You haven't specified any set of observations that would make you change your hypothesis.
If you cannot get past this, then we will have to call it a day. I have noted the following, which you have just said would/not/ change the hypothesis; however, I have stated that they/would/ -- at least for me:
+ Insufficient radiative forcing of CO2
+ Warming attributed to Sun (correlated change is solar irradience)
That should be enough. I could list hundreds
What you've cited are fairly uncontroversial physical constants, and then made the gigantic leap that their mere existence is sufficient to justify your hypothesis.
If you call the above uncontroversial physical constants (wtf?), then you have already disproved AGW, and expanded the definition of constants. Go collect a nobel prize!
He has a significant financial interest in climate science reaching a particular conclusion.
Do you really believe that Al Gore is motivated by money? Think about that for a moment. What evidence is there for it? I don't even know if he has stocks in renewable energy research companies, or the like, but isn't it plausible that he has invested in said (theoretical?) companies because he has lots of money, and believes that this is a good thing to do?
Can you support your point a little better? It sounds like you are just casting unfounded negative aspirtions.
But you haven't listed all the necessary factors yet, nor specified what you mean by AGW (by specifying those factors).
Are we talking about/falsifiable/ or provable? For falsifiable, all you have to show is that you can disprove it, which is has already been done. Read this page on the topic
We can discuss the bristlecone and ipcc-report cards later. Solve the above first. We should also agree a priori on what constitudes sufficient arguments for AGW and CAGW, which is a different topic. You will have to supply those first (and be honest), since you are the one who is bound to put the burden of truth very high from a risk management perspective. The important of an a priori agreement should be obvious -- otherwise the goalposts get continuously shifted.
A theory can be falsified by showing a necessary (if insufficient) factor is missing.
Are you/really/ going to argue the AGW is not falsifiable? All you have to do is show that, for example, warming can be explained by solar changes, or that CO2 has too little sensitivity as a forcing factor, or one of a hundred things really.
I mean, really??
I don't think there is any point discussing anything else unless we can agree on this super, super-simple idea.
btw, can you pick a single thing out of the AR4 that is wrong? (Other then the mistake with Himalayan glacial melt.) I really mean a/single/ thing. If we can agree that AGW is falsifiable, then I guess you can pick/anything/ from AR4 and we can discuss it =)
But first, you have to let you mind rest on an idea that it does not want. Instead of back-tracking, the mind will want to simply create new thoughts so that you feel "right".
WATCH YOUR MIND, and you will discover the most astounding thing.
The first two are necessary for your hypothesis, but not sufficient. The third is asking to prove a negative (essentially trying to redefine the null hypothesis), which is creative, but not convincing.
You have this the wrong way around. If you show/any/ of the aforementioned, then AGW evaoporates. Therefore, AGW is falsifiable.
Do you feel negativity when you read Spencer, or McIntyre, or wattsupwiththat.com?:
Sadness
I do not believe that you have read the IPCC report. It is *huge*. Nobody just reads it.
Sure, the single point which is weakest is the lack of a falsifiable hypothesis.
Okay, you already have the answer to this one above. By analogy, the theory of evolution would be disproved by finding human fossils that are billions of years old.
Put another way, pretend we went back in time to 1990. What observation of CO2 levels and global average temperature in the year 2010 would have falsified the hypothesis of AGW? If you need more factors besides CO2 levels and global average temperature, let's be specific about that those other factors would be.
Your time range is too narrow -- there would have to be a *huge* divergence between CO2 and temperature to cast doubt in just 20 years of data. According to a NAS review, there was consensus on this issue in 1979, well before it became politicised.
The answer to your question *is* in the IPCC report, but note how we are already talking about multiple issues at once.
Discover that CO2 doesn't absorb energy.
Discover that atmospheric CO2 is natural.
Discover alternative mechanism to explain warming.
That's just off the top of my head. Any of the above works. So it *IS* a falsifiable hypothesis.
As for knowing if you are in denial or not -- read something you don't want to (say, the IPCC report), and watch your mind. If you feel negativity, then that is your cognitive systems being screwed with by denial. If you cannot read it, then you are over your head.
There are other ways to know, but in my experience, that is the best.
You are correct that people against pure lassiez-faire find AGW emotionally convenient. This is true. But the scientific argument being made is on a whole different level. It is very deep, but not even the surface features get a fair shake when presented to certain people (who believe they are not in denial).
There is a game you can play -- pick a single point in the AGW argument that you think is weak (or an event in the AGW story). We explore that single point without *any* deviation, until we can score it. Then we alternate picking points. We keep score as we go.
A person in denial cannot play this game. They will refuse to stick to the single point.
+ Politics is about being seen to have the answers, and "mastering" all opposition, so of course politicians nay-say each other continuous. Political epistemology has nothing to do with whether you try something, but whether it will make you powerful.
+ Religion can have very sophisticated epistemologies, but always works from a set of givens. For example, we/know/ God exists. The set of givens can differ from "everything is the good book is literally true", to "Jesus was a saint who was far wiser then me or you."
+ Politics intrudes on science insofar as science is conducted by human beings who are naturally attached to their ideas, and their prestige and influence.
The most sciency disciplines don't have too much trouble with new information. The less sciency (social sciences) have huge issues when it comes to accepting new information/because/ they see knowledge as politic, and thus engage in politics. (See first point above.)
The separation of powers and trial by jury are perhaps the single biggest reason for the ascendency of Western civilization. It cut down on violence, vendettas, and corruption. In other parts of the world, when someone gets an official job, they sack all the old employees, and bring in their own people -- usually blood relatives.
I *so* agree with you. As "adults" we like to believe in all the crazy people out there, not aware that we/all/ suffer under the weight of delusions. The buddhists refer to this as the 2nd noble truth, which is part of the *core* buddhist teaching. (All buddhist teachings fit into the 4 nobles truths.) The origin of suffering *is* about false beliefs, and how they 'cause us to suffer in samsara forever.
Politics suffers under a chronic failure to listen, and the most puerile level of argumentation demands to be taken seriously, least one is accused of being an ideologue. In fact, accusation, guilt trips, misdirection, and claiming the morale high-ground is just how you get things done.
I guess this is why Plato talked about the Noble Lie, although I abhor the very notion.
You got to figure it out:
Wrong paper showing global warming is true gets you promoted
Wrong paper showing global warming is false gets you fired^W to resign.
Do you know ANYTHING about what happened at all??? Aside from issues with the peer review process, Wagner took issue with exaggerated claims that the papers/authors/ made in public press releases.
On what basis do you think the guy was fired? Do you have anything at all? Wager was very specific about why he resigned.
If you are in doubt, then go read about the issue, and not just from Andy Watts' website, but from original sources.
Only someone in denial can interpret a protest resignation as proof of conspiracy without actually considering the words of the person in question. Go figure.
I agree with your point about laws. The real question in my mind is whether Gibson is using wood from endangered specious of trees, and sneaking around local government regulations with bribes and the like. That is they type of thing that the Lacey Act is meant to address.
In my mind, it is possible that Gibson is entirely innocent, and the victim of misinformation and/or incompetence. But I would not be so quick to make conclusions one way or the other.
Wagner (you know, the guy who resigned), said that he took issue with the exaggerated statements that the authors and other skeptics made about the paper.
But I guess that since Wagner resigned, and you are a "skeptic", then you already _know_ that Wagner resigned because of some Al Gorian related conspiracy. You should really look up the dictionary and read the definition of "skeptic" again. Then read the definition of "denial". My guess is that you will do neither, and nor will you learn the real story behind Wagner's resignation, or seek to understand the papers themselves and the discourse around it.
You already know to much about the affair to do that.
Acutally, Wagner also took issue with exaggerated claims that/the authors/, and other skeptics made about the paper. This is an obvious allusion to being played by a political machine. I would probably resign as well.
It would if all a CAGW believer did was jump to emotionally convenient conclusions.
There is a book called "Heads in the Sand", which goes into the psychological mechanisms of denial, which I understand very well from my academic background. The first rule of denial is to project your intellectual shortcomings onto anybody who questions you. This is really quite bizzare when seen from the outside, but the person doing it really cannot tell that they are doing it. In this way, the emotionally confronting exercise of actually questioning one's beliefs/never/ happens, and thus the confirmation bias runs rough-shod over higher cognitive systems. Unconscious mechanisms take care of erasing your memory of anything inconsistent with your own intellectual supremecy.
This is a famous quotation from Ronnie's Knots, which addresses the issue:
The range of what we think and do
is limited by what we fail to notice.
And because we fail to notice that we fail to notice,
there is little we can do to change;
until we notice how failing to notice
shapes our thoughts and deeds.
Spend half a day googling for Roy Spencer, and you will build an obvious profile of a oil-funded ideological right-wing-christian who puts his politics ahead of anything remotly resembling scientific rationality.
Before you start jumping up and down on the ad hominem, Roy Spencer's arguments are taken seriously, and responded to in detail (as your google search will easily uncover). The problem is that Roy and his ideological peers never/listen/, but just keep on charging ahead.
Not only he fairly sure the claims of the paper is wrong, he took issue with the way THE AUTHORS overtly politicised the paper through exaggerated claims. In his own words:
With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements, e.g., in a press release of The University of Alabama in Huntsville from 27 July 2011 [2], the main author’s personal homepage [3], the story “New NASA data blow gaping hole in global warming alarmism”
I guess Wagner felt he was the victim of a climate denial drive-by shooting. We see this phenomena all the time in intelligent design. Publish a "rebuttal" in a little known non-mainstream journal, and then press-release the hell out of it. Note that the author, Roy Spencer, is also an intelligent designer too.
Well this is interesting. The Lacey Act makes it unconditionally illegal to import various flaura/forna irrespective of whether regional gonvernments complain or not, so long as there is a foreign law that protect the plants/animals. It becomes a matter of law whether the Madagascan government has laws on the books that it is ignoring. I suspect that Gibson is not telling the whole truth, but at the same time, respect that fact that they need not.
That is one interpretation. Another interpretation is that what happened left a bad taste in his mouth. I guess you would have to read the papers involved, and the story around the submission to really know.
/or/
You could just jump to the most emotionally convenient conclusion.
Court filings wold be best, of course. It seems that if exporting unfinished wood/is/ illegal in India, then Gibson has breeched the Lacey act. India is well known for corrupt burocracies, and a culture where the size of the bribe is an indication of the seriousness of the offer. It may well be the case that Gibson has complied with Indian traditions, but broken the letter of the law. If that is the case, then the DOJ has fscked up.
I am wasting my modpoints to point out that this is just paranoid nonsense. I would assume that Grishnakh is beyond reasoning with; however, one should read the original sources themselves, instead of relying on second, third or third-hand interprestions. The above is a/forthhand/ interpretation.
It seems hard to believe that Gibson would be abvoe muddying the waters in this investigation. Who knows, perhaps they really are saints being bullied by a DOJ that is victimising Republicans.
Democrates are well known for their victimology, but behold! Republicans do it to! What is that conservative zen mantra? "Personal Responsiblity"? Is it possible that Gibson brought a DOJ investigation on themselves by playing fast and loose with regulations? As always, read the original sources.
It doesn't matter if you retaliate or not -- the captured people are hardly going to be treated fairly. Such is the nature of questioning an authorities cognitive construction. Consider the German spies that walked into FBI headquaters, gave themselves up, and then passed on intelligence of ongoing operations. First the FBI laughed at them, then some bombs went off, and then the FBI executed the spies that gave them the intelligence, in a public display of doing the job.
I disagree with the actions of Anon., because they seem rather purile and misdirected. However, I understand that retaliation is the justice mechanism when courts and law enforcement officials fail. People in power respond to gain and loss. So money talks, and so does loss of reputation. But prostrating yourself infront of the authorities and expecting fair treatment is ludacrous.
Form Australian prime minister Bob Hawke abhored racism and then apartide regime in South Africa. He pushed for sanctions within the commonwealth, and Thatcher gave the same argument that you just gave. Sanctions were pretty ineffective for a time, but they did end up bringing the South African regime to its knees. You see, Hawke and a small secretive team met with the major creditors of South Africa, and they got them all to agree to cut of South Africa's credit all at once. The regime fell just a few months later.
So sanctions/do/ work. But so does engagement through trade. I suspect that you have no problem accepting that the issue is far from clear.
Slashdot Mirror
You haven't specified any set of observations that would make you change your hypothesis.
If you cannot get past this, then we will have to call it a day. I have noted the following, which you have just said would /not/ change the hypothesis; however, I have stated that they /would/ -- at least for me:
+ Insufficient radiative forcing of CO2
+ Warming attributed to Sun (correlated change is solar irradience)
That should be enough. I could list hundreds
What you've cited are fairly uncontroversial physical constants, and then made the gigantic leap that their mere existence is sufficient to justify your hypothesis.
If you call the above uncontroversial physical constants (wtf?), then you have already disproved AGW, and expanded the definition of constants. Go collect a nobel prize!
He makes a lot of money off the environmental movement.
How did he do that? How much money did he make?
He has a significant financial interest in climate science reaching a particular conclusion.
Do you really believe that Al Gore is motivated by money? Think about that for a moment. What evidence is there for it? I don't even know if he has stocks in renewable energy research companies, or the like, but isn't it plausible that he has invested in said (theoretical?) companies because he has lots of money, and believes that this is a good thing to do?
Can you support your point a little better? It sounds like you are just casting unfounded negative aspirtions.
But you haven't listed all the necessary factors yet, nor specified what you mean by AGW (by specifying those factors).
Are we talking about /falsifiable/ or provable? For falsifiable, all you have to show is that you can disprove it, which is has already been done. Read this page on the topic
We can discuss the bristlecone and ipcc-report cards later. Solve the above first. We should also agree a priori on what constitudes sufficient arguments for AGW and CAGW, which is a different topic. You will have to supply those first (and be honest), since you are the one who is bound to put the burden of truth very high from a risk management perspective. The important of an a priori agreement should be obvious -- otherwise the goalposts get continuously shifted.
A theory can be falsified by showing a necessary (if insufficient) factor is missing.
/really/ going to argue the AGW is not falsifiable? All you have to do is show that, for example, warming can be explained by solar changes, or that CO2 has too little sensitivity as a forcing factor, or one of a hundred things really.
/single/ thing. If we can agree that AGW is falsifiable, then I guess you can pick /anything/ from AR4 and we can discuss it =)
Are you
I mean, really??
I don't think there is any point discussing anything else unless we can agree on this super, super-simple idea.
btw, can you pick a single thing out of the AR4 that is wrong? (Other then the mistake with Himalayan glacial melt.) I really mean a
But first, you have to let you mind rest on an idea that it does not want. Instead of back-tracking, the mind will want to simply create new thoughts so that you feel "right".
WATCH YOUR MIND, and you will discover the most astounding thing.
The first two are necessary for your hypothesis, but not sufficient. The third is asking to prove a negative (essentially trying to redefine the null hypothesis), which is creative, but not convincing.
You have this the wrong way around. If you show /any/ of the aforementioned, then AGW evaoporates. Therefore, AGW is falsifiable.
Do you feel negativity when you read Spencer, or McIntyre, or wattsupwiththat.com? :
Sadness
I do not believe that you have read the IPCC report. It is *huge*. Nobody just reads it.
Sure, the single point which is weakest is the lack of a falsifiable hypothesis.
Okay, you already have the answer to this one above. By analogy, the theory of evolution would be disproved by finding human fossils that are billions of years old.
Put another way, pretend we went back in time to 1990. What observation of CO2 levels and global average temperature in the year 2010 would have falsified the hypothesis of AGW? If you need more factors besides CO2 levels and global average temperature, let's be specific about that those other factors would be.
Your time range is too narrow -- there would have to be a *huge* divergence between CO2 and temperature to cast doubt in just 20 years of data. According to a NAS review, there was consensus on this issue in 1979, well before it became politicised.
The answer to your question *is* in the IPCC report, but note how we are already talking about multiple issues at once.
How you falsify AGW, in 1 second:
Discover that CO2 doesn't absorb energy.
Discover that atmospheric CO2 is natural.
Discover alternative mechanism to explain warming.
That's just off the top of my head. Any of the above works. So it *IS* a falsifiable hypothesis.
As for knowing if you are in denial or not -- read something you don't want to (say, the IPCC report), and watch your mind. If you feel negativity, then that is your cognitive systems being screwed with by denial. If you cannot read it, then you are over your head.
There are other ways to know, but in my experience, that is the best.
You are correct that people against pure lassiez-faire find AGW emotionally convenient. This is true. But the scientific argument being made is on a whole different level. It is very deep, but not even the surface features get a fair shake when presented to certain people (who believe they are not in denial).
There is a game you can play -- pick a single point in the AGW argument that you think is weak (or an event in the AGW story). We explore that single point without *any* deviation, until we can score it. Then we alternate picking points. We keep score as we go.
A person in denial cannot play this game. They will refuse to stick to the single point.
Your response was very confused.
/know/ God exists. The set of givens can differ from "everything is the good book is literally true", to "Jesus was a saint who was far wiser then me or you."
/because/ they see knowledge as politic, and thus engage in politics. (See first point above.)
+ Politics is about being seen to have the answers, and "mastering" all opposition, so of course politicians nay-say each other continuous. Political epistemology has nothing to do with whether you try something, but whether it will make you powerful.
+ Religion can have very sophisticated epistemologies, but always works from a set of givens. For example, we
+ Politics intrudes on science insofar as science is conducted by human beings who are naturally attached to their ideas, and their prestige and influence.
The most sciency disciplines don't have too much trouble with new information. The less sciency (social sciences) have huge issues when it comes to accepting new information
Back in reality,
You are so funny.
You are complaining about the very mechanisms of social hierarchy: an instinct baked into the human condition.
I *so* agree with you. As "adults" we like to believe in all the crazy people out there, not aware that we /all/ suffer under the weight of delusions. The buddhists refer to this as the 2nd noble truth, which is part of the *core* buddhist teaching. (All buddhist teachings fit into the 4 nobles truths.) The origin of suffering *is* about false beliefs, and how they 'cause us to suffer in samsara forever.
Politics suffers under a chronic failure to listen, and the most puerile level of argumentation demands to be taken seriously, least one is accused of being an ideologue. In fact, accusation, guilt trips, misdirection, and claiming the morale high-ground is just how you get things done.
I guess this is why Plato talked about the Noble Lie, although I abhor the very notion.
You got to figure it out: Wrong paper showing global warming is true gets you promoted Wrong paper showing global warming is false gets you fired^W to resign.
Do you know ANYTHING about what happened at all??? Aside from issues with the peer review process, Wagner took issue with exaggerated claims that the papers /authors/ made in public press releases.
On what basis do you think the guy was fired? Do you have anything at all? Wager was very specific about why he resigned.
If you are in doubt, then go read about the issue, and not just from Andy Watts' website, but from original sources.
Only someone in denial can interpret a protest resignation as proof of conspiracy without actually considering the words of the person in question. Go figure.
I agree with your point about laws. The real question in my mind is whether Gibson is using wood from endangered specious of trees, and sneaking around local government regulations with bribes and the like. That is they type of thing that the Lacey Act is meant to address.
In my mind, it is possible that Gibson is entirely innocent, and the victim of misinformation and/or incompetence. But I would not be so quick to make conclusions one way or the other.
Court documents would be a good place to start.
Wagner (you know, the guy who resigned), said that he took issue with the exaggerated statements that the authors and other skeptics made about the paper.
But I guess that since Wagner resigned, and you are a "skeptic", then you already _know_ that Wagner resigned because of some Al Gorian related conspiracy. You should really look up the dictionary and read the definition of "skeptic" again. Then read the definition of "denial". My guess is that you will do neither, and nor will you learn the real story behind Wagner's resignation, or seek to understand the papers themselves and the discourse around it.
You already know to much about the affair to do that.
Acutally, Wagner also took issue with exaggerated claims that /the authors/, and other skeptics made about the paper. This is an obvious allusion to being played by a political machine. I would probably resign as well.
There is a book called "Heads in the Sand", which goes into the psychological mechanisms of denial, which I understand very well from my academic background. The first rule of denial is to project your intellectual shortcomings onto anybody who questions you. This is really quite bizzare when seen from the outside, but the person doing it really cannot tell that they are doing it. In this way, the emotionally confronting exercise of actually questioning one's beliefs
This is a famous quotation from Ronnie's Knots, which addresses the issue:
The range of what we think and do
is limited by what we fail to notice.
And because we fail to notice that we fail to notice,
there is little we can do to change;
until we notice how failing to notice
shapes our thoughts and deeds.
Spend half a day googling for Roy Spencer, and you will build an obvious profile of a oil-funded ideological right-wing-christian who puts his politics ahead of anything remotly resembling scientific rationality.
/listen/, but just keep on charging ahead.
Before you start jumping up and down on the ad hominem, Roy Spencer's arguments are taken seriously, and responded to in detail (as your google search will easily uncover). The problem is that Roy and his ideological peers never
With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements, e.g., in a press release of The University of Alabama in Huntsville from 27 July 2011 [2], the main author’s personal homepage [3], the story “New NASA data blow gaping hole in global warming alarmism”
I guess Wagner felt he was the victim of a climate denial drive-by shooting. We see this phenomena all the time in intelligent design. Publish a "rebuttal" in a little known non-mainstream journal, and then press-release the hell out of it. Note that the author, Roy Spencer, is also an intelligent designer too.
Well this is interesting. The Lacey Act makes it unconditionally illegal to import various flaura/forna irrespective of whether regional gonvernments complain or not, so long as there is a foreign law that protect the plants/animals. It becomes a matter of law whether the Madagascan government has laws on the books that it is ignoring. I suspect that Gibson is not telling the whole truth, but at the same time, respect that fact that they need not.
He is also an intelligent designer.
That is one interpretation. Another interpretation is that what happened left a bad taste in his mouth. I guess you would have to read the papers involved, and the story around the submission to really know.
/or/
You could just jump to the most emotionally convenient conclusion.
And that is what makes a skeptic a denier.
Court filings wold be best, of course. It seems that if exporting unfinished wood /is/ illegal in India, then Gibson has breeched the Lacey act. India is well known for corrupt burocracies, and a culture where the size of the bribe is an indication of the seriousness of the offer. It may well be the case that Gibson has complied with Indian traditions, but broken the letter of the law. If that is the case, then the DOJ has fscked up.
I am wasting my modpoints to point out that this is just paranoid nonsense. I would assume that Grishnakh is beyond reasoning with; however, one should read the original sources themselves, instead of relying on second, third or third-hand interprestions. The above is a /forthhand/ interpretation.
It seems hard to believe that Gibson would be abvoe muddying the waters in this investigation. Who knows, perhaps they really are saints being bullied by a DOJ that is victimising Republicans.
Democrates are well known for their victimology, but behold! Republicans do it to! What is that conservative zen mantra? "Personal Responsiblity"? Is it possible that Gibson brought a DOJ investigation on themselves by playing fast and loose with regulations? As always, read the original sources.
It doesn't matter if you retaliate or not -- the captured people are hardly going to be treated fairly. Such is the nature of questioning an authorities cognitive construction. Consider the German spies that walked into FBI headquaters, gave themselves up, and then passed on intelligence of ongoing operations. First the FBI laughed at them, then some bombs went off, and then the FBI executed the spies that gave them the intelligence, in a public display of doing the job.
I disagree with the actions of Anon., because they seem rather purile and misdirected. However, I understand that retaliation is the justice mechanism when courts and law enforcement officials fail. People in power respond to gain and loss. So money talks, and so does loss of reputation. But prostrating yourself infront of the authorities and expecting fair treatment is ludacrous.
Form Australian prime minister Bob Hawke abhored racism and then apartide regime in South Africa. He pushed for sanctions within the commonwealth, and Thatcher gave the same argument that you just gave. Sanctions were pretty ineffective for a time, but they did end up bringing the South African regime to its knees. You see, Hawke and a small secretive team met with the major creditors of South Africa, and they got them all to agree to cut of South Africa's credit all at once. The regime fell just a few months later.
/do/ work. But so does engagement through trade. I suspect that you have no problem accepting that the issue is far from clear.
So sanctions