World Politics

[Anonymous]

Jeebus! Strawman alert.

Maybe you can point us to a theory that says that global temperatures go up every year so that a year of decline would invalidate the theory.

Really? Where?

 

[Bala Verde]

I'm curious if science uses this belief system and if so why the falsification of the global warming theory would not be valid, scientifically speaking.

First of all, I think you are still missing the point about what 'falsification' really means. Falsification is not the equivalent of saying it is not true So the fact that one can quote scientists who do not trust/believe/or support 'the theory of global warming' does not mean anything in terms of falsification.

Falsification is a logical/scientific process by which weaknesses in thesis, premises, truth claims, propositions, hypothesis, theorems etc. are eliminated so that a stronger explanatory model, thesis, hypothesis etc. remains.

That also entails that one needs to be meticulously precise when it comes to applying the method of falsification.

So before one can start assessing the truth claims, one needs unambiguous propositions that can be tested. For instance, what do you mean with 'the theory of global warming'. That, in itself, is not a testable hypothesis, it's a collection of nouns without a verb, it is a description, or even a reference to something else.

Can you test the truth claim of the following 'collection of words'?

- 'The unicorn's radiant eyes'
- 'Lance Armstrong's dérailleur'.

Hence, the leaked emails you insist on do not falsify anything at all, unless you know what the testable hypothesis is/are.

Curiously, the global warming scientists have not revised their theory even though it has been falsified (using the Poppers arguments). So they are still sticking with "it never rains in Nevada" even though it rains in Nevada, to use your analogy. That's why it's "maddening" to them.

Again, you are speaking in generalities and with a great deal of vagueness, using 'global warming scientists' and 'their theories' which are 'being falsified'. As if 'all global warming scientists' - which is a large collection of diverse scientific disciplines - pretend to purport the exact same proposition(s) in their research.

What is maddening to some scientists is that certain climate models or propositions they use, develop or work with, fail to account for some predictions or observations.

Read this section on Popper

How then does the deductive procedure work? Popper specifies four steps:
[...]

The fact that you insist on the refutation of a theory, because it cannot (yet) account for certain anomalies, would invariably invalidate all scientific knowledge possessed by mankind or would suggest that all newly imagined hypothesis have to be tossed out of the window completely (without revision), because they will encounter inevitable anomalies.

You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater if you really, really believe that by the Popperian principle of falsification a 'theory of climate change' or 'global warming' - which is a reference to a set of truth statements, or propositions - has automatically been refuted by these emails. In a way it falsifies my proposition that you are a rational man.

So now Wiki is off limits?? Can I still use Google?

Wikipedia isn't off limits at all. I was just curious why you didn't reference it, while you generally do provide links to your sources. Were you yourself perhaps hesitant to reference Wikipedia, or did you accidentally forget? My concern lies more with the use of quotes of philosophers (from any source) without understanding what the context is and what the message is they pretend to convey.

For a concise overview of Popper's philosophy see Popper

 

[Laszlo]

Please provide an example of something Rush has backtracked on. Being on the air for over 20 years with more than 20,000,000 listeners per week it should be exceedingly easy for you to do that.

yes it was too easy

http://mediamatters.org/research/200702150004

I am fairly confident that a thousand other examples could be found- it is the nature of his persona to say whatever comes to mind without really considering it; like Mccain saying the American economy was strong and stating the opposite the next day on the campaign trail. Please don't pretend that Rush and Beck are anything other than entertainers; and the number of their followers proves nothing beyond that.

 

[Anonymous]

yes it was too easy

http://mediamatters.org/research/200702150004

I am fairly confident that a thousand other examples could be found- it is the nature of his persona to say whatever comes to mind without really considering it; like Mccain saying the American economy was strong and stating the opposite the next day on the campaign trail. Please don't pretend that Rush and Beck are anything other than entertainers; and the number of their followers proves nothing beyond that.

You've established that you are not a Rush listener. And neither is mediamatters. It's ok.

Kinda like Obama saying he's been to all 57 States but has't made it to Hawaii or Alaska yet? Or the cops acted 'stupidly' (professorgate). And Biden?

I don't pretend anything. You attack, I defend. That's how it goes.

 

[Anonymous]

First of all, I think you are still missing the point about what 'falsification' really means. Falsification is not the equivalent of saying it is not true So the fact that one can quote scientists who do not trust/believe/or support 'the theory of global warming' does not mean anything in terms of falsification.

Falsification is a logical/scientific process by which weaknesses in thesis, premises, truth claims, propositions, hypothesis, theorems etc. are eliminated so that a stronger explanatory model, thesis, hypothesis etc. remains.

That also entails that one needs to be meticulously precise when it comes to applying the method of falsification.

So before one can start assessing the truth claims, one needs unambiguous propositions that can be tested. For instance, what do you mean with 'the theory of global warming'. That, in itself, is not a testable hypothesis, it's a collection of nouns without a verb, it is a description, or even a reference to something else.

Can you test the truth claim of the following 'collection of words'?

- 'The unicorn's radiant eyes'
- 'Lance Armstrong's dérailleur'.

Hence, the leaked emails you insist on do not falsify anything at all, unless you know what the testable hypothesis is/are.



Again, you are speaking in generalities and with a great deal of vagueness, using 'global warming scientists' and 'their theories' which are 'being falsified'. As if 'all global warming scientists' - which is a large collection of diverse scientific disciplines - pretend to purport the exact same proposition(s) in their research.

What is maddening to some scientists is that certain climate models or propositions they use, develop or work with, fail to account for some predictions or observations.

Read this section on Popper



The fact that you insist on the refutation of a theory, because it cannot (yet) account for certain anomalies, would invariably invalidate all scientific knowledge possessed by mankind or would suggest that all newly imagined hypothesis have to be tossed out of the window completely (without revision), because they will encounter inevitable anomalies.

You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater if you really, really believe that by the Popperian principle of falsification a 'theory of climate change' or 'global warming' - which is a reference to a set of truth statements, or propositions - has automatically been refuted by these emails. In a way it falsifies my proposition that you are a rational man.



Wikipedia isn't off limits at all. I was just curious why you didn't reference it, while you generally do provide links to your sources. Were you yourself perhaps hesitant to reference Wikipedia, or did you accidentally forget? My concern lies more with the use of quotes of philosophers (from any source) without understanding what the context is and what the message is they pretend to convey.
For a concise overview of Popper's philosophy see Popper

Wel, well.. for the second straight post you attribute something to me that I did not state. The reality of this situation is the theory has been falsified because the climate is not warming and actually may be cooling. According to Popper the basics of the theory have been falsfied. Do any dance you like. It is what it is.


If the very basis of the climate change theory has been falsified then where does one go from that point? It's actully kind of fun watching and listening to the justifications. Very illuminating in fact.

Certain anomalies? You mean the very basis argument of climate change theory?

Never stated the emails falsify anything. I suggested the earth not warming since 1998 falsifies and the emails merely demonstrate the scientists know it.

Next time I have trouble comprehending something I read I'll PM you for help.

I consider wiki public info so I guess I don't feel much need to source what's there. But I will be sure to do so in the future.

 

[Cobblestones]

This is curious to me. The theory stated man-made co2 unabated causes global warming on a massive scale up to and including "boiling of the oceans". Now, we have not yet implemented cap and trade and the warming stopped all by itself around 1998. The theory as presented has been falsified.

So, man made co2 has 1) no effect, 2) unknown effect, 3)un-unpredictable effect, 4) little effect 5) severe effect on climate change. We are right back where we started EXCEPT for what we are going to do to our economy. It's particularly frustrating when whatever we do to curb co2 MUST be done by every govt particularly India & China or there is no point EVEN if the theory is correct, which it appears not to be.

Logic twisted into pretzel form.

No, the hypothesis is that CO2 will increase average temperatures by a few degrees Fahrenheit within some decades. Even if you have a few colder years in between, it doesn't invalidate the global warming hypothesis. If you look at climate data, there's a lot of noise superimposed on top of the average trend. I don't know what precisely causes the noise and whether it can be simulated at all with computers. Maybe it's just a product of prevalent weather patterns with are random, chaotic, from year to year (month to month, day to day).

I also think that the statement 'global warming stopped in 1998' is false. Let's look at Wikipedia since we all love it. According to the graph, 1998 was an extraordinarily warm year, a large fluctuation above the trend, so it's a bad starting point for comparison. Also 2005 seems to have been quite a bit warmer even than 1998, with 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2007 being practically equally warm as 1998 (meaning what was an outlier then, is the norm now). If you look at the 5-year average, the claim that global warming has stopped since 1998, is not supported by the data.

 

[BroDeal]

Really? Where?

What do you mean where? You are trying to claim that a long term trend is invalidated by a short term hicup. You have forumulated a strawman that global warming means an unbroken yearly increase in global temperatures. You pulled this out of your butt. No one is claiming that except you.

Again, a few out of context statements taken from hundreds of e-mails is nothing compared to the very real questions that the poor quality of their computer code raises.

 

[rhubroma]

Because of a Greek heritage I started reading Greek literature before middle school - I also read my parents college history book from cover to cover by the time I was ten years old (perhaps that is why I found history interesting enough to get a minor in history along with the degrees in political science and psychology). It is from this knowledge base that I can state with complete confidence that you are completely unaware of the lifestyle of the vast majority in the middle ages and earlier.

Yea and I'm a university professor in the material from Classical Antiquity through the Counter-Reformation period in Rome. I think, consequently, I have some grasp of the material.

 

[Anonymous]

What do you mean where? You are trying to claim that a long term trend is invalidated by a short term hicup. You have forumulated a strawman that global warming means an unbroken yearly increase in global temperatures. You pulled this out of your butt. No one is claiming that except you.

Again, a few out of context statements taken from hundreds of e-mails is nothing compared to the very real questions that the poor quality of their computer code raises.

Nice to know you still have an open mind. I'm not claiming anything. I'm not a climatologist. But, I'm not convinced and I'm not a koolaid drinker. I think it might be wise to proceed with caution because there seems to be a fair amount of disagreement within the 'scientific' community.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/02/15/arctic-ice.html

http://www.springerlink.com/content/8j71453650116753/fulltext.pdf

"The late-twentieth century, however,
is not exceptionally warm in the new record: On
decadal-to-centennial timescales, periods around AD 750,
1000, 1400, and 1750 were equally warm, or warmer. The
200-year long warm period centered on AD 1000 was significantly
warmer than the late-twentieth century (p\0.05)
and is supported by other local and regional paleoclimate
data."

Watch for the smell on this one, since you know where it came from (plus it has really neat charts and graphs);

http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf

This one's interesting;

"The IPCC is pre-programmed to produce reports
to support the hypotheses of anthropogenic warming
and the control of greenhouse gases, as envisioned
in the Global Climate Treaty. The 1990 IPCC
Summary completely ignored satellite data, since
they showed no warming. The 1995 IPCC report
was notorious for the significant alterations made to
the text after it was approved by the scientists – in
order to convey the impression of a human
influence. The 2001 IPCC report claimed the
twentieth century showed ‘unusual warming’ based
on the now-discredited hockey-stick graph. The
latest IPCC report, published in 2007, completely
devaluates the climate contributions from changes
in solar activity, which are likely to dominate any
human influence."

http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC-Feb%2020.pdf


Then there's this;

http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC-Feb%2020.pdf

which is supported by this (among many articles available);

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDc0MTY2NmVlOWNiNjc4ODk0NGUzMDE2YTRlMjMxNzc=

"Stephen Schwartz is a pretty mainstream climate scientist. Yet along with dozens of other studies in the scientific literature, his new study belies Al Gore’s claim that there is no legitimate scholarly alternative to climate catastrophism.

Indeed, if Schwartz’s results are correct, that alone would be enough to overturn in one fell swoop the IPCC’s scientific “consensus”, the environmentalists’ climate hysteria, and the political pretext for the energy-restriction policies that have become so popular with the world’s environmental regulators, elected officials, and corporations. The question is, will anyone in the mainstream media notice?"

The answer is of course, NO... because the 'science is in'.


Here's more to suggest a cooling trend;

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/11/19/why-the-epa-should-find-against-endangerment/

But be careful as I have been accused of pulling this out of my backside.


EDIT: I posted a link twice by mistake. Here is the study by Stephen Schwartz;

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Yea and I'm a university professor in the material from Classical Antiquity through the Counter-Reformation period in Rome. I think, consequently, I have some grasp of the material.

Then go back and look at the lifestyle of the majority of those who lived in your town a couple of thousand years ago, not exactly a beacon of culture and hope for the majority.

 

[Cobblestones]

"The late-twentieth century, however,
is not exceptionally warm in the new record: On
decadal-to-centennial timescales, periods around AD 750,
1000, 1400, and 1750 were equally warm, or warmer. The
200-year long warm period centered on AD 1000 was significantly
warmer than the late-twentieth century (p\0.05)
and is supported by other local and regional paleoclimate
data."

The article talks about scandinavian summers. Hardly a global average temperature. Your first two links about sea ice are two years old and arctic sea ice has not grown back.

Again, it is very simple to level criticism at single aspects of the climate models. But the only thing that demonstrates is that scientific debate is not stifled. What you cannot show, because it does not exist, is a sophisticated climate model which does not show man-made global warming.

ETA: just looked at your last link. What a travesty. Corn and wheat yields increasing? Hooray for genetic engineering. Ozone levels decreasing? Using the success of previous environmental measures to argue against new one? That's rich. Heat rate mortality decreasing? Keep those AC units running! Life span increasing? Cheers to improvements in medicine. Let's hope that with UHC that graph gets another boost. Now, what does any of that have to do with global warming again?

 

[Anonymous]

The article talks about scandinavian summers. Hardly a global average temperature. Your first two links about sea ice are two years old and arctic sea ice has not grown back.

Again, it is very simple to level criticism at single aspects of the climate models. But the only thing that demonstrates is that scientific debate is not stifled. What you cannot show, because it does not exist, is a sophisticated climate model which does not show man-made global warming.

Well, it's settled then. Onward with cap and trade.

 

[rhubroma]

Then go back and look at the lifestyle of the majority of those who lived in your town a couple of thousand years ago, not exactly a beacon of culture and hope for the majority.

The issue I raised has nothing to do with quality of life, when quality of life is exclusively based on materialism and the markets. I was refering to culture.

The problem with today's world with it's market economy, is that there exists a certain degree if arrogance and egocentricity with regards to views about not only the past, but also toward societies in the present who are judged inferior simply because underdeveloped.

The market has yes given an higher economic standard to more people than ever before in the history of civilization. Perhaps we might ask ourselves just once though: but at what cost? To me we have paid a high cultural price for our well being. But then again, I'm sure to people like yourself, since culture can't be quantified neatly the way spread sheets and charts do for the economic analysts, such abstraction would seem superfluous and strike even as odd as to why we should be bothered with it at all. Whereas in the past, before the market, culture played a fundamental role in the lives of everybody living at the time, whether among the privledged aristocracy or the common plebs. And believe me even in their misery culture, in the architecture and arts as well as many other things, culture gave something vital that no economic system can replace. And in any case it isn't as if everyone is happy out there today. To the contrary...

 

[Anonymous]

This just in. ……… ……. GWB took 2 days to determine and decide that Huricane Katrina devastated a area of the gulfcoast and demand that FEMA take full control and evacuate what citizens remained in that area,,,,,which = fail

BHO has taken 2 or 3 months to determine he now needs to send more soldiers to fight his just war,,,,,which =fail.

Just wondering what sort of university is this that has decided the entire global warming condition? Is this place up there with Oxford or Cambridge?

 

[CentralCaliBike]

The issue I raised has nothing to do with quality of life, when quality of life is exclusively based on materialism and the markets. I was refering to culture.

The problem with today's world with it's market economy, is that there exists a certain degree if arrogance and egocentricity with regards to views about not only the past, but also toward societies in the present who are judged inferior simply because underdeveloped.

The market has yes given an higher economic standard to more people than ever before in the history of civilization. Perhaps we might ask ourselves just once though: but at what cost? To me we have paid a high cultural price for our well being. But then again, I'm sure to people like yourself, since culture can't be quantified neatly the way spread sheets and charts do for the economic analysts, such abstraction would seem superfluous and strike even as odd as to why we should be bothered with it at all. Whereas in the past, before the market, culture played a fundamental role in the lives of everybody living at the time, whether among the privledged aristocracy or the common plebs. And believe me even in their misery culture, in the architecture and arts as well as many other things, culture gave something vital that no economic system can replace. And in any case it isn't as if everyone is happy out there today. To the contrary...

I guess my attitude is primarily based on the fact that I have had some experience with poverty in the past. I was fortunate in that it was only for a relatively short period of time, but the experience left me with the thought that culture does not provide safety, warmth, or satisfy hunger - while a job can. I also know from experience that culture is available to anyone who desires it in this materialistic society. As I mentioned I read most of the Greek classics before I was in middle school (and I did not own the books, the library provided them to me - again something that was not an option in the societies we have been discussing) and I had the opportunity to partake in as much culture as I found interesting (as long as it did not cost money).

As for happiness, that is more of a personality trait and the way you view the world around you. I do not believe that human personality has changed much over the past millennium or two, and believe that if you could take a step backward in time you would find a significant number of unhappy people in any age.

 

[BroDeal]

As I mentioned I read most of the Greek classics before I was in middle school (and I did not own the books, the library provided them to me - again something that was not an option in the societies we have been discussing) and I had the opportunity to partake in as much culture as I found interesting (as long as it did not cost money).

What??? ZOMG! Don't tell me you took advantage of a socialist service like a public library. Shame on you.

Libraries should be run by private industry. Let the free market decide.

 

[Cobblestones]

Well, it's settled then. Onward with cap and trade.

Let's discuss Obama's Afghanistan strategy then. The global warming thing gets stale.

At least the ozone hole seems to be under control. Not yet shrinking really, but at least no longer growing. There you have a success story concerning man-made changes to the atmospheric composition which were brought under control by international agreements and it's showing fruits (and no economy was destroyed in the process).

 

[CentralCaliBike]

What??? ZOMG! Don't tell me you took advantage of a socialist service like a public library. Shame on you.

Libraries should be run by private industry. Let the free market decide.

Perhaps you have heard, libraries have a long history of private donations.

 

[Anonymous]

The article talks about scandinavian summers. Hardly a global average temperature. Your first two links about sea ice are two years old and arctic sea ice has not grown back.

Again, it is very simple to level criticism at single aspects of the climate models. But the only thing that demonstrates is that scientific debate is not stifled. What you cannot show, because it does not exist, is a sophisticated climate model which does not show man-made global warming.

ETA: just looked at your last link. What a travesty. Corn and wheat yields increasing? Hooray for genetic engineering. Ozone levels decreasing? Using the success of previous environmental measures to argue against new one? That's rich. Heat rate mortality decreasing? Keep those AC units running! Life span increasing? Cheers to improvements in medicine. Let's hope that with UHC that graph gets another boost. Now, what does any of that have to do with global warming again?

The link was in response to the challenge of my assertion regarding global temps from 1998 forward. I posted it specifically for graphs 1a, 1b and 1c.

My intention was to support the suggestion that the globe has heated and cooled over time without respect to the industrial revolution. My assertion all along has been that there is another side to the story and it should be looked at.

I mis-posted a link on that post which I will correct. It has to do with a study by Stephen E. Schwartz regarding heat capacity and the climate system.

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

and a comment on this study by Dr. Ian Wilson “Effectively, this (new study) means that the global economy will spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of ~ 1.0 K by 2100 A.D.” Dr. Wilson wrote in a note to the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee on August 19, 2007. Wilson, a former operations astronomer at the Hubble Space Telescope Institute in Baltimore MD, was referring to the trillions of dollars that would be spent under such international global warming treaties like the Kyoto Protocol.

“Previously, I have indicated that the widely accepted values for temperature increase associated with a doubling of CO2 were far too high i.e. 2 – 4.5 Kelvin. This new peer-reviewed paper claims a value of 1.1 +/- 0.5 K increase for a doubling of CO2,” he added.

 

[Anonymous]

Let's discuss Obama's Afghanistan strategy then. The global warming thing gets stale.

At least the ozone hole seems to be under control. Not yet shrinking really, but at least no longer growing. There you have a success story concerning man-made changes to the atmospheric composition which were brought under control by international agreements and it's showing fruits (and no economy was destroyed in the process).

Until another major volcanic eruption you mean, right?

 

[Laszlo]

Let's discuss Obama's Afghanistan strategy then. The global warming thing gets stale.
QUOTE]

I agree. Circles.

I was saying the other day to my wife that I wouldn't be surprised in light of the refocus on getting Bin laden that he ( bin laden ) might just wind up turning himself in for trial. I think that for him it would provide a better platform for his propoganda than being outted for whatever bounty that there is on his head or just killed like a dog in the wilderness. Putting more pressure on ****stan and increasing military presence in Afghanistan will hopefully help achieve that.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Until another major volcanic eruption you mean, right?

Is it your argument then that because some of the things that damage the planets viability to sustain life are outside of our ability to reduce their impact, that we might as well not bother to do anything about the ones that we could influence?

 

[rhubroma]

I guess my attitude is primarily based on the fact that I have had some experience with poverty in the past. I was fortunate in that it was only for a relatively short period of time, but the experience left me with the thought that culture does not provide safety, warmth, or satisfy hunger - while a job can. I also know from experience that culture is available to anyone who desires it in this materialistic society. As I mentioned I read most of the Greek classics before I was in middle school (and I did not own the books, the library provided them to me - again something that was not an option in the societies we have been discussing) and I had the opportunity to partake in as much culture as I found interesting (as long as it did not cost money).

As for happiness, that is more of a personality trait and the way you view the world around you. I do not believe that human personality has changed much over the past millennium or two, and believe that if you could take a step backward in time you would find a significant number of unhappy people in any age.

Aristotle was once asked by his students whether it was better to be rich or poor. The philosopher responded that it was better to be rich because the poor man needs to spend all of his energies on finding the means to subsistance. Whereas the wealthy man, who doesn't have to worry about basic nutrition, clothing and a dwelling, etc. can devote time to his studies and all the other cultural things which make the human species above that of mere animals.

Aristotle thus found wealth only worthy as an instrument toward cultivating all the other apects of life that make existance noteworthy. By contrast today's materialism makes of wealth not an instrument toward other objectives, ie. culture, but the objective itself. An objective which has replaced all others.

It seems to me that the greatest error of our market society has been to make the accumulation of financial wealth and its translation into material consumption, not even as mere status symbol, but simply the "way to live."
With the result that culture, as Aristotle saw it, has no relevant role in our materialistic lives. This to me seems to be a rather shallow concept of the pursuit of happiness. Whereas the greed that has resulted from such a conception of wealth, places us at serious risk to create a new society of subsistance seekers, the likes of which the market was supposed to have eliminated from civilization - one of those relics of the past you keep reminding me made those eras dramatically inferior to our own.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Aristotle was once asked by his students whether it was better to be rich or poor. The philosopher responded that it was better to be rich because the poor man needs to spend all of his energies on finding the means to subsistance. Whereas the wealthy man, who doesn't have to worry about basic nutrition, clothing and a dwelling, etc. can devote time to his studies and all the other cultural things which make the human species above that of mere animals.

Aristotle thus found wealth only worthy as an instrument toward cultivating all the other apects of life that make existance noteworthy. By contrast today's materialism makes of wealth not an instrument toward other objectives, ie. culture, but the objective itself. An objective which has replaced all others.

Societal wealth allows for the members to make a choice that most citizens in previous cultures did not have - to pursue "culture". I personally understand why some today might not prioritize culture and the elitist attitude that is often associated with it, however, the choice is there.

 

[Anonymous]

Societal wealth allows for the members to make a choice that most citizens in previous cultures did not have - to pursue "culture". I personally understand why some today might not prioritize culture and the elitist attitude that is often associated with it, however, the choice is there.

And the level of wealth we have achieved as a society was done on the back of a mixed economic system which included Socialist principles. Have you thanked a Socialist today?