But we know from physics that it’s a greenhouse gas. It’s not a privileged hypothesis we’re pulling out of nowhere. It’s not like saying “You can’t prove there’s no invisible pink unicorn in my garage!” AGW is, ceteris paribus, what we should expect to happen if the other things we believe are true.
I realize that this is not a debate about global warming, but respectfully, you are wrong here. It’s just that the privileged hypothesis is hidden from view by means of conjunction.
It may surprise you, but the actual global warming hypothesis as pushed by the likes of the IPCC is NOT simply that increased levels of CO2 will result in an increase in global surface temperatures.
The actual hypothesis is that increased CO2 levels will cause an increase in global surface temperatures, which will cause an increase in levels of water vapor in the atmosphere, which will cause temperatures to rise further, and so on, until there has been a dangerous increase in global surface temperatures.
In other words, global warming is a compound hypothesis. And the second part of the hypothesis—water vapor feedback—is very much like the invisible unicorn in your garage. There is simply no a priori reason to believe that the climate operates by positive feedback in this way.
Anyway, I realize this post is a bit off-topic, but I think the point is important. When discussing a claim, it’s helpful to make sure everyone is discussing the same claim.
You’ve probably looked at this issue more than I have. But honestly, skimming your blog has set off so many of my rationalist alarm bells that I doubt spending time there would be a productive. If it hadn’t been linked from here I would have ignored it.
-Adding the suffix “-ist” to words to describe the position of the scientific establishment. You create at least two new words this way and then use those words constantly. It makes you sound like a crazy person.
-Inventing rules to control and limit discussion and banning those that break these rules.
-Refusing to concede evidence to the other side
That plus a few of your other positions gives me pretty good reason to hold off investing time in a discussion until I’ve been assured of your reasonableness.
Adding the suffix “-ist” to words to describe the position of the scientific establishment. You create at least two new words this way and then use those words constantly. It makes you sound like a crazy person
What word would you suggest I use to describe those who subscribe to the CAGW Hypothesis? And are you claiming that the “scientific establishment” subscribes to the CAGW Hypothesis?
Inventing rules to control and limit discussion and banning those that break these rules.
I think this depends on how fair the rules are. Pretty much every discussion board, including this one, has rules and bans people who break those rules. Do you think my rules are unfair?
Refusing to concede evidence to the other side
What evidence did I refuse to concede?
That plus a few of your other positions gives me pretty good reason to hold off investing time in a discussion until I’ve assured of your reasonableness.
What word would you suggest I use to describe those who subscribe to the CAGW Hypothesis?
How about “those who subscribe to CAGW”? Certainly referring to them as alarmists begs the question. In general, the suffix “-ist” suggests an ideologue who can’t be reasoned with (there are exceptions, such as philosophical positions, but in political discussions this is almost always the case). Whether or not those who hold the view you disagree with can in fact be reasoned with is irrelevant—this coinage amounts to ad hominem by connotation.
And are you claiming that the “scientific establishment” subscribes to the CAGW Hypothesis?
I think the scientific establishment drops the ‘C’ (or at least doesn’t hold the extremely terrifying beliefs a lot of non-scientists hold about global warming) but since you’ve coined new terms at few points in your blog do I know who you’re actually critisizing.
I think this depends on how fair the rules are. Pretty much every discussion board, including this one, has rules and bans people who break those rules. Do you think my rules are unfair?
You don’t have a discussion board, you have a personal blog. The rules here are mostly informal and they’re designed to ensure quality of content and civility. We have a few rules about subject area but they are flexible and are only needed at all because they’re often noisy for the large number of people that come here. Your rules limit discussion to one, very particular thesis. Which is fine if you’ve got a ton of readers and you’re trying to sort signal from noise. We ban people who constanly post New Agey nonsense because no one wants to be distracted by that stuff. You don’t have the readership to do that. You’ve had one dissenting commenter afaict. He was banned.
Your other rules: If someone here uses a straw man someone else replies “Hi. This is a straw man.” On your blog, you promise to ban them. If someone equivocates here another person will reply “I think you’re equivocating on this point.” some discussion will then ensue about whether or not that person is in fact equivocating. On your blog however, if someone equivocates or is otherwise “weaslely” they must admit they are weasling or they will be banned. Here if person A criticizes person B’s spelling person B will usually edit their comment and reply “Thanks.” On your blog, if you are person B you will assume that person A has conceded your argument.
This only begins to describe your list of 9(?) rules. I can’t see how they’re actually implemented because it looks like you deleted the violating comments. They aren’t so much unfair as preposterous. In the words of the one person who commented to the post listing your rules: “Dude, seriously, chill.”
What evidence did I refuse to concede?
Put it this way: you argue like an attorney not a scientist. Is anyone not clear what I mean by that?
Suit yourself.
Look, presumably you want smart people who disagree with you to challenge your beliefs. I’m giving you strong reasons why they might be avoiding you. Do with that information what you wish.
This is all very well said. The site is clearly an attempt to argue one position on AGW, rather than to weigh the evidence that comes in. More than that, all evidence to the contrary is held to be deeply stupid and/or dishonest. The result is …. I don’t quite know how to put it. But the result is disturbing. It feels like one has stumbled into a strange single-person cult.
I find that a bit cumbersome. I try to use the word “warmist,” which I think is reasonable. Feel free to disagree. ETA: I will try to stop using the word “alarmist.”
I think the scientific establishment drops the ‘C’”
Well in that case, “warmist” in fact does not describe the views of the scientific establishment.
You’ve had one dissenting commenter afaict. He was banned.
That’s simply incorrect. Numerous comments either contradict or question what I have written.
I can’t see how they’re actually implemented because it looks like you deleted the violating comments
I haven’t deleted anyone’s comments at all. As best I can recall, only one person was banned after a warning.
Put it this way: you argue like an attorney not a scientist. Is anyone not clear what I mean by that?
Yes, I’m a bit confused. It seems to me that whether you are an attorney, a scientist, or anything else, if you claim that I refused to concede some evidence, you should be prepared to either back up your claim with specifics or admit you cannot do so.
So please back up what you are saying. Please show me where I was”refusing to concede evidence” (whatever that means).
Look, presumably you want smart people who disagree with you to challenge your beliefs.
Not necessarily. A shockingly high percentage of smart people resort to the sort of tactics which I disdain. For example, I’ve seen it happen numerous times that people strawman me. It’s a complete waste of time to argue with somebody who isn’t even arguing against my actual position.
I find that a bit cumbersome. I try to use the word “warmist,” which I think is reasonable. Feel free to disagree. ETA: I will try to stop using the word “alarmist.”
That’s simply incorrect. Numerous comments either contradict or question what I have written.
I count 22 total comments. Half were made by you and another one was Word Press’s sample comment. And a solid percentage of the others agreed with you. ‘Numerous’ seems like too strong a word unless I am missing part of your blog. It does look like there was one other instance of disagreement than I saw the first time. Apologies for hyperbole in that case.
I haven’t deleted anyone’s comments at all. As best I can recall, only one person was banned after a warning.
I assumed the person banned in this thread had comments deleted because you responded to all his points and then posted two more times before you banned him. I assumed he had responded to you and done something more heinous to be banned. This doesn’t make the banning better, it makes it worse. I don’t know what to tell you. The strict rules and the banning look ridiculous for a blog of that size.
Yes, I’m a bit confused. It seems to me that whether you are an attorney, a scientist, or anything else, if you claim that I refused to concede some evidence, you should be prepared to either back up your claim with specifics or admit you cannot do so.
My claim was poorly phrased. What I mean is that I would expect these sorts of questions to have some evidence on either side. It is highly likely the majority position especially, has at least some evidence in its favor. Someone who is honestly trying to figure out the science will look at the majority position and say “oh, these are fair arguments but here are some considerations that would make us doubt them” or “here is why these arguments look convincing but aren’t”. Even with theists we can say “Yeah I can see how a designer looks like a good explanation for the natural world. But here is this other, better mechanism that explains it all (evolution) and it turns out that positing a designer just pushes the question back a step.”
Now admittedly it is possible the endorsers of CAGW really have nothing resembling a convincing argument. And you’re certainly not obligated to pretend they do. But my problem isn’t just that you haven’t conceded that your opponent might make plausible points. I’m afraid it is more general and more vague. Reading your blog is a lot like reading one of the sites giving evidence for either side in the Kercher murder. One does not get the sense that you’re interested in truth. One gets the sense that you’ve made up your mind and are interested mostly in beating up the other side and winning the political battle. Your arguments are dressed like soldiers. I have no idea what your actual motivations are, of course. But this is the sense I get from reading the blog.
Not necessarily. A shockingly high percentage of smart people resort to the sort of tactics which I disdain. For example, I’ve seen it happen numerous times that people strawman me. It’s a complete waste of time to argue with somebody who isn’t even arguing against my actual position.
So you don’t want all smart people to challenge your beliefs. Presumably, though, you still want smart people to challenge your beliefs.
I assumed the person banned in this thread had comments deleted because you responded to all his points and then posted two more times before you banned him.
If you look more carefully, you will see I asked him a couple reasonable questions; he did not respond; and that was that.
But my problem isn’t just that you haven’t conceded that your opponent might make plausible points.
I still don’t understand what the problem is. Do you think I have ignored or misrepresented the best evidence in favor of the warmist position?
Presumably, though, you still want smart people to challenge your beliefs.
If you look more carefully, you will see I asked him a couple reasonable questions; he did not respond; and that was that.
You asked him a couple reasonable questions. He did not respond. A few days later, you banned him.
I still don’t understand what the problem is. Do you think I have ignored or misrepresented the best evidence in favor of the warmist position?
I have no idea if you have done done that. In the same way, If I had just read the “Amanda Knox is guilty” website I would have no idea if they had responded to the best arguments of the “Amanda Knox is innocent” crowd. But as with those websites your tone and form do not give me confidence that you have in fact done so. Maybe someone else can point out exactly what gives me that impression, I’m afraid I’m at a loss. Sorry.
But as with those websites your tone and form do not give me confidence that you have in fact done so. Maybe someone else can point out exactly what gives me that impression, I’m afraid I’m at a loss. Sorry.
His discussion strategy consists almost entirely of logical rudeness. I had assumed he was an attorney based on my prior experiences with the style long before he presented his qualification as evidence. My prejudices inform me that while they can often be quite competent at seeking out truth, speaking to lawyers is a terrible strategy for finding truth yourself.
You asked him a couple reasonable questions. He did not respond. A few days later, you banned him.
Right. That’s what I meant when I said “that was that.” He was finito. Kaput. If people do not respond to reasonable questions I ask, I am not interested in engaging with them.
But as with those websites your tone and form do not give me confidence that you have in fact done so.
Well, if there is some important piece of evidence I am ignoring, somebody should post it. Then you can see how I respond and evaluate my tone.
Presumably, though, you still want smart people to challenge your beliefs.
Sure, if they do so in a reasonable fashion.
[banning for dissenting in a reasonable fashion, etc]
Maybe so . . . . but so what? It’s not like I’m saying he’s a bad person.
One ‘so what?’ is that I think you could sincerely assert six mutually contradictory things before breakfast. The concept of ‘bad person’ involves philosophy I’ve never really sunk my teeth into. Virtue ethics I think they call it. But simplified deontology labels that a bad behavior and my preferred consequentialist model assigns all sorts of negatives to the expected utility thereabouts.
I have no idea what your point is. I asked that person a reasonable question; he did not answer; so I do not feel like engaging with him any further. It’s as simple as that.
is that I think you could sincerely assert six mutually contradictory things before breakfast.
We have been there already. In this case my point is that you can reasonably claim “I am willing to talk to dissenters” EXCLUSIVE-OR “me blocking dissenters is not relevant”. I don’t really care which you do but you’re doing both. That’s an AND not an XOR.
My more specific point is that this behavior is highly undesirable to me and I want to discourage it.
I could; you could; anyone could. Again, so what?
I don’t believe I could. It is the sincere part that is hard for me. Sincerity is a hard skill to master, at least at the higher levels of contradiction.
In this case my point is that you can reasonably claim “I am willing to talk to dissenters” EXCLUSIVE-OR “me blocking dissenters is not relevant”. I
That’s not my claim. I am willing to talk to dissenters, but only certain kinds. For example if the dissenter wastes my time by insisting on mischaracterizing my position, I am no longer willing to talk to them.
If the dissenter refuses to answer reasonable questions about his position, I am no longer willing to talk to them.
And so on.
I don’t believe I could. It is the sincere part that is hard for me
Everyone makes mistakes now and then.
Anyway, I think I understand at least part of your point now: You are accusing me of being a liar (or of lying to myself habitually). Is that it?
I am willing to talk to dissenters, but only certain kinds.
So am I. You are free with the block command and so I wouldn’t be particularly reluctant to use it on you. I honestly prefer overt trolls to your ‘kind’. That’s just my quirk. I prefer things out in the open.
Anyway, I think I understand at least part of your point now: You are accusing me of being a liar (or of lying to myself habitually). Is that it?
No you’re just trying to make me sound bad and claim the moral high ground. Of course, what I actually said is probably a greater slight coming from me. I claim that I am a liar when I say six contradictory things but you could say them sincerely and the concept of ‘lie’ is way off in the background, a discarded child’s toy.
Also, are you claiming that I admitted to refusing to engage with people simply because they disagree with me?
I claim that blocking behavior in response to dissent has clear relevance to your willingness to have smart dissenters challenge your beliefs and does, at a minimum, invalidate the rhetorical implication of the question ‘so what?’.
Simple yes or no question.
I replied to this comment only to give myself practice at avoiding this trap. Questions stop being simple ‘yes or no’ propositions when you know that they will be glued together in a way that does not follow. Respond to the frame, not the image.
I claim that blocking behavior in response to dissent has clear relevance to your willingness to have smart dissenters challenge your beliefs and does, at a minimum, invalidate the rhetorical implication of the question ‘so what?’.
As usual, I don’t understand what your point is, except it seems you have evaded my question.
One ‘so what?’ is that I think you could sincerely assert six mutually contradictory things before breakfast. The concept of ‘bad person’ involves philosophy I’ve never really sunk my teeth into. Virtue ethics I think they call it. But simplified deontology labels that a bad behavior and my preferred consequentialist model assigns all sorts of negatives to the expected utility thereabouts.
I don’t understand your point here either, except it seems you are trying to insult me in a roundabout way by accusing me of some kind of dishonesty.
Indeed, it seems your comments towards me are more informed by personal animus than any desire to actually discuss or debate anything. It seems to me you are still annoyed that I pointed out a contradiction in your argument a few threads back.
In any event, I generally don’t engage with people who are consistently incoherent or with people who consistently insult me. It’s just a waste of my time. If anyone else wants to explain what Wedifred’s point is in a polite manner, I’m happy to listen. But as for Wedifred, I’m not engaging with him anymore.
I claim that blocking behavior in response to dissent has clear relevance to your willingness to have smart dissenters challenge your beliefs and does, at a minimum, invalidate the rhetorical implication of the question ‘so what?’.
And the second part of the hypothesis—water vapor feedback—is very much like the invisible unicorn in your garage. There is simply no a priori reason to believe that the climate operates by positive feedback in this way.
What kinds of possible evidence would you expect to see if such positive feedbacks can happen?
To paraphrase Eliezer, ceteris paribus and without anything unknown at work, water vapor is a greenhouse gas and ought to make the Earth hotter. Also, ceteris paribus and without anything unknown at work, a hotter Earth ought to lead to more water vapor in the air. There is your ceteris-paribus-and-without-anything-unknown-at-work feedback loop.
Not cast iron proof. Maybe not yet enough to justify expensive counter-measures. But it is where the weight of the evidence sits before you start asking for impossible proof.
What kinds of possible evidence would you expect to see if such positive feedbacks can happen?
I’m not sure what you mean by “can happen,” since in some sense lots of things “can happen.”
Anyway, it’s not a full answer to your question, but the gold standard for substantiating the water vapor feedback hypothesis would be if the proponents of that hypothesis made specific interesting and accurate predictions about future events.
To paraphrase Eliezer, ceteris paribus and without anything unknown at work, water vapor is a greenhouse gas and ought to make the Earth hotter. Also, ceteris paribus and without anything unknown at work, a hotter Earth ought to lead to more water vapor in the air.
I disagree, and perhaps an anlogy would help: All things being equal, cooler weather can be expected to lead to more snow cover. And all things being equal, more snow cover can be expected to result in cooler surface temperatures because of effects on the Earth’s albedo. So should we worry that the next big volcano will trigger an ice age?
The answer is “no,” and I think the mistake here is two-fold. First, rough reasoning gets exponentially rougher as you travel along a chain of deduction. Second, we can’t ignore the fact that the Earth’s climate is a complicated system which has been around for a long time. The normal assumption should be that if you push on such a system, then it will probably push back at you.
the gold standard for substantiating the water vapor feedback hypothesis would be if the proponents of that hypothesis made specific interesting and accurate predictions about future events.
No, that is evidence of authority. The gold standard would be if the assumptions that led to the hypothesis also led to specific interesting and accurate predictions about future events (and don’t lead to inaccurate predictions).
But when will it push back at you? Before or after it has triggered a mass extinction event?
There is evidence that there have been multiple mass extinction events in the planet’s history, some of which may have been caused by the earth getting too hot or too cold.
Could you give me an example or two of such mass extinction events which may have been caused by temperature changes? I would like to think about your point in context.
A system can have a balance between positive and negative feeback. If it has a mix of both, there’s amplification, not necessarily a runaway. (The balance between solar input and radiation to space, among other things provides negative feedback)
Moreover, it isn’t even just a multiplication problem. There are different styles of feedback—proportional, integral, differential—and those latter two can come with different time scales
It’s obvious that pushing the same direction for a hundred years can be much bigger a deal than pushing a hundred times as hard in the same direction for a day, but it’s also true of a hundred-times-as-strong push lasting for, say, two years. Or, depending on the different feedbacks, the hundred times as hard for a day could have a bigger effect.
What kinds of possible evidence would you expect to see if such positive feedbacks can happen?
I’m not sure what you mean by “can happen,” since in some sense lots of things “can happen.”
Sorry for the ambiguity. I should have reflected your wording more closely and written “What kinds of possible evidence would you expect to see if the climate operates by positive feedback in this way?” Part of the purpose of the question was to determine what you meant when you chose that wording.
Anyway, it’s not a full answer to your question, but the gold standard for substantiating the water vapor feedback hypothesis would be if the proponents of that hypothesis made specific interesting and accurate predictions about future events.
Since the effects are alleged to take place over decades, asking to see this evidence now is asking for impossible evidence.
I disagree, and perhaps an anlogy would help: All things being equal, cooler weather can be expected to lead to more snow cover. And all things being equal, more snow cover can be expected to result in cooler surface temperatures because of effects on the Earth’s albedo. So should we worry that the next big volcano will trigger an ice age?
A priori, yes we should. However, we would be justified in decreasing our concern if either (1) additional theoretical consideration show that, in fact, according to our best theory, that loop probably wouldn’t occur, or (2) despite our best theory, we’ve observed many big volcanoes erupt without setting off such loops.
Let us suppose that (2) is the case. Then this would decrease our confidence in our best climatological theory. However, if that same theory asserts that X will probably cause Y, where X is not very similar to something that we’ve observed in the past (so, not a big volcano eruption), then our best bet is still that Y will follow X, even though our theory blew it on the consequences of the volcano eruption. Our confidence in Y will go down, but it will exceed our confidence in ~Y. (Otherwise, the theory wouldn’t be our “best”.)
(To the best of my knowledge, our theories don’t mispredict the consequences of volcanoes, though, for all I know, that could be only because volcanoes were part of the input data used in the theories’ construction.)
The normal assumption should be that if you push on such a system, then it will probably push back at you.
This sounds like you want to construct a climate theory by taking an a priori first-principles theory and adding an ad hoc “push back” mechanism, according to which the current equilibrium is assumed to be more stable than the first principles would justify. It’s fine to believe in such a mechanism, even if you can’t justify it from first principles, provided that you have direct empirical evidence for it. In which case, great, add that evidence to the pile of all the other evidence that we use to justify beliefs about the climate, and let’s see how it all adds up.
Since the effects are alleged to take place over decades, asking to see this evidence now is asking for impossible evidence.
I’m not sure what you mean by “decades,” since the warmists have had well over 20 years now. Anyway, the warming which took place during the 1990s was alleged to have been the result of CO2 emissions, agreed? And do you agree that some of these computer climate simulations have been used to make shorter-term predictions?
A priori, yes we should.
Well, do you agree that there many different possible feedback loops one could postulate?
It’s fine to believe in such a mechanism, even if you can’t justify it from first principles, provided that you have direct empirical evidence for it.
I’m not sure whether you would classify it as a first principle or as empirical evidence . . . it’s just common sense.
I’m not trying to get cute, but please re-read my post. I did not claim that water vapor feedback does not happen. (Obviously that’s an important question, and I invite you to discuss it with me on my blog.)
I apologize—I assumed your claim was that an increase of CO2 sufficient to directly cause a 1°C rise (about a doubling, is what I’ve heard) would make no more than 1°C rise. I objected because my current understanding is that the water vapor increases that to about 3°C rise.
If we have no disagreement on that point, we have no disagreement on anything that has been said denotatively so far. And, as we can both agree, any further remarks would be severely off-topic.
I realize that this is not a debate about global warming, but respectfully, you are wrong here. It’s just that the privileged hypothesis is hidden from view by means of conjunction.
It may surprise you, but the actual global warming hypothesis as pushed by the likes of the IPCC is NOT simply that increased levels of CO2 will result in an increase in global surface temperatures.
The actual hypothesis is that increased CO2 levels will cause an increase in global surface temperatures, which will cause an increase in levels of water vapor in the atmosphere, which will cause temperatures to rise further, and so on, until there has been a dangerous increase in global surface temperatures.
In other words, global warming is a compound hypothesis. And the second part of the hypothesis—water vapor feedback—is very much like the invisible unicorn in your garage. There is simply no a priori reason to believe that the climate operates by positive feedback in this way.
I go into more detail about this on my blog.
http://brazil84.wordpress.com
Anyway, I realize this post is a bit off-topic, but I think the point is important. When discussing a claim, it’s helpful to make sure everyone is discussing the same claim.
You’ve probably looked at this issue more than I have. But honestly, skimming your blog has set off so many of my rationalist alarm bells that I doubt spending time there would be a productive. If it hadn’t been linked from here I would have ignored it.
-Adding the suffix “-ist” to words to describe the position of the scientific establishment. You create at least two new words this way and then use those words constantly. It makes you sound like a crazy person.
-Inventing rules to control and limit discussion and banning those that break these rules.
-Refusing to concede evidence to the other side
That plus a few of your other positions gives me pretty good reason to hold off investing time in a discussion until I’ve been assured of your reasonableness.
What word would you suggest I use to describe those who subscribe to the CAGW Hypothesis? And are you claiming that the “scientific establishment” subscribes to the CAGW Hypothesis?
I think this depends on how fair the rules are. Pretty much every discussion board, including this one, has rules and bans people who break those rules. Do you think my rules are unfair?
What evidence did I refuse to concede?
Suit yourself.
How about “those who subscribe to CAGW”? Certainly referring to them as alarmists begs the question. In general, the suffix “-ist” suggests an ideologue who can’t be reasoned with (there are exceptions, such as philosophical positions, but in political discussions this is almost always the case). Whether or not those who hold the view you disagree with can in fact be reasoned with is irrelevant—this coinage amounts to ad hominem by connotation.
I think the scientific establishment drops the ‘C’ (or at least doesn’t hold the extremely terrifying beliefs a lot of non-scientists hold about global warming) but since you’ve coined new terms at few points in your blog do I know who you’re actually critisizing.
You don’t have a discussion board, you have a personal blog. The rules here are mostly informal and they’re designed to ensure quality of content and civility. We have a few rules about subject area but they are flexible and are only needed at all because they’re often noisy for the large number of people that come here. Your rules limit discussion to one, very particular thesis. Which is fine if you’ve got a ton of readers and you’re trying to sort signal from noise. We ban people who constanly post New Agey nonsense because no one wants to be distracted by that stuff. You don’t have the readership to do that. You’ve had one dissenting commenter afaict. He was banned.
Your other rules: If someone here uses a straw man someone else replies “Hi. This is a straw man.” On your blog, you promise to ban them. If someone equivocates here another person will reply “I think you’re equivocating on this point.” some discussion will then ensue about whether or not that person is in fact equivocating. On your blog however, if someone equivocates or is otherwise “weaslely” they must admit they are weasling or they will be banned. Here if person A criticizes person B’s spelling person B will usually edit their comment and reply “Thanks.” On your blog, if you are person B you will assume that person A has conceded your argument.
This only begins to describe your list of 9(?) rules. I can’t see how they’re actually implemented because it looks like you deleted the violating comments. They aren’t so much unfair as preposterous. In the words of the one person who commented to the post listing your rules: “Dude, seriously, chill.”
Put it this way: you argue like an attorney not a scientist. Is anyone not clear what I mean by that?
Look, presumably you want smart people who disagree with you to challenge your beliefs. I’m giving you strong reasons why they might be avoiding you. Do with that information what you wish.
This is all very well said. The site is clearly an attempt to argue one position on AGW, rather than to weigh the evidence that comes in. More than that, all evidence to the contrary is held to be deeply stupid and/or dishonest. The result is …. I don’t quite know how to put it. But the result is disturbing. It feels like one has stumbled into a strange single-person cult.
I find that a bit cumbersome. I try to use the word “warmist,” which I think is reasonable. Feel free to disagree. ETA: I will try to stop using the word “alarmist.”
Well in that case, “warmist” in fact does not describe the views of the scientific establishment.
That’s simply incorrect. Numerous comments either contradict or question what I have written.
I haven’t deleted anyone’s comments at all. As best I can recall, only one person was banned after a warning.
Yes, I’m a bit confused. It seems to me that whether you are an attorney, a scientist, or anything else, if you claim that I refused to concede some evidence, you should be prepared to either back up your claim with specifics or admit you cannot do so.
So please back up what you are saying. Please show me where I was”refusing to concede evidence” (whatever that means).
Not necessarily. A shockingly high percentage of smart people resort to the sort of tactics which I disdain. For example, I’ve seen it happen numerous times that people strawman me. It’s a complete waste of time to argue with somebody who isn’t even arguing against my actual position.
CAGW endorsers? I think neologisms basically suck. But, alright, fair enough.
I count 22 total comments. Half were made by you and another one was Word Press’s sample comment. And a solid percentage of the others agreed with you. ‘Numerous’ seems like too strong a word unless I am missing part of your blog. It does look like there was one other instance of disagreement than I saw the first time. Apologies for hyperbole in that case.
I assumed the person banned in this thread had comments deleted because you responded to all his points and then posted two more times before you banned him. I assumed he had responded to you and done something more heinous to be banned. This doesn’t make the banning better, it makes it worse. I don’t know what to tell you. The strict rules and the banning look ridiculous for a blog of that size.
My claim was poorly phrased. What I mean is that I would expect these sorts of questions to have some evidence on either side. It is highly likely the majority position especially, has at least some evidence in its favor. Someone who is honestly trying to figure out the science will look at the majority position and say “oh, these are fair arguments but here are some considerations that would make us doubt them” or “here is why these arguments look convincing but aren’t”. Even with theists we can say “Yeah I can see how a designer looks like a good explanation for the natural world. But here is this other, better mechanism that explains it all (evolution) and it turns out that positing a designer just pushes the question back a step.”
Now admittedly it is possible the endorsers of CAGW really have nothing resembling a convincing argument. And you’re certainly not obligated to pretend they do. But my problem isn’t just that you haven’t conceded that your opponent might make plausible points. I’m afraid it is more general and more vague. Reading your blog is a lot like reading one of the sites giving evidence for either side in the Kercher murder. One does not get the sense that you’re interested in truth. One gets the sense that you’ve made up your mind and are interested mostly in beating up the other side and winning the political battle. Your arguments are dressed like soldiers. I have no idea what your actual motivations are, of course. But this is the sense I get from reading the blog.
So you don’t want all smart people to challenge your beliefs. Presumably, though, you still want smart people to challenge your beliefs.
If you look more carefully, you will see I asked him a couple reasonable questions; he did not respond; and that was that.
I still don’t understand what the problem is. Do you think I have ignored or misrepresented the best evidence in favor of the warmist position?
Sure, if they do so in a reasonable fashion.
You asked him a couple reasonable questions. He did not respond. A few days later, you banned him.
I have no idea if you have done done that. In the same way, If I had just read the “Amanda Knox is guilty” website I would have no idea if they had responded to the best arguments of the “Amanda Knox is innocent” crowd. But as with those websites your tone and form do not give me confidence that you have in fact done so. Maybe someone else can point out exactly what gives me that impression, I’m afraid I’m at a loss. Sorry.
His discussion strategy consists almost entirely of logical rudeness. I had assumed he was an attorney based on my prior experiences with the style long before he presented his qualification as evidence. My prejudices inform me that while they can often be quite competent at seeking out truth, speaking to lawyers is a terrible strategy for finding truth yourself.
Right. That’s what I meant when I said “that was that.” He was finito. Kaput. If people do not respond to reasonable questions I ask, I am not interested in engaging with them.
Well, if there is some important piece of evidence I am ignoring, somebody should post it. Then you can see how I respond and evaluate my tone.
Maybe he had better things to do than hang out on your web site on your timetable?
Maybe so . . . . but so what? It’s not like I’m saying he’s a bad person.
[banning for dissenting in a reasonable fashion, etc]
One ‘so what?’ is that I think you could sincerely assert six mutually contradictory things before breakfast. The concept of ‘bad person’ involves philosophy I’ve never really sunk my teeth into. Virtue ethics I think they call it. But simplified deontology labels that a bad behavior and my preferred consequentialist model assigns all sorts of negatives to the expected utility thereabouts.
I have no idea what your point is. I asked that person a reasonable question; he did not answer; so I do not feel like engaging with him any further. It’s as simple as that.
I could; you could; anyone could. Again, so what?
We have been there already. In this case my point is that you can reasonably claim “I am willing to talk to dissenters” EXCLUSIVE-OR “me blocking dissenters is not relevant”. I don’t really care which you do but you’re doing both. That’s an AND not an XOR.
My more specific point is that this behavior is highly undesirable to me and I want to discourage it.
I don’t believe I could. It is the sincere part that is hard for me. Sincerity is a hard skill to master, at least at the higher levels of contradiction.
That’s not my claim. I am willing to talk to dissenters, but only certain kinds. For example if the dissenter wastes my time by insisting on mischaracterizing my position, I am no longer willing to talk to them.
If the dissenter refuses to answer reasonable questions about his position, I am no longer willing to talk to them.
And so on.
Everyone makes mistakes now and then.
Anyway, I think I understand at least part of your point now: You are accusing me of being a liar (or of lying to myself habitually). Is that it?
This thread is degenerating rapidly. Downvoting from after this comment down.
So am I. You are free with the block command and so I wouldn’t be particularly reluctant to use it on you. I honestly prefer overt trolls to your ‘kind’. That’s just my quirk. I prefer things out in the open.
No you’re just trying to make me sound bad and claim the moral high ground. Of course, what I actually said is probably a greater slight coming from me. I claim that I am a liar when I say six contradictory things but you could say them sincerely and the concept of ‘lie’ is way off in the background, a discarded child’s toy.
Please stop with the personal comments.
Also, are you claiming that I admitted to refusing to engage with people simply because they disagree with me? Simple yes or no question.
I claim that blocking behavior in response to dissent has clear relevance to your willingness to have smart dissenters challenge your beliefs and does, at a minimum, invalidate the rhetorical implication of the question ‘so what?’.
I replied to this comment only to give myself practice at avoiding this trap. Questions stop being simple ‘yes or no’ propositions when you know that they will be glued together in a way that does not follow. Respond to the frame, not the image.
As usual, I don’t understand what your point is, except it seems you have evaded my question.
I don’t understand your point here either, except it seems you are trying to insult me in a roundabout way by accusing me of some kind of dishonesty.
Indeed, it seems your comments towards me are more informed by personal animus than any desire to actually discuss or debate anything. It seems to me you are still annoyed that I pointed out a contradiction in your argument a few threads back.
In any event, I generally don’t engage with people who are consistently incoherent or with people who consistently insult me. It’s just a waste of my time. If anyone else wants to explain what Wedifred’s point is in a polite manner, I’m happy to listen. But as for Wedifred, I’m not engaging with him anymore.
Bye.
Not too complicated for a reader to understand.
I should clarify that obfuscation qualifies as ‘ignoring’.
Well, if you think there is some important piece of evidence I am obfuscating, please feel free to describe it.
What kinds of possible evidence would you expect to see if such positive feedbacks can happen?
To paraphrase Eliezer, ceteris paribus and without anything unknown at work, water vapor is a greenhouse gas and ought to make the Earth hotter. Also, ceteris paribus and without anything unknown at work, a hotter Earth ought to lead to more water vapor in the air. There is your ceteris-paribus-and-without-anything-unknown-at-work feedback loop.
Not cast iron proof. Maybe not yet enough to justify expensive counter-measures. But it is where the weight of the evidence sits before you start asking for impossible proof.
I’m not sure what you mean by “can happen,” since in some sense lots of things “can happen.”
Anyway, it’s not a full answer to your question, but the gold standard for substantiating the water vapor feedback hypothesis would be if the proponents of that hypothesis made specific interesting and accurate predictions about future events.
I disagree, and perhaps an anlogy would help: All things being equal, cooler weather can be expected to lead to more snow cover. And all things being equal, more snow cover can be expected to result in cooler surface temperatures because of effects on the Earth’s albedo. So should we worry that the next big volcano will trigger an ice age?
The answer is “no,” and I think the mistake here is two-fold. First, rough reasoning gets exponentially rougher as you travel along a chain of deduction. Second, we can’t ignore the fact that the Earth’s climate is a complicated system which has been around for a long time. The normal assumption should be that if you push on such a system, then it will probably push back at you.
No, that is evidence of authority. The gold standard would be if the assumptions that led to the hypothesis also led to specific interesting and accurate predictions about future events (and don’t lead to inaccurate predictions).
I agree . . . as a practical matter there might not be much difference, but I agree.
But when will it push back at you? Before or after it has triggered a mass extinction event?
There is evidence that there have been multiple mass extinction events in the planet’s history, some of which may have been caused by the earth getting too hot or too cold.
Could you give me an example or two of such mass extinction events which may have been caused by temperature changes? I would like to think about your point in context.
A system can have a balance between positive and negative feeback. If it has a mix of both, there’s amplification, not necessarily a runaway. (The balance between solar input and radiation to space, among other things provides negative feedback)
Moreover, it isn’t even just a multiplication problem. There are different styles of feedback—proportional, integral, differential—and those latter two can come with different time scales
It’s obvious that pushing the same direction for a hundred years can be much bigger a deal than pushing a hundred times as hard in the same direction for a day, but it’s also true of a hundred-times-as-strong push lasting for, say, two years. Or, depending on the different feedbacks, the hundred times as hard for a day could have a bigger effect.
And all of that is without going nonlinear!
I’m not sure of that. If negative feedback dominates and overwhelms any positive feedback, then how would you get amplification?
Anyway, the burden is on the proponents of CAGW to demonstrate amplification. So far they have not done so.
Sorry for the ambiguity. I should have reflected your wording more closely and written “What kinds of possible evidence would you expect to see if the climate operates by positive feedback in this way?” Part of the purpose of the question was to determine what you meant when you chose that wording.
Since the effects are alleged to take place over decades, asking to see this evidence now is asking for impossible evidence.
A priori, yes we should. However, we would be justified in decreasing our concern if either (1) additional theoretical consideration show that, in fact, according to our best theory, that loop probably wouldn’t occur, or (2) despite our best theory, we’ve observed many big volcanoes erupt without setting off such loops.
Let us suppose that (2) is the case. Then this would decrease our confidence in our best climatological theory. However, if that same theory asserts that X will probably cause Y, where X is not very similar to something that we’ve observed in the past (so, not a big volcano eruption), then our best bet is still that Y will follow X, even though our theory blew it on the consequences of the volcano eruption. Our confidence in Y will go down, but it will exceed our confidence in ~Y. (Otherwise, the theory wouldn’t be our “best”.)
(To the best of my knowledge, our theories don’t mispredict the consequences of volcanoes, though, for all I know, that could be only because volcanoes were part of the input data used in the theories’ construction.)
This sounds like you want to construct a climate theory by taking an a priori first-principles theory and adding an ad hoc “push back” mechanism, according to which the current equilibrium is assumed to be more stable than the first principles would justify. It’s fine to believe in such a mechanism, even if you can’t justify it from first principles, provided that you have direct empirical evidence for it. In which case, great, add that evidence to the pile of all the other evidence that we use to justify beliefs about the climate, and let’s see how it all adds up.
I’m not sure what you mean by “decades,” since the warmists have had well over 20 years now. Anyway, the warming which took place during the 1990s was alleged to have been the result of CO2 emissions, agreed? And do you agree that some of these computer climate simulations have been used to make shorter-term predictions?
Well, do you agree that there many different possible feedback loops one could postulate?
I’m not sure whether you would classify it as a first principle or as empirical evidence . . . it’s just common sense.
Scientific research citations, please. The ones I know of go the other way.
What exactly is the claim I made for which you are requesting a citation? Let’s make sure we are on the same page here.
Also, if you just want to debate global warming as opposed to rationalism in general, I would ask that you visit my blog.
I was asking for citations suggesting that water vapor feedback doesn’t happen. I’ll grant that the argument is off-topic, though.
I’m not trying to get cute, but please re-read my post. I did not claim that water vapor feedback does not happen. (Obviously that’s an important question, and I invite you to discuss it with me on my blog.)
I apologize—I assumed your claim was that an increase of CO2 sufficient to directly cause a 1°C rise (about a doubling, is what I’ve heard) would make no more than 1°C rise. I objected because my current understanding is that the water vapor increases that to about 3°C rise.
If we have no disagreement on that point, we have no disagreement on anything that has been said denotatively so far. And, as we can both agree, any further remarks would be severely off-topic.
FWIW I do disagree with you on that point. But it was a different point from the one I was making.
I address the sensitivity issue in large part here:
http://brazil84.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/40a-simulations/