Originally Posted by Mikebert

I don't buy numerology, astrology, young-earth creationism, "fat burning" pills, or generational dynamics. I also don't believe that alien spacecraft are visiting the Earth or that bigfoot exists. I will continue to disbelieve in these things unless convincing evidence is produced (e.g. an alien spacecraft is found). So yes, my mind will remain closed to all the "science" surrounding these things until such evidence is presented.

As a physician do you have an open mind to fat burning pills, or "scientific diets" that claim that its not how many calories you eat, but when you eat them that matter? That you can eat as much as you want, not exercise, and lose 11 lbs in 9 days?

You are saying that I should be open minded about fat burning pills, yeti, astrology and other codswallop? I could just nod my head and say "hmm, you have a point there" whenever someone serves out climate pseudoscience. Isn't that patronizing? Is that what you want me to do, humor you?

It's always a pleasure to hear from you, Mike.

Sincerely,

John

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I don't buy numerology, astrology, young-earth creationism, "fat burning" pills, or generational dynamics . . . [Emphasis Added]

Hey, there is room in rational discussion for simple war cycles.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

You are saying that I should be open minded about fat burning pills, yeti, astrology and other codswallop? I could just nod my head and say "hmm, you have a point there" whenever someone serves out climate pseudoscience. Isn't that patronizing? Is that what you want me to do, humor you?

Great point, save that it's coming from one who swallows hook line and sinker the present-day "man-made global warming" crap. "Codwallop" indeed. To think that it was just a few years ago, scientists were sounding the warning about the "coming ice age."

Eh, it all ties together nicely, global warming is caused, or a result (ie.' consequence to) of our cooling planet!

Now, it's time for those loser "anti-war" Democrats to get off the non-Iraq War story and back to the real reason we're all gonna die!

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Hey, there is room in rational discussion for simple war cycles.

Keep on patronizing and misrepresenting, Sean. I already attempted to answer the questions you asked me to... so feel free to respond if you can stay away from the ad hom attacks.

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...d.php?p=199162

Originally Posted by 13rian

I belive this is a gross mischaracterization of our "side".

I think The Grey Badger summed it up best: Pascal's Wager

So, applying Pascal's Wager, "it's better 'bet' to believe that" man-made global warming exists "than not to believe"?

Sir, that ought to be a "gross mischaracterization" of science itself, let alone a purely philosophical position. That you claim the direct opposite, though not surprising, is indeed shockingly illuminative.

You've simply rendered your brain completely inoperative on this matter, sir. For you, the issue of "man-made global warming" is a religion.

Yech!

Originally Posted by The Rani

Justin and Mike, interesting discussion, but just to be clear, you are taking it waaayy farther than I had originally intended.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Sorry, but I'm getting as bored with the Figure Out The Rani's Brain show as Mr. Cartoon was. Just think of me as the evil clown, if it makes things easier.

This is why I did not respond to your original thing on arctic melting. I didn't think you were making a serious proposal, worthy of looking up data and performing calculations on. It felt to me like your typical snarky 'evil clown' post. Mike and I are just a bit odd that way, in believing that if you state a scientific hypothesis, one ought to be able to back it up with data and a bit of number crunching. Making scientific assertions without thinking one should have to get serious about defending them will bring out our own dark sides.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I was gonna leave this one alone, but screw it, I just have to point out that making an analogy to medicine is a really baaddd choice here. In medicine, there are laboratory studies, clinical trials, and patient experiences, all of which provide data that can be used in the name of scientific progress. However, there is no such thing as "consensus," which is why there IS such a thing as seeking a second opinion, and why no physician loses their license simply because their preferred method of treatment represents a minority position.

No, but there are lawsuits when the patient dies. A doctor who ignores common practice as blatantly as the 'skeptics' while regularly losing patients does lose their license... and much else. The difference is that with the global warming problem, there is only one patient and dire consequences if the patient is lost.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

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.

The scientific optimum would be a double-blind test -- but because of the obvious cost of such a test, such is impossible. Almost everyone in science knows about global warming, so finding anyone experimentally blind will be difficult.

So far the cause of global warming denial relies more upon rhetoric than upon science. That should be suspect in itself. Anyone can spout scientific jargon; experiment (ideally double-blind so that the experimenter has no idea of the results that are being sought) or at least empirical analysis are legitimate science.

Some claim that global dimming from pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide (some of the substances of smog, as seen infamously in greater Los Angeles) partially or completely undo the effects of increased greenhouse gas. There's a huge fault with those pollutants: that they are harmful to children and other living creatures.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I was gonna leave this one alone, but screw it, I just have to point out that making an analogy to medicine is a really baaddd choice here. In medicine, there are laboratory studies, clinical trials, and patient experiences, all of which provide data that can be used in the name of scientific progress.

I gave a real-life example: "fat burning pills". They are advertised. They often don't say what is in them. I doubt that anyone has spent resources to actually rigorously test every single one of these things in controlled setting. I suspect most people simply figure they are a scam. They are not open minded about them at all. I was asking your position, what would you say if asked by a friend about whether or not these things are for real? Do you have an open mind and say, I don't know perhaps you should try them, or do you warn them off?

Do you have an open mind about e-mails from Nigerians? Maybe this one isn't a scam? Being open minded blends into gullibility at some point.

Originally Posted by The Rani

In the same way that it is not about global warming, it is not about generational dynamics either.

Wowwow.

Originally Posted by The Rani

No, you just have to put it in context. My comment about "scientists losing their scientifity" was a reply to cartoondude making a statement about scientists being the "consensus," which as far as I'm concerned is not an appropriate or objective way to conduct science.

However, when more and more scientists run experiments and their results start looking similar to each other, then I think it's safe to say that a consensus is being reached. It appears to me that this is what is occurring with the question of global warming.

Not all of the questions have been answered, of course. And the research will continue.

Not all "modern scientists" make that mistake, which was how Mike chose to rephrase my comments. Not all "modern scientists" agree with AGW, either, so why the heck would I make a blanket statement like that anyway?

I think you're trying to make an issue out of something that doesn't really exist in the actual scientific world -- whether you're just doing it for the sake of being contrary, or to entertain yourself, or because you like to stick it to certain posters here. Every once in a while you appear to take the subject seriously, but then you get bored and just decide to start messing with people. And that annoys folks who do want to discuss the topic in a serious manner.

Sorry, but I'm getting as bored with the Figure Out The Rani's Brain show as Mr. Cartoon was. Just think of me as the evil clown, if it makes things easier.

I think it's more that you're starting to get uncomfortable, and your defense mechanisms are kicking in, such as hiding behind characterizations that other posters have given you.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I was gonna leave this one alone, but screw it, I just have to point out that making an analogy to medicine is a really baaddd choice here. In medicine, there are laboratory studies, clinical trials, and patient experiences, all of which provide data that can be used in the name of scientific progress. However, there is no such thing as "consensus," which is why there IS such a thing as seeking a second opinion, and why no physician loses their license simply because their preferred method of treatment represents a minority position.

Are there any physicians that you know of who would prescribe fat-burning pills for their patients?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

So far the cause of global warming denial relies more upon rhetoric than upon science.

That pretty much sums it up for me in a nutshell.

Originally Posted by The Rani

In the same way that it is not about global warming, it is not about generational dynamics either.

Damn, now I'm going to have to go back all the way through that thread too...

Anyone familiar with the attempt to switch to green power? This would be having energy provided by the wind and sun. This is being done now, and the Tennessee Valley Authority has become a leader in this. For more you can check out www.greenpowerswitch.com. Anyone know if other power providers around the country are also cashing in on this? This is a great idea and should be a step in the right direction.

Originally Posted by The Rani

No, you just have to put it in context. My comment about "scientists losing their scientifity" was a reply to cartoondude making a statement about scientists being the "consensus," which as far as I'm concerned is not an appropriate or objective way to conduct science.

Mr Cartoon dude didn't say that was an appropriate way to conduct science. What he is doing is what nonexperts generally do when confronted with a claim which they cannot directly verify.

Fat burning pills is a good example. We burn more calories per hour when we are sitting in a chair watching TV than when we are asleep. Yet we are not aware of this greater burn rate, the extra heat it generates. Suppose there was a pill that raised our sleeping metabolic rate to the level we have sitting in a chair. We might use a few less blankets at night, but otherwise we wouldn't notice any problem with the higher metablic rate (again as far as a layman knows).

From a layman's perspective, since we often know folks who like to sleep in cold rooms, it is possible that some people might naturally have a higher sleeping metabolic rate than others. Such people would burn more fat naturally. Since we often know people who claim they can eat anything and never gain weight, we might suspect that metabolic rates do vary between people (and those born with high rates can stay thin effortlessly).

So from a layman's prespective, it shouldn't be flatly impossible to find a way to deliberately increase a persons basal metabolic rate by say 20% and let them burn off a pound of fat a week effortlessly. Presumably, that is what fat burning pills, or fat burning diets, or whatever, are claimed to do.

Lacking the relevant expertise, the layman cannot determine that fat burning pills do not work on a scientific basis. He can, however, surmise that they don't work, because a safe and effective drug that let you lose weight effortless would be HUGELY profitable drug. We would ALL know about such a drug. So if the pills really worked why are they only available by mail order from a distributor with no fixed address?

In other words, laymen routinely make determinations of the truth of claims by referring to the consensus opinion of those who ought to know. For the fat burning pills, the fact that a consensus of drug companies doesn't buy this claim (they aren't selling them) is good evidence that the claims about the pills are false.

How do those who do sell the pills address the vote of no confidence by those who ought to know? They will refer to the dogmatism, close-mindedness and bias of the medical profession and the conspiracy of drug companies to keep you fat and unhealthy so they can sell you other drugs as reasons for why they don't sell fat-burning pills. Those who want to believe in effortless weight loss will buy the pills and the scamsters will have found their mark.

The layman goes through the same process when considering the truth claims of the global warming skeptics. If cosmic topology can explain recent warming then mainsteam climate scientists should embrace the idea. That they do not suggests this idea is as truthful as the claims for the fat burning pills. Those who advance the idea, like the pill peddlers, will claim that the "scientific community" is biased or close-minded about their product. In the end, as with the fat-burning pills, it comes down to what you want to believe.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

So far the cause of global warming denial relies more upon rhetoric than upon science.

Sorry to break it to ya, but ya got it backwards... The onus of proof is on your side, not ours.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

How do those who do sell the pills address the vote of no confidence by those who ought to know? They will refer to the dogmatism, close-mindedness and bias of the medical profession and the conspiracy of drug companies to keep you fat and unhealthy so they can sell you other drugs as reasons for why they don't sell fat-burning pills. Those who want to believe in effortless weight loss will buy the pills and the scamsters will have found their mark.

I think this is why Kevin Trudeau titled his book "Natural Cures 'They' Don't Want You To Know About." He sexes up the subject by positing conspiracy theories, and he does sell a lot of books. Never mind that there are plenty of other books out there on alternative medicine whose authors don't need to look for skeletons in the medical establishment's closet.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I don't buy numerology, astrology, young-earth creationism, "fat burning" pills, or generational dynamics. I also don't believe that alien spacecraft are visiting the Earth or that bigfoot exists. ?

Hey, there is room in rational discussion for simple war cycles.

Keep on patronizing and misrepresenting, Sean. I already attempted to answer the questions you asked me to... so feel free to respond if you can stay away from the ad hom attacks.

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...d.php?p=199162

Ad hominem? Who did I personally attack? If you read my post backwards do I call someone the devil or something? It seems you would prefer that I compare generational dynamics to "numerology, astrology, young-earth creationism, fat-burning pills" and/or "bigfoot". It actually has more merit than that in my opinion . . . as a simple war cycle.

Thank you for the link, I had lost track of where we were with all of that.

BTW, snarkiness does not automatically equate with ad hominem. But if you want an expert opinion, ask The Rani.

Originally Posted by zilch

Sorry to break it to ya, but ya got it backwards... The onus of proof is on your side, not ours.

Proof?

Does anyone disagree that the air in the ice cores going back 600,000 years show that the Co2 level in the air stayed in a range of 170 to 290 ppm during that whole time?

Does anyone disagree that the Co2 level was around 265-270 ppm through the entire holocene up to c.1870?

Does anyone disagree that the Co2 level is now 390 ppm and rising very quickly?

Does anyone disagree that this rise exactly coincided with the Industrial Revolution?

Does anyone disagree that an enitre Antarctic ice shelf melted and the Arctic polar cap is melting when both easily survived the Holocene Maximum?

I don't think anyone can disagree with the above unless they also are of the type that thinks Satan planted the dinosaur bones in the Earth to trick us into disbelieving Archbishop Ussher.

And . . . more and more (heck, even the National Review!) agree that global warming is occurring.

Now if we apply Ockham's Razor and consciously try to avoid Ptolemaic explanations, the "onus" changes sides. But if you believe Satan hid those WMD's in Iraq . . . .

Originally Posted by The Rani

Exactomundo. Someone back in this thread was talking about "scientific proof" meaning making a hypothesis and then trying to prove it wrong. Which is true, but it's the burden of the scientist to conduct experiments that prove his theory right, NOT the critics!

Huh? Prove it right or prove it wrong. Make up your mind.

Actually the first statement is right. The proponents of global warming bear the burden to try to prove it wrong. To do this the scientist needs to show that another cause can explain all or at least some of the warming. This is why alternate hypotheses explaining the warming are needed. The scientist then examines each to see if they can explain the warming. If they can, then the GW hypothesis is disproven.

So we had an alternate that said that galactic cosmic rays could have decreased over the last 30 years and that producing the warming through the cosmic ray-cloud interaction. Galactic cosmic ray intensity has not changed over this period. In addition a rapid change would require a very close source, far closer than alpha centauri. none of been detected and they would be quite obvious. So this explanation doesn't work.

Undersea geothermal activity was advanced as a possible explanation for shrinking ice caps. The magnitude of the heating is too small compared to other forcings for this mechansim to play an important role. So this explanation doesn't work either.

Other explanation are need to do the job of falsification. As long as none can be found, the AGW theory remains unfalsified and so provisionally valid.

That's the way science is supposed to work. Theroes can never be proven right. The most successful ones simply remain provisionally correct indefinitely. After a long time has passed and it remains unfalsified it becomes considered as something close to a fact.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Ad hominem? Who did I personally attack? If you read my post backwards do I call someone the devil or something? It seems you would prefer that I compare generational dynamics to "numerology, astrology, young-earth creationism, fat-burning pills" and/or "bigfoot". It actually has more merit than that in my opinion . . . as a simple war cycle.

Thank you for the link, I had lost track of where we were with all of that.

BTW, snarkiness does not automatically equate with ad hominem. But if you want an expert opinion, ask The Rani.

I wasn't referring to this thread. You're welcome.

Originally Posted by zilch

So, applying Pascal's Wager, "it's better 'bet' to believe that" man-made global warming exists "than not to believe"?

Sir, that ought to be a "gross mischaracterization" of science itself, let alone a purely philosophical position. That you claim the direct opposite, though not surprising, is indeed shockingly illuminative.

You've simply rendered your brain completely inoperative on this matter, sir. For you, the issue of "man-made global warming" is a religion.

Yech!

once again, you've gone too far. all you've done is expose your prejudice that you view people who are willing to listen to scienctific opinion on man-made (or man-accelerating) global warming are are a bunch of barking liberal seals who couldn't possibly have a nuanced view on the matter like you "independent thinking" types.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The scientific optimum would be a double-blind test -- but because of the obvious cost of such a test, such is impossible. Almost everyone in science knows about global warming, so finding anyone experimentally blind will be difficult.

So far the cause of global warming denial relies more upon rhetoric than upon science. That should be suspect in itself. Anyone can spout scientific jargon; experiment (ideally double-blind so that the experimenter has no idea of the results that are being sought) or at least empirical analysis are legitimate science.

There have been at least three technical attempts by the forum's "skeptics" to use science rather than rhetoric. Just briefly reviewing...

Stellar Cartography. It is broadly accepted that cosmic rays increase cloud formation, that clouds reflect light back into space, with a result of cooling. It is broadly accepted that when the planet is in the galactic arms, we get more cosmic rays than when we are between them.

It has been suggested by skeptics that recent global warming has been in part caused by changes in cosmic ray levels.

Two problems... First, cosmic ray levels can be measured, and they have not changed.

Second, stars change position relative to one another only very slowly. It takes millions of years to move between a galactic arm and a void. Changes that manifest in a period of centuries or decades would require a cosmic ray source that is very large and/or very close. Thus, when we return to the 'stellar cartography' argument, one must ask why have no cosmic ray background radiation levels changed, and what are the proposed sources of said unobserved cosmic ray changes? Lacking answers to such basic questions, those who follow the main line climate science will... um... not be pleased.

Solar Variation : If the sun gets warmer, so does the Earth. The sun's intensity does vary. 'Skeptics' alleged that the standard models emphasize the importance of greenhouse gasses, while not sufficiently crediting the role of the changing sun.

In the first half of the 20th Century, the sun observably increased its output. It stayed steady in the second half. Starting in the mid 20th Century, there was a vast increase in the release of greenhouse gasses. Temperatures have been going up steadily, both during the increasing solar period, and the increasing greenhouse period.

Main line climate science assigns weighted factors to the importance of both solar and greenhouse. If you change the constants that correspond to these factors, you get worse match between theory and data. The main line climate scientists have just come up with much stronger much more robust numbers than anything the 'skeptics' have been able to propose.

Geothermal Heating : We just did this one. The 'skeptics' suggested geothermal heat might have melted the Arctic ice caps, without providing much in the way of numbers or sources. The main line advocates think data and sources are important. The stronger weight should not be given to the side with the wilder idea, but to the side which provides the best data and calculations to back up their idea.

***

I don't want to go too wild with the UFO and bigfoot comparisons. Still... show me the source of the alleged cosmic rays, show me the picture of the UFO, show me the Arctic volcano, show me the data where the sun's strength is increasing in the 2nd half of the 20th Century, show me a Bigfoot hide...

***

At another level, we have arguments about how to argue. On the table...

Burden of Proof. The bulk of the peer review literature is backing the human influence. As lay people in the field, it would be a lot to expect us to criticize and correct professional work. Zilch just proposed ex cathedra that the burden of proof is on the human causing warming advocates to show that the professional are correct. I would suggest the opposite.

When lots of time, energy and effort has gone into developing a field of science, the way to change the field is with new data the old theory does not explain, or a better theory that better explains the old data. The 'skeptics' are unable to provide the data. I just reviewed three of their top theories. I'm open to more of either theory or data.

Conspiracy Theories and Ad Homs : The other primary element is to attack the motives of those saying something one doesn't like. This is not entirely a one way street. Skeptics will quote minority scientists opposing the global warming hypothesis. One answer is to 'follow the money trail,' to say said scientists work for such and such a research group, which is finance by yon Big Oil corporation. While following money trails and questioning motivations might need be part of the picture, it doesn't seem to me it should be a decisive element. Simply alleging an academia wide conspiracy theory doesn't seem like much of an argument. Alleging the existence of a vast left wing conspiracy seems a poor excuse for throwing away an entire field of science. Slander should not replace science.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Some claim that global dimming from pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide (some of the substances of smog, as seen infamously in greater Los Angeles) partially or completely undo the effects of increased greenhouse gas. There's a huge fault with those pollutants: that they are harmful to children and other living creatures.

Dimming is becoming a significant part of the main line theories. One concern is that it is far easier to scrub out the dimming pollutants from factory emission than the greenhouse pollutants. Developing countries such as China and India are currently using old style factories which release about 2 doses of warming greenhouse gasses for every 1 dose of cooling dimming agents.

But China and India are significantly suffering from the medical effects of the dimming agents. As you say, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and the sooty particulates are harmful to children and other living creatures. China, India and similar countries will almost certainly soon start deploying the same sort of stack scrubbers used in the West. When they do this, they will be releasing ever increasing amounts of heating greenhouse pollutants along with decreasing amounts of cooling dimming pollutants.

Thus, even with conscious efforts to reduce fossil fuel use, from a global warming perspective, the mix of pollutants being released is very likely to get much worse before it gets any better. The 'skeptics' delaying tactics, effectively delaying and reducing the response to a real concern, are very problematic.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Borrrrinnggg ...

But if you must know, your amateur psychology sucks big time, as usual.

Okay, you're just being rude, then.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Exactomundo. Someone back in this thread was talking about "scientific proof" meaning making a hypothesis and then trying to prove it wrong. Which is true, but it's the burden of the scientist to conduct experiments that prove his theory right, NOT the critics!

You're so right. And that's exactly what's going on, while the critics play with their conspiracy theories and their straw men.