Comments on: The climate science debate http://earlyretirementextreme.com/the-climate-science-debate.html Becoming debt-free is the first step to building a better world. Financial independence is the second. Doing what YOU want is the third. Thu, 09 Feb 2012 00:07:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: basil http://earlyretirementextreme.com/the-climate-science-debate.html/comment-page-1#comment-24807 basil Sat, 13 Aug 2011 23:53:57 +0000 http://earlyretirementextreme.com/?p=2480#comment-24807 http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JGLetter_ResourceLimitations2_2Q11.pdf "We humans have the brains and the means to reach planetary sustainability. The problem is with us and our focus on short-term growth and profits, which is likely to cause suffering on a vast scale. With foresight and thoughtful planning, this suffering is completely avoidable." http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JGLetter_Pt2_DangerChildrenatPlay_2Q11.pdf http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JGLetter_ResourceLimitations2_2Q11.pdf

“We humans have the brains and the means to reach planetary sustainability. The problem is with us and our focus on short-term growth and profits, which is likely to cause suffering on a vast scale. With foresight and thoughtful planning, this suffering is completely avoidable.”

http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JGLetter_Pt2_DangerChildrenatPlay_2Q11.pdf

]]> By: Jay Jay http://earlyretirementextreme.com/the-climate-science-debate.html/comment-page-1#comment-24608 Jay Jay Sat, 06 Aug 2011 04:06:13 +0000 http://earlyretirementextreme.com/?p=2480#comment-24608 I can understand why this is so frustrating, but don't take it out on human nature. This is mainly a problem of political process. Humans are quite capable of adapting to almost anything if our survival is on the line. But that doesn't mean we WANT TO. The hard macro decisions have to be made by politicians. We've got 2 major political parties in the US government and their main motivating factor is election and re-election. If by some freak accident, say, a president were to get committed to the cause of making the country more environmentally responsible, then it would immediately be opposed by the other party and they would use it as a tool to get elected. We're quite good at adaptation, but not when we're given a choice. It's like trying to quit a drug habit when your dealer is throwing it in your face for free. So unfortunately, we're probably not going to be pro-active at fixing this, but maybe technology can bail us out in time (ie - electric cars, better solar panels)... I can understand why this is so frustrating, but don’t take it out on human nature. This is mainly a problem of political process. Humans are quite capable of adapting to almost anything if our survival is on the line. But that doesn’t mean we WANT TO. The hard macro decisions have to be made by politicians. We’ve got 2 major political parties in the US government and their main motivating factor is election and re-election. If by some freak accident, say, a president were to get committed to the cause of making the country more environmentally responsible, then it would immediately be opposed by the other party and they would use it as a tool to get elected. We’re quite good at adaptation, but not when we’re given a choice. It’s like trying to quit a drug habit when your dealer is throwing it in your face for free. So unfortunately, we’re probably not going to be pro-active at fixing this, but maybe technology can bail us out in time (ie – electric cars, better solar panels)…

]]> By: basil http://earlyretirementextreme.com/the-climate-science-debate.html/comment-page-1#comment-24398 basil Mon, 01 Aug 2011 19:33:56 +0000 http://earlyretirementextreme.com/?p=2480#comment-24398 The world is an infinite garbage can ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k34R-LVeqXY& The world is an infinite garbage can ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k34R-LVeqXY&

]]> By: ted http://earlyretirementextreme.com/the-climate-science-debate.html/comment-page-1#comment-24350 ted Mon, 01 Aug 2011 08:17:43 +0000 http://earlyretirementextreme.com/?p=2480#comment-24350 Jacob, I always read your posts with great delight, but I am afraid when writing about climate change you are a bit dogmatic. I have read extensively about the topic and I am more and more skeptical about made made climate change. I Europe at least an open debate is almost impossible because man made climate change has become a dogma. I am not saying that the paperboy and the violinist should debaze over this, but scientists who make skeptical statments should not be intimidated by the brainwashed paperyboy and violinist. Jacob,

I always read your posts with great delight, but I am afraid when writing about climate change you are a bit dogmatic. I have read extensively about the topic and I am more and more skeptical about made made climate change. I Europe at least an open debate is almost impossible because man made climate change has become a dogma. I am not saying that the paperboy and the violinist should debaze over this, but scientists who make skeptical statments should not be intimidated by the brainwashed paperyboy and violinist.

]]> By: blah http://earlyretirementextreme.com/the-climate-science-debate.html/comment-page-1#comment-24323 blah Mon, 01 Aug 2011 00:08:36 +0000 http://earlyretirementextreme.com/?p=2480#comment-24323 @GE Miller, right on! I don't know why those who do want to stand up for preserving the only environment we know to be capable of supporting life have picked global warming as their SOS cry. Really, if global warming is indeed true, it is part of a bigger and very obvious picture. Anyone confined to blacktop who can't smell sweet flowers, hear birds sing or spot trees and animals in their natural environment under a blue unpolluted sky away from the loud noises and nasty smells of the city sees proof of what we are doing all around them! I am not saying cities are bad, but the degree to which they pollute are bad and how little nature they leave left unmolested is bad. @GE Miller, right on! I don’t know why those who do want to stand up for preserving the only environment we know to be capable of supporting life have picked global warming as their SOS cry. Really, if global warming is indeed true, it is part of a bigger and very obvious picture. Anyone confined to blacktop who can’t smell sweet flowers, hear birds sing or spot trees and animals in their natural environment under a blue unpolluted sky away from the loud noises and nasty smells of the city sees proof of what we are doing all around them!
I am not saying cities are bad, but the degree to which they pollute are bad and how little nature they leave left unmolested is bad.

]]> By: Bakari http://earlyretirementextreme.com/the-climate-science-debate.html/comment-page-1#comment-24306 Bakari Sun, 31 Jul 2011 20:51:59 +0000 http://earlyretirementextreme.com/?p=2480#comment-24306 My response to "me and mine" is that while GDP has risen steadily over the past few decades, median income has stagnated, which is another way of saying that economic growth caused by increasingly free markets actually doesn't benefit them in any way. In fact, just the opposite, it has been responsible for outsourcing and trade deficits, in turn depressing wages and requiring more taxes to pay for basic services. At the same time, environmental impacts are not all in some distant future; plenty occur in a single generations time - mercury and lead poisoning, MTBE, CFCs, acid rain, air pollution induced asthma, trends in cancer rates... Its all PR. The debate needs to be reframed more in terms Joe 6-pack cares about: this stuff effects you personally, and it effects you negatively. Because it really does. And right now the prevailing memes have them all believing it helps them. They think "environmentalism" is about saving some soulless tasty animals somewhere, or an ephemeral "future generation" when it really is (also) about quality of life for us here today. They think "free market" means they get to buy stuff cheaper when that cheap stuff really comes at the expense of their wages, benefits, and job security. They think that "taxes" means taking their hard earned money to give to people who are (voluntarily) on welfare, when it really means allowing the economy to function by building infrastructure and educating the populace, by creating order and reducing crime, and by discouraging the creating of the aristocracy (which is breaking through anyway, thanks to a couple decades of tax cuts) My response to “me and mine” is that while GDP has risen steadily over the past few decades, median income has stagnated, which is another way of saying that economic growth caused by increasingly free markets actually doesn’t benefit them in any way.
In fact, just the opposite, it has been responsible for outsourcing and trade deficits, in turn depressing wages and requiring more taxes to pay for basic services.

At the same time, environmental impacts are not all in some distant future; plenty occur in a single generations time – mercury and lead poisoning, MTBE, CFCs, acid rain, air pollution induced asthma, trends in cancer rates…

Its all PR. The debate needs to be reframed more in terms Joe 6-pack cares about: this stuff effects you personally, and it effects you negatively. Because it really does. And right now the prevailing memes have them all believing it helps them. They think “environmentalism” is about saving some soulless tasty animals somewhere, or an ephemeral “future generation” when it really is (also) about quality of life for us here today. They think “free market” means they get to buy stuff cheaper when that cheap stuff really comes at the expense of their wages, benefits, and job security. They think that “taxes” means taking their hard earned money to give to people who are (voluntarily) on welfare, when it really means allowing the economy to function by building infrastructure and educating the populace, by creating order and reducing crime, and by discouraging the creating of the aristocracy (which is breaking through anyway, thanks to a couple decades of tax cuts)

]]> By: Jacob http://earlyretirementextreme.com/the-climate-science-debate.html/comment-page-1#comment-24286 Jacob Sun, 31 Jul 2011 15:42:25 +0000 http://earlyretirementextreme.com/?p=2480#comment-24286 @GE Miller - Thank you!!! One thing I'm noticed when discussing with (what's typically either neoreligious and/or neoconservatives) is that after I've shut down their "But isn't the temperature ... "-arguments down three or four times that their position reverts to something about FREE MARKETS (they usually capitalize this 8-) ) and that is actually indeed the discussion we should be having in the first place. It does, however, seem that a great deal of people are only concerned about "me and mine". If they can get what they want at the expense of others, even if the cost is huge, they're good. I find I can not argue against this lack of empathy. Their position is essentially one of "might is right" and if you bring up future generations, their response is "I'll leave some money for my grand children". It's a pretty tricky situation. It's also a failure of democracy, kinda like how the boomers being a large generation [with lots of voters] have voted in all sorts of entitlements for themselves for future generations (X, Y, and Z) to pay. Maybe there are strong parallels here... @GE Miller – Thank you!!!

One thing I’m noticed when discussing with (what’s typically either neoreligious and/or neoconservatives) is that after I’ve shut down their “But isn’t the temperature … “-arguments down three or four times that their position reverts to something about FREE MARKETS (they usually capitalize this 8-) ) and that is actually indeed the discussion we should be having in the first place.

It does, however, seem that a great deal of people are only concerned about “me and mine”. If they can get what they want at the expense of others, even if the cost is huge, they’re good.

I find I can not argue against this lack of empathy. Their position is essentially one of “might is right” and if you bring up future generations, their response is “I’ll leave some money for my grand children”.

It’s a pretty tricky situation.

It’s also a failure of democracy, kinda like how the boomers being a large generation [with lots of voters] have voted in all sorts of entitlements for themselves for future generations (X, Y, and Z) to pay. Maybe there are strong parallels here…

]]> By: GE Miller http://earlyretirementextreme.com/the-climate-science-debate.html/comment-page-1#comment-24283 GE Miller Sun, 31 Jul 2011 15:25:35 +0000 http://earlyretirementextreme.com/?p=2480#comment-24283 For those who give a damn about the environment and our legacy to existing and future generations of all life on this planet (what concern about global warming is REALLY all about), the problem is that we've let this "debate" evolve to evidence of global warming - which can be nitpicked or scientifically disputed with money from those in power. That's not where the discussion should be. Even if we are able to come to 100% consensus that humans are creating Global Warming, it's no better than going to a doctor to get a cholesterol test when you weigh 500 lbs. You. Are. Fucking. Fat! The test results mean nothing. The fact that you ate like a pig for 20 years is what got you to this point - and there's no denying you did or that you've caused unfixable harm to your heart, organs, skin, and cells in your body. What is important here is that humans are infinitely manipulating and raping finite resources in the name of economic 'prosperity' in a way that is not natural and will eventually lead to our complete extinction as a species. There are realities that cannot be denied. 1. We (humans) are spewing out extreme amounts of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide. We are also chewing threw ridiculous amounts of other non-renewable resources to create all the stuff we use and throw in the ocean and landfills when we upgrade it or are simply bored with it. 2. None of this can be denied. Any disbelievers can go stick their mouths on a tailpipe for 20 miles, take a swim in the Pacific trash floating mass, or go for a nice picnic at their friendly local landfill. 3. None of this is sustainable. And it's only getting worse as population continues to explode and non-Western cultures continue their shift to Westernization. 4. If we don't stop it entirely, we (humans) and they (every other life form on this planet) will cease to exist. 5. We (humans) have an individual and a group collective responsibility to do everything we can to stop this non-sense. Is this possible? Like Jacob says, probably only at the individual level. And for those who still have a little bit of heart and conscience left in their tired souls, that's the path in life we'll choose. Will it be enough? Probably not. But living the rest of your life with guilt, shame, or just plain ignorance is not an enviable path. Your political and religious leaders can't clean that up. For those who give a damn about the environment and our legacy to existing and future generations of all life on this planet (what concern about global warming is REALLY all about), the problem is that we’ve let this “debate” evolve to evidence of global warming – which can be nitpicked or scientifically disputed with money from those in power.

That’s not where the discussion should be. Even if we are able to come to 100% consensus that humans are creating Global Warming, it’s no better than going to a doctor to get a cholesterol test when you weigh 500 lbs. You. Are. Fucking. Fat! The test results mean nothing. The fact that you ate like a pig for 20 years is what got you to this point – and there’s no denying you did or that you’ve caused unfixable harm to your heart, organs, skin, and cells in your body.

What is important here is that humans are infinitely manipulating and raping finite resources in the name of economic ‘prosperity’ in a way that is not natural and will eventually lead to our complete extinction as a species.

There are realities that cannot be denied.
1. We (humans) are spewing out extreme amounts of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide. We are also chewing threw ridiculous amounts of other non-renewable resources to create all the stuff we use and throw in the ocean and landfills when we upgrade it or are simply bored with it.
2. None of this can be denied. Any disbelievers can go stick their mouths on a tailpipe for 20 miles, take a swim in the Pacific trash floating mass, or go for a nice picnic at their friendly local landfill.
3. None of this is sustainable. And it’s only getting worse as population continues to explode and non-Western cultures continue their shift to Westernization.
4. If we don’t stop it entirely, we (humans) and they (every other life form on this planet) will cease to exist.
5. We (humans) have an individual and a group collective responsibility to do everything we can to stop this non-sense. Is this possible? Like Jacob says, probably only at the individual level. And for those who still have a little bit of heart and conscience left in their tired souls, that’s the path in life we’ll choose. Will it be enough? Probably not. But living the rest of your life with guilt, shame, or just plain ignorance is not an enviable path. Your political and religious leaders can’t clean that up.

]]> By: Ugly American http://earlyretirementextreme.com/the-climate-science-debate.html/comment-page-1#comment-24270 Ugly American Sun, 31 Jul 2011 12:01:05 +0000 http://earlyretirementextreme.com/?p=2480#comment-24270 Hyperbolic Discounting Tragedy of the Commons Rationalization Hyperbolic Discounting

Tragedy of the Commons

Rationalization

]]> By: pb http://earlyretirementextreme.com/the-climate-science-debate.html/comment-page-1#comment-24219 pb Sat, 30 Jul 2011 18:55:46 +0000 http://earlyretirementextreme.com/?p=2480#comment-24219 seems that the people that want to change the way things are to "save us" are doing it a fasion to improve their position and make the rest of our's worse. I do NOT believe the plant is being destroyed - it was here before and it will be here after us. seems that the people that want to change the way things are to “save us” are doing it a fasion to improve their position and make the rest of our’s worse. I do NOT believe the plant is being destroyed – it was here before and it will be here after us.

]]> By: blah http://earlyretirementextreme.com/the-climate-science-debate.html/comment-page-1#comment-24218 blah Sat, 30 Jul 2011 18:19:44 +0000 http://earlyretirementextreme.com/?p=2480#comment-24218 The thing that is truly sad is that we have to talk about any of the side effects in order to simply get people to respect the beautiful planet they have been given and even then it doesn't work. I was totally upset about the way people so ruthlessly exploit and destroy natural resources and pollute them long before I ever heard the words "climate change". Climate change may well be a problem, but what we are doing to the earth could and does kill many people in a multitude of ways. 2 of my close friends from China both lost their nonsmoking fathers to lung cancer at an early age because they use so much coal which is a very dirty energy source. The sad truth is that people are selfish and want convenience and so don't care even if they get cancer later at a future date. Trying to get people to changed because of the inpending doom of climate change is like trying to get someone to quit smoking because they will get lung cancer in the future. It works on some, but not the critical mass it will take to change things. The thing that is truly sad is that we have to talk about any of the side effects in order to simply get people to respect the beautiful planet they have been given and even then it doesn’t work. I was totally upset about the way people so ruthlessly exploit and destroy natural resources and pollute them long before I ever heard the words “climate change”. Climate change may well be a problem, but what we are doing to the earth could and does kill many people in a multitude of ways. 2 of my close friends from China both lost their nonsmoking fathers to lung cancer at an early age because they use so much coal which is a very dirty energy source.
The sad truth is that people are selfish and want convenience and so don’t care even if they get cancer later at a future date. Trying to get people to changed because of the inpending doom of climate change is like trying to get someone to quit smoking because they will get lung cancer in the future.
It works on some, but not the critical mass it will take to change things.

]]> By: Scott http://earlyretirementextreme.com/the-climate-science-debate.html/comment-page-1#comment-24214 Scott Sat, 30 Jul 2011 15:04:45 +0000 http://earlyretirementextreme.com/?p=2480#comment-24214 Scarce resources are only critical to those who can't get enough. For everyone else, they're another way to make money and consolidate power. A politician can't come out and say "we'll just screw the 3rd world if this becomes a problem, let's have ours now and later", even if the majority of Americans are thinking it. The alternative they are left with is to dismiss the idea, attacking the science in the process. I think stupidity has very little to do with it - politicians are extremely clever people. Selfless behavior may mean more for everyone, but it is only rational if you can count on it from others AND they will penalize you for being selfish. Scarce resources are only critical to those who can’t get enough. For everyone else, they’re another way to make money and consolidate power.

A politician can’t come out and say “we’ll just screw the 3rd world if this becomes a problem, let’s have ours now and later”, even if the majority of Americans are thinking it.

The alternative they are left with is to dismiss the idea, attacking the science in the process. I think stupidity has very little to do with it – politicians are extremely clever people.

Selfless behavior may mean more for everyone, but it is only rational if you can count on it from others AND they will penalize you for being selfish.

]]> By: Annemarie http://earlyretirementextreme.com/the-climate-science-debate.html/comment-page-1#comment-24213 Annemarie Sat, 30 Jul 2011 14:57:54 +0000 http://earlyretirementextreme.com/?p=2480#comment-24213 I think the debate on climate change is fundamentally about the solutions, not the science. It's as if people believe that if you accept the facts of climate change, then you *have* to believe that we must all join the Green movement. Which is a whole 'nother problem. But it doesn't have to be that way, does it? I think the debate on climate change is fundamentally about the solutions, not the science. It’s as if people believe that if you accept the facts of climate change, then you *have* to believe that we must all join the Green movement.

Which is a whole ‘nother problem.

But it doesn’t have to be that way, does it?

]]> By: Jen http://earlyretirementextreme.com/the-climate-science-debate.html/comment-page-1#comment-24212 Jen Sat, 30 Jul 2011 14:25:20 +0000 http://earlyretirementextreme.com/?p=2480#comment-24212 "not even in trying to debate with people when their idea of debating is to win the argument rather than to find the truth" I love this, so very true. I grew up in a really conservative Baptist environment where people were incredibly wasteful, like they used mountains of styrofoam at church suppers, etc. Their idea is that God is going to save us in the Rapture before the environment gets too bad anyway, so who cares!? Impossible to argue with logic like that!!! “not even in trying to debate with people when their idea of debating is to win the argument rather than to find the truth”

I love this, so very true. I grew up in a really conservative Baptist environment where people were incredibly wasteful, like they used mountains of styrofoam at church suppers, etc. Their idea is that God is going to save us in the Rapture before the environment gets too bad anyway, so who cares!? Impossible to argue with logic like that!!!

]]> By: Natalie http://earlyretirementextreme.com/the-climate-science-debate.html/comment-page-1#comment-24210 Natalie Sat, 30 Jul 2011 14:04:44 +0000 http://earlyretirementextreme.com/?p=2480#comment-24210 As an evolutionary biologist, I've become tired of "debates" about topics like this long ago. To the people who devote their lives to studying this topic, human caused climate change is the generally accepted model, just like evolution is a measurable occurrence and the dinosaurs really did exist. I met someone the other day who said he didn't believe in dinosaurs! How do you argue with a statement like that? He's already made up his mind on the conclusion before he has any evidence. If you don't think climate change is happening, you are blind. If you don't think climate change is caused by humans, study climate change and publish a paper backing your position with data just like everyone else does. We'd love to see your results. Posting on forums is the equivalent to wandering the streets yelling at the sky. You may feel better, but it doesn't change anything. Laymen "debating" science is insulting. First it's not a debate. Second you wouldn't go onto forums and debate how to build a bridge if you haven't studied engineering. Why do you think you can fully understand and meaningfully contribute to this field without any knowledge of it? As an evolutionary biologist, I’ve become tired of “debates” about topics like this long ago. To the people who devote their lives to studying this topic, human caused climate change is the generally accepted model, just like evolution is a measurable occurrence and the dinosaurs really did exist. I met someone the other day who said he didn’t believe in dinosaurs! How do you argue with a statement like that? He’s already made up his mind on the conclusion before he has any evidence.

If you don’t think climate change is happening, you are blind. If you don’t think climate change is caused by humans, study climate change and publish a paper backing your position with data just like everyone else does. We’d love to see your results. Posting on forums is the equivalent to wandering the streets yelling at the sky. You may feel better, but it doesn’t change anything. Laymen “debating” science is insulting. First it’s not a debate. Second you wouldn’t go onto forums and debate how to build a bridge if you haven’t studied engineering. Why do you think you can fully understand and meaningfully contribute to this field without any knowledge of it?

]]> By: Mr. Morlock http://earlyretirementextreme.com/the-climate-science-debate.html/comment-page-1#comment-24209 Mr. Morlock Sat, 30 Jul 2011 13:32:14 +0000 http://earlyretirementextreme.com/?p=2480#comment-24209 Can I interest you in a new SUV? All the fashionable Eloi are driving them these days! Can I interest you in a new SUV?

All the fashionable Eloi are driving them these days!

]]> By: Cristhyano http://earlyretirementextreme.com/the-climate-science-debate.html/comment-page-1#comment-24205 Cristhyano Sat, 30 Jul 2011 12:41:13 +0000 http://earlyretirementextreme.com/?p=2480#comment-24205 The decisions doesn't lie in politicians and governments. They don't rule countries, they're mere puppets for private companies and they won't allow people to stop using oil. The decisions doesn’t lie in politicians and governments. They don’t rule countries, they’re mere puppets for private companies and they won’t allow people to stop using oil.

]]> By: blah http://earlyretirementextreme.com/the-climate-science-debate.html/comment-page-1#comment-24194 blah Sat, 30 Jul 2011 09:06:38 +0000 http://earlyretirementextreme.com/?p=2480#comment-24194 The thing I find annoying in general is that some people in certain areas of "science" have the mistaken impression that their "science" in the form of future models and predictions is somehow the same in quality and certainty to the science that proves something currently verifyable in a tangible way. So, more specifically, it is highly annoying when those who study stuff they can't reproduce immediately in a lab such as those who do study climate change models, big bang models, or evolutionary models think somehow their science is as verifyable and solidly reliable as those who study germs and molecules or electricity. Predictions and models are not the same as things we can actually verify and test right there in the lab. And it used to be that the scientific method required a more rigorous set of requirements before something could be considered scientifically "proven". Now all we need is data and a model where the math looks viable within the prediction rather than actual produced proof. There really needs to be a distinction made. If imperical evidence can't exist because climate change cannot be created within a lab, then a little more humility is really in order or at least we should not dilude ourselves to think predictive models are the same as molecules germs or medicine which are verifiable and provable in real life immediately. All that being said, it doesn't mean that I disagree with the things I picked on, in particular the big bang and climate change. There may be reason to think they are reasonable models, but it doesn't mean I am going to believe in them as certainly as I know that electricity and germs exist. There is a fundamental difference in kind when you talk about models vs real varifyable science and yet its all called science and gets to be labeled as true when the model based stuff cannot in the here and now be viewed first hand. That in itself makes it different in kind in my opinion. It doesn't mean that models are wrong, but I do take issue with science which has to depend on them rather than a tangible result in the here and now, considering itself as certain as the stuff we can really prove such as the fact that germs do exist. The thing I find annoying in general is that
some people in certain areas of “science” have the
mistaken impression that their “science” in the form of future models and predictions is somehow the same in quality and certainty to the science that proves something currently verifyable in a tangible way. So, more specifically, it is highly annoying when those who study stuff they can’t reproduce immediately in a lab such as those who do study climate change models, big bang models, or evolutionary models think somehow their science is as verifyable and solidly reliable as those who study germs and molecules or electricity. Predictions and models are not the same as things we can actually verify and test right there in the lab. And it used to be that the scientific method required a more rigorous set of requirements before something could be considered scientifically “proven”. Now all we need is data and a model where the math looks viable within the prediction rather than actual produced proof.
There really needs to be a distinction made. If imperical evidence can’t exist because climate change cannot be created within a lab, then a little more humility is really in order or at least we should not dilude ourselves to think predictive models are the same as molecules germs or medicine which are verifiable and provable in real life immediately.
All that being said, it doesn’t mean that I disagree with the things I picked on, in particular the big bang and climate change. There may be reason to think they are reasonable models, but it doesn’t mean I am going to believe in them as certainly as I know that electricity and germs exist.
There is a fundamental difference in kind when you talk about models vs real varifyable science and yet its all called science and gets to be labeled as true when the model based stuff cannot in the here and now be viewed first hand. That in itself makes it different in kind in my opinion.
It doesn’t mean that models are wrong, but I do take issue with science which has to depend on them rather than a tangible result in the here and now, considering itself as certain as the stuff we can really prove such as the fact that germs do exist.

]]> By: Clyde http://earlyretirementextreme.com/the-climate-science-debate.html/comment-page-1#comment-24190 Clyde Sat, 30 Jul 2011 08:11:07 +0000 http://earlyretirementextreme.com/?p=2480#comment-24190 Assuming that you want to believe in the theory of evolution, we are simply a hairless ape that until very, very recently (in evolutionary terms) has enabled itself to live far longer than for 99.99% of the life of the species. We have evolved to live for just long enough to procreate and pass on our genes, fifteen to twenty years tops. We simply are unable to live for the long-term. If we manage to kick the can for another couple of hundred thousand years then we may be able to evolve a way around the problem. What are the odds? Assuming that you want to believe in the theory of evolution, we are simply a hairless ape that until very, very recently (in evolutionary terms) has enabled itself to live far longer than for 99.99% of the life of the species.
We have evolved to live for just long enough to procreate and pass on our genes, fifteen to twenty years tops. We simply are unable to live for the long-term.
If we manage to kick the can for another couple of hundred thousand years then we may be able to evolve a way around the problem.
What are the odds?

]]> By: Britz http://earlyretirementextreme.com/the-climate-science-debate.html/comment-page-1#comment-18289 Britz Mon, 29 Nov 2010 05:02:01 +0000 http://earlyretirementextreme.com/?p=2480#comment-18289 @MnMark: Do you dispute the existence of electrons, or the gigantic size of stars, or Newton's laws? You have never seen electrons or huge stars up close, and if you throw a ball, then it won't just continue in a straight line. And yet, you presumably believe these bits of Science. So why do you not believe climate scientists when they send their warmings? Those scientists might turn out to be wrong - but it is for them to find out using their scientific expertise. The truth of the matter cannot and should not be settled by public debate. Just imagine if electrons are suddenly seen as bad things, for whatever commercial or political reasons, and huge lobby money is spent on convincing politicians and public that those "electrons" don't exist. It wouldn't take much of a campaign to convince people of that. Hell, you could even convince people that Science is all wrong; that the world was all created by Santa Claus and his arbitrary whims. Nice article that you linked to, and I don't dispute it. However, the article is a little misleading in that the graphs exclude the temperatures for the last 110 years (the ice core data does not provide this but other measurements do), and that these are Greenland temperatures only, not necessarily global temperatures. I could discuss this further but I'm a mathematician, not a climate scientist, so I'm not really qualified to do so. However, I would like to point out a meta-fact, namely that hardly any experts are dooming about Earth's demise; rather, the experts are worried about 1) a global-warming-induced Ice Age (long overdue, as the your graphs show) or just 2) rising sea levels and weather-pattern changes that will kill hundreds of millions of humans (but won't damage the planet much as a whole). Either way, it would be prudent to try to avoid these putative futures. Not so much from a Green Peace perspective as from a humanitarian and financial/stability/social perspective. PS: Why would you consider global warming to be a "leftist" movement? The "fear-mongering" of the 60-70s about environmental issues might have been championed more by "the left" than by others; these issues are common concerns today, however, and the warnings from back then have, on average, turned out to be fully justified. PPS: The public knee-jerking and disregard for expertise and facts ties extremely well in with Jacob's other messages, including ERE. If you haven't already, then watch the video clip that this blog entry links to. Here, you see a dispute between rational argument vs. populistic (and rude) anti-Science (ironically, by a professor). That's not ok, regardless of your stance on global warming. @MnMark: Do you dispute the existence of electrons, or the gigantic size of stars, or Newton’s laws? You have never seen electrons or huge stars up close, and if you throw a ball, then it won’t just continue in a straight line. And yet, you presumably believe these bits of Science. So why do you not believe climate scientists when they send their warmings? Those scientists might turn out to be wrong – but it is for them to find out using their scientific expertise. The truth of the matter cannot and should not be settled by public debate. Just imagine if electrons are suddenly seen as bad things, for whatever commercial or political reasons, and huge lobby money is spent on convincing politicians and public that those “electrons” don’t exist. It wouldn’t take much of a campaign to convince people of that. Hell, you could even convince people that Science is all wrong; that the world was all created by Santa Claus and his arbitrary whims.

Nice article that you linked to, and I don’t dispute it. However, the article is a little misleading in that the graphs exclude the temperatures for the last 110 years (the ice core data does not provide this but other measurements do), and that these are Greenland temperatures only, not necessarily global temperatures. I could discuss this further but I’m a mathematician, not a climate scientist, so I’m not really qualified to do so. However, I would like to point out a meta-fact, namely that hardly any experts are dooming about Earth’s demise; rather, the experts are worried about 1) a global-warming-induced Ice Age (long overdue, as the your graphs show) or just 2) rising sea levels and weather-pattern changes that will kill hundreds of millions of humans (but won’t damage the planet much as a whole). Either way, it would be prudent to try to avoid these putative futures. Not so much from a Green Peace perspective as from a humanitarian and financial/stability/social perspective.

PS: Why would you consider global warming to be a “leftist” movement? The “fear-mongering” of the 60-70s about environmental issues might have been championed more by “the left” than by others; these issues are common concerns today, however, and the warnings from back then have, on average, turned out to be fully justified.

PPS: The public knee-jerking and disregard for expertise and facts ties extremely well in with Jacob’s other messages, including ERE. If you haven’t already, then watch the video clip that this blog entry links to. Here, you see a dispute between rational argument vs. populistic (and rude) anti-Science (ironically, by a professor). That’s not ok, regardless of your stance on global warming.

]]>