914972009-08-26T16:11:12.090-07:002009-08-26T16:11:12.090-07:00To Mr "King of the Road": labeling a pos...To Mr "King of the Road": labeling a poster is the standard response of the committed pro-AGW lobby when they don't like what they hear, but can't rebut it. <br /><br />Try making some relevant points about areas of uncertainty. Try adding your own degree of certainty about the proposition that Michael outlined and I addressed, and then justify your position. Try making some sensible suggestions about closing the gap between true believers and the intellectually honest who don't have enough faith in the completeness of the story.<br /><br />Then, perhaps, you might be entitled to style yourself King of the Road. Simply denigrating me with a label is not exactly regal behavior.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02882281337772433507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-60534629131689288932009-08-26T16:01:22.656-07:002009-08-26T16:01:22.656-07:00Yes, good points, Michael. I'd thought, in my ...Yes, good points, Michael. I'd thought, in my loose non-scientific way, that the question was equivalent to the simple one about the existence of God: is Humankind solely responsible for global warming? But because I hope that we can all accept that there are <b><i>some</i></b> natural cycles involved, your rephrasing is much closer to what I now think it should be: "business as usual on emissions would lead to extremely dangerous climate outcomes within this century."<br /><br />And I like the phrase you used about your own feelings ("depending which day you catch me") because that's close to how I feel. But my certainty range is different than yours: it's, say, 20-50%. <br /><br />How could we converge on this? The IPCC lists areas of uncertainties, but generally dismisses them (I think - it's a while since I looked.) Presumably, deep within the IPCC, there must be an analysis of the risk factors associated with each of the areas of uncertainty. And if that analysis could be made open and transparent and subject to public scientific scrutiny in relation to the climate computer models, then at least a good scientific debate would start. Because the old assertion that the "science is settled" is sweeping big things under the carpet. <br /><br />If I'm right about the complete absence of debate about the uncertain areas in relation to the models, then it's hardly surprising that the G8+5 signatories can all sign up. It's easy for them to ignore the twinges of conscience for suppressing intellectual honesty. <br /><br />But are you sure that even the G8+5 is as unanimous as it first appears? I see Germany is a signatory, yet 130+ prominent German scientists (I quote from the news) wrote to Chancellor Merkel urging her to “strongly reconsider” her position on global warming and review the latest climate science developments. The signatories include IPCC scientists. <br /><br />Do I trust that story? About 95%, probably. And of course there are obviously others that I could quote (like the APS that you cite.) But to pick up on your point about Tamino's analysis, I think that the debate in Lucia's blog has confirmed my instant presumption that he has just reworked the existing model assumptions ... anyway, it doesn't seem to be as clear as Tamino would like us to think. <br /><br />You rightly say that to go " ... against the scientific community when the stakes are so high, one needs extraordinary certainty, not just uncertainty and confusion." I certainly don't have that certainty, but I sincerely want to see open debate that would reduce uncertainty and confusion. <br /><br />My upper range of 50% is not hugely different than your lower range of 80% - should be bridgeable anyway. And if we settled on, say, 60% would you still be committed to economically perilous courses of action?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02882281337772433507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-90551347920958976772009-08-26T15:23:57.174-07:002009-08-26T15:23:57.174-07:00Alex,
Condescension and disingenuousness is a bad...Alex,<br /><br />Condescension and disingenuousness is a bad combination. In my opinion, it is not possible to be a non-specialist, but have a "serviceable and wide understanding of science at a high level" and not find Michael's argument on what it would take to falsify his belief in warming to be compelling.<br /><br />It would be like saying "I have a serviceable and wide understanding of science but your arguments against perpetual motion are unconvincing. What absolute proof do you have of of the second law of thermodynamics? Can you derive it from first principles? How do you explain so and so's overunity device?"<br /><br />Therefore, I infer that you are actually in what I'd call group 3a - a denier feigning open-mindedness. On a blog comment list, I think this is known as a "concern troll."King of the Roadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-17416320176880027922009-08-26T15:15:08.404-07:002009-08-26T15:15:08.404-07:00The Galileo fallacy is popular with the libertaria...The Galileo fallacy is popular with the libertarian worldview. This worldview presents the scientist as a maverick working in his basement and trying to expose the "corrupt consensus". This pattern is seen in Atlas Shrugged and State of Fear.<br /><br />"So how should a kid (or an adult!) who is honest enough not to just go with his or her crowd, who wants to get to the right side of what is obviously an enormously important substantive question, evaluate the competing arguments?<br /><br />By trust, and trust alone. That's the only way to do it."<br /><br />John Quiggin:<br />http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2006/02/21/ad-hominem-ad-nauseam/<br />"As far as the relevant scientific communities are concerned the controversy over evolution has ended and the controversy about climate change has resolved most of the key issues (for example, that warming is taking place and that human activity is a contributor), as has the controversy about the safety of consuming GM foods, but that doesn’t stop people claiming otherwise. And the tobacco lobby only retreated from the glaringly false claim that smoking is harmless to the claim (absurd if you accept that direct smoking causes cancer, but harder to disprove) that passive smoking is harmless. <b>Unless you want to become an expert in biology, geology, climate science, clinical medicine and statisics, among other disciplines, you’ll never be able to resolve these disputes without relying, at some point, on expert judgement.</b><br /><br />Obviously, there’s an element of circularity here. We not only have to trust scientists to give us the best advice, but we also have to trust them to tell us who the relevant scientists are. The big argument for accepting this is the undeniable success of the scientific enterprise as a whole, and its demonstrated capacity for correcting error. This can be contrasted with the demonstrated capacity of interest groups to maintain propositions that suit their interests in the face of strong, indeed overwhelming, evidence to the contrary."<br /><br />This is the problem of MSM: failure to recognize expertise and scientific authority. Of course, it's cheaper to engage in "he said X,she said Y" journalism than looking into bibliometrics or doing real investigative journalism.the_heat_is_onhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13506787236855540288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-66900402951146626672009-08-26T14:01:34.124-07:002009-08-26T14:01:34.124-07:00Bert, I agree with your list. Craven does not get ...Bert, I agree with your list. Craven does not get into that at all, indeed he bends over backwards to treat the denial literature as equal in legitimacy. Still his plate is still full in the book. <br /><br />There is a second book to be written about the points you raise. I am not sure Greg is up to it; somehow it doesn't suit his style.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-40734070559294523012009-08-26T13:59:51.005-07:002009-08-26T13:59:51.005-07:00Alex, two points.
First you have to state the pro...Alex, two points.<br /><br />First you have to state the proposition before I can state the associated certainty. "AGW" is not a proposition.<br /><br />Is it that "CO2 is a greenhouse gas"? My certainty is over 99.99% even though I have never done the experiment.<br /><br />Is it that "business as usual on emissions would lead to extremely dangerous climate outcomes within this century"? I'd say somewhere between 80% and 99%, depending which day you catch me. And this is the real policy-relevant question, which I proceed to address here.<br /><br />(Also there's that unfortunate thing about murdering the oceans, completely independent of climate change. Put me down for another 80% chance of disaster for that.) <br /><br />In order to justify inaction, though, you need to put the likelihood at about, what, 5% or less? <br /><br />That's the second point. Are you really 95% sure that the inactivists' much balyhooed confusion is more valid than the considered opinion of the entire scientific community? As represented by the G8+5 science academies, the AMS, the AGU, the APS, and so on? Or are the people to whom you refer so sure?<br /><br />And can you or they be so sure, if we really have so little idea of what is going on, that the sensitivity is going to be much smaller, not larger, not even somewhat smaller, but much smaller, than the great preponderance of the evidence?<br /><br />Including Tamino's simple, straightforward analysis of the analysis that you could do on a pocket calculator?<br /><br />I admit that engineers and dentists get this wrong in alarming numbers. That's a key concern. <br /><br />This is the crucial piece of the argument from Craven's point of view. If one goes against the scientific community when the stakes are so high, one needs extraordinary certainty, not just uncertainty and confusion. Otherwise the position is deeply irrational. And the fact that engineers and dentists come to deeply irrational opinions about this matter is very disturbing.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.com