Al Gore on 'climate crisis' : 'Worse than we thought'

[Inquartata]

any group of glaciologists is going to agree that we are in an interglacial.

Ah...ok?

How's that relevant to the possibility of sample bias in Peterson's study?

To an economist in the long run we are all dead, to a geologist in the long run we are extinct. I am baffled that the impact of time scale, decades vs millennia, does not enter your thinking.

So, the likelihood of your home burning down only concerns you if it might happen in the next two days?

Geologists think in millenia. So holding them to a standard of "imminent as in the next 100 years" is an artificially narrow constraint.

My premise was that the consensus in the 1970s was that we were headed toward a new glaciation. I do not recall saying anything about "it's going to happen really, really soon" being a feature of that consensus. So how does adding extra constraints look like a fair refutation of that premise?

That an author outlines the nature of the biases in a survey is good scientific practice, not a grounds for criticism, since it allows anyone to go off and redo the survey with different criteria and measure the impact on the results.

Where, exactly, did Peterson do that?

Or are you talking about your uncritical acceptance of his results as "outlining the biases"?

You've lost me, I'm afraid.

In the context of the debate, anthropogenic effects, leaving out non-anthropogenic papers is sensible.

1) He didn't. He excluded papers which "...examined the climate impacts of factors that did not have a clear expectation of imminent change such as increases in volcanic eruptions or [b]the creation of large fleets
of supersonic transports. [b]" His emphasis was not on excluding non-anthropomorphic causes but on excluding anything that didn't promise "imminent change".

2) It still doesn't make for a fair answer to my actual premise, as opposed to the one you seem to have been conditioned by the "consensus" stereotype of "deniers" to expect...

The question is whether researchers investigating possible anthropogenic effects were claiming that man was going to accelerate the arrival of the next ice age.

You're welcome to consider questions entirely unrelated to the one I actually raised, but it doesn't address what I actually alleged: That there was a consensus in the 1970s that the world was cooling, not warming. Adding things to what I actually said and then going "A-Ha! This study refutes that!" is, well, I just don't see the point, unless it's just quieting the cognitive dissonance...

If you actually want to go and do a literature search to prove any of the assertions wrong you are welcome to.

It's already been done. I refer you back to the Weart paper.

Critiquing methodology only takes you so far. Unless you can show that the methodology resulted in an incorrect conclusion you haven't demonstrated anything.

So, you're taking the Monty Python position, then?

Think about it. Extend that statement. See where it leads...

Anyone who can prove the current consensus wrong is going to be very famous.

As is anyone who is able to prove him wrong...

What's your point? That paradigms don't develop? That the status quo is not zealously defended? Tell it to J. Bretz...

A thought that has probably occurred to a great many ambitious young climate scientists .

This is speculation, AFAICT. Have you any evidence to suggest that this is what actually DOES, happen, as opposed to a feeling that it must?

[keith]

How's that relevant to the possibility of sample bias in Peterson's study?

... because you are cheerfully conflating two different issues in an attempt to make a specious point.

There is no arguement that cooling was (and still is) a consensus amongst those who take a long (millennial) view. Although the question of to what degree greenhouse gassing impacts that cycle is interesting.

To turn this into an arguement against those who are examining the near term (decades/centuries) view you would have to demonstrate that global cooling was what those individuals were advocating, you haven't. Further it is not an issue that is even addressed in the Weart paper. Weart clearly discriminates between the glacial cycle and greenhouse gas forcing. Amusingly your new favourite source concludes (and I only quote out of amusement);

Our current situation was altogether different. The warming was not started by a small shift of sunlight, as in previous epochs. Our addition of gases to the atmosphere was initiating the process, with the temperature rise lagging behind the rise of gas levels. Moreover, our emissions were climbing at a far swifter rate, and had already reached a far higher level, than anything in the Pleistocene record. As the greenhouse gases began to warm the planet, would feedbacks drive things higher on their own? There were disturbing signs that feedbacks were indeed kicking in. Drying forests and warmer seawater were getting less efficient at taking CO2 out of the air, and methane was seen bubbling up from Arctic wetlands.

By the start of the 21st century, it was clear that the connection between global temperature and greenhouse gas levels was a major geological force. Apparently the greenhouse feedback had turned the planet's orbital cycles from minor climate variations to grand transformations that affected all life on the planet.The Pleistocene geological record gave a striking verification, with wholly independent methods and data, of the processes that computer models were predicting for the planet's greenhouse future.

You've lost me, I'm afraid.

That is a statement of the bleeding obvious.

[tchwojko]

Doctor Science goes to Washington.

[keith]

So, you're taking the Monty Python position, then?

Think about it. Extend that statement. See where it leads...

Well as far as I am aware philosophers haven't even proven the existence of myself as anything other than one of your delusions. So no, extending it doesn't lead anywhere. There is source data that can be retested and examined, so critiquing methodology is just mental masturbation. It's why philosophers are generally of a cheerful disposition.

[Inquartata]

Still dodging, I see. Well, I can't argue with you, if you won't actually make an argument. Enjoy your sermons instead.

Snarky characterizations of my arguments...are not arguments.

What I have asserted is perfectly clear. If there is really no room in your world for anything but 'position X vs position not-X', that is not my fault. If there is no room in your world for people who simply question a theory without necessarily advancing a counter-theory, that is not my fault...and I might add that perhaps there is the reason behind the much-decried polarization and intolerance of modern American political discourse.

[Inquartata]

Not really, I'm not a big fan of being of you hinting at something consistently and then having you act all butt-hurt when I confront you as to the nature of your statements.

Ah, it's so amusing when people tell me what I "really meant"!

It's too bad you can't understand simple English, without insisting that your mastery of "reading between the lines" enables you to discern The Truth Behind The Words...

You may have a promising career in political speech-writing ahead of you, though.

[Inquartata]

... because you are cheerfully conflating two different issues in an attempt to make a specious point.

You're half-right: I am cheerful.

There is no arguement that cooling was (and still is) a consensus amongst those who take a long (millennial) view. Although the question of to what degree greenhouse gassing impacts that cycle is interesting.

I'm not sure this is correct. I have not been able to find any confirmation of current consensus on cooling, nor does even Weart confirm it...

To turn this into an arguement against those who are examining the near term (decades/centuries) view you would have to demonstrate that global cooling was what those individuals were advocating, you haven't.

Excuse me, that's YOUR sharp distinction, not mine, and I am not suddenly going to be bound by it no matter how many times you insist that it's somewhere in my position.

Must I state my actual position yet again?

Weart clearly discriminates between the glacial cycle and greenhouse gas forcing.

Since then he agrees with the current consensus, why are you so bound and determined to deny his statement that there was a previous consensus which was different? Why is it so important to believe that "such as creation's dawn beheld, it roareth now"---that warming was ALWAYS the prevailing view? Despite the assertion to the contrary of a commentator who is "on your side" on the main point?

Is the position you have taken so weak that it cannot bear any faint whiff of contradiction?

That is a statement of the bleeding obvious.

My, what a convincing argument...

[Inquartata]

Well as far as I am aware philosophers haven't even proven the existence of myself as anything other than one of your delusions. So no, extending it doesn't lead anywhere. There is source data that can be retested and examined, so critiquing methodology is just mental masturbation. It's why philosophers are generally of a cheerful disposition.

Well, I guess you told me!

This statement of yours must certainly be taken as the authoritative position, and no doubt of its absolute accuracy and indeed truth is possible...

[Hauptman]

Snarky characterizations of my arguments...are not arguments.

What I have asserted is perfectly clear. If there is really no room in your world for anything but 'position X vs position not-X', that is not my fault. If there is no room in your world for people who simply question a theory without necessarily advancing a counter-theory, that is not my fault...and I might add that perhaps there is the reason behind the much-decried polarization and intolerance of modern American political discourse.

You have quite the imagination there, Inq.... I'm not surprised.

But back to the point at hand; you made the assertion that attempts to rein in our impact on the environment is costing us jobs, and I asked for you to elaborate on that (or even provide ANY support), and somehow I'm being snarky and acting like an annoying child? If you dodge like this on the fencing strip you must be really tough to score on!

You made the assertion, now back it up. You, of all people, should not expect anyone to take that on faith.

[keith]

Excuse me, that's YOUR sharp distinction, not mine, and I am not suddenly going to be bound by it no matter how many times you insist that it's somewhere in my position.

you appear to be standing by the position that climatologists who examine anthropogenic impacts argued in the 70s that the world was cooling due to human activity.

I have provided you link to a study that indicated that was not the case.

You complained that it ignored studies on ice age cycles - clearly not anthropogenic.

That it ignored the impact of volcanic eruptions - clearly not anthropogenic.

You complained that it ignored predictions of the impact of the vast fleets of supersonic aircraft now plying the stratosphere - well golly gosh on that one.

You complained that there were biases in the selected texts - well if that is the case it should be easy enough to catch them out. Except no one has because it is a made up contradiction.

Must I state my actual position yet again?

Since you say things like this;

Since then he agrees with the current consensus, why are you so bound and determined to deny his statement that there was a previous consensus which was different?

.... because the former consensus you refer to is the periodicity of ice ages. Something irrelevant to anthropogenic climate forcing. In fact it is still the consensus, don't think you will find anyone argueing that whatever drove that historical periodicity of ice ages has stopped - which doesn't mean it hasn't, OMG!!!!!!

That is the issue, you want to misuse one consensus (ice age cycles) to criticise another (anthropogenic climate impact). The first is only relevant to the second if there is any link - there isn't. Unless the rise and fall of past civilizations is actually what drove the ice age cycles.

Why is it so important to believe that "such as creation's dawn beheld, it roareth now"---that warming was ALWAYS the prevailing view? Despite the assertion to the contrary of a commentator who is "on your side" on the main point?

.... because I and Weart are also on agreement on the consensus on glaciation cycles. Really this is going around and around. I am starting to worry that you are not just being argumentative. Also I have not argued that warming has always been the prevailing view, simply that there has not been some strange switch of opinion of those studying anthropogenic climate impacts.

Actually even if there had been it may not have been a problem, given that that is the way science works. When the facts change and all that.

Is the position you have taken so weak that it cannot bear any faint whiff of contradiction?

... but you haven't offered any. My position is as contradictory as Weart's, which is to say it isn't.

My, what a convincing argument...

Your arguement is a contradiction of opinion which you have imagined from thin air (to put it politely). The two things do not stand against each other, it's like saying that it's contradictory that weeks, months and years are all made up of days; but different numbers of them.

That you are happy with the idea that something else might explain the observed phenomena is fine. Go ahead and believe it but all you are advancing as evidence for your arguement is your belief.

[keith]

Well, I guess you told me!

This statement of yours must certainly be taken as the authoritative position, and no doubt of its absolute accuracy and indeed truth is possible...

You are as likely to be a figment of my imagination as I am of yours.

Semantic dallying is fine, it's fun over a nice bottle of wine, but is essentially irrelevant when there is, you know, data out there.

[Inquartata]

But back to the point at hand; you made the assertion that attempts to rein in our impact on the environment is costing us jobs,

I'm sure that you'll have no trouble identifying exactly where I am supposed to have said that?

I asked for you to elaborate on that

To elaborate on something you imagine I said, but actually didn't, you mean?

You made the assertion, now back it up.

First you must show that I actually asserted any such thing. I think you may have some trouble with that...

[tchwojko]

If there is no room in your world for people who simply question a theory without necessarily advancing a counter-theory, that is not my fault...and I might add that perhaps there is the reason behind the much-decried polarization and intolerance of modern American political discourse.

The problem with not having a counter-theory is that it doesn't help make a decision.

My car won't go.
Mechanic's theory based on facts: bad alternator.
Skeptic: It might not be the alternator, and if you put a new one in maybe whatever is really wrong will muck it up too! Or even blow up your battery!
Me: Ok, so what SHOULD I do?
Skeptic: I dunno, I'm just saying you might be wrong!

[Hauptman]

I'm sure that you'll have no trouble identifying exactly where I am supposed to have said that?



To elaborate on something you imagine I said, but actually didn't, you mean?



First you must show that I actually asserted any such thing. I think you may have some trouble with that...

Ok, I concede it was Melensdad that talked about job loss; you talked about loss of standard of living. I believe I questioned both at once, and you felt it necessary to respond to it.

Granted your response was effectively a non-response, but you put your foot in it.

[Inquartata]

you appear to be standing by the position that climatologists who examine anthropogenic impacts argued in the 70s that the world was cooling due to human activity.

Nope. Go back and read my earlier posts again. You are misremembering them as much more specific than they were.

You complained that it ignored predictions of the impact of the vast fleets of supersonic aircraft now plying the stratosphere - well golly gosh on that one.

Hmm, is there the hint, in that sea of huffiness, of an admission that you just might have missed something?

You complained that there were biases in the selected texts - well if that is the case it should be easy enough to catch them out.

Already did that. Your memory is short as well as selective!

Except no one has because it is a made up contradiction.

Or maybe no one wants to find one...

the former consensus you refer to is the periodicity of ice ages.

Hmm...can you possibly be admitting that there was in the 1970's a consensus that the earth was cooling?

Was that so hard?

Something irrelevant to anthropogenic climate forcing.

Once again, no part of what I asserted, whether or not we accept your verdict as to relevance, so I still don't know why you are so insistent on that angle.

In fact it is still the consensus, don't think you will find anyone argueing that whatever drove that historical periodicity of ice ages has stopped - which doesn't mean it hasn't, OMG!!!!!!

Your fervor is hampering your clarity. Please restate once you've gotten a grip on your passions?

That is the issue, you want to misuse one consensus (ice age cycles) to criticise another (anthropogenic climate impact). The first is only relevant to the second if there is any link - there isn't.

It's not MY issue, dude. You are still misremembering what I actually said.

And parenthetically, I'm still not very inclined to accept your unsupported judgement about what is or is not "relevant" to what else...

I and Weart are also on agreement on the consensus on glaciation cycles.

Excellent.

Really this is going around and around.

Tell me about it!

I have not argued that warming has always been the prevailing view,

Once more, excellent.

simply that there has not been some strange switch of opinion of those studying anthropogenic climate impacts.

And he's off again. Sigh.

that is the way science works. When the facts change and all that.

Well, glory hallelujah!

So, if theories change when facts change---then it is possible ( I'll repeat that in case Digital Analog is reading, possible; not definite, not likely to any specifically asserted degree) that the current consensus could also change should the facts warrant it? From which it follows that the current massive and vehemently confident consensus might, possibly ( again with all the above qualifications ) be...wait for it...wrong?

My position is as contradictory as Weart's, which is to say it isn't.

Oh, my head...

[Inquartata]

The problem with not having a counter-theory is that it doesn't help make a decision.

Why is that a reason to reject critiques which lack them? Do not such critiques retain still the potential for spurring insights, or of pointing out holes in a theory, etc? Is "decision" really all?

A: I have built this set of wings, and using them I shall now leap from this building and fly!

B: I'm no engineer, but I notice that this seam back here has started to come unstitched and looks loose. Might that cause any problems?

A: Look, unless you have an aerodynamic countertheory to my own you are merely being obstructive! Outta my way, loser!

B: But---

A: Wheee! ( riiip ) Aieee! (thud )

B: Sigh.

[tchwojko]

Why is that a reason to reject critiques which lack them? Do not such critiques retain still the potential for spurring insights, or of pointing out holes in a theory, etc? Is "decision" really all?

A: I have built this set of wings, and using them I shall now leap from this building and fly!

B: I'm no engineer, but I notice that this seam back here has started to come unstitched and looks loose. Might that cause any problems?

A: Look, unless you have an aerodynamic countertheory to my own you are merely being obstructive! Outta my way, loser!

B: But---

A: Wheee! ( riiip ) Aieee! (thud )

B: Sigh.

But B has offered more information other than just saying A might be wrong. B has made a testable observation, and a hypothesis.

[Inquartata]

No. He hasn't said that the contraption won't work, or can't work, because the aerodynamics are all wrong, and it ought to be redesigned thus and so. He's just pointed out a "hole" in A's theory...

[tchwojko]

No. He hasn't said that the contraption won't work, or can't work, because the aerodynamics are all wrong, and it ought to be redesigned thus and so. He's just pointed out a "hole" in A's theory...

The pun was worth it even though I disagree.

[keith]

Oh, my head...

Allow me to summarise. By your position the following statements are contradictory;

Tomorrow is Saturday but it will be Tuesday.

Spring is coming, so is winter.

The sun will rise tomorrow, later, the sun will cool to a white dwarf, and after that the universe will experience heat death*.





*with apologies to Nelson Pass.