Global Warming - What do you think (and tell kids)?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

I went to Charles Lindberg elementary in Little Falls, MN.

 

And you still know nothing about science or the scientific method. The martian climate does not show that climate change on earth is not influenced by humans. That isn't even valid logic, much less science. Species have gone extinct on the earth long before humans existed; does that mean humans can't cause species to go extinct?

 

These same models used in long-term doom & gloom predictions be used to predict climate changes in 5 to 10 years, instead of in intervals beyond my lifetime. Prove to me you know what you are talking about.

 

Prove to ME you know what you're talking about, by citing these models so we can see that they are the same models.

 

Your last message is mostly argument from incredulity, which is another logical fallacy.

[BrentAllen 10]

Where did you attend college?

 

If Mars is warming, what is causing it? Increased sun activity? If so, wouldn't that also cause the earth to warm?

 

Don't lecture me about the scientific method. I doubt you would know it if it bit you in the backside. You apparently don't even know about the models. Here is a clue. Google Jim Hansen and IPCC. One of the elements of the scientific method is the ability to predict future results, repeatedly. I have yet to see this regarding GW. In fact, the IPCC constantly reduces their long-term predictions every time they meet.

Where did you attend college?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

University of Minnesota

 

If Mars is warming, what is causing it? Increased sun activity? If so, wouldn't that also cause the earth to warm?

 

You say that as if all the climatologists will slap their heads in unison and say "we forgot about the sun!"

 

We don't have to indirectly measure the sun's output anyway; we can (and do) observe the sun itself.

 

Don't lecture me about the scientific method.

 

Why not? You obviously don't understand it. You use faulty logic; you use elementary class films as representative of current scientific thought; you argue against humans having the capacity to alter the climate by merely using personal incredulity; you refuse to give a cite for a climate model that you claim is identical to an earlier model that made incorrect projections.

 

I hope you aren't banking on organizations created expressly to dispute global warming, like the World Climate Report, which was created by the Western Fuels Association, an organization that clearly has a vested interest in downplaying the adverse effects of burning fossil fuels.

[BrentAllen 10]

Incredible - you don't even know what the IPCC reports are!! And you have the gall to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about?? What is that saying about it's better to keep your mouth shut instead of opening it and proving something??

 

Go here and read. http://www.ipcc.ch/

 

The IPCC reports came out in 1990, 1995, 2001 and the next one is coming out this year, 2007. The Summary for Policymakers for 2007 is already out. After you have completed your homework, let us know how the temperature predictions changed with each of the reports. Yes, I already know the answer.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Incredible - you don't even know what the IPCC reports are!!

Why do you conclude that, just because I asked you to cite your sources?

 

And you have the gall to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about??

 

Yes. You keep making elementary logic errors.

 

For example, what ever possessed you to state that a film you saw in 3rd or 4th grade indicated that a patent fraud like "psychic surgery" was part of "science"? It never was.

 

You don't seem to have any idea where the burden of proof lies.

 

You argue from personal incredulity, which is not only a common fallacy, there are plenty of known phenomena that are very counterintuitive, so it's clearly not a valid objection.

 

After you have completed your homework, let us know how the temperature predictions changed with each of the reports.

 

Gee, that wouldn't have anything to do with new data or changes to the model, would it?

 

By the way, "do your homework" is another shifting of the burden of proof. If you want to cite what you claimed ("These same models used in long-term doom & gloom predictions be used to predict climate changes in 5 to 10 years, instead of in intervals beyond my lifetime"), you should be able to provide a specific URL, instead of telling ME to do YOUR homework, right?(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[BrotherhoodWWW 10]

Wow! What a whopper of a friendly conversation we have going on here! First things first I'll answer the OP's question. If a Scout asked me what I knew or thought about GW I'd say that yes it could be happening. Some folks think that the western industrialized profit driven world have caused it but it is purely speculation as to the true cause and we likely, well at least myself, will probabaly never live long enough to find out if it is true. The anti-capitalists of the world are having a real problem convincing anyone that we are really running out of oil so the arguement must shift to it's the burning of the oil that is causing the warming, which will lead to more burning of oil to make electric power to cool our homes and workplaces. But we in the NW don't need to worry about that because with sea levels rising there will be more water surface to be evaporated into clouds that will fall in rain and keep the rivers full enough to make electricity with our dams. Of course that's if them pinkos don't tear them all out to try to save some fish that have to find their way back to their native headwaters which have been deforested by the warming and wildfires. Really! Now you see how complex the planets ecosystems are? One little thing can trigger events that make major changes. Just think nature can do that all on its own. Add into the mix that us humans in fact have had at least regional impacts to the environment by our actions; it is possible that we could also be contributing to GW. And yet one big volcano, like Mt. St Helens, can errupt and do more damage, or more properly described, cause more change in a matter of minutes than centuries of man's presence has. In 1980 spring hard wheat in eastern Washington had excellent protein counts which before and since farmers have not achieved on such a broad scale by adding sulphur as a fertlizer. It seems that the volcanic ash that fell supplemented the soil better than modern farming can. Now what really matters is wouldn't it be a great idea to try to leave the earth in the same shape as it was when you were born. Clean water, clean air, fish to catch, animals to watch or hunt, forests to walk upon or harvest in a way that is sustainable? As for oil the economics will take care of that problem all on its own. We will either find more or it will get so expensive that alternatives will be cost effective, either way it will not last forever.

 

Packsaddle wrote: " In fact, a scientist engaged in a good experiment is trying to make observations that provide evidence that can allow him(her) to REJECT an idea. If he fails to find such evidence and if previous evidence supports the idea, then it is tentatively accepted pending further examination."

 

So put another way there is an idea. I'm gonna try to prove that the idea is false. I try many differnent ways to prove that the idea is false and fail so it must be true. That's the scientific method? If Edison would have quit one try earlier he would have proved that a light bulb was not possible? Oh wait a minute he was trying to prove that it was possible, which is why he kept trying things until he found a way to make it work. So isn't the scientific method Start with a hypothisis, try to pro and dis prove that hypothisis and after all that if your data consistantly uphold your hypothsis then you can be fairly certian that your theory is true. Scientific thought changes with time. Perhaps it is sometimes a matter of perspective but the rainbow trout and its reletive the steelhead were named something different than they are today. Taxinomic identification changes as does all science. Fish biologists still do not know why some rainbow head for the sea and some don't. I may be wrong but I think we've been studying fish for a bunch longer than climate. I do think we should be looking for answers about all these things but on any given subject I am skeptical whenever one start to talk of cause and effect and certainty. The debate needs to leave the political arena.

 

What has me scratching my head is if our schools, primary, secondary and colleges are doing such a poor job of teaching science where did all these climatoligists get educated? Did they somehow become experts in the time after their formal education by doing research that withthe methods they learned in that education? Do they have masters degrees? So they got a whole bunch smarter by doing a poor job of teaching undergrads? Do they have doctorates which theygot buy doing a bit more research that they learned the methods of while undergrads and then really learned while they were doing a poor job of themselves teaching undergrads as their PHD teachers were stuck in research? Tell me again when exactly climatology became a dicipline. Methinks economics has been a science for much longer and there are a whole host of differing schools of thought about that. Political Science, perhaps a misnomer, has also been a science for a really long time and yet I am mostly disappointed with some of the idiot ideas these PHDs come up with. Often they are so far wrong about things that I have lived through that I wonder where they were and what they were doing while they were formulating their opinions. My point is that more education does not make one smarter or correct it just means one has more education. But I would bet that most ofthem are better spellers than I.

(This message has been edited by BrotherhoodWWW)

[packsaddle 753]

BrotherhoodWWW, I credit you with bringing up some good topics for consideration as well as asking a few stimulating questions. I will only address a few of them...your supply was rather abundant.

I guess I qualify as one of your 'experts' as in a previous career I was involved with several projects in your region, including the Columbia/Snake and Willamette systems, and others. It isn't the field of climatology but it does interact. And I suspect that people have wondered about the weather as long as they've been catching fish, that 'chicken/egg' comment would be hard to resolve.

When I first completed my degree, working for industry, there were a few misguided administrative types who, let us say, miss-spoke by presenting me to the public as an 'expert'. I was flattered but I at the time I was nothing of the sort. It WAS an eye-opening experience for me to be thrust into that arena and left to fend on my own in the dog fight. And it is one of the reasons I don't automatically trust what industry says today. I matured with experience and healed wounds. In my next career in a government agency (when I did the work I mentioned above), I was again presented to the public as an 'expert'. Indeed, for many topics in my field, by that time I could be fairly characterized that way and the rest of the dogs and I were careful to gage our 'bites' when we entered into adversarial situations. To this day I cringe when someone refers to me as an 'expert'. I wonder, "Am I going to have to fight someone?"

But today, partly because I did have decades of practical experience as well as formal education, I'm now on the education side...and loving it.

Edison was an inventor who did use the scientific method. However, you do touch on an important distinction that many people don't grasp immediately. Scientific method is not creative. Groups of people (committees) are not creative. Individual people are creative. Edison was creative.

However, the list of creative people who were, nevertheless, ineffective because of their lack of discipline would be a very long list indeed. The rigor of the process of science is what allows creative people to test their ideas and as efficiently-as-possible set aside the ones that don't, in fact, seem to work. I would suggest that this is ALWAYS the case, just more quickly for some than for others. On the lucky occasion that someone creates a wonderful, perfect idea first time around, THAT is something to be celebrated. It is rare. The oft repeated saying that genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration is probably close to the truth. The idea of cold fusion (again, my pet example) was created in the minds of two researchers who thought they had discovered a new breakthrough in electrochemistry. The rigor of the process of science has tempered that celebration just a bit and their career paths have been permanently altered. At least they weren't ruined by falsifying results...that brings a career to an absolute end. The best question for a dishonest scientist to practice is, "...would you like to supersize those fries?".

 

Regarding your numerous comments regarding education there does emerge, I think not by design, a sort of triage situation in education. There are some people who, regardless of their instructors, will be self-directing and will aggressively seek academic and professional excellence, if necessary, by sweeping past some of the obstacles you note. I enjoy bringing new opportunities to these individuals and then standing aside to let them run, ready to help if they approach one of the numerous 'traps' that life offers to all of us.

There are also a large number of young persons who, for a variety of reasons, will probably never achieve any significant educational status. I probably don't see many of these as they usually terminate prior to college or even the high school degree.

Between these two groups are the majority of young people who need various levels of instruction and assistance. It is important to understand that while teaching is something often done in a group setting, 'learning' is something that is always done by the individual and all individuals are free to reject what they are being taught. I observe this frequently in spite of the selection process for acceptance to this institution. This occurs universally and all of us who successfully completed degrees remember numerous individuals who didn't make it. I wish them well but they made a choice to take a different path.

I take the attitude that every last one of this middle group has the personal capability to join the first group that I described. And I make sure they have the opportunity to do so...if they choose to. Sometimes, I'm happy to report, the light does come on and they take the plunge. That's pretty cool.

 

Some of the tough questions for educators include how to invest resources for the optimal results given these three groups. I've grossly oversimplified this, I hope you understand. What you observe is a reflection of these conflicting forces as they have been affected by the collective demands of your community. As I've noted in other threads, in this country and under this system, we have the opportunities and usually get what we demand. The flip side is, don't necessarily lay the responsibility for failure on someone else. That responsibility usually goes to the individual as well.

[BrentAllen 10]

Tempest In A Teapot

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

 

Posted 7/25/2007

 

Global Warming: A private firm's downgrade of its hurricane forecast raises an obvious question: If scientists can't get near-future projections in a limited area right, how can they predict the climate decades from now?

 

A reasonable response is: They can't. But the global warming climate of fear did not blow in on the soft breezes of reason, but by the storm winds of emotion.

 

Forecaster WSI Corp. said Tuesday that the season ending Nov. 30 will bring 14 named storms, six of which will grow into hurricanes, three of them major. WSI's initial forecast was for 15 named storms, eight hurricanes and four majors.

 

Why the change? "Because," said WSI forecaster Todd Crawford, "ocean temperatures have not yet rebounded from the significant drop in late spring."

 

Could it be that the 2007 hurricane season is turning out to be as overrated as 2006? Remember last year's predictions that we were in for a brutal spell of storms? It had been quiet, they said, and we were due for a series of Katrina-like hurricanes. But as we wrote last November, as the much-dreaded '06 season whimpered to a close, the storm year came in like a lamb and went out the same way.

 

For years, the Greenshirts have told us that emissions of carbon dioxide resulting from man's addiction to fossil fuel-based energy are turning the planet into a sweltering hothouse. The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change has projected a temperature increase of 2 to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit for the 21st century due to the greenhouse effect.

 

As a result, alarmists say, ice caps will melt, glaciers will thaw and sea levels will rise as much as 20 feet, causing floods and death in low-lying areas. Storms are also predicted to increase in both frequency and intensity.

 

To prevent this coming Category 5 cataclysm, we're supposed to shell out trillions of dollars and gladly adopt Spartan lifestyles. Instead of trying, as their grandparents did, to see how many bodies they can squeeze into a telephone booth, today's college kids are expected to see how many they can get in a Prius.

 

Yet the fact remains: The local weatherman can't forecast more than about 10 days out, and neither can the experts tell us how warm, or cool, the planet is going to be in 2100, 2075 or even 2050.

 

Even short-term predictions have been off. James Hansen, NASA scientist, predicted a 0.45-degree Celsius (0.81-degree Fahrenheit) rise in global temperature from 1988 to 1997. But in reality (a place environmental activists rarely visit) the increase was a mere 0.11-degree Celsius.

 

We hope no one in Hansen's neighborhood relies on him to tell them when it's going to rain or when they'll need a coat and hat.

 

Setting aside the hubristic notion that alarmists know what the right temperature is, too many other factors besides the greenhouse effect influence climate for them to declare they know exactly, or even approximately, what's coming. Solar activity, for instance, is among the most powerful, as are the El Nino and La Nina phenomena.

 

We also question the concept of a "global" temperature. How could such a thing be measured when weather stations dot rather than blanket the Earth? Danish physicist Bjarne Andresen, a professor at the University of Copenhagen, made sense earlier this year when he said it's "impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth.

 

"A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system (and) climate is not governed by a single temperature," he said. "Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. , which make up the climate."

 

The formula for a climate of fear, though, requires nothing more than a lot of thunder and a bit of heat generated by political activists.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Yeah, I get MY science news from unsigned editorials in economic newspapers all the time...

 

I'm surprised the editorial doesn't also berate the ability to predict rain on the grounds that these predictions are often wrong and don't specify where each raindrop will fall.

[BrentAllen 10]

Gee, I thought you got your science news from out of work politicians.

 

Did you ever take the time to read all of the IPCC reports, and notice what happened to predictions each time they issued a new report? I didn't think so.

 

Where, exactly, do you get your science news? Specifically.(This message has been edited by BrentAllen)

[Gunny2862 11]

Okay, I get it, Apparently I'm a backward non-scientist and I will probably be disclosed as a buffoon in the field of logic too. At least in this thread. But where is this fallacy of incredulity coming from?

 

In my limited experience the great fallacies are:

 

Ad Ignorantiam(from Ignorance)(hasn't been proved true, or proved false - then claiming the other)

Ad Verecundiam (False Authority)(Subject matter expert in a different field)

Ad Hominem (Against the Person)( argument is directed against the person vice the argument)

Ad Populum (to the People)(forget the evidence if I can distract the crowd and win them over)

Ad Misericordian (a pitying heart)(altruism)

Ad Pabulum (to the stick) (appeal to force)(veiled or indirect threat)

and Colorations Elenchi(mistaken proof) (proving the wrong point - misapplied, or over generalization)

 

So is the fallacy you are using really a fallacy or were you trying to apply one of the one's above? If so, which one?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Well Brent, I haven't been quoting out-of-work politicians as any sort of authority on global warming; I've only been pointing out where you use unsigned editorials in economic newspapers or personal anecdotes about 3rd grade classes as representative of the current state of science. I prefer peer-reviewed science periodicals for real science news. And you have yet to do your own homework and cite the predictions that you say exist - you keep telling ME to go find support for YOUR claims. Sorry, you made the claim, you come up with the support. And that doesn't mean just a domain name, you can copy & paste URLs that specifically support your claims as well as I can.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Gunny, argument from incredulity is a variation on the argument from ignorance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_personal_incredulity

[Gunny2862 11]

Thanks

[BrentAllen 10]

In the spirit of open scientific debate...

 

Inside the Beltway

John McCaslin

July 27, 2007

Getting hotter

 

The head of the Environmental Protection Agency says he will investigate a threatening letter sent by the leader of an EPA-member group, vowing to "destroy" the career of a climate skeptic.

 

During a Capitol Hill hearing yesterday, Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican and ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, confronted EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson about the strongly-worded letter written July 13 by Michael T. Eckhart, president of the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) that was sent to Marlo Lewis, senior fellow of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

 

"It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar," Mr. Eckhart wrote. "If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on."

 

CEI does not dispute climate change, however it differs with certain environmental groups, including ACORE, on the causes. After Mr. Inhofe read Mr. Eckhart's comments, which were first reported by Inside the Beltway two weeks ago, the EPA chief promised to probe the matter.

 

"Statements like this are of concern to me. I am a believer in cooperation and collaboration across all sectors," Mr. Johnson assured. "This is an area I will look into for the record."

 

When Mr. Johnson confirmed that EPA is a member of ACORE, Mr. Inhofe asked if "it is appropriate to be a part of an organization that is headed up by a person who makes this statement."

 

Late yesterday, Mr. Inhofe announced he will send letters to the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, and EPA, urging them to "reconsider their membership of ACORE."

 

Based in Washington, ACORE's mission is to increase the use of renewable energy. Its 400-plus "paying" organizational members come from government, financial institutions, trade associations, academia, and other professional services.

 

Besides ACORE, Mr. Eckhart is co-chairman of the World Council for Renewable Energy and a member of the Clinton Global Initiative. Previously, he was CEO of United Power Systems; vice president of the venture capital firm Arete Ventures; a General Electric manager; and a principal of Booz Allen Hamilton's energy practice.

 

In a written response sent to Inside the Beltway last week, Mr. Eckhart apologized to "all the public who were offended" by his choice of words. He said he intended his letter to be a "private communication" in the context of "personal combat and jousting."

 

However, this column earlier this week published another letter Mr. Eckhart sent in September to CEI President Fred Smith, saying "my children will have a lesser life because you are being paid by oil companies to spread a false story."

 

He said he would give CEI, which advocates "sound science," 90 days to reverse its "position" on global warming, "or I will take every action I can think of to shut you down," including filing complaints with the Internal Revenue Service "on the basis that CEI is really a lobbyist for the energy industry."