104 replies to this topic

[TimG]

We're already talked about why the "science is settled" is a red herring. The science will never be settled, we know that - but there is a better than strong consensus as to the major causes of what is happening.

Michael, if you want to talk to people with skeptical outlook you have to accept that they use phrases like the "science is settled" to reference the bait and switch technique used by alarmists. Claiming the it is a "red herring" makes you come across as a committed alarmist rather than the neutral party that you wish to be.

[Michael Hardner]

Michael, if you want to talk to people with skeptical outlook you have to accept that they use phrases like the "science is settled" to reference the bait and switch technique used by alarmists. Claiming the it is a "red herring" makes you come across as a committed alarmist rather than the neutral party that you wish to be.

That's your characterization... I don't take that to be the name of a technique, but a reference to some claim or other.

[TimG]

That's your characterization... I don't take that to be the name of a technique, but a reference to some claim or other.

You are the one who choose to criticize with GostHacked for using the term the "science is settled" by dimissing it as a red herring. If you are going to criticize with people for using words you better make sure you understand what they mean by the words they use. When skeptics talk about "settled science" they are talking about the tendency of alarmists to use a few things that are settled to argue that everything is settled. I call it the 'bait and switch' because the term accurately conveys the dishonesty inherent in the alarmist arguments. If alarmists wanted to be honest they would acknowledge that the key scientific questions are unanswered (possibly unanswerable) but they feel that the hypothetical risk is large enough to justify action.

Edited by TimG, 26 March 2012 - 10:54 AM.

[Michael Hardner]

You are the one who choose to criticize with GostHacked for using the term the "science is settled" by dimissing it as a red herring. If you are going to criticize with people for using words you better make sure you understand what they mean by the words they use.

I'm sorry - do you decide what these words mean more than I do ? If "the science is settled" refers to a tactic, then one should refer to it as the "science is settled tactic" or somesuch so that it's clear - or call it 'bait and switch' or something like that. I don't buy your definition here.

[TimG]

I'm sorry - do you decide what these words mean more than I do?

The person that wrote the words decides what they were intended to mean. I am only guessing. If GostHacked comes back and disagrees with my guess then I apologize. That said, I agree that more precision in meaning is needed on both sides - i.e. I agree that a term such as "science is settled tactic" is more appropriate.

IN any case, you were aware of the of potential confusions created by these words because of previous discussions in this thread. I kind of expected you to acknowledge this rather than carrying on as if the discussion never happened.

[Michael Hardner]

The person that wrote the words decides what they were intended to mean. I am only guessing.

Correct. He wrote them and I read them. Communication. Not sure where you come into the picture, though.

If GostHacked comes back and disagrees with my guess then I apologize. That said, I agree that more precision in meaning is needed on both sides - i.e. I agree that a term such as "science is settled tactic" is more appropriate.

Even if he did mean that, it's not expected that I would pick up on what it means, or it shouldn't be expected. If I call the Maple Leafs the Maple Laffs, you might be expected to understand what I mean. Less so if I call them the Mopey Loafs, the Muppet Loaves, the Mppph Lpafhs, or the Montreal Canadians. Communication is a two way street.

If this is a commonly used term, though, let me know and I'll colour myself informed.

IN any case, you were aware of the of potential confusions created by these words because of previous discussions in this thread. I kind of expected you to acknowledge this rather than carrying on as if the discussion never happened.

I do remember that, now that you mention it. Forgive me if the term didn't stick...

[GostHacked]

But the donkey is refusing to listen to a 100% verfiable fact.

So since it's your analogy, are you saying that the denier crowd is objectively, verifiably correct?

Because then you are arguing that "the science is settled." By definition.

The denier crowd is not verifiably correct as is the proponent crowd of AGW. Atmospheric science is quite complex. Pick up any decent meteorology book and you will quickly find out for yourself how complex it is. That's not to say that something is not happening, but blaming it soley on humans with the specifity of CO2 as the driving factor seems misguided to me.

We had something a couple years back, where warming was happening on a few other planets in our solar system as well, at the same time. The only logical conclusion to that , would be that big fireball in the sky.

Another thing they are going to get you on is the weather of the past couple years. Early last year, there was a major magnetic pole shift. So much shift that some air ports had to adjust the runway numbers because planes depend on GPS for navigation. Since the magnetic structure of the earth changed a lot more than usuall, the magnetic poles are always moving, last time it was quite significant. The magnetosphere has a huge impact on our weather. Without the magnetosphere, we would not be protected against the sun's solar flares, or any cosmic radiation in general.

The shift was large, and when the magnetosphere moves, you will have weather patterns change. It's been snowing in places that never ever get snow, and warm weather when it should be really cold. It seems to have a big effect on the jet streams, altering their course around the planet. The axis of Earth I suspect, may have changed slightly as well. Even large earth quakes have an effect on the rotational speed of the planet.

There are a lot of other possible factors that could contribute to this 'climate change'. Some not even entertained by the AWG supporters. Like I said to Waldo before, about deliberate and constant weather modification by humans. We have been experimenting with weather modification in one way or another for over 150 years. This is one thing the US military is heavily interested in. Control the weather, control the battlefield. If the military is interested in it, you can bet there is a lot of money involved to test the capability of this new type of 'weapon system'. If you can use the weather againts your enemy to create havoc, you'll never have to fire a shot, and since people don't think this happens, ... plausible deniability.

[Michael Hardner]

We had something a couple years back, where warming was happening on a few other planets in our solar system as well, at the same time. The only logical conclusion to that , would be that big fireball in the sky.

Also, it was never proven... it was a suggestion.

There are a lot of other possible factors that could contribute to this 'climate change'. Some not even entertained by the AWG supporters. Like I said to Waldo before, about deliberate and constant weather modification by humans.

They understand pretty well how CO2 traps in heat. There is more and more CO2... and you're looking to secret government experiments as the cause ?

[waldo]

Atmospheric science is quite complex. Pick up any decent meteorology book and you will quickly find out for yourself how complex it is. That's not to say that something is not happening, but blaming it soley on humans with the specifity of CO2 as the driving factor seems misguided to me.

even though you are continually reminded, let me again state that causal ties are not limiting solely to anthropogenic sourced CO2... it is most certainly the principal causal link, but it is not claimed to be, as you state, the "sole" cause.

We had something a couple years back, where warming was happening on a few other planets in our solar system as well, at the same time. The only logical conclusion to that , would be that big fireball in the sky.

a ridiculous statement that has no bearing on earth's condition. It is idiocy to make statements about earth's relatively recent warming, based on conditions found on, say... Venus.

Another thing they are going to get you on is the weather of the past couple years. Early last year, there was a major magnetic pole shift. So much shift that some air ports had to adjust the runway numbers because planes depend on GPS for navigation. Since the magnetic structure of the earth changed a lot more than usuall, the magnetic poles are always moving, last time it was quite significant. The magnetosphere has a huge impact on our weather. Without the magnetosphere, we would not be protected against the sun's solar flares, or any cosmic radiation in general.

The shift was large, and when the magnetosphere moves, you will have weather patterns change. It's been snowing in places that never ever get snow, and warm weather when it should be really cold. It seems to have a big effect on the jet streams, altering their course around the planet. The axis of Earth I suspect, may have changed slightly as well. Even large earth quakes have an effect on the rotational speed of the planet.

and this is simply a nothing statement without applied attachments... you could provide relevant reference by showing examples of how extreme weather events are being improperly attributed to increased warming... over and above say... your emphasis on "shifting magnetic poles".

There are a lot of other possible factors that could contribute to this 'climate change'. Some not even entertained by the AWG supporters. Like I said to Waldo before, about deliberate and constant weather modification by humans. We have been experimenting with weather modification in one way or another for over 150 years. This is one thing the US military is heavily interested in. Control the weather, control the battlefield. If the military is interested in it, you can bet there is a lot of money involved to test the capability of this new type of 'weapon system'. If you can use the weather againts your enemy to create havoc, you'll never have to fire a shot, and since people don't think this happens, ... plausible deniability.

this conspiracy theme doesn't stand up too well when countered with known military statements/programs on the effect of climate change to security, military operations, etc.

[bush_cheney2004]

...a ridiculous statement that has no bearing on earth's condition. It is idiocy to make statements about earth's relatively recent warming, based on conditions found on, say... Venus.

Oh really? Let's just see what your American NASA hero had to say:

The top-rated climate scientist in the world, James Hansen from NASA stated, “If we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the run-away greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus Syndrome is a dead certainty.”

[waldo]

World Meteorological Organization annual statement for 2011

Temperatures:

The decade 2001-2010 was the warmest since records began in 1850, with global land and sea surface temperatures estimated at 0.46°C above the long-term average (1961-1990) of 14.0°C. Nine of these years were among the ten warmest on record. The warmest year on record was 2010, closely followed by 2005, with a mean temperature estimated at 0.53°C above the long-term average. It was the warmest decade ever recorded for global land surface, sea surface and for every continent.

Most parts of Canada, Alaska, Greenland, Asia and northern Africa recorded temperatures for the decade between 1°C and 3°C above the 1961-1990 average.

Nearly 90% of the countries involved in the assessment experienced their warmest decade on record.

The global temperature increase rate has been “remarkable” during the previous four decades, according to the preliminary summary. The global temperature has increased since 1971 at an average estimated rate of 0.166°C per decade compared to the average rate of 0.06 °C per decade computed over the full period 1881-2010.

[waldo]

When skeptics talk about "settled science" they are talking about the tendency of alarmists to use a few things that are settled to argue that everything is settled. I call it the 'bait and switch' because the term accurately conveys the dishonesty inherent in the alarmist arguments. If alarmists wanted to be honest they would acknowledge that the key scientific questions are unanswered (possibly unanswerable) but they feel that the hypothetical risk is large enough to justify action.

the "science is settled" meme is one regularly trotted out by fake skeptics. Legitimate skeptics realize that proponents of AGW/CC do not recognize science as ever being settled. However, this 'unsettled science' does not negate confidence levels and probabilities of known/recognized understandings within science, nor does it detract from certain aspects of science that are known with near 100% certainty.

[waldo]

from the aforementioned World Meteorological Organization annual statement for 2011

Sea Ice

The decline in the Arctic sea-ice, observed since the end of the 1960s, continued throughout 2001-2010. A historical low Arctic sea-ice extent at the melting period in September was recorded in 2007.

Arctic sea ice extent was again well below average in 2011. The seasonal minimum, reached on 9 September, was 4.33 million square kilometres (35% below the 1979-2000 average) according to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center. This was the second-lowest seasonal minimum on record, 0.16 million square kilometres above the record low set in 2007. Sea ice volume was even further below average and was estimated at a new record low of 4200 cubic kilometres, surpassing the record of 4580 cubic kilometres set in 2010.

Satellites have shown the fluctuation in sea ice from year to year since 1972. According to scientific measurements, both the thickness and sea ice extent in the Arctic have shown a marked decline over the past 35 years. Data indicate, however, an even more dramatic reduction in Arctic sea ice cover in recent years. The last six years of the decade (2005 to 2010) recorded the lowest five September extents, with 2007 recording the record minimum extent with 4.28 million km2, 39 % below the 1979-2000 reference period.

[waldo]

re: weather extremes & climate change... a new Nature paper - A decade of weather extremes

Abstract:

The ostensibly large number of recent extreme weather events has triggered intensive discussions, both in- and outside the scientific community, on whether they are related to global warming. Here, we review the evidence and argue that for some types of extreme — notably heatwaves, but also precipitation extremes — there is now strong evidence linking specific events or an increase in their numbers to the human influence on climate. For other types of extreme, such as storms, the available evidence is less conclusive, but based on observed trends and basic physical concepts it is nevertheless plausible to expect an increase.

[waldo]

Multiple stressors pushing ocean ecosystems, livelihoods to the brink

A new study coordinated by the Stockholm Environment Institute shows climate change alone could reduce the economic value of key ocean services by up to 2 trillion USD a year by 2100, and urges world leaders to make the oceans a priority in global sustainability goals... the study, Valuing the Ocean, is the work of an international, multi-disciplinary team of experts; a preliminary Executive Summary is being released to inform preparations for the Rio+20 Earth Summit in June.

A key part of the study is a groundbreaking analysis on ocean economics, designed to quantify the costs of ocean degradation, which are often invisible in the cost-benefit analyses that guide policy. The analysis calculates the cost over the next 50 and 100 years respectively in terms of five categories of lost ocean value (fisheries, tourism, sea-level rise, storms, and the ocean carbon sink) under high- and low-emissions scenarios.

Valuing the Ocean - draft Executive Summary: