Since There Has Been No Global Warming Since 1997, Where Is The Evidence That Supports Global Warming? (Birmingham, politicians)

[Stewart G. Griffin]

Originally Posted by Wudge

What you think I might do is not an analogy. I'm not sure if you know what an analogy is.

Likewise, Bertrand Russell's famous teapot (Russell's teapot) is a claim he made, not an analogy.

Moreover, you have but an opinion as to what you believe is a widely established fact, nothing more. Your opinion does not represent fact anywhere but in your mind.

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time"

If you believe Russell was making a "claim" in the above quote and not being analogous, then it is you who is having severe problems with the English language. This is clearly an analogy. What else could it possibly be?

[Wudge]

Originally Posted by Stewart G. Griffin

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time"

If you believe Russell was making a "claim" in the above quote and not being analogous, then it is you who is having severe problems with the English language. This is clearly an analogy. What else could it possibly be?

The reason I said that Bertrand Russell's famous teapot did not come about as an analogy is because I had the pleasure of talking with him in England in the late 50's. Though I was far, far more interested in discussing Russell's Paradox, I found that he referred to a teapot as we discussed his Paradox -- he seemed to favor using teapots for visual imaging. Eventually, we migrated to a short discussion on Russell's teapot, and he explained it came about as part of a discussion on effective thinking, not as an analogy, at least an intended analogy.

[FrankMiller]

Originally Posted by Wudge

I've previously stated that my standard of proof exceeds 99% certainty -- think proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Moreover, I've also said that I require clear and unyielding evidence that is relevant, competent and material that also highly reliable.

I've required this level of evidence over six + decades of evidence assessment measured against that standard.

What does that mean to you? That 99% of research papers have to support global warming? That the Earth has to warm by 99% of a degree? 99% statistical significance? These have all been provided.

I'm asking what you consider proof, and you just say "really good evidence". That's not a standard of proof, that's moving the goalposts. If all you required was clear and unyielding evidence, you'd already be convinced global warming is really happening.

Just give me a template. Like, "I would believe the Earth is warming if you/scientists/Jesus said __________ in a forum post/scientific research paper/sermon."

[Wudge]

Originally Posted by FrankMiller

What does that mean to you? That 99% of research papers have to support global warming? That the Earth has to warm by 99% of a degree? 99% statistical significance? These have all been provided.

I'm asking what you consider proof, and you just say "really good evidence". That's not a standard of proof, that's moving the goalposts. If all you required was clear and unyielding evidence, you'd already be convinced global warming is really happening.

Just give me a template. Like, "I would believe the Earth is warming if you/scientists/Jesus said __________ in a forum post/scientific research paper/sermon."

What it means to me is that I have the same standard of proof on this high-profile issue (man-made global warming) as I have when I assess all of the presented inculpatory and exculpatory evidence in a high-profile criminal case or trial, for which the standard of proof in America is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

Moreover, I always hold to a presumption of innocence until the evidence hurdles proof beyond a reasoanble doubt. So for me, proof of guilt in a trial will only result after I evaluate all and any direct evidence or circumstantial evidence presented during the trial.

Further, any inculpatory evidence I rely on must also not yield to a reasonable explanation put forth by the defense for a particular item of alleged incuplatory evidence, because if the defense offers a reasonable explanation for an item of evidence, I will not add that item to my inculpatory evidence bucket that I use to decide my position. This is true even if I believe the prosecution's storyline on that item of evidence is far more likely to be true -- say five, ten or fifteen times more likely to be true -- than the defense's explanation for that item of evidence.

[FrankMiller]

I can't help but notice you carefully specify "man-made global warming" no matter how many times I try to steer you back to the more general issue of "global warming". Frankly, I don't think the case for AGW meets your standard of 99% certainty (although whether we should refuse to safe the human race unless it's 99% certain to be necessary is another debate). Maybe only 90% certainty. But the Earth is definitely warming with something like 100% certainty. I would wager that even most AGW deniers support the idea that the Earth is warming (if not necessarily because of men), since it's not credible to argue otherwise.

[voiceofreazon]

Originally Posted by FrankMiller

If all you required was clear and unyielding evidence, you'd already be convinced global warming is really happening.

This is your problem. There is no clear and unyielding evidence. What you call clear and unyielding evidence is 97% of climate scientists (which itself is open to debate), who receive government funding predicated on continuing alarmist results who have been caught in the past, doctoring the data or suppressing conflicting data to support the alarmist view.

I don't discount the theory of AGW, I discount the severity and man's impact. My level of skepticism has been raised by issues like climategate, the relentless attacks on skeptics and the quotes like the following:

"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe."
Emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

"I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."
Al Gore

"It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty."
Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist

“No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister

“We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Timothy Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat Senator

"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect."
Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat

“I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”
Will Harper, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy

"The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid."
George Kukla, climatologist, research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.”
Joanne Simpson, former NASA climate scientist

Bottom line? Politics, activism, dogma and greed have crept into the science community and it is not the pristine dedication to the truth and the scientific process that you would like to believe it is.
That doesn't discount AGW and it doesn't discount the need to clean the environment, reduce pollution and find clean energy sources. What it does do is call into question the severity, man's involvement and the motivations of
those who are most loudly advocating this theory.

[Wudge]

Originally Posted by FrankMiller

I can't help but notice you carefully specify "man-made global warming" no matter how many times I try to steer you back to the more general issue of "global warming". Frankly, I don't think the case for AGW meets your standard of 99% certainty (although whether we should refuse to safe the human race unless it's 99% certain to be necessary is another debate). Maybe only 90% certainty. But the Earth is definitely warming with something like 100% certainty. I would wager that even most AGW deniers support the idea that the Earth is warming (if not necessarily because of men), since it's not credible to argue otherwise.

Mother nature certainly has forever changed the direction of earth's global temperatures over and over and over and over, sometimes massively so.

I'm not of the mind that mankind can control or put any significant dent in whatever action Mother Nature decides to take at a particular point in time that will result in a significant change in earth's global temperatures. However, alleged man-made global warming offers that "possibility", which is why it is the centerpiece of this discussion.

[Woof]

Moderator cut: Against forum guidelines

Originally Posted by FrankMiller

I can't help but notice you carefully specify "man-made global warming" no matter how many times I try to steer you back to the more general issue of "global warming". Frankly, I don't think the case for AGW meets your standard of 99% certainty (although whether we should refuse to safe the human race unless it's 99% certain to be necessary is another debate). Maybe only 90% certainty. But the Earth is definitely warming with something like 100% certainty. I would wager that even most AGW deniers support the idea that the Earth is warming (if not necessarily because of men), since it's not credible to argue otherwise.

I'd say it's more like 99% certainty that humans have caused most of the change. Here's part of an article found at What does past climate change tell us about global warming? :


.................. If there's one thing that all sides of the climate debate can agree on, it's that climate has changed naturally in the past. Long before industrial times, the planet underwent many warming and cooling periods. This has led some to conclude that if global temperatures changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and plRemoved personal attack or offensive/potentially flaming portionasma TVs, nature must be the cause of current global warming. This conclusion is the opposite of what the peer-reviewed science has found.



Last updated on 24 September 2012 by John Cook.

[hensleya1]

http://oi57.tinypic.com/5d8gie.jpg



Fact of the matter is, the "science" community has been uncertain about the earth's climate ever since.... well, science began trying to contemplate what the earth's climate will do next. Whether it's warming, cooling, or whatever. Back in 1895, the science journals were filled with doom and gloom about how arctic ice would wipe out Canada. And then this global cooling hoo-ha in the 70's. And then warming. And then cooling (climate change now?)

"Fifth ice age is on the way.....Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold."

- Los Angles Times October 23, 1912

"Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right...weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer."

- Time Magazine Jan. 2 1939

After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder.

- New York Times - January 30, 1961

It is now pretty clearly agreed that the CO2 content [in the atmosphere] will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.

- Presidential advisor Daniel Moynihan, 1969

"There is very important climatic change (Global Cooling) going on right now, and it's not merely something of academic interest. It is something that, if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the earth - like a billion people starving. The effects are already showing up in a rather drastic way."

- Fortune Magazine February 1974

Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people.

- The Birmingham Post (England) July 26, 1999


***

Yeah, I have a hard time believing anything these guys say. I'll continue driving my fuel-efficient car and doing my part to care for the environment, but I do not subscribe to any belief that buying carbon credits or paying carbon taxes will do anything to offset the earth's climate change... which will go on with or without us.

[FrankMiller]

Originally Posted by Wudge

Mother nature certainly has forever changed the direction of earth's global temperatures over and over and over and over, sometimes massively so.

I'm not of the mind that mankind can control or put any significant dent in whatever action Mother Nature decides to take at a particular point in time that will result in a significant change in earth's global temperatures. However, alleged man-made global warming offers that "possibility", which is why it is the centerpiece of this discussion.

Well if you agree that the Earth is warming, I'm satisfied that the thread topic has been resolved.