Climate change series, thoughts?

DFPercush · May 18, 2014

Someone posted in the YouTube comments on the recent climate video, a link to another series by a YT user Potholer54. Has anyone else taken the time to watch this? It seems passably objective and honest, but maybe other people will catch things I've missed. I'm in the middle of it now, but I wanted to at least write down my thoughts about one thing in particular before I forgot it. I'd be interested to hear what other people think.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

One particular thing I noticed - it's not like an "aha!" or anything, but he talked about the low concentration of CO2 compared to other gases - in the tens of parts per million - and follows it up by saying that it doesn't take a lot of something to set off a positive feedback loop. I didn't see any hard data in there about how we know whether this is happening. So I'm left thinking that the positive feedback loop is only an untested hypothetical scenario. And while it certainly makes sense that it could happen under certain conditions, I don't see any data or methodology for determining what that threshold is, given other variables. He just kind of leaves it there. Is that an actual blind spot in the science? So then I googled "climate positive feedback threshold". These guys say:

"Unravelling the triggers of such changes and the internal dynamics of the Earth system that connect the trigger to the outcome is one of the most pressing challenges to improving understanding of the planetary machinery."

http://www.igbp.net/globalchange/feedbacksthresholdsboundaries.4.1b8ae20512db692f2a680001664.html

So I guess we don't know.

P.S. Does it piss anyone else off that you have to pay to be a member of the club before you can read scientific publications? How much do these guys get in tax money again? argh!

Sal9000 · May 19, 2014

P.S. Does it piss anyone else off that you have to pay to be a member of the club before you can read scientific publications? How much do these guys get in tax money again? argh!

Yeah, this is why we need open access. The most valuable asset on Earth is a page from a scientific peer reviewed journal. In extreme cases it is worth around 300$ per page.

One particular thing I noticed - it's not like an "aha!" or anything, but he talked about the low concentration of CO2 compared to other gases - in the tens of parts per million - and follows it up by saying that it doesn't take a lot of something to set off a positive feedback loop. I didn't see any hard data in there about how we know whether this is happening. So I'm left thinking that the positive feedback loop is only an untested hypothetical scenario.

Companies with skin in the game (reinsurance companies) agree that we are beyond the point of no return. No matter what we do now, anthropogenic climate change will happen. The question is if we can alleviate the consequences a bit.The positive feedback loop is described in the wikipedia article on global warming. An increase in C02 causes that infrared electromagnectiv 'bounce' back and heat up the atmosphere. This is well understood since the 19th century. This in turn heats up the oceans that then emit water vapour. Water vapour itself acts the same way like CO2 increasing the effect it has.The main problem is not climate change in itself. Humans can adapt to it. Rather, it is the abrupt changes that eventually ensue. The current economic system is pretty vulnerable to sudden changes with production lines stretching hundreds of miles. Any longer lasting disruption in the food process will likely lead to a collapse or to severe crises.

chriscase · May 22, 2014

Here is a fascinating independent perspective on climate change. There is some interesting science which links sunspots to climate change on earth. Its very well detailed on the video below, as well as many of the videos on the Suspicious0bservers YouTube channel.

Why Global Warming Failed

by Suspicious0bservers on YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c4XPVPJwBY

Nerburg · May 24, 2014

Just saw link on facebook, an associate from many years past recently helped on a study that just came out about the long-term impact of proposed carbon reduction policies in the local area: Quantifying the emissions and air quality co-benefits of lower-carbon electricity production

From the end of the free synopsis: In this case study, the marginal improvements in emissions and air quality associated with carbon policies were less than the technology, renewable, and conservation assumptions under a business-as-usual scenario.

If I'm not mistaken about the meaning of that sentence (please correct me if I'm wrong), this is a case study clearly stating that new Wisconsin environmental policies will be less effective than current market trends in efficiency.

Gavin_Galt · May 27, 2014

Yeah, this is why we need open access. The most valuable asset on Earth is a page from a scientific peer reviewed journal. In extreme cases it is worth around 300$ per page.

P.S. Does it piss anyone else off that you have to pay to be a member of the club before you can read scientific publications? How much do these guys get in tax money again? argh!

As a young scientist myself I figured I might chime in on this. While the subscription fees for journals are pretty high, in some cases it seems for no reason, the journals themselves are private organizations so they aren't getting directly funded by taxes. It is true that the editors, and those that are doing the peer reviews are generally academic scientists who are usually funded by way of grants, but the journals themselves do have some overhead.Additionally, while this may be seen as good or bad, for the time being a majority of the open access journals are crap. Rather than being funded by subscription fees, a lot of them charge people money to submit articles and are complete scams. The current system is super broken, and will come crumbling down eventually, but at least the peer review in the big journals is still pretty decent.

DFPercush · June 2, 2014

While the subscription fees for journals are pretty high, in some cases it seems for no reason, the journals themselves are private organizations so they aren't getting directly funded by taxes.

That makes sense. My main beef though, is when those journals are the only place publicly funded research is published.If the individual teams and authors make their results available freely through other means, no complaint at all. But there's a coercive system set up around these journals which is what I'm complaining about.

tastemaker · June 4, 2014

One particular thing I noticed - it's not like an "aha!" or anything, but he talked about the low concentration of CO2 compared to other gases - in the tens of parts per million - and follows it up by saying that it doesn't take a lot of something to set off a positive feedback loop. I didn't see any hard data in there about how we know whether this is happening. So I'm left thinking that the positive feedback loop is only an untested hypothetical scenario.

Dr. David Evans breaks down the "feedback" theory here, illustrating how there is currently no evidence to support it and how it is so crucial to the entire AGW case:

http://mises.org/daily/5892/The-Skeptics-Case

I also recently watched this presentation from geologist Bob Carter, which explains where we fit into the long term history of the planet, and it is nothing unusual:

The whole AGW feedback theory hinges upon the idea that the earth is constantly teetering on the edge of disaster with CO2 and it only takes a little push in the realm of CO2 to push us to the brink of catastrophe. This is all sensationalism, and models are not science; they are built to predict, and the predictions need to match reality, which has been a real problem to the theory.

Anuojat · June 6, 2014

Dr. David Evans breaks down the "feedback" theory here, illustrating how there is currently no evidence to support it and how it is so crucial to the entire AGW case:

http://mises.org/daily/5892/The-Skeptics-Case

I also recently watched this presentation from geologist Bob Carter, which explains where we fit into the long term history of the planet, and it is nothing unusual:

The whole AGW feedback theory hinges upon the idea that the earth is constantly teetering on the edge of disaster with CO2 and it only takes a little push in the realm of CO2 to push us to the brink of catastrophe. This is all sensationalism, and models are not science; they are built to predict, and the predictions need to match reality, which has been a real problem to the theory.

I have to point out that Potholer did adress feedbacks and feedback loops in his series. Did you watch that part yourself? (And also he did talk about Bob carter several times)

1,2,4,5 and 27.

And you last remark: Ive never heard any scientist (or someone like potholer54) postulate or claim this. Media that is politically biased certainly does that often enough though. In the past release of C02 DID indeed set up the vicious circle in motion but its not and never was the only driver and it never lead neccerily to any "catastrophe".

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Bob_Carter_arg.htm Also something on Bob carter

As for Dr. Evans i cannot say much since the only noteworthy thing i could find of him which could highlight some errors of his was this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/david-evans-understanding-goes-cold.html

And i myself jsut noticed this on a fly so i dont think i could be qualified to answer any questiosn since potholer and skepticalscien.com should be mroe better to answer questions naturally

tastemaker · June 6, 2014

since potholer and skepticalscien.com should be mroe better to answer questions naturally

Well, this is what all global warming debates typically come down to, the conflicting data and information. As far as these sources, given all the conflicting information, data, and interpretations from other sources, I'm not sure what makes these more reliable and trustworthy sources than those on the skeptics side. Upon first glance, I see a lot of potential problems for reliability in those sources (and a simple google search brings up sites debunking those sites... which I'm sure there are debunkers debunking the debunkers, and debunkers debunking the debunking of the debunkers, and so forth).

However, I'm less concerned about that than I am your interest in the topic. Why is your position on this important to YOU, and how does it connect to your history? To be forthright, I come from a history in which manipulation was at the forefront of my upbringing, and I am very sensitive to manipulation for the purposes of control and power. Therefore, when I see manipulations in language, through omission, data, and solutions that serve the powers that be, etc. I feel it quite strongly in my gut as if someone is trying to use the illusion of reason as a method of control over me. This does not mean it is always the case and I have to be aware of the degree of my feelings in relation to reality, but in the case of AGW, I do not feel my concerns are unfounded, or feelings invalid. The political agendas need to be stripped away (almost an impossibility on this subject) before an objective analysis can be made.

Personally, I would be more interested (and would seem more productive on an FDR forum) in turning this thread into one where we can come to an understanding of the emotional roots that fuel the skeptical and pro-AGW positions on this highly debated topic. So, I pose the question for all: what do you feel is at stake for YOU and how does it connect to your history?

[NOTE: I realize that this may be off topic from the original post, so if there is interest in this direction of the topic, I would be willing to open up a new thread]

Anuojat · June 6, 2014

Well, this is what all global warming debates typically come down to, the conflicting data and information. As far as these sources, given all the conflicting information, data, and interpretations from other sources, I'm not sure what makes these more reliable and trustworthy sources than those on the skeptics side. Upon first glance, I see a lot of potential problems for reliability in those sources (and a simple google search brings up sites debunking those sites... which I'm sure there are debunkers debunking the debunkers, and debunkers debunking the debunking of the debunkers, and so forth).

However, I'm less concerned about that than I am your interest in the topic. Why is your position on this important to YOU, and how does it connect to your history? To be forthright, I come from a history in which manipulation was at the forefront of my upbringing, and I am very sensitive to manipulation for the purposes of control and power. Therefore, when I see manipulations in language, through omission, data, and solutions that serve the powers that be, etc. I feel it quite strongly in my gut as if someone is trying to use the illusion of reason as a method of control over me. This does not mean it is always the case and I have to be aware of the degree of my feelings in relation to reality, but in the case of AGW, I do not feel my concerns are unfounded, or feelings invalid. The political agendas need to be stripped away (almost an impossibility on this subject) before an objective analysis can be made.

Personally, I would be more interested (and would seem more productive on an FDR forum) in turning this thread into one where we can come to an understanding of the emotional roots that fuel the skeptical and pro-AGW positions on this highly debated topic. So, I pose the question for all: what do you feel is at stake for YOU and how does it connect to your history?

Well first of all, its important to always go to the source and find out what debunking is based on and is it unfounded or correct. So i always (and i suggest everyone should) see if there is debinking going on and if its valid to what decree; for example people should debunk the scietific papers not each others blogs if they wish to make sense of it all in lasting manner. And its important whom the scientist are and if one is not scientist in field X then its merely opinion outside the field. And in the field of climatology there are proponents and skeptics in the field and there is constant debate. HOWEVER, to say government or politics have no influence on these is not rational and to be skeptical in science is and always has been the largest part: You dont proof theories you debunk them for BETTER explanation of the facts, as potholer himself said "the opinions of politicians, ipcc or even my opinions are irrelevant. Only proper research and evidence should stand." And i concur.

Now after the LONG clarification i will adress your main concern:

Climate chance, evolution, physics, biology overall and science in general is import to me because ive always (aka as far i can remember) been curious and interested in nature and how it works. Also since i became atheist libertarian AFTER having been christian socialist it has been very import for me to be proven wrong and make sure to inform others if thyve made errors in thigns theyre interested in or passionate about. Reason for this from me is simple: I have very strong emphaty towards others but more like one where i see people making mistakes of saying thigns i know have been explained before, well naturally i wish to inform those people to help them AND myself should it turn out it was i who was mistaken

What i feel to be at stake is that people whom otherwise are wise and intelligent, fall into the ignorance in other fields and say thigns which discredit them in the eyes of many.

I kno this is pure BS since its just overtly blaming people for differant conclusions, but i also see that many scientific or economically or philosofically savvy people, fail badly in other areas and dont chance theyre minds because they think that facts might hurt their position.

In other words: I do this so rational people can bounce off information from one another to correct/help one another whre ones expertise or knowledge ends.

Just like person who knows medicine but not how to drive safely very fast. "I drive the doctor and he does the deed, but both of us need each other and learn from each other."

tastemaker · June 7, 2014

Climate chance, evolution, physics, biology overall and science in general is import to me because ive always (aka as far i can remember) been curious and interested in nature and how it works. Also since i became atheist libertarian AFTER having been christian socialist it has been very import for me to be proven wrong and make sure to inform others if thyve made errors in thigns theyre interested in or passionate about. Reason for this from me is simple: I have very strong emphaty towards others but more like one where i see people making mistakes of saying thigns i know have been explained before, well naturally i wish to inform those people to help them AND myself should it turn out it was i who was mistaken

I'm confused by a couple of things in your reply. Firstly, I would like to address this idea of how you feel it is "important to be proven wrong and make sure to inform others if they've made errors". You seem to acknowledge that there are two clear sides to this debate, with experts on different sides, and that we are layman on the subject... so how have you decided you are in a position to "inform others they've made errors"? How are you the "doctor" or the "driver" (or how am I), using your metaphor? The site you posted, skeptical science, did not appear to be coming from such a position of how it is important to be proven wrong. That site seems to support the "debate is over" AGW position (at least the pages you sent me, one of which cites the dubious 97% consensus number). I agree about the importance of debunking claims, and would add that the proponents of a very large claim have the largest burden of proof. Your response does not appear to me that you're "looking to be proven wrong" (I see no evidence for this other than the words stating that this is your intention), but more so -- as the rest of the response indicates, combined with your valuing of the skeptical science source -- you're looking to "inform" or "correct" others as a primary motive. Though, it seems these are somewhat conflicting values (if you are looking to inform or correct, it means that you are sure your information is more valid; if you are looking to be proven wrong, you are not sure your position is correct and would not be as confident in informing or correcting others). Though perhaps not mutually exclusive (maybe one can be 100% confident in a position while still taking into consideration others), I do not see where these simultaneously coexist for you in your response. Though I can only see these coexisting in a situation of empathy, which takes us to the next thing I'd like to discuss.

I experience a cordiality in your response, but don't experience empathy in your attempt to "inform" me, so I'm not convinced empathy is your motive. I alluded to my abusive history with manipulation as a possible influence for my concerns over the conflicting data, interpretations, and the power agenda's at play in the AGW debate, but you neither acknowledged that history nor clearly connected your own history to your position (what you said was "at stake" was not about yourself -- which is what I asked -- but rather the idea of helping others). If religion was a dominant presence in your upbringing, you may still have very strong emotional ties to those ideals subconsciously at play, which would be important to be conscious of. I'm not saying this is the case with you, but for examples sake: the compelling feeling to want to "help" and "inform" could parallel the idea of "saving" others in religion. I believe Stef even remarked in one of his podcasts the connection of global warming to the idea of original sin -- if CO2 can be classified as a pollutant, then we are all born polluted -- and how it is presented in the media as a metaphorical burning in hell if we are not able to be "saved" from this sin (by the magic of government -- i.e. God). Regardless, I'm sure that it was a terribly confusing and emotionally exhausting thing to overcome an environment of socialists and religiosity (as I have some experience in this myself), and you deserve a lot of credit for that, but the fact that you were able to overcome these to accept libertarianism and atheism does not necessarily mean anything in the way of empathy and your motives for others.

This is just my experience of the interaction.

Anuojat · June 7, 2014

I'm confused by a couple of things in your reply. Firstly, I would like to address this idea of how you feel it is "important to be proven wrong and make sure to inform others if they've made errors". You seem to acknowledge that there are two clear sides to this debate, with experts on different sides, and that we are layman on the subject... so how have you decided you are in a position to "inform others they've made errors"? How are you the "doctor" or the "driver" (or how am I), using your metaphor? The site you posted, skeptical science, did not appear to be coming from such a position of how it is important to be proven wrong. That site seems to support the "debate is over" AGW position (at least the pages you sent me, one of which cites the dubious 97% consensus number). I agree about the importance of debunking claims, and would add that the proponents of a very large claim have the largest burden of proof. Your response does not appear to me that you're "looking to be proven wrong" (I see no evidence for this other than the words stating that this is your intention), but more so -- as the rest of the response indicates, combined with your valuing of the skeptical science source -- you're looking to "inform" or "correct" others as a primary motive. Though, it seems these are somewhat conflicting values (if you are looking to inform or correct, it means that you are sure your information is more valid; if you are looking to be proven wrong, you are not sure your position is correct and would not be as confident in informing or correcting others). Though perhaps not mutually exclusive (maybe one can be 100% confident in a position while still taking into consideration others), I do not see where these simultaneously coexist for you in your response. Though I can only see these coexisting in a situation of empathy, which takes us to the next thing I'd like to discuss.

I experience a cordiality in your response, but don't experience empathy in your attempt to "inform" me, so I'm not convinced empathy is your motive. I alluded to my abusive history with manipulation as a possible influence for my concerns over the conflicting data, interpretations, and the power agenda's at play in the AGW debate, but you neither acknowledged that history nor clearly connected your own history to your position (what you said was "at stake" was not about yourself -- which is what I asked -- but rather the idea of helping others). If religion was a dominant presence in your upbringing, you may still have very strong emotional ties to those ideals subconsciously at play, which would be important to be conscious of. I'm not saying this is the case with you, but for examples sake: the compelling feeling to want to "help" and "inform" could parallel the idea of "saving" others in religion. I believe Stef even remarked in one of his podcasts the connection of global warming to the idea of original sin -- if CO2 can be classified as a pollutant, then we are all born polluted -- and how it is presented in the media as a metaphorical burning in hell if we are not able to be "saved" from this sin (by the magic of government -- i.e. God). Regardless, I'm sure that it was a terribly confusing and emotionally exhausting thing to overcome an environment of socialists and religiosity (as I have some experience in this myself), and you deserve a lot of credit for that, but the fact that you were able to overcome these to accept libertarianism and atheism does not necessarily mean anything in the way of empathy and your motives for others.

This is just my experience of the interaction.

If i or anyone sees something which theyve previously seen explanation for then i would try to correct them even if iam not an expert on the field because specific questions in that field can be debate by laymen IF what is presented is relevant. For example, Stefan is no biologist or economist (though know lot about the latter) but he can and will try to correct toher to the best of his knowledge by referring the work of others (and expert on that field). If someone beliefs that X causes Z because of Y then if one has seen experts already talk/reaseach about X, Z and Y the pointing this out is not the laymen pretending to be and expert, rather is trying to correct someone to the best of his/her knowledge WITH referances to the actual scientific papers and scientists in said field.

That links were ONLY in responce about Bob Carter Dr. Evans, i didnt mean to post them for anything else. If there are problems with what is said there then those need to be adressed naturally, since if claims there are NOT based on scientific sources then they are equally suspect as anyone else is If the poeple on the website lcaim that the "debate is over" theyre dead wrong, if they say that humans have influence trough Co2 (and its positive and negative feedbakcs) then its just matter of HOW MUCH effect on the climate.

I am looking to be proven wrong, but so far ive not seen any credible counterevidence (scientists or scientific papers) which cast serious dout on AGW and climate chance currently understood. And everthing ive had given to me has been (when you go the actual source) not what people claim the source says. Or that sources given havent been from sciensts in the field or from any scinetic papers or even scientific community at all.

Let me explain: I am looking to be proven wrong EVEN when i am very confidant in what i try to inform someone about. When i try to correct someone i dont do it with my opinions alone (aka my opinions mean nothing without basis for it from the field itself ect.) When i talk to a statist for example, i dont just say a conclusion or assert stuff, i explain (or often deperately try to) my reasons for what i say and show evidenve from fields like economics/sociaolog/psycology ect.

This is where i have to make an admission; Emphaty was perhaps wrong word to use and apologize for this if it was since what i feel is that someone was interested in X and made mistake about X according to what ive learned and thus i jumped on to inform them about such potential error. Now you didnt obviously ask for this i just saw the comment and decided to reply. This i might have confused for emphaty since i though surely if youre interested in this topic then being informed about potential error in said topic would be kind and understanding thing to do IF i cared about you. So yes i am not sure, but thats where i might have done goofeed and made a mistake.

I dont know how to take your abusive history into account except only by NOT trying to be manipulative in any way.

Well helping others IS what i want and have always wanted, it does bring me joy to help people and to perhaps tell them about something which if correct chances their mind or mine away from error and closer to truth. Might my religious upbringing have something to do with this? I think so, since as young boy/man i did try to smoothen out or soften the religious tensions that people had with christians and christanity (and faith in general). But my underlying reason was to help others, genuinely help them and as it turned out THEY were the ones to guide me from error when i thought i was right and rational about those beliefs which i held.

Well the most exhausting thign was the bullies actually, religious and socialist parts were to the most part only confusing and jamming. My parents were (and still are) veeeeeery moderate. And never shunned critical inquiry or societal alternatives to complex problems.

Well i certainly hope ive made my motivations clearer and i hope ive given satisfactory answers. If not and ive missed something or something is incorrect let me know if you want to continue.

PS. I am wondering if you did watch the series by pothole54?

tastemaker · June 8, 2014

If the poeple on the website lcaim that the "debate is over" theyre dead wrong, if they say that humans have influence trough Co2 (and its positive and negative feedbakcs) then its just matter of HOW MUCH effect on the climate.

I am looking to be proven wrong, but so far ive not seen any credible counterevidence (scientists or scientific papers) which cast serious dout on AGW and climate chance currently understood. And everthing ive had given to me has been (when you go the actual source) not what people claim the source says. Or that sources given havent been from sciensts in the field or from any scinetic papers or even scientific community at all.

Sorry to be picky, but again I get confused by certain statements being made on your part. You both feel that the debate is not over (you use the words "dead wrong", which seems to imply some credible criticism to the theory), but then state how you have "not seen any credible counterevidence (scientists or scientific papers) that cast serious doubt...". These statements conflict with one another. If there is no counter-evidence, how can the the debate not be over in your mind? I'm also not sure what the ambiguous phrase 'serious doubt' means (so there is just a little doubt? Can doubt be a partial concept?).

"And everthing ive had given to me has been (when you go the actual source) not what people claim the source says. Or that sources given havent been from sciensts in the field or from any scinetic papers or even scientific community at all."

I agree that we can refer to experts to help make our points, but I also find this statement confusing. Firstly, why do you have to be "given" evidence to the contrary when you are "looking to be proven wrong"? This implies that you are both active and passive in your pursuit of counter-evidence. Also, in reference to your "everything I've been given" comment, Dr. David Evans, whose biography seems to suggest he is an expert in his field, and one who has used his expertise to consult with the Australian Department of Climate Change, does not qualify for you as an expert in the field? If so, then you cannot used the word "everything". Moreover, I'm not sure how this source is not what I claimed it to be. I feel as though there may be some defenses around counter-evidence at work here. Again, I'm not sure why I should trust the information on skeptical science over his, but in the face of conflicting information, I maintain skepticism on those making the claim (who carry the burden of proof). I have no problem with counter-claims, but if the research cited has been funded by government grants, they would be no less potentially bias than if Evans were being funded by big oil. As Stef said in a recent podcast, any "science" funded by the government is just another government program.

"This i might have confused for emphaty since i though surely if youre interested in this topic then being informed about potential error in said topic would be kind and understanding thing to do IF i cared about you"

Well, I appreciate the correction on the use of empathy, but I don't know how or why you care about me or why you think "correcting" someone is to show care for that person. I have not seen care expressed through empathy. If you want to help people, you need to connect with them. People don't listen to Stef because he says stuff that theoretically makes sense, but rather because he lives his values. This is why I have quickly abandoned the typical back and forth debate on AGW in favor of trying to understand where you're coming from. Making myself dependent on convincing you of a position I hold (or vice versa) would be a waste of energy, as most debates are not actually about the issue, but about people's un-excavated histories.

"I dont know how to take your abusive history into account except only by NOT trying to be manipulative in any way."

I appreciate that, but I think you may underestimate the power of our histories and how much it influences our thoughts and actions. And if underestimated, you may not recognize that you are manipulating.

"Might my religious upbringing have something to do with this? I think so, since as young boy/man i did try to smoothen out or soften the religious tensions that people had with christians and christanity (and faith in general). But my underlying reason was to help others, genuinely help them and as it turned out THEY were the ones to guide me from error when i thought i was right and rational about those beliefs which i held. Well the most exhausting thign was the bullies actually, religious and socialist parts were to the most part only confusing and jamming.

I feel like there are some pieces missing here to make sense of this (like how the Christians you were trying to help led them to help you accept reason), but more importantly: why did you feel it was your job as a child to soften tensions between grown ups?

"My parents were (and still are) veeeeeery moderate. And never shunned critical inquiry or societal alternatives to complex problems."

I don't know what "veeeeery moderate" means when it comes to religion. Your parents do not shun critical inquiry to the complex problems in the proof of the God they believe in, the destructiveness of religion throughout history, their role in the infliction of religious lies upon others (including their own children), how all of this contributes to the cycle of violence, and the alternative of atheism?

"Well i certainly hope ive made my motivations clearer and i hope ive given satisfactory answers."

I'm not looking for "satisfactory answers", just emotionally honest ones.

"I am wondering if you did watch the series by pothole54?"

I watched the first video, and it does conflict with some of what I've read from skeptics as far as interpretation of data is concerned, but I'd like to know what makes him a credible, unbias synthesizer of information in your mind (he mentions being involved with KYOTO, which sets off red flags to me). Information can be manipulated or arranged to purport any view we want, but I am less concerned about debating the minutia of every last conflicting interpretation in this theory than I am trying to understand why convincing others is important to you. Ultimately, I would have to understand and trust you before I would place value in the sources you share with me.

Anuojat · June 8, 2014

“”Sorry to be picky, but again I get confused by certain statements being made on your part. You both feel that the debate is not over (you use the words "dead wrong", which seems to imply some credible criticism to the theory), but then state how you have "not seen any credible counterevidence (scientists or scientific papers) that cast serious doubt...". These statements conflict with one another. If there is no counter-evidence, how can the the debate not be over in your mind? I'm also not sure what the ambiguous phrase 'serious doubt' means (so there is just a little doubt? Can doubt be a partial concept?).””

When I say that the “debate is not over” what I mean is that the debate on how much effect humans have is nto over, as I said this didn’t i?

“if they say that humans have influence trough Co2 (and its positive and negative feedbakcs) then its just matter of HOW MUCH effect on the climate.”

AWG as I understand is that climate is effected by humans. I know that there is the “climate chance is DRIVEN by humans” which is the one which has its proponents and skeptics. Co2 is not the only driver of climate but can, if by humans or anything else, set into motion the positive feedback loop (the one I referred to as vicious circle). What I haven’t seen concerning climate chance are papers which cast serious doubt that humans have effect on global warming and climate chance trough Co2 "at all". Scientists in the field currently debate the effects size that humans have, not if AWG is real because it has been shown to be so trough research and constant piling of evidence. And yes one can have serious doubt and little doubt, depending on the evidence and validity of theories.

"And everthing ive had given to me has been (when you go the actual source) not what people claim the source says. Or that sources given havent been from sciensts in the field or from any scinetic papers or even scientific community at all."

I agree that we can refer to experts to help make our points, but I also find this statement confusing. Firstly, why do you have to be "given" evidence to the contrary when you are "looking to be proven wrong"? This implies that you are both active and passive in your pursuit of counter-evidence. Also, in reference to your "everything I've been given" comment, Dr. David Evans, whose biography seems to suggest he is an expert in his field, and one who has used his expertise to consult with the Australian Department of Climate Change, does not qualify for you as an expert in the field? If so, then you cannot used the word "everything". Moreover, I'm not sure how this source is not what I claimed it to be. I feel as though there may be some defenses around counter-evidence at work here. Again, I'm not sure why I should trust the information on skeptical science over his, but in the face of conflicting information, I maintain skepticism on those making the claim (who carry the burden of proof). I have no problem with counter-claims, but if the research cited has been funded by government grants, they would be no less potentially bias than if Evans were being funded by big oil. As Stef said in a recent podcast, any "science" funded by the government is just another government program.

Because if I want to be proven wrong/mistaken then id need counter evidence now wouldn’t i?
If one wants to be proven wrong then wouldn’t it make sense to both seek and be given evidence to the contrary? I am guessing this confusion came from me only taking you into account and not saying the “seeking evidence” in the first place?

Well lets see: No Dr. Evans is not a climatologist or someone who has similar credentials (such as PhD in atmospheric sciences ect.)

Also Dr. Evans work with Australia’s Greenhouse office was as consultant to make carbon accounting model as electrical engineer not as expert on climate chance.

And the big thing about his sceptics case: If what in skeptical science is wrong about address D. Evans case then it would be nice to see it. Do they address him? Based on what is in the “Skeptics case” page on Mises id say they address parts of it. Admittingly not all.

Also he is citing NASA satellites (and ARGO) in the text but they both were broken or unworking when i tried to check the sources so I went straight to NASA and they showed these:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

And again, skepticalscience.com aside, Study which Dr. Evans cites is research by Lindzen and Cho whos study ONLY deals with tropics as they themselves point out in the study and not with the whole planet.

ALL scientific research is at least partially funded by the state, but again not similarly in all countries and the evidence doesn’t care if its funded by state or not. I doubt and question the evidence. So this would make all science a government program, and YES if all and every single research or piece of evidence was produced on direct political influence then yes it would be questionable, however saying government gives grants and puts money into certain field doesn’t directly make that WHOLE field unto a government program. Obviously government and politicians and political activists have interests in the field of climetology. In science debunking and disproving thoeries is the key and msot prominent role (in terms of success) overturning current theory and explainign facts and observations is waht is constant in scientific community. So yes politics can muddle the issue but ultimately it cannot keep better explanations in peer rewiev to emerge.

"This i might have confused for emphaty since i though surely if youre interested in this topic then being informed about potential error in said topic would be kind and understanding thing to do IF i cared about you"

Well, I appreciate the correction on the use of empathy, but I don't know how or why you care about me or why you think "correcting" someone is to show care for that person. I have not seen care expressed through empathy. If you want to help people, you need to connect with them. People don't listen to Stef because he says stuff that theoretically makes sense, but rather because he lives his values. This is why I have quickly abandoned the typical back and forth debate on AGW in favor of trying to understand where you're coming from. Making myself dependent on convincing you of a position I hold (or vice versa) would be a waste of energy, as most debates are not actually about the issue, but about people's un-excavated histories.

Wait, are you saying that I cannot or should not help total strangers?
If try to correct someone it in my opinion show caring because i assume people do not wish to be wrong in the subjects they got interests in. For example, if someone loves certain foods but makes mistake in cooking something and I notice this error and point it out to him… I expect this to be good thing for him and make him happy, not having to see his entire stew gone bad because of error that could have still been corrected.

I don’t know about connection, if you feel that you cannot trust me without a personal connection, that’s fine and if you feel this to be the case strong enough so that we should focus on it. Then I am more than happy to.

No, I don’t trust Stephan just because he lives his values, I trust evidence and reason.

And yes while peeling off layers to find out persons motivations is important, that shouldn’t discredit evidence and research if they are still based on scientific method.

Well I can only assure you that this is not about my history but genuine wish to further reason and push away error in place of truth and valid reasoning.

"I dont know how to take your abusive history into account except only by NOT trying to be manipulative in any way."

I appreciate that, but I think you may underestimate the power of our histories and how much it influences our thoughts and actions. And if underestimated, you may not recognize that you are manipulating.

Ok how “may” I be underestimating our histories and its influence?

And HUH???, ok now I am really confused myself: How can I be manipulative without knowing it?

That doesn’t seem to make any sense... unless if youre thinking of people switching to parental or toher alter egos in differant situations? (just guessing here)

"Might my religious upbringing have something to do with this? I think so, since as young boy/man i did try to smoothen out or soften the religious tensions that people had with christians and christanity (and faith in general). But my underlying reason was to help others, genuinely help them and as it turned out THEY were the ones to guide me from error when i thought i was right and rational about those beliefs which i held. Well the most exhausting thign was the bullies actually, religious and socialist parts were to the most part only confusing and jamming.

I feel like there are some pieces missing here to make sense of this (like how the Christians you were trying to help led them to help you accept reason), but more importantly: why did you feel it was your job as a child to soften tensions between grown ups?

I didn’t say with Christian but with people whom had tensions with Christianity and religion.
And I did try to soften tension and potential misunderstandings with people of similar age. I didn’t do this when I was 0-13 but when I was 14-21. And with people of similar age. Who were not religious or whom were deists ect.

Now why did I feel I needed to do this? Back then I thought because there were people who were clammering Christians and religious people into similar baskets without any regard for divergence. I also felt that my faith was being challenged so I felt that tension within me too.

"My parents were (and still are) veeeeeery moderate. And never shunned critical inquiry or societal alternatives to complex problems."

I don't know what "veeeeery moderate" means when it comes to religion. Your parents do not shun critical inquiry to the complex problems in the proof of the God they believe in, the destructiveness of religion throughout history, their role in the infliction of religious lies upon others (including their own children), how all of this contributes to the cycle of violence, and the alternative of atheism?

That is called me speaking on the top of my head. So veeeery moderate is just me being general.

In the “critical inquiry, proof of god” Yes. But they saw no destructiveness in religion by itself by in the abuse of religion as tool of power. To them all religious violence was fanatism and/or politics and that person can be peaceful and religious and thus they don’t equate religion with violence per say. They don’t see expression of faith to others as lies and they don’t really lie per say… they’re simply mistaken. (like about exodus) They did talk about atheism but they didn’t associate religion or faith with cycle of violence. In fact theyre knowledge of it is limited to neglect and physical abuse that is easy to spot.

"Well i certainly hope ive made my motivations clearer and i hope ive given satisfactory answers."

I'm not looking for "satisfactory answers", just emotionally honest ones.

"I am wondering if you did watch the series by pothole54?"

I watched the first video, and it does conflict with some of what I've read from skeptics as far as interpretation of data is concerned, but I'd like to know what makes him a credible, unbias synthesizer of information in your mind (he mentions being involved with KYOTO, which sets off red flags to me). Information can be manipulated or arranged to purport any view we want, but I am less concerned about debating the minutia of every last conflicting interpretation in this theory than I am trying to understand why convincing others is important to you. Ultimately, I would have to understand and trust you before I would place value in the sources you share with me.

Because his source’s and counter claims have been valid, he posts his sources always and makes videos consistently debunking myths about climate chance. No matter whom the myths come from. And he requests to be shown errors for him so he can correc them (and he has done it in the past).

KYOTO… why the red flags?

Why is this so?

1+1=2. No matter how much you trust me. The sources either say what I claimed or they don’t J

Look I understand if personal trust is important to you, I just don’t see why since I can always read the sources and see who are the people who straw man opponents less or not at all ect.

There is a way to objectively find out if the person your dealing with is lying: Ask for sources of such claims and check if they are valid or say what they are claimed to say. You can manipulate information only so much until contradictions start to arise.

But all in all, id say that IF this is conversation about gaining trust and about motivations behind what we say… then would you like to talk about them on separate topic since this one was about the series on climate chance. If you wish we can continue these personal questions here, however to fully trust and know someone… in my opinion would mean becoming friend in one way or another and thus IM/Skype or chatrooms would be more helpful J This is of course only me speaking here, so what do you think?

PS. HOLYCRAP this is getting disturbingly long... a voice conversation would have sorted this out much faster! I hope this wont grow too long and large

Torero · November 13, 2014

Dear DFPercush & tastemaker,

I am new here on FDR and want to add my cents (and hopefully sense) to the discussion about CO2 and “Anthropogenic Global Warming”.

First of all the first post by tastemaker where he talks about manipulation. Not knowing you, but reading (between the lines) I see similarities with y own background in manipulation. My father, who recently passed away, was a very good manipulator. I also recognize quite some things in manipulation by others because of that. I am a very different person, as I don’t like to manipulate, too naïve probably.

When we’re talking about “Anthropogenic Global Warming” or “Climate Change caused by humans” we find ourselves in a very difficult “game”. Mainly because most of the people are not natural scientists and believe what politicians make of/how they destroy serious science.

The comment by tastemaker “models are not science” I’d call a bit too black & white. Models are simplified representations of reality and should be treated that way. Models are to natural scientists what laboratories are to physicists and chemists, prototypes to engineers and draft versions to computer scientists. Models can be based on very serious science and models can be tweaked or manipulated towards an outcome.

I myself am a modeler in the natural sciences; geology. The models I build are sometimes even more complex than climate models as the uncertainties towards the past of the Earth exponentially increase. Try to imagine a world 90 million years ago and how the Earth has changed since then up until present day. You get an idea of the complexity of it.

Models can be as (un)scientific as you want them to be, but as long as you realize you’re looking at a model, and the uncertainties in the outcomes are well described, the input parameters scientifically based, you’re ok. A model will never be a complete representation of reality, we simply lack the time, computing power and scale to approach reality that close.

Then to AGW; what the IPCC has presented to the world are predictions. These predictions according to many sources are “right”. Viewed by other sources they are not. The IPCC has “predicted” apocalyptic increases in temperature, sea level, etc. since their first report in 1990. This political (not scientific!) institute says it bases their models on climate science. Climatology is like geology one of the natural sciences studying a part of “System Earth”. This system exists of various parts; the geosphere (or rocky Earth), the hydrosphere (surface waters), the biosphere (all living organisms) and the atmosphere (climate & weather). Additional to that we have astronomy which studies the external effects on System Earth, with as most relevant solar activity, impacts of macrometeorites and the position of the Earth with respect to the Sun.

Back to the IPCC. Even they themselves acknowledge the “fact” (it’s an estimate) that merely 3% of all Carbon Dioxide in the carbon cycle is caused by human activity. That means 97% is natural. Examples of natural sources for production and uptake of CO2 are volcanoes, natural degassings, the oceans (both hydrosphere and biosphere), the biosphere and hydrosphere on land.

The topic starting question (I have not yet seen the video on YT, thanks for that) if we can “force” the CO2 “balance” towards a “tipping point” is one of the roots of the CO2-question, I’d call it the CO2-hoax.

Even if it were possible that we could reach a tipping point, we only are “responsible” for 3% of the CO2-production. Why focus so much on that small percentage, while the vast majority of the CO2 production is natural?

Another point in the discussion is the short memory of modern men. And due to the technological advancements this memory is getting even shorter. Who still remembers how it was living without internet and mobile phone? And that’s just 20 years ago, not even a generation. We can think back to that time but really put ourselves in that position again is very hard because of our memory getting used to these –great- advancements.

Apart from all the longer term natural variations in climate in historical times, let’s say the last 2000 years, we have two examples of short but very drastic natural causes of climate change. These examples seem to be forgotten by the IPCC and they are very relevant for the discussion if System Earth is a delicately balanced system which we massively disturb by producing CO2 or if it is a system that equilibrates itself to the changing circumstances. The latter is true. Nature always adapts itself to changes, that is the very nature of Nature. The great George Carlin has made this clear in his sketch linked below.

The two examples of drastic global climate change in the recent past (not even 500 years ago) are (links below):

The eruption of Huaynaputina in Peru (!) in 1600, causing a massive famine in Russia (!) from 1601-03
The eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia (!) in 1815, causing “the Year without Summer” in Europe in 1816

Both these natural factors have changed the Earth’s climate for a short while and caused massive deaths and misery. But, after the effect was equilibrated these volcanoes did not even reach a “tipping point” and the apocalyptic “visions” of fearmongerer Al Gore did not come to reality.

If you go back in time even further, more natural causes and effects of climate change happened. A series I can recommend to watch is “Miracle Planet”, also linked below.

The politised “science” of AGW to me hurts me as a scientist. It plays with the minds of people who are not aware of the forces of Nature and think that we humans are able to control an amazingly complex system as the Earth. The way critics are ridiculed (compared to creationists), manipulated (use of the term “deniers” as if critics are talking about atrocities like the holocaust) and so on, also tells you something about the seriousness of the issue and the lack of a reasonable scientifically based debate. On a scientific level, these wordings are unnecessary and should be ignored. An intrinsically anti-scientific statement as “the science is settled” is another example. Science is by definition never settled nor democratic, as our friend, the biggest manipulator in the world, Barack Obama, has said.

Not wanting to put a Godwin into the discussion, but the example is relevant; the current AGW “discussion” has similarities with the “racial science” propaganda of Joseph Mengele. If you’d think differently in the Nazi Germany of let’s say 1943, you would not get funding, ridiculed or even worse…

Please do read and watch the following links and videos as they are great tools to put the discussion in a broader, more scientific and natural scientific context:

Huaynaputina - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huaynaputina#1600_eruption
Russian famine - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1601%E2%80%9303
Mount Tambora - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1815_eruption_of_Mount_Tambora
Year without a Summer - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
Miracle Planet - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOd3SAtoIgw&list=PLVf_PhNdaC9A27AMffgQ51YbVn6rR7Nvu
George Carlin - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL8HP1WzbDk

Torero · November 16, 2014

Dear DFPercush,

Thanks to you I’ve started watching the series. I remember I’ve seen parts of it before.

It’s quite nice as both sides of the medal are debunked.

There are some observations. In part 11 potholer54, who appears to be a much more serious person than his YT nickname suggests, he is explaining why and how the atolls of e.g. the Maldives are not inundated because of geological reasons. Here he is going too fast. Atolls are formed indeed by the process he describes. But he says; the islands will not disappear because the coral keeps growing. I will not go into coral carbonate geology, instead the process of the islands is different.

Atoll islands indeed are formed by the keep up of fringing coral reefs. But, the underlying land (the volcano) is sinking. The islands are thus experiencing relative sea level rise; the land is sinking relative to the sea (which is rising a bit). He continues right with describing other process that affect the islands, but he misses this point which is quite crucial.

In short; looking at the vulnerability of low topography islands cannot be done with looking at sea level only, you have to look at the movement of the Earth itself as well. The relative sea level movements are the result of both, definitely not caused by one of the two factors solely.

AH great! In part 13 he’s correcting it and explaining it better, in Panama and Scotland. He just didn’t in the example of the atolls.

In his introduction (the first parts of the series) he is describing the greenhouse effect in a cartoon. In general this is right, but there are so many factors more that play a role here and many factors are counteracting others. This explains the complexity of the climate in general and one of the reasons the simplified models and conclusions by the political (not scientific) IPCC are unjust, as I explained in my previous post; models can be tweaked towards an outcome you want to achieve beforehand. An outcome which is dictated by politicians, and that in itself is not proper science (although most of the publications used are very serious science).

So in short; it’s not the climatology that is corrupt, but the abuse of that science by a political institute which is corrupt.

In his parts 15-19 potholer is trying to debunk Lord Monckton. He is right in his research on the person. But, listen closely to what he says in Part 1 of that series, around 8 minutes. He says “corrections for anomalies like El Niño and Solar activity”. That is one of the basic flaws in the IPCC way of looking at things. Natural variations and causes are “anomalies”? No, they are not; they are inherently part of the system. They are only “anomalies” which need to be “corrected” for, if you start from a partial perspective, namely taking humans as focus. That is not a fair and balanced –haha- approach. That is reducing Nature to “disturb” the data. In fact, it’s –even in the eyes of the IPCC’ers- the opposite. They claim (and there can hardly be anything against it) the humans are the anomaly. And yes, our CO2 increase “disturbs” the natural CO2 cycle. The question is if that is bad (enough).

In Part 2 of this miniseries he points @ 4:00 where he says that “geologists have established cloud cover as positive feedback”. He does not quote any publication here, but I am extremely curious how that could have been analyzed? How can you analyze cloud cover in a past where nobody was there to observe this cloud cover? The only ways that could have been done are by indirect measurements and models, simulations. It is this indirect measurement of the past which is crucial. This I will elaborate more in a separate post as it is a very important point in the debate in climate change.

In Part 3 potholer54 shows a publication @ 5:00 with a name which is major problem in the understanding, especially by the bigger audience, I suspect most climatologists are not so simplistic. The title is “CO2 as a climate knob”. And that’s how the IPCC sees it in their “solutions” to the “problem”. If we just stop or reduce CO2 emissions, we change the climate. There is a big problem with this, I will come back to that in a next reaction.