November 1, 2019 Climate Change Discussion in the Fallible Ideas Discord Chat
Kurapika(Mentally untouchable):
What do you guys think about the tree planting event going around on youtube?
JustinCEO:
No idea what you're referring to @Kurapika(Mentally untouchable)
JustinCEO:
Can u link?
Kurapika(Mentally untouchable):
@JustinCEO https://youtu.be/U7nJBFjKqAY
Kurapika(Mentally untouchable):
This is a trend on youtube.
JustinCEO:
Watched a minute of vid, seemed bad and dumb. Will say more later
JustinCEO:
They didn't explain who MrBeast is or why we should care. Or why this was a good project. Or alternate projects they considered. Or alternate ways of implementing this project they considered. They wasted much of first minute on playing music and showing ppl doing stuff in order to create a certain kind of social vibe and pull on the puppet strings of viewers. They figure their target audience will be more likely to donate if presented with a video with the right sort of vibe instead of leading with some kind of explanations. They're right.
StEmperorAugustine:
Watched a minute of vid, seemed bad and dumb.
Probably why you should not judge a book by its cover :). The video actually has a lot of cool explanations about trees and how to plant trees using drones. I thought it was not bad and not dumb :).
curi:
It’s part of a movement to destroy civilization tho
StEmperorAugustine:
How so?
curi:
Why plant trees?
StEmperorAugustine:
A nice way to reduce co2 and increase o2 :). It is volunteering work which is great for the soul and no coercion.
curi:
Why reduce co2?
StEmperorAugustine:
Save netherlands!
curi:
The narrative you haven’t said is global warming. The goals and meaning of the movement are well known. They want to shut down the modern economy with a scare story.
StEmperorAugustine:
I feel like that's true of some but probably not true of all. However, I haven't looked at it much, not to mention the science seems rather complicated so unless you're a climate science expert what do you do?
I know a lot of it is destructive especially if they intervene in the markets etc... but volunteer tree building seems fine to me. What are the downsides of tree planting?
curi:
They are doing video propaganda not just planting trees
curi:
They are wasting millions of dollars
curi:
The way ppl like volunteer work and charity is anti capitalist
curi:
You even implied that regular work is bad for the soul and coercive
StEmperorAugustine:
ugh it is :(. I think most people hate their jobs. Though coercive? eh Idk you can always leave but many people have limited options.
curi:
Re complicated science: the tree planters didn’t care about that. Didn’t research it or try to educate ppl about it. Just risked being wrong and dragging their fans with them
StEmperorAugustine:
They trust the scientists I suppose.
curi:
Which scientists? There are scientists on both sides
curi:
Seems more like they trust NYT CNN AOC imo
StEmperorAugustine:
Seems very one sided. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
StEmperorAugustine:
those are not NYT CNN and idk what AOC is.
curi:
That's corruption and the NYT, CNN and AOC are part of the cause of it. AOC is the green new deal person.
curi:
It seems one-sided in part b/c of ongoing suppression of dissent.
curi:
In part because they're dishonest.
curi:
And in part because of the broader context of what the media has said.
curi:
And by one-sided you don't really mean one-sided, you mean that one side is more popular than the other. Popularity isn't truth as any real scientist would tell you.
curi:
These are the kind of people who crusade for minorities ... but not scientific or intellectual minorities, who they try to suppress. They prefer to focus on e.g. skin color.
StEmperorAugustine:
https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm
curi:
That is propaganda.
StEmperorAugustine:
These are the kind of people who crusade for minorities ... but not scientific or intellectual minorities, who they try to suppress. They prefer to focus on e.g. skin color.
StEmperorAugustine:
this is true
curi:
It's propaganda which isn't even about co2 or warming. It's tangential or meta propaganda.
curi:
It's not even trying to be about science. It should be put out by pollsters not scientists.
curi:
what does NASA know about polling? not their expertise.
StEmperorAugustine:
Isn't this confating two issues though? The science of climate change and the proposed solutions. I agree that there is a lot of non-solutions and opportunism from the left using climate change as an excuse.
curi:
Isn't this confating two issues though?
which statement is doing that?
StEmperorAugustine:
That's corruption and the NYT, CNN and AOC are part of the cause of it. AOC is the green new deal person.
StEmperorAugustine:
how do you know that nasa and all these other organizations are the propaganda but Alex Epstein is not?
curi:
how does that comment conflate "The science of climate change and the proposed solutions. " ?
StEmperorAugustine:
Isn't the green new deal a proposed solution? if we can even call it that.
curi:
yes but what's wrong with a statement telling you who she is? you asked.
StEmperorAugustine:
I thought you issue with these people were what they were proposing and their scare mongering and stuff.
curi:
you're losing track of context
StEmperorAugustine:
but anyway, how do you know that Alex Epstein is not the propaganda?
curi:
re how to tell what's right, in short you make a discussion tree and look at what arguments and questions have not been answered. https://curi.us/2229-discussion-trees-with-example
curi:
if you made a discussion tree of this discussion, it'd help you avoid losing track of the purpose and context of statements.
StEmperorAugustine:
I really rather not do that tbh. Seems like a lot of work. I am skeptical of all things related climate change. Too political. I err on the side of trusting the consensus for this one. I don't think a non-expert is in a position to understand this matter. Unless it is cases like with the green new deal or w/e its called in where a lot of the solutions have nothing to do with the climate, then you can call bs on that even as a layman.
curi:
you can't know what consensus exists, or what is a safe conclusion, without any rough approximation of the discussion tree
StEmperorAugustine:
By discussion tree you mean our discussion or you mean the climate science discussion.
curi:
climate sci discussion
StEmperorAugustine:
Yeah that honestly seems like a huge project to undertake, having a hard time seeing the upside.
curi:
if you don't want to undertake it you should, in the mean time, remain neutral
curi:
you should say you don't know and try to avoid doing things that would be evil if either side was right
curi:
that's very hard in this case b/c of the sweeping, clashing claims
StEmperorAugustine:
yea I am pretty neutral about it. Leaning on the side of scientific consensus. Which is why I trust vaccines, the earth is not flath kind of thing.
curi:
that's not neutral, it's believing propaganda. you're being a promoter of certain claims and ideas.
curi:
you are modeling the 97% consensus claim, or a similar claim, as basically true and unanswered in the discussion tree
curi:
this is a very partisan model
curi:
your sense of what's neutral is highly related to what the mainstream media says.
curi:
your positions on vaccines and flat earth are also not neutral.
StEmperorAugustine:
thats true
StEmperorAugustine:
btw is your position that there is no climate change happening? Or that it is not man made? Or that you don't beleive the predictions? or that you disagree with the solutions presented?
curi:
the prediction models are terrible. very unreliable. we don't have exact knowledge but there's presently no reason to be catastrophically worried. and the solutions are so bad they'd be bad ideas even if all the factual claims about the problem were true.
curi:
long range weather forecasts are very hard.
StEmperorAugustine:
I think you're right about the solutions. I hope you're right about the other stuff.
StEmperorAugustine:
Though if you are right, it would be terrible for public trust in our scientific institutions. So part of me hopes you're just really politically biased 😦
curi:
“You know, Dr. Stadler once said that the first word of ‘Free, scientific inquiry’ was redundant. He seems to have forgotten it. Well, I’ll just say that ’Governmental scientific inquiry’ is a contradiction in terms.”
curi:
Atlas Shrugged
curi:
our "scientific institutions" are already horribly broken and should not be trusted.
curi:
after massive intervention in the economy, the government has taken over as the primary funder of science, and the vast majority of scientific work done today is crap.
curi:
and that's part of where the global warming "consensus" comes from, btw: biased funding.
StEmperorAugustine:
That is terrible news. If you got cancer what would you even do, can't trust the scientific instiutions, doctors etc... what options are there? What a disaster 😦
curi:
our current cancer treatments are considerably better than nothing.
curi:
doctors give bad advice about many things
curi:
you should do your own research for anything important
curi:
i would research cancer a lot more if i had it
StEmperorAugustine:
how though. Can't trust the scientists that publish the research
StEmperorAugustine:
can't do your own
curi:
you can read papers
curi:
instead of trusting or not trusting the conclusions
curi:
you can figure out what the arguments about the issues are
curi:
what the data is
curi:
and think about it
StEmperorAugustine:
but you don't have any biomedical training do you?
curi:
you can discuss it and ask for criticism on FI. you can find other forums where some ppl may discuss some.
curi:
most papers can be evaluated with very little field expertise.
StEmperorAugustine:
You said most people in FI are programmers right?
StEmperorAugustine:
Oh I see
curi:
you can usually judge the quality of arguments without knowing the field, e.g. is it a correlation=causation type claim?
curi:
you can also learn some of the field.
curi:
how long does it take to get up to ~half the education they had? a month? their education was mostly wasting time.
curi:
if you're 10x or more better at learning and don't use school, you can catch up a fair amt quite fast.
curi:
maybe not half but u can be selective about which parts are relevant, leave out a bunch of stuff u don't need
curi:
like you can skimp on labwork skills if you wanna understand papers.
curi:
you may miss the occassional error about lab procedure but it's not a huge problem
curi:
i've had no trouble reading papers about neuroscience and serotonin without needing a month or even a day of study first.
StEmperorAugustine:
I think most people don't have the kind of time to do this sort of thing
curi:
you should make the time if you get cancer.
curi:
at least you should if it was just a time issue
curi:
most ppl don't have the skill for it. much bigger problem.
curi:
so, ought to learn philosophy before getting cancer.
StEmperorAugustine:
well yeah but you probably need to work as much as possible just to pay for that cancer treatment
curi:
ummm health insurance
StEmperorAugustine:
thats true
curi:
also if ur breadwinner ur spouse can look into it instead of you.
StEmperorAugustine:
I think the average person really has less choice, they kind of have to trust the experts
curi:
who gets to be labelled an "expert" and why?
curi:
that method sorta half-works for some things but is very bad for others like lots of political issues like whether minimum wage increases are a good idea.
JustinCEO:
http://justinmallone.com/2016/02/paul-krugman-is-terrible/
curi:
global warming is a political issue.
curi:
chemotherapy isn't
StEmperorAugustine:
many years of study and scientific literacy for one. Doctor goes through what, 4 years of Uni, 4-5 med, 7 of specialization. What does a waiter in East Florida do if they get cancer. Trust that Doctor seems like her option.
curi:
however i've researched some medical issues like birth control options and acutane side effects. expert doctor advice on those matters is very bad. they massively downplay risks, dangers and side effects, and play up effectiveness.
curi:
uni credentials are biased and corrupt. they aren't especially biased about cancer treatments but they are about politics. teachers and adminstrators push out students with certain ideas, punish them, falsify grades, deny funding, don't hire them, etc.
curi:
they encourage campus speakers with some ideas while suppressing others
curi:
and they will do this against majority viewpoints.
curi:
many of the positions getting this kind of biased use of power in their favor were minority positions when it started but are majority now due to decades of indoctrination from trusted authority figures.
curi:
in a free market system, which we don't have, if you got cancer you'd speak with several doctors before selecting one. just like you go talk to several lawyers about your case.
curi:
doctors vary quite a bit and blind trust in the first one you run into is unwise.
curi:
you claim doctors have scientific literacy. it appears that even medical researchers (only a fraction of them) create a majority of studies that don't replicate.
StEmperorAugustine:
THERE's NO HOPE 😦
curi:
there's lots of hope but it doesn't come from trust
curi:
gotta use your own mind, learn stuff, etc.
curi:
when you can't get to everything, you can form opinions about who has researched something with good methods already or what areas of our culture are less broken and more reliable.
curi:
for example i read Ending Aging by Aubrey de Grey and judged the argument and explanation quality in the book was good
curi:
so i have a positive opinion about his medical work and research in general, based not on trust but my critical judgment of his reasoning.
curi:
it's not that he has credentials but that i saw him do good thinking
StEmperorAugustine:
I see.
curi:
i'm sure some cancer doctors have good books or articles which are readable by advanced lay ppl, which could impress you, and which (if you had free choice of doctor) would be a much better way to choose a cancer treatment plan (consult that guy) than trusting a random doctor.
StEmperorAugustine:
What about like, before you cross a bridge. Do you trust the engineers that built it or do you have prior critical judgement of bridge builders in your area.
curi:
you, having read some of my articles, could expect me to be right about AdG without even reading his book, and you'd still have some judgment involved.
curi:
our bridge engineering standards aren't corrupt in ways that make our bridges collapse. that part of our culture isn't toooo bad. if anything i imagine they over-engineer. if a bridge was gonna collapse it'd prolly be b/c some shitty city govt hired dishonest contractors to actually build it.
curi:
btw i spoke with AdG about a paper he wrote as part of a debate with some guy about some scientific issue.
curi:
i agreed with him. he had good arguments
curi:
he believed that i was trusting his authority and reputation. he couldn't understand that i could actually evaluate the arguments in the debate myself, personally
curi:
he was unaware that they were actually 80% philosophy and more of what he wrote was in my field than his.
curi:
that kind of thing is common.
curi:
even if it was medical stuff, it's unreasonable for him to think i couldn't possibly have understood it. but it mostly wasn't and he didn't even know.
curi:
philosophy has logical priority for evaluating arguments in general. if the structure is "X implies Y, therefore I conclude Z" it doesn't matter what medical terms are contained in X, Y and Z.
curi:
scientists in all fields are inadequately trained in logic, philosophy, etc., so i can find errors like that throughout their papers.
curi:
they are always straying into my field, which they suck at.
curi:
to be fair, philosophers are, on avg, probably worse than physicists or mathematicians at such things.
StEmperorAugustine:
Interesting.
curi:
philosophy classes and professors are really fucking bad.
curi:
philosophy is the most important and most broken field.
curi:
so basically everyone in every science just wings it, improvises, dabbles in philosophy
curi:
they also trust some philosophy "experts" on some things like induction
curi:
but they also just make a bunch of philosophy claims of their own without thinking they should consult a philosopher for advice first, as they would consult a chemist if they made chemistry claims.
curi:
the situation is so broken ppl frequently don't recognize when they make philosophy claims (as they would recognize chemistry claims)
curi:
so, in short, i'm more qualified to read a paper on global warming than the author is
curi:
i'm missing less crucial expertise.
StEmperorAugustine:
Do you have any example of this?
curi:
i forget if i have one for global warming but there are several on my blog, in email archives. i analyze some serotonin stuff on YT.
curi:
i have a post on a grossly incompetent sam harris brain science paper
curi:
i've written about twin studies
StEmperorAugustine:
When I start reading a research paper. I just give up most of the time, they are written in such boring format and all the cite and numbers and math and graphs. Might as well be written in Chinese to me.
JustinCEO:
curi has read some on YT
JustinCEO:
U could watch and learn better approach
JustinCEO:
🙂
curi:
there's a generic skill of dealing with them which mostly works across fields. they aren't thatttt bad once u learn how to deal with them.
StEmperorAugustine:
awesome
curi:
Nevertheless, the existence of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is a reality, as is clear from an examination of the full body of evidence. For example, Naomi Oreskes found no rejections of the consensus in a survey of 928 abstracts performed in 2004. Doran & Zimmerman (2009) found a 97% consensus among scientists actively publishing climate research. Anderegg et al. (2010) reviewed publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting human-caused global warming, and again found over 97% consensus among climate experts. Cook et al. (2013) found the same 97% result through a survey of over 12,000 climate abstracts from peer-reviewed journals, as well as from over 2,000 scientist author self-ratings, among abstracts and papers taking a position on the causes of global warming.
curi:
this grossly ignores the possibility of systematic bias, suppression of speech and publication, etc., which is alleged by the other side. it's non-responsive to the counter arguments
curi:
In addition to these studies, we have the National Academies of Science from 33 different countries all endorsing the consensus.
curi:
you can see the argument quality from a statement like this. if 33 out of 33 academies endorse global warming, is that a good indicator 97% or more of more scientists agree?
curi:
as a first guess, i'd expect they endorse based on majority vote.
curi:
if 90% of scientists believe X, it'd be totally unsurprising for 100% of major, mainstream groups of scientists to have a majority that believe X.
curi:
i didn't read any other text from the page ( https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm ) and i already have enough info to judge they're dumb.
curi:
most ppl, when they argue, immediately make fools of themselves. doesn't take THAT much skill to see it IMO. you just think through what they say and mean and consider how it connects to their conclusion, and you look at some counter arguments and see how they handle them, and you check for bad logic and shit.
curi:
they link to this which claims earth getting warmer, blah blah
curi:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
curi:
the general context is we're at the tail end of an ice age. so i search the paper for "iceage", "ice age", "plei", "plio" and nada. maybe i have the wrong terms. one could try harder.
curi:
no "holo", one for "medie"
curi:
• Continental-scale surface temperature reconstructions show, with high confidence, multi-decadal periods during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (year 950 to 1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th century. These regional warm periods did not occur as coherently across regions as the warming in the late 20th century (high confidence). {5.5}
curi:
no "little"
curi:
it looks to me like they are failing to address basic facts. they just ignore them
curi:
no ceno, no Quaternary
curi:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene
curi:
2.6 million years of winter ended 0.01 million years ago. irrelevant! not worth mentioning!
curi:
how much of a joke they are speaks to how biased the whole system is
curi:
tried age, era and epoch. doesn't help.
curi:
checked every use of "million". done searching.
curi:
the illusion is surface deep. besides the bad logic front and center, i click one source from https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm and it's got this massive problem with the first issue i check.
curi:
further, near the top
curi:
from the IPCC
curi:
The degree of certainty in key findings in this assessment is based on the author teams’ evaluations of underlying scientific understanding and is expressed as a qualitative level of confidence (from very low to very high) and, when possible, probabilistically with a quantified likelihood (from exceptionally unlikely to virtually certain). Confidence in the validity of a finding is based on the type, amount, quality, and consistency of evidence (e.g., data, mechanistic understanding, theory, models, expert judgment) and the degree of agreement1. Probabilistic estimates of quantified measures of uncertainty in a finding are based on statistical analysis of observations or model results, or both, and expert judgment2. Where appropriate, findings are also formulated as statements of fact without using uncertainty qualifiers. (See Chapter 1 and Box TS.1 for more details about the specific language the IPCC uses to communicate uncertainty).
curi:
this is epistemology. it's philosophy of science. it's my field, not theirs.
curi:
how to evaluate ideas, how to attain certainty, whether certainty comes in degrees, etc. are major epistemology topics.
curi:
my largest original contribution to the field, IMO, is basically an explanation of why their approach is irrational. https://yesornophilosophy.com
curi:
what is the role of evidence? how do you use it correctly? should you use probabilities? this is all the sort of stuff CR addresses. but they don't know anything about CR and don't care.
curi:
are they experts on Bayesian epistemology instead? no not that either.
curi:
they just plain aren't experts, by any measure, on the issues in this paragraph.
curi:
did they consult experts to help them with it? no.
curi:
re learning to read and question scientific papers, you're welcome to post them to curi or FI with questions
curi:
you will find ppl can comment on most papers, in any field, rather than just needing to leave it to the experts.
StEmperorAugustine:
Good idea.
curi:
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
curi:
curi:
this graph does one of the most basic ways of lying with statistics, which i read about in a middle school book report (yes, literally, not joking)
curi:
i went to the "Facts" menu, clicked "Evidence" to try to find out what is supposed to persuade me and get some scientific details, and i see this sort of propaganda instead
curi:
after that graph (anyone see the problem?) and one paragraph of text, their evidence page says:
curi:
curi:
that ain't evidence, it's appeal to authority
curi:
curi:
clicking on cite 4 does not improve things and does not lead to arguments, evidence or science for the claim that the change is driven largely by increased co2 and other human-made emissions.
curi:
this is just a propaganda website. no scientific rigor in sight.
curi:
and no need for climate science expertise to see this.
curi:
if you can find any claim which contradicts my position, and which does require climate science expertise to refute, i would be interested.
curi:
if you can't, perhaps you'll agree that says a lot about the debate.
curi:
i don't know one. i debate a lot of ppl and i've never found any pro-global-warming person who knows one.
curi:
these issues really don't take that long to deal with if u have the general purpose intellectual skills to deal with them at all
curi:
re hopeless: how easy it is to do better is very hopeful. 100 rational ppl could do so much.
StEmperorAugustine:
I am not in a position to know what claim contradicts your position so I likely would not find anything.
curi:
you're saying you're unable to find pro GW material that contradicts my claim their forecast models are unreliable junk
StEmperorAugustine:
Well I don't understand what would constitute reliable, nor understand their papers to tell the difference.
curi:
where did "reliable" come from?
curi:
o nvm
curi:
a good paper presenting a forecast model would say what standards to judge it with. it'd present standards and say how it meets them.
curi:
it'd solve your problem for you.
curi:
either self-contained or using a cite for more info.
curi:
if you can't tell – if you don't have the info to tell – that is their fault. they did it wrong.
curi:
they are supposed to present a persuasive case, not an incomplete, inconclusive case you can't judge.
StEmperorAugustine:
Do you have an example of a paper that meets that standard? could be in any field
curi:
DD's physics papers
curi:
this looks like it'd qualify http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~vijay/Papers/Chemistry/Donovan-Husain-70.pdf
StEmperorAugustine:
Anything easier to understand 😅 ?
curi:
curi:
first one i clicked
curi:
first search i did
StEmperorAugustine:
The marked difference in the chemical behavior exhibited by
the first singlet states of atomic oxygen and sulfur relative to
their ground states has been the subject of a large number of
investigations. However, data on the reactivity of the electronically excited states of other nonmetal atoms, particularly
those atoms that may lead to bond formation following reaction, are relatively limited. Historically, the work on atomic
oxygen and sulfur, principally in the ID2 state, followed extensive and detailed studies on photosensitization by metal
atoms in which the atoms, excited electronically by resonance
radiation, passed on their energy by collisions of the second
kind, thus being deactivated to the ground state or a lower
lying state.
StEmperorAugustine:
first like 3 sentences and my brain checked out already
StEmperorAugustine:
no idea what this is saying lol
curi:
the GW ppl claim, essentially, to have a bunch of papers like that on their side, and none against.
curi:
this is a lie.
curi:
their papers are much easier to read btw
curi:
if it were true, it shouldn't be that hard for you to find some such papers
curi:
they would presumably be shared and promoted
curi:
here's the first sentence of section 2 of the chemistry paper
curi:
Before proceeding with a detailed discussion of individual reactions it is convenient to summarize the general considerations necessary for a qualitative description of potential surfaces and the manner in which these influence the course of reaction.
curi:
in other words: b4 going into the details, we'll tell you how to judge read and think about the details. just the thing i said a good paper would have.
StEmperorAugustine:
oh
curi:
the paper is quite technical. it looks good tho and it doesn't appear to stray into philosophy.
curi:
so i have a positive opinion despite not knowing most of the technical stuff at all
StEmperorAugustine:
so compared to this paper, https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
StEmperorAugustine:
where it doesn't have a bit in where it tells you how to judge and think about the details
StEmperorAugustine:
that's a bad sign
curi:
that paper is not science
curi:
they are straying into the field of pollsters
curi:
sentence 3:
curi:
A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus.
curi:
the first half of the first sentence is notable
curi:
The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists
curi:
they added a qualifier before "climate scientists" which you don't normally see
curi:
and there's this:
curi:
based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming.
curi:
doesn't mention the abstracts being by different ppl
curi:
anyway this issue is stupid and it's unscientific to be going around claiming popularity instead of truth
curi:
would be better to look at a paper related to climate and warming
curi:
An accurate understanding of scientific consensus, and the ability to recognize attempts to undermine it, are important for public climate literacy. Public perception of the scientific consensus has been found to be a gateway belief, affecting other climate beliefs and attitudes including policy support
curi:
god that's psychology. social science not hard science.
curi:
Consequently, it is important that scientists communicate the overwhelming expert consensus on AGW to the public
curi:
that's a political and moral conclusion, not a scientific one. it relates to values etc
curi:
From a broader perspective, it doesn't matter if the consensus number is 90% or 100%. The level of scientific agreement on AGW is overwhelmingly high because the supporting evidence is overwhelmingly strong.
curi:
that is an unargued assertion
curi:
you can't find out WHY ppl believe X by counting how many abstracts say they believe X.
curi:
as you can see, it's much easier to read this than the chemistry
curi:
they say lots of stuff you can understand without expertise about e.g. gasses
curi:
how many PUBLISHING scientists believe X is a dumb thing to count in an atmosphere where ppl denying X can get fired for it and papers denying X are often rejected or, more often, not funded in the first place.
curi:
ppl aren't even safe wearing MAGA hats
curi:
published papers with belief X says more about the beliefs of the ppl who run the journals than about the (other) scientists. (in this case, not for all journals, fields, issues). essentially they are just assuming, as an unstated premise, there's no bias here.
StEmperorAugustine:
Hmm. These are great points.
I have to go though. 😦 ttyl. Got a ton of HW to do🤢 . We are going on a trip 🤣 so I can't do it tomorrow or Sunday, and I've been procrastinating the heck of out of it.
StEmperorAugustine:
bye!
curi:
cu
Messages (82)
Are you familiar with potholer54 (Peter Hadfield), curi?
He is a former science journalist and geologist that says that he presents the facts regarding GW.
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hadfield_(journalist) )
He asks for criticism:
> ...instigate discussion, debate, criticize, point out errors so that I can correct them (with a time and a verbatim quote)
( https://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54/about )
He has made a YT series about climate change called "Climate change explained, and the myths debunked", which he writes the below about.
> There is a lot of inaccurate nonsense about climate science written in blogs and the media, whether exaggerating the effects of climate change or seeking to undermine the science behind it. This series checks the sources of these claims and shows how they have been misinterpreted or deliberately altered. I have no expertise in climatology, I am a former science journalist, so checking facts is what I do. And I always cite these sources so you can check them for yourselves. Along the way, I explain the real science as relayed by researchers in published papers, in a way that makes it easy to understand.
He has said:
> **Of course, the evidence clearly shows that the climate is changing, largely because of man-made gases.**
and about people who do not agree:
>**A parade of scientists (never mind if they have degrees in microbiology or metallurgy) tell them that ocean cycles are reponsible for global warming, or that there is no warming at all, or that even if there is there is nothing to worry about.**
( https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/youtube-climate-change-scepticism )
First video in the playlist:
*1. Climate Change -- the scientific debate*
https://youtu.be/52KLGqDSAjo
His YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54/featured
#14151 Don't know him. Does he have writing? Does he have somewhere people submit questions or criticism? Does he debate?
> He asks for criticism:
> > ...instigate discussion, debate, criticize, point out errors so that I can correct them (with a time and a verbatim quote)
Did he provide mechanisms for ppl to criticize? Have people criticized and he reacted well? Has that happened? Can you link examples?
#14151 Also re seeking out criticism and different ideas, has he done rebuttals to Alex Epstein or to any other public figures (especially the more serious, intellectual ones, not e.g. republican politicians) on the other side of the debate from him?
#14153 i remember steven crowder said on his podcast that he reached out to potholer to debate him after potholer made a video response to steven crowders video: DEBUNKED: Top 5 "Climate Change" Myths. but potholer denied and the reason was something like: steven is not a climate scientist (i forget what he specifically said, and cant find the video where steven crowder talked about this).
also, i think steven crowders "DEBUNKED: Top 5 'Climate Change' Myths" video was banned from youtube. when i use its URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwviDPo4Rh4 it says "Video unavailable
This video is private." on youtube. i can find it on blazetv (a streaming service crowder is affiliated with) with the note "Banned on YouTube >
DEBUNKED Top 5 "Climate Change" Myths" https://www.blazetv.com/video/debunked-top-5-climate-change-myths
#14158 >i remember steven crowder said on his podcast that he reached out to potholer to debate him after potholer made a video response to steven crowders video: DEBUNKED: Top 5 "Climate Change" Myths. but potholer denied and the reason was something like: steven is not a climate scientist (i forget what he specifically said, and cant find the video where steven crowder talked about this).
https://youtu.be/GIDN1dQ92_w?t=320 this is a clip of the video i was thinking about, and its a part of a larger video about the back and fourth between steven crowder and potholer54. at 5:20 jared says: "[potholer] didnt want to come on saying basically science is science and fact and what is there to discuss"
#14153
> Don't know him. Does he have writing? Does he have somewhere people submit questions or criticism? Does he debate?
As far as I can see he seems to do most of the debating in either video form on YT or in the comments on YT. But he has done some in writing here:
https://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/monckton-responds-to-potholer54/
It's not recent, but at least it shows he might be willing to engage in a written debate. I can not seem to find any other contact info other than his YT page though.
> Also re seeking out criticism and different ideas, has he done rebuttals to Alex Epstein or to any other public figures (especially the more serious, intellectual ones, not e.g. republican politicians) on the other side of the debate from him?
Regarding AE, no. Not to my knowledge. I did post on some of his videos asking for him to engage with AE back when I first read *MCFF*, but he never engaged with that proposition.
He has done responses / comments to at least the following people: *Tony Heller* (https://realclimatescience.com/who-is-tony-heller/), *Patrick Moore* (past president of Greenpeace Canada and later a critic of environmentalist tactics), *Bill Whittle* (conservative politician), *Steven Crowder*, *Christopher Monckton* (public speaker, politics UK conservative party & UKIP), *Stefan Molyneux*.
He seems to follow through with discussions as he, at least in the Heller case, ends with:
> Heller: (refused to continue)
and then added the response from Heller that took 8 months:
> Eight months on, Tony finally responded with this rebuttal
See link and "more info" for source of the quotes on Heller:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq2Wv2KHGBc
#14153
In anon's (#14159) link with Crowder (new timestamp: https://youtu.be/GIDN1dQ92_w?t=431 ) it looks like potholer54 is in favor of written debate as he asks for it (e-mail) when Crowder invites him to a live video debate. See Crowders text in the timestamped link above.
#14154
> Also re seeking out criticism and different ideas, has he done rebuttals to Alex Epstein ...
I asked potholer54 in the comments on YT if he had any rebuttals of AE. He answered within a couple of hours. He only has a very brief comment on one very minor point AE said in his Prager U video (the "diluteness problem").
I do not think that potholer54 commented on anything important that AE has to say big picture. Also my understanding of the "diluteness problem" is that it only refers to the step of taking diluted resources and making them concentrated - which is not what potholer54 is addressing.
Timestamped link to potholer54's video:
https://youtu.be/6fV6eeckxTs?t=1083
AE's original video:
https://youtu.be/ObvdSmPbdLg
I wrote to him in the YT comments. If anyone has criticism of what I wrote or if I am mistaken do let me know.
Posted by me on YT:
> @potholer54 Thx for directing me to this video.
I was hoping that you had addressed a more significant point of Alex Epstein as you are quoted on wikipedia to have said "Of course, the evidence clearly shows that the climate is changing, largely because of man-made gases.", which Alex is refuting here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/
and "A parade of scientists (never mind if they have degrees in microbiology or metallurgy) tell them that ocean cycles are reponsible for global warming, or that there is no warming at all, or that even if there is there is nothing to worry about." where the very last part, the magnitude, is something that runs as a theme in "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels".
> You also claim, in this video (19:10), that solar is cheaper than other forms of energy and post some graphs supporting that claim. Below is some criticism om those claims by Alex. Do you have any rebuttal of that criticism?
https://youtu.be/xZPsrm-25-0
Sry for broken quote below
> Posted by me on YT:
It looked correct in Stackedit but broke here. All below "Posted by me on YT:" should be marked as a quote.
#14160 Sounds like he wants to talk with/about people with reputations in order to social climb. He seems to focus on lightweights with audiences. If you think he'll talk with unknowns, debate him yourself to prove it and then maybe I'll go next.
He wants to debate Crowder in text because Crowder is good at real time voice conversations but (a reasonable guess, though I don't really know) much worse at text debates. For social climbing purposes, Crowder is also a good target to attack in solo videos because of his popularity and reputation. And that's much lower risk than actually talking with Crowder and potentially looking like a fool. (Text is much lower risk btw, it's harder to look really foolish in text debates in the eyes of the barely-literate masses he's pandering to because they don't follow half the details, they judge debates by social metaphysics and text is much worse at providing social evidence.)
Alex Epstein is too hard to argue with (due to skill and knowledge) relative to how well known he is, plus he's skilled at both voice and text so there isn't an easy weakness to exploit there.
If someone can link a *very high quality* section of video by Potholer that would impress me or change my mind about some environmentalist issue, let me know. What's his most educational thing?
#14168
> Sounds like he wants to talk with/about people with reputations in order to social climb. He seems to focus on lightweights with audiences. If you think he'll talk with unknowns, debate him yourself to prove it and then maybe I'll go next.
I will do that. Over night he did respond to me on YT. I will post our discussion here and I have invited him to this thread.
Do feel free to correct me on discussion approach, methods, and where you think I'm wrong. I wish to learn and become better.
> He wants to debate Crowder in text because Crowder is good at real time voice conversations ...
To be honest I haven't seen him live debate anyone in any video. I think he prefers prep time and looking into stuff. Which I think is fair. I think that live debates can be fun to watch but they are seldom very productive (too short and rely too much on pandering and bromides). So I wouldn't hold this against him as he has never done had any live debates at all as far as I can see.
I think you might hold a similar position on live debate, curi. Am I wrong? If not, how come you do not participate in live debate? Is it because you do not want to or another reason?
> Alex Epstein is too hard to argue with (due to skill and knowledge) relative to how well known he is, plus he's skilled at both voice and text so there isn't an easy weakness to exploit there.
I agree. Do you think Alex is willing to debate or is your take on it that he no longer is willing to engage in a debate if not with high status people? (I've read your criticism of Alex btw, hence the question.)
> If someone can link a *very high quality* section of video by Potholer that would impress me or change my mind about some environmentalist issue, let me know. What's his most educational thing?
I have asked potholer if he can point me to a video of his of this sort. He has many and I am not too familiar with him or his position. Before this conversation it was a couple of years since I last saw any of his videos.
My debate with potholer54 on YT
The debate has been on YT so far:
https://youtu.be/6fV6eeckxTs
Potholer54's response to my text in #14164:
> The easiest way to debunk someone is to ask for a source, and check it. So I would ask Epstein how he knows that "'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong." The fact is, no one has ever taken a poll, so no one has any idea what the figure is, not even Epstein. Epstein is simply articulating a myth that has been going round the internet, and which I have debunked in my video "Scientific consensus and arguments from authority." ""A parade of scientists (never mind if they have degrees in microbiology or metallurgy) tell them that ocean cycles are reponsible for global warming" This is another argument from authority, debunked in the same video and also my video "Meet the Scientists." The argument that "a scientist says...." is not proof of anything. After all, scientists say the universe was created 6,000 years ago and that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. This isn't how science is done. "You also claim, in this video (19:10), that solar is cheaper than other forms of energy and post some graphs supporting that claim." Actually, what I said was this: "Over the last 10 years the cost of manufacturingsolar panels and wind turbines has plunged, slashing the price of the electricity they produce. At the same time, their efficiency has increased, making them even more competitive. As the price falls, many countries have reduced or eliminated subsidies altogether. Electricity from renewables is now so cheap that even the coal museum in Virginia decided to install solar panels. According to a 2017 report by the International Renewable Energy Agency: “Increasingly, the technology is competing head-to-head with conventional power sources – and doing so without financial support.”" If Epstein has some evidence that that is not true, please let me know where in his video he presents it, and I'll take a look.
My debate with potholer54 on YT
My reply to potholer54:
> Would you mind debating on another publicly available site or a public e-mail discussion group? The comment section on YT is not really good for this (no markdown support, hard to quote in a clear way etc).
> Btw, would you mind debating Alex or Elliot Temple (curi.us) in text? Both are far better than I am and Elliot knows Alex's position well as they have worked together. Elliot is also a long time associate of physicist and philosopher David Deutsch and is willing to debate anyone, with a history to prove it (e.g. see discussion with Aubrey de Grey here: http://curi.us/1658-discussion-with-aubrey-de-grey).
> I think debating any of these two (Alex and / or Elliot) would be far more better than debating any Steven Crowder, Bill Whittle, or Christopher Monckton - as the last group of people, beside having social status, do not really have any good ideas on this issue (as far as I know at least).
> I will keep a copy of our discussion on Elliot's site as there might be people there interested in reading this that are more knowledgeable than me on the issue, and also because of how bad YT is for a written debate. You are welcome to write there directly if you so wish (this is my proposition for a better discussion site from the paragraph above btw). http://curi.us/2231-productive-global-warming-discussion
> But I digress.
>> "So I would ask Epstein how he knows that '97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong."
> It is wrong in a popular context that it is being pushed. That is, the claim of something like: "97% of climate scientist agree that humans have such a catastrophic climate impact that we shouldn't use fossil fuels".
> In this article Alex asks and answers these two questions by checking the sources and methods used:
> 1. What exactly do the climate scientists agree on?
> 2. How do we know the 97% agree?
>(https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#6b5216453f9f)
> I will check your videos, which I have not yet seen, but according to what you write in this post I am pretty confident that I will agree with what you have to say there regarding faulty thinking methods e.g. such as appeal to authority.
> For context: I am influenced by David Deutsch and Elliot when it comes to epistemology and they both build on Karl Popper's breakthroughs in the field. I do not claim to be an expert on it by any means, but I am learning. David's books "The Fabric of Reality" and "The Beginning of Infinity" is thus where I come from on epistemology and if you are familiar with them you understand why I agree with you regarding "appeal to authority".
>> "Actually, what I said was this: 'Over the last 10 years the cost of manufacturingsolar panels and wind turbines has plunged, slashing the price of the electricity they produce. At the same time, their efficiency has increased, making them even more competitive ...'
> My bad. The manufacturing costs have decreased and the technology has become better. That's true. My issue here is that the way environmentalists and politicians chose to present the price of solar and wind power is dishonest, as they do so by talking about "capacity" and as an "add on". Why this is dishonest is explained in the link below by Alex. Do you disagree with what Alex says there? Timestamped:
> https://youtu.be/xZPsrm-25-0?t=231
> Also, if you don't mind, would you point me to a video of yours that sums up your position - your conclusion if so be (if you have one of that kind), or one that you consider on of your most educational ones?
#14175 I am not going to debate anyone in YT comments. That's seriously he's preferred forum? That's sad and unserious.
> The easiest way to debunk someone is to ask for a source, and check it. So I would ask Epstein how he knows that "'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong." The fact is, no one has ever taken a poll, so no one has any idea what the figure is, not even Epstein.
... uhhh he's an idiot or super biased.
#14178
> I am not going to debate anyone in YT comments. *That's seriously he's preferred forum?* That's sad and unserious.
I don't know. After all he did propose doing it by e-mail to Crowder. So I guess we'll see if he is willing to leave YT when asked back.
Private email is not a forum either. idk why anyone suggested this guy as someone to talk with.
#14180
> Private email is not a forum either.
Here he says that he can debate on any public forum (timestamped):
https://youtu.be/GIDN1dQ92_w?t=473
> StEmperorAugustine:
but anyway, how do you know that Alex Epstein is not the propaganda?
> curi:
re how to tell what's right, in short you make a discussion tree and look at what arguments and questions have not been answered. https://curi.us/2229-discussion-trees-with-example
This doesn't really say whether epstein is propaganda or not. Unless you have a discussion tree re Epstein.
#14202 What's your point?
My point is that curi did not answer how *he* knows Epstein is propaganda. He said how one ought to go find out what is right via making a discussion tree. When he says,
> how to tell what's right, in short you make a discussion tree and look at what arguments and questions have not been answered
It doesn't really answer the question, how does he know Epstein is not propaganda?
I thought my point was fairly clear. Where did you get confused?
knows Epstein is not*
Of course it doesn't answer that question. It doesn't claim to. What is confusing about the message? You're accusing it of doing what it says it's doing, but not doing what it doesn't say it's doing.
You seem to be trying to argue a basic point that i got just from reading the text. But without saying what you're doing, so that's confusing.
If you want information re the current state of environmentalist debate, just ask for it instead of bringing up a bunch of irrelevant details about these particular chat messages.
PS are you the andy from FI or the andy from IDW or a different andy?
Well the person in the conversation (StAugustine) is asking the question. I am pointing out that curi did not answer that question. Which seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to point out.
Do you agree?
I don't understand how it is irrelevant. I am replying to a thread that has that conversation and quoting from it. How is it irrelevant?
I am Andy from IDW (min wage conversation Andy) not from FI. Was just seeing some links to this site. I thought the question by St was a good one, and I did not think curi answered it.
I can leave if you think I am breaking some rules, not trying to be hostile or w/e.
I have an understanding of the state of the debate, and discussion tree, re environmentalism. It's not my focus but I discuss or debate it sometimes and explain some of my views in e.g. https://curi.us/podcast/environmentalism
If there's a specific issue you have questions about, e.g. something you think Epstein or I are wrong about X, and didn't answer arguments re X, you can ask about that issue. In the conversation with Augustine I answered some specific issues he brought up like the 97% claim and some links he gave.
In particular, if you think Objectivist arguments re environmentalism have been refuted somewhere, I'd like a reference to that. I find they're broadly ignored.
I don't know enough about this subject. I was just curious to know what methodology Epstein employs that you find more convincing than the mainstream climate consensus.
I suspect if I were to link papers that claim there is such a thing as man-made climate change happening, you would probably reject them based on their methodology.
And with the deranged leftists abusing the consensus to try pass disastrous resolutions, I am sympathetic to the skeptics.
Such as: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/26/gm-golden-rice-delay-cost-millions-of-lives-child-blindness
plus fossil fuels seem to be losing their place as cost efficient: https://nucleuswealth.com/2019/10/07/energy-price-parity-no-party-for-coal/
---
Main point though:
I haven't looked into this enough, I was mostly curious to see if there is something about Epstein's methodology you find compelling.
#14211 I don't think Epstein has a key methodological insight that isn't available elsewhere. But he's an Objectivist philosopher and many others in the field don't know philosophy, so he has a big advantage because he knows some stuff about rational thinking. He's made a bunch of good material, though some isn't up to my standards.
Some stuff he says: He talks about the importance of human flourishing and putting issues in context: is this good or bad for people? Or do we actually have some other goal like minimizing human impact on nature? If we're clear on our goals, and our goal is what's good for people, that provides an important context for discussion. Re global warming he emphasizes that weather forecasts are unreliable, the models being used aren't very good. And he talks about how to analyze risk rationally in a two-sided way: look at the risks of doing X and also the risks of *not* doing X, the potential downsides. Don't forget about the benefits of fossil fuels and e.g. how having greater access to energy helps protect people from climate with e.g. air conditioning (climate related deaths have gone down as we've used more fossil fuels because they help a lot more than they hurt).
Re cost efficiency, it's currently extremely distorted by government intervention, so it's really hard to get any useful info about that by looking at current market prices. FYI Epstein and I believe nuclear would be the cheapest and safest (and low CO2) without the suppression.
I'll check out what he has to say.
I also think nuclear is our current best solution. I believe it has the lowest number of deaths per kwh of all time, iirc.
And like anyone who follows DD probably agrees, even if climate change really is a problem, what we need is more universal creative knowledge creators, more progress not stagnation. Try to fight the anti-human attitude whenever I can.
Malthusian prophets of doom seem to be winning that fight sadly.
See you around.
> Malthusian prophets of doom seem to be winning that fight sadly.
They even made this the theme in the Thanos arc in Avengers. Likely wanted to portrait him a sympathetic villain too. At least that is the impression I have gotten from speaking to people re *Avengers: Infinity War* & *Avengers: Endgame*.
My debate with potholer54 on YT
No answer from potholer54 yet. I do not think he will reply since he hasn't done it yet and the discussion was on YT (plenty of other comments from random ppl).
I was hoping to get him interested in debating curi or AE. But potholer54 has shown no interest in that thus far. I do not think he wants to debate anyone in a truth seeking matter publicly.
Debunking: "Climate Change Model Predictions Are Unreliable!"
https://youtu.be/oGMPNrrZ7mU
#14272 Got something in writing?
#14276 Even better. That video has multiple sources and quotes shown in writing within that video.
#14286 So not only is that a no, but instead of picking any single source you want a reply to, you're actually flooding us with a bunch of sources and if we refute any particular source we can't really expect that to change your mind. A standard thing around here is asking people to pick one specific source they think is true, such that if a flaw were found in it they'd be surprised and have substantial reconsidering to do. Want to do that?
The video links to this article which is supposed to have the same content as the video:
https://askepticalhuman.com/science/2019/3/16/debunking-climate-change-model-predictions-are-unreliable
So if this article is refuted would the OP concede that his position has been refuted?
#14291 The position being, climate change models are not unreliable.
And Yes.
Richard Lindzen - Global Warming For The Two Cultures
Great lecture.
The climate models are unreliable by their own admissions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRwYZV-hYnA
Read the slide at 5:56 about uncertain feedback mechanisms being part of the models:
Unless you're going to tell me Lindzen is making a gross factual error about what statements the IPCC has made?
Lindzen talks with a host and another scientist about global warming. Another good vid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJwayalLpYY
Models ARE reliable
This is a shortcoming we need to work hard to correct, but it is also an opportunity for validating model predictions: Find a measurement we’ve never taken, see how the models say it should turn out, and then go take it and compare.
Still, there are global temperature predictions that have been validated. We can start with one of the pioneers in climate science. Over 100 years ago, in 1896, Svante Arrhenius predicted that human emissions of CO2 would warm the climate. Obviously he used a much simpler model than current Ocean Atmosphere Coupled Global Climate models, which run on super computers.
Arrhenius overestimated the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 by a factor of 2. At the same time, he hugely underestimated the degree of warming, assuming CO2 would rise very slowly (who could have predicted the emissions the future held?). Still, it was a pretty impressive early success for models.
Running the clock forward: in 1988, James Hansen of NASA GISS fame predicted [PDF] that temperature would climb over the next 12 years, with a possible brief episode of cooling in the event of a large volcanic eruption. He made this prediction in a landmark paper and before a Senate hearing, which marked the official “coming out” to the general public of anthropogenic global warming. Twelve years later, he was proven remarkably correct, requiring adjustment only for the timing difference between the simulated future volcanic eruption and the actual eruption of Mount Pinatubo.
And let’s face it, every year of increasing global mean temperature is one more year of success for the climate models. The acceleration of the rise is also playing out as predicted, though to be fair, decades will need to pass before such confirmation is inarguable.
Putting global surface temperatures aside, there are some other significant model predictions made and confirmed:
- models predict that surface warming should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and this has indeed been observed;
- models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere, even while satellite readings seemed to disagree — but it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been observed;
- models predict warming of ocean surface waters, as is now observed;
- models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation, which has been detected;
- models predict sharp and short-lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions, and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this;
- models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region, and this is indeed happening;
- and finally, to get back to where we started, models predict continuing and accelerating warming of the surface, and so far they are correct.
It is only long-term predictions that need the passage of time to prove or disprove them, but we don’t have that time at our disposal. Action is required in the very near term. We must take the many successes of climate models as strong validation that their long-term predictions, which forecast dire consequences, are accurate.
If we seek even more confidence, there is another way to test a model’s predictive power over long time periods: hindcasting. By starting the model at some point in the past — say, the turn of the 20th century — and running it forward, feeding it confirmed observational data on GHG, aerosol, solar, volcanic, and albedo forcing, we can directly compare modeled behavior with the actual, observed course of events.
Of course, this has been done many times. Have a look at this page and judge for yourself how the models held up.
Would a prediction made in 1900 of temperature for year 2000 have been validated? Would politicians in 1900 have been wise to heed the warnings of science, had science had today’s climate models then?
Clearly, yes.
#14323 You're throwing a ton of sources out at once. Do you want an organized, truth-seeking discussion? Do you plan to continue over time? What are your goals? Want to debate? https://elliottemple.com/debate-policy
There IS consensus
No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century.
This is where there is a consensus.
Specifically, the “consensus” about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:
- the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
- the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
- the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
- if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
- a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
While theories and viewpoints in conflict with the above do exist, their proponents constitute a very small minority. If we require unanimity before being confident, well, we can’t be sure the earth isn’t hollow either.
This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world.
The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by …
- Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
- Royal Society of Canada
- Chinese Academy of Sciences
- Academié des Sciences (France)
- Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
- Indian National Science Academy
- Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
- Science Council of Japan
- Russian Academy of Sciences
- Royal Society (United Kingdom)
- National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
- Australian Academy of Sciences
- Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
- Caribbean Academy of Sciences
- Indonesian Academy of Sciences
- Royal Irish Academy
- Academy of Sciences Malaysia
- Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
- Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
… in either one or both of these documents: PDF, PDF.
In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:
- NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
- National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
- State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
- Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- American Institute of Physics (AIP)
- National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
- American Meteorological Society (AMS)
- Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
If this is not scientific consensus, what in the world would a consensus look like?
> If this is not scientific consensus, what in the world would a consensus look like?
Science doesn't operate by consensus. But what scientific consensus actually looks like is e.g. the round Earth theory or the theory that the Earth is a planet that orbits a sun while tilted on its axis.
> Science doesn't operate by consensus.
Except it does. If you have counter evidence, you should publish your paper to peer review and change the consensus.
Also that red herring doesn't refute either one of my 2 posts.
Show me the published peer reviewed counter evidence or bust.
Facts > Feelings
These are the two most reputable globally and seasonally averaged temperature trend analyses:
- NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis
- CRU direct surface temperature analysis
Both trends are definitely and significantly up. In addition to direct measurements of surface temperature, there are many other measurements and indicators that support the general direction and magnitude of the change the earth is currently undergoing. The following diverse empirical observations lead to the same unequivocal conclusion that the earth is warming:
- Satellite Data
- Radiosondes
- Borehole analysis
- Glacial melt observations
- Sea ice melt
- Sea level rise
- Proxy Reconstructions
- Permafrost melt
There is simply no room for doubt: the Earth is undergoing a rapid and large warming trend.
> Show me the published peer reviewed counter evidence or bust.
We seem to disagree about the proper *rules of debate*, the proper standards or criteria for how to debate and which ideas win debates So you have a discussion methodology according to which you're debating well, but I have a different one which reaches different evaluations. So, do you think your theories about how to debate are *written down* somewhere? Are you trying to debate by written or unwritten rules?
#14330 I agree with him. Evidence or Bust, anything else is sophistry.
#14324 Looks like you lost this debate before it even started. Sophistry is no match for facts and evidence! I, a person of objectivity, declare myself the winner of this debate.
Science wins again. Until you have counter-evidence, you have nothing.
Good Day Sir!
> - a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents **potential danger to human welfare and the environment**.
This is vague.
What kind of *"potential danger to human welfare and the environment"* and how? And what is the magnitude of this potential danger?
Human welfare has gotten much safer and better with the use of more energy. Humans have e.g. more clean water, improved sanitation, far less climate related deaths, increased life expectancy, and more wealth than ever before.
The Illiteracy in this Blog is amazing
> This is vague.
It is only vague if you don't actually read the links, you fucking clown.
potholer54 - continuation
potholer54 *did* reply. I missed it and saw it only today. So my mistake.
For previous interactions see above in the comment section in this thread (e.g. ).
Last communication follows below (potholer54's answer as well as my reply):
---
>> waneagony wrote: "Would you mind debating on another publicly available site or a public e-mail discussion group?"
> I'm happy to debate on this channel, because I check it every day. This is a public forum, and anyone is free to post, including Epstein.
Sry, I totally missed your response. This is another downside commenting on YT, in my opinion.
Fair enough, if that is all you want. So just to make sure, you _only_ want to debate on this channel?
> "1. What exactly do the climate scientists agree on?"
> All Alex has to do to get an answer is what I just did, and google of the term "97% of scientists agree." A NASA site comes up top of the list:
> "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
> Maybe that answers his question.
> I suspect, though, that he's not looking for an intelligent and fact-based answer. It's much easier to question people in the street who don't know much about the climate debate, and get an answer that shows them to be clueless. I've seen Creationists do the same thing, asking people in the street if they believe in evolution, and if they do then they have to explain exactly how it works. It makes the theory seem stupid -- which wouldn't work if they asked a biologist.
Alex criticises that claim and argues why it matters to do so in the provided article. There are sources in the article as well.
That last part is kind of a cheap shot given the fact that you yourself decline a more serious debate than the comment section on YT.
> "2. How do we know the 97% agree?"
> We don't. No poll of scientists has ever been taken. That isn't how science is done.
> What we DO know is that "a survey of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."
> This is how science is done; not through polls of "scientists" in unrelated fields, but by peer-reviewed studies published in respected scientific journals.
No. What we _do_ know is that there is such a _claim_. Because that claim that you are quoting, by John Cook, of skepticalscience.com, is addressed and criticised in the article by Alex (at least the 2013 paper since the article with Alex is from 2015). Am I correct to assume that you didn’t critically check Cooks paper? Now that you know of criticism of the paper, will you revisit it more critically?
>> "My issue here is that the way environmentalists and politicians chose to present the price of solar and wind power is dishonest, as they do so by talking about "capacity" and as an "add on"."
> This is the same problem as his argument about "97% of scientists". It's full of "it says..." "the capacity numbers are always misleading...."
> I have no idea whether anything he says is accurate. He doesn't tell us who or what is saying this, where he's reading these capacity figures, he doesn't show us what they're based on, what numbers are misleading, and he doesn't provide any sources.
> I'm sure that works magic during a debate, where passion and conviction and confidence are all that's needed to sway a crowd. I work in the world of science, which depends on facts and figures. I can only fact-check Alex's sources, and if he doesn't want to give any then I am not going to struggle to find them.
Alex is making a claim that using capacity numbers is a bad way to measure cost, because e.g. solar goes down to zero megawatts of production at night whereas e.g. nuclear can produce close to it’s full capacity all the time. Do you dispute this is how it works? Do you think he has a point here?
>> "would you point me to a video of yours that sums up your position"
> My position is that I support the scientific method. Claims have to be supported by evidence. Facts have to be verifiable. Sources have to be cited. I suppose my best video explaining this is "The scientific method made easy."
Thank you. I will watch the video. I believe we are all in support of good science. But my guess is that we have different standards of what constitutes good science. We (Alex not included, to the best of my knowledge) reject justification and hold critical rationalism to be true (first explained by Karl Popper and later improved on by David Deutsch and Elliot Temple ( curi.com & fallibleideas.com )). That is the reason why I was hoping you would be willing to debate Elliot. ( https://elliottemple.com/debate-policy )
#14540
Corrections:
* (e.g. #14177)
** curi.us
#14168
> What's his most educational thing?
He recommended this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIgy5JS-QhQ
potholer54 debates
#14233
> "But potholer54 has shown no interest in that thus far. I do not think he wants to debate anyone in a truth seeking matter publicly."
N, I'm Atomsk's Sanakan, the other guy you're debating with on that Youtube comments thread:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fV6eeckxTs&lc=UgxyClQcxIpzlbVVkPl4AaABAg.90xHKJm91DY91eg-CqXOzg
Since I've already rebutted the claims you made in that thread, I'll rebut your claims here, starting with your claim quoted above.
potholer54 repeatedly debated people in different formats, including back-and-forth videos, debates in the YouTube comments section, text debates on websites, live discussion on video or in person, etc. So no, he does want to debate people in a truth seeking matter publicly. He just have specific requirements, such as:
"I don't mind any format that has a specific topic for debate, requires the citing of sources, and time for fact-checking."
http://archive.is/0PwPz#selection-2301.1854-2301.1975
I've worked with someone on Youtube called "Your Waifu is a Wh*re" to collect some of potholer54's video debates. I've listed them below for you, along with some of his other debates:
With Suspicious0bservers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUxIM67qt14
With David Warden:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNk7tfcB9ug
With The Academic Agent:
http://archive.is/2bk4J#selection-2057.0-2057.2864
http://archive.is/08F32#selection-2195.0-2195.3083
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8_ypOSDgLs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41TCWEl-x_g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aQqTFGxrmg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0J8j7GuLuQ
With Christopher Monckton:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/11/monckton-responds-to-potholer54/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCoi94n0aJg
With Tony Heller:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLjkLPnIPPw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weQ-N4iymrQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5fncpSikwk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq2Wv2KHGBc
#14543
Hi Atomsk's Sanakan,
>> "But potholer54 has shown no interest in that thus far. I do not think he wants to debate anyone in a truth seeking matter publicly."
> potholer54 repeatedly debated people in different formats, including back-and-forth videos, debates in the YouTube comments section, text debates on websites, live discussion on video or in person, etc. So no, he does want to debate people in a truth seeking matter publicly. He just have specific requirements, such as:
> "I don't mind any format that has a specific topic for debate, requires the citing of sources, and time for fact-checking."
potholer54 did not seem interested this time. At least not interested enough to leave his YT channel:
> I'm happy to debate on this channel, because I check it every day. This is a public forum, and anyone is free to post, including Epstein.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fV6eeckxTs&lc=UgxyClQcxIpzlbVVkPl4AaABAg.90xHKJm91DY90yaXok1BLX
By "truth seeking matter" I meant someone with deep understanding of epistemology. I do not think that the people has debated are the best people re truth seeking (although some are popular).
Do you think that those are the best people re truth seeking?
I do believe that you will find the best people re truth seeking here.
---
So, you had some criticism of Richard Lindzen. Could you present your best case here? I think maybe 1-2 of your strongest arguments would do.
curi in #14178
> #14175 I am not going to debate anyone in YT comments. That's seriously he's preferred forum? That's sad and unserious.
>> The easiest way to debunk someone is to ask for a source, and check it. So I would ask Epstein how he knows that "'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong." The fact is, no one has ever taken a poll, so no one has any idea what the figure is, not even Epstein.
> ... uhhh he's an idiot or super biased.
N in #14540
>> "2. How do we know the 97% agree?"
>> We don't. No poll of scientists has ever been taken. That isn't how science is done.
>> What we DO know is that "a survey of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."
>> This is how science is done; not through polls of "scientists" in unrelated fields, but by peer-reviewed studies published in respected scientific journals.
> No. What we _do_ know is that there is such a _claim_. Because that claim that you are quoting, by John Cook, of skepticalscience.com, is addressed and criticised in the article by Alex (at least the 2013 paper since the article with Alex is from 2015). Am I correct to assume that you didn’t critically check Cooks paper? Now that you know of criticism of the paper, will you revisit it more critically?
N, you disagreed with, didn't understand, or ignored what I said above. You should have responded. I meant what I said and thought it was important, which is why I said it. You acted as if I didn't mean it, or it wasn't important, or something. You didn't really pay attention to me. Unlike Potholer, I was genuinely trying to speak factually correctly, but you seem to have assumed what I said was not factual while assuming what Potholer said was factual.
Even though you didn't ask or investigate: Potholer is making up false facts re no poll being done (while using the phrasing "The fact is"). Then he repeated the same error again in the second blockquote above. From this we can tell that he doesn't read (or even search for and skim) the literature on his own side before making claims about it which he emphasizes the factualness of. Search "survey" at https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 and you will find several surveys of people (polls), not just of abstracts.
A basic effort would find out that Potholer is factually wrong. Type "poll of sci" into Bing and it suggested to me "poll of scientists on climate change". I searched that and immediately found a Wikipedia article with first sentence "Surveys of scientists' views on climate change – with a focus on human-caused or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) – have been undertaken since the 1990s.[1]". Potholer repeats claims in debate, and asserts their factualness, while doing less research than that.
Also Potholer's claim that "no one has any idea what the figure is" is bizarre as a criticism of Epstein's questioning/criticizing of the 97% figure. If the figure is unknown (even the ballpark is unknown, as Potholer claims here), then it's an error to claim it's 97% (the proper thing to do is say it's unknown). So Epstein would be in the right. Think about this for a bit and make up an example with some other topic. E.g. imagine if I said 97% of construction workers prefer sniper rifles over shotguns, and you criticized my claim, and i said back that no one has any idea what the correct percentage is so you don't know what you're talking about and your criticism sucks.
Hi Atomsk's Sanakan, you basically just showed up here, didn't say hi, didn't ask for a discussion, didn't try to start discussing in an organized way one thing at a time, and spammed way too many links at once while already having a hostile attitude before I've said a word to you. That's not suited for cooperative discussion to figure things out. If you don't want to discuss, don't. But if you just want to be like "You linked to X, and I think X is bad, so you don't seem worth debating" then you're being unreasonable. Part of the point of debate is to talk with people who disagree with you with an open and active mind, not to assume they're bad because, before the discussion begins, they disagree with you.
curi:
>> If someone can link a *very high quality* section of video by Potholer that would impress me or change my mind about some environmentalist issue, let me know. What's his most educational thing?
N:
>> What's his most educational thing?
> He recommended this video:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIgy5JS-QhQ
That video does not attempt to change my mind about an environmentalist issue, which is what I was looking for and which you left out of your block quote. And I certainly am not impressed by a beginner-oriented summary of scientific method which is both ignorant of, and refuted by, Critical Rationalism.
#14546
> N, you disagreed with, didn't understand, or ignored what I said above.
I didn't understand what you meant by it. You're right, I should have asked what you meant instead. I think I acted second-handed - didn't want to look stupid and ended up confused instead.
> Unlike Potholer, I was genuinely trying to speak factually correctly, but you seem to have assumed what I said was not factual while assuming what Potholer said was factual.
True. I don't know why. I thought it rang true that no polls had been taken and didn't question it at all. He got me with the "The fact is". Was that intentional? Prob.
> Also Potholer's claim that "no one has any idea what the figure is" is bizarre as a criticism of Epstein's questioning/criticizing of the 97% figure. If the figure is unknown (even the ballpark is unknown, as Potholer claims here), then it's an error to claim it's 97% (the proper thing to do is say it's unknown). So Epstein would be in the right. Think about this for a bit and make up an example with some other topic. E.g. imagine if I said 97% of construction workers prefer sniper rifles over shotguns, and you criticized my claim, and i said back that no one has any idea what the correct percentage is so you don't know what you're talking about and your criticism sucks.
So if there's a claim that 97% of all writers are right handed, but the figure is actually unknown, and I say something like "that doesn't seem plausible due to X". And someone says that it is actually unknown, so my claim is bad. But if it is unknown it is very unlikely it being precisely 97% over all other possible figures. Do you mean something like that?
#14548
> That video does not attempt to change my mind about an environmentalist issue, which is what I was looking for and which you left out of your block quote. And I certainly am not impressed by a beginner-oriented summary of scientific method which is both ignorant of, and refuted by, Critical Rationalism.
I asked:
Also, if you don't mind, would you point me to a video of yours that sums up your position - your conclusion if so be (if you have one of that kind), or one that you consider on of your most educational ones?
potholer54 said:
> My position is that I support the scientific method. Claims have to be supported by evidence. Facts have to be verifiable. Sources have to be cited. I suppose my best video explaining this is "The scientific method made easy."
My bad. I'm sloppier that I was aware of. I didn't even ask for what you where looking for.
I've gotten better at quoting than I was before, but restating stuff I still suck at.
#14551 The sum-up of Potholer's position is nothing about global warming, just a basic intro science lecture? **He's being a condescending jerk.** What he means is: anyone who disagrees with me doesn't know the first thing about science.
#14552
> he sum-up of Potholer's position is nothing about global warming, just a basic intro science lecture? **He's being a condescending jerk.** What he means is: anyone who disagrees with me doesn't know the first thing about science.
Doesn't he also claim objectivity regarding the issue? Like "I don't take sides. I just present the facts". Missing that he needs an theory to do that in the first place.
#14545
> "potholer54 did not seem interested this time. At least not interested enough to leave his YT channel:"
He's under no obligation to debate you here. Period. Whether or not he debates you here does not determine his level of interest. He doesn't need to visit and comment on every random website people ask for.
> "By "truth seeking matter" I meant someone with deep understanding of epistemology. I do not think that the people has debated are the best people re truth seeking (although some are popular).
Do you think that those are the best people re truth seeking?
I do believe that you will find the best people re truth seeking here."
From what I've seen, there's not much competent truth-seeking going on here. For example, you showed an utter inability to recognize reputable scientific sources. Hence your citation of Conservapedia. That would get you failed in a introductory-level science course. Conservapedia is not a reliable source for learning about scientific topics such as climate science and evolutionary biology.
This looks like just another typical contrarian website, akin to what Answers in Genesis is not evolutionary biology. And no, the truth-seekers in science are off writing peer-reviewed papers in their scientific field of interest, not relying on Conservapedia on science.
> "So, you had some criticism of Richard Lindzen. Could you present your best case here?"
No.
When you cited Lindzen to me, you did so in reply to me citing evidence to you, explained for you in my own words and with reputable sources of scientific evidence backing it up. You didn't bother to address that evidence, nor summarize any of Lindzen's points. You just posted the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fV6eeckxTs&lc=UgxyClQcxIpzlbVVkPl4AaABAg.90xHKJm91DY91eg-CqXOzg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fV6eeckxTs&lc=UgxyClQcxIpzlbVVkPl4AaABAg.90xHKJm91DY91fKRqihH-2
In response to that, I again gave you an explanation of some of Lindzen's mess-ups, in my own words and with citations to reputable sources of scientific evidence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fV6eeckxTs&lc=UgxyClQcxIpzlbVVkPl4AaABAg.90xHKJm91DY91ftOz-iWTO
So no, I'm not going to repeat it all for you again, when I've already given you the courtesy of explaining this and you haven't bothered to return the same courtesy. The points were laid out for you. It's up to you to actually address them.
#14556
>> "potholer54 did not seem interested this time. At least not interested enough to leave his YT channel:"
> He's under no obligation to debate you here. Period. Whether or not he debates you here does not determine his level of interest. He doesn't need to visit and comment on every random website people ask for.
I only stated potholer's unwillingness to leave YT this time and quoted him saying that. Was anything I said there wrong? You are just being hostile.
> Hence your citation of Conservapedia. That would get you failed in a introductory-level science course. Conservapedia is not a reliable source for learning about scientific topics such as climate science and evolutionary biology.
> And no, the truth-seekers in science are off writing peer-reviewed papers in their scientific field of interest, not relying on Conservapedia on science.
This is dishonest. The Conservapedia link was about Climategate, not about a scientific claim per se. It was criticism of the honesty of some climate scientists.
>> "So, you had some criticism of Richard Lindzen. Could you present your best case here?"
> So no, I'm not going to repeat it all for you again, when I've already given you the courtesy of explaining this and you haven't bothered to return the same courtesy.
I did not intend to be discourteous. This is another site and people reading here have most likely not read the YT comments. Thus I thought it might be a good idea to restart the topic here from start since Lindzen has been posted on curi.us in another post that I sent to you on YT:
http://curi.us/2241-global-warming-debate
This way you could argue the criticism you have of Lindzen without me possibly misrepresenting your case. I was trying to be courteous, not discourteous.
But, ok, here is what you wrote about Lindzen on YT:
> Lindzen has a long history of distorting climate science (to the point of being dishonest, as far as I'm concerned), and making false, easily debunked claims. The fact that you're relying on him is a very bad sign for how a debate would go for you if you debated potholer54 or I. Here's a listing of debunked claims from Lindzen:
Then you give some sources for your claims that can be found via the link you provided to the YT conversation above.
To avoid having to post a wall of links here, would you be willing to post the ones that build the strongest case for your criticism of Lindzen?
If you do not wish to do that I can comment some of you claims from YT here:
> 2) [Lindzen] Claiming clouds are a net negative feedback on warming, limiting climate sensitivity. They're actually a net positive feedback, increasing climate sensitivity.
Lindzen talks about clouds here (timestamped at 4:31), if that is what you are referring to. Is he wrong in what he says?
https://youtu.be/gJwayalLpYY?t=2671
> 5) [Lindzen] Claiming Earth had not recently warmed, when it actually had.
This is dishonest. Here Lindzen comments on pretty much that question very thing. Is he wrong in what he is saying?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUT7hLtFXIk&t
Also here Lindzen addresses what looks to be what you are criticising (timestamped):
https://youtu.be/sZsnAdGaxkY?t=3601
> 2) [Lindzen] Claiming clouds are a net negative feedback on warming, limiting climate sensitivity. They're actually a net positive feedback, increasing climate sensitivity.
Lindzen and Choi published a paper on cloud sensitivity. Got a refutation?
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
The nonsense of Lindzen + Choi 2011
#14559
> "Lindzen and Choi published a paper on cloud sensitivity. Got a refutation?"
It's called "cloud feedback", not "cloud sensitivity". Sensitivity isn't the same thing as feedback.
And you were already already cited evidence on it, in the very comment you're quoting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fV6eeckxTs&lc=UgxyClQcxIpzlbVVkPl4AaABAg.90xHKJm91DY91ftOz-iWTO
For example:
"Climate variability and relationships between top-of-atmosphere radiation and temperatures on Earth
[...]
In an attempt to estimate sensitivity and ?, Lindzen and Choi [2009] noted that there are many pitfalls to be avoided in assessing climate feedbacks in models using observations of radiation at TOA. While they adopted a procedure to avoid one of these pitfalls, they failed to recognize and account for several others: they did not account for external forcings, their use of a limited tropical domain was especially problematic, and their results did not stand up to independent testing [Trenberth et al., 2010; Murphy, 2010; Chung et al., 2010]. Lindzen and Choi [2011] acknowledged some of these problems and attempted to address them, although issues remain [Dessler, 2011]."
"Title: On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications; Ms. No.: 2010-15738"
http://www.masterresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Attach3.pdf
"Misdiagnosis of Earth climate sensitivity based on energy balance model results
[...]
Another example is [Lindzen RS, Choi Y-S (2011)] which was a follow-on from [Lindzen RS, Choi Y-S (2009)] and was collectively rebutted by five separate publications [56–60, 62]."
"Observational evidence against strongly stabilizing tropical cloud feedbacks"
#14564 Your only specific criticism of Lindzen Choi 2011 appears to be Dessler 2011, which I was already aware of. It's criticized at https://climateaudit.org/2011/09/23/the-dessler-2011-regression/
#14558
> "Was anything I said there wrong?"
I already told you what was wrong, such as your false claim that potholer54's willingness to comment here has any bearing on his level of interest. In response, you're doing your usual tactic of acting as if you didn't say X, when you're shown to be wrong on X.
> "The Conservapedia link was about Climategate, not about a scientific claim per se. It was criticism of the honesty of some climate scientists."
Then you misunderstand Climategate, since it was on scientific claims. For example, it includes claims that Mann et al.'s hockey stick resulted from dubious manipulations. Such claims were debunked by published results in subsequent studies, which replicated the hockey stick. Furthermore, multiple, independent investigations were done, which found no evidence of scientific fraud.
Instead of addressing any of those investigations or any of those studies, you posted a link to a crackpot denialist website known for making stuff up on topics such as atheism, evolutionary biology, and climate science. I'm sorry, but that's not the behavior of a truth-seeker. That's the behavior of someone who has a pre-determined conclusion in mind, and seeks out sources confirming them, no matter how unreliable those sources are, as per confirmation bias.
> "To avoid having to post a wall of links here, would you be willing to post the ones that build the strongest case for your criticism of Lindzen?"
No. If you think what I posted was a "wall of links", then you should check the references section of a peer-reviewed scientific paper. They include way more references then I linked to. That's how we scientists debate in the peer-reviewed literature: we make evidence-based claims and then cite reputable scientific sources for our claims.
> "Lindzen talks about clouds here (timestamped at 4:31), if that is what you are referring to. Is he wrong in what he says?"
Did u watch the clip?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJwayalLpYY&feature=youtu.be&t=2671
He just makes some bland comments about how satellite data will help in looking at clouds and the like. What I'm talking about is Lindzen's published work (ex: the iris hypothesis) on clouds being a net negative feedback on warming. I already cited sources to you on that work. If you're not even familiar with it, then you're literally citing a man's who's work I know better than you do. Sorry, that's not impressive to me.
Below is an explanation of cloud feedback for you:
Clouds as a positive feedback: Clouds reflect solar radiation into space, or emit infrared radiation into space, and thus can act as a negative feedback; clouds also reflect/absorb radiation emitted by the Earth or absorb solar radiation, and thus can act as a positive feedback. Lower level clouds tend to act as a negative feedback, while higher level clouds tend to act as a positive feedback. Climate models predict a net positive feedback from clouds, with radiative forcing from clouds becoming more positive with warming, due to increases in higher level clouds and reductions in lower level clouds in response to warming.
For instance, suppose in 1990 clouds have a net cooling effect of -2.0 K/year. Then it warmed for 10 years due to non-cloud factors, leading to clouds having a more positive cooling effect of -1.5 K/year by 2000, allowing for more for warming 10 years, leading to the clouds having an even more positive cooling effect of -1.0 K/year by 2010, allowing for more warming, and so on. This illustrates how positive feedback from clouds can augment warming, even if clouds overall have a cooling effect each year. So what matters for feedback is how the clouds' impact changes with temperature changes, not necessarily whether the sign of the clouds' impact is positive or negative at a given point in time. A similar point applies to other feedbacks.
Evidence shows that clouds acted as a positive feedbacks amplifying global warming, contrary to what Lindzen claims.
> "[> 5) [Lindzen] Claiming Earth had not recently warmed, when it actually had.] This is dishonest."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUT7hLtFXIk&t=
No, it's honest; it's me, once again, knowing your source (Lindzen) better than you do. You responded by citing a Lindzen video from 2014. I've actually read his more recent claims, such as:
2017:
"Of course, if 1998 was the hottest year on record, all the subsequent years will also be among the hottest years on record, since the temperature leveled off at that year and continued into the subsequent years—all of which are now as hot as the record year of 1998. None of this contradicts the fact that the warming (i.e., the increase of temperature) has ceased."
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs12129-017-9669-x.pdf
2018:
"Warming of any significance ceased about 20 years ago"
https://www.thegwpf.com/richard-lindzen-warming-of-any-significance-ceased-20-years-ago/
Of course, he's utterly wrong where he makes these claims, since statistically significant warming continued; so there was not significant change-point in warming in 1998, as you would know if you read reputable, scientific sources on this topic. For instance:
"Global temperature evolution: recent trends and some pitfalls"
"A fluctuation in surface temperature in historical context: reassessment and retrospective on the evidence"
"Regional trend changes in recent surface warming"
"Change point analysis of global temperature records"
"Improvements in the GISTEMP uncertainty model" [DOI: 10.1029/2018JD029522]
"Distinguishing trends and shifts from memory in climate data"
#14565
> "Your only specific criticism of Lindzen Choi 2011 appears to be Dessler 2011, which I was already aware of. It's criticized at https://climateaudit.org/2011/09/23/the-dessler-2011-regression/ "
First, I cited other evidence against Lindzen + Choi 2011's conclusion. So feel free to re-read what you're responding to.
Second, you're not going to impress with a non-peer-reviewed contrarian blog like McIntyre's ClimateAudit, anymore than you're going to impress me with an AIDS denialist blog that claims to debunk published studies showing HIV causes AIDS. I know better than to fall for such an unreliable source.
I cited published evidence to you. So actually address it.
"Unlike mainstream climate scientists, who publish primarily in peer reviewed journals, these critics typically employ a range of non-peer-reviewed outlets, ranging from blogs to the books we are examining. [...]
The general lack of peer review allows authors or editors of denial books to make inaccurate assertions that misrepresent the current state of climate science. Like the vast range of other non-peer-reviewed material produced by the denial community, book authors can make whatever claims they wish, no matter how scientifically unfounded."
http://abs.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/05/01/0002764213477096.full.pdf
> First, I cited other evidence against Lindzen + Choi 2011's conclusion. So feel free to re-read what you're responding to.
Link?
And so you won't argue re my link. You just refused to answer arguments and appealed to authority instead. That's irrational.
> "Link?"
You were already given a link, along with the titles. No need to pretend otherwise.
> "You just refused to answer arguments and appealed to authority instead. That's irrational."
You gave no arguments. You just cited some non-peer-reviewed blog you read, without bothering address any of the published evidence cited to you. In contrast, I explained the issues in my own words, while also citing and quoting papers that explained the issues as well. If you think my citing scientific sources is an appeal to authority, then you're even worse of citing some silly blog written by a non-expert.
And yes, McIntyre is a politically-motivated non-expert who didn't even grasp the basics in this field, such as that the occurrence amplified tropical tropospheric warming does not depend on the cause of the surface warming (i.e. tropical tropospheric amplification is not a GHG-specific fingerprint).
Also, stop abusing terms like "appea[l] to authority". It's tedious, and show you don't grasp what scientists like me are doing when we cite competent sources within their field of expertise. This is even further confirmation that this blog/website isn't as philosophically-informed as N likes to claim.
"Philosophers studying argumentation and critical thinking inherit a tradition of treating the appeal to authority as fallacious [...] (286)
It is now widely recognized, however, that in its strict form, this position is untenable [...] Quite the contrary, we are dependent on others for much of what we know, since we don’t have the time to investigate everything for ourselves, and many things are accessible only through the testimony of others (see also Hardwig 1985). As documented by Walton (1997), philosophers have therefore shifted the appeal to authority out of the category of fallacy and accepted it instead as a potentially sound form of argument (see also Goldman 2001; Tindale 1999) (287)."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10503-011-9219-6
"You appeal to authority if you back up your reasoning by saying that it is supported by what some authority says on the subject. Most reasoning of this kind is not fallacious, and much of our knowledge properly comes from listening to authorities. However, appealing to authority as a reason to believe something is fallacious whenever the authority appealed to is not really an authority in this particular subject, when the authority cannot be trusted to tell the truth, when authorities disagree on this subject (except for the occasional lone wolf), when the reasoner misquotes the authority, and so forth. Although spotting a fallacious appeal to authority often requires some background knowledge about the subject or the authority, in brief it can be said that it is fallacious to accept the words of a supposed authority when we should be suspicious of the authority's words."
https://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#AppealtoAuthority
#14571 https://elliottemple.com/debate-policy
First time for everything
Oh wow. First time I've seen curi get defeated this handedly in a debate. First time for everything I guess. Time to start rethinking this climate change debate eh?
Stand Up For Industrial Civilization And Fight The Greens’ Anti-Industrial Revolution
https://georgereismansblog.blogspot.com/2019/11/stand-up-for-industrial-civilization.html
Great article. It covers why the greens are completely wrong even if global warming is a real threat.
#14332 Are you retarded? I never got a response and I didn't debate.
The problem with the graph
> after that graph (anyone see the problem?) and one paragraph of text, their evidence page says:
Is the problem that they have manipulated the y-axis? Now it is disproportionate to the data, which makes the increase above 'the line' look really big.
#14597 Yes, you got it. The y-axis doesn't start at 0. That makes the variation look larger.
#14568
> For example, it includes claims that Mann et al.'s hockey stick resulted from dubious manipulations. Such claims were debunked by published results in subsequent studies, which replicated the hockey stick. Furthermore, multiple, independent investigations were done, which found no evidence of scientific fraud.
Did those results rebut the criticism of Mann made by McIntyre and McKitrick e.g.? No such rebuttals seem to have been made:
> 4/ none (NONE) of our specific criticisms of Mann's methods, proxies and false claims has been rebutted.
> 5/ subsequently, other authors and Mann himself have produced somewhat hockey-stickish temperature reconstructions, purporting to show that modern warm period is warmer than medieval period (which it may be). Each of these studies is fraught with data mining, ex post screening &c
> 6/ the practitioners in the field don't understand why these are important issues. They keep getting funded so they don't care.
https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/988886538279768064
The Wegman report (statistical experts) backed up the McIntyre and McKitrick criticism:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/ad\_hoc\_report.pdf
The criticism of the Wegman report itself is rebutted here:
https://climateaudit.org/2007/11/06/the-wegman-and-north-reports-for-newbies/
> What I'm talking about is Lindzen's published work (ex: the iris hypothesis) on clouds being a net negative feedback on warming. I already cited sources to you on that work.
Choi et al 2017 is a more recent study. Any criticism of this one?
> This suggests that tropical anvil cirrus clouds exert a negative climate feedback in strong association with precipitation efficiency.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016JD025827
> 2017:
> "Of course, if 1998 was the hottest year on record, all the subsequent years will also be among the hottest years on record, since the temperature leveled off at that year and continued into the subsequent years—all of which are now as hot as the record year of 1998. None of this contradicts the fact that the warming (i.e., the increase of temperature) has ceased."
> https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs12129-017-9669-x.pdf
This is what Lindzen says when not cherry picked:
> In 1998, the temperature reached a maximum and then hovered around it. Remember, it's an uncertain measurement for 18 years. The counter to that by Dr. Krauss is we've had some of the highest temperatures on record during that period. Does that contradict the statements that the temperature did not change *within fluctuations*? No it doesn’t.
https://youtu.be/sZsnAdGaxkY?t=3601
> We are speaking of small changes 0.25 Celsius would be about 51% of the recent warming and that strongly suggests a low and inconsequential climate sensitivity – meaning no problem at all
> When someone points to this and says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period. And *they are arguing over hundredths of a degree when it is uncertain in tenths of a degree*
> And the proof that the uncertainty is tenths of a degree are the adjustments that are being made. *If you can adjust temperatures to 2/10ths of a degree, it means it wasn’t certain to 2/10ths of a degree*
https://archive.is/MFFBR
Anyway, my main objection was against the “catastrophic climate change” implications (i.e. alarmism). But you say that “catastrophic climate change” is a straw man. Does that mean that you do not believe climate change to be of catastrophic proportions? If so, then we are in agreement.
> Your "catastrophic" point is you attacking an ill-defined straw man for ideological reasons.
From the original YT comments ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fV6eeckxTs&lc=UgxyClQcxIpzlbVVkPl4AaABAg.90xHKJm91DY91gYHJLnoRl )
#14599
> "Did those results rebut the criticism of Mann made by McIntyre and McKitrick e.g.? No such rebuttals seem to have been made: "
1) Addressing McIntyre + McKitrick's criticisms is irrelevant, since Mann's work was already replicated by other research groups. That makes criticism of Mann moot. That's how science works, N, and it's something you politically-motivated contrarians don't grasp. You seem to think whining all day about Mann somehow rebuts the hockey stick. It doesn't, since Mann is not the only one to have found it.
"A global multiproxy database for temperature reconstructions of the Common Era"
[updated in: "Consistent multidecadal variability in global temperature reconstructions and simulations over the Common Era"]
"Climate variability and change since 850 CE: An ensemble approach with the Community Earth System Model"
"Inter-hemispheric temperature variability over the past millennium"
"Ensemble reconstruction constraints on the global carbon cycle sensitivity to climate"
"A reconstruction of regional and global temperature for the past 11,300 years"
[Figure 2A, page 620: "Pacific Ocean heat content during the past 10,000 years"]
"Reconciling divergent trends and millennial variations in Holocene temperatures"
2) Rebuttals were made to McIntyre and McKitrick. For instance:
"Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence"
So here's some advice: the next time you don't know something about climate science, just assume it's because the garbage, non-peer-reviewed denialist sources you habitually rely on didn't tell you about it. Don't assume your lack of knowledge shows that work hasn't been done.
> "Choi et al 2017 is a more recent study. Any criticism of this one?"
Address the evidence that was cited to you, instead of disingenuously moving the goal-posts to something else, whenever the evidence corners you. You were cited evidence against Lindzen's iris hypothesis. Address it.
> "This is what Lindzen says when not cherry picked:"
Repeating what Lindzen said doesn't address the evidence cited to you showing that he was wrong. You were cited evidence showing that statistically significant warming continued, contrary to what Lindzen said.
Seriously, address the evidence cited to you, N. Because at this point I'm getting pretty convinced I should follow potholer54 in simply not wasting time responding to you, since you've not going to bother to acknowledge evidence.
If you fail to respond to published evidence again, then I'm simply not going to bother to respond, and leave you to post with other contrarians who share your bias on this site. It's not like I'm getting much of substance out of this discussion.
> "Anyway, my main objection was against the “catastrophic climate change” implications (i.e. alarmism). But you say that “catastrophic climate change” is a straw man. Does that mean that you do not believe climate change to be of catastrophic proportions? If so, then we are in agreement."
Sorry, I'm not going to humor your attempt to use an ill-defined straw man to meet your politically-motivated ends. I already know the game you're playing, and it's the same one other contrarians/denialists play. To explain this again:
Many contrarians/denialists will shift the meaning of "catastrophe" in such a way as to misrepresent mainstream climate science, and to ensure that evidence on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) never counts as a "catastrophe". It's akin to how many creationists will shift the meaning of their term "molecules-to-man evolution", in order to misrepresent mainstream evolutionary theory (as including abiogenesis, for example) and to make sure no evidence ever meets their personal definition of "molecules-to-man evolution".
Similarly, many creationists will distort what "macroevolution" means in evolutionary biology. When competent scientists discuss "macroevolution", they usually make it clear that they're talking about evolution at or above the species level. In contrast, many creationists claim macroevolution involves changes in "kind". These creationists remain vague enough about what "kind" is, so that they can always claim no evidence of a new "kind" evolving, and thus no evidence of macroevolution.
A parallel point applies for contrarians/denialists remaining vague enough about what "catastrophe" is, so that they can always claim no evidence of "catastrophe", and thus no evidence of "CAGW". That's in contrast to a scientist mentioning "catastrophe", while being clear on what that entails (ex: what level of warming, what range of sea level rise, what feedback processes, etc.)
Furthermore, anthropogenic global warming (AGW) does not need to meet a contrarian's vague/flexible view of "catastrophe" in order for AGW to have negative effects. After all, plenty of things have negative effects that we focus on, without them being world-ending, human-species-ending catastrophes. For example: cancer, car accidents, gun violence, etc. These can be serious problems with scientific evidence on their negative effects, without them being world-ending catastrophes. So one is offering a false dichotomy if one acts as if the only two options are "catastrophe" vs. "something positive or not harmful, that isn't worth considering much".
Many "CAGW" critics offer this false dichotomy for political reasons. These critics tend to be political conservatives (often libertarians) who want to avoid accepting scientific evidence on AGW, since the conservative believes people will use the science to support policies the conservative dislikes. Such policies include fossil fuel regulation, carbon taxes, etc. Thus the "CAGW" critics offer the false dichotomy, so they can say that unless CAGW is true, there's no need for such policy responses to AGW. Thus the critics' discussion of CAGW is an ideologically-motivated evasion; it's a fallacious appeal to consequences (or wishful thinking) that seeks to avoid accepting scientific points that might lead to consequences conservatives critics dislike.
Now, N, stop playing that ridiculous game of your's, on the term "catastrophic".
"Another claim advanced by those who reject the mainstream scientific agreement on climate is that the consensus position consists of a claim of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming or the frequently used acronym CAGW [...]. However, CAGW is rarely, if ever, defined or sourced to a mainstream scientific organization or study. Any scientific study’s result, or statement by a researcher, that does not fit a contrarian’s personal, flexible definition of CAGW can therefore be adopted as ostensibly supporting their view and refuting the mainstream, even when such results are actually consistent with the mainstream position on climate [...].
[...]
Additionally, we find that *catastrophic anthropogenic global warming* [CAGW] is essentially a term that is never used in the relevant scientific literature by mainstream sources. Furthermore, in the press it appears to be used exclusively by climate contrarians. The term is typically neither defined nor attributed to a mainstream scientific source. Our conclusion is therefore that CAGW is simply a *straw man* used by climate contrarians to criticize the mainstream position (50)."
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-20161-0_3
"Similarly, *many anti-climate action groups have evolved from outright climate denial to acknowledging that climate change is real and a problem but say they’re against “climate alarmism” and don’t believe in “catastrophic global warming.” But what do these terms mean? Again, they never say.* If I think business as usual means the Earth is going to warm 4 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century, am I an alarmist? How about 10 degrees?
*Their actual operating definition is that “catastrophic global warming” is the precise amount needed to justify policy action, and, by definition, we will always fall short of it.* An alarmist, meanwhile, is anyone who says we need to act on climate change."
https://medium.com/s/story/a-field-guide-to-bad-faith-arguments-7-terrible-arguments-in-your-mentions-ee4f194afbc9
#14613 Thanks for taking the time to respond to address these arguments. This is quite compelling.
what are some resources that you recommend for laymen on climate change?
#14614 ?? He's just yelling (e.g. "ridiculous game of your's [sic]" and appealing to authority. He opens by saying criticism is irrelevant if there is positive support for something. He won't discuss causes and explanations like how clouds work, why, and how to tell. And he keeps dumping a bunch of disorganized, unlabelled sources instead of just making one or two points. I can throw a bunch of links and quotes at someone too if I'm not going to take responsibility for them being correct.
He refused to give any criticism of Lindzen 2011 other than Dessler 2011 and then he refused to answer criticism of Dessler 2011 that wasn't approved by gatekeepers. What exactly is impressing you about this guy and his arguing style?
#14614
> "what are some resources that you recommend for laymen on climate change?"
Australian Academy of Science: http://aries.mq.edu.au/publications/other/Science-of-Climate-Change.pdf
National Academy of Sciences: https://www.nap.edu/read/12782/chapter/4
NASA: https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
potholer54's video series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP
#14615
> "He won't discuss causes and explanations like how clouds work, why, and how to tell."
Anyone with functioning eyes can see I discussed clouds in comment #14568, beginning with:
"Below is an explanation of cloud feedback for you: "
http://curi.us/2231-productive-global-warming-discussion#14568
So there's not much point in taking what you say seriously, when you're just going to make stuff up like that. Feel free to remain anonymous, so your fabrications aren't associated with your name.