Form of Argument: Adventures in Rhetoric

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 04:59 AM GMT die 09o March, anno 2012

Share this Blog
16
+

Form of Argument: Adventures in Rhetoric

In 2009 I received some questions from Westview High School in San Diego, California (see here). A few weeks ago I heard from the same teacher, Bob Whitney, and he was curious about how I would respond to the issues raised in this posting on Rogues and Scholars. This is a long exchange of postings between two engineers, Burt Rutan and Brian Angliss.

In my blog, for better or worse, I have tended away from engaging in the type of discussions that are represented by this exchange. A couple of reasons: One, this line of argument that works to discredit climate change is at this point political, and as I argued here, engagement in this argument is not productive. Two, while it is necessary to address the factual inaccuracies that are stated in this type of discussion, it has been done repeatedly and well by many others (look around, for instance, at Real Climate). That said – what do you say to students who have the discussion between Rutan and Angliss at hand and want to make sense of it all?

When I look at the words used by Rutan, I see words anchored around fraud, dishonesty, alarmist - this is an argument that relies on discredit and personal attacks. Such an attack quickly raises the emotion and takes the discussion away from a knowledge base. It is the sort of attack that has become pervasive in our political conversation in general, and it is an excellent diversionary tactic. It raises the specter of distrust.

I tell students to look for the form of argument. So, first, does it rely on discredit? In this case, it does rely on discredit, and it relies on discrediting thousands of scientists, writing many thousands of papers, over many years, from many countries. It is fundamentally conspiratorial, and not only is it conspiratorial it requires that many years before climate change emerged as an important environmental problem, that the foundation for the conspiracy was being laid down. To me, this lacks any credibility in reason, but if conspiratorial beliefs are held, then it is virtually impossible to provide convincing counterarguments to the person who holds those beliefs. If the form of argument relies on conspiracy, then it is immediately suspect.

One way to address, rationally, issues of dishonesty and conspiracy is to seek external review and, ultimately, judgment. The body of climate science research has been subject to extensive external review. Governments, the National Academy (here as well), non-climate-science scientists, and lawyers have reviewed climate science. They have all affirmed the results to be well founded and based on proper scientific investigation. The studies have documented that scientists have foibles and that peer review captures the vast majority of errors and prejudices and that there are no fundamental shortcomings in the conclusions that the Earth has, at its surface, on average, warmed and with virtual certainty will continue to warm. But if you dismiss climate science on the principle of conspiratorial malfeasance, then it is simple to dismiss external review. If you stand on only your own review and have the foundation to dismiss all external review because of conspiracy, then you are always right. Hence there is no discussion. There is no possible way forward for the student other than looking at the evidence and behavior and form of argument and standing as judge.

Does the argument rely on invoking moral levers of trust and distrust based on the belief of conspiratorial fraud?

Does the argument pull out single pieces of information and ignore other pieces of information? Does the argument rely on planting belief and disbelief by reaching for metaphors outside of the field? Does the argument assert that broad claims are made when there is no evidence to support such assertion?

So for the student – you have to think about the whole, not just isolated points that are meant to be provocative and planted to grow on an emotional state fueled by claims of amoral behavior.

Yes, carbon dioxide acts as a fertilizer, but is that the complete story of the vigor of plants? Is there any denial of this role of carbon dioxide in the climate literature? Can you find quantitative, science-based studies of the carbon dioxide fertilization effect?

Yes, there was a lot of carbon dioxide when there were dinosaurs; it was warm – what is the relevance of that argument? Does that establish that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant? Can’t things that are natural also be a pollutant? Isn’t that why we don’t want mine tailings in our drinking water? Isn’t that why we manage our sewage?

There is a wealth of information out there. There are ways to analyze that information, to evaluate its validity. If this sort of argument is encumbering, then there is a need to synthesize, personally, that information to form defensible conclusions.

If you look at the form of argument that relies on emotion, picks out pieces of information to support the argument, ignores pieces of information that do not support the argument, paints moods by long reaching metaphors, and ultimately relies on a belief that a field is corrupt, and that corruption requires a conspiratorial organization extending across decades and all nations – if that is the form of argument, then how is that robust? How is that believable? It is a prejudicial form of argument directed only at making someone believe the person making the argument; it is not seeking knowledge-based understanding.

That’s how I would look at that discussion.

r



Figure 1: A summary figure I use after I walk through about 10 lectures on the basics of climate science and global warming.

If you made it here - Here are links to a PDF and a Powerpoint Slide Show that includes several viewgraphs on thinking about arguments that are frequently raised in the political argument opposing the science of climate change. (They are each about 5 MB).

PDF

PPS


Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 450 - 400

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog Index

RUSH comes to mind,

..but datz just me.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 427 Comments: 129323
Quoting Patrap:
I see a Political futcha' for someone maybe?

God, I hope it's not me. LOL
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Ossqss:


Really, accountable for what, asking a question?


This, sir, is not a question: "I understood you and your partner, who shared your prior handle, got a permaban for threatening others peoples children on this site."

That statement contains four assertions:
1. That I had or have a partner
2. That I had a prior handle (which I shared)
3. That I was permabanned
4. That I threatened other peoples' children on this site

It so happens that not a one of those things are true, btw.

No justification for your assertions were provided, though I notice that your most recent post seems to claim that those assertions were made based on similarities you believe exist between some other poster and me. What those similarities are is not made clear.

I did not make clear what my response would be to your response simply because you hadn't yet answered. I'm not psychic --and I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt. Had you simply apologized, admitted your error, or supported your assertions then I would have had no cause to stop answering your questions.

Quoting Ossqss:
My bad.

I suppose that there is a certain caliber of individual for whom this is as close to an apology as what-not. I wouldn't have guessed it was yours, though. Learn something new every day.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
I see a Political futcha' for someone maybe?
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 427 Comments: 129323
You accused birthmark of threatening others kids and when you get called on it to produce evidence all you have to say is "My bad."

Seriously?

Unbelievable. I can't believe such bad behavior is tolerated.


Quoting Ossqss:


Really, accountable for what, asking a question?

Seems you would have made that clear prior.

Sorry, but this site had a poster who did indeed do what I was concerned about. His multiple user posting patterns had some similarity to yours.

My bad.

Perhaps you could post on my blog so we can verify some IP's to clear things up?

JK, I really don't care. Have a good week folks.

Spring is upon us :)




Out>>>>


Member Since: March 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 114
Caesar:
Who is it in the press that calls on me?
I hear a tongue shriller than all the music
Cry "Caesar!" Speak, Caesar is turn'd to hear.

Soothsayer:
Beware the ides of March.

Caesar:
What man is that?

Brutus:
A soothsayer bids you beware the ides of March.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 427 Comments: 129323
Quoting Birthmark:

Until you either present your evidence for what you claimed about me last night, or admit that those accusations were in error, or simply apologize, I'm afraid that I won't be answering any questions from you.

You must be held accountable for your wild claims about the posters on this board.


Really, accountable for what, asking a question?

Seems you would have made that clear prior.

Sorry, but this site had a poster who did indeed do what I was concerned about. His multiple user posting patterns had some similarity to yours.

My bad.

Perhaps you could post on my blog so we can verify some IP's to clear things up?

JK, I really don't care. Have a good week folks.

Spring is upon us :)




Out>>>>


Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8188
Record Report
Statement as of 7:57 am CDT on March 18, 2012

... Record warmest minimum temperature broken at Wichita Falls...

The record warmest low temperature for March 17 was 61 degrees...
which was set back in 2011. Yesterday at Sheppard Air Force
base... the low temperature was 64 degrees... which had broken
the record for the warmest low temperature for March 17.

Temperature records for Wichita Falls date back to 1923.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 427 Comments: 129323
Imagine if it was 42° below the average Low temperature for the date?

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 427 Comments: 129323
Quoting Ossqss:


Really?

How is he wrong or unreliable ? Please show us something specific, unlike the Neo ............

Until you either present your evidence for what you claimed about me last night, or admit that those accusations were in error, or simply apologize, I'm afraid that I won't be answering any questions from you.

You must be held accountable for your wild claims about the posters on this board.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Ossqss:


Really?

How is he wrong or unreliable ? Please show us something specific, unlike the Neo ............


Steve Goddard is specifically wrong where he says this:

"Jeff Masters has been trying to link the warm weather in Washington this March to atmospheric CO2"

I think ossqss was wrong when he said last night that birthmark threatened other people's children too. I'd like to see his evidence for that. It's a very serious charge to make without evidence!

Member Since: March 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 114
Nation's Icebox basks in 77°F warmth

Posted by: JeffMasters, 8:08 AM CDT on March 18, 2012


Each year, when the list of coldest U.S. cities is compiled, International Falls, Minnesota regularly winds up at the top of the list, earning its title as "Icebox of the Nation". The city once hit -55°F (on January 6, 1909), and takes pride in the distinction of being the coldest city in the U.S., having trademarked the term "Icebox of the Nation" in 1948. The city recently defended the trademark against the town of Fraser, Colorado, which sought to usurp the title as the Nation's Icebox.

But yesterday, International Falls set a truly phenomenal weather record for warmth. The city's temperature soared to 77°F, which was 42° above the average high temperature for the date. Not only was it the city's hottest March temperature on record by 4°, it was just 4° shy of yesterday's high in Miami, Florida. But what was truly amazing is that the 77°F high in International Falls beat the previous record for the date by 22°!

I talked to Christopher C. Burt, wunderground's weather historian, and he couldn't recall seeing a station with a century-plus period of weather records break a daily record by such a wide margin (International Falls' records go back to 1895.) Yesterday's temperatures in International Falls were but one chapter in the on-going story of one of the most extreme meteorological events in U.S. history. Never before has such an extended period of extreme and record-breaking warm temperatures affected such a large portion of the U.S. in March, going back to the beginning of record keeping in the late 1800s.

The record-breaking warmth will continue through Thursday, and I'll have much more to say in Monday's post.

Jeff Masters
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 427 Comments: 129323
Quoting Birthmark:

Steve Goddard?

Goddard is...unreliable, to keep it polite.

I just did a quick search of Masters' blogs for March and I find no mention of Washington DC --at least nothing that turns up on a quick search. So, either Goddard is cherry-picking a minor mention (which he's done before), or Goddard is using a straw man argument. Either way Goddard whiffs again.

I sort of envision him as Daffy Duck in this classic.

Goddard!


Really?

How is he wrong or unreliable ? Please show us something specific, unlike the Neo ............
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8188
Quoting Neapolitan:
And still more ad hominems? As I said yesterday: that smacks of serious frustration. But we understand. Tell you what: if it'll make you feel better, you can just close your eyes and cover your ears, and The Great Global Cooldown will probably get underway any day now... ;-)

P.S. -- Willie Soon, whose video you have linked to or embedded literally dozens of times, is, as has often been pointed out, does research funded almost entirely by fossil fuel interests. Since that alone makes him suspect in the eyes of many, do you think you can find a scientist unconnected with ExxonMobil and Koch Industries who shares Soon's unorthodox and unsubstantiated theory? If so, we might be more compelled and likely to listen.


Ah yes, your opinion makes the science Soon stated invalid. LOL

How redirectionalist of you. You are at least consistent, and wrong again. :)

Sorry, not time for a vid now. BBL>





Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8188
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
People on this blog are fond of bashing Joe Bastardi for his allegedly incorrect long range forecasts. Someone ought to bash this dude for just plain hysterics and false data:

Link

Steve Goddard?

Goddard is...unreliable, to keep it polite.

I just did a quick search of Masters' blogs for March and I find no mention of Washington DC --at least nothing that turns up on a quick search. So, either Goddard is cherry-picking a minor mention (which he's done before), or Goddard is using a straw man argument. Either way Goddard whiffs again.

I sort of envision him as Daffy Duck in this classic.

Goddard!
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


evidence? I know a 35 year veteran of NOAA who just retired. He said the fastest way to kiss your career goodbye was to refute AGW.

Cool story, bro!
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
People on this blog are fond of bashing Joe Bastardi for his allegedly incorrect long range forecasts. Someone ought to bash this dude for just plain hysterics and false data:

Link
Who's "this guy"? Oh, you mean Steve Goddard? Yes, I'd agree with you.

Dr. Masters certainly doesn't need me defending him, so I'll just say this: as a climate/weather expert, Joe Bastardi is a passable body builder.
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


evidence? I know a 35 year veteran of NOAA who just retired. He said the fastest way to kiss your career goodbye was to refute AGW.
I can believe that. A NOAA employee denying the very well-formed climate change theory is like a biology teacher denying evolution; anti-science types have no place in a science organization.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Dr. Jeff Masters has been talking about the heat wave in the upper Midwest. He hasn't been talking about Washington DC at all this week.
Member Since: March 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 114
Quoting Birthmark:

Any credible evidence of this horrible conspiracy?


It might...if it was happening...but probably a lot less than you think.

Your assertion seems to be that every climate researcher on Earth employed by a government is lying due to government pressure. Is that your assertion?

If that is your assertion, please tell us how the governments get permafrost to melt, the Arctic icecap to shrink, plants to blossom earlier, lakes to melt earlier, etc. All of these things are happening.

That leaves us two possibilities: 1) the governments of the world are engaged in a conspiracy of unprecedented scope and effectiveness; 2) global warming is actually occurring.

Applying a certain Razor, the correct answer is obvious.



evidence? I know a 35 year veteran of NOAA who just retired. He said the fastest way to kiss your career goodbye was to refute AGW.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
People on this blog are fond of bashing Joe Bastardi for his allegedly incorrect long range forecasts. Someone ought to bash this dude for just plain hysterics and false data:

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Or in other words OUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Cyclone, I was getting concerned about you. I actually scanned the last couple blogs to see when you last posted. I hope all is okay with you and family. I expect to see you add a couple hundred more posts over the next couple weeks.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
A good way to help



Multiply by 7 billion

You start. :)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
A good way to help



Multiply by 7 billion
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2260


http://americaswatchtower.com/2010/02/22/climateg ate-ipcc-withdraws-claims-on-rising-sea-levels/

Really?



Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 427 Comments: 129323
Quoting martinitony:
Here's a couple. And what about those glaciers in the Himalayas? I'm sure there is plenty more, but it's Sunday and really warm and nice outside for March 18 in Ohio. I think I'll walk the dog before the glaciers overwhelm us.



And another


I have no idea what that graph is, where it came from, or anything else. Chances are as good as not that it is a graph fabricated or tweaked in some way to make people believe the IPCC said something that they didn't say. I've seen that too many times to take any graph like that seriously.

Your link simply proves my point. "The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher."

The IPCC made no bones about the fact that there was a lot of information wrt SLR that wasn't known and that there was plenty of uncertainty. Your link attempts to spin that uncertainty as dishonesty.

EDIT: It should also be noted that the paper was withdrawn by the authors when they became aware of mistakes in their paper.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Neapolitan:
I see WUWT ("We Use Wishful Thinking") has this as its main story right now, and JB is all over twitter saying, "See?! See?! No global warming!!!" Such a stellar pair of buffoons! Anyway, as has been explained to you numerous times, extent and area are measurements of the areal spread of ice. The truest measurement of the current ice situation is volume--that is, area x thickness. IOW, four square miles of ice a foot thick contains 50% less ice than one square mile of ice six feet thick. Capice?. Now, armed with that new-found knowledge, have a look at this:

ice, ice, baby

Closeup:

ice

Also:

ice, ice, baby

At any rate, a subtropical air mass will be entering parts of the Arctic over the next few weeks; look for a major decrease--a plummet, in fact--in both area and extent...

Anyway, I doubt this will sway you or the Watts' mouth-breathing sycophants. But at least the record is straight here, no?


Or in other words OUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Here's a couple. And what about those glaciers in the Himalayas? I'm sure there is plenty more, but it's Sunday and really warm and nice outside for March 18 in Ohio. I think I'll walk the dog before the glaciers overwhelm us.



And another

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting martinitony:



"PIOMAS is a numerical model with components for sea ice and ocean and the capacity for assimilating some kinds of observations. For the ice volume simulations shown here, sea ice concentration information from the NSIDC near-real time product are assimilated into the model to improve ice thickness estimates and SST data from the NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis are assimilated in the ice-free areas. NCEP/NCAR reanalysis SST data are based on the global daily high-resolution Reynolds SST analyses using satellite and in situ observations (Reynolds and Marsico, 1993; Reynolds et al., 2007). Atmospheric information to drive the model, specifically wind, surface air temperature, and cloud cover to compute solar and long wave radiation are specified from the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis. The pan-Arctic ocean model is forced with input from a global ocean model at its open boundaries located at 45 degrees North."

Back to reality, please. Give it up dipstick. It's a model, not a series of observations. In other words, it doesn't mean anymore than the faulty projections of the IPCC or the rest of your ilk over the last couple of decades. The Earth is cooling. The ice is not going away. The sea is not rising at the rates projected. Northern hemisphere snow cover is higher etc. All these things I mention are observed, not modeled.
All your posts show is your lack of integrity and more cargo cult science. You're pathetic.
Gee, that's a lot of ad hominems and name calling, even from you. I'm going to have to ignore you for awhile while you so you can get yourself right again. Take care!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
"We Use Wishful Thinking"

What an extremely accurate choice of words for the acronym' "WUWT", to use! Excellent! ... I wish I would have thought of that!
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4764
Quoting martinitony:It's a model, not a series of observations. In other words, it doesn't mean anymore than the faulty projections of the IPCC or the rest of your ilk over the last couple of decades.

What faulty IPCC projections would those be?

The rest of your post was nonsense based on something other than science. IOW, your uninformed opinion. You are welcome to such opinions, no matter how ridiculously at odds with reality they may be. However, you should preface those opinions with the words "I believe."
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting martinitony:



"PIOMAS is a numerical model with components for sea ice and ocean and the capacity for assimilating some kinds of observations. For the ice volume simulations shown here, sea ice concentration information from the NSIDC near-real time product are assimilated into the model to improve ice thickness estimates and SST data from the NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis are assimilated in the ice-free areas. NCEP/NCAR reanalysis SST data are based on the global daily high-resolution Reynolds SST analyses using satellite and in situ observations (Reynolds and Marsico, 1993; Reynolds et al., 2007). Atmospheric information to drive the model, specifically wind, surface air temperature, and cloud cover to compute solar and long wave radiation are specified from the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis. The pan-Arctic ocean model is forced with input from a global ocean model at its open boundaries located at 45 degrees North."

Back to reality, please. Give it up dipstick. It's a model, not a series of observations. In other words, it doesn't mean anymore than the faulty projections of the IPCC or the rest of your ilk over the last couple of decades. The Earth is cooling. The ice is not going away. The sea is not rising at the rates projected. Northern hemisphere snow cover is higher etc. All these things I mention are observed, not modeled.
All your posts show is your lack of integrity and more cargo cult science. You're pathetic.


Fair enough but it is a model with consistent results and constant trends. It has also been verified somewhat with physical measurements.

But more to the piont, there is all those previous posts about how the freeze is still below 'normal' and how this is all temporary brine filled thin ice.

Keep skipping those 'inconvenient' truths...

I think the patterns show a strong likelyhood that this summer will have the least ice ever recorded. You can debate that if you wish but be warned: it will require a basic knowledge of geography, maps and a bit of math.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting martinitony:
Gosh, that ice is expanding when it should be contracting and it's more bigger than anytime in the last six years.What is going on up there?





I am extremely delighted and excited that there has been some form of Arctic sea ice recovery from their previous lows. You seem to be the one that I ask the question of. How long do you think that these recoveries, over previous lows, will persist?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4764
Quoting JupiterKen:
Link

The searech. for truth continues



I have read many of your post. I have yet to see where you have ever represented yourself as someone that is searching for "truth". ... Perhaps you plan to exhibit a true desire to so, in the future? May I make some suggestions for where to search for the scientific truth?

A remedial Chemistry course.

Actual Science journals.

A cursory attempt at understanding thermodynamics.

A cursory study in the Laws of Physics.

An observation of what is happening in nature.

A quick study of Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Dr. Neil Degrassy Tyson, Stephen Hawking and countless other devoted scientist and physicist may prove useful to you.

Avoid websites, such as Wordpress, WUWT and any other non science based websites.


Truth will come to those that seek truth. Ignorance and belief in falsehoods will remain with those that do not.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4764
Quoting martinitony:


" weather, wind, and ocean currents" are parts of the climate.

Well, after thirty years or so. Or if something is so far out of the norm that it can't be reasonably explained without warming. Otherwise, it is merely weather.

Quoting martinitony:
Your and other warming arguments only can work if the Earth is actually getting warmer.

Unhappily for all concerned, the Earth is warming, and warming very rapidly.

Quoting martinitony:
What if it's getting colder?

And what if the Earth's weather and climate is actually caused by a trans-dimensional, hermaphroditic, and malicious (not to mention exceedingly rare) two-horned unicorn? It's possible. You cannot rule it out. Hypotheticals are fun, but pointless if one is after facts.

The fact is that the Earth is warming. That is shown by thermometers on Earth, satellite observations, melting ice, increasing methane release, flora and fauna, and a variety of other evidence. Any assertion that the Earth is cooling has to first explain how all of that is either wrong or can be better explained by something else.

Quoting martinitony:
That you don't have a legitimate opinion is real honesty on your part and you should be commended.

That comment applied to the current increase in Arctic ice area and extent only. I don't keep up with the Arctic until the melt season begins. On most matters pertaining to AGW I have an informed opinion, but I do not have any claim to scientific legitimacy on the topic. I've never published any research on AGW and I can confidently predict that I never will.

Quoting martinitony:
Try reading this and think about what if the truth is that there is no significant warming happening that is related to CO2. What if the "science" is cargo cult science?

(See: Weird-ass unicorn above for an illustration of why "what ifs" are entirely useless in most circumstances.)

I'm well acquainted with Feynman. He was an interesting, brilliant, and fun-loving man. I enjoy reading anything by or about him. (His obsession with getting to Kyzyl is epically entertaining.)

However, your cargo cult hypothesis can be dismissed simply by some of the evidence I listed above. I doubt that Japanese cherry blossoms, permafrost melting, etc. are in on any scam --whether that scam is intentional or accidental.

Quoting martinitony:
What if you have been snowed by the likes of Al Gore and a legion of others on the Global Warming science Dole?

What if you have been snowed by your dislike for Al Gore and the political viewpoint that you believe he represents?

In point of fact, the only writings of Al Gore that I have read have been those that were posted by those that dislike Gore. He has no scientific weight whatsoever. I read the actual science where I can and as far as I can understand it.

Quoting martinitony:
The weather and the conditions and the sun are just not cooperating.

On what planet do you imagine that that is the case. It can't be Earth. lol

Quoting martinitony:
Getting colder, not warmer

This...again? From the abstract: "Relations between the length of a sunspot cycle and the average temperature in the same and the next cycle are calculated for a number of meteorological stations in Norway and in the North Atlantic region." -bold added

"This provides a tool to predict an average temperature decrease of at least 1.0%uFFFDC from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 for the stations and areas analyzed." -bold added

"A 1 %uFFFDC or more temperature drop is predicted 2009%u20132020 for certain locations."

IOW, it might well cool in that region, but extrapolating that to "the entire Earth is going to cool" is unsupported by that article and unfounded in the overwhelming majority of the scientific literature.

You are grasping at straws.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


And if government scientists from around the world don't demonstrate "warming" they lose their government funding, their jobs, and their salaries. Might just skew their research a little, huh? Tell me exactly what the difference is between the much greater funding coming from governments (and our freaking tax dollars) and the miniscule funding, in comparison, from private entities?


Actually I wondered a bit about this. There is a bit of herd mentality in science and I could imagine that global warming becomes deriguer (sp? not a clue), anyway, and scientists applying for grants have to write their grants in this way in order to get funded.

But having been through several grant reviews and worked with many sicentists, that is just simply NOT how it works.

Why? Buzz words mean eff-all to grant review committees. If someone wrote a grant saying that "global warming is a myth", they might be rejected out of hand... but not for their position. they would be rejected because grants, at least real grants, are much more intricate instruments and require much more scientific questions. Thus a grant might be to measure something... and yeah the background of the grant might use a buzzword: nano..., graphene...., crowd sourcing..., etc..

However, the work itself is based on numbers and results and not about buzzwords. Further the results are published in a HIGHLY competitive environment with many people who love to take things apart for the joy of being the one who proved soemthing wrong.

The only way that this 'conspiracy' could be true is if the scientists are pushed to fake the results. However, if you read the results, the 'raw data' and the experimental methods, it would be near impossible to fake all this independently. It would require not just government pressure but a huge government conspiracy.

In fact, the only effort to change the results of studies has come from the government in seeking to remove results that prove global warming.

What you are suggesting makes a nice tale in the pub but only for people who have no idea of what research is or how it works in the real world.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


And if government scientists from around the world don't demonstrate "warming" they lose their government funding, their jobs, and their salaries. Might just skew their research a little, huh? Tell me exactly what the difference is between the much greater funding coming from governments (and our freaking tax dollars) and the miniscule funding, in comparison, from private entities?


I am curious as to how you can even justify that statement. Should government funded studies show that the AGWT is incorrect, the global climate is not warming, the ice is not melting and the sea levels are not rising then governments will not have to spend part of their GDP towards mitigation and adaptation. Taxing their citizens is always unpopular and governments know this.

We find, instead, that governments, with borders along the Arctic Ocean, are doing their utmost best to stake their claims to the resources under the Arctic sea ice in anticipation that the Arctic sea ice will melt and allow these resources to be exploited by them.

We find, instead, scientific government documents that have been redacted of any information that would show the seriousness of the situation concerning climate change. This has been done under the Bush administration and under Rick Perry's Texas governor administration. The government redaction probably still continues today, on one level or another and to one degree or another.

Every Republican presidential candidate has formally disavowed the AGWT and that if there is any global warming occurring that it is from natural processes only and not from AGW. The "denailist" are being placated by the most scientifically misinformed political party of our nation. Does that make you feel warm and fuzzy all over? You may as well get use to that feeling. You will almost certainly become warmer and fuzzier, in the future. Perhaps a bit more moldy as well.

What we will see, in the future, is a very large part of nations' GDP being spent on future attempts towards mitigation and adaptation of climate change just in order for the people of the world to survive the climate change. Governments seem to be taking the least financial viable approach towards climate change now that they could possibly take. Doing nothing now will only drive up the costs of doing something later. Why are they doing this? Simple. They are trying to placate the fossil fuel industries and people like you that would prefer to bury their head in the sand because they believe that any attempts to help protect our future generations is a cost that they wish not to endure. "Narcissistic behavior" seems to be bit of an understatement, for such people.

Do you think that governments are the only ones funding the climatologists? The insurance industry and nearly every other major non fossil fuel industry is as well to weigh their climate risks in the future. These industries are making adjustments for a climate change now. Should not we be doing so as well? This will never happen for as long as the anti-scientific communities help to control the government purse strings and they put their ideologies above all else. Including the viability for future life on this planet.

Your statement is probably one of the most illogical statements made by the anti-science community that could be made. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Ignorance may be bliss, but a self induced ignorance is shameful. When it comes to climate change, self induced ignorance borders on criminal.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4764
Quoting martinitony:


Oh, so what about this? This one is ice area. Your argument doesn't hold water.
But, what difference? What about the atmospheric temperatures averaging below average for January and February? Should that be discounted also?
Maybe we should use that cargo cult science and just use the facts and graphs that work for your argument. Is that what we should do?

I see WUWT ("We Use Wishful Thinking") has this as its main story right now, and JB is all over twitter saying, "See?! See?! No global warming!!!" Such a stellar pair of buffoons! Anyway, as has been explained to you numerous times, extent and area are measurements of the areal spread of ice. The truest measurement of the current ice situation is volume--that is, area x thickness. IOW, four square miles of ice a foot thick contains 50% less ice than one square mile of ice six feet thick. Capice?. Now, armed with that new-found knowledge, have a look at this:

ice, ice, baby

Closeup:

ice

Also:

ice, ice, baby

At any rate, a subtropical air mass will be entering parts of the Arctic over the next few weeks; look for a major decrease--a plummet, in fact--in both area and extent...

Anyway, I doubt this will sway you or the Watts' mouth-breathing sycophants. But at least the record is straight here, no?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

My "argument" was this: "It may well be that the ice is breaking up and expanding..." I floated a possible explanation. I haven't looked into the Arctic Sea Ice in enough detail to have a legitimate opinion. What I do know is that weather, wind, and ocean currents have a profound effect on both extent and area.

But cutting through all the nonsense, what is it you think is important about this increase?


" weather, wind, and ocean currents" are parts of the climate.
Your and other warming arguments only can work if the Earth is actually getting warmer. What if it's getting colder? That you don't have a legitimate opinion is real honesty on your part and you should be commended.
Try reading this and think about what if the truth is that there is no significant warming happening that is related to CO2. What if the "science" is cargo cult science? Link
What if you have been snowed by the likes of Al Gore and a legion of others on the Global Warming science Dole? The weather and the conditions and the sun are just not cooperating.
Getting colder, not warmer
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting martinitony:


Oh, so what about this? This one is ice area. Your argument doesn't hold water.
But, what difference? What about the atmospheric temperatures averaging below average for January and February? Should that be discounted also?
Maybe we should use that cargo cult science and just use the facts and graphs that work for your argument. Is that what we should do?


My "argument" was this: "It may well be that the ice is breaking up and expanding..." I floated a possible explanation. I haven't looked into the Arctic Sea Ice in enough detail to have a legitimate opinion. What I do know is that weather, wind, and ocean currents have a profound effect on both extent and area.

But cutting through all the nonsense, what is it you think is important about this increase?
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Birthmark:

Since you are using extent, a number of things can be happening. Assuming that because extent increases means that there is more ice being formed is reckless. It may well be that the ice is breaking up and expanding, thus creating more extent. In truth, it is of little import. Weather does what it does.

Get back to me in late August or early September and tell me how well the Arctic Sea Ice is doing...if you dare.


Oh, so what about this? This one is ice area. Your argument doesn't hold water.
But, what difference? What about the atmospheric temperatures averaging below average for January and February? Should that be discounted also?
Maybe we should use that cargo cult science and just use the facts and graphs that work for your argument. Is that what we should do?

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JupiterKen:
Link

The searech for truth continues


Yay! Crank "science" rears its pin-like head.

If you are looking for "truth" I suggest the Philosophy Department.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting martinitony:
Gosh, that ice is expanding when it should be contracting and it's more bigger than anytime in the last six years.What is going on up there?




Since you are using extent, a number of things can be happening. Assuming that because extent increases means that there is more ice being formed is reckless. It may well be that the ice is breaking up and expanding, thus creating more extent. In truth, it is of little import. Weather does what it does.

Get back to me in late August or early September and tell me how well the Arctic Sea Ice is doing...if you dare.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Gosh, that ice is expanding when it should be contracting and it's more bigger than anytime in the last six years.What is going on up there?



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Link

The searech for truth continues

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


And if government scientists from around the world don't demonstrate "warming" they lose their government funding, their jobs, and their salaries.

Any credible evidence of this horrible conspiracy?

Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Might just skew their research a little, huh?

It might...if it was happening...but probably a lot less than you think.

Your assertion seems to be that every climate researcher on Earth employed by a government is lying due to government pressure. Is that your assertion?

If that is your assertion, please tell us how the governments get permafrost to melt, the Arctic icecap to shrink, plants to blossom earlier, lakes to melt earlier, etc. All of these things are happening.

That leaves us two possibilities: 1) the governments of the world are engaged in a conspiracy of unprecedented scope and effectiveness; 2) global warming is actually occurring.

Applying a certain Razor, the correct answer is obvious.

Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting JupiterKen:


Y'all seem to misunderstand the point of the controversy in your zeal to deny.

The "corrections" to the Icelandic records were not changing recent temperatures upward but the historical temperatures downward to show increased present-day warming.

Link

I made no comment on the content of the post other than it was second-hand information. I could have added that the source of that second-hand information is less than reliable. I have yet to see credible evidence of any corrections to Iceland data other than the quote posted by Neapolitan.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Well potty mouth Mr. from da east..

Your whining is about what then?

You have Zero message and even if you did, you may want to work on dat delivery.

And maybe try some local tax payer funded Anger mgt therapy.

LOL

Quoting Ricky Rood:If you look at the form of argument that relies on emotion, picks out pieces of information to support the argument, ignores pieces of information that do not support the argument, paints moods by long reaching metaphors, and ultimately relies on a belief that a field is corrupt, and that corruption requires a conspiratorial organization extending across decades and all nations -- if that is the form of argument, then how is that robust?

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 427 Comments: 129323
Quoting Patrap:
Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 230

Zero blogs eh?

Maybe you can take that er, "Superior Intellect" you think you have and create for the forum here, a Coherent blog entry outlying all your pertinent points in the "perceived" debate .

0 is a hard way to fly in that respect.


Or maybe comment on the process as to which you've reached these, er,"conclusions" on.








Way to go Paptrap. What "perceived" debate? There is no debate here. And having a personal blog here is requisite to post? Many of the others also do not. Why do you not require the same of them? You don't don't know anything about me but, as usual, it doesn't stop the snark. Dispute the message if you will but attacking the messenger is for the no-fact biggot.

EDIT: I see you added to your original post (nice grammar).
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 450 - 400

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

Local Weather

Overcast
48 °F
Aequaliter Nubila