|
Puzzle
Mar 22, 2010 10:25:14 GMT
Post by steve on Mar 22, 2010 10:25:14 GMT
Steve the Omniscient Says: "The only reason that previous "natural causes" are so "mysterious" is that we weren't there to see what is going on."LOL! So how did you test this hypothesis Steve? Steve the fully-evolved homo sapiens, huh? Maybe we create a special species for our ancestors. . . .Presteve Sapiens! ROTFLMAO! Hmmm...I think the subtlety of what I said (it wasn't *that* subtle) went over your head.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 22, 2010 11:44:26 GMT
Post by nautonnier on Mar 22, 2010 11:44:26 GMT
nautonnier You might want to review the logic of that statement before I use it to bring down the whole of modern science. "You might want to review the logic of that statement before I use it to bring down the whole of modern science."But you have already done that steve. As in: A can cause B B has occurred Therefore A caused B Is not a scientific approach in an open system. In this case we appear to have A might cause B B might have occurred therefore A caused B We have had this discussion on formal Validation for some time and you repeatedly revert to the "logic" of this second type. i.e. CO 2 has been shown to scatter IR and might raise atmospheric heat content Atmospheric heat content might have increased ( Note temperature is NOT heat content)Therefore CO 2 increases the Earth's heat content This is not good hypothesis design, as it mixes variable types and metrics and it mixes experimental environments and therefore the conclusion is unsupported. I am sure you could do better
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 22, 2010 12:51:34 GMT
Post by steve on Mar 22, 2010 12:51:34 GMT
Nautonnier
Rejecting *any* hypothesis *just* because you have past evidence of B occurring without A occurring (or without evidence of A occurring) is a logical fallacy that could be used to undermine many accepted tenets of science.
Assuming that A has probably caused B is not illogical in an open system if you have physical and empirical evidence that A would cause B (which we have), and if you assume you have a reasonable understanding of the open system. That latter assumption is a judgement call, not a logical issue.
If you have evidence of B being caused in the past by something that you are not currently measuring, then your judgement can be questioned.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 22, 2010 15:41:07 GMT
Post by icefisher on Mar 22, 2010 15:41:07 GMT
Rejecting *any* hypothesis *just* because you have past evidence of B occurring without A occurring (or without evidence of A occurring) is a logical fallacy that could be used to undermine many accepted tenets of science. No reason to reject conjecture. There is an element that would suggest men be allowed to do nothing until they prove they can do no harm. Its a recipe for extinction.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 23, 2010 2:30:13 GMT
Post by nautonnier on Mar 23, 2010 2:30:13 GMT
Nautonnier Rejecting *any* hypothesis *just* because you have past evidence of B occurring without A occurring (or without evidence of A occurring) is a logical fallacy that could be used to undermine many accepted tenets of science. Assuming that A has probably caused B is not illogical in an open system if you have physical and empirical evidence that A would cause B (which we have), and if you assume you have a reasonable understanding of the open system. That latter assumption is a judgement call, not a logical issue. If you have evidence of B being caused in the past by something that you are not currently measuring, then your judgement can be questioned. "Assuming that A has probably caused B is not illogical in an open system if you have physical and empirical evidence that A would cause B (which we have), and if you assume you have a reasonable understanding of the open system. That latter assumption is a judgement call, not a logical issue."Exactly - and a ' judgment call' is unfalsifiable. One person points out that there are D - Z other variables that could all cause B. while the original experimenter insists as an article of faith and judgment that only A can cause B. Insistence and judgement calls are not scientific proof they are more akin to tenets of a faith. This works both ways - and is as important for people blaming CME or sunspots or whatever to be aware of.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 23, 2010 10:23:22 GMT
Post by steve on Mar 23, 2010 10:23:22 GMT
nautonnier
No it's not "unfalsifiable"! If you identify a new phenomenon and provide plausible evidence of its impact based on physical laws and empirical correlation, then it may undermine the judgement, or change the form of the judgement. It doesn't mean that the judgement call was bad or done for illogical reasons.
If you are prepared to demand evidence to the ultimate level, then the counterdemand is to ban all burning of fossil fuels until the evidence for their long term safety is home and dry. Steve McIntyre is always demanding an engineering quality study of the risks of CO2, but he seems happy that we continue to emit it even though he thinks we haven't got such a study yet.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 23, 2010 11:38:37 GMT
Post by nautonnier on Mar 23, 2010 11:38:37 GMT
nautonnier No it's not "unfalsifiable"! If you identify a new phenomenon and provide plausible evidence of its impact based on physical laws and empirical correlation, then it may undermine the judgement, or change the form of the judgement. It doesn't mean that the judgement call was bad or done for illogical reasons. If you are prepared to demand evidence to the ultimate level, then the counterdemand is to ban all burning of fossil fuels until the evidence for their long term safety is home and dry. Steve McIntyre is always demanding an engineering quality study of the risks of CO2, but he seems happy that we continue to emit it even though he thinks we haven't got such a study yet. "plausible evidence" and one man's plausible is another man's implausible Thus this cannot be used as a 'proof' as it is yet another 'judgement call' You then revert to the precautionary principle. OK - so now you want to 'ban CO 2' despite evidence from the past that it has been higher without a tipping point causing the Earth to fry and that it a product of almost all living thing's respiration and plants will die in levels 200ppm or less. On that level of the precautionary principle - you should immediately stop eating as your food HAS bacteria in and on it that provably cause some fatal disease _and_ almost certainly contains some carcinogens and poisons. The precautionary approach applies to trace chemicals in the the liquids you are drinking - so stop that too until you have absolute proof that they are safe. Oh and while reading this don't allow your hands to touch or scratch any part of your or anyone else's body - they are covered in streptococci and staphylococci and those can lead to Necrotizing fasciitis. While we are about it - you should definitely NOT let sunshine reach your skin ... Oh and stop breathing have you realized how many fatal diseases are caused by airborne pathogens.......... As you can see the precautionary principle becomes illogical and rarely makes sense unless there is a REAL PROVABLE RISK and that the cost should the risk be true outweighs the potential costs of accepting the risk.The discussion here is that the AGW proponents can NEITHER demonstrate a real risk NOR can they agree on what the outcomes would be should that risk be true. Some are apocalyptic visions of every littoral city in the world being flooded with sea levels rising tens of meters and simultaneous droughts and floods, others that the sea level may rise a centimeter and there will be more intense storms. However there are also many provable arguments that a rise in temperature and CO 2 would be positively beneficial to life on Earth. This is the reason that warm periods in the past are called OPTIMUMS. What IS known is that the COST of avoidance of the indeterminate outcome of a little higher CO 2" is HUGE and will almost certainly lead to the collapse of many industries and perhaps whole economies. A risk analysis therefore would say there is no reason to be overly concerned. The best argument for reducing reliance on fossil fuels is that they are running out. so fast that it will not be possible to 'double CO 2' the IPCC bogey man, due to Henry's law and the fossil fuel reserves depletion rate. This is also a good argument for nuclear power - but people with your precautionary principle approach want all that shut down too.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 23, 2010 13:00:03 GMT
Post by steve on Mar 23, 2010 13:00:03 GMT
Plausible means demonstrating that a link can (physics) and does (empirical) exist to a sufficient level that you can convince other knowledgeable people.
Part of showing plausibility is to respond to people's questions, comments and criticisms, and to refine your theory. It does not involve having a hissy fit because, to take a phrase from the machine "the IPCC priesthood think I'm a heretic and are more interested in creating a world socialist government."
Obviously it is also true that some scientists will seek to undermine a competing theory either for what they see as valid scientific reasons (most of climategate) or for unjustified reasons (arguably Mann's view suppressing Briffa's expressed uncertainty about NH temperatures?).
I would suggest that since a plethora of convincing *and* unconvincing competing theories do regularly make it into the public domain, it is unlikely that a convincing theory could be adequately suppressed in our current world. (I am oversimplifying this point as the so-called consensus includes many aspects and many scientific arguments and controversies).
We are then left with a system for judging plausibility that has in the past on the whole been valuable and effective in advancing human comfort. So again, it is not enough just to argue that some dependence on "plausibility" and "judgement calls" wholly undermine things.
No. I'm pointing out that waiting for the possibility of a new phenomenon to come along and save the day is another application of the principles that underlie the precautionary principle - "better safe than sorry" is a blunt sword with two edges.
PS. You know very well that the following misrepresents the position from start to finish.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 23, 2010 14:57:52 GMT
Post by icefisher on Mar 23, 2010 14:57:52 GMT
No it's not "unfalsifiable"! If you identify a new phenomenon and provide plausible evidence of its impact based on physical laws and empirical correlation, then it may undermine the judgement, or change the form of the judgement. It doesn't mean that the judgement call was bad or done for illogical reasons. Steve if its wrong its bad judgement. Only in kindergarten do you get "Nice try Stevie!" After that they are supposed to start putting some "responsibility" into the curriculum.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 23, 2010 15:49:28 GMT
Post by steve on Mar 23, 2010 15:49:28 GMT
No it's not "unfalsifiable"! If you identify a new phenomenon and provide plausible evidence of its impact based on physical laws and empirical correlation, then it may undermine the judgement, or change the form of the judgement. It doesn't mean that the judgement call was bad or done for illogical reasons. Steve if its wrong its bad judgement. Only in kindergarten do you get "Nice try Stevie!" After that they are supposed to start putting some "responsibility" into the curriculum. Only in Sunday School do you get such a distinction between good and bad. After that, you realise that most decisions are based on imperfect information in an imperfect world, and if you don't risk being wrong sometimes you don't get anywhere. Now who said something like that recently
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 23, 2010 23:58:17 GMT
Post by icefisher on Mar 23, 2010 23:58:17 GMT
Steve if its wrong its bad judgement. Only in kindergarten do you get "Nice try Stevie!" After that they are supposed to start putting some "responsibility" into the curriculum. Only in Sunday School do you get such a distinction between good and bad. After that, you realise that most decisions are based on imperfect information in an imperfect world, and if you don't risk being wrong sometimes you don't get anywhere. Now who said something like that recently You don't even operate like that. In the real world people are accountable. What we have done is build an imaginary world where people make a mistake and bureaucracy gives them another grant. But if a plumber comes into your home and tells you you need all new piping and you get somebody else to prove to you don't you don't call ever ever ever ever call the first plumber again. He lives in an accountable world.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 24, 2010 10:57:39 GMT
Post by steve on Mar 24, 2010 10:57:39 GMT
As it happens, a couple of years ago a friend (an amateur plumber) told another friend that he should get his pipes replaced when he got his bathroom redone. The plumber refitting the bathroom said "no they're fine". My other friend now frequently has to clean out his toilet cistern, his boiler gets blocked and cuts out, and his new bath is stained with rust from the pipes. The plumber is happy because he got his money for the bathroom refit, and didn't get his hands too dirty.
If they are wrong, how accountable will the executives of Exxon etc. and the coal and motor industry be for their decisions to fund lobby groups to stop emissions control and get tax incentives? If you want them to be accountable, will you be supporting Hansen in his call for trials when they turn out to be wrong? Will I live to see retired former exectutives being dragged out of their expensive homes high above the water line to make living space for the residents of New Orleans?
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 24, 2010 12:43:17 GMT
Post by northsphinx on Mar 24, 2010 12:43:17 GMT
Steve; And If Hansen et al is wrong?
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 24, 2010 13:39:17 GMT
Post by scpg02 on Mar 24, 2010 13:39:17 GMT
As it happens, a couple of years ago a friend (an amateur plumber) told another friend that he should get his pipes replaced when he got his bathroom redone. The plumber refitting the bathroom said "no they're fine". My other friend now frequently has to clean out his toilet cistern, his boiler gets blocked and cuts out, and his new bath is stained with rust from the pipes. The plumber is happy because he got his money for the bathroom refit, and didn't get his hands too dirty. If they are wrong, how accountable will the executives of Exxon etc. and the coal and motor industry be for their decisions to fund lobby groups to stop emissions control and get tax incentives? If you want them to be accountable, will you be supporting Hansen in his call for trials when they turn out to be wrong? Will I live to see retired former exectutives being dragged out of their expensive homes high above the water line to make living space for the residents of New Orleans? You really have no clue who is funding AGW and why do you? As for oil company accountability, Clinton took care of that. See the Natural Resource Defense Counsel pushed MTBE on us and Clinton signed an executive order that they can't be held accountable for the damage this has done. That same executive order would protect Exxon as well.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 24, 2010 15:55:29 GMT
Post by steve on Mar 24, 2010 15:55:29 GMT
This discussion is going off the rails. The proposition is that since we don't know for a 100% fact that CO2 will cause damaging warming, it remains unproven and therefore we should do nothing about it.
The proposition has come about because I have tried to paint nautonnier into a corner by showing that it is reasonable to claim that the belief that CO2 is likely to cause damaging warming is based on good science, and that the belief that something else is causing the warming is based on bad science or no science. It is therefore reasonable and logical to suggest that politicians consider action to limit the risks.
The alternative proposition is that since science rarely or never comes up with 100% facts we should therefore do nothing about anything. And that to do so (icefisher's input) should open up anyone who acts on this science to pillory if things don't go as planned.
Of course I don't doubt that there will be a lot of scientists losing their jobs and credibility even if something completely unexpected comes out of the woodwork to undermine the science. I'm not arguing that they be given gold-plated payoffs because they "tried hard" even if they were doing a good job in their particular area of the science.
|
|