Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great point on how significant perspective is.
And on how willful misinterpretation of an analogy isn't actually a point against the analogy
There's no misinterpretation here.
USA Temperature: can I sucker you?
231–240 of 247 posts
Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
But for other consensuses, for example evolution, any individual person can readily explain how it works to a anyone else. Then it is up to the person hearing the model to accept it as fact, and maybe they make some logical error rejecting it. But until you explain to them the model, I don't think you should have any expectation that they should believe you. It sounds like no one responding to me actually understands…
You can Google it for about 5 minutes and find enough evidence to occupy your time with months of reading. There's a huge variety of available data across various complexities. You can go as deep as you want. Hell, there's a webcomic visualization ( https://xkcd.com/1732/ ) that cites multiple sources. There are multiple documentaries outlining it. How much more accessible are you requiring this information to be? Yo…
You've shown no evidence whatsoever that you personally understand climate models. You are still making the "the data is out there" argument, without getting into specifics. You are doing, precisely, what I've been saying is bad for the past few replies. It's like you are just responding to the oldest post in the thread without reading through it. Did you read it? Did you process any of it? Clearly not. Don't say my argument is weak if clearly none of it registered in your conscious mind.
Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
Al Gore continued to repeat this claim until at least 2009, my source is snopes and their sources. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/ I trust Snopes here since they are desperately attempting to cast Gore's statements in a positive light. They choose to address whether Gore "predicted" this event, rather than whether he disseminated the prediction. If the question is whether he confidently dis…
> for example, lady liberty was supposed to be semi-submerged by now, and the north pole was supposed to be completely free of ice by 2013 Where is they citation of Al Gore claiming the arctic will be ice free? Everything in that source is prefaced with terms like "could Be" and "as soon as", which you seem to be interpreting as a complete certainty. If I said I had cancer and could die as early 2018 then I wouldn't…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsioIw4bvzI This is a more recent (2009) version of his spiel, I remember him equivocating less about this in an earlier speech which I have trouble finding. Here he equivocates that "some of the models suggest to Mr. Maslowski that there is a 75% chance that north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years".
> Where's the citation of the Statue of Liberty being underwater?
The Statue of Liberty thing I actually don't remember the source of. I remember it as a clip in a climate documentary where the statue of liberty is visualized as being about a quarter submerged (note I said "semi-submerged", not "underwater", funny how the broken telephone works even when you can presumably see everything on screen at once).
Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
At a 0-100 Celsius scale, or whatever is the equivalent in Fahrenheit, there will be an almost impossible to see increase over the time span of 100 years. I'm not saying nothing is happening, but those charts are completely deceiving.
How would you chart your body temperature? Starting with 0 kelvin? Then you could conclude that all is well because you can't spot a 2 degree increase, right?
If there's a 2 degree (or a 2 kilos) increase in my body over my entire life (which is similar to these 100 years) I wouldn't care.
Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
All this may be true, but appeal to authority is still a logical fallacy. You can't just shame people into believing something they don't understand because "smarter" people believe it. It's a shameful failure of communication more than anything else. And I don't understand why people like you don't understand that.
Wait wait... appeal to the scentific community is a logical fallacy? You can say this same thing about almost any scientific finding. A less controversial example: General Relativity is extremely odd and widely accepted. If someone refuses to believe General Relativity, would you really say the problem is "failure of communication"? Any kind of meaningful communication on the subject would take years, and also (if yo…
It's a logical fallacy, but it can be a pragmatic decision to delegate reasoning, especially where the claim is expensive to evaluate (e.g. science because of time for prerequisite knowledge and training) or the consequence of being wrong is low.
Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?
#236Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since you do not like the term "climate deniers", what's your proposal for an appropriate and respectful term or definition to aggregate the people that believe that climate change is not happening?
Nobody on the mainstream sides of the climate debate are claiming the climate isn’t changing. We are claiming that human causes have an effect less significant than the alarmist side claims. Basically, if we all stop running our air conditioner, it isn’t going to have any significant effect on long term global temperatures. Basically we object to the idea that lowering standards of living is a meaningful cure for ris…
CO2 is a pollutant just like O2 is a pollutant. The earth has a certain balance and the physical phenomena as well as the biosphere collectively support and rely on this balance. If you add too much O2 you'll get a mass extinction. This was the causes of one the earliest mass extinctions on the earth. [1] CO2 is an essential gas for life to be sustained, arguably as important as O2, but that doesn't mean you can arbitrarily add CO2 to the system and expect similar outcome. At some point you'll break the system. This is true for other "good" gases too such as O2, N2, H2 etc...
Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
But for other consensuses, for example evolution, any individual person can readily explain how it works to a anyone else. Then it is up to the person hearing the model to accept it as fact, and maybe they make some logical error rejecting it. But until you explain to them the model, I don't think you should have any expectation that they should believe you. It sounds like no one responding to me actually understands…
I disagree that evolution can be "understood" by one person readily explaining it to someone else. Yes you can get a brief summary of what it is about. But you are not at all in a position to evaluate how sound it is without spending months or years. Short explanations between laypeople is essentially propaganda, no matter which side of the issue they are on. What I mean is: How believable the explanation is is only…
> I disagree that evolution can be "understood" by one person readily explaining it to someone else.
Darwin did just fine in the Origin of Species ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species ).
> Short explanations between laypeople is essentially propaganda, no matter which side of the issue they are on.
While this is correct, would you like to point out a long explanation that will overcome this? A book, perhaps?
One that doesn't rely on computer models, all of which, in every field, are absolute trash because they can be twisted to say whatever you want them to say as demonstrated in the very article we're discussing.
How is it that Darwin didn't need computer models to make his point, but climate science is empty without them?
Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can Google it for about 5 minutes and find enough evidence to occupy your time with months of reading. There's a huge variety of available data across various complexities. You can go as deep as you want. Hell, there's a webcomic visualization ( https://xkcd.com/1732/ ) that cites multiple sources. There are multiple documentaries outlining it. How much more accessible are you requiring this information to be? Yo…
You've shown no evidence whatsoever that you personally understand climate models. You are still making the "the data is out there" argument, without getting into specifics. You are doing, precisely , what I've been saying is bad for the past few replies. It's like you are just responding to the oldest post in the thread without reading through it. Did you read it? Did you process any of it? Clearly not. Don't say my…
Why would I waste my time explaining it to you for the sake of argument when I can literally just copy and paste a much better explanation after a 30 second google (I've read this article before, so assume I understand climate models at least this much). https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-how-do-climate-models-work
You're just dicking around for seemingly no reason. It seems as though you're trying to win a debate that no one else is interested in by being exhaustingly pedantic. You didn't even really use the appeal to authority correctly, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt there. Good luck.
Re: USA Temperature: can I sucker you?
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree that evolution can be "understood" by one person readily explaining it to someone else. Yes you can get a brief summary of what it is about. But you are not at all in a position to evaluate how sound it is without spending months or years. Short explanations between laypeople is essentially propaganda, no matter which side of the issue they are on. What I mean is: How believable the explanation is is only…
> I disagree that evolution can be "understood" by one person readily explaining it to someone else. Darwin did just fine in the Origin of Species ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species ). > Short explanations between laypeople is essentially propaganda, no matter which side of the issue they are on. While this is correct, would you like to point out a long explanation that will overcome this? A boo…
Origin of Species exists, yet somehow there's the Intelligent Design community arguing that evolution is BS. How do you properly evaluate? Would you say that Origin of Species constitutes a priori proof of the concept? No, you need a lot of context to evaluate that what is says is true. It is only a "proof" to those who are already convinced (including me BTW).
The basic thesis of climate change is even simpler than evolution (greenhouse gases causes warming in lab + nature compensates within a window, ocean acidification etc => there is a tolerance level where nature can no longer compensate and you get the effect on earth that you observe in lab).
Yet in the same way as with evolution there are opponents/deniers.
It sounds like you insist that something must be "simple" in order to be "true". That because climate isn't "simple", climate science is wrong. But: You have lots of stuff like General Relativity which is complex yet (normally considered) true. Nature doesn't have to be simple just because you say so.
The article we are discussing is illustrating statistical incompetence and says nothing about computer models at all.
If you want to insist that computer modelling is garbage, say goodbye to most of the science you have previously accepted. My PhD is in astrophysics and we certainly did a lot of computer modelling and equation solving (since the 70s...take computers away and there is nothing left of cosmology as a field, the same holds for many other fields). If you don't trust computer modelling say goodbye to anything you think you know about the age of the universe, etc. etc.
There is good science and bad science with the aid of computers just as there is good and bad science without the aid of computers.
I don't have any book recommendation for you. I just know how to do science (from an astrophysics perspective) and from what I know, the climate "sceptics" seems to be making a lot of rookie mistakes when they crop out, and the climate scientists seem to make sound claims. But that is definitely just looking at the surface and applying my preconceptions. I don't have time to spend a year or two to go in depth; so I see no choice but to trust the climate scientists the way I would trust an oncologist if I got cancer and so on. Reading some "propaganda" about the subject (as defined in my previous post, i.e. popular science) from either camp won't make me much wiser anyway.