|
|
Post by socold on Aug 17, 2009 13:41:13 GMT
Yes I do read skeptic blogs. There is one skeptics blog called "Whats up with that" which I often read. For anyone who hasn't seen this blog before take a look. Yesterday what caught my eye was the following post: Burt Rutan: engineer, aviation/space pioneer, and now, active climate skepticwattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/16/burt-rutan-engineer-aviationspace-pioneer-and-climate-skeptic/A powerpoint presentation is provided outlining why he is skeptic of manmade global warming. We are told: "My study is NOT as a climatologist, but from a completely different prospective in which I am an expert. Complex data from disparate sources can be processed and presented in very different ways, and to “prove” many different theories. For decades, as a professional experimental test engineer, I have analyzed experimental data and watched others massage and present data. I became a cynic;" So imagine my suprise when I opened the powerpoint presentation to find it consisted solely of copy-pastes of various graphs taken from skeptic blogs. That's right, rather ironically the very powerpoint presentation that claims to be an analysis of data and how it is interpreted and misused suffers from exactly that problem. It's ironically a lesson in how not to be a skeptic. For example Slide 8 pushes the fallacy that "humans emit only 3% of co2". Anyone familiar with this issue knows why that argument is false. But anyone unfamiliar with the issue might be unaware of those details. This highlights something important - simply being an expert at data analysis, interpretation and how it is used/misused is not enough to analyze this issue. Domain specific knowledge, in this case of the carbon cycle, is critical. It's not enough to be a data expert to become a skeptic, you must become familiar with at least some fundamentals of climate. Another example (there are more, but I am picking ones that are easier to explain for brevity of this post) is slide 14. This slide presents a graph which again contains another albeit less well known fallacy, but you would need domain specific knowledge about surface records to spot it. The fallacy in that graph is the depiction that global temperature records average absolute temperature, which might be what someone unfamiliar with climate science would assume. But in reality global temperature records take the more sensible course of averaging anomalies, not absolute temperatures, so the cited removal of "cold stations" would not. Additionally anyone familiar with climate would recognize the global temperature depicted on that slide in which a large jump occurs in 1990 does not match actual surface temperature record graphs which contain no such jump in 1990. So there are at least two ways for someone slightly familiar with the subject of climate change to doubt the slide's argument. What we have amazingly enough is a lack off skepticism in that powerpoint presentation. Various graphs and plots pulled from skeptic websites and blogs have been uncritically accepted without any sign of skepticism. It's almost as if a blanket assumption has been made that if something comes from a skeptic site there's no need to be skeptical of it. Which brings me to my final thought for the day. How is it that the blog itself didn't spot these errors in the powerpoint presentation? How come none of the commenters did*? There are even comments suggesting the powerpoint slide should be passed to politicians as informative. Must we conclude that none of these individuals are familiar with the subject of climate change? How odd for a blog that professes to follow the issue. Is there another explaination for how this presentation that is fundamentally flawed has been given a free pass? I don't think so, I think it's a combination of wilful ignorance and passionate denial of climate change. They know it's false so there's no need to read up on any aspect of it. And this is the sorry state of skepticism today. *I did leave a comment on the blog pointing out the "3% co2" fallacy on slide 8, mainly because I wanted to confirm my "fears" but also because I wanted to see if perhaps comments critical of the presentation were simply not being published. True to my suspicions two commenters replied challenging me to back up my assertion. But frankly if they are ignorant of the "3% fallacy" there is no hope for them. There is a wealth of information out there about it and anyway basic understanding of this issue necessitates understanding human perbutation of the carbon cycle so ignorance can be no excuse for any skeptic. |
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Aug 17, 2009 15:09:57 GMT
socold, I have a lot of sympathy for your point of view. Unfortunately, there are excesses on both sides of the issue. Science, of course, is the loser. I recently wasted 25 dollars Cdn on Ian Plimer's book. I got through a chapter and a half before his arrogant style completely put me off. I notice George Monbiot has challenged him in writing, and I suspect George is correct.
I despair of where this is all going. I just hope that when all this is settled, we can go back to the real science, with no politics.
|
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Aug 17, 2009 15:37:26 GMT
socold, I have a lot of sympathy for your point of view. Unfortunately, there are excesses on both sides of the issue. Science, of course, is the loser. I recently wasted 25 dollars Cdn on Ian Plimer's book. I got through a chapter and a half before his arrogant style completely put me off. I notice George Monbiot has challenged him in writing, and I suspect George is correct. I despair of where this is all going. I just hope that when all this is settled, we can go back to the real science, with no politics. Don't kid yourself. Science has always been about political power and money. Same as it has been for centuries. Science ( and religion also, btw ) have always been merely tools to accomplish those power and wealth goals, and hence the survival and/or growth of a society/culture; sometimes at the expense of another, sometimes not. "How" they are used to those ends is the only question. |
|
|
|
Post by elftone on Aug 17, 2009 18:08:22 GMT
socold, I was one of those who challenged you on the 3% fallacy. Not because I automatically believe the sceptical viewpoint , but because blanket responses from either side of the argument don't do anything other than stir things up, cause bad feeling, and entrench people's positions on the subject. I do remember having a discussion on this board (I believe it was with you - if I'm wrong, I apologise) in the past about people pursuing their own research and making up their own minds. The counter to that was that the field was simply too large for the layperson to draw reasonable conclusions in a reasonable amount of time, and - therefore - laypeople should accept what experts present. I still disagree with that, again from both sides of the the climate change debate, and say that information is key to the whole subject.
To simply say "these arguments are flawed" is not enough... back it up with proofs, and lay into the subject from there. Knowing how people reading a certain blog are likely to respond to a certain tactic, and then pursuing that certain tactic to confirm one's suspicions is ultimately pointless. A bit like going to The Carlisle pub in Hastings and jostling Big Jim's elbow when he's trying to drink his pint...
I hadn't looked at the presentation at that point, and frankly I now wish I hadn't looked at it afterward. It was not the "professional presentation" the post claimed it to be; it was haphazard, badly designed, and contained nothing (that I could see) that was original. It also appears to be linked to a political (right-wing, but that's not the point - they're all extreme to a degree) think-tank, and that's another no-no for me. This should be about the science, not who you vote for.
I have great respect for Burt Rutan as an aircraft designer (him, not me). But that's it, especially now.
|
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Aug 17, 2009 20:09:21 GMT
the fallacy that "humans emit only 3% of co2". Anyone familiar with this issue knows why that argument is false. But anyone unfamiliar with the issue might be unaware of those details. Not a subject i know much about so i did a search. I quickly found a site that said it was a fact that man made C02 was causing global warming because the amount of some isotope of carbon has not risen in 10000 years and it is rising now. I then thought about iceages. They then mentioned 1850 and man made C02 and i thought of the ending of the little ice age. But apparantly because i dont dismiss these thoughts from my mind i am a skeptic What is my lesson? Is this why it seems so important that the little ice age never existed? |
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Aug 17, 2009 20:46:25 GMT
SoCold said today:
"For example Slide 8 pushes the fallacy that "humans emit only 3% of co2". Anyone familiar with this issue knows why that argument is false. But anyone unfamiliar with the issue might be unaware of those details."
You know, for once SoCold, you are right. 3% IS wrong. It is way too high.
|
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Aug 17, 2009 21:16:49 GMT
What is it, 385 ppm or thereabouts? Try a little experiment. Pile up 1 million jelly beans ( your favorite flavor ). Eat 385 of them and see if you can tell the difference in the remaining pile.  |
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Aug 18, 2009 1:48:40 GMT
socold,
You said, "Yes I do read skeptic blogs.
There is one skeptics blog called "Whats up with that" which I often read. For anyone who hasn't seen this blog before take a look. Yesterday what caught my eye was the following post:...."
That would be more credible if you at least got the name right.
Additionally, focusing on one disagreement you have, the 3% claim, when it is not at all established you are correct, as an excuse to dismiss someone like Rutan, does nothing to offset the hit you give yourself from the get go.
Frankly you do nothing to persuade at all. In fact, you only show more and more clearly that AGW is a social movement, not a science at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 19, 2009 6:56:05 GMT
For example Slide 8 pushes the fallacy that "humans emit only 3% of co2". Anyone familiar with this issue knows why that argument is false. But anyone unfamiliar with the issue might be unaware of those details. Socold we just had this discussion here. You couldn't bring forward a single study that establishes the long term presence of CO2 in the atmosphere. Others here produced dozens of studies showing a short residence of CO2 in the atmosphere but you doggedly hold to the IPCC position through a duplicitous logic for which you have no experimental support whatsoever. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 19, 2009 9:11:57 GMT
And this is the sorry state of skepticism today. Nice post socold. Sadly, repeatedly restating misrepresented information, and claiming that somehow noone has spotted the flaw in the case has always been a key part of denialism, not scepticism. It often doesn't matter whether the information is true, misrepresented or false as long as the case is made that the information somehow fundamentally undermines the science, and that amazingly, none of these "so-called" experts have noticed, or alternatively, they are "suppressing" the facts for political reasons or because they are on the "climate research gravy train". Finding experts in other fields to present these factoids seems to be a recent phenomenon presumably to try and give more respectability to the underlying implication of the Oregon petition and Inhofe's 400, that anyone with a qualification is entitled to an equal hearing in any area of scientific research. Of course, by pointing out that this is denialism rather than scepticism will bring the accusation that I am attempting to suppress debate, which is ironic because the sole intention of these folk is to suppress and delay any sort of sensible debate. |
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Aug 19, 2009 10:06:51 GMT
And this is the sorry state of skepticism today. Nice post socold. Sadly, repeatedly restating misrepresented information, and claiming that somehow noone has spotted the flaw in the case has always been a key part of denialism, not scepticism. It often doesn't matter whether the information is true, misrepresented or false as long as the case is made that the information somehow fundamentally undermines the science, and that amazingly, none of these "so-called" experts have noticed, or alternatively, they are "suppressing" the facts for political reasons or because they are on the "climate research gravy train". Finding experts in other fields to present these factoids seems to be a recent phenomenon presumably to try and give more respectability to the underlying implication of the Oregon petition and Inhofe's 400, that anyone with a qualification is entitled to an equal hearing in any area of scientific research. Of course, by pointing out that this is denialism rather than scepticism will bring the accusation that I am attempting to suppress debate, which is ironic because the sole intention of these folk is to suppress and delay any sort of sensible debate. Funny how you two want to more or label people as criminals because they dont agree with you while announcing that you are the guardians of truth. Meanwhile here in Finland we had an officially below average june and july. And August, which traditionally is hot, is cold with a high here at 61N midday of 15 degrees and overnight low of 9. Even my wife is finally talking about it being too cold. Back in 1946 the US Navy was talking about the 'mental Hazard from story books which are written to sell' of assuming the arctic was a cold and difficult place when the NW passage was 'generally accepted' to be open about one month per year. wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/northwest-passage-news-article.pngFurther it seems the Northern Hemisphere has been warming for almost two centuries. And it warms and then it gets cold again in a short term trend so far of warming. But by the 1970's researcher were already apparently rewriting history by telling people it was a myth that Hudson bay did not freeze over prior to the 1940's pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic24-2-90.pdfKnowledge of just the very fundamental aspects of Hudson Bay’s ice cover, namely that it freezes over virtually completely each winter and melts completely each summer, came relatively recently. Previous to the 1940’s, the accepted view
was that extensive shore ice formed  And according to wiki the earth is getting colder with polar ice caps only being present in the last 15 million years in a period of time spanning 500 million years of no polar icecaps. Anybody who announces it is warming because of X or cooling because of Y has probably a 50:50 chance of being correct. Meanwhile they are equally likely probably to be incorrect for decades or even centuries or even millions of years. |
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Aug 19, 2009 12:05:21 GMT
Nice post socold. Funny how you two want to more or label people as criminals because they dont agree with you while announcing that you are the guardians of truth. ......................... He/they are just following the lead of people like Harry Reid, who recently referred to vocal opponents of the health bill as "Terrorists". I have no doubt that he (Reid ) and other true believers & supporters of cap and tax will use the same or similar labels in reference to anyone who disagrees with that particular political agenda also. If I had the money I'd go to Copenhagen this Dec just to watch the political circus. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 19, 2009 13:12:59 GMT
Nice post socold. Funny how you two want to more or label people as criminals because they dont agree with you while announcing that you are the guardians of truth. ......................... He/they are just following the lead of people like Harry Reid, who recently referred to vocal opponents of the health bill as "Terrorists". I have no doubt that he (Reid ) and other true believers & supporters of cap and tax will use the same or similar labels in reference to anyone who disagrees with that particular political agenda also. If I had the money I'd go to Copenhagen this Dec just to watch the political circus. Sen Reid wouldn't know where to hang his hat if a hat rack was inches away. There is an implossion coming with the AGW idea, I can sense it. The science is not even close to what anyone with an ounce of brain cells would call "Good Science". No matter how much climatologists etc protest that they are looking for other reasons for warming/cooling, their mind is made up and their papers tilt that direction so the money keeps flowing to them. There are growing cracks in their ideology. As I have stated before, I used to think that AGW was correct, until I really started studying the underlieing science. To say I was dismayed at the preposterous lack of quality control in all of this is an understatement. I don't like being, how shall I put this nicely......misled by people who by their study should know better. History is always a precursor of the future. WHEN and IF we even get close to being warmer that past history indicates, THEN I will get concerned. But a few degrees C one way or the other is just natural flucuation. Climate is chaotic, has always been because of the dynamics. To think you can model it with no understanding of that fact is purely ludicrous. A slab works great in a driveway because it is a stationary thing. IT does not work at all in climate because climate is so fluid. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 19, 2009 14:40:08 GMT
Nice post socold. Sadly, repeatedly restating misrepresented information, and claiming that somehow noone has spotted the flaw in the case has always been a key part of denialism, not scepticism. Funny how you two want to more or label people as criminals because they dont agree with you while announcing that you are the guardians of truth. So you've incorrectly said that I have labelled certain people as criminals and you've incorrectly said I've announced myself as the guardian of truth. Ironically that is another denier tactic - you need to watch yourself before you get sucked in. As to the - "it's cold around here - this global warming stuff is just nonsense" - sort of talk, even I say things like that. |
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Aug 19, 2009 15:00:15 GMT
What sounds more like the truth...
Steve:
Sadly, repeatedly restating misrepresented information, and claiming that somehow noone has spotted the flaw in the case has always been a key part of the AGW agenda.
It often doesn't matter whether the information is true, misrepresented or false as long as the case is made that the information somehow fundamentally undermines the science, and that amazingly, none of these "so-called" experts have noticed, or alternatively, they are "suppressing" the facts for political reasons or because they are on the "climate research gravy train".
Finding experts in other fields to present these factoids seems to be a recent phenomenon presumably to try and give more respectability to the underlying implication of the Oregon petition and Inhofe's 400, that anyone with a qualification is entitled to an equal hearing in any area of scientific research.
Of course, by pointing out that this is denialism rather than scepticism will bring the accusation that I am attempting to suppress debate, which is ironic because the sole intention of these folk is to suppress and delay any sort of sensible debate.
Or This:
Sadly, repeatedly restating misrepresented information, and claiming that somehow no-one has spotted a flaw in their case has always been a key part of the AGW agenda.
It often doesn't matter whether the information is true, misrepresented or false as long as the case is made that the information somehow fundamentally supports the science of AGW, amazingly, none of these "so-called" experts care that they are suppressing the facts for political reasons or because they are on the "climate research gravy train".
Finding “experts” in other fields to present these factoids seems to be an ongoing phenomenon presumably to try and give more respectability to the underlying illusion of consensus, that anyone with a qualification is entitled to an equal hearing in any area of scientific research.
Of course, by pointing out that AGW movement is political activism at its worst, not settled science will bring the accusation that I am attempting to restart the debate when the debate is already “Settled” , which is true because the sole intention the AGW position is to suppress and delay any sort of sensible debate.
|
|
