No, I’m much more skeptical about the ability of existing models to reliably and robustly project trends into the future than is suggested in a number of mainstream accounts. But I don’t go around making naked assertions about what is or isn’t true as if people who don’t agree are stupid, and I’ve spent around two years studying global climate change, during which time I’ve read a fair amount of the literature on both sides. I know from the attitude with which you approach this issue and from our past conversations that you have no idea what you’re talking about. You can lie to me and to yourself and insist that you do, but if you think about it for a moment I think you’ll realize that no, you really don’t. If you did, you’d say something like, “Recent trends have suggested that the models on which a great deal of the mainstream concern is built might be fundamentally flawed, and the uncertainties surrounding several aspects of the climate system (particularly cloud dynamics) suggest that the “consensus” position is somewhat less solid than much of the recent rhetoric would suggest. Given the kinds of policies that are being considered to address this issue, and given the enormous gaps in the discourse surrounding the ethical dimensions of the alleged climate change problem, it’s not clear that any of the policy responses being discussed would be appropriate – much less in circumstances involving such significant uncertainty.” That would be a reasonable position. What isn’t a reasonable position is to say that global climate change isn’t happening and that it’s just a lie. And you would know that if you knew what you were talking about.
And it seems like you don’t realize the difference between a metaphysical and an epistemological argument.
Good for you…
Haha. Thanks, you’ve made day. Now, I seem to remember that your interest in the GW scam stems from the fact that your homework for the public education system entails writing a paper about it or something ?
Ah yes, because you say so.
Why should I bother with such pseudo-scholarly style ? Anyway, are the models flawed or not ? Well, that’s the kind of question that real science would answer…
Well, I said global warming is a lie. So you failed at even basic reading. Yes, climate changes. That’s amazing news, no ?
Haha. More jokes ? What exactly do you think you mean by that ?
Hehe the paper is coming out in The Independent Review this Fall.
Regarding the models, they are built on a number of theoretically questionable suppositions, like that certain small-scale phenomena do not create butterfly effects which substantially affect long-term outcomes, or that certain poorly understood processes can be approximated without creating fundamentally flawed predictions, among many others. Modelers try to make sure to run sensitivity analyses to find out how important their premises are to their conclusions, but there are inherent limits on the degree to which one can cover all of one’s bases and still go through with producing a model. Because of the necessary imprecision of the models in capturing short-term and small-scale phenomena, it would be unreasonable to expect that they would perfectly capture the actual variability of the climate system. They are built to represent long-term, robust trends. But this makes them difficult to evaluate and vulnerable to the possibility that the short term trends that they do not capture actually play a significant role in shaping future states of the climate. The ultimate answer is that the current state of our scientific knowledge makes it an open question whether the models are reliable or not. Recent evidence has not lined up well with models’ predictions, creating a difficult situation in which the model’s defenders insist that the models are not to be expected to capture all short-term variability while detractors wonder whether we’re dealing with a theory that’s so resistant to being falsified by any evidence in the short term that it becomes unreasonable to trust it. Maybe better science would be able to answer this question, but as things stand, people aren’t entirely sure.
A metaphysical argument is meant to establish a claim about what does or does not exist, while an epistemological argument is meant to establish a claim about what we do or do not (or can or can not) know. It is relatively reasonable to say that the current state of our understanding of the climate leaves us ill-prepared to make robust predictions about the future state of the climate system. That is an epistemological argument. It relies on the claim that we do not know certain things, and therefore can’t make any definitive claims. On the other hand, it is unreasonable to say that anthropogenic global climate change is not happening. That would be a metaphysical argument which would seemingly need to be based on scientific knowledge and understanding that I know for an incontrovertible fact that you do not have, because no one has it.
Finally, global warming is not a lie, as there is robust temperature data which shows an increase in average global temperatures by approximately one degree (F) over the last century. What may be a lie (or more accurate, what may be a mistaken scientific claim) is the hypothesis that a substantial portion of the twentieth century warming was attributable to human activity (in spite of a vertical atmospheric temperature profile consistent with a greenhouse gas forcing, a shift in the isotopic makeup of atmospheric CO2 towards the type released by fossil fuel burning, etc. etc.) or that we can expect substantially more warming in the future (particularly if our understanding of climatic feedbacks is flawed in important ways). What may also be a mistaken hypothesis is that the other natural processes captured by the term “climate change,” like rainfall patterns, sea-level trends, and ecosystem stability are sensitive to changes in global temperature and atmospheric composition in the ways that some scientists anticipate. So when you said that “global warming” is a lie, I charitably took you to mean that “the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis” is a lie, and then charitably assumed that you meant to include the entire hypothesis advanced by the mainstream (like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, etc.), which would more appropriately be called “the anthropogenic global climate change hypothesis.” If my interpretations were wrong, then that seems to be a bigger problem for you than me.
Wrong and/or confused. Metaphysical arguments are arguments dealing with, well, metaphysics. For instance : What’s the ‘nature’ of time and space which are foundations for physics ? Arguments dealing with such concepts are ‘metaphysical’, that is, above physics. Arguments dealing with ‘super natural’ concepts are metaphysical.
My claiming that ‘anthropogenic climate change’ is a political scam is a statement of fact, or if you prefer, an illustration of how ignorant I am, but at any rate is not a metaphysical argument. So, given your mistaken use of terminology one wonders how sound your philosophical arguments really are…
Oh. So the temperature of air(?) in the whole planet has been carefully recorded for a hundred years (?). And then millions and millions and millions of data points have been averaged to get a 0.5 C increase ? Impressive… So let’s assume the average temperature changed 0.5 in a hundred years. Such change warrants the current political hysteria, how ?
Because I disregard what the pseudo scientists working for the state say and I don’t use your politically correct style ?
Juan, I know what metaphysics is. It’s true that questions relating to the nature of time and space, and to the existence and nature of “super-natural” entities or phenomena, are metaphysical questions. We might, for example, ask whether there is any such thing as “time” and what sort of thing time is (or might be). We might similarly ask whether there is really “space” and what properties space could have. We could ask whether both or either of these things are illusions, and ask what sorts of things can exist in their absence. But those are all questions about the sorts of things that exist (as well as their natures, I suppose, if you wanted to separate questions relating to the nature of a thing from the discussion of its existence). And so similarly, when we ask whether there is any such thing as anthropogenic global climate change, we are asking a metaphysical question. We may seek to use scientific disciplines like chemistry and physics to help us to answer the metaphysical question, but the argument that we will make using the evidence provided by those disciplines will be a metaphysical one.
Your claiming that “anthropogenic global climate change is a political scam” is not a statement of fact because it is guilty of a category error. Anthropogenic climate change is not a claim, but a hypothesized physical phenomenon. Physical phenomena cannot be scams, even when they are only hypothetical. Hypotheses themselves can be scams, though, when they are presented in certain ways. And so you might coherently say that “the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis is a scam.” But firstly, your absolute lack of any in-depth understanding of climate science makes it difficult for me to take you seriously in making such an allegation, and secondly (and more importantly), the fact that “the anthropogenic global climate change hypothesis is a scam” would not entail the fact that “anthropogenic global climate change does not exist.”
So when you said “Except that GW is not real?” in your earlier post, you made a metaphysical point substantiated only by your claim about the epistemological status of the anthropogenic global climate change hypothesis. Hence, you confused an epistemological argument with a metaphysical one. The claim that the mainstream hypothesis is a scam tells us absolutely nothing about the reality or unreality of the anthropogenic global climate change phenomenon.
Turning to the issue of the global temperature record from the last 100 years, I’m not sure what you’re trying to establish by implying that the data set from which those reconstructions were generated was inadequate. Obviously it would be impossible to have a perfect record of the temperature of every point in the atmosphere over the last century. But even skeptical scientists do not dispute the idea that we are justified in drawing at least some conclusions from our admittedly limited data sets. The chances that twentieth century global temperature records are systematically biased in a statistically significant way are seemingly small given the reasonable robustness (though not infallibility) of the data set. The standard of evidence you seem to want here is far beyond that which is generally accepted within the broad scientific profession.
As for whether a degree of change in global average temperatures would justify “political hysteria,” I have to wonder if you’re joking. The degree change has already happened…do current conditions justify hysteria? Concern about global climate change has to do with predictions about the future, where the IPCC has predicted anywhere between 2 and 11.5 degrees (F) of further warming over the next 100 years, depending in part on what humanity decides to do over that span. I have already expressed reservations about the reliability of those projections, and so this should not be interpreted as an endorsement of those claims. But that clearly is where the concern is coming from, not the twentieth century warming.
That may be true yet you misused the word.
Again I disagree. If you want to use fancy words, it’s an ontological question. Whether X exists or not is ontology.
No. But I agree, the statement is not that clearly constructed. Let me try again…“ACM is NOT a physical FACT, it’s a LIE used for political purposes”. No category error now.
Again, I made a claim about the real PHYSICAL existence of something. No metaphysics. I made an ‘ontological’ claim.
No, you should admit you used the terminology wrongly and be done with it. I can also cast doubts about the existence of GW using epistemological arguments showing that what you call ‘science’ is flawed and not the proper mean to reach truth.
For any libertarian worth his salt the political ‘phenomena’ around the ‘hypothesis’ of ‘ACC’ should raise a red flag or three…
Or even close to it. So the data you are pretending to be so objective and real does not exist huh ?
Appeal to authority much ?
Why ?
Sorry, it’s half a degree…celsius.
That’s what I’m asking.
There was a half degree change in a HUNDRED YEARS. Is the hysteria justified ?
You mean, it comes from the apocalyptic pseudo-scientific ‘predictions’’ that government lackeys and employees make ?
But…ontology is a branch of metaphysics. Your attack basically amounts to saying, “That’s not science; it’s chemistry!” An argument about an issue in chemistry can coherently be termed a “scientific argument,” no? So yes, you’re making an ontological claim, and by extension it is also a metaphysical claim. Is this really where you want to build your response?
And are you really making a big deal of my using Fahrenheit measurements?
Ultimately, if you’re going to reject both the arguments of the entire mainstream scientific community and the minority of scientists who are skeptical of the mainstream position, and you think that all of the physical evidence on which current scientific claims are built is inadequate to justify any conclusion, then it will simply be impossible to talk to you about this. You have made up your mind, and nothing I can say will have any chance of changing your mind. What would I say? That according to the “psuedo-scientific” theories which compose the current state of human understanding of the global climate system, the mainstream “scam” doesn’t seem that unreasonable? That according to my “government lackey” professors, “public school” scientific education, and reading of “propagandistic” scientific literature, concern about global climate change doesn’t seem like it should be rejected out of hand? If your entrenchment in ad hominem argumentation is so thorough that anything I say is evidence that I am a statist lap-dog, then I simply can’t say anything to you that would convince you of anything besides my being a statist lap-dog.
But to me, that seems to suggest that your opinion doesn’t matter more than it suggests that I’m wrong. One of us is familiar with both the bulk of the mainstream position and the skeptical counterarguments, has written peer-reviewed publications on this issue, and has actively engaged with members of the scientific and philosophical community to work towards a coherent analysis of global climate change. The other of us is not familiar with the positions of either side of the debate or the science underpinning the conversation, refuses to listen to any of the participants who don’t agree with him on the grounds that they are clearly corrupt, and trolls online message boards insulting people who don’t agree with his ignorant and unfounded rejection of the mainstream hypothesis. Good luck winning supporters for that noble cause.
So ?
Still, my talking about the existence (or not) of PHYSICAL facts such as climate change is PHYSICS, not METAPHYSICS. Your pedantic usage of the word metaphysics is WRONG. Get over it.
It seems that by just changing the units, your claim of one degree change is false and a less ‘threatening’ change of half a degree now is ‘physical reality’…That’s nature of pseudo-scientific political propaganda.
It turns out I’m making an epistemological claim no ? And I didn’t reject the arguments of ‘skeptics’ either. The thing is, for every ‘scientific’ claim that the mainstream mafia makes, skeptics make a counter claim, which debunks the official view or shows it’s not at all conclusive.
As to the rest of your sales pitch regarding the respectability of the mainstream mob and your involvement with it, I couldn’t care less.
I’m oh so impressed.
Bottom line : The global warming spirit is getting ANGRY. We need sacrifices NOW.
Donny with an A, do you read climate audit? Fairly frills-free.
basically I think that the whole issue hinges on climate sensitivity. It is the weakest link in climate modelling and is akin to something like keynesian macroeconomics where a bunch of variables are being approximated with no good way of checking the precision or accuracy of said approximations OTHER than blatant curve fitting to historical trends.
scientism rears its ugly head. Various interest groups have been on about the climate since the 50’s. It’s just that they never got any attention until government needed a new hysteria inducing issue. Then you start to see lots of climate studies get funded. And the funding mostly comes from the same place, govt grants.
Juan, science is an epistemological tool with which we investigate certain kinds of metaphysical claims. How we know whether or not anthropogenic global climate change exists is an epistemological issue. Whether or not it does is a metaphysical issue. So when you say that the existence of anthropogenic global climate change is an issue for physics and not metaphysics, you again confuse an epistemological issue with a metaphysical issue. And using the word “metaphysical” in a discussion about philosophy is about as pedantic as using the word “pedantic.”
As for the issue of Fahrenheit vs. Celsius, I fail to see any reason why it’s a problem for me to use the units that are more confortable for me. I’m an American, and we don’t think in terms of Celsius. If you’d really prefer me to use Celsius units, I can do that…I just didn’t think it would be that big of a deal.
On the question of whether skeptics are successful in “debunking” every claim made by the “mainstream mafia,” I don’t think you’re right to say that they have, and I don’t think that many of the more respectful ones would want to say that either. For example, you’re not going to find many good scientists to argue that there was no 0.6 degree (C) warming in the twentieth century (though perhaps some might argue that the number is vulnerable to some bias, like the urban heat island effect). But perhaps more importantly, you simply aren’t qualified to weigh in on most of those issues, since you have no idea what you’re talking about. That’s not to say that only experts are qualified, or that I’m more qualified than you. It’s just to say that you don’t know the first thing about any of this. You’ve come to a conclusion for ideological reasons and are now refusing to consider that you might have picked the wrong side.
Nazgulnarsil, I don’t regularly read Climate Audit, but Steve McIntyre has done some great stuff (particularly his work with Ross McKitrick on the Mann, Bradley, and Hughes papers, as well as catching the errors in the twentieth century North American temperature records from NASA). I’d definitely count him among the good guys in this discourse.
I also agree that the issue of climate sensitivity is an important one, which is one of the reasons that I’m skeptical of our ability to project the future state of the climate system with any significant reliability. And I certainly agree that a lot of the attention being paid to this issue can be traced to environmentalists in need of something to protest and rent-seeking special interests (including scientists). From what I hear, nowadays a lot of scientists tag questions about the impacts of climate change to their research proposals strictly because that’s where the funding is. All of that stuff matters. But I know enough climate scientists to know that the mainstream position can’t be explained away by some conspiracy theory, ubiquitous corruption in the scientific community, or just plain greed. It just ain’t so.
Danny, I suggest you stop trying to lecture me. It only shows that either you don’t know what you’re talking about or else are too arrogant to admit that you are mis-using the terminology.
I think I made clear my points about the physical reality of ‘climate change’ and its political implications. I’m not wasting more time with you.
I guess that’s okay with me, but…well…I’m pretty comfortable with my position on this one. If you want, e-mail the philosopher of your choice and say, “Is the claim that anthropogenic global climate change does not exist a metaphysical one?” See what they say.
But if you’re not going to waste your time with me, please also don’t waste your time shots at other people here who try to participate in an honest discussion about a topic you clearly know nothing about. It’s a terrible way to maintain an intellectual atmosphere, and the only thing it accomplishes is to make you look like an ignorant ideologue. I mean, it’s not as though you’re going to convince anyone with the approach you use. And for all of your assertions, this isn’t as cut and dried an issue as you suggest. So if you don’t want to listen to what people have to say, and you don’t want to actually become informed about the issue, then just let other people talk and stay out of it.
Danny you repeated that four times or more, but, you know, unless your arrogance also lends you mind reading abilities, you’ve no clue about what I read or didn’t read about the ACC scam. So, stop pretending that you know how far my knowledge of the subject goes.
Well, that would only further your case showing how clever and enlightened you are. So, I’m doing you a favor by being an ignorant ideologue. When you say ‘ideologue’ you’re using marxist jargon no ? Í’m blind to the truth because of my selfish interests ?
Are you telling me to shut up ? You wouldn’t be as clueless as to do that would you ?
i would actually be comforted if it was a conspiracy. then at least you know that there’s someone with their eyes on the big picture. but no, scientism is bothersome precisely because it is self reinforcing. and I’m not trying to dismiss it outright, the kernel around which the massive hysteria and spending grew is grounded in real data. It’s just that once government takes over the original kernel becomes incidental.
Juan, I know that your knowledge on the subject has yet to yield an argument that makes recognizable reference to the scientific literature surrounding this issue. So if you have read anything of import, it doesn’t seem like you’ve integrated it into your position. But I think you’re bluffing. You’ve read a few scattered papers, tops. More likely, you’ve been exposed mostly to opinion pieces written by non-scientists. That’s my amateur-mind-reader best guess. Am I wrong?
And no, I’m not using “ideology” in the Marxian sense. And no, I’m not telling you to shut up either. I’d be okay with rephrasing my statement to say, “Either get informed and listen to what other people say, or shut up,” but I hope you see how incredibly sad it is that you would interpret that as a call to shut up.
Nazgulnarsil, I definitely agree that the politicization of this issue is troubling. But I think it’s perhaps more troubling that many libertarians – who would seem like they would be the group to shed some light on the problems – have gotten so caught up with vitriolic rejections of the basic science and even more vitriolic condemnations of the scientists involved that they haven’t really had anything interesting to say. Edwin Dolan was good on this in “Science, Public Policy, and Global Warming: Rethinking the Market Liberal Position,” though I don’t agree with his ethical analysis or conclusions.
All you do is invoke the ‘scientific’ mob. Do you actually believe that scammer X who works at university Y is a ‘scientist’ so whatever he says is true ?
Really, this is no different than your highly laughable opinion that clowns who work at the fed are serious economists that are to be treated with respect.
So basically I was absolutely right about your level of understanding of the debate?
I mean, because it would be one thing to say, “I have a reasonable background in climate science, statistical theory, and the philosophy of science. I’ve read substantial portions of the IPCC reports and some of the key papers on which the mainstream position is built. And I’ve heard some of the main arguments by scientists questioning the mainstream position, like Friis-Christensen, Lassen, Svensmark, Lindzen, Singer, Baliunas, and Soon. So I think I have a pretty good basis for an opinion. And to be honest, I think it’s all complete garbage.” That would be fine. But it’s another thing entirely to say, “I have no real background in climate science, have read no part of the IPCC reports or any other mainstream scientific literature, and have not actually engaged the academic work of the proponents of the skeptical view. But nevertheless, I think it’s all complete garbage.” Such an opinion would be completely baseless and entirely not worth listening to.
if you have an interest in incentives causing biased outcomes in science this might interest you
Not at all. I’m well versed in the philosophical and what you (wrongly) call scientific issues involved. I know what physics is and what kind of problems it deals with.
No, I’ve not wasted time reading all the pseudo scientific trash that bureaucrats write. You want to pretend that’s a reason to dismiss the position that ACC is a scam ? Go ahead, it’s just a fallacy on your part.
I understand that because of self-aggrandizement issues you’d rather fancy yourself some sort of expert or high priest of science, but as I said you don’t impress me - at all.
If you want the ACC scam debunked use google. I’m sure that in 10 years when this bogeyman is all but forgotten you’d be preaching some other ‘scientific’ nonsense. Oh well.