'Global Warming': let's get to the point here

[pendulum_jaw]

In light of some of the threads I've read on this subject, I've decided to start my own.

Forget about the term 'global warming', which really has no agreed upon formal definition. A term that means different things to different people breeds too much ambiguity to be useful in any debate, particularly when it's a politically charged one.

In a discussion of this nature, I think it is helpful to pull back and have a look at the big picture. It's unproductive to bicker over unimportant points. To make headway in a debate, we must choose the very salient points upon which the issue hinges and fight those battles--those are the ones to win if one wishes to recruit the majority to one's side. In short, we must agree on what we disagree upon in order to address that disagreement. So we should ask ourselves: what really is the lynchpin of contention here? What is the main issue on the table for discussion? Let's lay it all out and have a look:

The issue is certainly not whether average global temperature has risen in recent times (it has). Nor is the issue whether atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have been increasing since the 1800s (they have). The data is sufficiently clear that both these phenomena have and still are occurring. No, what is at the heart of the matter here is whether one phenomenon (the increase in CO2 levels) is causing the other (increasing average global temperature). Or, if we take one more leap of logic: are the burning of fossil fuels by man causing the empirically-observed increase in average global temperature?

Now, while this does get to the heart of the matter, it's really more of a subsidiary issue (albeit a crucial one) to the main point of disagreement. The main issue, of course, is to determine whether or not we should employ the use of force through government--an action which necessarily imposes costs on others--in attempting to rectify a given problem: average global temperature increase caused by human activity.

Perhaps it's more realistic to frame the issue as follows: Proponents of 'global warming' are those who claim 1) that the problem is real and 2) advocate the implementaion of a solution. Said another way, they are calling for the imposition of costs on other people to solve a problem that is important to them because they are concerned about society. The 'global warming' opposition is defending itself (and society, who they are likewise concerned about) against the imposition of these costs, which are seen by them as an unecessary harm. In other words, the former faction is actively advocating the curtailment of the freedom (through taxes, changes in lifestyle, etc) of the latter faction, who is essentially clinging to the status quo.

In such a dynamic, I believe that any fair-minded person would have to agree that the burden of proof rests on the proponents--those advocating the change of the status quo--to demonstrate 1) that a problem which require society's attention does indeed exist, 2) that any solution which imposes costs on others is likely to be effective and 3) that the cost of failing to act would be greater to society as a whole than the costs imposed on that society by the implementation of the solution.

Given the aforementioned, the main point to hone in on is whether or not the problem actually exists (or at least to ask how likely it is that the problem exists). After all, if the very existence of the problem is in question, advocating its solution is irrational. (Aside: actually, it is irrational only in the scope of the problem itself. That is, there are many situations where it may be perfectly rational for parties to advocate a solution for a problem that does not exist). Unfortunately, the existence of the problem can only be addressed by the proper application of science. I say 'unfortunately' because this necessitates us to understand, in part, a field of specialized science, which complicates matters. This is especially so because the vast majority of people are not prone to thinking like scientists. I've found that many people's beliefs are rooted not in logic, but in emotion, as if they can will their beliefs to become true. I would like to encourage those people to move on to the next thread at this point.

As stated above, the burden rests with those advocating the solution to demonstrate that the threat to society exists. Explicitly, they must demonstrate evidence of the cause-effect hypothesis the position is built upon: that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes global temperature increases. Without this key piece in place, the advocate's position is untenable because it provides the crucial link between the observed warming and human activity (if the warming is not influenced by human activity, it is pointless to stop the warming by altering human activity).

To date, the advocates have cited only the corollary nature of the recent relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature as evidence that the problem exists. However--and this is a logical fallacy that comes up over and over again--correlation does not prove causation. To my knowledge, there is no strong evidence to support the hypothesis that CO2 levels are driving the recent global temperature increase. To the contrary there is solid evidence that suggests (a negative cannot be proven) CO2 does not effect temperature change. If one looks at the entire climatical dataset for CO2 and global temperature over the last 250,000 years (not just the recent window which is really a minute sliver of the planet's life), one finds two important behavior of the variables pertinent to this discussion. 1) There exist blocks of time where atmospheric CO2 levels change significantly and global temperature remains unchanged and 2) There exist several blocks of time where the atmospheric CO2 and temperature are increasing simultaneously, but in these periods temperature increased for a time first, followed by CO2 after a short lag. This is the exact opposite phenomenon one would expect if it were true that atmospheric CO2 levels drove temperature increase.

To be clear, I'm not stating that the opposite cause-effect relationship is true (although there is some evidence for it). The important thing is that 1) there isn't enough evidence to convince that CO2 levels drive temperature increase and 2) there is very good evidence to outright reject this hypothesis.

The advocates' argument basically seeks to restrict the dataset to recent times, which allows them to use the corrolary relationship to first suggest that CO2 is driving temperature change. The next step is to assume (and they are justified in doing so) that CO2 levels are going to increase through time. This allows them to conclude that because CO2 levels are going to increase, average global temperature is going to increase. Sophisticated computer models were written to reproduce the variables' behavior during the (restricted) recent timeblock. Next one can extrapolate the model to get a future temperature increase prediction. But really the whole argument fell apart at the first step: there is no evidence that CO2 levels drive temperature change. Furthermore, extrapolation of limited time intervals is highly susceptable to faulty interpretations. For example, I could use the same techinique to take temperature measurements outside your home between the restricted interval of 7am-11am and establish that your neighborhood was going to be burning up at toasty 400 degrees Farenheit by dinner time.

Getting back to the point, there isn't enough of an argument to justify posing massive Kyoto-type economic costs on societies. The advocates simply have not met their burden of proof. I've outlined three hoops that advocates would have to jump through in order to accomplish their agenda fairly. They have yet to get through the first one. There just isn't much of a scientific case to support the hypothesis that CO2 instigates temperature change.

While I believe that the advocates have largely failed, it's interesting how they have been successful in convincing some to fear a threat of 'global warming'. To the extent this has been done, I believe it has been done by concentrating on the 3rd 'hoop' mentioned above [(3) that the cost of failing to act would be greater to society as a whole than the costs imposed on that society by the implementation of the solution]. Although this 3rd point depends on the assumption that the first two were already established, the advocates circumvent this requirement and simply treat them as given. They then attempt to argue not only that the cost of failing to act would be greater than the costs imposed by the solution, but that it is in fact the ultimate cost that we would pay: failure to act would be catastrophic to the very planet we inhabit. Such tactics seek to soften people for the implementation of the solution by scaring them--recruiting believers more like a religious faith than by putting forth any convincing rational argument (after all, it is vastly difficult to prove that inaction will lead to the kinds of castastrophies enumerated).

While the majority of people will remain skeptical about this issue, it is the convinced minority who are the loudest and most outspoken. But volume and emotion will not win debates--only rational discussion can do that. This thread is now open for rational discussion!

 

[jfuh]

Have any credible source to back up your claims?
For before we go on dismissing such claims, you first need to invalidate such premise all together, so plz show that it is not anthropogenic origin for greenhouse gas contributions to the atmosphere today. Show that it is not greenhouse gases that are the very cause of this current warming trend. All the science points to this all the data correlates with this as well.
The very basis of this argument is the anthropogenic contribution of greenhouse gases.

 

[pendulum_jaw]

Have any credible source to back up your claims?
For before we go on dismissing such claims, you first need to invalidate such premise all together, so plz show that it is not anthropogenic origin for greenhouse gas contributions to the atmosphere today. Show that it is not greenhouse gases that are the very cause of this current warming trend. All the science points to this all the data correlates with this as well.
The very basis of this argument is the anthropogenic contribution of greenhouse gases.

The only thing in the OP that would require source information would be the scientific study I alluded to:

Fischer, H., Wahlen, M., Smith, J., Mastroianni, D. and Deck B. 1999. Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science 283: 1712-1714.

I must admit I don't fully understand what you've written, so please correct me if I've misinterpreted.

CO2 is unquestionably produced by burning fossil fuels. And I agree (as stated in my OP) that at this point in time--as during many points of time in the earth's history--both CO2 levels and temperature are on the rise. But this is really the only sense in which they are 'correlated'. Jumping from correlation to causation is unjustified in the absence of scientific proof. We can agree on this, no?

You cannot develop an argument (at least not logically) by claiming that the cause-effect relationship is there unless it so happens that I can disprove it. One cannot hope to disprove such a claim anymore than one can hope to disprove the claim that Santa Claus is currently residing at a frosty North Pole address with an army of toymaking elves. Negatives cannot be proven. If you know of any credible evidence that can help to establish the cause-effect relationship, I'd be happy to take a look at it.

As stated in my post, the burden should be on those who wish to force society to adopt their solutions to prove their case, not on society to make the case that their proposed solution is unecessary. Do we agree on this point?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Have any credible source to back up your claims?
For before we go on dismissing such claims, you first need to invalidate such premise all together, so plz show that it is not anthropogenic origin for greenhouse gas contributions to the atmosphere today. Show that it is not greenhouse gases that are the very cause of this current warming trend. All the science points to this all the data correlates with this as well.
The very basis of this argument is the anthropogenic contribution of greenhouse gases.

Ya he covered the part about proving a negative in his opening statement, the burden of proof for causation between increased CO2 emmissions and global temp. increase is on you sir. FYI correlation is not the same thing as causation.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

The only thing in the OP that would require source information would be the scientific study I alluded to:

Fischer, H., Wahlen, M., Smith, J., Mastroianni, D. and Deck B. 1999. Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science 283: 1712-1714.

I must admit I don't fully understand what you've written, so please correct me if I've misinterpreted.

CO2 is unquestionably produced by burning fossil fuels. And I agree (as stated in my OP) that at this point in time--as during many points of time in the earth's history--both CO2 levels and temperature are on the rise. But this is really the only sense in which they are 'correlated'. Jumping from correlation to causation is unjustified in the absence of scientific proof. We can agree on this, no?

Yes, Carbon Dioxide levels have risen and fell over the last 400,000 or so years. However, carbon dioxide levels have never risen over 300 parts per million until the industrial age and it is now nearing 400 parts per million. Moreover, there is a direct correlation between increases in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and growth of the world’s economies.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png

We know that increased greenhouse gasses resulting in warming of the troposphere and earth’s surface due to less solar heat escaping into outer space. Of course we also know that increased solar radiation results in an increase in Global Temperatures. Finally, we also know that significant volcanic activity can reduce Global Temperatures.

Some global warming critiques have argued that the increased temperatures today could easily be attributed to variances in solar output. The problem with that assertion is that increased temps as a result in increased solar output results in a warmer stratosphere, a warmer troposphere and a warmer surface.

Increased temperatures resulting from greenhouse effect warming result in a warmer surface, a warmer troposphere and a cooler stratosphere. This is because less heat escapes back into the stratosphere and then back into space.

One of the central arguments of Global Warming deniers has been that in the past we have been unable to get accurate temperature readings from the troposphere that would indicate that it is indeed warming. Global Warming advocates countered that a cooling stratosphere masked a warming troposphere and made it difficult to obtain accurate temperature readings of the troposphere via satellite.

NOAA released a report in April that confirms that the troposphere is indeed warming, the stratosphere is indeed cooling, and that the surface is indeed warming. This is completely consistent with Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory, and rules out warming simply due to solar variance because you cannot have warming due to solar variance and also have a cooling stratosphere.

The entire report is here: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm

The scientific consensus on Global Warming is strong and growing stronger. As with any theory, there will be critiques as to various methodologies in the research behind it. That is simply the peer review process at work. However, as I have stated before, at times, Global Warming deniers imply that Anthropogenic Global Warming is entirely dependent upon some single study, when the truth is that there are multiples lines of evidence that back Anthropogenic Global Warming and taken together, the case is very strong for it. That is probably why every single major scientific society in the western world officially backs Anthropogenic Global Warming theory.

I would argue that while there is certainly a legitimate debate in climatic science as to whether or not we can do anything to substantially curb future warming, there is very little debate in mainstream science anymore on whether Anthropogenic Global Warming is actually occurring (However, there is a lot of hyping of doubt by industry and ideologically funded think tanks). The science behind it is simple, easy to understand, and quite clear.

 

[ashurbanipal]

In such a dynamic, I believe that any fair-minded person would have to agree that the burden of proof rests on the proponents--those advocating the change of the status quo--to demonstrate 1) that a problem which require society's attention does indeed exist, 2) that any solution which imposes costs on others is likely to be effective and 3) that the cost of failing to act would be greater to society as a whole than the costs imposed on that society by the implementation of the solution.

I take some issue with 2 and 3. Suppose we were in a starship (I guess in some sense we are) and we discovered that the ship was about to explode. Now, it seems inevitable, but then the Scottish engineer speaks up and says "Captain! If the doctor cut off everyone's little finger, there's a 10% chance that I can save the ship. Otherwise, we're doomed." It's clear that it's better to do something rather than nothing, even though the solution is not likely to work, and that action or inaction are likely to yield the same result.

Unfortunately, the existence of the problem can only be addressed by the proper application of science. I say 'unfortunately' because this necessitates us to understand, in part, a field of specialized science, which complicates matters.

In this case, the science is necessary, but not sufficient.

This is especially so because the vast majority of people are not prone to thinking like scientists. I've found that many people's beliefs are rooted not in logic, but in emotion, as if they can will their beliefs to become true. I would like to encourage those people to move on to the next thread at this point.

What's with this equation of science and logic? That seems to be your implication.

To date, the advocates have cited only the corollary nature of the recent relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature as evidence that the problem exists. However--and this is a logical fallacy that comes up over and over again--correlation does not prove causation.

No--nothing proves causation. Ever.

However, we can legitimately infer causation when we observe correlation and have a plausible theoretical framework that connects the suspected cause with the suspected effect. In this instance, we're aware of how greenhouse gasses work, we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we observe a correlation between them.

To my knowledge, there is no strong evidence to support the hypothesis that CO2 levels are driving the recent global temperature increase.

Your use of the word "evidence" here shows that you completely misunderstand the nature of the situation. To see why, try to formulate a statement of just what such evidence would look like.

To the contrary there is solid evidence that suggests (a negative cannot be proven) CO2 does not effect temperature change.

Not that I've ever seen.

If one looks at the entire climatical dataset for CO2 and global temperature over the last 250,000 years (not just the recent window which is really a minute sliver of the planet's life)

Don't they have it out to about 650,000 years ago? Why stop at 250,000 Y.A.?

one finds two important behavior of the variables pertinent to this discussion. 1) There exist blocks of time where atmospheric CO2 levels change significantly and global temperature remains unchanged

Remain so for how long? None of the data I've seen indicates this is the case very frequently or for very long. It would be reasonable to conclude that the earth is a dynamic system and at various times throughout its recent history there have probably been a number of factors that have hindered a pure correlation between CO2 concentrations and temperatures. But CO2 level seems to provide a very good snap-to guide.

and 2) There exist several blocks of time where the atmospheric CO2 and temperature are increasing simultaneously, but in these periods temperature increased for a time first, followed by CO2 after a short lag.

I must ask for some source here--all the evidence I've seen shows exactly the opposite. See, for instance:

http://www.mongabay.com/images/external/2005/2005-11-28_climate.jpg

This is the exact opposite phenomenon one would expect if it were true that atmospheric CO2 levels drove temperature increase.

Yeah, and given what we know about the simple physics of radiant energy, it seems you need to provide some backup.

The advocates' argument basically seeks to restrict the dataset to recent times, which allows them to use the corrolary relationship to first suggest that CO2 is driving temperature change.

Well, most "advocates" I'm aware of present their most sweeping arguments based on a 650,000 year data set.

 

[pendulum_jaw]

I take some issue with 2 and 3. Suppose we were in a starship (I guess in some sense we are) and we discovered that the ship was about to explode. Now, it seems inevitable, but then the Scottish engineer speaks up and says "Captain! If the doctor cut off everyone's little finger, there's a 10% chance that I can save the ship. Otherwise, we're doomed." It's clear that it's better to do something rather than nothing, even though the solution is not likely to work, and that action or inaction are likely to yield the same result.

I'm not sure I understand your contention here. If there is perfect information about #1 (it is certain the ship is going to explode), and if #2 is satisfied (the engineer has stated he knows how to fix the problem, though the remedy only has a 10% chance of success), then certainly #3 is satisfied (losing a finger and surviving is certainly preferable to death). So the decision to do something would pass muster. But don't equate the certainty that your hypothetical starship will explode to an alleged certainty that the earth will suffer catastrophic repurcussions if we do not act to prevent an alleged problem of anthropogenic temperature increase. That would be a weak analogy indeed.

In this case, the science is necessary, but not sufficient.

Agreed. My point was that the requirement to understand (in part) some of the science makes it more difficult for the general public to follow the reasoning on either side of the debate.

What's with this equation of science and logic? That seems to be your implication.

Two seperate ideas there: 1) The majority of the public do not think like scientists. This is not a criticism and I state it in support of my argument that the lack of scientific experience in the types of methodologies, jargon, issues, etc. that are so much a part of science breeds ignorance among the general public, which leads to unproductive understanding and debate. 2) Many people come to the debate armed not with a logical argument, but with emotional zeal--the equavalent of bringing a knife to a gunfight. I believe these hinder the illucidation of truth, not help it.

No--nothing proves causation. Ever.

This is a bit hyperbolic for my taste and we must disagree; more the realm of philosophy than science. Of course, anybody who wishes to be sufficiently anal can make statements like this and technically be correct.

However, we can legitimately infer causation when we observe correlation and have a plausible theoretical framework that connects the suspected cause with the suspected effect. In this instance, we're aware of how greenhouse gasses work, we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we observe a correlation between them.

I would agree. And this is precisely what this debate is about. A correlation exists and a theory exists that could explain the correlation. X and Y are correlated. I have a reasonable theory outlining a process by which X could cause Y. Therefore, X does indeed cause Y to the exclusion of any other theory or explanation? Well, maybe, maybe not--but it doesn't follow logically. To bolster the scientific case, predictions must be made and tested in the real world. As successful predictions mount, the assertion becomes stronger. This would be one form of 'evidence'. But beware that counterexamples--phenomena that fail to jive with the predictions--will serve to weaken the assertion.

Your use of the word "evidence" here shows that you completely misunderstand the nature of the situation. To see why, try to formulate a statement of just what such evidence would look like.

Again, I would categorize this type of statement as hyperbolic/philosophical. See above for an example of what constitutes acceptable scientific evidence.

Not that I've ever seen.

Don't they have it out to about 650,000 years ago? Why stop at 250,000 Y.A.?

Remain so for how long? None of the data I've seen indicates this is the case very frequently or for very long. It would be reasonable to conclude that the earth is a dynamic system and at various times throughout its recent history there have probably been a number of factors that have hindered a pure correlation between CO2 concentrations and temperatures. But CO2 level seems to provide a very good snap-to guide.

I must ask for some source here--all the evidence I've seen shows exactly the opposite. See, for instance:

http://www.mongabay.com/images/external/2005/2005-11-28_climate.jpg

Yeah, and given what we know about the simple physics of radiant energy, it seems you need to provide some backup.

I cited evidence that suggests that the popular cause-effect relationship cherished by global warming proponents--between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature--is wrong. That is, I cited one paper [Fischer et. al., 1999)] that published a historical CO2/temperature record inconsistent with the assumption that CO2 concentrations drive global temperatures. Specifically, the researchers looked at three of the most dramatic warming episodes in the historical record--the end of the last three ice ages. Using Antarctic ice cores, they found that the subsequent warming periods (in all three cases) involved first a temperature increase, only to be followed by a CO2 increase 400-1000 years later. This is contradicts the popular CO2-temp model. They also found a 15,000 year period between the 2nd and 3rd of these ice ages during which CO2 levels were stable, but temperature levels dropped down to the cold levels of the 3rd ice age.

Indermuhle et al. (1999) reported that at the end of the 3rd ice age, during an era which lasted from 8,200 to 1,200 years ago, CO2 levels rose 25ppm while temperatures were concurrently dropping. Again, opposite of global warming proponent dogma.

My point is not that these types of reports conclusively disprove the theory in question (although they do suggest that it is incorrect), it is more so that, contrary to popular belief, this theory is at best unproven and at worst, utterly false. And if this is the case, then calls to introduce radical changes to national economies are reckless and foolhardy, particularly so for free societies like the United States or Australia. I believe there should be a solid, justified reason to impose significant costs on free citizens. Problems must be shown to exist, solutions must be shown to be reasobaly efficable, and the benefits must justify the costs. I haven't seen much to convince me in this debate, and I'm proud to live in one of the countries who is leading the way in rejecting irrational global policies.

Sources:
Fischer, H., Wahlen, M., Smith, J., Mastroianni, D. and Deck, B. 1999. Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science 283: 1712-1714.

Indermuhle, A., Stocker, T.F., Joos, F., Fischer, H., Smith, H.J., Wahlen, M., Deck, B., Mastroianni, D., Tschumi, J., Blunier, T., Meyer, R. and Stauffer, B. 1999. Holocene carbon-cycle dynamics based on CO2 trapped in ice at Taylor Dome, Antarctica. Nature 398: 121-126.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

No--nothing proves causation. Ever.

However, we can legitimately infer causation when we observe correlation and have a plausible theoretical framework that connects the suspected cause with the suspected effect. In this instance, we're aware of how greenhouse gasses work, we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we observe a correlation between them.

And it is because of this one comment alone which is counter to the crux of his argument that you lose the debate. Your whole premise is based on a fallacy of logic ie non causa pro causa. Your assertion that you can not prove causation is just simply wrong.

Non Causa Pro Causa

Translation: "Non-cause for cause", Latin

Alias: False Cause
Type: Informal Fallacy Exposition:


This is the most general fallacy of reasoning to conclusions about causality. Some authors describe it as inferring that something is the cause of something else when it isn't, an interpretation encouraged by the fallacy's names. However, inferring a false causal relation is often just a mistake, and it can be the result of reasoning which is as cogent as can be, since all reasoning to causal conclusions is ultimately inductive. Instead, to be fallacious, a causal argument must violate the canons of good reasoning about causation in some common or deceptive way. Thus, to understand causal fallacies, we must understand how causal reasoning works, and the ways in which it can go awry.
Causal conclusions can take one of two forms:

1. Event-Level: Sometimes we wish to know the cause of a particular event, for instance, a physician conducting a medical examination is inquiring into the cause of a particular patient's illness. Specific events are caused by other specific events, so the conclusion we aim at in this kind of causal reasoning has the form:
   Event C caused event E. Mistakes about event-level causation are the result of confusing coincidence with causation. Event C may occur at the same time as event E, or just before it, without being the cause of E. It may simply be happenstance that these two events occurred at about the same time. In order to find the correct event that caused an effect, we must reason from a causal law, which introduces the next level of causal reasoning:
2. Type-Level: A causal law has the form:
   Events of type C cause events of type E.
   Here, we are not talking about a causal relation holding between two particular events, but the general causal relation holding between instances of two types of event. For example, when we say that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer, we are not talking about an individual act of smoking causing a particular case of lung cancer. Rather, we mean that smoking is a type of event which causes another type of event, namely, cancer. Mistakes about type-level causation are the result of confusing correlation with causation. Two types of event may occur simultaneously, or one type always following the other type, without there being a causal relation between them. One common source of non-causal correlations between two event-types is when both are effects of a third type of event. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/noncause.html

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I cited evidence that suggests that the popular cause-effect relationship cherished by global warming proponents--between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature--is wrong. That is, I cited one paper [Fischer et. al., 1999)] that published a historical CO2/temperature record inconsistent with the assumption that CO2 concentrations drive global temperatures. …….

Sources:
Fischer, H., Wahlen, M., Smith, J., Mastroianni, D. and Deck, B. 1999. Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science 283: 1712-1714.

Indermuhle, A., Stocker, T.F., Joos, F., Fischer, H., Smith, H.J., Wahlen, M., Deck, B., Mastroianni, D., Tschumi, J., Blunier, T., Meyer, R. and Stauffer, B. 1999. Holocene carbon-cycle dynamics based on CO2 trapped in ice at Taylor Dome, Antarctica. Nature 398: 121-126.

You seem to be rather selective in your critique of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Your assumption seems to be that Anthropogenic Global Warming advocates believe that CO2 always drives climate change. Therefore, your conclusion seems to be that since some glacial core studies have indicated that CO2 increases can lag climate change, that CO2 cannot be a factor.

The problem with this critique is that it completely ignores positive feedbacks in the climate system. It also completely ignores other climate change driving forces and their effects on CO2. Finally, it also ignores the fact that other factors can mitigate climate change even with increased concentrations of Greenhouse Gasses.

Climate changes can result from changes in atmospheric composition, changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, variations in solar output, the motion of tectonic plates and the location of where the earth’s land masses are, large meteorites, and volcanic eruptions. For example, we could enter into an ice age as a result of a super volcano eruption. After a period of time, the earth’s climate would begin to warm again. That warming would trigger releases of sequestered carbon dioxide from the ocean. Therefore, that carbon dioxide parts per million would lag the start of warming. Then, carbon dioxide would increase in the earth’s atmosphere and peak at say 300 parts per million. The sharp increase would be due to the fact of lesser vegetation cover early on after an ice age and the fact that less forests would exist to sequester additional carbon. A decrease in solar output occurs, which returns the world to an ice age while carbon dioxide levels are still fairly high.

The problem is that despite that, it is the scientific consensus that all things being equal, increases in the amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will result in surface and atmospheric warming. The key phrase their being “all things being equal”. For example, it is theorized that Global Dimming mitigated Anthropogenic Global Warming to some degree for a period between the 50s and the 90s. Depending upon prevailing winds, this has a greater effect in some regions than others. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

We also know that in a comparison of reconstructed global temperatures over the last 750,000 years, there is a strong correlation between carbon dioxide concentrations in the Atmosphere, and Global Temperatures. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.png

We also know that there is a strong correlation between the rise of the industrial era, and carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, and it strongly correlates to world economic growth. In fact, carbon dioxide is at 380 parts per million today. The highest it had been for some 450,000 years prior to Industrialization was 300 parts per million. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png

So far, it would seem to me that your critique of Anthropogenic Global Warming is quite similar in style to how Intelligent Design proponents critique Evolution as you are taking a theory that has multiple lines of evidence that support it, then critiquing one of those lines of evidence, and implying that nullifies the entire theory. More importantly, to adequately critique Anthropogenic Global Warming, you would need to provide an alternate explanation for our current warming, and empirically show how it better explains our current warming than Anthropogenic Global Warming.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

And it is because of this one comment alone which is counter to the crux of his argument that you lose the debate. Your whole premise is based on a fallacy of logic ie non causa pro causa. Your assertion that you can not prove causation is just simply wrong.

[/list]

If this were a philosophical and or ideological debate, you would have a point. However, it is a scientific debate, from a scientific perspective, ashurbanipal argument was technically correct.

 

[jfuh]

And it is because of this one comment alone which is counter to the crux of his argument that you lose the debate. Your whole premise is based on a fallacy of logic ie non causa pro causa. Your assertion that you can not prove causation is just simply wrong.

[/list]

There is no fallacy of logic here. Because the argument is not based on logic alone but recorded facts and data. Thus it's a rationalization of the collected facts and data. Thus again you are ignoring the facts.

Again tot, if you're going to talk about science, then cite the science.

 

[pendulum_jaw]

You seem to be rather selective in your critique of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Your assumption seems to be that Anthropogenic Global Warming advocates believe that CO2 always drives climate change. Therefore, your conclusion seems to be that since some glacial core studies have indicated that CO2 increases can lag climate change, that CO2 cannot be a factor.

Your accusation of my being 'selective' is unwarranted, as I am simply addressing the main issue of this thread (of which I am the original poster). That main issue is whether or not human activity can be linked to the recent upswing in average global temperature, and I state explicitly that this question hinges upon the validity of the idea that man-made CO2 emissions (which correlate positively with the recent temperature upswing) are not simply correlated with, but are actually 'forcing' the upswing.

Let's not dance around the issue here because this is the crucial point in the debate. After all, proponents are not making their case for 'anthropogenic global warming (AGW)' based on the notion that humans are influencing volcanic activity. They are not claiming that human activity is affecting the orbit of the Earth or variations in the sun's energy output. No, the accusation that humanity is responsible for the recent temperature increase specifically relies on linking the production of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels to the recently recorded temperature trend. This is, as I stated in the OP, the "lynchpin" of the argument. I'm arguing that the supporting evidence for its acceptence is much too weak to justify sweeping Kyoto-esque policy changes. Again, this was all in the original post, but I restate here to refocus you on the issue. What you refer to as 'selective', I refer to as 'the crux of the matter'.

If you wish to argue that AGW proponents have other ways to link human activity to the temperature rise, independent of CO2 production, I'm all ears. But let's be honest and recognize that it is the proposed causal relationship between CO2 and temperature that has been advanced by AGW advocates in implicating man's hand in temperature change.

Contrary to what you've said here, I have not assumed "Anthropogenic Global Warming advocates believe that CO2 always drives climate change" and my argument does not depend on such an assumption. However the argument that 'human activity is acting through a CO2 proxy causing a temperature spike' (your argument) does depend on establishing the link in question. If you disagree, the microphone is yours to make the case why this is not so.

Similary, I have not rejected CO2 as a 'factor' in climate change. To imply I did would be unfair. Simply put, the studies I referenced contradict a climate change model in which temperature increases in response to increasing CO2 concentrations. I'm not saying they dispove the model entirely, but they certainly weaken it, as well as the proposed link between human activity and temperature change.

The problem with this critique is that it completely ignores positive feedbacks in the climate system. It also completely ignores other climate change driving forces and their effects on CO2. Finally, it also ignores the fact that other factors can mitigate climate change even with increased concentrations of Greenhouse Gasses.

Climate changes can result from changes in atmospheric composition, changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, variations in solar output, the motion of tectonic plates and the location of where the earth’s land masses are, large meteorites, and volcanic eruptions. For example, we could enter into an ice age as a result of a super volcano eruption. After a period of time, the earth’s climate would begin to warm again. That warming would trigger releases of sequestered carbon dioxide from the ocean. Therefore, that carbon dioxide parts per million would lag the start of warming. Then, carbon dioxide would increase in the earth’s atmosphere and peak at say 300 parts per million. The sharp increase would be due to the fact of lesser vegetation cover early on after an ice age and the fact that less forests would exist to sequester additional carbon. A decrease in solar output occurs, which returns the world to an ice age while carbon dioxide levels are still fairly high.

My argument doesn't ignore other factors that influence climate, nor does it dispute that there are positive and/or negative feedback loops which enhance climate changes. Why would it? These points are outside the scope of the discussion. Climate change is not the issue here; human-caused climate change is. I don't disagree with the assertion that volcanic activity or solar activity or asteroid impacts influence climate variables. But this is irrelevant. The issue is whether human activity is responsible for the alleged recent temperature aberration ('alleged' referring to the notion that it is an 'aberration', not that it 'exists').

The problem is that despite that, it is the scientific consensus that all things being equal, increases in the amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will result in surface and atmospheric warming. The key phrase their being “all things being equal”. For example, it is theorized that Global Dimming mitigated Anthropogenic Global Warming to some degree for a period between the 50s and the 90s. Depending upon prevailing winds, this has a greater effect in some regions than others. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

This is circular reasoning. It states as fact the very point of contention without evidence. Furthermore, one cannot hope to win a debate by claiming that there exists a consensus for one's position (after all, I don't have the rationale of that supposed consensus in front of me so how can I determine its validity for myself?). Are you implying I should rely on their reputation and assume their motives are pure? Or I should rely on the fact that they are editors of Science or Nature? This might be sufficient for you, but I'd rather replay the tape for myself so I can follow their reasoning. Plus I disagree with you on your point about the consensus (for example, politicians, not scientists, wrote up the conclusions and recommendations of the original IPCC report, and several scientists who authored the report unequivocally disagreed with major points in the write-up).

With your mention of 'Global Dimming', you seem to be citing a specific instance in which a failure of the cause-effect theory was patched-up with another theory, essentially saying 'rising CO2 does indeed cause temperatures to increase, but the reason we don't always see the effect of the cause may be because of such and such a theory.' This weakens your argument because it implies shortcomings with the first theory, which is precisely my point (why else would you need a 2nd theory to explain away the inaccuracy?). It also admits that the situation is more complex and uncertain than we've been led to believe, casting doubt on the cries of 'wide-spread consensus in the scientific community over the matter'. Complexity undermines your case--more complex systems require higher burdens of proof that scientists sufficiently understand the system for their predictions to be taken seriously, jeopardizing the credibility of those calling for costly solutions to avoid possible ramifications of these predictions.

(continued below...)

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

\

Again tot, if you're going to talk about science, then cite the science.

Nope how about you just clarify your fallacy of logic and prove a point for once? Til then your entire argument is fallacious.


Causation is not the same thing as correlation sir, that's third grade stuff and you want me to talk science? Hay learn the scientific method that is learned in fourth grade.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

If this were a philosophical and or ideological debate, you would have a point. However, it is a scientific debate, from a scientific perspective, ashurbanipal argument was technically correct.

No actually it was technically wrong, his entire premise rests on a fallacy of logic. Learn a new skill because debate is not one of them.

 

[pendulum_jaw]

(...continued from above)

We also know that in a comparison of reconstructed global temperatures over the last 750,000 years, there is a strong correlation between carbon dioxide concentrations in the Atmosphere, and Global Temperatures. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.png

We also know that there is a strong correlation between the rise of the industrial era, and carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, and it strongly correlates to world economic growth. In fact, carbon dioxide is at 380 parts per million today. The highest it had been for some 450,000 years prior to Industrialization was 300 parts per million. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png

You are certainly Master of the Obvious. Read my original post where these points were explicitedly acknowledged (although I suspect we would differ on the criteria necessary to consider a correlation "strong"). The recent trends of increasing global temperature and increasing atmospheric CO2 are not in question here and they needn't be reiterated. I implore you to stay on point.

So far, it would seem to me that your critique of Anthropogenic Global Warming is quite similar in style to how Intelligent Design proponents critique Evolution as you are taking a theory that has multiple lines of evidence that support it, then critiquing one of those lines of evidence, and implying that nullifies the entire theory.

I hope that readers of this thread will see that your regurgitation of my argument is incorrect. You seem not to have understood my rationale. I am not attempting to refute 'a theory that is supported by multiple lines of evidence' by 'knocking down one of those pieces of evidence'. I am explicitly stating that 1) the notion that humans are causing the recent upswing in average global temperature is dependent on the establishment of a causal relationship between CO2 and temperature (because you must somehow link human activity to the temperature increase); 2) the evidence supporting this causal relationship is weak--meaning that it's nowhere near strong enough to justify the imposition of costs on society recommended by those advocating a 'Global Warming' solution (an understatement, but for the purposes of this debate I won't pursue a harsher definition of 'weak'); and 3) I have cited evidence that casts doubt on the CO2-driven temperature change model, which further chips away at an already weak foundation (I feel silly calling it a 'foundation' at all).

As a sidenote, I really take offense to the parallel drawn between the weight of evidence of the Theory of Evolution and the weight of evidence supporting the so-called 'Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory'. These weights are only "comparable" to the extent that the strength of an adult African elephant is "comparable" to the strength of the common-variety garden weevil. You can of course refer to this as a "comparison" if you like, but forgive me if I characterize it as galactically absurd.

More importantly, to adequately critique Anthropogenic Global Warming, you would need to provide an alternate explanation for our current warming, and empirically show how it better explains our current warming than Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Rubbish. If one asserts that 'A causes B', one need only show an instance in which 'A occurs and B does not' to disprove the assertion. It is never necessary to demonstrate 'the existence of some C for which C causes B'. Many unexplained phenomena in science are studied by ruling out, case-by-case, possible causes for that phenomena. You don't need alternative explanations to rule out causes. In your post, you seem to be taking the stance that 'A sometimes causes B', a stance that now recruits C, D, E, ... into the equation because the implication is that other variables are involved. Such a stance would change matters considerably, and not in your favor.

Note: This debate is all in good sport and I thank you (and everyone) for your intelligent contributions. While I may have a sharp tongue at times, I mean no ill-will toward anybody (the sharp tongue is intended to be more humorous than disparging). Truth is, by advocating the opposing side, you make the debate fun and educational for me. And I'm sorry if I'm right and you're wrong :mrgreen:.

 

[jfuh]

Nope how about you just clarify your fallacy of logic and prove a point for once? Til then your entire argument is fallacious.


Causation is not the same thing as correlation sir, that's third grade stuff and you want me to talk science? Hay learn the scientific method that is learned in fourth grade.

Lol. Then answer these simple questions tot.

1. Do humans burn fossil fuels?
2. Do fossil fuels release greenhouse gases?
3. Do green house gasses cause a greenhouse effect?

Simple yes or no

 

[ashurbanipal]

If there is perfect information about #1 (it is certain the ship is going to explode), and if #2 is satisfied (the engineer has stated he knows how to fix the problem, though the remedy only has a 10% chance of success), then certainly #3 is satisfied (losing a finger and surviving is certainly preferable to death). So the decision to do something would pass muster.

Not under your original conditions. #2 in your list entailed that the proposed solution was likely to help--but in my counter example, the proposed solution was unlikely to help. It was nevertheless, as you acknowledged, the right thing to do.

#3 is nearly as bad--some people might say that losing your finger and then also losing your life--the most likely outcome in the hypothetical scenario--is worse than just losing your life (would you rather someone shoot your finger off before shooting you in the head, or just shoot you in the head?). But it's still obviously the correct course of action.

In short, there's a problem with your original conditions.

But don't equate the certainty that your hypothetical starship will explode to an alleged certainty that the earth will suffer catastrophic repurcussions if we do not act to prevent an alleged problem of anthropogenic temperature increase. That would be a weak analogy indeed.

Of course, there's no Scottish engineer at the center of the earth able to definitely report that we're about to blow up. Presumably, if the analogy were meant to say that, we'd have the kind of knowledge that an engineer would have about a starship. We don't have that kind of knowledge about the earth. But what we have is fairly good.

Two seperate ideas there: 1) The majority of the public do not think like scientists. This is not a criticism and I state it in support of my argument that the lack of scientific experience in the types of methodologies, jargon, issues, etc. that are so much a part of science breeds ignorance among the general public, which leads to unproductive understanding and debate.

Well, here's where I disagree somewhat. Consider that we can describe cancer in great technical detail. But when speaking to a cancer patient about her tumor, we can explain the situation pretty easily in layman's terms without making any false statements. And so it is with GW; there's plenty of technical analysis that went into it, but we've arrived at a consensus, and can explain the problem without resorting to detailed technical description.

However, you've unwittingly revealed one of the favorite tactics of GW opponents. During the process of vetting a particular hypothesis, criticisms will be published. For an hypothesis to survive, those criticisms must be refuted or shown not to be relevant. Most of the "anti-GW" papers cited today by opponents of GW fit that category.

This is a bit hyperbolic for my taste and we must disagree; more the realm of philosophy than science. Of course, anybody who wishes to be sufficiently anal can make statements like this and technically be correct.

See my reply to Trajan for an explanation of why I say this.

A correlation exists and a theory exists that could explain the correlation. X and Y are correlated. I have a reasonable theory outlining a process by which X could cause Y. Therefore, X does indeed cause Y to the exclusion of any other theory or explanation? Well, maybe, maybe not--but it doesn't follow logically.

Depends on the type of logic you're referring to. If you mean, it doesn't follow in a system of predicate calculus or modal logic, I would agree. But we're supposed to be using abductive reasoning, not deductive. One feature of abductive reasoning is that other theories are never entirely excluded, just made vanishingly unlikely. So we can't prove that GW is caused by human activity. We can infer that it is.

To bolster the scientific case, predictions must be made and tested in the real world....But beware that counterexamples--phenomena that fail to jive with the predictions--will serve to weaken the assertion.

It should be noted that observational consequences that do not jibe with predictions do not necessarily imply the theory under examination is false; just that it may not be perfect. Or it may be that the observations have nothing to do with the theory.

For instance, we know that Newton's orbital mechanics are largely correct (relativistic objections aside). But after the discovery of Neptune, we initially thought that they had to be incorrect because Neptune's orbit did not conform to Newtonian predictions. It turns out that it's orbit was perturbed by another planet--pluto--and thus the disconfirmatory observations were not relevant.

Again, I would categorize this type of statement as hyperbolic/philosophical. See above for an example of what constitutes acceptable scientific evidence.

What sort of evidence would we conjure to show that CO2 levels are driving the global temperature rise? I'm at a loss to imagine what such evidence would look like. what we can observe is a close correlation, and then we couple that with laboratory evidence that CO2 functions as a greenhouse gas. This latter isn't evidence that CO2 levels are driving an increase in temperature--but it's what allows us to make the inference.

Specifically, the researchers looked at three of the most dramatic warming episodes in the historical record--the end of the last three ice ages. Using Antarctic ice cores, they found that the subsequent warming periods (in all three cases) involved first a temperature increase, only to be followed by a CO2 increase 400-1000 years later. This is contradicts the popular CO2-temp model. They also found a 15,000 year period between the 2nd and 3rd of these ice ages during which CO2 levels were stable, but temperature levels dropped down to the cold levels of the 3rd ice age.

And this really is a fallacy (pay attention Trajan--you might learn something). Consider a completely other example: murder. Let's say that we formulate a hypothesis that bullets, fired from a gun in the right manner, kill people. We examine many instances of gunshot wounds and find this to be correct. Does it hurt that hypothesis to show that poison can also kill people?

Now, back to the point at hand. Fisher showed that certain warming periods were apparently not caused by a rise in CO2 levels. Does this mean that CO2 levels do not cause an increase in temperature? Of course not. Depending on how it's stated, that can either be a red herring or a straw man.

Indermuhle et al. (1999) reported that at the end of the 3rd ice age, during an era which lasted from 8,200 to 1,200 years ago, CO2 levels rose 25ppm while temperatures were concurrently dropping. Again, opposite of global warming proponent dogma.

Given the overall strong correlation, and the solidity of the physical framework, it seems like the best inference is that something else was driving the temperature decrease. See, for instance:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/index.html

Looked at over these time frames, such fairly momentary dislocations of the relationship seem irrelevant.

My point is not that these types of reports conclusively disprove the theory in question (although they do suggest that it is incorrect), it is more so that, contrary to popular belief, this theory is at best unproven and at worst, utterly false.

No, that is not the proper inference. Small amounts of contrary evidence are only reasons for doubt if they can be explained no other way. The explanation that Indermuhle himself preferred is that the earth's carbon sinks were diminishing during the period 8200 to 1200 BP--an explanation supported by other evidence. So it's got little to do with the GW hypothesis.

And if this is the case, then calls to introduce radical changes to national economies are reckless and foolhardy, particularly so for free societies like the United States or Australia.

Yeah, but it's not the case. Althought I'm curious to know why you say "particularly" for America and Australia?

Finally, this:

Rubbish. If one asserts that 'A causes B', one need only show an instance in which 'A occurs and B does not' to disprove the assertion. It is never necessary to demonstrate 'the existence of some C for which C causes B'. Many unexplained phenomena in science are studied by ruling out, case-by-case, possible causes for that phenomena. You don't need alternative explanations to rule out causes. In your post, you seem to be taking the stance that 'A sometimes causes B', a stance that now recruits C, D, E, ... into the equation because the implication is that other variables are involved. Such a stance would change matters considerably, and not in your favor.

Really makes no sense either. Let's say that I assert that hitting a billiard ball with the cue ball causes that billiard ball to move in a manner consistent with Newtonian mechanics. Everyone, I think, would agree that the one causes the other. Now suppose I glue the billiard ball down with superglue such that it does not move. Does this mean that the original assertion is suddenly false? Of course not.

CO2 levels by and large seem to drive temperature increases. That sometimes other factors can interfere is not surprising. That doesn't mean we should cast our hopes on those other factors.

 

[ashurbanipal]

And it is because of this one comment alone which is counter to the crux of his argument that you lose the debate.

Really? I can't wait for your "brilliant" exposition on this matter.

Your whole premise is based on a fallacy of logic ie non causa pro causa.

Really? Typically, in logical argument, premises are taken as given; though I suppose it's often the case that they are arrived at through prior logical progress. However, my claim was that causation could never be proven. What has that got to do with false cause, which is a fallacy of asserting that A causes B when that relationship is not really known to be correct?

Your assertion that you can not prove causation is just simply wrong.

No it is not. Proof is a very strong word--it means to show some proposition A is true in such a way that it becomes impossible for it to be false. We can prove quite easily that the interior angles of a triangle always add to 180 degrees in Euclidian geometry. We can prove the Pythagorean Theorem. We can prove that there will never be a married bachelor. And so on. We can't ever prove that rising CO2 levels cause climate change. But we don't need to--we only need grounds for inference.

Before you accuse me of nitpicking, I would point out that similar tactics are being used in the "debate" about evolution. There is a standing offer by some Southern Baptist minister somewhere for a million dollars for anyone that can "prove" that evolution is correct. No one will ever claim that money because the guy doesn't want grounds for inference, he wants proof, which can never be produced no matter how much evidence accumulates. Because the general public is acustomed to using the word "proof" loosely, it makes for a powerful bit of propaganda. Of course, that's all it is, because evolution is by far the best explanation of the observed facts of biology we have to date. Similarly, I'm hearing noises from those who are opponents of the "GW thesis" that in fact there's no "proof" that rising CO2 levels cause climate to change. They're right, but it's irrelevant. There are sufficient grounds for drawing the inference.

Non Causa Pro Causa

Translation: "Non-cause for cause", Latin

Alias: False Cause
Type: Informal Fallacy Exposition:


This is the most general fallacy of reasoning to conclusions about causality. Some authors describe it as inferring that something is the cause of something else when it isn't, an interpretation encouraged by the fallacy's names. However, inferring a false causal relation is often just a mistake, and it can be the result of reasoning which is as cogent as can be, since all reasoning to causal conclusions is ultimately inductive. Instead, to be fallacious, a causal argument must violate the canons of good reasoning about causation in some common or deceptive way. Thus, to understand causal fallacies, we must understand how causal reasoning works, and the ways in which it can go awry.
Causal conclusions can take one of two forms:
Event-Level: Sometimes we wish to know the cause of a particular event, for instance, a physician conducting a medical examination is inquiring into the cause of a particular patient's illness. Specific events are caused by other specific events, so the conclusion we aim at in this kind of causal reasoning has the form:
Event C caused event E. Mistakes about event-level causation are the result of confusing coincidence with causation. Event C may occur at the same time as event E, or just before it, without being the cause of E. It may simply be happenstance that these two events occurred at about the same time. In order to find the correct event that caused an effect, we must reason from a causal law, which introduces the next level of causal reasoning:
Type-Level: A causal law has the form:
Events of type C cause events of type E.
Here, we are not talking about a causal relation holding between two particular events, but the general causal relation holding between instances of two types of event. For example, when we say that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer, we are not talking about an individual act of smoking causing a particular case of lung cancer. Rather, we mean that smoking is a type of event which causes another type of event, namely, cancer. Mistakes about type-level causation are the result of confusing correlation with causation. Two types of event may occur simultaneously, or one type always following the other type, without there being a causal relation between them. One common source of non-causal correlations between two event-types is when both are effects of a third type of event. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/noncause.html

OK--again, what does this have to do with my point?

Nope how about you just clarify your fallacy of logic and prove a point for once? Til then your entire argument is fallacious.

You know, I'm coming to believe that you just read about logical fallacies in some article on the internet.

Causation is not the same thing as correlation sir, that's third grade stuff and you want me to talk science? Hay learn the scientific method that is learned in fourth grade.

How does one "Hay learn" something? Does this mean to learn something while taking a roll in the hay? Or does it mean to purchase textbooks written on paper made from hay? Or something else?

Anyway, I've already written a little about what it takes to infer causation, which we are entirely justified in doing in this instance.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Really? I can't wait for your "brilliant" exposition on this matter.



Really? Typically, in logical argument, premises are taken as given; though I suppose it's often the case that they are arrived at through prior logical progress. However, my claim was that causation could never be proven. What has that got to do with false cause, which is a fallacy of asserting that A causes B when that relationship is not really known to be correct?



No it is not. Proof is a very strong word--it means to show some proposition A is true in such a way that it becomes impossible for it to be false. We can prove quite easily that the interior angles of a triangle always add to 180 degrees in Euclidian geometry. We can prove the Pythagorean Theorem. We can prove that there will never be a married bachelor. And so on. We can't ever prove that rising CO2 levels cause climate change. But we don't need to--we only need grounds for inference.

Before you accuse me of nitpicking, I would point out that similar tactics are being used in the "debate" about evolution. There is a standing offer by some Southern Baptist minister somewhere for a million dollars for anyone that can "prove" that evolution is correct. No one will ever claim that money because the guy doesn't want grounds for inference, he wants proof, which can never be produced no matter how much evidence accumulates. Because the general public is acustomed to using the word "proof" loosely, it makes for a powerful bit of propaganda. Of course, that's all it is, because evolution is by far the best explanation of the observed facts of biology we have to date. Similarly, I'm hearing noises from those who are opponents of the "GW thesis" that in fact there's no "proof" that rising CO2 levels cause climate to change. They're right, but it's irrelevant. There are sufficient grounds for drawing the inference.



OK--again, what does this have to do with my point?



You know, I'm coming to believe that you just read about logical fallacies in some article on the internet.



How does one "Hay learn" something? Does this mean to learn something while taking a roll in the hay? Or does it mean to purchase textbooks written on paper made from hay? Or something else?

Anyway, I've already written a little about what it takes to infer causation, which we are entirely justified in doing in this instance.

Wow do you really not get it? It's really actually quite simple, the correlation between C02 and increased temp. is just that a correlation, ie correlation does not equal causation for you to say that A = E simply by that standing alone is a fallacy of logic. Do you know what a fallacy of logic is? It means that your whole argument is bullshit and you don't have a leg to stand on. Oh and causation is not impossible to prove if that were the case then we would never have invented a polio vaccine, we never would have started creating alchohol, **** we never would have rubbed two sticks together to create fire.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Wow do you really not get it?

Oh, yes, I get it.

It's really actually quite simple

"Really actually quite"? I don't mean to nitpick again, but I think you meant "quite actually really".

the correlation between C02 and increased temp. is just that a correlation, ie correlation does not equal causation

I agree. But the observed correlation is not all we have--we have also a theoretical framework, based on its own more controlled evidence, that tells us how CO2 can plausibly trap heat in the atmosphere, causing an increase in temperature. That, in addition to the observed correlation, entitles us to infer causation.

for you to say that A = E simply by that standing alone is a fallacy of logic.

I don't know what you mean. "=" is not a symbol that is recognized in any formal logical system with which I am familiar. In sentential calculus, we'd maybe say "A iff E v E iff A" and get pretty close to the notion of equivalence. In predicate calculus, we'd just say something like "D:U, (x) Ixy" and mean equivalence where "I" stands for Identity.

But in either case, I'm aware of no fallacy committed by the simple stating thereof. And I assure you, if there were such a fallacy, I would be aware of it.

Do you know what a fallacy of logic is?

I'm aware of several different definitions. Are you asking specifically for a definition of an informal or formal fallacy? If informal, are you interested in fallacies of distraction, of subject, of relevance, or one of the stand-alones? If formal, are you asking for a semi-formal or formal definition? If the latter, please specify the system within which you wish to discuss--though I would suggest that first order predicate calculus with Tarskian truth definition would be entirely sufficient. But if you want to go with modal calculus or something, I'm game.

Since you seem to be such an authority on the subject, perhaps you'd care to comment on the recent recurrence of criticisms of the validity of Modus Tolens?

It means that your whole argument is bullshit and you don't have a leg to stand on.

Actually, they only sometimes mean that. One can commit a fallacy and still be correct. But I would counsel always pointing them out.

Oh and causation is not impossible to prove if that were the case then we would never have invented a polio vaccine

How does inventing a polio vaccine show that causation is not impossible to prove?

we never would have started creating alchohol, **** we never would have rubbed two sticks together to create fire.

You think any of those things required or entailed proof? How so? I think they required or entailed inference only.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Wow do you really not get it? It's really actually quite simple, the correlation between C02 and increased temp. is just that a correlation, ie correlation does not equal causation for you to say that A = E simply by that standing alone is a fallacy of logic. Do you know what a fallacy of logic is? It means that your whole argument is bullshit and you don't have a leg to stand on. Oh and causation is not impossible to prove if that were the case then we would never have invented a polio vaccine, we never would have started creating alchohol, **** we never would have rubbed two sticks together to create fire.

Do you know anything about science? For example, you say that you can prove causation because rubbing sticks together results in a fire. What if the sticks are wet? What if the speed they are rubbed together is not sufficient? What if they are frozen? In that case, you do not have causation, you have correlation. All things being equal, rubbing two sticks together results in a fire. However, various mitigating factors can effect that. All things being equal, increased concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere warm the troposphere and surface. However, there are many different factors in climate that could mask the effect of greenhouse warming. Therefore, while there is a strong correlation between warming and levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and temperatures.

I certainly hope for your sake you never go into I.T. For example, try guaranteeing QOS over public networks, because of all of the mitigating factors that one would encounter over the internet, it is impossible. However, that does not mean that we do not have a strong understanding of how it works, correlations, or the mitigating factors involved. Outside of an absolutely controlled environment, one cannot prove causation. One can only show correlation, and develop conclusions based on multiple lines of evidence. As the Earth is certainly not an absolutely controlled environment, causation can never be absolutely determined in terms of long term climate trends. Correlation is all one has. If one wants to dispute a theory with multiple lines of evidence to support it, then one has to come up with an alternative explanation, and that explanation must better explain an event than the current theory.

 

[pendulum_jaw]

Not under your original conditions. #2 in your list entailed that the proposed solution was likely to help--but in my counter example, the proposed solution was unlikely to help. It was nevertheless, as you acknowledged, the right thing to do.

#3 is nearly as bad--some people might say that losing your finger and then also losing your life--the most likely outcome in the hypothetical scenario--is worse than just losing your life (would you rather someone shoot your finger off before shooting you in the head, or just shoot you in the head?). But it's still obviously the correct course of action.

In short, there's a problem with your original conditions.

Ok, I understand your point a little better now than the first time around. There is no 'problem' with the conditions under the real-world circumstances. Your criticism requires the cost of 'inaction' be catostrophic--that is, it must have a large negative cost for all people in the society. You are saying that #2 is bad because if a) we're all going to die and b) we can't show that the proposed solution is likely to succeed, then guideline #2 is a barrier to implementing the possible rescue. But this is like saying that it is against the law to steal, so after a nuclear war destroys society, the law would prevent me from breaking into the local grocery store to take supplies so that my family might survive. You are stubbornly adhering to rules in an extreme situation where common sense would tell you to toss them (because life depends on it). Now, if you are trying to make the case that we are currently in such a life-threatening predicament and that's why you reject my conditions, well then I have a couple bridges you may want to buy. The conditions were meant to apply to making decisions about whether it is legitimate for governments to force costs on free citizens to solve a problem that many of those citizens reject as a problem. GW proponents know this is a tough sell with free people--especially in free countries like America--which is precisely why they must present the cost of inaction as 'catastrophic' (as you have done with your thought experiment). Only then does it make sense to institute tyranny over citizens.

Of course, there's no Scottish engineer at the center of the earth able to definitely report that we're about to blow up. Presumably, if the analogy were meant to say that, we'd have the kind of knowledge that an engineer would have about a starship. We don't have that kind of knowledge about the earth. But what we have is fairly good.

I'm not clear on your point here. Are you saying that we have fairly good knowledge that we are in a catstrophic predicament? Because if you are .... Half off all bridges! No Money Down!

Well, here's where I disagree somewhat. Consider that we can describe cancer in great technical detail. But when speaking to a cancer patient about her tumor, we can explain the situation pretty easily in layman's terms without making any false statements. And so it is with GW; there's plenty of technical analysis that went into it, but we've arrived at a consensus, and can explain the problem without resorting to detailed technical description.

Comparing the far more simplistic issue of a medical condition--cancer; for which we have stupefying amounts of empirical data to conduct epidimilogical studies on, not to mention a never-ending line of cancer patients to study in experimental trials--to global warming is quite a stretch. Not that studying cancer is simplistic, just that studying climate change is far more complex and uncertain. The upshot of having the more voluminous data; a far longer period of time to have studied the phenomena; a far larger population of 'scientists' to study the phenomenon; and many more instances of cases to examine; is that when a doctor speaks to a cancer patient about her tumor, that patient knows based on the successful record of medical science in elucidating the mechanisms of and combating cancer in the past that the doctor's 'laymen language' can be trusted. The medical community has effectively demonstrated its skill on the field of play. The GW scientists deserve no such trust at this point, not that I'm criticizing them. But they have not demonstrated success in applying their theories to the experimental arena. I admit it's not as an easy thing to do in the field of climatology as it would be in a field like microbiology, but that doesn't change the fact.

Perhaps you've read too much into the idea of a 'technical jargon' barrier. That is not the main barrier I was alluding to. The fact is that there are certain contentious issues in the field (this thread is about one of them). Contrary to your assertion--or maybe even to your steadfast belief--there is not a complete consensus among scientists about human-caused temperature change. My point was that it is difficult for an uninformed public to understand these issues of contention. Now this may matter little to you, because you may reject the contentions, but I'm just clarifying my idea. In a nutshell: this issue is more difficult to discuss than, say, abortion unless one educates oneself on a few things.

However, you've unwittingly revealed one of the favorite tactics of GW opponents. During the process of vetting a particular hypothesis, criticisms will be published. For an hypothesis to survive, those criticisms must be refuted or shown not to be relevant. Most of the "anti-GW" papers cited today by opponents of GW fit that category.

I almost didn't understand you here, but I think what you're accusing me of is the following: A scientist must inevitably publish his results about Theory X. During the routine scientific process, other scientists will have criticisms and publish contradictory papers. The critics then exclaim, "Aha! See his research is crap...just look how criticized it is!". I think this is what you're saying, so I'll address it as such.

You no doubt got this idea from the Evolution debate, where religious groups are constantly highlighting points of contention amongst biologists as evidence that something is unsound with the theory. I assure you it's a bad analogy. Evolution, like any good science, faces up to the critics (the religious pseudoscientists), and emerges from debates stronger than it went in. The religious groups' arguments revealed they clearly misunderstand the science itself, evident in the very ignorance of the points of contention. While I will accept that such anti-GW groups must assuredly exist, I am not one of them. I am interested in combating faulty science, not in defeating a political enemy.

Firstly let me point out that in science, results themselves are almost never criticized. Interpretations of results are what are typically criticized, although not usually in strong papers. That a researcher's actual calculations and misuse of datasets is criticized (as for example, in the Mann 1998 paper's case) is rare. Journal editors bear the responsibility of verifiying that the experimental methods were accurate and the results are sound (again, a failure on Nature's editors part in the Mann case). The data it is what it is and must be taken at face value--in science you must trust that the researcher is objective and is giving you the truth (of course one can try to reproduce his results if one is unconvinced). The interpretation of the data, however can differ among different scientists. These are what scientific debates are about--arguing about interpretations of data. Different interpretations will have different predictions as regards new experiments and the interpretation with the most predictive value will prevail.

I'm not pointing to any critic and saying "Aha!". What I've done is take the interpretation and show that its predictions failed in a couple of experiments (the two studies I referenced), particularly the 2nd one.

The other thing to say here is that if criticisms were--as you stated--published in other journals, then a battery of other scientists (the editors and reviewers) agreed with the data of those papers and thought they were reasonably interpreted. This goes against your idea of a consensus.

See my reply to Trajan for an explanation of why I say this.

I have a different take on your original statement than Trajan. You seem to take things into absurdly extreme territory in here (in fact with many of your points. I'm wondering if you are a philosopher...).

Stating that no causal relationships can be proven is preposterous in the realm of science (we have after all established literally millions of published cause-effect relationships). 100% certainty is not the benchmark for proof as you imply. As I stated originally, you are technically correct but you rely on a definition that is useless in reality. It's like you ask me how tall I am and I tell you I am six feet. But you say, "no you're not." I say, "Ok, I'm six feet, and 3 centimeters." You say, "No you're not." I say, "Ok I'm six feet, 3 cms and 14 picometers", You say, "No you're not. Calculating your height is an impossibility." Okay, well you're technically correct, but who cares? In the practical world I'm six feet tall.

(continued below...)

 

[pendulum_jaw]

Depends on the type of logic you're referring to. If you mean, it doesn't follow in a system of predicate calculus or modal logic, I would agree. But we're supposed to be using abductive reasoning, not deductive. One feature of abductive reasoning is that other theories are never entirely excluded, just made vanishingly unlikely. So we can't prove that GW is caused by human activity. We can infer that it is.

Now I know you are a philosopher. It's not clear to me why "we're supposed to be using abductive reasoning". No other theories have been made "vanishinly unlikely". Who has demonstrated that it is "vanishing unlikely" that the recent average global temperature spike isn't just noise in the historical temperature record? You may infer anything you like, but unfortunately the field of science is unimpressed by inferences. Science must make predictions, test predictions, and evaluate predictions, then modify theory and repeat until it's clear the theory is accurate. Inference is a logical technique that may be used, but if all you have to show for your research at the end of the day is an inference, you're not going to impress anyone.

It should be noted that observational consequences that do not jibe with predictions do not necessarily imply the theory under examination is false; just that it may not be perfect. Or it may be that the observations have nothing to do with the theory.

I explicitly stated in my post that the experiments I referenced suggested that the theory was weak. The objective among us would have to agree. If CO2 drove temperature change, why would one find instances of increasing CO2 levels concurrent with decreasing temperature levels through time? Sure I agree it's possible it simply "may not be perfect", but one cannot reject the possibility that it is flat out not true either. Be intellectualy honest here: it most definitely casts doubt on the theory--a theory which supposedly has so much scientific consensus built around it.

What sort of evidence would we conjure to show that CO2 levels are driving the global temperature rise? I'm at a loss to imagine what such evidence would look like. what we can observe is a close correlation, and then we couple that with laboratory evidence that CO2 functions as a greenhouse gas. This latter isn't evidence that CO2 levels are driving an increase in temperature--but it's what allows us to make the inference.

I gave an example of such evidence already. You check if the temperature record is consistent the theory--we know it is not. Now it becomes a question of ok, maybe it is but only under certain circumstances and how do I account for the theory's failure in these cases. Reformulate the theory and try again, or alternatively reject it. You seem unsatisfied with how experimental science arrives at conclusions.

I can always turn the tables on you and ask, what would it take to prove the theory is false? I'm at a loss to imagine what the evidence would look like. Because as it stands, and contrary to what you may believe, there's no more evidence that this theory is correct (that is, that the contribution of CO2 injected into the atmosphere by humans is the cause of the temp increase) than it's false. It's a disagreement over interpretation of data.

And this really is a fallacy (pay attention Trajan--you might learn something). Consider a completely other example: murder. Let's say that we formulate a hypothesis that bullets, fired from a gun in the right manner, kill people. We examine many instances of gunshot wounds and find this to be correct. Does it hurt that hypothesis to show that poison can also kill people?

This would only apply if I had suggested another theory to explain the temperature change, and then concluded on that basis that the CO2-temp theory was incorrect. I did nothing of the sort and I can't see why you think I did.

Now, back to the point at hand. Fisher showed that certain warming periods were apparently not caused by a rise in CO2 levels. Does this mean that CO2 levels do not cause an increase in temperature? Of course not. Depending on how it's stated, that can either be a red herring or a straw man.

I agree with your answer to your question: of course not. It does demonstrate long periods where there was no correlation. However the 2nd study does provide evidence to refute the notion that CO2 levels cause an increase in temperature.

Given the overall strong correlation, and the solidity of the physical framework, it seems like the best inference is that something else was driving the temperature decrease. See, for instance:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/index.html

Looked at over these time frames, such fairly momentary dislocations of the relationship seem irrelevant.

It "seems like the best inference"? Such fairly momentary dislocations "seem irrelevant"? Why? Just because the crayon traces look nice together at this scale? Do you really believe that researchers eye 500,000 yr data trace and say "this seems to fit the theory"? The fact is cold and unwavering: If CO2 increase causes temperature to rise, why isn't the theory holding here?

No, that is not the proper inference. Small amounts of contrary evidence are only reasons for doubt if they can be explained no other way. The explanation that Indermuhle himself preferred is that the earth's carbon sinks were diminishing during the period 8200 to 1200 BP--an explanation supported by other evidence. So it's got little to do with the GW hypothesis.

Wrong. 'Small amounts of contrary evidence' would carry little weight if they were small in proportion to the totality of the evidence. But such is not the case. There really isn't much data to work with in this field...there's only one historical record, and there's dispute over much of the accuracy of that. I don't rule out Indermuhle's explanation, but scientists explain away inconsistencies for a living and in my experience they are wrong the vast majority of the time...in fact they are usually only corrected by solid scientific evidence.

Yeah, but it's not the case. Althought I'm curious to know why you say "particularly" for America and Australia?

Well, we can disagree. I believe the dispassionate, objective person would conclude that the burden of proof has fallen far short of the mark. Perhaps I should have said 'particularly for free countries with capitalistic economies'.

Finally, this:
Really makes no sense either. Let's say that I assert that hitting a billiard ball with the cue ball causes that billiard ball to move in a manner consistent with Newtonian mechanics. Everyone, I think, would agree that the one causes the other. Now suppose I glue the billiard ball down with superglue such that it does not move. Does this mean that the original assertion is suddenly false? Of course not.

You're entering absurd territory again here. Your assertion is that an unglued billard ball responds to the impact of the cueball. When you glue it, the assertion no longer holds. You're also drawing an analogy between a know case the billard ball being glued to an unknown case--we don't know why the CO2-temp theory didn't hold in the Indermuhle paper. The data is consistent with the notion that some other "superglue" factor was involved; but it's also consistent with the possibility that CO2 doesn't cause temperature change. In any case the theory failed to predict the experimental outcome. It casts doubt on the theory. We can argue about the degree of doubt, but it does cast doubt.

CO2 levels by and large seem to drive temperature increases. That sometimes other factors can interfere is not surprising. That doesn't mean we should cast our hopes on those other factors.

There's that word "seem" again. Not very convincing. Nor would it be surprising if it turned out that CO2 driven temperature change is negligable in the scheme of things. I'm not casting hope for anything. I have supreme confidence in the scientific process churning out the correct explanation. It's working just fine. The problem is not with the science, it's with those who misunderstand science.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Contrary to your assertion--or maybe even to your steadfast belief--there is not a complete consensus among scientists about human-caused temperature change.

I only care about this insofar as it's used by GW opponents, who like to state that there is no consensus, as if that's even meaningful. Proponents of the GW hypothesis (though they are in the majority among scientists) have the best reasoning on their side.

The other thing to say here is that if criticisms were--as you stated--published in other journals, then a battery of other scientists agreed with the data of those papers and thought they were reasonably interpreted. This goes against your idea of a consensus.

Oh, there was a time when the GW hypothesis was still controversial. What I'm saying is that many of the criticisms that are cited today were, unbeknownst to the general public, themselves shown to be highly flawed subsequent to having been published.

Stating that no causal relationships can be proven is preposterous in the realm of science (we have after all established literally millions of published cause-effect relationships). 100% certainty is not the benchmark for proof as you imply.

Since philosophers more or less invented the idea of proof, I think we're still allowed some say as to what it means. Proof means certain beyond all doubt. Anything removed from that is inference only.

As I stated originally, you are technically correct but you rely on a definition that is useless in reality.

This misses the point somewhat. I'm objecting to the use of the word "proof" on these grounds:

1) 'Proof' entails a very rigorous standard of demonstration.

2) Most people think that proof entails a much more lax standard of demonstration.

3) When a critic engages a proponent of the GW hypothesis and demands proof, the proponent, aware of the rigorous standard required, replies that no proof would be possible.

4) The critic then turns to those people who think that proof really just means inference and says "See! He admits he's got nothing!" The implication of the argument is then that the proponent of GW cannot even present enough evidence to meet the more lax standard of demonstration--which is not correct.

Who has demonstrated that it is "vanishing unlikely" that the recent average global temperature spike isn't just noise in the historical temperature record?

I was speaking generally of all hypotheses and theories in order to describe how abductive reasoning works.

To answer your question, lots of folks--the evidence is continuing to accumulate. I've already posted some links and I'm sure you can find others.

You may infer anything you like, but unfortunately the field of science is unimpressed by inferences.

If you mean "inference" in the way I mean it, then that's the very blood and marrow of science. QM is a set of inferences, as is the germ theory of disease, as are literally all other theories.

I explicitly stated in my post that the experiments I referenced suggested that the theory was weak.

And in my post, I explicitly stated why you are wrong.

If CO2 drove temperature change, why would one find instances of increasing CO2 levels concurrent with decreasing temperature levels through time?

To reprise the "bullets kill people" example--for the same general reason that not everyone who gets shot dies. There are sometimes factors that complicate relationships--as I specifically detailed with the Indermuhle paper.

Sure I agree it's possible it simply "may not be perfect", but one cannot reject the possibility that it is flat out not true either. Be intellectualy honest here: it most definitely casts doubt on the theory--a theory which supposedly has so much scientific consensus built around it.

Much more dishonest to fail to acknowledge the factors I've already belabored.

I gave an example of such evidence already.

No you haven't. If you think you did, you don't understand. What we'd need to see is something we can never see--that is, causation itself.

You check if the temperature record is consistent the theory--we know it is not.

Only if you think the GW hypothesis asserts a very simplistic proportional relationship between CO2 and temperature which no other factors can derange or perturb. In fact, few such relationships exist in nature, and no proponent of GW would make that argument that I'm aware of.

I can always turn the tables on you and ask, what would it take to prove the theory is false?

Again, nothing is going to provide proof either way. However, we could certainly falsify it sufficiently by showing that:

1) Over the vast majority of observable time, no correlation between CO2 and temperature existed.

2) No known factors were present that prevented there being a correlation that would otherwise exist.

This would only apply if I had suggested another theory to explain the temperature change, and then concluded on that basis that the CO2-temp theory was incorrect. I did nothing of the sort and I can't see why you think I did.

No, it would apply in any case. That, at times, CO2 was not the cause of a rise in temperature doesn't mean that CO2 doesn't cause a rise in temperature.

I agree with your answer to your question: of course not. It does demonstrate long periods where there was no correlation. However the 2nd study does provide evidence to refute the notion that CO2 levels cause an increase in temperature.

No, it only shows that they do not necessarily cause an increase. But if we show that there was a reason they didn't in this case, we're still right to believe that it tends to cause a temperature increase.

It "seems like the best inference"? Such fairly momentary dislocations "seem irrelevant"? Why? Just because the crayon traces look nice together at this scale? Do you really believe that researchers eye 500,000 yr data trace and say "this seems to fit the theory"? The fact is cold and unwavering: If CO2 increase causes temperature to rise, why isn't the theory holding here?

1) Why yes, I do believe researchers do exactly that. I don't believe that's all they do, by any means, but I think they do that from time to time.

2) My answer was just as cold and unwavering--there is a known mitigating factor that Indermuhle himself acknowledged. When you can find a reason that an otherwise known relationship doesn't hold in a particular case, you're not justified in using that case to "debunk" the known relationship.

Wrong. 'Small amounts of contrary evidence' would carry little weight if they were small in proportion to the totality of the evidence. But such is not the case. There really isn't much data to work with in this field...there's only one historical record, and there's dispute over much of the accuracy of that.

There are plenty of reconstructions, though the main reconstruction that comes up now seems to be the antarctic ice core data. But that reconstruction is itself composed of thousands--hundreds of thousands--of individual data points.

I don't rule out Indermuhle's explanation, but scientists explain away inconsistencies for a living and in my experience they are wrong the vast majority of the time...in fact they are usually only corrected by solid scientific evidence.

Sure--sometimes they do. I think there are a few things that scientists are by and large wrong about right now. But in this case, Indermuhle's results weren't unexpected. You're just making it seem as if they are. Furthermore, they concern a period of about 7000 years against a period of 650,000 years of observed strong correlation.

Your assertion is that an unglued billard ball responds to the impact of the cueball. When you glue it, the assertion no longer holds. You're also drawing an analogy between a know case the billard ball being glued to an unknown case--we don't know why the CO2-temp theory didn't hold in the Indermuhle paper.

No, but we have a fairly good idea that seems entirely plausible.

The data is consistent with the notion that some other "superglue" factor was involved; but it's also consistent with the possibility that CO2 doesn't cause temperature change.

Yeah, but what should incline us to believe that CO2 does cause a temperature change is that:

1) we know it's a greenhouse gas and that in controlled conditions it has exactly that effect and

2) we observe a generally strong correlation throughout the vast majority of the reconstructed record.

3) again, of course the few times that correlation seems to wander we find plausible explanations.

In any case the theory failed to predict the experimental outcome. It casts doubt on the theory. We can argue about the degree of doubt, but it does cast doubt.

Not in this instance, since the GW hypothesis doesn't claim that perturbing factors are non-existant.

Nor would it be surprising if it turned out that CO2 driven temperature change is negligable in the scheme of things.

At this point that would be very surprising to a lot of people.

I'm not casting hope for anything. I have supreme confidence in the scientific process churning out the correct explanation. It's working just fine. The problem is not with the science, it's with those who misunderstand science.

It always has been, but you and I have very different ideas on exactly who misunderstands science, here.

 

[pendulum_jaw]

Your kind of philosophical analysis--although interesting in its own right--is not compatible with the more practical way that scientists analyze problems.

I only care about this insofar as it's used by GW opponents, who like to state that there is no consensus, as if that's even meaningful. Proponents of the GW hypothesis (though they are in the majority among scientists) have the best reasoning on their side.

This is basically an "I'm right because I said so" argument. First of all, the only reason I addressed the 'consensus' issue is because 1) you and others in the forum brought it up initially, forcing me to address it and 2) you and others consistently restate it in your arguments as fact without evidence. The reader of this debate will see that you are guilty of your own accusation, or at the very least, were guilty first. How is it any more "meaningful" to say 'there exists a consensus' then to say there is a 'lack of consensus'. You're being hypocritical here. At least I provide evidence to indicate a lack of consensus.

The NAS report released last week is a clear example of the lack of consensus. Why? Because the purpose of the NAS report was to address the 'lack of consensus' over the temperature record--the very record upon which the theory you are defending was originally based. And let's be clear--the basis for the revival of the CO2-driven temperature craze was the recently recorded temperature spike. I'll repeat: Congress commisioned NAS for the specific reason of addressing the 'lack of consensus' about the data that the theory you are defending was resurrected under. GW proponents have used these phony temperature record to show that temperature had remained stable for hundreds of thousands of years. They claim that only since the Industrial Revolution--when human-caused CO2 emissions began to pollute the air--is the temperature 'radically increasing' in an alarming way. Well, we now know, and the NAS report has confirmed, that this temperature record was indeed inaccurate. But pro-GW people have been claiming for years, as you are now with respect to our matter, that the consensus is clear and that the skeptics had been rebuttled (which they were, now shown to be illegitimate rebuttles). Now you're basically saying, "Yeah, the data was inaccurate, but I still like the CO2-driven temperature theory that came out of the analysis. And since we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we know that the greenhouse effect exists in a laboratory, it makes sense that it may be happening as regards climate change, so let's stick with that, regardless of the fact that the original data on which the theory was shown to be wrong." I then demonstrated that if one looks at different reconstructions--which are more accepted now in the field than Mann's reconstruction--one finds evidence to dispel the notion that CO2 levels force temperature change. Once again, the NAS report--and it is important for readers to understand that NAS is a pro-GW organization, not an anti-GW organization--explicitly states that it does not support the temperature reconstruction that had been used by pro-GW scientists and organizations as the basis for their arguments. Even after the NAS report was released, news organizations reported its findings incorrectly and many even published the very hockey-stick reconstruction that the report criticized with headlines such as "Earth Warmest in 2000 Years". It's a classic example of junk science, where the results of junk science continue to persist subsequent to the original science's discreditation.

Oh, there was a time when the GW hypothesis was still controversial. What I'm saying is that many of the criticisms that are cited today were, unbeknownst to the general public, themselves shown to be highly flawed subsequent to having been published.

Your assertion may or may not be so, but it would only be relevant to our debate if the criticisms I had advanced were among the alleged disproven ones. You haven't demonstrated this is the case.

Since philosophers more or less invented the idea of proof, I think we're still allowed some say as to what it means. Proof means certain beyond all doubt. Anything removed from that is inference only.

This is childish, and I'm surprised you stated it. It's a little ridiculous that I'd have to formally spell this out, but here: I accept your definition of proof. However, in science, the idea of 'proof' is not interpreted as "X is true beyond all doubt". It's interpreted as, "the evidence supports that X is highly likely to be true". Furthermore, the word 'proof' is used interchangably with the word 'evidence' as in "this pile of dogshit is proof that a dog has been in my yard". The statement would be false under the philosophical definition because it would exclude the possibility that the dogshit was transported there by someone. But it stands under the scientific definition. Certainly, one must rely on the context to ascertain the meaning. You may be approaching the scientific matter of 'anthropogenic climate change' from a philosopical standpoint, which is your right; but I've been approaching it from a scientific standpoint. This is likely the source of some of our differences--not in the main issue of contention, but in some of the communication difficulties.

This misses the point somewhat. I'm objecting to the use of the word "proof" on these grounds:

1) 'Proof' entails a very rigorous standard of demonstration.

2) Most people think that proof entails a much more lax standard of demonstration.

3) When a critic engages a proponent of the GW hypothesis and demands proof, the proponent, aware of the rigorous standard required, replies that no proof would be possible.

4) The critic then turns to those people who think that proof really just means inference and says "See! He admits he's got nothing!" The implication of the argument is then that the proponent of GW cannot even present enough evidence to meet the more lax standard of demonstration--which is not correct.

This reply refers to my statement that "you are technically correct but you rely on a definition that is useless in reality", and I haven't missed the point at all. To quote Miss Vyto from 'My Cousin Vinny,' I am "dead-on balls accurate" here. You are technically correct in that since you are insisting on using the philosophical definition of the word 'proof'--as absurd as that may be in a matter that is clearly scientific--and rejecting the scientific one (again this is a scientific matter), you are using a definition detrimental to communication over the matter. It's serves to confound communication.

I would agree with 1, with the caveat that it does not require 100% certainty (in science) as you alluded to previously.

2 is ambiguous, because it depends which definition you're using.

3 is false if 'proof' is taken to mean 'evidence' which it commonly does in science, so this is a clearcut misunderstanding on your part if you interpreted what I said as "I'm requesting you to provide me with evidence with which one would have to conclude with 100% certainty that you are correct." I would be absurd to require such a thing, and you are absurd to think that is what I was asking for. It's also false if you are using the scientific definition of proof as in "the evidence supports that X is highly likely to be true".

I would agree with you that 4 is unfair (I stated such in my last post). I am not guilty of 4. In contrast, I have been objective about the matter and never stated that the theory you defend is utterly false. I only pointed to evidence that shows it is weaker than the mainstream pro-GW opinion believes. This weakening undermines the notion that we should impose the type of costs (I assume) you support on free societies because it is clear (this is my opinion, of course) that through time and further analysis, it's very likely the theory will shrivel further.

(continued...)