Roger, I give up as your logic, and your determination to selectively quote is beyond me.

I think AGW is a good theory because I know it is physically plausible, I've read a sufficient number of papers to know that it is coherent, I know and trust some of the scientists involved. I've also researched many of the competing theories, and observed for myself their deep flaws. So I have not swallowed AGW.

An inability to give up authority to others reflects a fear of the world rather than a sense of maturity, since we all depend on other people to some degree.

Roger58,

quote:

Why are you so keen to get rid of your own authority and be dependent on someone elses?

Presumably, at some point, you've outsourced your judegement to someone else in this debate? For instance did you watch TGGWS? Or have you read the musings of other sceptics?

My point is that if you have, then aren't you biased? Haven't you just chosen to hold one form of authority over another?

If you haven't deferred you judgement to someone else then you must of either just decided to dismiss the IPCC's claims (and others) on a whim, or you've read the science and weren't convinced for whatever reason. This second pair of possibilities presents a logical problem:

Presumably you take scientific advice on a regular basis? You go to the doctor, they prescribe you medicine, and presumably you don't decide to ignore the recommended dosage?

Take AIDS for example. Presumably you'd endorse people to take the warnings of professional doctors seriously, and either recommend abstinence or the use of condom?

My point is that you've either just shown some bias, or you're being selective about who you listen to. Surely you are already dependent on others authority unless, as I've pointed out, you frequently ignore the doctors advice, or some such. Either way, plain logic conflicts strongly with your argument.

quote:

Originally posted by Roger58:

So. If one of your questions is adapted as:
1) "Why should I (or anyone else) not swallow global warming?"
My only helpful answer could be:
"Why are you so keen to get rid of your own authority and
be dependent on someone elses?"

2) And if your reply was:
"Because they understand a great deal more than I do."
I would only repeat (with a wry smile):
"Why are you so keen to get rid of your own authority and
be dependent on someone elses?"

3) And if your reply was:
"Because I believe the outside world is going to end."
I would only repeat (with an even wrier smile):
"Why are you so keen to get rid of your own authority and
be dependent on someone elses?"*

and so on, until you can find a more useful answer for yourself.

* ie: follow steps 1 - 3 for a summary of the collective posts on this forum.

So Roger 58, though espousing scepticism and pretending to have an open mind you are in fact a dogmatist closing off part of your own mind; one who has already arrived at a value laden conclusion “a more useful answer for yourself” and with your ‘wry smile’ would be an authority for others.

After all, an argument that appeals to authority are fallacious is, in and of itself, an appeal to authority. As you don’t cite where you have taken this idea from then the implied ‘authority’ must necessarily be yourself.

And on what basis do you take this authority upon yourself and why should I heed your advice ahead of that of others?

There are of course whole courses and books devoted to this question:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0415221560/qid...ag2=socialissuesr-21

‘If nothing can be truly asserted, even the following claim would be false, the claim that there is no true assertion.’ (Aristotle)

quote:

Originally posted by Steve_M:
Roger, I give up as your logic, and your determination to selectively quote is beyond me.

I think AGW is a good theory because I know it is physically plausible, I've read a sufficient number of papers to know that it is coherent, I know and trust some of the scientists involved. I've also researched many of the competing theories, and observed for myself their deep flaws. So I have not swallowed AGW.

An inability to give up authority to others reflects a fear of the world rather than a sense of maturity, since we all depend on other people to some degree.

Fair enough Steve. But if this discussion was taking place in a pub, or in pen and ink, I'm sure you wouldn't expect me to repeat verbatim a whole wodge of something you've said, just to comment on a sentence within it which I find exciting. I tend not to look for evidence - just for clues.

AGW is undoubtedly a good theory, unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on who you are) it's not good enough. And it is even less good when contaminated with politics, idealism and pay-packets.

I often choose to SURRENDER authority to one I recognise as equal or higher to mine. But that's very different from the SUBMISSION of authority sought by those who intentionally use fear, uncertainty and doubt as a means of gaining that submission to themselves (and, of course, their theories).

PodBod. Your analogy (above) is a good enough one to use. I would indeed go to my doctor - and surrender myself to his authority - if I had a bad foot. But I would never run to him in a perfectly healthy state and demand he finds something wrong with me and forecasts (in infinite detail) my demise. Just as I would see it as an abuse of the authority I entrusted in him if he came banging on my door every week demanding I change my comfortable footwear NOW or his limited knowledge gives him a 90% probability that I'll have a bad foot in 20 years time - in theory.

Yes, I am biased. I'm biased to my own authority. If I come across someone who agrees with that, all well and good. Like I indicated in my previous post to Steve_M, my own authority is built on my experiences in life and on historical experiences I have come across, or sought out. All of which lead me to arrive at the same subjective (internal) conclusion: The world - just like a body - is a very, very, very robust object and we can trust both to hold us - and bare all our various appetites - without fear.

hello
can anyone please explain to me or throw some light as to the cause of the medieval warm period

quote:

Originally posted by Roger58:

It's not that 'we' know BETTER TrueSceptic, it's that the scientists - with all their 'specialist knowledge' - clearly don't know anywhere near ENOUGH... but are claiming they do. Who does that make foolish and arrogant?

If you want to spend your life in thrall to authority figures, that's up to you. I call it the 'My Dad says...' mentality (ie 'We should believe in God, cuz my Dad says so!').

If, on the other hand, you want to start thinking for yourself, you can start by owning up to the fact that the AGWers are demanding action on only the most miniscule amount of CO2. The vast amount of it out there, which they have no chance of changing, they ignore.

I think that you have already demonstrated that you believe that you "know better". You claim, from the viewpoint of a non-specialist, that the scientists don't know enough, something you are not qualified to do.

I'm not clear why you suggest that I'm "in thrall" to authority figures. I look at the facts and arguments presented and excercise my judgement in deciding who is more likely to be correct. When my knowledge doesn't extend to a full knowledge of the subject, I defer to expert opinion. Would you oppose, say, quantum theory or epidemiology in the way you oppose climate science?

As for "thinking for myself", you appear to have a strange idea what that means. It does not mean automatically contradicting established opinion or "authority": it means examining the issues and making an informed judgement.

Perhaps we all "think for ourselves" only if we agree with your view?

quote:

Originally posted by TrueSceptic:
I think that you have already demonstrated that you believe that you "know better". You claim, from the viewpoint of a non-specialist, that the scientists don't know enough, something you are not qualified to do.

I'm not clear why you suggest that I'm "in thrall" to authority figures. I look at the facts and arguments presented and excercise my judgement in deciding who is more likely to be correct. When my knowledge doesn't extend to a full knowledge of the subject, I defer to expert opinion. Would you oppose, say, quantum theory or epidemiology in the way you oppose climate science?

As for "thinking for myself", you appear to have a strange idea what that means. It does not mean automatically contradicting established opinion or "authority": it means examining the issues and making an informed judgement.

Perhaps we all "think for ourselves" only if we agree with your view?

I apologise TrueSceptic. It was wrong of me to cast a slur on your thinking. It's obvious that you think things through very carefully and your posts here have been most helpful to my understanding of the subject. I'm afraid it was a case of mistaken identity for someone who was being quite cynical on here a while ago.

http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?p=154&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

hey Robroy followed this(no 2 on your list)
Top link, hope everybody takes it up!

quote:

hello
can anyone please explain to me or throw some light as to the cause of the medieval warm period

Hello cloudynights,

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a teensyweensy bit warmer than the Little Ice Age (LIA). Although the Vikings managed to colonise little bits of Greenland, at the same time, New Zealand was in the grip of a century long cold spell. Temperatures in South America and Tibet were pretty much in line with the rest of the planet (ie. cooler than now).

I've based all the above on papers referenced by co2science.org, where they've tried to collect together all papers referencing this period. However, I strongly suggest that you read the papers themselves rather than believe their interpretations of them, which I think are a bit biased.

quote:

Originally posted by TrueSceptic:

quote:

Originally posted by mufcdiver:
to true sceptic
sorry mate we seem to have lost the tread on this one
to answer your question is to say why I call this current bunch flatearthers. Because it harks back to the days when consensus pointed to the earth being flat. In its day that was also called science and as I mentioned before one Brilliant Scientist was excommunicated for daring to go against "consensus".Notice any parallel?

I assume you are referring to Galileo. Let's just get some basics down first.

At the time of Galileo, "science" as we now know it didn't exist. In fact, Galileo is often called the "father of science" or the "father of physics". He did not oppose any scientific consensus. What he opposed was the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, which would not tolerate any idea that contradicted (their interpretation of) the Bible.

In this case, the Church's dogma was that the Earth, not the Sun, was the centre of the Universe. (We later learned that the Sun wasn't the centre either, but the crucial breakthrough was in removing the Earth from its Biblical status as the centre of Creation.) Galileo was not the first to claim that the Earth orbited the Sun, of course: Copernicus and Kepler had already done so, as had some astronomers in ancient India and ancient Greece. In this sense, Galileo agreed with the scientific consensus, insofar as such a thing existed. It was the dogma of the Church that he disagreed with.

This had nothing to do with a "Flat Earth", although it seems to me that a Flat Earther is more likely to believe in a geocentric universe than a heliocentric one. Educated people had known that the Earth was spherical from the time of Pliny The Elder (1st C AD), and Eratosthenes had calculated the size of the Earth with surprising accuracy around 240 BC. The Church had long accepted Ptolemy's model: a spherical Earth with the Earth at the centre of the Universe.

So, even given that you are mistaken about the facts, how does comparing a GW "sceptic" with Galileo make any sense?

truesceptic, I assume you realise that a"gw THEORY" sceptic isn't just hell bent on killing the planet. I believe the Planet does need saving from mankind but, this isn't the way. This science is (I do believe in Science), when proved wrong, making exactly the same mistakes that the Roman church made way back then.It will be another Errosion to the whole scientific worlds credibilty(read the "Boy who cried wolf")100s of years down the line,who knows what damage it could do then for the sake of a few reaserch grants now.The simple fact is that we don't know enough about the climate to make these grandious claims.
Tell you What, follow the link at the top, and come back with rebuttals for every doubt on this page and then I'll believe in the credibility of this"science"

This was quite a list.

quote:

http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?p=154&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
Sorry True. missed it by a post or two

What do you think of it?

A lot of them have come up in this forum over the last month. The ones that haven't are the "lala" ones such as:

quote:

Sea level will rise gradually enough that we can readily adapt. The example the respondent gave was beachfront property. Its value will gradually decline as sea levels gradually rise, encouraging a move farther inland over the usual cycle of property investment.

quote:

If CO2 causes warming, then the warmed air should rise, reducing air pressure at the surface. That is not observed. The correspondent who raised this objection cited Marcel Leroux's "Mobile Polar Highs" theory.

quote:

Originally posted by mufcdiver:
I believe the Planet does need saving from mankind

You should be careful about statements like this - the planet is in no danger, it is mankind that needs saving from mankind.

[/QUOTE]You should be careful about statements like this - the planet is in no danger, it is mankind that needs saving from mankind.[/QUOTE]

all too true Mind... My fingers were faster than the beer!! sorry

quote:

Originally posted by Steve_M:
This was quite a list.

What do you think of it?

A lot of them have come up in this forum over the last month. The ones that haven't are the "lala" ones such as:

quote:

Sea level will rise gradually enough that we can readily adapt. The example the respondent gave was beachfront property. Its value will gradually decline as sea levels gradually rise, encouraging a move farther inland over the usual cycle of property investment.

quote:

If CO2 causes warming, then the warmed air should rise, reducing air pressure at the surface. That is not observed. The correspondent who raised this objection cited Marcel Leroux's "Mobile Polar Highs" theory.

["The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists."]
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...a-88824bb8e528

I think this is where we're going Steve! If we're not there already

? Steve M
[quote More than half the Sun's power output is in the form of infrared light, though much of it is absorbed by the Earth's atmosphere]
is this true?

quote:

Originally posted by mufcdiver:
The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists."]
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...a-88824bb8e528

I think this is where we're going Steve! If we're not there already

Things like this always make me wonder what they've got to hide.

quote:

? Steve M
[quote More than half the Sun's power output is in the form of infrared light, though much of it is absorbed by the Earth's atmosphere]
is this true?

No. I've seen a spectrum from the sun overlaid and scaled to compare with a spectrum of earth's longwave emissions and there is no overlap - ie. you get two broad peaks side by side.

There is quite a lot of UV, which is absorbed by the upper atmosphere, and thus heats the upper atmosphere. Maybe this is what you were thinking about.

quote:

This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists."]
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...a-88824bb8e528

I think this is where we're going Steve! If we're not there already

The link doesn't go anywhere, so I can't comment - both sides have their loonies. I've seen emails in which Bush officials are demanding substitutions of scientists for TV shows because they don't agree with the Bush line, so I guess it goes either way.

quote:

Originally posted by mufcdiver:

truesceptic, I assume you realise that a"gw THEORY" sceptic isn't just hell bent on killing the planet. I believe the Planet does need saving from mankind but, this isn't the way. This science is (I do believe in Science), when proved wrong, making exactly the same mistakes that the Roman church made way back then.It will be another Errosion to the whole scientific worlds credibilty(read the "Boy who cried wolf")100s of years down the line,who knows what damage it could do then for the sake of a few reaserch grants now.The simple fact is that we don't know enough about the climate to make these grandious claims.
Tell you What, follow the link at the top, and come back with rebuttals for every doubt on this page and then I'll believe in the credibility of this"science"

I note that you say "when proved wrong", not "if". You are making some pretty dogmatic assertions there, just as religious fundamentalists have done, and still do, on subjects that challenge their world-view. If the current GW consensus is overturned on scientific, not political, reasons, I will gladly accept that (gladly because I really want the projected GW not to happen). OTOH, it appears that you have decided what the "truth" is and nothing will ever change that. Do you really know enough to claim that "we don't know enough about the climate"? Your certainty worries me.

I'll come back on your link when I've had a look.

quote:

Originally posted by TrueSceptic:
If you are interested in discussing religion, in particular Christianity, I can recommend

There are some excellent debates there.

Thanks for the link TrueSceptic (great site name!). I'll pass on that one though, as I'm more interested in why people believe in theories rather than the content of the theories themselves.

As I agreed earlier in this thread, AGW is undoubtedly a 'good' theory, but the important question - which it seems difficult to get a straightforward answer to - is 'what is AGW theory a good theory for?'.

If, for example, AGW theory is a good theory for ending the world with - that is, the 'goodness' in the theory is that it can be made credible enough to use as an irresistible object for for ending the world - then I can see its value to anyone who has a desire for the world to end.

If a desire for world to end is centred around a dislike of what the world naturally tends to do - develop into mature groups with names like Exxon - then it could be said that AGW is a good theory for ending Exxon with. And as Exxon (along with lots of similarly grown-up groups) play a very large - and beneficial - role in our developed, and developing, world, their ending would effectively be an ending of the world.

Of course, we are not told what life would be life 'after death', but as far as I can make out, the resurrection it has something to do with windmills.

quote:

Originally posted by Roger58:

Thanks for the link TrueSceptic (great site name!). I'll pass on that one though, as I'm more interested in why people believe in theories rather than the content of the theories themselves.
[\quote]
Actually, just about every aspect of belief is covered, from psychology to the validity of ancient documents.
139810 Posts in 6919 Topics by 2784 Members!

As you know, I'm equally interested in why people don't believe certain things.

[quote]
As I agreed earlier in this thread, AGW is undoubtedly a 'good' theory, but the important question - which it seems difficult to get a straightforward answer to - is 'what is AGW theory a good theory for?'.

If, for example, AGW theory is a good theory for ending the world with - that is, the 'goodness' in the theory is that it can be made credible enough to use as an irresistible object for for ending the world - then I can see its value to anyone who has a desire for the world to end.

If a desire for world to end is centred around a dislike of what the world naturally tends to do - develop into mature groups with names like Exxon - then it could be said that AGW is a good theory for ending Exxon with. And as Exxon (along with lots of similarly grown-up groups) play a very large - and beneficial - role in our developed, and developing, world, their ending would effectively be an ending of the world.

Of course, we are not told what life would be life 'after death', but as far as I can make out, the resurrection it has something to do with windmills.

I'm not clear why a theory has to have a "purpose". Many (most?) theories exist purely as an expression of our attempts to understand nature and our place in it. The "purpose" of AGW theory is to show, or claim to show, that we are influencing the long-term climate of our planet. What we do about it, if anything, is largely a matter of politics. AGW theory might just be something that allows us to prevent or delay "the ending of the world".

Why is Exxon, or any other huge corp., such a good thing? They exist primarily to make money. If in so doing they produce an overall benefit for us, that is good, but it does not necessarily follow.