The Great Global Warming Swindle

Do you have a clue as to what the word "virtual" means?

Here's the definition courtesy of www.m-w.com ;
Main Entry: vir·tu·al
Pronunciation: 'v&r-ch&-w&l, -ch&l; 'v&rch-w&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, efficacious, potential, from Medieval Latin virtualis, from Latin virtus strength, virtue
1 : being such in essence or effect though not formally recognized or admitted <a virtual dictator>
2 : of, relating to, or using virtual memory
3 : of, relating to, or being a hypothetical particle whose existence is inferred from indirect evidence <virtual photons> -- compare REAL 3
4 : being on or simulated on a computer or computer network <print or virtual books> <a virtual keyboard>: as a : occurring or existing primarily online <a virtual library> <virtual shopping> b : of, relating to, or existing within a virtual reality <a virtual world> <a virtual tour>

"Virtual" when referring to "science" is an oxymoron...and that highlights precisely why this is a religious argument for you.

If anthropogenic global warming was true science, it wouldn't be subject to opinion, consensus, or interpretation.

I'll just leave this link for those willing to understand that what we're dealing with in this conversation is far from scientific fact;
http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_art...&cname=Opinion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gman

Do you have a clue as to what the word "virtual" means?

Here's the definition courtesy of www.m-w.com ;
Main Entry: vir·tu·al
Pronunciation: 'v&r-ch&-w&l, -ch&l; 'v&rch-w&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, efficacious, potential, from Medieval Latin virtualis, from Latin virtus strength, virtue
1 : being such in essence or effect though not formally recognized or admitted <a virtual dictator>
2 : of, relating to, or using virtual memory
3 : of, relating to, or being a hypothetical particle whose existence is inferred from indirect evidence <virtual photons> -- compare REAL 3
4 : being on or simulated on a computer or computer network <print or virtual books> <a virtual keyboard>: as a : occurring or existing primarily online <a virtual library> <virtual shopping> b : of, relating to, or existing within a virtual reality <a virtual world> <a virtual tour>

"Virtual" when referring to "science" is an oxymoron...and that highlights precisely why this is a religious argument for you.

If anthropogenic global warming was true science, it wouldn't be subject to opinion, consensus, or interpretation.

I'll just leave this link for those willing to understand that what we're dealing with in this conversation is far from scientific fact;
http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_art...&cname=Opinion

---

I do know what virtual means, but as usual, your use of terms in this debate is innopposite. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when you say: "If anthropogenic global warming was true science, it wouldn't be subject to opinion, consensus, or interpretation." Since when is true science immune from opinion, consensus or interpretation? You, of all people, referencing the polar bear/WWF issue, should no that. :roll: Oh, and if we are going to attack sources (which I am not inclined to do), you should do a little research into the NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS. Also find out if Exxon Mobile is funding Sterling Burnett (polar bear fame).

As for your citation, again, anyone can run to the web for support for any position they want. The guy you cite is responding to a guy who responded to others. Too bad, as your author suggests, none of them are part of the scientific process. He is right, and should get back in his lab and start doing science. Right now he's nothing more than you and I arguing on the internet.

You, in summarizing what scientists know with virtual certainty (where virtual is a cop-out), have juxtaposed A and B. This does not show A causes B.

To show A causes B, or that A causes 90%, 75%, 50%, or 25%, or 1% of B requires a lot more data than is present and analysis that has not been done. The climate has been changing forever due to collosal factors and these have a complex interplay that is not understood.

Cherry picking a data set for a single-variable analysis over a short period of time will simply not yield a meaningful conclusion in this kind of system. For example, if the latest warming trend was already underway before the industrial revolution, then disambiguating a human component vs. the "natural" chaotic component is impossible because we simply do not understand, in a predictable way, that chaotic system.

The very short data-set used to "prove" human impact on warming is not even a blink in the eye of time-scales involved in warming and cooling trends, and its magnitude is dwarfed changes from the chaotic system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zak Smith

You, in summarizing what scientists know with virtual certainty (where virtual is a cop-out), have juxtaposed A and B. This does not show A causes B.

To show A causes B, or that A causes 90%, 75%, 50%, or 25%, or 1% of B requires a lot more data than is present and analysis that has not been done. The climate has been changing forever due to collosal factors and these have a complex interplay that is not understood.

Cherry picking a data set for a single-variable analysis over a short period of time will simply not yield a meaningful conclusion in this kind of system. For example, if the latest warming trend was already underway before the industrial revolution, then disambiguating a human component vs. the "natural" chaotic component is impossible because we simply do not understand, in a predictable way, that chaotic system.

The very short data-set used to "prove" human impact on warming is not even a blink in the eye of time-scales involved in warming and cooling trends, and its magnitude is dwarfed changes from the chaotic system.

---

Now, I can agree with that, and I am glad you brought it up.

The Earth’s capacity for additional green house gasses, natural or man made, without catastrophic results, is 100%. Clearly the catastrophic results have not occurred so we have not exceeded 100% capacity. Further, the atmosphere contains *some* green house gasses, so we are not at 0%. We are obviously somewhere in between.

You can plug in ANY figures you want, but the following analysis still remains valid.

Let’s say, without mankind, the Earth is currently at a 50% capacity baseline, with a 30% natural variability, up or down, fluctuating over the millennia, with a high of 80% and a low of 20%. Now, along comes man and adds 21%. That puts us at 71% and reduces the room for natural variability by 21%. If nature comes along with her 30%, then catastrophic results occur.

In other words, Earth’s tremendous ability to take a punch is reduced each time she gets punched. Sooner or later, she punches back. Of course, she will always win, but some of us would like to win with her, and be around to share the *relative* stasis which she has provided for the last 500,000 years that we’ve been wandering around with all the critters we have come to know and love. The fact the Earth will continue on was no consolation to the dinosaurs and it won’t be to me, my child or anyone else I know. I am very conservative in that regard.

Only the Earth and God know how much she can take, and that is what scientists are currently trying to understand. I say place the burden of proof on those who want to tinker with a system that ain’t broke. Let them first do no harm, and prove they won’t. Since we are all in this boat together, we can’t rely upon individuals to carry all the freight. Working together is the key to avoiding the Tragedy of the Commons. Ask any public land cattle grazer from the late 1800s and early 1900s.

So, while you would demand certainty (instead of virtual certainty) of man-caused global warming, before man-caused global warming is accepted, I would demand certainty (instead of virtual certainty) of no harm, before we are permitted to continue dumping green house gasses into the atmosphere. If you can find a way to internalize your costs in our free market system, and accept personal responsibility for the outcome of your actions, then post a bond.

Oh, and if you try, remember not to cherry pick your data or use a cop-out of "virtuality."

The fact is, we are doing the best we can, and the science on your side is losing, badly.

Anthropomorphic analogies are fun, but are not science. That post contains no scientific analysis, but speculation.

The burden of scientific proof is on the party who makes the claim. Period.

You've basically agreed, through your last two posts, that it is not proven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zak Smith

Anthropomorphic analogies are fun, but are not science. That post contains no scientific analysis, but speculation.

The burden of scientific proof is on the party who makes the claim. Period.

You've basically agreed, through your last two posts, that it is not proven.

---

First, I am not a scientist. The science speaks for itself and you are losing, badly. In fact, by your own standards, your post is lacking any science.
Second, you are wrong about burdens of proof. As you yourself admitted, the status quo (natural baseline and fluctuation) existed long before our present impact. It is us who wish to change it and the burden is on us. If the claim is that man's actions cause no harm, then the burden is on you.
Third, no burden of proof has been established on proponents of global warming theory (preponderance of the evidence? Beyond a reasonable doubt? etc.) and science, by it's very nature, soundly trounces your self-appointed demand for conclusive evidence. Proponents don't have to meet your subjective requirements of satisfaction. The political leadership has determined that any burden has been met and calls for changes. See Bush, the scientists and everyone who is not in denial.

Until the scientists can connect A and B by disambiguating the large chaotic system, the thesis that A causes B is not proven. The burden of proof is always on the one proposing the thesis-- that's how a robust epistemology (and rational debate) works.

Nothing subjective, nor is it "about me." That is simply the epistemology of the scientific method.

Politics has nothing to do with science and knowledge. Appealing to a political figure to determine truth is the logical fallacy of false authority. Calling us in denial is ad hominem, another logical fallacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gman

Do you have a clue as to what the word "virtual" means?
"Virtual" when referring to "science" is an oxymoron...

---

This is where you need to bring your critical and analytical reading and reasoning skills into play. The EPA was not referring to the science; they were referring to the scientific level of certainty; i.e. scientists are vitually certain that the science demonstrates global warming and our contribution to it. Don't confuse the science with their opinion of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zak Smith

Until the scientists can connect A and B by disambiguating the large chaotic system, the thesis that A causes B is not proven. The burden of proof is always on the one proposing the thesis-- that's how a robust epistemology (and rational debate) works.

Nothing subjective, nor is it "about me." That is simply the epistemology of the scientific method.

Politics has nothing to do with science and knowledge. Appealing to a political figure to determine truth is the logical fallacy of false authority. Calling us in denial is ad hominem, another logical fallacy.

---

First, scientists have connected A and B. The level of disambiguation of the large chaotic system is the question. They have come forward with a level which has been challenged. However, it is this level that you seek to be "proven" before it is accepted. These levels of *proof* (certainty) are a continuum, often catagorized as burdens.

We always start with a baseline, or status quo. In analyzing our contribution of green house gasses and the effects thereof, the baseline, by definition, is pre-human contribution. The burden is upon those who want to move beyond the baseline.

Now, as often happens, and as you are doing now, the proponents of an action prefer to shift the burden of harm to those who challenge the action. But that is not science. The burden is upon those who wish to go forward. So, rather than demand your subjective level of proof of harm, science (and the policy that comes from it) dictate a level of proof of no harm. That burden has not been met.

As much as you hate analogy, let me put it this way: YOu are going to take a revolver, point it at my head and pull the trigger. If anyone should have a burden of proving no harm will come, who should that be? I suggest the burden is upon you. If you can't prove your theory of no harm, don't be pointing revolvers at people and pulling the trigger. That is a political and policy decision that springs from sound science.

Finally, you don't understand argumentum ad vericundium. I did not appel to Bush for authority on the subject of global warming. I appealed to Bush to show you were the burden of proof had been placed, based upon sound science, and not upon your subjective demand for certainty.

As to the ad hominem allegation, denial is a state people can be in when they refuse to engage in that scientific process you so eloquently described. For instance, anyone who thinks politics has nothing to do with science and knowledge is living in denial.

I've gotta run to town. I will return and re-engage later. Thanks.