[mxlm]

Objection: that could only be an empirical test of the hypothesis if Liberator were guaranteed to respond truthfully.

[iamzack]

Here's the several options that are in play for Climate Change:

Option 1:  The world is getting warmer.  It's all our fault.  So governments and private organizations are fully correct to enforce any and all restrictions and limitations on businesses, corporations and private citizens to stem the warming.

Option 2:  The world is getting warmer.  We having nothing to do with it.  Governments and private organizations are fully correct to suggest actions and take measures that will aid in businesses, corporations and private citizens to adapting to the warming.

Option 3: The world isn't getting warmer.  It is in fact getting cooler.

Guess which one I subscribe to.

If the world were really getting cooler, we'd still need to ****ing do something about it. Are you retarded? What the hell?

[Herra Tohtori]

Objection: that could only be an empirical test of the hypothesis if Liberator were guaranteed to respond truthfully.

Yes, I agree in principle, but considering we do not have instruments available that would allow us to conduct more accurate experiments (like truth serums or lie detectors, or even face-to-face interaction) we'll just have to accept his word for the most accurate observation we can - currently - have of the matter, hence fulfilling the requirements of scientific method as defined by philosophical point of view called logical positivism (or logical empiricism or positivistic empiricism, whichever terminology you prefer). With the adjustments from Karl Popper of course (falsifiability > verifiability).

Questioning the accuracy of the measurements and observations is an integral part of scientific method and the definition of error bars and deliberating their width in relation to the experimental results is one of the most bothersome and arduous part of any research project or experiment. It is also often sadly neglected in popular portrayal of science, which I think largely contributes to the opinion many people have of science and scientists thinking of it as the "final truth" when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Any scientist worth their salt should always remember that a theory is only as accurate as observations supporting it.

But let us not be too hasty, considering the experiment from the last post has not yet yielded results, either positive or negative. And even afterwards, it will only remain the most recent experimental proof of the matter, and your consideration of systematic error is in fact very valid. If I recall correctly, statistical field research has to include this possibility in the error margins of every survey they complete, since people are occasionally dishonest or purposely misleading in surveys, but in this case since the sample size is just one, we'll have no chance but to interpret his answer as most likely correct, with error bars of probability being set to whatever probability you consider to be correct.

If the world were really getting cooler, we'd still need to ****ing do something about it.

I would like to add that if the world really is getting cooler, it would be just as good a reason to slow down the consumption of fossil fuels at present time.

In fact, slowing down the consumption of fossil fuels is pretty much win-win scenario in the long term no matter how you look at it.

[Scotty]

If the world were really getting cooler, we'd still need to ****ing do something about it. Are you retarded? What the hell?

Leave the ad hominims out of the thread (but I refer you back to your own statement regardless).

If the world were really getting cooler, reducing emissiosn as a whole would SPEED UP THE PROCESS, if anyone who publishes about global warming is to be believed about what emissions are supposed to be doing to the atmosphere.

Note:  That doesn't mean we shouldn't stop using fossil fuels, that just applies to emissions as a whole.

[Spicious]

Given what CO₂ does to ocean acidity we'd want to reduce emissions regardless. Not to mention all the other crap that gets released along the way.

[Herra Tohtori]

But particle emissions cool down the climate! Just look at every major volcano eruption!

 

[Liberator]

Given that I believe the Earth's climate is indeed warming up as part of a natural cycle either it or the sun is going through, there is no way that # 3 was it.

And I'll clear something up that I said earlier, "They" refers to the eco-whackos from the various ecological fund raising groups and the EPA(hack-spit) who are not in fact eco-whatevers, but left over communists from the cold war and they're sycphantic pet politicians who would see all us in chains or at hard labor with no freedoms other than what they deem fit to dole out.

[Spicious]

Given that I believe the Earth's climate is indeed warming up as part of a natural cycle either it or the sun is going through, there is no way that # 3 was it.

And of course your beliefs are more valid than anyone else's because you reached yours without the need for help from others or evidence. Specifically, it's certainly not the sun. Wait, why is pollution that is definitely making a horrible mess of several other things ok if it isn't directly heating the planet?

[General Battuta]

And I'll clear something up that I said earlier, "They" refers to the eco-whackos from the various ecological fund raising groups and the EPA(hack-spit) who are not in fact eco-whatevers, but left over communists from the cold war and they're sycphantic pet politicians who would see all us in chains or at hard labor with no freedoms other than what they deem fit to dole out.

Seriously? You honestly believe that there are mustache-twirling politicians who want us in chains at hard labor? That actually 'hate our freedom'?

In the real world everybody's doing what they believe is right (except psychopaths and the mentally unstable.) There are no vast left-wing conspiracies to enslave you.

From what you've described of your life I can't believe you don't feel like you've already been enslaved.

[Herra Tohtori]

Interesting, Liberator.

So, as a whole, would you consider limiting emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases a positive, negative or neutral action A. for the climate, B. for environment, C. humanity?

My own answers: For A, neutral or positive. I personally think it would, most likely, be best in the long run if we try to minimize our effect on the world that's supposed to sustain us, at least as long as we simply can't predict how our actions are going to affect it.

For B, definitely positive (since as a by-product it would reduce other kinds of pollutants like particle emissions or nitrous/sulphuric oxides).

For C, definitely positive as it would encourage developement on energy branch (I'm looking at you, fusion research funding!) as well as preserve valuable raw materials for various substances (plastics, for example) that are much more efficient to manufacture using oil as basis rather than fully synthetic processes.

[Scotty]

A. Could run the gamut.  Depends on the root cause of the 'warming' and where the climate would be headed without us meddling.  If we were heading into an ice age, decreasing greenhouse gas emissions would be negative.  Conversely, if we aren't really headed anywhere climate-wise and emissions are heating us up, decreasing them would be a positive.

Speaking of that, I still have yet to look at evidence that conclusively demonstrates either way what would be happening without our interference (30 years isn't long enough or thorough enought to model this kind of projection on).

B. Always a positive, although not necessarily the one I pay most attention to (or enjoy being solicited to me).

C. Depends.  Linked to A, since if Earth would be getting colder, well, that wouldn't help out humanity all that much.  However, it surely would encourage development of new energy sources (although I don't expect we'll be able to predict how or what).

[Janos]

Here's the several options that are in play for Climate Change:

Option 1:  The world is getting warmer.  It's all our fault.  So governments and private organizations are fully correct to enforce any and all restrictions and limitations on businesses, corporations and private citizens to stem the warming.

Option 2:  The world is getting warmer.  We having nothing to do with it.  Governments and private organizations are fully correct to suggest actions and take measures that will aid in businesses, corporations and private citizens to adapting to the warming.

Option 3: The world isn't getting warmer.  It is in fact getting cooler.

Guess which one I subscribe to.

I sense innuendo:

So governments and private organizations are fully correct to enforce any and all restrictions and limitations on businesses, corporations and private citizens to stem the warming.

Hmm.

The world is not getting cooler. This is a fact. It is getting warmer. This is a fact. Scientific consensus states that correlation between human activity and the rate of warming is big. It also states that the change is very likely anthropogenic in nature. Private organizations are not enforcing anything unless you live in a banana republic. Climate scientists are not trying to curb your freedom (please explain why they were agnry at China if the civil rights are important to them?) by influencing politics.  

Seriously, are you basing your stance on this particular question on paranoia?

[Janos]

More interesting news.

http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/breaking-nzs-niwa-accused-of-cru-style-temperature-faking.html

Once again I don't really know much about the site or it's leanings, but the links contained are very interesting.

Well, I don't know much about it either, but I happened to find this:
http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/

Essentially, people conveniently forgot to mention that metering station locations were changed!

[Scotty]

The world is not getting cooler. This is a fact. It is getting warmer. This is a fact.

If this is indeed true, why are there reference e-mails furthur up-thread talking about projections being unable to account for a lack of warming.  Stating that such and such is a fact only works if it is clearly, undisputed knowledge.  Seeing as this is disputed, [citation needed].

(Quote to show I'm not just standing on my soapbox)

From: Kevin Trenberth <[email protected]>
To: Michael Mann <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider <[email protected]>, Myles Allen <[email protected]>, peter stott <[email protected]>, "Philip D. Jones" <[email protected]>, Benjamin Santer <[email protected]>, Tom Wigley <[email protected]>, Thomas R Karl <[email protected]>, Gavin Schmidt <[email protected]>, James Hansen <[email protected]>, Michael Oppenheimer <[email protected]>

Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in
Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We
had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it
smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a
record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies
baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing
weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global
energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27,
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained
from the author.)
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing
system is inadequate.
That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a
monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the
change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing with
the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since
Sept 2007. see
[2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_c
urrent.ppt
Kevin

[iamzack]

So you subscribe to "HURR ITS SNOWING OUTSIDE THAT MEANS GLOBAL WARMING ISNT REAL HURRRR"?

[Scotty]

No, I subscribe to "The data being claimed as fact is contested, provide proof."

[Mika]

I think you need to know the context of that email to know what is actually meant by that "cannot account for the lack of warming". When I saw it first time, I thought about some local place, but cannot know for sure.

Meanwhile, Daily Mash has posted something which made me grin:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/climate-change-emails-stop-glaciers-from-melting-200911252254/

[General Battuta]

I agree. The continued and accelerating melting of the polar ice and glaciers is worrisome. I think the consensus at this point is that the warming is very real.

[MP-Ryan]

I agree. The continued and accelerating melting of the polar ice and glaciers is worrisome. I think the consensus at this point is that the warming is very real.

Only people favouring the ostrich school of thought will claim the climate isn't changing.  Responsible scientists are asking why the climate is changing.

I hate the word "skeptics" because most of the scientists labeled with it aren't skeptical of climate change at all - they're skeptical that the reality is as dire as the predictions, and skeptical that human impact in reducing or changing emissions is going to make much of a difference.  I count myself among them, somewhat.

Should we reduce our environmental emissions footprint?  Absolutely.  (My new job is in the enforcement of environmental regulations).  It may even slow down changes in the Earth's climate - or it may not.  I don't think emissions reduction needs to rely on sketchy (or in some cases, junk) science to tell us that we need to be responsible about what we're doing to this planet, and I also don't think it's necessary to use fear tactics and misinformation to encourage people to work towards sustainable living.

"Global warming" has become an entirely political exercise more to do with philosophy and ego than the actual impacts of the science.  In essence, it's become a Earth vs economy argument, and that is absolutely stupid.  We don't need to claim the apocalypse is coming to encourage sustainable research and development. We DO need governments that aren't simply interested in the money coming from big business donations provided they aren't regulated.  Fortunately, the organization I work for has no capacity for political interference, but I can't say the same for some of my colleagues in related organizations, which is sad.

[Janos]

The world is not getting cooler. This is a fact. It is getting warmer. This is a fact.

If this is indeed true, why are there reference e-mails furthur up-thread talking about projections being unable to account for a lack of warming.  Stating that such and such is a fact only works if it is clearly, undisputed knowledge.  Seeing as this is disputed, [citation needed].

This was already answered in this thread. In context, the quote is about an article the sender of the email had published earlier. It is not about lack of warming trends, it was about unsatisfactory explanations of worldwide energy balance. Treberth does not actually say that warming is not taking place even now, he says that current models for warming effects are unsatisfactionary - two quite different things.

For more idea of Treberth's quote, see the article linked before, in http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B985C-4WXB58T-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1113470190&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0b2fec042919e53ece6d355800b26857 (I think there's an open-for-all article somewhere in this thread):

Planned adaptation to climate change requires information about what is happening and why. While a long-term trend is for global warming, short-term periods of cooling can occur and have physical causes associated with natural variability. However, such natural variability means that energy is rearranged or changed within the climate system, and should be traceable. An assessment is given of our ability to track changes in reservoirs and flows of energy within the climate system. Arguments are given that developing the ability to do this is important, as it affects interpretations of global and especially regional climate change, and prospects for the future.

The abstract is more able to explain it than I am.