INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

does anyone really care about global warming?

Enter here to explore ethical issues and discuss the meaning and source of morality.
Message
Author
User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3227
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#161 Postby Tetenterre » October 1st, 2013, 4:00 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

animist wrote:
Tetenterre wrote: No, but if the predictions turn out to be wrong, it's not a lot of use, is it?
what is this "it" which is "not a lot of use"?
A slew of false predictions.


Tetenterre wrote:]No! In science, things are falsified by observation, not different explanations.
indeed so if we are talking about pure science, but, as I keep trying to get over to you, the AGW question is NOT one of science, in the pure paradigm which seems to obsess you; it is about applied science, the application being historical in the broad sense which includes present and future as well as past.
It's either science or it isn't.

Tetenterre wrote:*** SOURCE ALERT! Please criticise the assertions, not the web site! ***
OK, but I don't really understand what web site I have criticised.[/quote] Read it again, please. I did not say you had criticised a web site, I was asking (note use of "please"!) you not to criticise teh wb site I was about to cite (in this instance, GWPF).
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6279
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#162 Postby animist » October 2nd, 2013, 8:55 am

Tetenterre wrote:
animist wrote:
Tetenterre wrote: No, but if the predictions turn out to be wrong, it's not a lot of use, is it?
what is this "it" which is "not a lot of use"?
A slew of false predictions.

yes, false predictions are not often a lot of use, we can agree on that


Tetenterre wrote:
indeed so if we are talking about pure science, but, as I keep trying to get over to you, the AGW question is NOT one of science, in the pure paradigm which seems to obsess you; it is about applied science, the application being historical in the broad sense which includes present and future as well as past.
It's either science or it isn't.
this ignores the accepted distinction between pure science and applied science, the latter including medicine and technology

Tetenterre wrote:
OK, but I don't really understand what web site I have criticised.
Read it again, please. I did not say you had criticised a web site, I was asking (note use of "please"!) you not to criticise teh wb site I was about to cite (in this instance, GWPF).

OK, you made a prediction!

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3227
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#163 Postby Tetenterre » October 2nd, 2013, 9:07 am

animist wrote:this ignores the accepted distinction between pure science and applied science, the latter including medicine and technology
I disagree: Many AGW proponents present it as being a pure science.


Tetenterre wrote:OK, you made a prediction!
request != prediction :D
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22737
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#164 Postby Alan H » October 2nd, 2013, 10:26 am

IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
Global warming since 1990 has fallen within the range of IPCC climate model projections
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22737
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#165 Postby Alan H » October 2nd, 2013, 10:43 am

BBC coverage of IPCC climate report criticised for sceptics' airtime
Steve Jones among experts querying BBC 'false balance' in giving climate sceptics 'undue' voice on global warming study
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6279
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#166 Postby animist » October 2nd, 2013, 11:36 am

Tetenterre wrote:
animist wrote:this ignores the accepted distinction between pure science and applied science, the latter including medicine and technology
I disagree: Many AGW proponents present it as being a pure science.

yes, but what I said is that simply saying that something is science or not science ignores the importance of disciplines which APPLY science but do not make hypotheses in the classic paradigm of pure science. BTW, I notice that the article posted by Alan points out that the IPCC makes "projections" rather than "predictions". Re the claimed "pause", another important point made in the article is that 1998 is a misleading base year for comparison of temperatures because it was abnormally warm. And, relating to our discussion of weather versus climate, it says that projecting climate-related temperatures further ahead is actually easier than predicting less distant weather-influenced temperatures.

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3227
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#167 Postby Tetenterre » October 2nd, 2013, 9:39 pm

animist wrote:yes, but what I said is that simply saying that something is science or not science ignores the importance of disciplines which APPLY science but do not make hypotheses in the classic paradigm of pure science.
We're going round in circles here. I'm getting dizzy.

Re the claimed "pause", another important point made in the article is that 1998 is a misleading base year
If you read the David Whitehouse article I referenced, you will have noted that he makes exactly the same point, but suggests a different (and IMHO better) solution that is data-based, rather than "pick a starting date"-based for resolving the issue.
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22737
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#168 Postby Alan H » October 2nd, 2013, 10:35 pm

Although I posted my climate 'equation' earlier and a few links, I've not really been following this discussion and I'm really not sure what the 'argument' is about. So, dipping my toe in the (warm) water, is this mostly about what's been happening to global temperatures in recent years/decades and whether warming is slowing/'paused' and the accuracy of projections?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6279
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#169 Postby animist » October 3rd, 2013, 8:33 am

Tetenterre wrote:
animist wrote:yes, but what I said is that simply saying that something is science or not science ignores the importance of disciplines which APPLY science but do not make hypotheses in the classic paradigm of pure science.
We're going round in circles here. I'm getting dizzy.

maybe you are getting dizzy from simulating our bar-room discussion with real drinks (I'm not being rude, I do the same myself!). No, I don't see that we are going round in circles: you seem to think that anything which claims to be science-based has to generate testable hypotheses, I don't. Alan, I think this answers your question about what the argument is about :D

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3227
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#170 Postby Tetenterre » October 3rd, 2013, 9:26 am

animist wrote:you seem to think that anything which claims to be science-based has to generate testable hypotheses, I don't. Alan, I think this answers your question about what the argument is about :D
I do think that; yes, it is what this is about.

I also think that a "projection" that is wrong is, like a prediction that is wrong, not only as much use as a chocolate tea cup, but also a weasel-word red herring. Much like "global warming" became "climate change" when the "warming" bit turned out not to be either as predicted projected or global,and ignoring the inconvenient fact that climate has always changed and one of the unexplained phenomena is why it's remained so unusually stable for the last 8000 years - as far as I know, that 8000 year stability is unprecedented in the ice-core records.

I also think that there are some holy cows (like anthropogenic climate change) that, in (for want of a better phrase) sceptic circles, it is socially unacceptable to criticise. I think that potentially compromises moral and intellectual integrity and is antithetical to what we purport to stand for. And yes, I do think that such criticisms should be robustly examined.
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22737
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#171 Postby Alan H » October 3rd, 2013, 1:10 pm

Commons Select Committee meeting

Climate: Public understanding and policy implications

03 October 2013
The Science and Technology Committee will hold the following oral evidence session in its inquiry into ‘Climate: Public understanding and policy implications’:

Inquiry: Climate: Public understanding and policy implications
Science and Technology Committee
Wednesday 9 October 2013
Thatcher Room, Portcullis House


This should be broadcast, so worth a watch either live or later.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22737
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#172 Postby Alan H » October 3rd, 2013, 1:28 pm

Tetenterre wrote:
animist wrote:you seem to think that anything which claims to be science-based has to generate testable hypotheses, I don't. Alan, I think this answers your question about what the argument is about :D
I do think that; yes, it is what this is about.
I think there has been a bit of semantic-trading going on, but I can't see that creating a model, testing it against past data, refining it, trying to better understand the interplay of the many, many variables to achieve a good fit to that past data is 'doing science'. Using that to generate future possibilities is, presumably, the whole reason for doing it so we can take an (educated) guess at what the future might hold and take action if needed, whilst always adjusting models as and when new data are available and new understandings of the variables arise.

Given we can't do lab experiments to test hypotheses of this scale (although much of the underlying knowledge may well have started in the lab), this may not fit one view of science, but I'm not sure what else we could call it: it's investigation, predictions/projections, modification, analysis, etc, etc.

I also think that a "projection" that is wrong is, like a prediction that is wrong, not only as much use as a chocolate tea cup, but also a weasel-word red herring.
I disagree. A prediction that turns out to be wrong can be extremely useful. In fact, it may be more useful than one that is correct because it forces scientists to go back an examine what's been done to generate the prediction to see what went wrong and how it can be corrected. A prediction that turns out correct does not tell us that the model that generated that prediction is correct, just that it gave the correct outcome in this particular case.

Much like "global warming" became "climate change" when the "warming" bit turned out not to be either as predicted projected or global,and ignoring the inconvenient fact that climate has always changed and one of the unexplained phenomena is why it's remained so unusually stable for the last 8000 years - as far as I know, that 8000 year stability is unprecedented in the ice-core records.
I don't understand this. AFAIK, the models do take account of the fact that climate has always changed: but these changes have been caused by something, not just magically happened and we have a good idea of what those caused were (changes in solar radiation, etc). The models take this into account. But saying that climate has always changed - and I assume the known factors such as solar radiation do not explain current trends - does not account for these recent changes. Has the climate (I assume you mean global mean temperature?) been 'unusually' stable for the past 8,000 years? That doesn't appear to be what the graphs show - but this, of course, depends on how you define 'stable', doesn't it?

I also think that there are some holy cows (like anthropogenic climate change) that, in (for want of a better phrase) sceptic circles, it is socially unacceptable to criticise. I think that potentially compromises moral and intellectual integrity and is antithetical to what we purport to stand for. And yes, I do think that such criticisms should be robustly examined.
I don't understand why you seem to think (if it is what you think) man is not responsible for a good part of recent changes?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3227
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#173 Postby Tetenterre » October 3rd, 2013, 3:31 pm

Alan H wrote:... but I can't see that creating a model, testing it against past data, refining it, trying to better understand the interplay of the many, many variables to achieve a good fit to that past data is 'doing science'.
Neither can I, which is why it galls me that it is passed off as being "scientific". Even the former railway engineer cum economist who heads the IPCC is referred to as a "climate scientgist" -- he isn't.


I also think that a "projection" that is wrong is, like a prediction that is wrong, not only as much use as a chocolate tea cup, but also a weasel-word red herring.
I disagree. A prediction that turns out to be wrong can be extremely useful.
In that sense, you are correct. What I meant and should have made clear is " as much use for informing public policy as...."

Has the climate (I assume you mean global mean temperature?) been 'unusually' stable for the past 8,000 years?
Well, look at the following graph, compare the last 8 000 to the preceding 92 000 and tell me what you think (this is from Greenland Ice cores, but it's pretty much the same, which ever proxies you use):

Image

I don't understand why you seem to think (if it is what you think) man is not responsible for a good part of recent changes?
{Sigh}. I don't know how many times I have to state this in this thread (yeah, I know you haven't been following it, but it's still frustrating), but I do not dispute that a proportion (exactly what proportion is unknown and probably unknowable) of influence on the climate is anthropogenic. My beef is largely with the way the data and their interpretations are presented, how there is a degree of secretive behaviour (which I interpret as a misguided attempt to prevent criticism from the crazies), and how any criticism of those presentations/behaviours is automatically misrepresented/misconstrued as a straw man, i.e. challenging the premise that human activity affects climate.
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6279
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#174 Postby animist » October 3rd, 2013, 5:07 pm

Alan H wrote: I can't see that creating a model, testing it against past data, refining it, trying to better understand the interplay of the many, many variables to achieve a good fit to that past data is 'doing science'.
I am not sure I understand this sentence: did you leave "not" out?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22737
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#175 Postby Alan H » October 3rd, 2013, 5:11 pm

Tetenterre wrote:
Alan H wrote:... but I can't see that creating a model, testing it against past data, refining it, trying to better understand the interplay of the many, many variables to achieve a good fit to that past data is 'doing science'.
Neither can I, which is why it galls me that it is passed off as being "scientific". Even the former railway engineer cum economist who heads the IPCC is referred to as a "climate scientgist" -- he isn't.
Ah. A typo. I meant to say the opposite: " isn't 'doing science'". My fault.


I also think that a "projection" that is wrong is, like a prediction that is wrong, not only as much use as a chocolate tea cup, but also a weasel-word red herring.
I disagree. A prediction that turns out to be wrong can be extremely useful.
In that sense, you are correct. What I meant and should have made clear is " as much use for informing public policy as...."
But that's something entirely different. As long as we are agreed on the best scientific data and what it tells us, we can then worry about the best way to present them to different sections/factions of the audience. But that is inevitably tricky, isn't it?

Has the climate (I assume you mean global mean temperature?) been 'unusually' stable for the past 8,000 years?
Well, look at the following graph, compare the last 8 000 to the preceding 92 000 and tell me what you think (this is from Greenland Ice cores, but it's pretty much the same, which ever proxies you use):

Image
Relatively, yes, but absolutely, we know a variation of a fraction of a degree can have huge effects on us and other animals. The fact that the temperatures swung more widely in the past is almost irrelevant, even if it would be interesting to understand why we seem to be going through a (relatively) quieter phase just now.

I don't understand why you seem to think (if it is what you think) man is not responsible for a good part of recent changes?
{Sigh}. I don't know how many times I have to state this in this thread (yeah, I know you haven't been following it, but it's still frustrating), but I do not dispute that a proportion (exactly what proportion is unknown and probably unknowable) of influence on the climate is anthropogenic. My beef is largely with the way the data and their interpretations are presented, how there is a degree of secretive behaviour (which I interpret as a misguided attempt to prevent criticism from the crazies), and how any criticism of those presentations/behaviours is automatically misrepresented/misconstrued as a straw man, i.e. challenging the premise that human activity affects climate.
Can you say what you see as secretive behaviour? But as I said earlier, there are the scientific data and general informed scientific consensus and there is the way that is presented. I can see that no matter how it is presented, there will always be vehement detractors, but how would you suggest it was communicated?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22737
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#176 Postby Alan H » October 3rd, 2013, 5:11 pm

animist wrote:
Alan H wrote: I can't see that creating a model, testing it against past data, refining it, trying to better understand the interplay of the many, many variables to achieve a good fit to that past data is 'doing science'.
I am not sure I understand this sentence: did you leave "not" out?
Yes, I did miss out the negative - sorry! See my last post.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3227
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#177 Postby Tetenterre » October 3rd, 2013, 6:08 pm

Alan H wrote:h. A typo. I meant to say the opposite: " isn't 'doing science'".
In which case, I disagree ... IMO it almost fits a classic definition of pseudoscientific "protection" (as outlined by Popper) of a pet hypothesis.

we can then worry about the best way to present them to different sections/factions of the audience. But that is inevitably tricky, isn't it?
Yes. But it is still no reason to bandy meaningless phrases like "95% certainty" (or whatever the latest jargon is) around -- of course, if someone can show me how the value 95% was calculated, I'll gladly eat my hat and go and whimper in self-pity somewhere...

Has the climate (I assume you mean global mean temperature?) been 'unusually' stable for the past 8,000 years?
Well, look at the following graph, compare the last 8 000 to the preceding 92 000 and tell me what you think (this is from Greenland Ice cores, but it's pretty much the same, which ever proxies you use):

Image
Relatively, yes, but absolutely, we know a variation of a fraction of a degree can have huge effects on us and other animals. The fact that the temperatures swung more widely in the past is almost irrelevant,...
I disagree. Given that, for the last 400 000 years at least, the wild fluctuations have been the norm except for the recent 8 000 years of stability (which has been sufficiently stable to permit us to "invent" agriculture and settle down and hence evolve the societies and civilisations that we have), I suggest that, if things reverted to that norm, we would be in considerably deeper poo than the relatively small (at present) human induced variations are predicted projected to cause. Unless we know why the change to stability has occurred, we cannot know what conditions are likely to result in a reversion and so cannot take measures to deal with it if/when it happens. If, for example, over the next 100 years, the temperature dropped to its 12 000 yrs BP value, we're screwed (and might be glad of a little anthropogenic warming! :wink: ).

I also find it very interesting that, over the last few millennia, many of the major European "disasters" (e.g. Fall of Rome, Black Death) took place during relatively cold periods and that civilisations seemed to flourish in comparatively warm periods (e.g. Egypt in the HCO, Rome in the RWP, the great cathedral-building spurt in the MWP -- which, incidentally, we are now assured didn't exist...).

Can you say what you see as secretive behaviour?
I haven't looked at this for a few years but, from what I knew then (things may have changed): A reluctance to release details of, for example raw data used, statistical methods used. The excuse given was that the detractors would misuse it, but a tenet of science is that all relevant stuff is published. Does anyone know, for example, how the subsets of dendrochronological data used for proxies were selected? Was the selection randomised? Or was it cherry-picked? Unless this is published, it almost seems designed to breed suspicion that there is something to hide.

I can see that no matter how it is presented, there will always be vehement detractors, but how would you suggest it was communicated?
Openly, completely, addressing questions and criticisms directly. The AR5 press conference seemed to be conducted with a prime motive of not to let the detractors find anything to get a handle on. For example: It's easy to forget: when the IPCC prediojections for Himalayan glacier melt in AR4 were initially challenged, climate-scientist-in-the-same-way-as-Nancy-Malik-is-a-doctor Pachauri's reaction was not to produce data that would support the projection but just to claim it was a "zombie argument" (i.e one that's been killed off but just won't die). Eventually, he had to retract. I really don't think that sort of behaviour is in any way acceptable.
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6279
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#178 Postby animist » October 3rd, 2013, 7:43 pm

Alan H wrote:Relatively, yes, but absolutely, we know a variation of a fraction of a degree can have huge effects on us and other animals. The fact that the temperatures swung more widely in the past is almost irrelevant, even if it would be interesting to understand why we seem to be going through a (relatively) quieter phase just now.
absolutely so. This is one of the many arguments I find so annoying among climate change deniers: it is totally irrelevant that previous "ages" (and how do you define an age") were either stable or unstable, and I must say I am amazed that TT seems to thinks that warmists are mysteriously unaware of the natural changes in the past (and of course in the present, but that I imagine is something much harder to determine than the human effects on the climate). My local AGW denier actually uses exactly the opposite point from TT's: viz that since climate changes naturally over time, it follows that any observed changes must be natural

Tetenterre wrote:
Alan H wrote:h. A typo. I meant to say the opposite: " isn't 'doing science'".
In which case, I disagree ... IMO it almost fits a classic definition of pseudoscientific "protection" (as outlined by Popper) of a pet hypothesis.
Alan, I think you maybe should stop using the word "hypothesis"; I know this sounds like semantics, but TT is I feel locked into a theoretical stance regarding Popper which is to some extent semantic - as I have tried to argue already. What Popper would have made of the AGW debate I have no idea, but I hope it might be something on the lines I indicated about the difference between pure and applied science - and TT still seems to have glossed over this distinction.
Tetenterre wrote:a tenet of science is that all relevant stuff is published
yes, but this is not pure science. I agree that the debate has been politicised, but that is the fault of the deniers and the vested interests they represent. And before you retort that the IPCC is some sort of self-serving institution, I know that the contributors to the latest report took time out of their proper jobs to produce it.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6279
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#179 Postby animist » October 3rd, 2013, 8:43 pm

Tetenterre wrote:Given that, for the last 400 000 years at least, the wild fluctuations have been the norm except for the recent 8 000 years of stability (which has been sufficiently stable to permit us to "invent" agriculture and settle down and hence evolve the societies and civilisations that we have), I suggest that, if things reverted to that norm, we would be in considerably deeper poo than the relatively small (at present) human induced variations are predicted projected to cause. Unless we know why the change to stability has occurred, we cannot know what conditions are likely to result in a reversion and so cannot take measures to deal with it if/when it happens. If, for example, over the next 100 years, the temperature dropped to its 12 000 yrs BP value, we're screwed (and might be glad of a little anthropogenic warming! :wink: ).

I also find it very interesting that, over the last few millennia, many of the major European "disasters" (e.g. Fall of Rome, Black Death) took place during relatively cold periods and that civilisations seemed to flourish in comparatively warm periods (e.g. Egypt in the HCO, Rome in the RWP, the great cathedral-building spurt in the MWP -- which, incidentally, we are now assured didn't exist...).
Great, we managed to invent agriculture in the last 8K years - so what? No doubt, if the climate had been different in some way or other, we might have done better or worse. Who cares from a practical POV that civilisations may have evolved mainly in hot climates? You postulate some hypothetical natural change - a drastic drop in temperature to some ancient level - and say that, in such an eventuality, we would benefit from some AGW - well, yes, but again, so what? And your guess about a possible link between colder periods and a couple of "disasters" - one of which was political and a disaster from the Romans' POV only - is, shall I say, somewhat unscientific. As for the MWP apparently not existing, this just confirms what I said about sceptics apparently being under a misapprehension about what warmists know - who has denied the existence of this warm period?

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3227
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#180 Postby Tetenterre » October 4th, 2013, 6:15 pm

animist wrote: and I must say I am amazed that TT seems to thinks that warmists are mysteriously unaware of the natural changes in the past
How the hell did you work that out, animist? I never asserted that they are unaware of the natural changes, so please don't try to associate me with something that you have made up: it is a cheap and unpleasant debating trick, and I really did not think you would stoop to it.

animist wrote:
Tetenterre wrote:a tenet of science is that all relevant stuff is published
yes, but this is not pure science.
It's either science or it isn't.
I agree that the debate has been politicised, but that is the fault of the deniers and the vested interests they represent.
Oh please! Both sides have politicised it. We're not in the KG sandpit, so can we please stop doing the equivalent of, "But, Miss, they started it."

animist wrote:Great, we managed to invent agriculture in the last 8K years - so what? No doubt, if the climate had been different in some way or other, we might have done better or worse. Who cares from a practical POV that civilisations may have evolved mainly in hot climates?
You have contrived to miss the point. Again. It is not the heat, but the stability that permitted agriculture and civilisation to develop. Before that period of stability started 8 k years ago, humanity was essentially, by necessity, nomadic.

And your guess about a possible link <snip>, shall I say, somewhat unscientific.
Of course it is! Nowhere did I assert that it was scientific, so why are you pretending that I did? I said that I found it interesting. I still do.

As for the MWP apparently not existing, this just confirms what I said about sceptics apparently being under a misapprehension about what warmists know -
Like the Overpeck email to David Deming?


who has denied the existence of this warm period?
Loads of people. Lemonick, for example. I'm pretty sure Mann did as well, but I can't find the reference and I really can't be arsed to dig. Use Google if you really want to know.
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6279
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#181 Postby animist » October 4th, 2013, 7:14 pm

Tetenterre wrote:
animist wrote: and I must say I am amazed that TT seems to thinks that warmists are mysteriously unaware of the natural changes in the past
How the hell did you work that out, animist? I never asserted that they are unaware of the natural changes, so please don't try to associate me with something that you have made up: it is a cheap and unpleasant debating trick, and I really did not think you would stoop to it.
I will have to read the rest of your latest post for a full response, but for this bit - well haha! And thanks so much for a backhanded insult which (to spell out my inversion) is a kind of compliment; you are a fantastic opponent, TT (no irony here). To predict (wrongly? or did you just project?) that I would never "stoop" implies a certain "stature" on the part of "moi" which "je" certainly does not know of! No, you did not assert this, viz that warmists are unaware of these natural climate changes, but rather than being a "debating trick" on my part (I have never done debating and am not interested in it), this guess of mine (note the word "seems") simply indicates that I have barely the faintest idea what you really think, so that I can only hazard guesses. I can only say that your sarky reference to the MWP apparently not existing is a reasonable justification for my guess, along with the fact that many sceptics do keep on about the MWP, which IMO implies that they think there is some killer argument against AGW that the other side is too stupid or artful to acknowledge.


Return to “Humanist Ethics & Morality”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest