Building fantasy straw men and then using them to prove the other guy wrong is the height of ignorance, my friend.
What is the strawman here?
You've managed to turn a SINGLE SENTENCE into a complete character analysis, identification of my politics, and have turned "Much of" into absolute cause.
There is a simple material way to prove me wrong. Find some peer reviewed literature that supports your case. I already looked myself, and already found a mistake in something I wrote earlier. It has nothing to do with "greening" the economy, however. But looking for evidence and noting mistakes is what I do.
Will, if you want to move from conclusions back to evidence, then it doesn't matter. If you move from evidence to conclusions, then you are simply stating that you know more about Muller's work (and similar work by a large corpus of scientists) then they do. Including all the advanced statistical techniques they used to examine specifically the issue that you bring up. My guess is that you wouldn't even know how to take the marginal of a multivariate gaussian. But hey, you know best. The people who write the blogs you read -- they sure are smart, and tell it how it is. BENGHAZI!!!!
First, I didn't quote anything. Second, because I disagree with you, I am labeled a right-wing person -
Not "quote" per see, but the Spain-green-thing is right-wing canard, and exists entirely within the right-wing media bubble. Very easy to work out.
This kind of attack tells me you're very immature, and have this crazy notion that your beliefs are absolutely correct, whereas the opposing position isn't just wrong, it's evil. The opposition is wrong, dead wrong, and they must be vanquished.
On the contrary, I do not believe that at all. My field is studying ignorance, and that is essentially the cause of all the problems in the world, to a rough approximation. The right-wing has left the planet, epistemology speaking, and are basically now a bunch of moonbats, and that has ethical consequences. At least the left-wing has the dignity to distance itself from its cranks.
If I believed that it were possible to have a good faith discussion with you about Spain's financial problems, or AGW, I certainly would. But you've already shown your hand on what you think "good" information is.
You want me to listen, for real? Then go find some peer reviewed literature in respected economic/political science journals, that argue that Spain's financial problems are caused by attempting to move to a green economy.
And yet you're quoting alternative right-wing news sources as fact. I have your word or your behavior to go by. If you actually knew something about Spain's financial troubles, then you'd *already* know several top economists who study it specifically, and *already* be able to identify the difference in opinion between them, and *already* know something about how they each support their arguments.
But I'm willing to bet that this little canard exists entirely withing the right-wing news bubble, and you don't know any of what I just stated, and if you consulted google scholar you would quickly discover that academics don't know anything anyway.
Muller looked at station quality specifically, and found that you get the same warming signal using good quality and poor quality temperature stations. But of course you already know this since you are interested in getting to the bottom of the debate.
MooseMiester, Spain is suffering from not having control of its currency combined with its profligate ways. There are successful examples of addressing climate change -- many of them. But you don't know anything about that because you simply aren't interested, since you already have all the answers. If you really want to understand the world, you must leave motivated reasoning behind.
(1), Not all science fits into NHST. (Know what that is?).
(2), The science was unequivocal 30 years ago. The only people who disagree with it read blogs, and partisan news sources, and don't study the phenomena in question. Not even Linzen, Christy and Spencer publish that much any more. They don't need to.
Science is true, even when you chose not to believe in it. The real question is: when will you listen?
Be honest with yourself. Most temperature records outside of cities don't exist before 1977, especially in countries like the US, Canada, Russia, Australia or Africa. Do you know why? Because there were no stations to record the information.
And that type of ad hoc analysis is supposed to substitude for disinterested scientific investigation? Is that the best you got? Remember when Richard Muller was *sure* that climate scientists were cooking the books on temps, and promised to bring the best science to the problem in BEST? He got funding at the drop of a hat (from Koch), and Anthony Watts/promised/ to abide by Muller's findings. Then Muller's findings disagreed with what Watts wanted, and Muller was a AGW "shill" over night. And you think you know more than Muller?
There is a significant population of young self-styled geniuses, who think they know more about everything then long beards who've been around the block, and actually do science, and have publications. They believe this because they know what the malloc(...) function does, which makes them special.
This issues has been deliberately politicized by the right. (Don't for get that it was Bush senior who signed the Kyoto protocol.) Somehow the opinion shapers manage to make these young geniuses feel like rebels, instead of the sheep that they are. (Frank Luntz, I'm talking about you.)
This issue isn't going away, and neither is the spin-doctoring. In 20 or 40 years, I these young geniuses will be telling their children how smart they were and continue to be. Hardly anyone has that moment when they realize that everything they *know* is wrong.
There's a book "Mistakes were made: but not by me", written by two prominent social psychologists. It details (among other things) the truly odious history of clinical psychologists injecting false memories of childhood abuse into their clients. The most heart breaking thing, other than the broken families, is that even after all of the empirical research into the topic, demonstrating what has happened, most of these psychologists are sticking to their guns, blithly ruining more lives. It's all very moral from their point of view.
That is the level of madness we have to contend with. Otherwise dealing with AGW would be painless, simple, and almost invisible in the changes that would happen to our lives.
Those of us who ACTUALLY care about the environment saw Global Warming as the political sham it always was, funneling money into lining the pockets of many politically connected people and industries.
It's irrelevant if the climate is changing as a function of what mankind is doing, in whole or in part - because we aren't making enough of a change to be a problem.
Internally inconsistent argument.
And, fyi, people have studied that function extensively (perhaps more than anything else ever), and determined that the function is indeed strong enough to make a change that is very likely a problem.
It's less about the existence of global warming than the use of the existence of global warming as a cudgel for all manner of environmental regulations. That's what's controversial.
What regulations? If we could have a debate about regulations, that would be awesome. Personally I think a gently phased in carbon tax is a good idea, combined with massive investment in all of the above R&D. Should barely make a dent in our style of life, and we don't know what clever things we'll develop of the next few decades. Also, even if you discount carbon pollution (which is truly skewing the energy market), wind power is now cheaper than coal. So let's level the playing field.
But instead we get bizarre arguments about Popper from people who know nothing about the philosophy of science, and strong predictions of cooling based on 15 year time series that shows warming -- albeit not strong monotonic warming.
Haha, you think that people haven't looked Milankovitch cycles? How you hear about it in the first place? Magick?
Nothing will convince you MatthiasF. You will either die quite soon ('cause most deniers are old), or one day be explaining to your kids how the climate changes were natural, and that's why you fought against sensible measures to do something about it. Good luck with that.
No, the most money is to be made in grabbing as much power as possible. Any excuse will do.
Said without any trace of irony. Michael Mann is just about to bring down the Koch brothers (defenders of -tyranny- I mean FREEDOM!!!!), and grab power for himself, and force everyone to get a good science education!!!! TEH HORRRORRRR!!!!
If they found that there was no man-made global warming, they'd be out of jobs.
I'm sure the Koch brothers and 100 other industries would fund all the research they ever could do. And if their conclusions are sound, then science *would* move on, as history is shown. Now, I *am* a scientist, who *is* going up against entrenched academic careers, and it is *fun*, cause I've got the killer application that *shows* I'm correct, and they've got to play catch-up.
But i'm sure you're right, because the alternative for you is that you will one day have to tell your children why we didn't do more to stop the floods and the droughts, and the rising seas.
It's only questionable because you consider it immoral for the government to interfere with the economy, even though the vast majority of economists who actually *test* their theories disagree with you. Climate scientists also test their theories, but they must be wrong, because otherwise there you'd be a bad person, endangering the prosperity of your children, and also a stooge of entrenched interests.
All of that is a little confronting, so of course it's questionable mixing of questionable data. It doesn't matter that AGW is perhaps the most studied phenomena *ever*, and that there is a vast confluence of evidence that *all* points to the same conclusion. Because, you know, you're a good person and all.
There's been lots of work in paleoclimate. But "skeptics" don't listen because it is "uncertain". However, it taking the last 15 years of surface temperature *only* (discounting the ocean whereby 90% of climate heat goes), shows a dearth in warming, then they are *certain* they are right that the science is wrong.
What we see here is grasping at straws to find *some* reason, *any* reason, to impugn climate science. It doesn't matter how absurd, if that's what you want to believe. In one of Monckton's talks, he took literally a 2 year history of arctic ice to claim that it is recovering strongly. 2 years.
You can discount any period of time based on ad-hoc reasoning, which is why the debate requires good faith skepticism.
Climate skeptic is code for someone who'll believe anything if it makes AGW sound unlikely. Of course they cannot see that, but that's why it's called denial. It's a technical term, and technically correct.
The causality of *all* prior changes appears to have been dismissed.
On the contrary, if you actually read the article (for example), you'd note that it is about testing the causality of *all* prior changes to the climate, and see if they are sufficient to explain current changes. Notice how you missed that?
It's not science. The Scientific method requires that observations can be independently reproduced and that a hypothesis is falsifiable.
You can get all the relevant data yourself, and run the tests yourself if you have the expertise
This notion that AGW is not falsifiable is plain sophistry. My guess is that you've heard of Popper's name, but wouldn't know the first thing about the philosophy of science. It is a simple fact that the AGW hypothesis is built upon may falsifiable hypotheses that make predictions. Climate contrarians, on the other hand, owe the world a scientific explanation, but for some (obvious) reason fail to see the irony in them not needing to back up their assertions with anything scientific.
The question of origins is outside the reach of scientific inquiry. I wish the physicists would stop playing in the philosophical and theological sandbox.
Pffft, just a small amount of anxiety of the mechanization of the soul? If you had a time-machine, would you go live in the world before Descartes? Remember, disease used to be caused by evil spirits, and mental illness is possession by deamons!!! Now, get science out of the philosophical and theological sandbox!!!
Slashdot Mirror
The house in question is also a large office space for many of Al Gore's employees. So its and apples and oranges comparison. But hey, BENGHAZI!!!!!
Building fantasy straw men and then using them to prove the other guy wrong is the height of ignorance, my friend.
What is the strawman here?
You've managed to turn a SINGLE SENTENCE into a complete character analysis, identification of my politics, and have turned "Much of" into absolute cause.
There is a simple material way to prove me wrong. Find some peer reviewed literature that supports your case. I already looked myself, and already found a mistake in something I wrote earlier. It has nothing to do with "greening" the economy, however. But looking for evidence and noting mistakes is what I do.
Will, if you want to move from conclusions back to evidence, then it doesn't matter. If you move from evidence to conclusions, then you are simply stating that you know more about Muller's work (and similar work by a large corpus of scientists) then they do. Including all the advanced statistical techniques they used to examine specifically the issue that you bring up. My guess is that you wouldn't even know how to take the marginal of a multivariate gaussian. But hey, you know best. The people who write the blogs you read -- they sure are smart, and tell it how it is. BENGHAZI!!!!
First, I didn't quote anything. Second, because I disagree with you, I am labeled a right-wing person -
Not "quote" per see, but the Spain-green-thing is right-wing canard, and exists entirely within the right-wing media bubble. Very easy to work out.
This kind of attack tells me you're very immature, and have this crazy notion that your beliefs are absolutely correct, whereas the opposing position isn't just wrong, it's evil. The opposition is wrong, dead wrong, and they must be vanquished.
On the contrary, I do not believe that at all. My field is studying ignorance, and that is essentially the cause of all the problems in the world, to a rough approximation. The right-wing has left the planet, epistemology speaking, and are basically now a bunch of moonbats, and that has ethical consequences. At least the left-wing has the dignity to distance itself from its cranks.
If I believed that it were possible to have a good faith discussion with you about Spain's financial problems, or AGW, I certainly would. But you've already shown your hand on what you think "good" information is.
You want me to listen, for real? Then go find some peer reviewed literature in respected economic/political science journals, that argue that Spain's financial problems are caused by attempting to move to a green economy.
you're the economist.
And yes, I do have a degree in economics.
And yet you're quoting alternative right-wing news sources as fact. I have your word or your behavior to go by. If you actually knew something about Spain's financial troubles, then you'd *already* know several top economists who study it specifically, and *already* be able to identify the difference in opinion between them, and *already* know something about how they each support their arguments.
But I'm willing to bet that this little canard exists entirely withing the right-wing news bubble, and you don't know any of what I just stated, and if you consulted google scholar you would quickly discover that academics don't know anything anyway.
Muller looked at station quality specifically, and found that you get the same warming signal using good quality and poor quality temperature stations. But of course you already know this since you are interested in getting to the bottom of the debate.
MooseMiester, Spain is suffering from not having control of its currency combined with its profligate ways. There are successful examples of addressing climate change -- many of them. But you don't know anything about that because you simply aren't interested, since you already have all the answers. If you really want to understand the world, you must leave motivated reasoning behind.
The AGW crowd has to falsify the Null Hypothesis.
(1), Not all science fits into NHST. (Know what that is?).
(2), The science was unequivocal 30 years ago. The only people who disagree with it read blogs, and partisan news sources, and don't study the phenomena in question. Not even Linzen, Christy and Spencer publish that much any more. They don't need to.
Science is true, even when you chose not to believe in it. The real question is: when will you listen?
Be honest with yourself. Most temperature records outside of cities don't exist before 1977, especially in countries like the US, Canada, Russia, Australia or Africa. Do you know why? Because there were no stations to record the information.
And that type of ad hoc analysis is supposed to substitude for disinterested scientific investigation? Is that the best you got? Remember when Richard Muller was *sure* that climate scientists were cooking the books on temps, and promised to bring the best science to the problem in BEST? He got funding at the drop of a hat (from Koch), and Anthony Watts /promised/ to abide by Muller's findings. Then Muller's findings disagreed with what Watts wanted, and Muller was a AGW "shill" over night. And you think you know more than Muller?
There is a significant population of young self-styled geniuses, who think they know more about everything then long beards who've been around the block, and actually do science, and have publications. They believe this because they know what the malloc(...) function does, which makes them special.
This issues has been deliberately politicized by the right. (Don't for get that it was Bush senior who signed the Kyoto protocol.) Somehow the opinion shapers manage to make these young geniuses feel like rebels, instead of the sheep that they are. (Frank Luntz, I'm talking about you.)
This issue isn't going away, and neither is the spin-doctoring. In 20 or 40 years, I these young geniuses will be telling their children how smart they were and continue to be. Hardly anyone has that moment when they realize that everything they *know* is wrong.
There's a book "Mistakes were made: but not by me", written by two prominent social psychologists. It details (among other things) the truly odious history of clinical psychologists injecting false memories of childhood abuse into their clients. The most heart breaking thing, other than the broken families, is that even after all of the empirical research into the topic, demonstrating what has happened, most of these psychologists are sticking to their guns, blithly ruining more lives. It's all very moral from their point of view.
That is the level of madness we have to contend with. Otherwise dealing with AGW would be painless, simple, and almost invisible in the changes that would happen to our lives.
Those of us who ACTUALLY care about the environment saw Global Warming as the political sham it always was, funneling money into lining the pockets of many politically connected people and industries.
Projection.
It's irrelevant if the climate is changing as a function of what mankind is doing, in whole or in part - because we aren't making enough of a change to be a problem.
Internally inconsistent argument.
And, fyi, people have studied that function extensively (perhaps more than anything else ever), and determined that the function is indeed strong enough to make a change that is very likely a problem.
It's less about the existence of global warming than the use of the existence of global warming as a cudgel for all manner of environmental regulations. That's what's controversial.
What regulations? If we could have a debate about regulations, that would be awesome. Personally I think a gently phased in carbon tax is a good idea, combined with massive investment in all of the above R&D. Should barely make a dent in our style of life, and we don't know what clever things we'll develop of the next few decades. Also, even if you discount carbon pollution (which is truly skewing the energy market), wind power is now cheaper than coal. So let's level the playing field.
But instead we get bizarre arguments about Popper from people who know nothing about the philosophy of science, and strong predictions of cooling based on 15 year time series that shows warming -- albeit not strong monotonic warming.
You mean accurate temperature records up to 1987,
Be honest with yourself. You learnt everything you know about AGW from reading specific blogs, and watching youtube and TV.
Haha, you think that people haven't looked Milankovitch cycles? How you hear about it in the first place? Magick?
Nothing will convince you MatthiasF. You will either die quite soon ('cause most deniers are old), or one day be explaining to your kids how the climate changes were natural, and that's why you fought against sensible measures to do something about it. Good luck with that.
No, the most money is to be made in grabbing as much power as possible. Any excuse will do.
Said without any trace of irony. Michael Mann is just about to bring down the Koch brothers (defenders of -tyranny- I mean FREEDOM!!!!), and grab power for himself, and force everyone to get a good science education!!!! TEH HORRRORRRR!!!!
If they found that there was no man-made global warming, they'd be out of jobs.
I'm sure the Koch brothers and 100 other industries would fund all the research they ever could do. And if their conclusions are sound, then science *would* move on, as history is shown. Now, I *am* a scientist, who *is* going up against entrenched academic careers, and it is *fun*, cause I've got the killer application that *shows* I'm correct, and they've got to play catch-up.
But i'm sure you're right, because the alternative for you is that you will one day have to tell your children why we didn't do more to stop the floods and the droughts, and the rising seas.
It's a questionable mixing of questionable data
It's only questionable because you consider it immoral for the government to interfere with the economy, even though the vast majority of economists who actually *test* their theories disagree with you. Climate scientists also test their theories, but they must be wrong, because otherwise there you'd be a bad person, endangering the prosperity of your children, and also a stooge of entrenched interests.
All of that is a little confronting, so of course it's questionable mixing of questionable data. It doesn't matter that AGW is perhaps the most studied phenomena *ever*, and that there is a vast confluence of evidence that *all* points to the same conclusion. Because, you know, you're a good person and all.
If this were science rather than religion
Projection.
There's been lots of work in paleoclimate. But "skeptics" don't listen because it is "uncertain". However, it taking the last 15 years of surface temperature *only* (discounting the ocean whereby 90% of climate heat goes), shows a dearth in warming, then they are *certain* they are right that the science is wrong.
What we see here is grasping at straws to find *some* reason, *any* reason, to impugn climate science. It doesn't matter how absurd, if that's what you want to believe. In one of Monckton's talks, he took literally a 2 year history of arctic ice to claim that it is recovering strongly. 2 years.
You can discount any period of time based on ad-hoc reasoning, which is why the debate requires good faith skepticism.
Climate skeptic is code for someone who'll believe anything if it makes AGW sound unlikely. Of course they cannot see that, but that's why it's called denial. It's a technical term, and technically correct.
The causality of *all* prior changes appears to have been dismissed.
On the contrary, if you actually read the article (for example), you'd note that it is about testing the causality of *all* prior changes to the climate, and see if they are sufficient to explain current changes. Notice how you missed that?
It's not science. The Scientific method requires that observations can be independently reproduced and that a hypothesis is falsifiable.
You can get all the relevant data yourself, and run the tests yourself if you have the expertise
This notion that AGW is not falsifiable is plain sophistry. My guess is that you've heard of Popper's name, but wouldn't know the first thing about the philosophy of science. It is a simple fact that the AGW hypothesis is built upon may falsifiable hypotheses that make predictions. Climate contrarians, on the other hand, owe the world a scientific explanation, but for some (obvious) reason fail to see the irony in them not needing to back up their assertions with anything scientific.
And you know that a priori?
The question of origins is outside the reach of scientific inquiry. I wish the physicists would stop playing in the philosophical and theological sandbox.
Pffft, just a small amount of anxiety of the mechanization of the soul? If you had a time-machine, would you go live in the world before Descartes? Remember, disease used to be caused by evil spirits, and mental illness is possession by deamons!!! Now, get science out of the philosophical and theological sandbox!!!