[Pretzel Logic]

Because I often argue for objectivity and balance, my positions are sometimes unpopular, and can be confusing to folks. Beliefs I do not share are sometimes ascribed to me, because a fact I cited is "tied" to a particular belief in someone else's mind.

Let me give an example: Someone states, "90+% of scientists agree that man-made global warming is a real problem."

I rebut with: "Well, that's totally inaccurate. There are tens of thousands of scientists who disagree."

People then assume I hold all sorts of other beliefs, beliefs I may or may NOT share, based on my debate of ONE fact. "Well, he must think THOSE scientists are more credible!" Not necessarily. I simply corrected the fact, because the fact was inaccurate. I do not believe we can get to the truth of anything without CORRECT FACTS.

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." - F. Scott Fitzgerald

As you read my replies, please try to limit "reading into" them. Facts are unbiased. They do not "take sides." They have no politics. FACTS SIMPLY ARE. In order to get anywhere with our understandings, our hypotheses, our advancement of science -- WE FIRST NEED FACTS.

If we wish to advance ourselves in an intelligent and rational manner, then we are also required to ACCEPT facts, even if those facts countermand our primary and previous beliefs.

We can debate how to interpret facts, we can debate what those facts mean, but we cannot debate the facts themselves -- unless we wish the debate to devolve into utter senselessness.

Only then can we form intelligent opinions. Opinions without facts are nothing more than BLIND SPECULATION. And blind speculation is almost never productive, because in the absence of facts, we have only emotion to "fill in the blanks." With emotion filling in the blanks, we will come up with opinions that suit only our hopes, fears, and desires. In other words, we will arrive at conclusions that simply support our biases.

Strong opinions predicated on blind speculation are worse than worthless to the advance of objective understanding. They are, in fact, wholly counterproductive and RETARD the advance of understanding -- because now one first has to overcome the strong, non-fact based opinion before one can even HOPE to reach understanding!

It is my observation that far too many humans simply do not understand the difference between opinions which are based on fact and opinions which are based on emotion. But the world would be a much better place if we could learn to sort out the two, because it would lead to decreased fear, decreased hatred, increased objectivity, increased understanding, and increased love for our fellow humans.

Yet we continue with emotion-based opinions, because humans don't like uncertainty. We instead prefer to create false senses of certainty, especially within our belief systems. Nobody likes saying, "Hey, man, I/we just don't know enough yet!"

So we rush to form an opinion to fill the empty void we feel -- to insulate ourselves from the emotional DISCOMFORT of uncertainty. Unfortunately, objectivity, rationality, and understanding become the tragic victims of our emotions when we operate from this tendency. It is my experience that many folks are wholly unaware of their own tendencies in this regard. It is simply what many people do, without conscious thought to what they are doing, or why.

Those who are familiar with my market analysis may realize that, while I may not always be 100% thrilled with uncertainty, I have at least accepted it as a simple fact of life. Emotionally, it sometimes causes me as much discomfort as anyone. But intellectually, I am quite comfortable with it, for I view uncertainty as a key component of reality itself. From our human perspective, NOTHING is guaranteed. Uncertainty just "is." Whether I choose to embrace it or deny it doesn't change it: Uncertainty will continue to exist as a driving force of the human experience -- so I may as well accept it.

That's my thinking, anyway.

My stance regarding man-made global warming likewise calls for us to embrace reality. And that reality is, our models, our understanding of how climate works, and our understanding of OUR impact on climate are all inadequate. Our understanding is not complete enough to allow us to know what's coming next. In my opinion, anyone who is intellectually honest -- and knows the facts -- will agree that "our understanding of climate is incomplete" is an undebatable fact.

Where we will begin to disagree is on the SPECULATIVE ASPECTS, such as:

1. HOW accurate are our models?

2. How DOES climate work? Is it driven by greenhouse gases, solar cycles, earth cycles, other mechanisms of which we are not yet aware? Or some combination therein; and to what extent does each component have influence?

3. What is our true impact on the climate? Is it significant, minimal, or somewhere in-between?

4. Is our impact somehow dangerous? If so, how dangerous, and at what point is it dangerous?

These are the questions my research has led me to believe science simply does not yet have complete answers for. In some cases, we have partial answers. In other cases, we have an understanding more suited to the dark ages.

My broader point with this debate was that, in order for it to be conducted with anything approaching a modicum of intelligence, the world needs to dump the emotional responses and recognize the FACTS:

1. NOBODY HAS ALL THE ANSWERS. We are thus dealing with something that is not "settled," that is not fully understood, and that thus relies on significant amounts of SPECULATION. Debate accordingly.

2. The only way to get to the truth (assuming we ever can) is to allow open debate. Society needs to stop all attempts to ostracize those who disagree with the party line. Stop labeling dissenters as "uneducated," "pawns of big oil," "deniers." As I stated earlier: We can only "deny" facts; but the facts of how climate operates as a complete system are FAR from being fully understood. Therefore, there is nothing to "deny." There are only points on which we disagree.

3. Humility in the face of uncertain science about an extremely complex system is, IMHO, the only correct response. Arrogant and "we're certain" responses are simply not logical, because they are not currently supported by facts. Emotional, subjective responses are the enemy of true science -- and thus the enemy of our hopes of working together to reach future understanding.

[Pretzel Logic]

The post that started it all, from Mr. Off-Topic himself.

One of the many reasons why it's not a good idea to be fear-mongering, hysterical, and alarmist about your predictions -- especially when you're attempting to predict an incredibly complex system that science doesn't really understand.

Earth’s climate may not warm as quickly as expected, suggest new cloud studies

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/e...ud-studies

Basically, the latest research indicates that everything scientists thought they knew about both cloud formation and cloud history was flawed -- and understanding clouds is an important factor in understanding climate. Which drives home the point that I've been arguing for years: Science is attempting to predict what's going to happen to an extremely complex system that they simply do NOT understand. And while I'm not a warming scientist, I am quite familiar with making predictions -- so I like to think I'm capable of recognizing when I, or someone else, is completely overstepping their bounds in the prediction department.

If ancient cloud cover was closer to today’s levels, the increase in the cloud-cooling effect due to human pollution could also be smaller—which means that Earth was not warming up so much in response to increased greenhouse gases alone. In other words, Earth is less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought, and it may warm up less in response to future carbon emissions.

My favorite part:

The researchers are currently working toward more precise estimates of how the newly discovered process affects predictions of the Earth's future climate.

Right. 'Cause we've got it ALL figured out NOW.

Personally, I think a requisite trait in anyone who attempts future prediction is a healthy dose of humility, which manifests as a deep respect for the limitations of both oneself and one's science. When I see scientists making grand, sweeping predictions which far outreach the available data (and understanding)... and then displaying attitudes that amount to: "this is a sure thing, anyone who challenges us or debates us is a 'global warming denier'" -- well, at that point I wouldn't even need to understand the science to know that the predictions will be dead wrong. Because whether I understand all the science or not, I do understand that when people are displaying strong emotionalism masquerading as rationality, along with a high level of arrogance, they are simply incapable of being objective enough to get to the truth behind anything.

My two cents, anyway.

(Incidentally, I actually have studied the science in depth, and do understand a fair amount of it, but I'm trying to make a broader point.)

[Pretzel Logic]

I believe a number of us here have high IQs. And no, that's not a qualification in these matters any more than it is for determining treatment for an illness you may have.

I strongly disagree. I have, in fact, both correctly diagnosed --and recommended successful courses of treatment for -- numerous and varied illnesses among friends and family members for which the medical establishment had no clue -- simply because I was willing to devote the time to do the research.

As an example, my wife was complaining of certain symptoms to her doctor. He listened, ran a few tests, and concluded he didn't know what the problem was. I then spent a few hours researching it, told her to "go back and tell him you think it's this." He ran more tests and concluded that it was as I diagnosed (it was not a common ailment). NOT an isolated example, that has happened more than half a dozen times now with my wife and others.

Virtually everything in life can be understood with the application of both research and reasoning -- presuming it's something that can be understood at all. Certain physical disciplines also require practice (playing piano, for example). But science is not a physical discipline.

[tuzo29]

I strongly disagree. I have, in fact, both correctly diagnosed --and recommended successful courses of treatment for -- numerous and varied illnesses among friends and family members for which the medical establishment had no clue -- simply because I was willing to devote the time to do the research.

As an example, my wife was complaining of certain symptoms to her doctor. He listened, ran a few tests, and concluded he didn't know what the problem was. I then spent a few hours researching it, told her to "go back and tell him you think it's this." He ran more tests and concluded that it was as I diagnosed (it was not a common ailment). NOT an isolated example, that has happened more than half a dozen times now with my wife and others

Virtually everything in life can be understood with the application of both research and reasoning -- presuming it's something that can be understood at all. Certain physical disciplines also require practice (playing piano, for example). But science is not a physical discipline.

This leads me to assume that you can solve the climate question single-handedly. Please spend the needed hours and get back to us.

Seriously, though, (at least I think that last statement was a joke, maybe you think it's a reasonable request) you still haven't refuted my claim that 90+% of scientists believe global warming in man-made and it's starting to irritate me that you continue to throw that out as a falsehood. If there are tens of thousands of scientists who disagree that climate change is man-made, that tells me close to nothing about the percentage of scientists who hold that view. Until you have the total number of scientists, you can't really refute my claim about 90+% holding the view that global warming is largely man-made. What's the total number? I'll go with 10 million as a rough guess, based on the criteria for the petition. Are there 1 million who dissent? Maybe, but I doubt it. Also, I don't care if the number is 90% or 97% or 75%, the point is that it's a strong majority who are concerned because they trust the experts (climate scientists) who largely agree on this issue. Even based on the survey you cited to prove your point that there is a consensus among meteorologists that global warming isn't man-made, the data showed there is a consensus that global warming IS man-made. Care to address that?

[Pretzel Logic]

This leads me to assume that you can solve the climate question single-handedly. Please spend the needed hours and get back to us.

Please start lining up government sponsors. A starting grant of $50 million should suffice, although I am certainly open to increased funding.

Seriously, though, (at least I think that last statement was a joke, maybe you think it's a reasonable request) you still haven't refuted my claim that 90+% of scientists believe global warming in man-made and it's starting to irritate me that you continue to throw that out as a falsehood. If there are tens of thousands of scientists who disagree that climate change is man-made, that tells me close to nothing about the percentage of scientists who hold that view. Until you have the total number of scientists, you can't really refute my claim about 90+% holding the view that global warming is largely man-made. What's the total number? I'll go with 10 million as a rough guess, based on the criteria for the petition. Are there 1 million who dissent? Maybe, but I doubt it.

While you may feel I haven't refuted the claim (I disagree), neither have you proved it. Although I'm not sure what the "formal proceedings" are for this debate, I'm not certain why the burden of proof to refute your unproven claim falls on me? Don't you first have to prove the claim before I can refute it? Where's the judge when you need him?

Also, I don't care if the number is 90% or 97% or 75%, the point is that it's a strong majority who are concerned because they trust the experts (climate scientists) who largely agree on this issue.

Okay, so it doesn't matter if you prove your claim and/or I refute it?

Even based on the survey you cited to prove your point that there is a consensus among meteorologists that global warming isn't man-made, the data showed there is a consensus that global warming IS man-made. Care to address that?

Originally, I believed your argument was something along the lines of "Well, 90+% of scientists agree man-made warming is a real problem." I was attempting to refute that, and I believe I did.

Now the argument seems to be whether warming is or is not man-made? Did I misunderstand the original argument? Entirely possible that I did.

I was not attempting to debate whether or not man has an impact on global temperatures. I don't pretend to know, because I don't believe that either the science or the data strongly supports those types of conclusions yet. I believe certain data may hint at it circumstantially (and certain data seems to refute it), but either way, circumstantial evidence is quite different from the proverbial "smoking gun."

I feel you are arguing that there's a smoking gun. Am I reading incorrectly? If you are arguing for the "smoking gun" link to warming and atmospheric CO2, what (besides a "group think" assumption that it MUST BE SO) has convinced you of that? I'm certainly open to the possibility of new data having arrived in the days since I conducted the bulk of my research.

However, it's worth noting that the latest data, in the form of the aforementioned cloud study, has actually proven my prior hypothesis (that atmospheric CO2 was being OVER-weighted by many scientists and models), which is what sparked me to post about it in the first place -- and the cloud study does have to be understood as new evidence and new data that represents at least a partial paradigm shift away from the old models. Have you factored that new data into your current stance? Or are you taking the view that "it doesn't matter."

As I said, I'm certainly open to hearing what you have in terms of conclusive evidence that isn't open to multiple interpretations of the data.

[GeoFib]

I strongly disagree. I have, in fact, both correctly diagnosed --and recommended successful courses of treatment for -- numerous and varied illnesses among friends and family members for which the medical establishment had no clue -- simply because I was willing to devote the time to do the research.

As an example, my wife was complaining of certain symptoms to her doctor. He listened, ran a few tests, and concluded he didn't know what the problem was. I then spent a few hours researching it, told her to "go back and tell him you think it's this." He ran more tests and concluded that it was as I diagnosed (it was not a common ailment). NOT an isolated example, that has happened more than half a dozen times now with my wife and others

Virtually everything in life can be understood with the application of both research and reasoning -- presuming it's something that can be understood at all. Certain physical disciplines also require practice (playing piano, for example). But science is not a physical discipline.

I resisted comment on the Mother thread for three days since my thoughts on the AGW issue were essentially redundant with other comments already posted. I took a bit of exception with some who seemed to be taking PL's comments out of context.

I do have a background in earth and atmospheric sciences (and envoronmental sciences) although not AGW, but it is a pet research project . It is an extremely complex system that has unquantifiable components (based on our current dataset), but I do feel that anyone willing to put in the base research should have an opinion on - their own opinion.

When I heard "settled science" years ago, of course my hackles went up (instant bias), and I had to start digging deeper. Someone on the weekend thread posted a chart of ice core data for CO2 (sorry for being to lazy to check and cite). I would encourage any with strong views on the subject to review a graph of the ice core data of temp and CO2 plotted together (readily available, and older studies are best). If CO2 is the driver of global temps, then we should be at record high temps now. Upon first inspection, the correlation between temp and CO2 is striking. Then, as you keep staring, another observation is readily apparent - temp appears to lead CO2. A reasoning person at this point wants to dig a little deeper? Maybe research the physical and chemical properties of CO2 and how CO2 interacts in the environment? Its part of my educational background, so I know that cold water absorbs more CO2 than warm water, but I encourage all to dig if they feel strongly about the matter. Learn, understand the issues. You don't have to be a qualified "scientist", just a reasoning person. DRG, I'm sure can tell you anything and everything you can imagine or want to know about the carbon cycle

At any rate, our myopic view from 60-100 years out is SO biased that we can't even begin to understand the issue. The earth is still recovering from a recent ice age (who says its over yet?) and both sides should be expecting considerably more warming to reach averages. "Alarmists", would of course like us to broil directly, while "Deniers" expect meandering or cooling. Looking at the data, the "hockey stick" is not without prescedent.

A couple of parting shots
PL'S comment about who ya gonna believe, big business or big gov't, is WAY on target. Also, a couple of other posters mentioned "follow the money" PdL, Wblscott?, others? Almost unlimited source of wealth redistribution and tax income......

Edit: I state AGW, but obviously I'm talking longer term and I feel that the background data is DIRECTLY applicable to our tiny snapshot in time

[Blind Squirrel]

Polar Ice Same as 1979 - Global Warming Lies - Climate Change Really Geo... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu6JmQWW...ture=share …

[Pretzel Logic]

Also, I don't care if the number is 90% or 97% or 75%, the point is that it's a strong majority who are concerned because they trust the experts (climate scientists) who largely agree on this issue.

I actually agree that the numbers don't really matter, but I suspect that's for different reasons than you have. For example, Galileo was DECIDEDLY in the minority when he first released his conclusions. And we could have made this same argument back then, but even stronger: "99.9% of scientists agree that Galileo is WRONG!"

I don't feel that a majority by itself = "the correct view." The majority of people, scientists included, are bogged down by so much of their own emotional garbage that they can't accurately observe much of anything. Besides, it's not like it's particularly hard to get a degree in the subject. Time consuming, maybe, but certainly not like "every random climatologist" is part of some elite group -- most people of only-slightly-higher-than-average intelligence would be able to join that group if they're willing to sacrifice a few years of their lives. As with everything, there are those at the top, those at the bottom -- and a great many *decidedly average* climatologists. Whether or not "most of them agree" doesn't actually mean much. Don't you agree?

Anyway, you had previously asked for a scientific article that suggested we shouldn't worry about global warming. Here's a peer-reviewed scientific paper that suggests the IPCC is far from the mark:

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

Washington DC – An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.” The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears.

“Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Another scientist said the peer-reviewed study overturned “in one fell swoop” the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore. The study entitled “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,” was authored by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz.

****

“As far as I can say, all the people who end up with 2 or even 3 Celsius degrees for the climate sensitivity are just playing the children's game to scare each other, as [MIT climate scientist] Richard Lindzen says, by making artificial biased assumptions about positive feedbacks. There is no reasonable, balanced, and self-consistent work that would lead to such a relatively high sensitivity,” Motl concluded.

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...5d0842fed8

[Pretzel Logic]

Anyway, you had previously asked for a scientific article that suggested we shouldn't worry about global warming. Here's a peer-reviewed scientific paper that suggests the IPCC is far from the mark:

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

Now, I can already tell you what will happen if any "global warming true believers" read this peer-reviewed scientific study: They will find a way to attack the source. (If you can't attack the science, then you attack the source!) I just don't understand why they're not ALSO attacking the sources on the other side. Why only use critical thinking to CONFIRM BIAS? There are a great many who now have a vested interest in making money and/or gaining power from the BUSINESS of promoting man-made global warming -- why are they not being questioned equally?

Nobody really thinks that Al Gore produced his movie as a "public service"? Do they? There was profit motive, power motive, agenda motive... etc.

There is profit motive from "green energy" -- there is power motive from the politicians -- there is agenda motive for the many who believe "the earth would be great if we could just get rid of all the PEOPLE."

If you're going to question the source, fine. But don't give one side a free pass. Scientists need jobs too, and some happen to find that this new "green energy army" needs soldiers AND it pays well... you do the math.

Imagine you work in the "green energy" field, and your job is WHOLLY DEPENDENT on people believing man-made global warming is a problem. In fact, the BIGGER the problem is perceived to be, the more money you make! You gonna come out and say, "Ya' know, this isn't really the problem we think it is." -- ? Doubtful. In fact, you will go a step farther and you will not even be aware of this tendency: To preserve your own internal sense of consistency, you will ACTUALLY CONVINCE YOURSELF THAT IT'S A PROBLEM. Even if it isn't. Good luck seeing past THAT bias -- when seeing past it would render your whole life's work meaningless, AND mean that you'll be out of a job and that your family will be out on the street.

Where is the skepticism, the critical thinking, the examination of the credibility of witnesses when it comes to those who are in the business of promoting man-made global warming as a pending catastrophe? It's not logical to only question one side when BOTH sides have viable ulterior motives.

[GeoFib]

One more thing to add from me, and I'll go dark....along the lines of your last comment.

Unbiased research is almost non-existent in science these days. It's a funding issue that needs to be rectified. Too often the funding is only available to support a predetermined conclusion. "Here's the answer, find me the data". With a system as complex as climate, it's easy to find the data to support any conclusion.

Follow the money.....

[tuzo29]

ill pumping out CO_2
Anyway, you had previously asked for a scientific article that suggested we shouldn't worry about global warming. Here's a peer-reviewed scientific paper that suggests the IPCC is far from the mark:

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

OK, so according the this Steve guy, who seems to know what he's talking about, it's going to take longer to ruin the earth due to warming. That's sweet, but we are still on the wrong trajectory. I said all along that the precise rate of temperature rise is what is uncertain, not the fact that temperatures will rise due to an increase in CO_2 in the atmosphere. I'm sure there are other unknown consequences that will pop up that will cause other problems due to our messing with the earth's chemistry (DRG mentioned the ocean's getting the shaft due to higher CO_2 concentrations). Might as well ignore that since we live on the land part of the planet. Also, there's no reason to do anything since we haven't worked out the exact issues in advance. Let's just keep pumping out CO_2 until the problems are so big we can't undo them. Seems like a foolproof plan, right? I don't think Al Gore or the IPCC or any other scientist out there is doing this to get rich. They see a problem and care about the future. Sure they might be overestimating the problem, but it's still a global problem with unknown consequences and I agree with them that we should be doing what we can to minimize it. Now if you please, you can tell me how much of an idiot I am and exactly how I am wrong and how you are brilliant and objective and right as always. I'm looking forward that very much.

[Pretzel Logic]

Now if you please, you can tell me how much of an idiot I am and exactly how I am wrong and how you are brilliant and objective and right as always. I'm looking forward that very much.

Oh sheesh. OF COURSE we both think our viewpoint is right. I don't know how we can debate without disagreeing. But I don't believe I've called you an idiot or anything of the sort, or attacked you in any personal fashion. My apologies if that's what you took from it -- I certainly don't THINK you're an idiot. We just disagree.

[Blind Squirrel]

Just a quick note I promised, and will look back here on the weekend as
my system resources are overtaxed more than ever....

I have a much bigger take, but am extremely pressed for time

Shempitah Seeker Squirrel's View on Global Warming For Dummies

In a Nutshell

My basic take is that whatever conclusion is pushed by MM is the wrong one.

DiCaprio taking his private jet 8000 miles to collect an environmental award,
Gore hypocrisy et al

I think Global warming is semi-bullshit, meaning we should try to be careful in our emissions, but mainly the Saros Solar Cycles has more to do with warming and cooling than anything else.

Global Warming mainly a scam to tax energy.

We should be concerned about protecting the rainforests and oceans from
plastics and other pollution.

Sorry if this is disjointed, but will post more this wknd...

[Pretzel Logic]

OK, so according the this Steve guy, who seems to know what he's talking about, it's going to take longer to ruin the earth due to warming. That's sweet, but we are still on the wrong trajectory. I said all along that the precise rate of temperature rise is what is uncertain, not the fact that temperatures will rise due to an increase in CO_2 in the atmosphere. I'm sure there are other unknown consequences that will pop up that will cause other problems due to our messing with the earth's chemistry (DRG mentioned the ocean's getting the shaft due to higher CO_2 concentrations). Might as well ignore that since we live on the land part of the planet. Also, there's no reason to do anything since we haven't worked out the exact issues in advance. Let's just keep pumping out CO_2 until the problems are so big we can't undo them. Seems like a foolproof plan, right? I don't think Al Gore or the IPCC or any other scientist out there is doing this to get rich. They see a problem and care about the future. Sure they might be overestimating the problem, but it's still a global problem with unknown consequences and I agree with them that we should be doing what we can to minimize it. Now if you please, you can tell me how much of an idiot I am and exactly how I am wrong and how you are brilliant and objective and right as always. I'm looking forward that very much.

It can be very challenging to conduct debate via written word, because you lose tone, facial expressions, and body language. A huge portion of communication is nonverbal, so it's not unusual for one or both parties to take offense simply because tone of voice means so much to a statement. For example, I can say, "Hey, man!" like a warm happy greeting, or I can say, "Hey, man!" as an ominous warning -- depending solely on my tone of voice. But if I WRITE "Hey, man!" then it is left entirely up to the reader to determine the underlying tone. And that can lead to trouble that was never intended.

So -- let me assure you that however my words came across on their own, the tone I am using in my head when I'm writing those words is not one of anger, malice, or condescension. For the most part, it's just matter-of-fact, with an occasional slice of (intended) good humor.

[tuzo29]

It can be very challenging to conduct debate via written word, because you lose tone, facial expressions, and body language. A huge portion of communication is nonverbal, so it's not unusual for one or both parties to take offense simply because tone of voice means so much to a statement. For example, I can say, "Hey, man!" like a warm happy greeting, or I can say, "Hey, man!" as an ominous warning -- depending solely on my tone of voice. But if I WRITE "Hey, man!" then it is left entirely up to the reader to determine the underlying tone. And that can lead to trouble that was never intended.

So -- let me assure you that however my words came across on their own, the tone I am using in my head when I'm writing those words is not one of anger, malice, or condescension. For the most part, it's just matter-of-fact, with an occasional slice of (intended) good humor.

It's your quickness to say another's viewpoint is clearly and objectively wrong and complete unwillingness to admit you are wrong that bothers me. No condescension or malice needed for that. Just arrogance. I don't see the point in attempting to debate someone who won't even address the gaps I point out in his logic.

[jmtucci1950]

Because I often argue for OBJECTIVITY and BALANCE, my positions are sometimes unpopular, and can be confusing to folks. Beliefs I do not share are sometimes ascribed to me, because a fact I cited is "tied" to a particular belief in someone else's mind.

Let me give an example: Someone states, "90+% of scientists agree that man-made global warming is a real problem."

I rebut with: "Well, that's totally inaccurate. There are tens of thousands of scientists who disagree."

People then assume I hold all sorts of other beliefs, beliefs I may or may NOT share, based on my debate of ONE fact. "Well, he must think THOSE scientists are more credible!" Not necessarily. I simply corrected the fact, because the fact was inaccurate. I do not believe we can get to the truth of anything without CORRECT FACTS.

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." - F. Scott Fitzgerald

As you read my replies, please try to limit "reading into" them. Facts are unbiased. They do not "take sides." They have no politics. FACTS SIMPLY ARE. In order to get anywhere with our understandings, our hypotheses, our advancement of science -- WE FIRST NEED FACTS.

If we wish to advance ourselves in an intelligent and rational manner, then we are also required to ACCEPT facts, even if those facts countermand our primary and previous beliefs.

We can debate how to interpret facts, we can debate what those facts mean, but we cannot debate the facts themselves -- unless we wish the debate to devolve into utter senselessness.

Only then can we form intelligent opinions. Opinions without facts are nothing more than BLIND SPECULATION. And blind speculation is almost never productive, because in the absence of facts, we have only emotion to "fill in the blanks." With emotion filling in the blanks, we will come up with opinions that suit only our hopes, fears, and desires. In other words, we will arrive at conclusions that simply support our biases.

Strong opinions predicated on blind speculation are worse than worthless to the advance of objective understanding. They are, in fact, wholly counterproductive and RETARD the advance of understanding -- because now one first has to overcome the strong, non-fact based opinion before one can even HOPE to reach understanding!

It is my observation that far too many humans simply do not understand the difference between opinions which are based on fact and opinions which are based on emotion. But the world would be a much better place if we could learn to sort out the two, because it would lead to decreased fear, decreased hatred, increased objectivity, increased understanding, and increased love for our fellow humans.

Yet we continue with emotion-based opinions, because humans don't like uncertainty. We instead prefer to create false senses of certainty, especially within our belief systems. Nobody likes saying, "Hey, man, I/we just don't know enough yet!"

So we rush to form an opinion to fill the empty void we feel -- to insulate ourselves from the emotional DISCOMFORT of uncertainty. Unfortunately, objectivity, rationality, and understanding become the tragic victims of our emotions when we operate from this tendency. It is my experience that many folks are wholly unaware of their own tendencies in this regard. It is simply what many people do, without conscious thought to what they are doing, or why.

Those who are familiar with my market analysis may realize that, while I may not always be 100% thrilled with uncertainty, I have at least accepted it as a simple fact of life. Emotionally, it sometimes causes me as much discomfort as anyone. But intellectually, I am quite comfortable with it, for I view uncertainty as a key component of reality itself. From our human perspective, NOTHING is guaranteed. Uncertainty just "is." Whether I choose to embrace it or deny it doesn't change it: Uncertainty will continue to exist as a driving force of the human experience -- so I may as well accept it.

That's my thinking, anyway.

My stance regarding man-made global warming likewise calls for us to embrace reality. And that reality is, our models, our understanding of how climate works, and our understanding of OUR impact on climate are all inadequate. Our understanding is not complete enough to allow us to know what's coming next. In my opinion, anyone who is intellectually honest -- and knows the facts -- will agree that "our understanding of climate is incomplete" is an undebatable fact.

Where we will begin to disagree is on the SPECULATIVE ASPECTS, such as:

1. HOW accurate are our models?

2. How DOES climate work? Is it driven by greenhouse gases, solar cycles, earth cycles, other mechanisms of which we are not yet aware? Or some combination therein; and to what extent does each component have influence?

3. What is our true impact on the climate? Is it significant, minimal, or somewhere in-between?

4. Is our impact somehow dangerous? If so, how dangerous, and at what point is it dangerous?

These are the questions my research has led me to believe science simply does not yet have complete answers for. In some cases, we have partial answers. In other cases, we have an understanding more suited to the dark ages.

My broader point with this debate was that, in order for it to be conducted with anything approaching a modicum of intelligence, the world needs to dump the emotional responses and recognize the FACTS:

1. NOBODY HAS ALL THE ANSWERS. We are thus dealing with something that is not "settled," that is not fully understood, and that thus relies on significant amounts of SPECULATION. Debate accordingly.

2. The only way to get to the truth (assuming we ever can) is to allow open debate. Society needs to stop all attempts to ostracize those who disagree with the party line. Stop labeling dissenters as "uneducated," "pawns of big oil," "deniers." As I stated earlier: We can only "deny" facts; but the facts of how climate operates as a complete system are FAR from being fully understood. Therefore, there is nothing to "deny." There are only points on which we disagree.

3. Humility in the face of uncertain science about an extremely complex system is, IMHO, the only correct response. Arrogant and "we're certain" responses are simply not logical, because they are not currently supported by facts. Emotional, subjective responses are the enemy of true science -- and thus the enemy of our hopes of working together to reach future understanding.

My one and only course in philosophic logic proved singularly valuable to me because of one point from the professor. He described how to determine if someone was making an emotional or a factual argument: Ask the person, "What must I show you or prove to you that will change your mind?" If the person responds, "Nothing will change my mind!", then you are facing an emotional argument...which the professor said one would be perfectly justified in leaving without further effort.

So, maybe we can start by establishing the "belief criteria" that each side would adopt. We could then proceed to establish verifiable facts and see which criteria are satisfied?

[Pretzel Logic]

It's your quickness to say another's viewpoint is clearly and objectively wrong and complete unwillingness to admit you are wrong that bothers me. No condescension or malice needed for that. Just arrogance. I don't see the point in attempting to debate someone who won't even address the gaps I point out in his logic.

I was attempting to address your feelings first -- THEN was planning to return to address the alleged "gaps in my logic." I felt that consideration for your feelings, and making peace with each other before attempting to continue the debate (lest things get too heated), was considerably more important than arguing immediately. My mistake.

[dark1p]

I'm not getting back into the debate here, for the simple reason that I just don't care that much. No kids, no grandkids...I do feel a degree of moral responsibility toward the future, but I'm not going to be here for it. Coldly and logically, it's just not my problem. It's for younger generations to deal with. This is a tremendous silver lining when it comes to getting old.

I did go to a video that Squirrel, I think it was, provided a link for on YouTube. The comments are worth a look, since it seems that this debate just goes on and on and on and on, with no "winning" possible. Without disparaging anyone's view, the entire issue has for many people become a matter of faith and belief. There's so much crap out there on both sides it's impossible to sort it out. With the rise of the internet, this has happened with practically every issue. Personally, I think a number of people are full-on loony and have constructed a belief system based on going down one fantastical rabbit hole after another, but whatever. The guise and structure of evidential reasoning has been applied to a lot of misinformation and bizarre conjecture, giving it the patina of "proof." It's simply everywhere now. You can find support for any position on any topic, and "know" that you're right.

I worked in advertising and marketing for almost 40 years, and always had an instinct for spotting b.s.--which was invaluable since I spent a chunk of that time writing about and positioning enterprise tech solutions I would never use nor fully understand. The bull radar got me through a lot of analysis of information and opinion that I just didn't have the knowledge base to judge otherwise. Clients who did trusted my work and treated me with respect, so maybe I got things right more than I didn't.

So I have my opinions about things, but I can't cite chapter and verse to support them. I've never worked that way. Mainly because, for me, I discovered a long time ago that my gut and my instincts were my best guide. And they tell me that in terms of our climate, something strange is going on and it's getting stranger. From my experience on the planet, when nature goes haywire there's usually a huge dollop of human blame and years of clueless and destructive behavior involved.

You can fight for doing something about the situation or fight against doing anything at all about it, and have all kinds of reasons and evidence for either. Somewhere way down the line, if you're lucky enough to become an old codger, you'll find out if you were right or not along with billions of other people. Good luck!

[Pretzel Logic]

Since I clearly made an error by trying to be considerate of your feelings, here are the responses I was prepared to give (albeit probably with less diplomacy than I would have originally used had you not attacked me personally):

OK, so according the this Steve guy, who seems to know what he's talking about, it's going to take longer to ruin the earth due to warming. That's sweet, but we are still on the wrong trajectory. I said all along that the precise rate of temperature rise is what is uncertain, not the fact that temperatures will rise due to an increase in CO_2 in the atmosphere.

The paper suggests that there may be .4 C of additional warming by 2100. The conclusion is that this is insignificant. Obviously, this is only one of many peer-reviewed studies, and I agree that it argues in favor of your broad case that "temperature is rising." That was, in fact, the precise reason I started you with this particular paper. There are others.

Perhaps I have not made my case clear, although I've repeatedly tried: I am NOT trying to "prove" that man-made global warming "absolutely does not and cannot exist," even though that seems to be what you want to debate me over. I actually addressed this earlier, and stated that:

I was not attempting to debate whether or not man has an impact on global temperatures. I don't pretend to know, because I don't believe that either the science or the data strongly supports those types of conclusions yet.

But somehow "I don't pretend to know," is interpreted as arrogance. And not repeating myself for the third or fourth time is viewed as "not addressing the gaps you point out," when I've ALREADY addressed them. (Maybe try reading to see if I've already replied to your query before resorting to personal attacks?)

The main thing I AM trying to prove that there is a clear misinformation campaign being run by the AGP leaders, and that they are using underhanded tactics to suppress anyone who dissents. I've stated that over and over. I believe the facts have proved it. It can be proved it in more detail if needed. Suppressing science works to NO ONE'S benefit.

I'm sure there are other unknown consequences that will pop up that will cause other problems due to our messing with the earth's chemistry (DRG mentioned the ocean's getting the shaft due to higher CO_2 concentrations). Might as well ignore that since we live on the land part of the planet. Also, there's no reason to do anything since we haven't worked out the exact issues in advance. Let's just keep pumping out CO_2 until the problems are so big we can't undo them. Seems like a foolproof plan, right?

Seriously dude, wtf? First: When did I say ANY of the things you're implying? Second: What exactly am I supposed to address here? Your fearful speculations? Live in abject terror if you want to, I'm not going to try and stop you.

I stated that "our understanding of climate is incomplete" (see below). Isn't that the EXACT SAME THING you've said? The difference seems to be in our respective hysterics levels over the fact that we lack understanding of how climate works. Based on your personal attacks, I take it that you're PISSED OFF that I don't think "lack of understanding" = "oh my God oh my God oh my God!"

My stance regarding man-made global warming likewise calls for us to embrace reality. And that reality is: our models, our understanding of how climate works, and our understanding of OUR impact on climate are all inadequate. Our understanding is not complete enough to allow us to know what's coming next.

I don't think Al Gore or the IPCC or any other scientist out there is doing this to get rich. They see a problem and care about the future. Sure they might be overestimating the problem, but it's still a global problem with unknown consequences and I agree with them that we should be doing what we can to minimize it. Now if you please, you can tell me how much of an idiot I am and exactly how I am wrong and how you are brilliant and objective and right as always. I'm looking forward that very much.

Look, if you want to understand what motives Al Gore or the IPCC would have for doing this, then you're going to have to figure those out for yourself. Clearly nothing I can say is going to influence you. The information is available in the public domain if you look for it.

I've already shown that you have been lied to by the media, by Al Gore, and by the IPCC in HUGE and significant ways. THAT should have been neutral ground -- after all, nobody is personally responsible for lies they've been told, or for the conclusions they've drawn from those lies -- but it still triggered defensiveness. Your response was to come up with new speculation that I was supposed to "address." Then to attack me personally.

Let's review a few of the lies we've uncovered, and note your responses:

1. When we learn that the 90+% "consensus" you were told is complete bunk -- "you don't care, it's still a consensus."

2. When we learn that the earth is not warming catastrophically as Al Gore and the IPCC told you -- that just "proves your point" that the earth is warming. So there! What say me? (even though I had already said.)

3. When we learn that 31,400 scientists disagree that man-made warming is a danger -- well, that doesn't matter anymore, because suddenly there are "probably" a MILLION "possible scientists" out there, so 31,400 is possibly actually a SMALL number (great, but what percentage of those theoretical "million scientists" would sign ANY petition? Don't we actually have to know what percentage would respond AT ALL in order to know whether 31,400 represents "a lot" or "a little"?)

You repeatedly miss the point I'm trying to make (which is: LOTS OF LIES FROM AGP LEADERS) and focus on the minutiae instead. You work your way around any "inconvenient truths" present in new facts by deciding that your prior facts didn't really matter, and that the new facts somehow still fully support your prior opinions.

You keep trying to draw me into a debate that I was NEVER trying to make. Then you attack me personally for not responding the way you wanted -- and for extending an olive branch!

In a nutshell, you completely ignore new facts by explaining them away with seemingly ad hoc speculations that fit your old bias. All new information is thus effectively discarded. The end result is that you just keep plodding along believing whatever the hell you believed in the first place under the old, incorrect "facts."

And then finally, you tell me that I'm actually the one with the "complete unwillingness to admit to being wrong."

Got it.

The funny thing is, I was NEVER trying to tell you that YOU were wrong. I was trying to illustrate that the things you had been TOLD were wrong. That's an important distinction. Apparently not one that mattered, though.

[tuzo29]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...nsitivity/