The Great Global Warming Swindle

[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.

[Recon]

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.

[Recon]

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.

[Zak Smith]

Everything we do has an effect on the world.. by definition.

But that is separate from the question of truth, where the burden of proving a thesis falls solidly on those responsible for its claim.

[Recon]

Everything we do has an effect on the world.. by definition.

But that is separate from the question of truth, where the burden of proving a thesis falls solidly on those responsible for its claim.

Hear is where your reasoning fails you: You claim that the complex chaotic ambiguity has not been adequately addressed by global warming science. But it has been. It was done pursuant to a method that science uses all the time. It’s called the “even if” argument. All your chaotic ambiguity was addressed in my post regarding the 30% natural variation. Now, you can plug any numbers you want into that analysis, and make sure they are the most favorable to your case. It does not change the outcome. The only way to defeat it is to prove that man does not contribute anything beyond baseline.

Even if you were to try and argue that his contributions were magically offset by some aspect of the ambiguity, the laws of physics argue that such an offset would, in turn, have an impact elsewhere in the systems ability to respond.

But, nonetheless, the burden of proof in science, as elsewhere, is not now and never has been absolute certainty. The burden has shifted from the proponents of the theory, if there ever was one.

[Zak Smith]

Your "even if" example is tautologically true, but does not connect A to B.

[Recon]

If you need everyone to dumb there posts down to a second grade, english as a second language level im sure everyone would be happy to do so.

No need, they’ve been dumbed down below comprehension.

Unless you despise the American system, the burdon of proof rests to *prove* a theory or scientific thesis. The status quo is innocent until proven (without a reasonable doubt) guilty. That "burden of proof" is nowhere near being met.

Your poor use of the English language makes it unclear as to whether you are using an analogy, or if you actually think the burden of proof in this debate is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Just in case you are serious, you should know there are a great number of burdens, from preponderance of the evidence (51%) all the way up to “actual certainty.” You might be surprised to know that in science, many an “actual certainty” has fallen. Of course, when it does, the apologist for science look back and merely say: “Well, that wasn’t really science.” LOL!

The argument that it is the burden to disprove global warming is pure fallacy. Im going to make a thesis saying aliens landed on the other side of the moon, left a juicy fruit wrapper laced with a new kind of plauge that will someday whipe out the earth if we dont take care of it. Is it my burden to prove it, or your burden to disprove it? How do you disprove their isnt a juicy fruit wrapper on the other side of the moon? After all, this plauge thing could kill us all, its not your body your messing with, its mine. Dont put the revolver to my head and pull the trigger please, its the burden of proof to act on this before this plague spreads. You can smoke if you want, but you dont have the right to infect me with alien plague.

Remember when I told you that an analogy is not, by definition, the thing itself? And that it simply is no argument to point that out? And that he who wishes to defeat it must draw a distinction with a difference? Watch me destroy your analogy with a single probative difference: We are not messing with your body. The aliens are. Compare that with the global warming debate and see if you can see how that simple distinction makes all the difference in the world.

Also I'd like to point out, you are doing as many do: Only represent the facts that support your cause, thesis, or argument. I caught you in the act:

"What's Known
Scientists know with virtual certainty that:
. . .
Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet."

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/sci...knowledge.html

I’ll not put words in your mouth, but I suspect you meant to say “climate change” and not “global warming.” You can help me out here. In any event, it would be funny to see the side that is challenging the shift in terminology from “global warming” to “climate change” start hanging their hat on that very distinction.

I asked you to help me out if that was not your meaning. You cited an EPA position and said they not say “X.” I quoted your EPA position where they said “X.” I assumed you were not stupid and asked for your clarification. A logical response would have been reference to EPAs distinction between global warming and climate change.

Why is it, you choose to show only the statements that support your argument, the very definition of a bias, when I make a true summary of what the article actually represents?

The article speaks for itself. Your summary was patently inaccurate and, regardless of the merits of EPAs position, I proved it.

Call the theory what it is. Global. Warming.

On this, you and I agree. I fail to see the distinction, not that there isn’t one. It has just not been explained to me. However, if we accept this position, then it makes your statement about EPA’s position even more incorrect, if that is possible. Hell, I was just trying to help dig you out of the hole you had dug yourself.

Calling it climate change is just an attempt to associate it with "nicer words" since "climate change" is something that happens every day, you can also dissociate the title from a "yet proven theory". If they renamed evolution to "growing up", the result would be that if you discussed it on negative terms, people would be slightly less inclined to believe you because they grew up at one point in their lives.
Coming out against "climate change" sounds worse than coming out against "global warming" which is the exact reason they use that verbage.

I agree with most of what you’ve said, but I think I’ve read where it was those who oppose the “global warming” theory who have started using “climate change,” as a more difficult burden to prove. i.e. Not regional climates, but the Earth’s whole climate. I could be wrong and if I am, I’m sure you will point me in the correct direction.

[Recon]

Your "even if" example is tautologically true, but does not connect A to B.

You are correct. The "even if" argument disposes of the chaotic ambiguity, but it does not connect A to B.

A to B is connected by the evidence that both sides agree on; i.e. We emit greenhouse gases and, all other things being equal, green house gases create a green house effect. The "even if" is designed to dispose of the fact that not all other things are equal, and indeed, they are chaotic and ambiguous.

It's sole purpose is a policy/political decision to shift the burden of proof. Kind of a "better safe than sorry" catch all until all (or more) data is in.

[Zak Smith]

Your "even if" example is tautologically true, but does not connect A to B.

You are correct. The "even if" argument disposes of the chaotic ambiguity, but it does not connect A to B.

A to B is connected by the evidence that both sides agree on; i.e. We emit greenhouse gases and, all other things being equal, green house gases create a green house effect. The "even if" is designed to dispose of the fact that not all other things are equal, and indeed, they are chaotic and ambiguous.

Which brings us back to exactly what I said before-- that the effect of emissions on the global climate IS NOT KNOWN:

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.

It's sole purpose is a policy/political decision to shift the burden of proof. Kind of a "better safe than sorry" catch all until all (or more) data is in.

In other words, it does not support the scientific thesis; the global warming "conclusion" is a political tool.

Thank you.

[Recon]

Your "even if" example is tautologically true, but does not connect A to B.

You are correct. The "even if" argument disposes of the chaotic ambiguity, but it does not connect A to B.

A to B is connected by the evidence that both sides agree on; i.e. We emit greenhouse gases and, all other things being equal, green house gases create a green house effect. The "even if" is designed to dispose of the fact that not all other things are equal, and indeed, they are chaotic and ambiguous.

Which brings us back to exactly what I said before-- that the effect of emissions on the global climate IS NOT KNOWN:

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.

It's sole purpose is a policy/political decision to shift the burden of proof. Kind of a "better safe than sorry" catch all until all (or more) data is in.

In other words, it does not support the scientific thesis; the global warming "conclusion" is a political tool.

Thank you.

As one who has at least a rudimentary understanding of logic, I’m surprised. Are you arguing that the presence of any political decision renders all the science which purports to support it, non-existent, or cherry picked, or not meaningful? Or are you arguing that is just the case here, in the global warming debate? And if so, are you arguing that there is NO science here? I’m perplexed.

Politics and policy do not support global warming theory. Rather, global warming theory supports the politics and policy.

Next, you say: “that the effect of emissions on the global climate IS NOT KNOWN.” You appear to be getting metaphysical on me here. What IS known, pray tell? Nothing. Science will be the first to admit that absolute certainty is not required for reasonable men to come to reasonable conclusions for the purposes of policy. Politics and policy not only reside outside of science, but within it. People use the best information they have and do what they can with it. The burden has been shifted to your side to trounce the policy and you and yours have failed to do it.

You are demanding your own subjective level of proof, kind of like an O.J. juror. Give me a reasonable articulable burden of proof that global warming science must meet. Not yours, but some objective criteria set down by the community. It's not what burden would make you happy, or anyone else for that matter. I'm just asking at what point the community would decide it IS KNOWN? Ask Bush. Ask scientists. The burden is on you.