Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[TeyshaBlue]

lol @ 4 billion year timeline. Have you established that the data population needs to include 4 billion years of data? Do trends need the support of 4 billion years to be a trend?

I don't understand the AGW mechanics very well. I'm pretty ignorant of atmospheric studies and sorely lacking in the fundamentals. However, I do understand statistical analysis.
You've got to make the case for 4 billion years as a required data set before you make it a critical attribute of an argument.
Thus far, I've not seen that case made.

[Yonivore]

lol @ 4 billion year timeline. Have you established that the data population needs to include 4 billion years of data? Do trends need the support of 4 billion years to be a trend?

I don't understand the AGW mechanics very well. I'm pretty ignorant of atmospheric studies and sorely lacking in the fundamentals. However, I do understand statistical analysis.
You've got to make the case for 4 billion years as a required data set before you make it a critical attribute of an argument.
Thus far, I've not seen that case made.

I think it's germane in the sense of establishing the climate of the earth is not behaving any differently than it did before man ever existed.

Over the life of the planet, it has gotten cold -- much colder than anything ever experienced in the history of man -- and hot -- much hotter than anything ever experienced in the history of man. And, it will be again.

The thing to determine -- if it's even worth worry about except from the perspective of preparation and adaptation -- is where we are in the climate cycle of the planet...not what effect an insignificant species is having on it.

[Yonivore]

I don't understand the AGW mechanics very well.

I think you make an important point here.

I believe it is the height of arrogance for mankind to believe it has achieved an understanding of the almost infinite variables involved in global climate sufficient to make any definitive claims on what the climate is doing, why it's doing it, and what's causing it to behave the way it does.

For the past five decades I've watched the "experts" predict, time and time again, about what is going to happen in my future...only to witness them be wrong, time and time again. Manny, et. al., would have us believe that, NOW, scientists have arrived at "settled science" on the matter and that the debate is over -- time for us to act before it's all too late. (Of course, that ignores the scientists, who also happen to agree with Manny about the cause of global climate change, that say "It's too late, there's nothing we can do, all is lost.").

Throw into the mix we could be annihilated, in the blink of an eye, by a true event such as an asteroid or an unfortunately aimed plasma stream from an exploding star -- or any number of true planet-killing scenarios, and it's hard to get excited about an egocentric crisis that doesn't really demonstrate the climate is behaving any appreciably different than it did before we were here.

But, to your point because, it's a good one and, I believe it was echoed in one of the quotes posted earlier in this thread from a real climate scientist.

The global climate is just too complicated a mechanism for anyone -- with today's knowledge -- to be able to make any kind of rational claim to understand precisely what it will do, why it will do it, or when what it does will occur.

Better to set our minds at adapting to an inevitable change than to waste our time spitting into the wind of change.

[TeyshaBlue]

I don't understand orbital mechanics all that well either. That doesn't preclude others do.

[Yonivore]

I don't understand orbital mechanics all that well either. That doesn't preclude others do.

I would argue the number of conditions having influence on orbital mechanics is small when compared to the number having influence on global climate.

And, mind you, this cer ude about global climate change is coming from -- in the case of this forum, anyway -- people who completely refute the belief mankind can economically extract oil from shale.

[MannyIsGod]

Actually I think the height of arrogance is someone who doesn't understand a subject telling others they can't understand it either.

[DarrinS]

This thread is still here?

[TeyshaBlue]

I would argue the number of conditions having influence on orbital mechanics is small when compared to the number having influence on global climate.

And, mind you, this cer ude about global climate change is coming from -- in the case of this forum, anyway -- people who completely refute the belief mankind can economically extract oil from shale.

I would counter that you don't know the number of conditions for understanding either...much less being able to extrapolate a ranking from that lack of knowledge.

[Yonivore]

Actually I think the height of arrogance is someone who doesn't understand a subject telling others they can't understand it either.

Hey, Manny; what would a super volcano do to global climate change?

[MannyIsGod]

Snake Boy, I appreciate your posts made today. I don't have time to post more, but I'll follow up on some of the posts later.

[Yonivore]

I would counter that you don't know the number of conditions for understanding either...much less being able to extrapolate a ranking from that lack of knowledge.

And, you do?

[Yonivore]

And, Manny, the question is still open; "Did the AGCC proponents analyzing the raw temperature data change the way they normalize them, why, and to what effect?"

[TeyshaBlue]

And, you do?

I'm not the person positing the number of variables for orbital mechanics being less or greater than atmospheric analysis.

[Yonivore]

I would counter that you don't know the number of conditions for understanding either...much less being able to extrapolate a ranking from that lack of knowledge.

I really shouldn't have let you get away with this.

The fact is, mankind understands orbital mechanics to the point that we can successfully predict -- and have been doing so for thousands of years -- the position of the planets, their trajectories, and the length of their orbits. And, applying that scientific knowledge, we have successfully flung men and machinery into space with the confidence and know-how to bring it all safely back to earth. TeyshaBlue, that takes a command of orbital mechanics not even remotely duplicated in the global climate field.

[Yonivore]

I'm not the person positing the number of variables for orbital mechanics being less or greater than atmospheric analysis.

No, you're not, but it's clear from our accomplishments in both fields, on which mankind has a better understanding.

[TeyshaBlue]

I really shouldn't have let you get away with this.

The fact is, mankind understands orbital mechanics to the point that we can successfully predict -- and have been doing so for thousands of years -- the position of the planets, their trajectories, and the length of their orbits. And, applying that scientific knowledge, we have successfully flung men and machinery into space with the confidence and know-how to bring it all safely back to earth. TeyshaBlue, takes a command of orbital mechanics not even remotely duplicated in the global climate field.

We might very well be doing the very same thing with climate science. But for whatever reason, the very mere thought that we could do this is "the height of arrogance".

[MannyIsGod]

Orbital Mechanics is incredibly simple compared to atmospheric sciences. That doesn't change anything about AGW or Yonivores ignorance of atmospheric dynamics in general.

[Yonivore]

Orbital Mechanics is incredibly simple compared to atmospheric sciences. That doesn't change anything about AGW or Yonivores ignorance of atmospheric dynamics in general.

Thanks for making my point, Manny. Think you can now respond to the question?

[TeyshaBlue]

"the height of arrogance for mankind to believe it has achieved an understanding of 'fill in the blank'..." is a common meme of opposition to emerging sciences.

[TeyshaBlue]

Orbital Mechanics is incredibly simple compared to atmospheric sciences. That doesn't change anything about AGW or Yonivores ignorance of atmospheric dynamics in general.

Well it aint to me!

[Yonivore]

We might very well be doing the very same thing with climate science. But for whatever reason, the very mere thought that we could do this is "the height of arrogance".

Climate science, at best to date, is a guessing game filled with models run on assumptions that have either been proven wrong or had to be tossed because they took the model in the "wrong" direction.

Manny's right, climate science is extremely complicated -- probably more complicated than devising a method of extracting oil from shale.

Hey, Manny, what does an unpredictable global event -- such as a super volcano -- or, an unpredictable cosmic event -- such as a large asteroid strike, do to your global climate science?

And, of course, the ever-present question; "Did the AGCC proponents analyzing the raw temperature data change the way they normalize them, why, and to what effect?"

[TeyshaBlue]

Climate science, at best to date, is a guessing game filled with models run on assumptions that have either been proven wrong or had to be tossed because they took the model in the "wrong" direction.

See meme. Congrats on filling in the blanks.

[Yonivore]

"the height of arrogance for mankind to believe it has achieved an understanding of 'fill in the blank'..." is a common meme of opposition to emerging sciences.

That's not true.

First, climate science isn't an "emerging" science. It's been studied for as long and in as much depth as just about any other science. What's emerging is the belief mankind has a larger role in global climate than was before believed...and, there is still serious disagreement over whether or not that is true.

Also, I don't think it's arrogant to believe mankind can have a thorough understanding of physics; orbital mechanics, for instance.

The arrogance, I believe, lies in the fact global warming proponents now believe mankind is a significant factor in the process of global climate change and, as such, should seek to discover how we can alter something they don't yet completely understand. Once we are able to control the Moon's global effect on the tide, I'll believe we can affect climate.

[Yonivore]

See meme. Congrats on filling in the blanks.

You betcha.

[ChumpDumper]

So yoni's argument is "I'm stupid, so everyone else must be stupid also."

Half-right, at any rate.