Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Keepitsimple

A Rational Look at the "Settled Science"

Recommended Posts

The fact that you don't see how absurd the precautionary principle is simply a result of your own cognitive dissonance. The fact that you are pretending that the precautionary principle 'doesn't apply in the extortionary case because the probability is low' is more evidence of this. The precautionary principle doesn't care about the probability of outcomes, which is why it is a dumb principle. Alarmists want to use the precautionary principle to justify their absurd climate mitigation policies without having to sufficiently justify those policies by looking at the evidence and making an informed decision.

That's not really how I see it.

The alarmist movement does have a definite exact purpose to move away from fossil hydrocarbon based fuel towards renewable hydro/solar/wind.

And it's working! Renewables are increasing.

What really kills me is how much the alarmists get sucked into this total Earth devastation stuff despite the fact that there is only so much hydrocarbons left that is easily accessible.

In other words, hydrocarbon supply is going to run soon enough.

WWWTT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would you treat the precautionary approach in this scenario? You're a layman like the vast vast majority of us when it comes to cancer and 10 doctors have examined you thoroughly and 8 say you need surgery immediately to save your life from it, 1 says you can afford to wait a year and the last guy rolls on the floor laughing his ass off and says you have nothing at all to worry about.

Third option: Ask the doctors what evidence they used to come up with their conclusions in order to make a more informed opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 told you they used standard medical examination methods indicated for cancer and those results caused 2 to used more rigorous methods. 1 gave you a physical and now the last guy is laughing so hard he's pissed himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show me where I have argued against a more pragmatic approach.

Doesn't matter. I love pragmatism. When coupled with an open mind, it leaves room for meaningful discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 told you they used standard medical examination methods indicated for cancer and those results caused 2 to used more rigorous methods. 1 gave you a physical and now the last guy is laughing so hard he's pissed himself.

I would ask for more information than that. What do the standard medical examinations involve? Why does it reach the conclusion it does? How are the other methods more rigorous.

If they cannot adequately explain to me how they arrived at their conclusion, then they aren't proper doctors so I will disregard their advice and do my own research using the internet.

Edited by -1=e^ipi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would ask for more information than that. What do the standard medical examinations involve? Why does it reach the conclusion it does? How are the other methods more rigorous.

If they cannot adequately explain to me how they arrived at their conclusion, then they aren't proper doctors so I will disregard their advice and do my own research using the internet.

Pretty much. I always ask doctors for enough information to understand a given situation myself. If you have a moderately scientific mind at all, it's not hard to learn enough to understand a new subject if you have enough interest in doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heck bone up a little more and you genius' could probably perform your own operations.

I'm reminded of that old saying about atheists and fox-holes. I'm wondering how you guys would be making out if you were having to figure all this out in the emergency room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hydrocarbon is a very long way from running out.

How long?

WWWTT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long?

WWWTT

Long enough not to matter from the perspective of that being the solution. That is, if we simply burned all the available hydrocarbons and just stopped when we ran out, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere would already be far far too high.

Specifically, I believe studies showed that just burning all the available coal/oil/etc in just the US would raise CO2 concentration by ~250 ppm. If you assume the US has maybe 1/15 of the world reserves (roughly proportional to land area), that means if you burned all of the available hydrocarbons in the world you'd raise CO2 concentration by 3500-4000 ppm. We are currently at 400 ppm, so that would be a factor of 10 increase... whereas current understanding of climate suggests we shouldn't go much above like 450-500 ppm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey Simple... how come it's only rational when you say it is? :lol:

there's certainly been no shortage of take-downs of the OPs linked Rupert Murdoch flavoured WSJ article... I'm somewhat partial to this one as written by "Raymond T. Pierrehumbert - the Louis Block professor in geophysical sciences at the University of Chicago and the King Carl XVI Gustaf chair in environmental science at Stockholms Universitet"

Climate Science Is Settled Enough --- Steve Koonin... The Wall Street Journal’s fresh face of climate inaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey Simple... how come it's only rational when you say it is? :lol:

there's certainly been no shortage of take-downs of the OPs linked Rupert Murdoch flavoured WSJ article... I'm somewhat partial to this one as written by "Raymond T. Pierrehumbert - the Louis Block professor in geophysical sciences at the University of Chicago and the King Carl XVI Gustaf chair in environmental science at Stockholms Universitet"

Climate Science Is Settled Enough --- Steve Koonin... The Wall Street Journal’s fresh face of climate inaction.

I mean really- who would you trust - someone with the name Steve Koonin....or Raymond T. Pierrehumbert? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean really - who would you trust - someone with the name Steve Koonin....or Raymond T. Pierrehumbert? ;)

trust? Are you speaking to trust Simple? I thought you were speaking to rationality? Like I said, there's no shortage of take-downs of that Koonin nonsense... why not try to dispute something from the linked article I put forward. Be the supposed rational thinker you so project, hey?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

trust? Are you speaking to trust Simple? I thought you were speaking to rationality? Like I said, there's no shortage of take-downs of that Koonin nonsense... why not try to dispute something from the linked article I put forward. Be the supposed rational thinker you so project, hey?

He disputes Koonin. I'd dispute his angry rebuttal. You'd haul out your cut-and-paste arguments and away we'd go - but perhaps you could read the comments section of your article - they provide some interesting references to rebuke "the heat is in the ocean" meme. But aside from that, any objective reading of Koonin's article would think it a thoughtful, measured writing - one that acknowledges that we should not be blind to the risks - but pragmatic in our approach. Mr. Raymond T. Pierrehumbert however, reveals himself by reducing his "rebuttal" to a somewhat childish tirade:

It is in this spirit that the word settled is used sometimes in connection with climate science, and not in the cartoonish sense that Koonin fabricates in his straw-man argument.
Edited by Keepitsimple

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He disputes Koonin. I'd dispute his angry rebuttal. You'd haul out your cut-and-paste arguments and away we'd go - but perhaps you could read the comments section of your article - they provide some interesting references to rebuke "the heat is in the ocean" meme. But aside from that, any objective reading of Koonin's article would think it a thoughtful, measured writing - one that acknowledges that we should not be blind to the risks - but pragmatic in our approach. Mr. Raymond T. Pierrehumbert however, reveals himself by reducing his "rebuttal" to a somewhat childish tirade:

is this you being... rational? :lol: Koonin is simply the latest WSJ (Rupert Murdoch fueled) poster-boy for 'do-nothing/delay'... you know, what you refer to as "pragmatic"! It's quite telling that you refuse to actually engage the critical comment put forward, yet you'll prowl the comments section to squeeze out something you favour. I certainly don't read any, as you say, "anger or childish tirade" from the article's author... rather, it's a clear-cut critical dissection of Koonin's words/position. Clearly your claimed "rational thinking" self has difficulty with that dissection that, of course, begins with attacking Koonin's failed scientific based claims and ends with a focus on a strawman meme you're well versed in personally; i.e., your past repeated flaunting of the "Science is Settled" meme! In that vein, from the article, let's include more of the broader statements, rather than just the single cherry-picked sentence you chose to quote:

Science is never settled, but it can be settled enough. Newtonian mechanics was not settled science—it was overturned by both relativity and quantum mechanics. Nonetheless, it was, and continues to be, settled enough to build bridges and design airplanes. It is in this spirit that the word settled is used sometimes in connection with climate science, and not in the cartoonish sense that Koonin fabricates in his straw-man argument. It is always easy to find gaps—even very significant gaps—in the understanding of a system as complex as the climate, but the issue on the table isn’t whether our understanding is complete, but whether it is complete enough to justify the need for serious controls on carbon dioxide emissions. It’s not the situation that the range of climate predictions runs from “pretty good” to “somewhat bad”—the truth is more like “bad” to “extremely bad,” unless emissions growth is halted and eventually reversed.

Climate science is settled enough to provide the policy guidance that matters most, namely that there is an urgent need for halting, and eventually reversing, the worldwide growth in carbon dioxide emissions. At a time when essentially nothing effective is being done, it is pointless to fret, as Koonin does, about exactly how much reduction is optimal—the clear answer from climate science is: “The more the better, the sooner the better, and whatever we actually do is apt to be less than what is really needed, though worth doing nonetheless.” Major policy decisions are routinely made in economic and national security areas in the face of far greater uncertainty than prevails in climate science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another study confirms that Antarctic land ice is melting faster than ever.

The scientists used observations from four different techniques to measure the amount and change in rate of ice loss from a region in West Antarctica. This area was already known to be melting at an astonishing rate; a recent study using Cryosat 2 showed that in the period from 2010 to 2013, the region was losing ice to the tune of 134 billion metric tons of ice per year.


http://grist.org/climate-energy/yep-antarctica-is-melting-away-faster-than-ever/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet the Antarctic ice extent is still 700,000 square kilometers above the 1981-2010 average. Astonishing indeed.

The Antarctic ice glacier is melting at a rate 3 times faster than 10 years ago. At that rate the West Antarctic sheet will be gone in 200 years and the SL will rise 16 feet. The floating sea ice has increased in area due to increased precipitation due to GW. Better start thinking about rolling your pantlegs up a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They know the difference between land ice and sea ice, but people like Simple keep trotting that line out like owned politicians. I get why cons and repubs shill for the fossil fuel industry, but what's your agenda Simple? Do you benefit directly from fossil fuel use or do you feel it's your duty as CPC supporter to deny reality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

134 billion metric tons of ice per year.

Is 134 cubic km of ice. The total ice stored in the Antarctic is 26.5 million cubic km. Or if the current melting rates continue it would take 400,000 years to melt entirely.

Once again ignorant alarmists quote stats without context in order to generate headlines. The position of almost every skeptic is not that warming is not happening but that it is nothing to be alarmed about. Factoids like this only serve to support the skeptic case.

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who argue that we can keep on changing the chemistry of our one and only atmosphere until the science is "settled" should be willing to volunteer to be strapped into a rocket and fired into a black hole. You might not die because our understanding of black holes is highly theoretical - the science isn't settled yet.

Who would like to go first?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who argue that we can keep on changing the chemistry of our one and only atmosphere until the science is "settled" should be willing to volunteer to be strapped into a rocket and fired into a black hole. You might not die because our understanding of black holes is highly theoretical - the science isn't settled yet.

Who would like to go first?

Considering that the nearest known black hole is thousands of light years away, sign me up! It'll be a hell of a trip!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eyeball, I claim that I have figured out your name and address from your IP address and using my super awesome hacking skills. Furthermore, I am evil immoral person who will not hesitate to kill you. Put $100 in an envelope and leave it outside your front door at midnight tonight or I will murder you in your sleep.

So you have two options: Leave the envelope or not leave the envelope. I could be lying, but I might also be telling the truth; you are uncertain. If you leave the envelope, the worst that will happen is you lose $100. If you do not leave the envelope, you may lose your life.

Why not apply the precautionary principle and just give me the $100?

I'll be waiting for my $100. As you are a true believer in the precautionary principle, your life should be safe. :)

So, there's an analogy that would be not completely asinine if you could just find a few thousand internationally acclaimed experts who would vouch for your claims.

Or are you telling us that you think we should treat crackpots on the internet the same as a panel of experts in their respective fields?

Tell you what. Issue a retraction and I'll agree not to send your threat on eyeball's life to the RCMP. I'm sure they wouldn't need mad hacking skills to find your IP address.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that the nearest known black hole is thousands of light years away, sign me up! It'll be a hell of a trip!

Well, get going then. I'm sure a few others around here would like to join you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...