Originally Posted by The Rani

What I'm advocating is keeping an open mind about other possibilities before jumping to false conclusions.

Does that mean we should accept that UFOs are aliens, that Bigfoot or Ghosts exist, or take astrology seriously?

First Justin suggests "cosmic topology" as a factor that should be seriously. Now you postulate invisible volcanos. One might as well invoke fairies.

Or is Reality no longer important, and does the end of saving the environment justify the means?

What reality. Both of you have exercised your imaginations to dream up objections to an idea that you simply don't like. You have a right to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Nor can you claim the mantle of science when neither of you have had the training to do science--which shows by your poor command of the subject material.

Take your silly comment about how true scientists cannot be dogmatic. So Einstein, Lord Kelvin and Planck--they weren't true scientists?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I guess one might make distinctions between dogma, hypothesis, theory and speculation. The above 'rules' come from "Principia Mathematica," and might well be western science's first principle, the equivalent of base religious doctrines. Most scientists would hold to such as first principles.

Not all questions can be answered by induction. In religious questions, one might endlessly ask at what point in a fetus's development does it acquire a soul, or how many angels may dance on the head of a pin. In moral philosophy, one might ask (for example) the meaning of duty, and get many diverse philosophers suggesting very different definitions with considerable persuasion and thought. In science, or what Newton called natural philosophy, it was hoped that what is being studied is essentially different, that one learns by observing nature. Nature is essentially different from souls, angels or duty, as one can observe and measure Nature.

Justin, Rani and myself allegedly care for the same thing... the integrity of science. How does one keep scientific values solidly practiced without interference from outside political, religious, economic or other values or principles.

My immediate concern is with induction being evaded by hypothesis. If one hypothesizes the existence of invisible stars emitting undetected cosmic rays, said hypothesis is worthless in rejecting existing theories backed by observation, measurement and calculation. Similarly, hypothesizing the existence of stealth volcanoes should not invalidate an entire field of science. This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.

No, one cannot make scientific values universal. There will always be flat earthers, creationists, denialists and their ilk who will make claims totally lacking merit. One should just avoid such people having significant impact on important policy decisions.

IIRC Karl Popper proved that science is based on falsification and that, agreeing with David Hume, Induction cannot justify anything. The real reason most Denialist arguments are BS is because they beat dead horses that have already falsified or insist on a unreasonably extreme degree of corroboration that would lead one to all science being thrown out on grounds of there not being enough evidence if thier extreme skepticism was evenly applied. They are asking for a degree of "proof" of AGW that science cannot give for ANYTHING.

Oops, double post...

Originally Posted by The Rani

Just pointing out that this works both ways.

We all carry the contagion. I was indeed tempted to post something similar myself, but I knew it would feed into the discussion about the discussion, rather than the actual topic.

Thanks to you guys, I've gone from a believer to a skeptic ... though an indifferent one, so it's not a big deal anyway.

I'm glad you're a skeptic. I remain one as well.

Originally Posted by The Rani

What I actually don't like is the screwed-up logic that won't even allow for the possiblity that an idea might be wrong.

And what I don't like is your screwed-up insistence that no one else here is allowing for that possibility, in the face of all the statements to the contrary.

From what I've seen on this thread, which may or may not be representive of the argument in general, the pro-AGW crowd seems like a rather militant and unyielding bunch.

Actually, I see that you are the one who won't yield on the point that you are mischaracterizing the arguments of your opponents.

I keep waiting for you guys to show some impartiality about the issue, but so far it hasn't happened, which makes me more and more convinced that something about it just isn't right.

It has been pointed out time and again that this theory is not etched in stone, that we are working with the best available model we have now, and it could always change in the face of compelling and convincing evidence. You either can't or won't acknowledge this.

I enjoy the tit for tat like anyone but I'd appreciate if someone could tell me where its gonna get colder.

They keep telling us it won't get hotter everywhere but they don't say where.

Ideally, it would be somewhere with cool evenings year round and only a week or two of snow. Also, I'd like to be able to grow the avocados in the yard. I like the guacamole and chips in the summer.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Please show me one statement in this last discussion, other than those made by Justin and me, or sarcastic snarkiness by others, that allows for the possibility that AGW might not be the reason for melting ice in the arctic, and I will gladly take back what I said. Just one. Again, quotes please.

Taylor wrote several days ago:

Nothing is ever settled in science, we can know an approximation of the truth but, since we are finite beings we cannot know with absolute certainty.

Here's an oldie from Robert Reed at the beginning of the thread:

I'm still relatively skeptical of global warming. Yeah, the Earth may be warming, but I have my doubts that humans are to blame for it. I think that Earth warms and cools in cycles. The Medieval Warm Period was still far warmer than today, by up to 2C. Right after that was the Little Ice Age when temperatures dropped to -2C colder globally than today. We may simply be recovering from the Little Ice Age.

M&L (late last year):

...I'm not a true believer in human-caused global warming.

Robert again (4/07):

I am skeptical that human activity is warming the planet. The fact that the issue is being politicized is fueling my skepticism. The fact that lots of scientists are on board with it does give the theory support, but the scientific consensus has proven wrong countless times in history. As warm as temperatures may have been lately, the climate could swing any way at any time. Remember that in 1975, no one was worried about global warming. The big scare was that by 2000, an ice age would begin with the Laurentide ice sheet re-appearing in Canada. In the future, global warming could go the way of the scientific theory of aether, particularly if the planet enters another cool period. Freeman Dyson himself is a skeptic, and we share similar thoughts on the issue.

Brian Rush (4/07):

Actually, you have given voice to the fourth assumption on which science is founded: that we DON'T have complete and perfect knowledge and never will, and so all knowledge must be held tentatively and with the understanding that it may be reversed in the future as knew data are acquired.

Brian again:

Justin, there will ALWAYS be possible causes we haven't elmininated yet. If nothing else, there is always the possibility that some unknown law of physics is operating, or that we're being attacked by a malign alien civilization, or that God is mad at us. This reasoning leads, inevitably, to paralysis in which no action can be taken.

Arkham:

I'm not skeptical of the problem; I'm skeptical of the presumed cause and the political opportunism the problem has generated. My skepticism is not unfounded, as the debate concerning anthropogenic global warming has not been conclusively decided. One side shouting louder and longer than the other does not scientific consensus make, and regardless, if a theory is erroneous, it is erroneous no matter how many people endorse it.

Bob Butler:

Thus, I distinguish between those who respect scientific research and those who honor it only when convenient. We have a peer reviewed process which has produced models accurate to within .1 degrees of the expected noise deviation. That accurate and peer reviewed model includes a .6 degree factor attributed to greenhouse gases. That mechanism is both measured in the real world and echoed experimentally in the laboratory.

I am open to other explanations for that .6 degree signature. I have responded to every attempt to claim another cause, no matter how inept and clumsy, no matter how ignorant or biased the skeptic. I am still open to further attempts of skeptics to hypothesize the existence of another mechanism which just happens to be an exact match for the modeled, observed and peer reviewed effects of greenhouse gas warming.

Skipping ahead to Grey Badger (6/07):

Assume that the sun is causing global warming. Even if that were the case, shouldn't we still be trying not to make matters worse? We can't help the sun, but we can help the situation by doing what little we can.

Yikes. I've just spent the better part of an hour going through much of this thread, and it really does just keep going in circles.

Originally Posted by Linus

I enjoy the tit for tat like anyone but I'd appreciate if someone could tell me where its gonna get colder.

They keep telling us it won't get hotter everywhere but they don't say where.

Ideally, it would be somewhere with cool evenings year round and only a week or two of snow. Also, I'd like to be able to grow the avocados in the yard. I like the guacamole and chips in the summer.

Perhaps, you might want to live in the highlands in San Francisco.

Oddly, while the Northern Hemisphere sea ice has suffered a frightening and severe melting this summer, Antarctic sea ice reached a record high just last month.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Yikes. I've just spent the better part of an hour going through much of this thread, and it really does just keep going in circles.

Thanks!

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Yikes. I've just spent the better part of an hour going through much of this thread, and it really does just keep going in circles.

To me, it feels more like fighting a Dungeons and Dragons hydra being played by a really lazy game master. You chop off one head. You watch the dead body twitch for a week or two. Eventually, another head grows back. One rebuts invisible stars, rebuts solar cycles, rebuts stealth volcanoes... If a denialist has no scientific integrity or concerns for his own reputation, he will just keep coming forward with more junk science, not repeating earlier bogus arguments, but not admitting that he can't defend earlier positions, either.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Venice sucks. Losing Florence would be a lot worse.

What if global warming produces changes that actually give us MORE food, and better real estate? You never know, we might be able to expand up into all those areas in Canada and Russia that are now too cold to inhabit. Not to mention ... Antarctica! Too bad for the polar bears and penguins, but most other animals besides us are already getting wiped out anyway.

Just trying to stay on the positive side.

Baltimore 'sucks', too, but I have no desire to see it go under, either.

I prefer that there be traces of antiquity. We can still learn from it -- and it can still inspire us.

Can you be sure that the food supply will increase?

Think of the American Southeast; without winters it will become tropical. Depending on the projection (essentially based on how the wind patterns develop), it will either become tropical desert or tropical savanna -- neither of which is good for crop production or livestock ranching.

Think of the Argentine pampas and South Africa -- the richest land in the southern hemisphere. Savannas supplanting the only mid-latitude grain belt in the South? There's not much land between 40S and 57S and none to the south of that except for Antarctica.

The temperate climate -- and crop -- zones would practically vanish from the southern Hemisphere. Plentiful oranges and pineapples from New Zealand and Tasmania would be poor substitutes for what is lost.

How do you know that deserts won't spread? Recent forest fires in Greece and Southern California demonstrate the first phase of desertification of once-lush lands should such be the pattern. Florence, Italy just wouldn't be the same if it were in an arid steppe, would it?

Sure, I have seen a suggestion that in one warm phase, the Sahara and Arabia became semidesert on the whole as tropical savannas and grasslands moved in from the south -- good for hunter-gatherers of the time, but hardly for others. Does anyone want to return to the hunter-gatherer stage of development?

You can forget rapid development of the boreal forests of Canada and Siberia. Most of the terrain is terribly infertile and often waterlogged. Antarctica high and dry? What do you expect to grow there?

Global warming is a high-risk crapshoot capable of killing millions during the transition. The worst effects would likely arrive in time for the Crisis of 2100.

Here's a link to stimulate discussion of the possible consequences of global warming. Global cooling is far more dangerous (during the Ice Ages at their worst there wasn't enough plant material to support the food for the current dog population -- let alone the current human population.

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc.html

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Here's a link to stimulate discussion of the possible consequences of global warming. Global cooling is far more dangerous (during the Ice Ages at their worst there wasn't enough plant material to support the food for the current dog population -- let alone the current human population.

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc.html

So maybe the only answer to the Global Warming/ New Ice Age debate is that the current human population is ultimately unsustainable, no matter what we do. In the end hundreds of millions of people are going to die, and there's nothing we can do about it. Best we can is live more sustainably now to mitigate the damage that's coming, so that it's only hundreds of millions rather than billions.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

First Justin suggests "cosmic topology" as a factor that should be seriously. Now you postulate invisible volcanos. One might as well invoke fairies.

Strictly speaking, Mike, both cosmic topology (still waiting for a better alternate terminology for that one...) and vulcanism are known factors influencing climate. Your claim is that, in this particular case they don't matter.

Fairies hardly rise to that level.

Originally Posted by The Rani

What I actually don't like is the screwed-up logic that won't even allow for the possiblity that an idea might be wrong.

It's your logic that is screwed up. Global warming is an observed fact that needs explanation. The melting ice cap is another fact that needs explanation. Since warming conditions (e.g. Spring) are known to be capable of melting ice, the simplest explanation (Occam's Razor) for the fact of melting ice is the fact of a warming world. CO2 doesn't even enter into the equation at all.

Now you are trying to argue that the warming of the Earth didn't melt that ice. You give no facts or logic for such a belief. You simply state that it could be true and demand an open mind. Its the same stance believers in ghosts or ESP take. MY stance is, please provide some evidence for the reality of your alternate melting cause, because until you do, you are no different than ghosthunters. Ghosthunters like to consider themselves as true scientists because they have open minds, but what they really are is cranks.

But first, we have to be honest about what we know versus what we don't.

Yes, I recommend you try it. We do know that warming requires heat and heat melts ice. So a warming Earth ought to see melting ice. YOU are trying to argue that no, a warming planet is not necessarily responsible for melting ice--it could be something else. But you don't posit a reasonable mechanism for this something else. It's not like you didn't try. First you claim an underwater volanco that somehow erupts wihtout leaving a seismic signature like other volancoes of this world. A ghost volanco? Then you say well maybe underwater vents that produce orders of magnitude more heat than vents of this world. Magic vents?

Science restricts its explanation to natural phenomona, things of this world. Invoking the supernatural is not a valid argument. Even if you dress it up in naturalistic grab (like cosmic topology) to make it sound more scientific and less mystical, this doesn't change its essential unnatural nature.

Real world undersea geothermal phenomena do not have the properties you ascribe to them. Therefore you are trying explain a real world observation by invoking the supernatural. You may not be aware that this is what you are doing because the idea that undersea steam vents might melt large amounts of ice miles above them has a certain plausible ring to someone unfamiliar with the relevant science (e.g. most Americans).

The idea that flying saucers could be alien spacecraft has a similar ring of plausibility. After all, if we found a crashed saucer this would be the most likely explanation. And if we discovered a noiseless erupting volcano, it would be a very good explanation for melting ice above it. But first you have to produce the flying saucer or noiseless volcano. Until you do, both remain in the realm of the supernatural.

And in the meantime I will operate based on the assumption that alien spacecraft and noiseless volcanoes do not exist. Such a stance is not a closed mind, but simple common sense.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Strictly speaking, Mike, both cosmic topology (still waiting for a better alternate terminology for that one...) and vulcanism are known factors influencing climate. Your claim is that, in this particular case they don't matter.

Fairies hardly rise to that level.

Cosmic topology as you used it is NOT known to influence climate. In fact the idea that it would influence climate in the way you had in mind is ridiculous. It's very much fairies.

Vulcanism likewise is NOT known to influence climate. The particulates spewed by volancoes on land are believed to affect climate, but not volcanos per se, after all, underwater volcanoes don't spew particulates into the atmopshere, if they are deep enough.

In this case it was the heat output of vulcanism that was invoked as an explanation. Particulates would obviously not apply to a volcano/vent miles under the ice.

The heat output from vulcanism is NOT known to influence climate and so, yes, this one is also fairies.

Just because you dress your fairies in scientific-sounding clothes doesn't change what they are.

Originally Posted by Odin

IIRC Karl Popper proved that science is based on falsification and that, agreeing with David Hume, Induction cannot justify anything.

I don't believe he 'proved' anything. He only proposed a hypothesis that has not yet been falsified.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Strictly speaking, Mike, both cosmic topology (still waiting for a better alternate terminology for that one...) and vulcanism are known factors influencing climate. Your claim is that, in this particular case they don't matter.

Fairies hardly rise to that level.

Cosmic topology is an established theory in that cosmic rays levels are known to vary depending on whether one is located in a galactic arm, or in a void between arms. There is historical data showing large temperature swings at intervals similar to the Earth entering and exiting the galactic arms. There are laboratory experiments showing cosmic rays do help stimulate cloud formation, which in turn causes incoming light to be reflected back to space. While there is disagreement between the galactic arm school and the drifting continent school on relative importance of the two factors, both are accepted as viable theories.

It becomes fairie level nonsense when you invoke galactic arms cosmic ray science to justify changes that occurred over the course of a few decades, claim the existence of changes in cosmic ray levels which are measurable but did not occur in the instrument record, and propose the existence invisible stars which cannot be detected in local space causing these changes which did not occur. Yes, there are massive sources of energy in our galaxy, big booms, and huge radiation releases. Thing is, such massive energy releases are spectacularly noticeable.

Vulcanism is definitely part of climate. Dust release from volcanoes put particles in the air, much as human factories, which again stimulates cloud formation. The Year Without a Summer is a classic example, and the temperature record shows a persistent pattern of several cool years following a major dusty eruption. There is no such similar pattern of warm years immediately following a major release of lava. The amount of energy released locally by hot lava is simply no where near as significant as the amount of energy reflected back into space globally by a change in dust levels.

You seem to be arguing that the well researched and documented cooling effect of dust implies the existence of a warming effect by lava. Yes, vulcanism effects climate, but it causes cooling, not warming. You are going into fairie land when you confuse heating and cooling.

Now, should you find a global survey of geothermal heat sources showing that net global geothermal heat output is maybe cyclical or maybe random, that it changes from year to year or decade to decade, that the amount of variation in geothermal heat release is comparable in magnitude to the variation in solar energy reaching Earth or the variations in cloud cover caused by various sources, I'm with you. Direct heat transfer from vulcan sources might be a neglected factor. Take some data. Crunch some numbers. Estimate the volume of a really big lava release, and calculate the heat per unit volume. Spread the net heat over the volume of the Earth's atmosphere. How many degrees can a really big volcano directly heat the air?

But when you confuse cosmic arms and invisible stars, when you suggest vulcan cooling effects after massively visible dust releases implies the importance of stealth volcanoes, you are showing a lack of understanding of basic heat transfer.

Originally Posted by The Rani

What I actually don't like is the screwed-up logic that won't even allow for the possibility that an idea might be wrong.

I don't know That you are into epistemology, but Odin's invocation of Popper is interesting. No matter how much data is presented, one cannot prove a theory true. However, for a theory to be scientific, there must be a way to test it, a way to prove it false.

Where we may be stumbling is in the denialists attempting to discredit a theory without proving it false. Proposing an alternate theory does not discredit the established theory unless it better explains the data, the observed reality. Proposing a test which might possibly discredit the theory does not discredit the theory. One must actually perform the test.

The disconnect seems to be in the burden of proof. The AGW advocates see in the work of the professionals lots of data gathered, lots of numbers crunched, lots of observations explained. They see an established theory which should only be discarded by conflicting data and/or a better theory that better explains the data.

The denialists might propose an alternate hypotheses, but are not providing data, observations or calculations that verify their alternate hypothesis. They might provide an approach to disproving the main line theories, but don't provide data that would actually disprove the main line theory, or more likely enhance or enrichen it. There seems to be a presumption that the possibility of a future disproof, or the possibility of a future better theory, means that the existing theory should be disregarded or ignored, has already been discredited.

The denialists could have a better champion than Justin. There are points to be raised other than invisible stars or stealth volcanoes that are worthy of discussion and respect. Still, junk science is junk science. I can only answer the discussion points offered.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Yikes. I've just spent the better part of an hour going through much of this thread, and it really does just keep going in circles.

COS, you are truly a ray of sunshine...

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

(snip)

Chill out, dude. If this is about science, as you suggest, you can stop with the ad hom attacks and represent your opponent's position properly. There is a clear difference between a denialist and a skeptic -- as much as there is between a person who claims to have the answer and one who claims that they do not.

Meanwhile, another state of the disaster report... For discussion purposes...

Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere Increasing

Originally Posted by Randolph E. Schmid, AP Science Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Just days after the Nobel prize was awarded for global warming work, an alarming new study finds that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing faster than expected.

Carbon dioxide emissions were 35 percent higher in 2006 than in 1990, a much faster growth rate than anticipated, researchers led by Josep G. Canadell, of Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, report in Tuesday's edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Increased industrial use of fossil fuels coupled with a decline in the gas absorbed by the oceans and land were listed as causes of the increase.

"In addition to the growth of global population and wealth, we now know that significant contributions to the growth of atmospheric CO2 arise from the slowdown" of nature's ability to take the chemical out of the air, said Canadell, director of the Global Carbon Project at the research organization.

The changes "characterize a carbon cycle that is generating stronger-than-expected and sooner-than-expected climate forcing," the researchers report.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Hmmm ... nice example here.

"denialist"

"no scientific integrity"

"junk science"

"bogus arguments"

Allowance for other possibilities, my ass.

If being "open-minded" means accepting statements such as "Venice sucks," then I don't think I want any part of it. A life in Venice is just as precious as one in Florence, Wisconsin, or California.

Science is not "anything goes." It has rules and standards. Even you have your limitations as to the behaviors you'll put up with on this website; i.e., the crap we all just put up with from "New Waver" and what you heard from Wally.

And that's okay.

Science has to be tough and rigorous, or it isn't science.

Originally Posted by 13rian

COS, you are truly a ray of sunshine...

Heh. Thanks.

Actually, it was an educational read. I was intending to look at the meta-discussion and ended up getting interested in the actual science all over again.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Chill out, dude. If this is about science, as you suggest, you can stop with the ad hom attacks and represent your opponent's position properly. There is a clear difference between a denialist and a skeptic -- as much as there is between a person who claims to have the answer and one who claims that they do not.

A few weeks ago, I was called a totalitarian. For a while after a variation on 'environmentalists are nazi' argument is presented, I'll use 'denialist' rather than 'skeptic.' I find it far more truthful to say the denialists are denying something than to say I am advocating totalitarian government. I'm a 'will of the majority checked by the rights of the individual' guy. If the denialists are willing to disown the 'environmentalists are nazi' form of argument, I'll switch back to the word 'skeptic.'

I just find 'invisible stars' much more descriptive than Justin's 'stellar topography.' The (cough) 'theory' centers on radiation that has not been measured coming from stars that have not been observed. There is no way to present such a (cough) 'theory' with any dignity.