Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Rainfall will be capricious. Most projections show more rainfall in places that already get it in excess and less where there is just barely enough for crop production. Precision is hard to achieve, but as a rule if some place in the subtropical zone with a summer maximum gets 18" of rain in a year (which is marginal but useful -- as in parts of Spain and Greece), then a 75% reduction of rainfall leaves only 4.5" a year. Such reduced rainfall would make a desert.


I saw a model of 'moving' estimates of climatic realities (both temperature and precipitation). Winters would become far less severe in subarctic locations and those areas would become decidedly more rainy. Those areas generally get little precipitation, especially in winter, because the intensely-cold air holds practically no water vapor. I saw huge percentage increases in precipitation in the southern parts of the Sahara and southern Arabia, indicating an expansion of the equatorial zone. I saw increases of rainfall in some tropical areas including the Philippines that would likely get the increase in the form of typhoons. But I also saw winter rainfall practically disappear in most areas of Mediterranean climate (rainy winters, dry summers). The Mediterranean Basin lost most winter rainfall (which is about all that it gets) and becomes hotter. Likely analogue: the area around the Persian-Arabian Gulf.

I had to turn quantitative descriptions into qualitative descriptions. It would be far easier if one could translate the model into the standard Köppen climate classification, then one might expect most of Greece to go from Csa (hot-summer Mediterranean climate) to BWh (hot desert as in Egypt), Bulgaria and Serbia to go from Cfa (warm subtropical mid-latitude climate with fairly-even distribution of rainfall) to BSh (hot semi-desert as in the fringes of the Arabian Desert) as rains fail, and a band of Europe from southern Ireland to Ukraine get hot-summer Mediterranean climates.

Or maybe this: northern Indiana goes from the corn belt to the cotton belt. Georgia becomes known for oranges instead of peaches.

That's nice. Irrelevant to my questions, but nice.

My descriptions are qualitative. If I made a verbal error -- the models of climatic change are quantitative estimates.

Bullshit. Here are your exact words: Our attempted predictions, even if based on quantitative data, can give only qualitative results.

That is not a " verbal error".

Nobody made such a claim. But there are some norms of human behavior. Unless someone has come to so despair of the world as to hate life, everyone resists death. Such is normal everywhere.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Bullshit. Here are your exact words: Our attempted predictions, even if based on quantitative data, can give only qualitative results.

That is not a " verbal error".

In the last several pages you have gotten away from talking about observation of nature and modeling of nature and become obsessed with definition of words. Some trolls use this technique when they have lost an argument and don't want to admit it. Frankly, I'm not sure this is the case here as I've lost track of the point you are trying to make.

Yes, computer models produce only numbers. They would be quantitative. Still, looking at the numbers, it takes little to no imagination to know that the quality of life would change given the numbers. One ought to be able to talk quality of life in a Global Warming discussion. The Global Warming problem is about politics as much as it is science.

I'm trying to figure out if you really are as obsessive about language as you appear, or if you are just deliberately trying to bring the thread to a screeching halt. Based on other exchanges, I'm inclined to think you obsessed with linguistics to a degree that you have difficulty communicating with others who aren't equally obsessed with linguistics. This is as problematic in its way as Eric's temptation to use subjective intuitive or mystical language, or JPT's attempts to resolve moral questions by quoting the Bible. Everyone argues from their own world view. Those with extreme world views have difficulties communicating and often present arguments that appear irrelevant or wrong to those with other values.

Try working under the assumption that you aren't Noah Webster or Humpty Dumpty. Try to make a bit of effort attempting to understand what we intend to say, a little less time lecturing on how we ought to be saying it in order to satisfy your personal standards.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

That's nice. Irrelevant to my questions, but nice.



Bullshit. Here are your exact words: Our attempted predictions, even if based on quantitative data, can give only qualitative results.

That is not a " verbal error".

OK, I assumed that I had mixed up the words qualitative and quantitative, and that you caught it. My assumption that you caught me in such an error -- a "senior moment" -- proves unfounded.

I know the difference between "quantitative" and "qualitative". Many people are inept at dealing with huge quantities of precise, quantitative data. What they can understand is qualitative description. One qualitative description of a place based upon its thermal regime and water supply is... what sort of crops can grow in an area. One crop tied closely to a climatic regime is the olive. It fares best in places of mild, rainy winters and warm-to-hot summers (Mediterranean climate). Such places get the rain-forcing westerly winds in the winter and desert-like drought in the summer. If the rain-forcing westerly winds of winter are blocked off as the subtropical high advances poleward, then the zones of Mediterranean climate become harsh deserts.

Olives would have to be grown elsewhere. The olive oil that you get for cooking won't be from the following countries: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia (the mass-market olive oil in my pantry, I was surprised, came from Tunisia), Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestinian Authority, Syria, Turkey, Greece, Italy, Spain, or Portugal.

Agriculture may not be the most glamorous of economic activities -- but the need for food does not go away. Global warming will put huge stress on agriculture, and no technological fix can solve that. People can have the most marvelous of electronic gadgets and huge collections of books and recorded media -- but if they are out of food that is all irrelevant.

CNN recently put up an opinion piece, What we owe our kids on climate. The author, James Hansen, is a long time player on the alarmist side, a former director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The core...

Originally Posted by James Hansen

Our study, published in the prestigious peer-reviewed science journal PLOS-ONE, was written in support of a lawsuit against the federal government. The plaintiffs are young people, those to whom we are handing an increasingly warmer and destabilized planet.

They argue that they have a constitutional right to a safe climate, that they have a right to receive from us a planet that supports all life, just as our forebears gave us. It is correctly a legal argument, but it relates to a fundamental moral question.

The side of me that supports limited government controlled by democracy and rule of law is aghast. Here we have a proposal that a new implied or invented right exists never intended (or dreamed of) by the founding fathers, with no precedent in English Common Law. We have a proposal that the courts can and should coerce the legislative and executive branches to act on a highly controversial issue, disregarding the principle of legislative and executive loyalty to those who elect them.

On the other hand, what we are doing to the planet does indeed raise a strong moral issue. I do anticipate that the next generation of prophets is going to be extremely displeased with its predecessor generations. As the science becomes ever more clear, the selfishness of currently active generations will be considered a worthy target. The Blue Boomer's distrust and hatred of the GI generation during the last awakening is apt to be mild in comparison to what comes in the next awakening.

I don't think the lawsuit is going anywhere, but the CNN article might be worth a read, anyway.

Originally Posted by B Butler

In the last several pages you have gotten away from talking about observation of nature and modeling of nature and become obsessed with definition of words. Some trolls use this technique when they have lost an argument and don't want to admit it. Frankly, I'm not sure this is the case here as I've lost track of the point you are trying to make.

Computer models do not produce qualitative predictions.

Yes, computer models produce only numbers. They would be quantitative. Still, looking at the numbers, it takes little to no imagination to know that the quality of life would change given the numbers. One ought to be able to talk quality of life in a Global Warming discussion. The Global Warming problem is about politics as much as it is science.

Putting a qualitative face to the quantitative predictions is perfectly fine. But, pbrower did not make that claim. He very specifically decried computer models as useful because they only give qualitative predictions. His entire point was based on nonsense.

I'm trying to figure out if you really are as obsessive about language as you appear, or if you are just deliberately trying to bring the thread to a screeching halt.

Pbrower tried to make a point about climate models that was nonsensical. When called on it, instead of admitting the error or retracting the claim, he doubled down on the nonsense.

Based on other exchanges, I'm inclined to think you obsessed with linguistics to a degree that you have difficulty communicating with others who aren't equally obsessed with linguistics.

Scientists employ a very elaborate lexicon because it is required in order to describe nature accurately. If someone is going to try to claim science supports or refute a particular point it is important to get the wording correct. A misunderstanding of the terminology is usually a strong indicator of misunderstanding the concept. Asking someone to clarify their meaning when they use the words incorrectly can help us to determine if they really understand what they are talking about or if they are just pretending.

This is as problematic in its way as Eric's temptation to use subjective intuitive or mystical language, or JPT's attempts to resolve moral questions by quoting the Bible. Everyone argues from their own world view.

Perfectly fine if they avoid claiming that science somehow supports their particular viewpoint. I only jump into those discussions when I see them or others trying to fake their science knowledge.

Those with extreme world views have difficulties communicating and often present arguments that appear irrelevant or wrong to those with other values.

Try working under the assumption that you aren't Noah Webster or Humpty Dumpty. Try to make a bit of effort attempting to understand what we intend to say,

How can anyone possibly know what you intended to say if you use words incorrectly? Did you misspeak or do you really not know what the words mean? I can respond with a quick follow up question that pretty clearly delineates the slip ups from the fakers. Fakers get no respect from me.

a little less time lecturing on how we ought to be saying it in order to satisfy your personal standards.

How about you try to understand the difference between linguistic rhetoric and an actual discussion of real science.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

OK, I assumed that I had mixed up the words qualitative and quantitative, and that you caught it. My assumption that you caught me in such an error -- a "senior moment" -- proves unfounded.

No, it wasn't.

I know the difference between "quantitative" and "qualitative".

Maybe. But, you sure are being very misleading in your description of what climate models actually do.

Many people are inept at dealing with huge quantities of precise, quantitative data. What they can understand is qualitative description. One qualitative description of a place based upon its thermal regime and water supply is... what sort of crops can grow in an area. One crop tied closely to a climatic regime is the olive. It fares best in places of mild, rainy winters and warm-to-hot summers (Mediterranean climate). Such places get the rain-forcing westerly winds in the winter and desert-like drought in the summer. If the rain-forcing westerly winds of winter are blocked off as the subtropical high advances poleward, then the zones of Mediterranean climate become harsh deserts.

Olives would have to be grown elsewhere. The olive oil that you get for cooking won't be from the following countries: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia (the mass-market olive oil in my pantry, I was surprised, came from Tunisia), Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestinian Authority, Syria, Turkey, Greece, Italy, Spain, or Portugal.

Agriculture may not be the most glamorous of economic activities -- but the need for food does not go away. Global warming will put huge stress on agriculture, and no technological fix can solve that. People can have the most marvelous of electronic gadgets and huge collections of books and recorded media -- but if they are out of food that is all irrelevant.

Once again, nice info but completely irrelevant.

Originally Posted by B Butler

CNN recently put up an opinion piece, What we owe our kids on climate. The author, James Hansen, is a long time player on the alarmist side, a former director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The core...

Nothing like a good poisoning of the well to get things started is there?

The side of me that supports limited government controlled by democracy and rule of law is aghast. Here we have a proposal that a new implied or invented right exists never intended (or dreamed of) by the founding fathers, with no precedent in English Common Law.

This would not be the first such right clarified by the courts. It's part of their constitutional duty.

We have a proposal that the courts can and should coerce the legislative and executive branches to act on a highly controversial issue, disregarding the principle of legislative and executive loyalty to those who elect them.

What exactly is controversial about climate change?

On the other hand, what we are doing to the planet does indeed raise a strong moral issue. I do anticipate that the next generation of prophets is going to be extremely displeased with its predecessor generations. As the science becomes ever more clear, the selfishness of currently active generations will be considered a worthy target. The Blue Boomer's distrust and hatred of the GI generation during the last awakening is apt to be mild in comparison to what comes in the next awakening.

I don't think the lawsuit is going anywhere, but the CNN article might be worth a read, anyway.

You are probably right about the suit right now. If the courts get inundated with multiple variations of it scattered through all of the districts then one will likely make it through but that will take years.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Nothing like a good poisoning of the well to get things started is there?

If someone stands far enough on the extreme, I do use the more extreme 'alarmist' or 'denialist' descriptors, rather than milder words like 'skeptic'. In case you haven't noticed, I'm an alarmist who thinks there is a real need to raise an alarm.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

This would not be the first such right clarified by the courts. It's part of their constitutional duty.

New rights do not come out of a total vacuum. One sort of valid argument is that if a power of government does not exist in English Common Law, it follows that government has no power to write such a law, and thus that The People have a Right that the government cannot infringe upon. This argument was made in the abortion issue. One can take this sort of argument into absurdity. It would follow that if any bit of technology was not regulated during the Revolutionary era, the Right of the People to keep and use such technology is a Natural Right.

Personally, I'd like to go with written rule of law. I'd like a constitutional convention to explicitly enumerate a complete list of Rights to prevent activist courts from amending the Constitution from the bench. Alas, addressing this wish of mine during this crisis seems as unlikely as decisive action to mitigate global warming.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

What exactly is controversial about climate change?

At the moment, there is not clear majority of voters that wants to act. Part of this is the Red world view, the notion that the government is not the solution, it is the problem. Those locked tightly into this world view find it necessary to disregard or dismiss any problem that can be solved only by government action. Another aspect is the collapse of the GI generation's sense of duty and problem solving. The Natural Right to a Low Tax Rate is for many a more important value than the understanding of climate science. Again, values lock. If any bit of information forces the reevaluation of values, a reason will be found to reject the information. This makes no sense if one is locked into a shallow scientific world view, but only if one has not studied human behavior.

That the issue is absolutely clear under your values system (and in this case my value system) does not make the issue absolutely clear. There is a controversy. People are disagreeing in an intense way. Values are involved, so a significant number of people changing their mind is unlikely unless and until their values fail them in a major way that will effect their life style.

Of course, we could turn this into an argument over the meaning of the word 'controversial'. I'd rather not.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

You are probably right about the suit right now. If the courts get inundated with multiple variations of it scattered through all of the districts then one will likely make it through but that will take years.

Years, definitely. If they want a national resolution they need to work the federal courts. Sometimes, if they get different cases going in different appellate court districts, the precedents might be different from district to district. If the issue gets pushed far enough, the Supreme Court would have to write a decisive opinion. To be effective, it would have to get to the Supreme Court. If we have a global issue, you need at least a national mandate.

It took decades from "The Embarrassing Second Amendment's" early application of modern law to the 2nd Amendment to the Supreme Court declaring an individual right to keep and bear arms. I wouldn't expect this one to move faster. Constitutional law moves slowly. I also think the case for a Natural Right to a Healthy Environment isn't based on anything existing from the Revolutionary Era. At the time, nature was considered a hostile force. If anything, there was an assumed Right to Exploit Nature. Humans were presumed to be able to do whatever they wanted in search of profit or 'improving' the land. If I were attempting to create a new Natural Right regarding environmentalism based on English Common Law, I suspect it would be easier to invent a Natural Right to Improve Upon and Profit from Nature than a Right to live amidst nature 'unimproved'.

Intuitively, many modern humans would swing the other way. Alas, inventing new Natural Rights isn't as easy as one might think.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

How about you try to understand the difference between linguistic rhetoric and an actual discussion of real science.

I understand that your entire post was about linguistic rhetoric, and had nothing to do with real science. It seems you are more interested in word usage that global warming. It seems you confuse proper word usage with an understanding of nature. As such, as long as you are pursuing obscure points of language, you are not contributing meaningfully to the conversation.

To me, the numbers coming out of computer models can and do apply meaningfully to an understanding of what crops are apt to grow where. Your silly word games are not going to change this. By the standards of your value system perhaps you are scoring points, but I don't understand your value system well enough to verify (or care about) your alleged score. It seems to me that you are determined to lead the thread off into an irrelevant never never land where discussion of nature and science are verboten until your imaginary language gods have been gratified.

Now, me, I look at climate shifting through a perspective of values change. I look at the entire S&H turning theory through the lens of values change. A crisis is a time when existing values fail a culture in a massive enough way that it is possible for said values to be abandoned and replaced by new ones. I have a bias in how I look at things, as does most everyone else. The question with respect to global warming is when scientific evidence can overcome centuries of habitual exploitation. I expect humans will cling to the life style they are accustomed to long past the point of mere logic and certainty. I regret this. I will rail against it such as I can. I do not, however, expect humans to react in a logical rational way.

It is perhaps necessary and appropriate among scientists to nitpick language and methodology. In fact, I'd applaud that sort of integrity and discipline from a safe distance. Expecting professional level methodology on an internet forum not centered on a specific discipline is kind of questionable.

Lotsa luck.

Originally Posted by B Butler

... It is perhaps necessary and appropriate among scientists to nitpick language and methodology. In fact, I'd applaud that sort of integrity and discipline from a safe distance. Expecting professional level methodology on an internet forum not centered on a specific discipline is kind of questionable.

Lotsa luck.

I also raised this issue with Vandal. We are a cultural-political forum, so science is a fruitful source for discussin topics but cannot be a discipline. There are too few disciples here for that.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I also raised this issue with Vandal. We are a cultural-political forum, so science is a fruitful source for discussin topics but cannot be a discipline. There are too few disciples here for that.

Yep. I'm not sure, though, that he is capable of listening to an idea so foreign to his value system. We shall see.

Originally Posted by B Butler

If someone stands far enough on the extreme, I do use the more extreme 'alarmist' or 'denialist' descriptors, rather than milder words like 'skeptic'. In case you haven't noticed, I'm an alarmist who thinks there is a real need to raise an alarm.

Fine, but the terms carry a great deal of baggage and used in isolation could be construed as poisoning the well.

New rights do not come out of a total vacuum. One sort of valid argument is that if a power of government does not exist in English Common Law, it follows that government has no power to write such a law, and thus that The People have a Right that the government cannot infringe upon. This argument was made in the abortion issue. One can take this sort of argument into absurdity. It would follow that if any bit of technology was not regulated during the Revolutionary era, the Right of the People to keep and use such technology is a Natural Right.

Personally, I'd like to go with written rule of law. I'd like a constitutional convention to explicitly enumerate a complete list of Rights to prevent activist courts from amending the Constitution from the bench. Alas, addressing this wish of mine during this crisis seems as unlikely as decisive action to mitigate global warming.

A complete list of rights? Any way on this Earth that you could possibly come up with such a list that everyone could agree to? Is it any wonder that the Founders left such a listing up to future amendments and clarification from the courts?

At the moment, there is not clear majority of voters that wants to act. Part of this is the Red world view, the notion that the government is not the solution, it is the problem. Those locked tightly into this world view find it necessary to disregard or dismiss any problem that can be solved only by government action. Another aspect is the collapse of the GI generation's sense of duty and problem solving. The Natural Right to a Low Tax Rate is for many a more important value than the understanding of climate science. Again, values lock. If any bit of information forces the reevaluation of values, a reason will be found to reject the information. This makes no sense if one is locked into a shallow scientific world view, but only if one has not studied human behavior.

That the issue is absolutely clear under your values system (and in this case my value system) does not make the issue absolutely clear. There is a controversy. People are disagreeing in an intense way. Values are involved, so a significant number of people changing their mind is unlikely unless and until their values fail them in a major way that will effect their life style.

Of course, we could turn this into an argument over the meaning of the word 'controversial'. I'd rather not.

You did a pretty good job describing the political/cultural controversy which I would agree is a real problem. But, anytime you are discussing climate change and you hear the term "controversy" you have to ask for clarification. Some people try to pass off legitimate political controversy for non-existent scientific controversy.

Years, definitely. If they want a national resolution they need to work the federal courts. Sometimes, if they get different cases going in different appellate court districts, the precedents might be different from district to district. If the issue gets pushed far enough, the Supreme Court would have to write a decisive opinion. To be effective, it would have to get to the Supreme Court. If we have a global issue, you need at least a national mandate.

It took decades from "The Embarrassing Second Amendment's" early application of modern law to the 2nd Amendment to the Supreme Court declaring an individual right to keep and bear arms. I wouldn't expect this one to move faster. Constitutional law moves slowly. I also think the case for a Natural Right to a Healthy Environment isn't based on anything existing from the Revolutionary Era. At the time, nature was considered a hostile force. If anything, there was an assumed Right to Exploit Nature. Humans were presumed to be able to do whatever they wanted in search of profit or 'improving' the land. If I were attempting to create a new Natural Right regarding environmentalism based on English Common Law, I suspect it would be easier to invent a Natural Right to Improve Upon and Profit from Nature than a Right to live amidst nature 'unimproved'.

Intuitively, many modern humans would swing the other way. Alas, inventing new Natural Rights isn't as easy as one might think.

Wouldn't the definition of a Natural Right be something that exists already and does not need to be invented?

Originally Posted by B Butler

I understand that your entire post was about linguistic rhetoric, and had nothing to do with real science.

Just, flat out, wrong. The difference between quantitative and qualitative data is a very fundamental concept in all of science. What kind of data that a climate model generates is a scientific concept.

It seems you are more interested in word usage that global warming. It seems you confuse proper word usage with an understanding of nature. As such, as long as you are pursuing obscure points of language, you are not contributing meaningfully to the conversation.

How meaningful can a conversation be if the words mean different things for different people? The whole reason scientists have such a complicated lexicon is to allow for meaning in discussions but it only works if you use the words properly.

To me, the numbers coming out of computer models can and do apply meaningfully to an understanding of what crops are apt to grow where. Your silly word games are not going to change this.

You are purposefully avoiding what I actually objected to. Pbrower implied that climate models were not very effective because they generated qualitative predictions. That is either a simple mistake between quantitative and qualitative or a fundamentally wrong statement. A quick question from me elicited a response that doubled down on the "wrongness".

By the standards of your value system perhaps you are scoring points, but I don't understand your value system well enough to verify (or care about) your alleged score.

Science is not a "value system". You can take your post-modern philosophical implications elsewhere. They aren't relevant.

It seems to me that you are determined to lead the thread off into an irrelevant never never land where discussion of nature and science are verboten until your imaginary language gods have been gratified.

Or, through discussion we can determine if someone really understands the science or is faking it. We can determine if the science actually supports or refutes someone's claims. Contrary to post-modern blabbering, all points of view are not always equally valid.

Now, me, I look at climate shifting through a perspective of values change. I look at the entire S&H turning theory through the lens of values change. A crisis is a time when existing values fail a culture in a massive enough way that it is possible for said values to be abandoned and replaced by new ones. I have a bias in how I look at things, as does most everyone else. The question with respect to global warming is when scientific evidence can overcome centuries of habitual exploitation. I expect humans will cling to the life style they are accustomed to long past the point of mere logic and certainty. I regret this. I will rail against it such as I can. I do not, however, expect humans to react in a logical rational way.

It is perhaps necessary and appropriate among scientists to nitpick language and methodology. In fact, I'd applaud that sort of integrity and discipline from a safe distance. Expecting professional level methodology on an internet forum not centered on a specific discipline is kind of questionable.

Really not interested in your "values lock" stuff. Heard it already and wasn't impressed by it then.

Climate models producing quantitative results is not "professional level methodology". My high school sophomores are required to understand it.

Lotsa luck.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Yep. I'm not sure, though, that he is capable of listening to an idea so foreign to his value system. We shall see.

Science isn't a value system. Whether or not you choose to incorporate scientific knowledge in your life could be described as a value, but the science itself is as objective as anything possible from humans.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Just, flat out, wrong. The difference between quantitative and qualitative data is a very fundamental concept in all of science. What kind of data that a climate model generates is a scientific concept.

How meaningful can a conversation be if the words mean different things for different people? The whole reason scientists have such a complicated lexicon is to allow for meaning in discussions but it only works if you use the words properly.

And yet, the Global Warming thread was chugging merrily along and has been for years without someone coming in and nitpicking the language. Obsession with meaning of words doesn't always improve understanding. In this case, the conversation is being filibustered.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Really not interested in your "values lock" stuff. Heard it already and wasn't impressed by it then.

Again, S&H turning theory is about the mechanisms of how value system change. After a successful crisis, the culture is running with new values. New values are traditionally proposed in the awakening, argued over in the unraveling, resolved in the crisis, and carved in stone through the high. If you do not care about S&H turning theory, why are you hanging around here?

I find this conversation as yet another example of values lock. I am saying something that conflicts with your values system. This seems to make you think you can ignore it. Classic. Can you offer a constructive criticism, or do you think a passing expression of scorn is meaningful?

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Science is not a "value system". You can take your post-modern philosophical implications elsewhere. They aren't relevant.

This is partially correct. Some systems of knowledge traditionally produce values or goals. These might include religion, philosophy, politics, art and family. These fields in various ways attempt to identify and promote the good life. Other systems are often judged as being tools that might help one achieve values and goals, but might not be appropriate to generate values and goals. I might suggest math, logic and science as examples. One might also distinguish among all of these. There ought to be a valid distinction between learning and understanding through observation, faith or dogma.

I doubt there are many if any individuals whose entire way of understanding and manipulating the world is purely scientific. While I highly respect science and engineering, I'm also mighty fond of Thomas Jefferson's self evident truths, while many of the lessons on morality the nuns taught me still resonate. To this degree, I can acknowledge that few if any have purely scientific world views.

And yet, if the lessons learned from observing the world conflict with the self evident truths or the nun's old lessons, I am apt to place observation of the world ahead of the political or religious values. Thomas Jefferson and the nuns had strong streaks of idealistic dreaming. When the real world meets idealistic dreams, I think it best that the idealistic dreams yield the right of way.

And I have observed that none of the above values are apt to be changed lightly. There is good reason for the traditional taboo in polite society against talking religion or politics. Much heat. Little light. A casual reading of the many and various threads on this forum will provide empirical conformation. "Values lock" is not an abstract invented principle. It can be observed in the way conversations flow in these forums. Conversations such as this one seldom really change core values.

As such, I am getting the impression that your world view is incompatible with values lock, thus you wild disparage or ignore values lock rather than revisit your core values.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Or, through discussion we can determine if someone really understands the science or is faking it. We can determine if the science actually supports or refutes someone's claims. Contrary to post-modern blabbering, all points of view are not always equally valid.

Then discuss the observations, data and science rather than obsessing on methodology and linguistics. Your post modern word games have nothing to do with what is happening in the atmosphere. We are not professional scientists. Your filibustering of the conversation until we meet your arbitrary level of mastery in technobabble is not constructive.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Science isn't a value system. Whether or not you choose to incorporate scientific knowledge in your life could be described as a value, but the science itself is as objective as anything possible from humans.

To the contrary -- science implies a value system that separates science from bosh.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Just, flat out, wrong. The difference between quantitative and qualitative data is a very fundamental concept in all of science. What kind of data that a climate model generates is a scientific concept.

How meaningful can a conversation be if the words mean different things for different people? The whole reason scientists have such a complicated lexicon is to allow for meaning in discussions but it only works if you use the words properly.

You are purposefully avoiding what I actually objected to. Pbrower implied that climate models were not very effective because they generated qualitative predictions. That is either a simple mistake between quantitative and qualitative or a fundamentally wrong statement. A quick question from me elicited a response that doubled down on the "wrongness".

Science is not a "value system". You can take your post-modern philosophical implications elsewhere. They aren't relevant.

Or, through discussion we can determine if someone really understands the science or is faking it. We can determine if the science actually supports or refutes someone's claims. Contrary to post-modern blabbering, all points of view are not always equally valid.

Really not interested in your "values lock" stuff. Heard it already and wasn't impressed by it then.

Climate models producing quantitative results is not "professional level methodology". My high school sophomores are required to understand it.

I can’t think of an attitude more likely to drive potential (and real) allies away than the items I highlighted. Science is similar to religion in one aspect: it has a unique language. Expecting the average person to join you on the tiny island of science purity will leave you alone on the island.

You can reasonably adjust to common language, and mention that science uses certain terms in very specific ways, without destroying the meaning of what is being said to those not part of the field. You can even explain without vituperation, though you can’t expect compliance. It’s not going to happen. If that’s truly important to you, you should move to a science-centric forum where everyone agrees to those rules.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

To the contrary -- science implies a value system that separates science from bosh.

Now who's arguing semantically?

Implies? Is science itself, the process used to discover how the natural world works, a value system?

Originally Posted by B Butler

And yet, the Global Warming thread was chugging merrily along and has been for years without someone coming in and nitpicking the language.

And if the participants were speaking complete nonsense all that time? Was it a useful exercise? Did it help people to understand the actual science or did it just allow people to shout into an echo chamber? If the participants don't understand the language that the scientists use, how can they possibly know if they are really discussing global warming or if it is just more make believe?

Obsession with meaning of words doesn't always improve understanding. In this case, the conversation is being filibustered.

Please explain exactly how my posts prevent anyone else from writing what they want in the thread! If you don't want to see my critiques, the solution is very simple. Don't pretend to understand stuff you really don't.

Again, S&H turning theory is about the mechanisms of how value system change. After a successful crisis, the culture is running with new values. New values are traditionally proposed in the awakening, argued over in the unraveling, resolved in the crisis, and carved in stone through the high. If you do not care about S&H turning theory, why are you hanging around here?

Your personal opinions about "values locks" is not the same as Turning Theory, despite what you tell yourself.

I enjoy Turning Theory as a fun and interesting way to view history and sociology. I especially enjoy the pop culture aspects. However, I operate under no illusion that Turning Theory is anything like a hard science. It is completely possible for a person to understand and enjoy science without requiring that everything else in their life also be scientific.

I find this conversation as yet another example of values lock. I am saying something that conflicts with your values system. This seems to make you think you can ignore it. Classic. Can you offer a constructive criticism, or do you think a passing expression of scorn is meaningful?

Yeah, your "values locks" declarations strike me as simply the stroking of your own ego. Not really interested in joining in on that.

This is partially correct. Some systems of knowledge traditionally produce values or goals. These might include religion, philosophy, politics, art and family. These fields in various ways attempt to identify and promote the good life. Other systems are often judged as being tools that might help one achieve values and goals, but might not be appropriate to generate values and goals. I might suggest math, logic and science as examples. One might also distinguish among all of these. There ought to be a valid distinction between learning and understanding through observation, faith or dogma.

So my partially correct is really completely correct. Yeah, I already knew that.

I doubt there are many if any individuals whose entire way of understanding and manipulating the world is purely scientific. While I highly respect science and engineering, I'm also mighty fond of Thomas Jefferson's self evident truths, while many of the lessons on morality the nuns taught me still resonate. To this degree, I can acknowledge that few if any have purely scientific world views.

"Yeah, just keep stroking that ego."

"Stroke it good!"

And yet, if the lessons learned from observing the world conflict with the self evident truths or the nun's old lessons, I am apt to place observation of the world ahead of the political or religious values. Thomas Jefferson and the nuns had strong streaks of idealistic dreaming. When the real world meets idealistic dreams, I think it best that the idealistic dreams yield the right of way.

And I have observed that none of the above values are apt to be changed lightly. There is good reason for the traditional taboo in polite society against talking religion or politics. Much heat. Little light. A casual reading of the many and various threads on this forum will provide empirical conformation. "Values lock" is not an abstract invented principle. It can be observed in the way conversations flow in these forums. Conversations such as this one seldom really change core values.

Inherent to your claim is the implication that all conversations are intended to change core values. This is just one silliness in your "values locks" observations. You see it everywhere and always. It is a meaningless phrase describing your own observational bias. Not really interesting to me.

As such, I am getting the impression that your world view is incompatible with values lock, thus you wild disparage or ignore values lock rather than revisit your core values.

That's like Eric declaring that my astrological signs dictate that I'll be someone who doubts astrology and because I do in fact doubt, therefore astrology must be true.

Then discuss the observations, data and science rather than obsessing on methodology and linguistics.

All right. Enough is enough. Your ignorance on the topic seems to be so extreme that you simply can not see how asinine your chiding of me is.

The terms quantitative and qualitative refer to types of scientific data. By pointing out that someone was confusing the terms and not simply misspeaking, I was discussing the science and the data. If I were to simply accept Pbrower's fundamentally mistaken statement as true and continue the 'discussion', then I would not be discussing actual global warming. It would be Eric, magic-pony land dissembling. No thanks.

Your post modern word games have nothing to do with what is happening in the atmosphere. We are not professional scientists.

1 - the difference between quantitative and qualitative data is not a word game. It only looks like a word game to someone who only pretends to understand the topic. Hint, hint.

2 - You don't have to be a professional scientist to understand the basics of the topic. But, you should definitely be ready to accept the fact that you will get things wrong and not try to double down and bluster your way through any critiques.

Your filibustering of the conversation until we meet your arbitrary level of mastery in technobabble is not constructive.

Your refusal to actually understand the topic instead of just pretending, renders your conversation meaningless and silly. It will only serve to reinforce the delusion that you do in fact understand the topic.

If you are so values locked into living the Dunning-Kruger existence, then nothing I say will ever break you of that core value.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I can’t think of an attitude more likely to drive potential (and real) allies away than the items I highlighted.

The big tent strategy is a long term loser. Allowing "allies" (as if science is some sort of war) to spew nonsense simply because they are on your side renders your side meaningless as a position.

Science is similar to religion in one aspect: it has a unique language. Expecting the average person to join you on the tiny island of science purity will leave you alone on the island.

Science is similar to comic book collecting in one aspect: it has a unique language.

Science is similar to cosplay in one aspect: it has a unique language.

Science is similar to skateboarding in one aspect: it has a unique language.

Science is similar to fly fishing in one aspect: it has a unique language.

Science is similar to tagging in one aspect: it has a unique language.

If one wishes to discuss the intricacies of comic book collecting, cosplay, skateboarding, fly fishing, or tagging, they should probably be expected to learn some of the basic lingo. If they don't want to discuss those topics then no need for the lexicon lessons.

If you wish to discuss the science of global warming then some basic level of vocabulary is necessary. Quantitative and qualitative is just about as basic as you can get. You'll find the terms in Chapter 1 of every science textbook, no matter which branch, from about 6th grade and up. Is it really unreasonable to demand at least a 6th grade level of fluency in a discussion about the future of our entire planet? I'm the asshole here?

You can reasonably adjust to common language, and mention that science uses certain terms in very specific ways, without destroying the meaning of what is being said to those not part of the field.

Are you also going to ignore the simple fact that Pbrower's mistake was a very, very basic mistake that he compounded by continuing to deny it as such?

This was not a mistake of common language ambiguity. It was a deeply fundamental mistake.

You can even explain without vituperation, though you can’t expect compliance.

Concern trolling? Boring.

It’s not going to happen. If that’s truly important to you, you should move to a science-centric forum where everyone agrees to those rules.

Or, I can stay here and enjoy the things I like while pointing out when people are only pretending to understand the science when various topics pop up. Others in the forum can choose to read my critiques or not.

You seem to think that I hate the fact that others around me don't understand science. If I really harbored such an attitude, being a professional science educator would be the epitome of hell on earth. I don't feel that way.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

The big tent strategy is a long term loser. Allowing "allies" (as if science is some sort of war) to spew nonsense simply because they are on your side renders your side meaningless as a position.

Science is similar to comic book collecting in one aspect: it has a unique language.

Science is similar to cosplay in one aspect: it has a unique language.

Science is similar to skateboarding in one aspect: it has a unique language.

Science is similar to fly fishing in one aspect: it has a unique language.

Science is similar to tagging in one aspect: it has a unique language.

If one wishes to discuss the intricacies of comic book collecting, cosplay, skateboarding, fly fishing, or tagging, they should probably be expected to learn some of the basic lingo. If they don't want to discuss those topics then no need for the lexicon lessons.

If you wish to discuss the science of global warming then some basic level of vocabulary is necessary. Quantitative and qualitative is just about as basic as you can get. You'll find the terms in Chapter 1 of every science textbook, no matter which branch, from about 6th grade and up. Is it really unreasonable to demand at least a 6th grade level of fluency in a discussion about the future of our entire planet? I'm the asshole here?

Thanks for making my point. Understand one thing above all else: science does not control the debate. Also understand that the field can be purged at any time by the PTB, if they see science as a threat. Ask Michael Mann about that.

Scientists tend to do a poor job of speaking in common language, when that is the one thing that can't be successfully avoided. The few who master that are running uphill, trying hard to make scientists seem less elitist and more like regular human beings. Richard Feynman was a perfect example. So was Carl Sagan. They had the common touch. I'm not sure who carries that mantel today.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72 ...

Are you also going to ignore the simple fact that Pbrower's mistake was a very, very basic mistake that he compounded by continuing to deny it as such?

This was not a mistake of common language ambiguity. It was a deeply fundamental mistake.

In your eyes, he mispoke. Do you think his intent was bad or his central intent was wrong? Forget the details, and focus on the big picture.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72 ...

Or, I can stay here and enjoy the things I like while pointing out when people are only pretending to understand the science when various topics pop up. Others in the forum can choose to read my critiques or not.

You seem to think that I hate the fact that others around me don't understand science. If I really harbored such an attitude, being a professional science educator would be the epitome of hell on earth. I don't feel that way.

Llike I mentioned earlier, there are fewer here who speak the tongue than don't.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Forget the details, and focus on the big picture.

Excellent idea

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Thanks for making my point. Understand one thing above all else: science does not control the debate. Also understand that the field can be purged at any time by the PTB, if they see science as a threat. Ask Michael Mann about that.

Scientists tend to do a poor job of speaking in common language, when that is the one thing that can't be successfully avoided. The few who master that are running uphill, trying hard to make scientists seem less elitist and more like regular human beings. Richard Feynman was a perfect example. So was Carl Sagan. They had the common touch. I'm not sure who carries that mantel today.

Neil deGrasse Tyson?

Most scientists are so caught up in scientific jargon that laymen rarely understand that they speak over our heads. How many people other than scientists, engineers, and mathematicians can do partial differential equations? The best that one can hope for is for people to translate the language of science into more normal prose. As a general rule non-scientists establish social policy. To be sure it is best that political leaders can be informed by science so that they don't make fools of themselves like claiming that women can't get impregnated by unwelcome sex. Most scientists would make bad politicians because the mix of talents of the usual scientist badly match those of politics. Scientists, accountants, engineers, physicians, veterinarians, and dentists may be smart -- but I would not guarantee their competence as politicians.

In your eyes, he mispoke. Do you think his intent was bad or his central intent was wrong? Forget the details, and focus on the big picture.

I misspoke. I do not try to deceive here. I can be wrong for relying upon obsolete or partial information. I can excuse many pols for falling for the claims of the GW Bush administration that Saddam Hussein had an active WMD program. I cannot excuse those who promoted a falsehood offered in knowledge of its untruth or in reckless disregard for contradictory evidence.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

The big tent strategy is a long term loser. Allowing "allies" (as if science is some sort of war) to spew nonsense simply because they are on your side renders your side meaningless as a position.



Science is similar to comic book collecting in one aspect: it has a unique language.

Science is similar to cosplay in one aspect: it has a unique language.

Science is similar to skateboarding in one aspect: it has a unique language.

Science is similar to fly fishing in one aspect: it has a unique language.

Science is similar to tagging in one aspect: it has a unique language.

If one wishes to discuss the intricacies of comic book collecting, cosplay, skateboarding, fly fishing, or tagging, they should probably be expected to learn some of the basic lingo. If they don't want to discuss those topics then no need for the lexicon lessons.

If you wish to discuss the science of global warming then some basic level of vocabulary is necessary. Quantitative and qualitative is just about as basic as you can get. You'll find the terms in Chapter 1 of every science textbook, no matter which branch, from about 6th grade and up. Is it really unreasonable to demand at least a 6th grade level of fluency in a discussion about the future of our entire planet? I'm the asshole here?



Are you also going to ignore the simple fact that Pbrower's mistake was a very, very basic mistake that he compounded by continuing to deny it as such?

This was not a mistake of common language ambiguity. It was a deeply fundamental mistake.



Concern trolling? Boring.



Or, I can stay here and enjoy the things I like while pointing out when people are only pretending to understand the science when various topics pop up. Others in the forum can choose to read my critiques or not.

You seem to think that I hate the fact that others around me don't understand science. If I really harbored such an attitude, being a professional science educator would be the epitome of hell on earth. I don't feel that way.

In other words, you are a nit-picking geek, like the rest of us. Lighten up, Francis...

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Thanks for making my point.

Oh please. Am I supposed to be unaware of the passive aggressive choice of comparing science to religion when you could have chosen anything else?

Understand one thing above all else: science does not control the debate.

Did I say it did? Either you can choose to discuss the actual science or you can choose to pretend to discuss it. Just be aware I, and others like me, are likely to call out the pretenders.

Also understand that the field can be purged at any time by the PTB, if they see science as a threat. Ask Michael Mann about that.

Oh, the Michael Mann who is currently the director of the Earth Science Center at Penn State, where he is designated a distinguished professor? Elected fellow of the American Geophysical Union in 2012. Elected a fellow of the American Meteorological Society in 2013 as well as winning the National Conservation Achievement Award for Science from the National Wildlife Federation. Tell me again about how he has been purged?

Will the purging change the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide?

Scientists tend to do a poor job of speaking in common language, when that is the one thing that can't be successfully avoided.

Nice stereotype.

The few who master that are running uphill, trying hard to make scientists seem less elitist and more like regular human beings. Richard Feynman was a perfect example. So was Carl Sagan. They had the common touch. I'm not sure who carries that mantel today.

You should spend some time looking around. There are hundreds and hundreds of working scientists who post in blogs or engage in forums. Instead of the lone star, the niche has been filled by dozens of minor celebs. If you really need a scientist communicator from the Sagan mold then the likeliest candidate would be Neil Degrasse Tyson.

In your eyes, he mispoke.

Maybe. That's why I asked a clarifying question, to determine if it was just a simple slip up or if there was a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept.

Do you think his intent was bad or his central intent was wrong?

Intent? What the hell does accuracy have to do with his intent? If someone is speaking utter nonsense but their intent is good then it isn't really nonsense?

His statement was just wrong. At the most basic, fundamental level, it was inaccurate, regardless of his intent.

Forget the details, and focus on the big picture.

In other words, lie as much as you want as long as you tell the "right" story? No thanks. That might be how you discuss things with others but I favor a path of higher integrity. I prefer it if the details actually support the big picture.

Like I mentioned earlier, there are fewer here who speak the tongue than don't.

So? Of what use is a conversation about global warming involving people who don't really understand what they are saying?

Do you know how you learn to speak the tongue? It isn't by avoiding exposure to your mistakes and misconceptions.