Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

The Denial Industry


Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: .
  • Location: .
I agree :angry:

I on the other hand don't! To me it's conclusive that humans are contributing significantly to global warming. And this is now the consensus in the scientific community.

Curiously, some of the objection to AGW is theological. Who are we humans to change the planet etc. etc.? Well, we have to wake up and smell the salt 'cos 6 billion of us sure as heck are doing just that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
I would agree that its conclusive that the planet has warmed and therefore GW is happening however I dont think it is conclusive by a long way that it is AGW.

So whilst i dont condone twisting and deliberate distorting of facts by the anti GW lobby, at the same time I think pro AGW lobby can be just as guilty of the same thing too.

Please read, Windswept...

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=32794

:)P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Longlevens, 16m ASL (H)/Bradley Stoke, 75m ASL (W)
  • Weather Preferences: Hot sunny summers, cold snowy winters
  • Location: Longlevens, 16m ASL (H)/Bradley Stoke, 75m ASL (W)

Plenty to read there thanks P3.

I think the media has a part to play, last year the BBC loved to link AGW with the active hurricane season but this year they have been strangely quiet on the subject as it doesnt really fit the spin they like to use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
Plenty to read there thanks P3.

I think the media has a part to play, last year the BBC loved to link AGW with the active hurricane season but this year they have been strangely quiet on the subject as it doesnt really fit the spin they like to use.

Yes, a strangely 'American-led' slant on the GW debate last year. Millions invested in research, constant questions like 'Is it going to snow in Miami this week?', and a year on, and there are forty or fifty weighty tomes on the subject, some of which even agree with one another. As usual, the Media confuse the weather with the climate and just irritate anyone who knows the difference. But so much of what we find out starts in the media; the warning is worth repeating, it'll always be 'story first. facts second' when it comes to selling 'news'. I prefer forums like NW; you have a better chance of seeing how well the story stands up under scrutiny.

:)P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: South of Glasgow 55.778, -4.086, 86m
  • Location: South of Glasgow 55.778, -4.086, 86m
It is conclusive. It might not have been 10, even 5, years ago. It is now.

Without trying to play word games in any way, the Merriam-Webster definition of conclusive is “putting an end to debate or question especially by reason of irrefutability”. That's just a fact.

At any level, West, your statement is wrong. Looking at the great number of useful links people like P3 have posted, even where the findings of the studies are in general agreement with the principal of global warming, the one recurring aspect of the work is that there is an author's warning regarding scope or context, which limits the validity of the findings. Plus, there is an obvious lack of irrefutability in a situation where opposing views are taken and expressed in reasoned scientific argument, and here I would look possibly at the various potential outcomes of massive fresh water ingress to the North Atlantic system for proof of inconclusive science.

So not only do I completely disagree that the science concerning global warming is conclusive, I am firmly of the opinion that it won’t be for many years yet, if it ever is. Which is not to say that the measured indicators of global warming are not conclusive, just the science connected with the mechanics and prediction of the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Viking141
Oh yes it can, and is.

Conclusive: adjective "decisive or convincing" (Oxford)

It's decisive. It's convincing. It'c conclusive.

I've noted a trend over the last few weeks actually. The sceptic fringe are increasingly having to resort to semantic word games. I take this as a very good sign. Whenever it's happened in history it's because the real argument is over. The final icing on the cake will be when a PhD from Paris' Left Bank appears. Then I'll know we're truly home and dry. Trouble is, the planet may have disappeared down the plughole by then.

Sounds more like "argumentum ad baculum" to me West, which is , of course, a logical fallacy, i.e.

x does not accept P, then Q

Q is a threat to x

therefore x should accept P to avoid Q

and is certainly "argumentum ad populum" another logical fallacy

"many believe x to be true therefore x IS true"

You can do better than that surely?

Edited by Viking141
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: .
  • Location: .
Without trying to play word games in any way, the Merriam-Webster definition of conclusive is “putting an end to debate or question especially by reason of irrefutability”. That's just a fact.

Oxford English Dictionary is the benchmark. Always has been. Conclusive: 'decisive or convincing', which the AGW argument now is. Certainly very interesting how the mavericks on the sceptic fringe here refuse to see An Inconvenient Truth. Tells me everything I need to know about the truu nature of their readiness to listen to or study the other side.

x does not accept P, then Q

Q is a threat to x

therefore x should accept P to avoid Q

You can do better than that surely?

yawn ...

Edited by West is Best
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Viking141
refuse to see An Inconvenient Truth. Tells me everything I need to know about the truu nature of their readiness to listen to or study the other side.

yawn ...

A somewhat sweeping generalisation West. It may be because some of us live 200 miles across the North Sea from the nearest cinema which would involve a 14 hr overnight ferry trip at some considerable expense! I do believe that GW is happening but I do not believe the premises that A: it is entirely of our making and B: AGW is the only logical outcome. Neither of these premises have been shown to be conclusively proven (incidentally your reference to the Oxford English Dictionary is quite probably a further logical fallacy of "argumentum ad verecundiam" an "appeal to the authority" of said tome) in the truest sense. You have attempted to prove your argument by using several popular logical fallacies, your argument is therefore invalid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
Oxford English Dictionary is the benchmark. Always has been. Conclusive: 'decisive or convincing',
Says who? You?
Certainly very interesting how the mavericks on the sceptic fringe
Two points here; who is a maverick, and where is the fringe? You must be a lunatic to consider the millions of dollars being invested in misinformation as a fringe I suspect that, in fact, you choose your language carefully, in order to design a set of words that will offend, and that in most probability you either do not understand what you are saying, or you don't care whether it makes sense. The word 'troll' comes to mind . . .
here refuse to see An Inconvenient Truth.
As far as I can tell only one person has 'refused' one has said it's practically impossible. If you believe either that this is a representative view, or that it devalues someone elses opinion then I'm afraid you are entirely incorrect.
Tells me everything I need to know about the truu nature of their readiness to listen to or study the other side.
Just for your information, there arent any sides, there is only one The truth. You think you've found it; this may, indeed, be true - share some of the evidence that lead you to your immutable stance. However, there are some who haven't yet been convinced by many of the arguments of the debate. I know you imply they are idiotic, non-scientific, or a baboon, but frankly that's plain rude, and doesn't belong anywhere else apart from the tabloid press.
yawn ...
Indeed. Edited by Wilson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Derby - 46m (151ft) ASL
  • Location: Derby - 46m (151ft) ASL

Do you know one thing that bugs me about some of the serious discussions....when it all gets too much, out comes the 'Show me some evidence' phrase.

Cant we just discuss, rather than try and keep tripping each other up?

Its not clever, its not funny, and its certainly not productive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
A somewhat sweeping generalisation West. It may be because some of us live 200 miles across the North Sea from the nearest cinema which would involve a 14 hr overnight ferry trip at some considerable expense! I do believe that GW is happening but I do not believe the premises that A: it is entirely of our making and B: AGW is the only logical outcome. Neither of these premises have been shown to be conclusively proven (incidentally your reference to the Oxford English Dictionary is quite probably a further logical fallacy of "argumentum ad verecundiam" an "appeal to the authority" of said tome) in the truest sense. You have attempted to prove your argument by using several popular logical fallacies, your argument is therefore invalid.

Morning, Viking141: in response to your beliefs (which I shall endeavour to respect, nonetheless),

a] The current warming phase (GW?) is not all of our making. The bit that is over and above what would normally be expected of a naturally varying climate is, conclusively and decisevely, of human origin. The number of scientific papers I can produce in support of this would now run into thousands. The fuss is about how much more warming our interference is going to cause. Can you agree, then, that whether or not all the recent warming is of our making is not relevant?

b] I am not sure exactly what you mean, here - do you mean that more warming is the only logical outcome, or that more human influence on the climate is the only logical outcome? For the first; a simple answer is not easy, but, on a global scale, over 100 years, even accounting for regional variations such as to the THC, every modelling exercise, run thousands of times over, with thousands of variables changed and every possible known cause of warming or cooling put in, comes out with the same result; more warming. Whilst, strictly speaking, more warming is not the only possible outcome, it is, by a long margin, the most likely. It is tempting to some people to say that not believing that it will happen is no longer logical, but this is, I think, unfair.

If you meant the second, then it is more difficult still. The physics dictates that, with CO2 staying around in the atmosphere for up to 200 years and with more being added every year, the human influence on the climate will continue even if we stop all carbon emissions withing 15 years. Most scientists and economists are convinced that some GW is manageable, but that more than about 2C of warming will cause widespread problems. They also accept that continuing as we are will lead to a warming of 2C or more. Some scientists still take issue with the numbers, the causes and the consequences, but this is a whole other kettle of fish...

Hope this helps,

:)P

Chrisl; asking for evidence is not 'tripping people up'; it is asking if they can back their beliefs with either facts or good hypotheses. I understand that not everybody has the science background, or the desire, to look for evidence, so perhaps, in a forum like this, the question can sometimes be rephrased as 'what reasons do you have for believing this?', or 'Why do you think this?'. people explaining their reasoning is absolutely essential, as it is the only way a discussion/debate can make progress.

:)P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: .
  • Location: .
Neither of these premises have been shown to be conclusively proven (incidentally your reference to the Oxford English Dictionary is quite probably a further logical fallacy of "argumentum ad verecundiam" an "appeal to the authority" of said tome) in the truest sense. You have attempted to prove your argument by using several popular logical fallacies, your argument is therefore invalid.

Why do I get this feeling you are trying to be cleverer than you really are? Must be the University lecturer in me that spots these things. Occasionally see it in (usually male) students. The OED definition of conclusive is the benchmark. No real debate or need for argument about it, frankly. I don't think that's 'an argument', just a statement of fact. Of course, you can always find quirky dictionaries for definitions, and if you quote them I won't be able to say the quotes are 'wrong', simply that the source is not as reliable as the OED.

I don't need to prove anything, however. The scientific community has already won the AGW argument. It's up to the maverick fringe like you and Wilson to try and disprove it. I'm not holding my breath.

Edited by West is Best
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
Why do I get this feeling you are trying to be cleverer than you really are? Must be the University lecturer in me that spots these things. Occasionally see it in (usually male) students. The OED definition of conclusive is the benchmark. No real debate or need for argument about it, frankly. I don't think that's 'an argument', just a statement of fact. Of course, you can always find quirky dictionaries for definitions, and if you quote them I won't be able to say the quotes are 'wrong', simply that the source is not as reliable as the OED.

I don't need to prove anything, however. The scientific community has already won the AGW argument. It's up to the maverick fringe like you and Wilson to try and disprove it. I'm not holding my breath.

I understand your frustration, WIB, but is this really constructive? Rather than dealing in the semantics of defining 'conclusive', perhaps it would be better if we asked any person who has doubts about the science what they would accept as being a sufficient condition for accepting the AGW hypothesis. (To others as well as you); Let's try to avoid the personal stuff, please, and stick to the issues. Using terms like 'maverick fringe' is always going to be inflammatory, even if it is a personally held opinion, and is likely to be taken personally.

:)P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
Do you know one thing that bugs me about some of the serious discussions....when it all gets too much, out comes the 'Show me some evidence' phrase.

Can you prove that? Where's the evidence, eh? :):)

As for urging people to see the film An Inconvenient Truth - I assume the main thrust of the film is that carbon emissions are the prime driver for current and predicted climate change. I wonder how many poeple will be driving a car to the cinema ....... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Guess!
  • Location: Guess!

I think you are pushing a certainty which isn't yet certain, West! To say "conclusive" to a scientist, who knows there are still avenues of uncertainty, is to invite criticism.

Can it be tested and replicated by other scientists - No. It can only be agreed by a weight of evidence. That is, in no way, certain, but to you, it could be conclusive. To others, it may not be - to a whole range of degrees. There simply are no certainties, if we are projecting anything into the future, only chances of something happening. When the chances reach a particular level of probability; act.

It is highly likely that there will be a low tide, on Holcombe beach today, at a particular time and I'll use that level of likelihood to go walk the dog in, what I would determine, is a high enough probability to be certain, to me and almost everyone else, that there will be a high tide.

That does not mean we should not be beginning to act upon the effects of GW. That is a fact. Irrefutable; conclusive. It is a fact, because the warming has already happened. The dabate there is "will it continue" and I, for one, think it is very likely and I would argue that strongly...but it is not and cannot, be certain. I know there is a semantic difference between "certain" and "conclusive". Therefore, are you certain that CO2 is causing Global Warming, or do you find the evidence conclusive? If it the latter, you must feel there is some leeway, no matter how small. I'd hope that is so, because your apparent certainty surprises me. :)

Paul

Edited by Dawlish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
Can you prove that? Where's the evidence, eh? :):)

As for urging people to see the film An Inconvenient Truth - I assume the main thrust of the film is that carbon emissions are the prime driver for current and predicted climate change. I wonder how many poeple will be driving a car to the cinema ....... :)

While you're here, Andy:

I do not believe that as yet any conclusions can be drawn regarding future climate trends because we do not have a proper understanding of how and why climate change has occurred in the past, nor exactly how and why it is changing at the moment.

What I would ask you about these concerns is: whilst it is no doubt important that we understand what has happened in the past (including the pre-human era), do we know enough about it to be able to work out what is happening in the present? If we do, then we can make progress. And likewise, whilst we still don't know exactly how it is changing at the moment, do we know enough to make a decent stab at what is most likely to happen in the future?

I would argue that the answer to both questions is yes, we do know enough, already, about the past and present climate, its forcings and feedbacks, to be able to create a meaningful model of climate, which can project a meaningful future pathway for the climate.

:)P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
I would argue that the answer to both questions is yes, we do know enough, already, about the past and present climate, its forcings and feedbacks, to be able to create a meaningful model of climate, which can project a meaningful future pathway for the climate.

:)P

And I personally would say no. I think we still have a way to go. We don't properly understand the Ice Ages - especially the sudden swings from stadial to interstadial. We're not even agreed on what caused the LIA. And whilst I don't accept that solar activity or cosmic rays are behind GW, we can't entirely dismiss the 'alternative' theories just yet.

Incidently, I see a new theory (well, new to me) on D/O events has just been published:

http://presszoom.com/story_118537.html

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
And I personally would say no. I think we still have a way to go. We don't properly understand the Ice Ages - especially the sudden swings from stadial to interstadial. We're not even agreed on what caused the LIA. And whilst I don't accept that solar activity or cosmic rays are behind GW, we can't entirely dismiss the 'alternative' theories just yet.

Incidently, I see a new theory (well, new to me) on D/O events has just been published:

http://presszoom.com/story_118537.html

:)

I won't argue with you that we still don't properly understand the ice ages, but, with the current avenues of knowledge pretty well worked out, I am not sure how much our understanding can improve, given the distance and uncertainties. It's also true that we aren't sure about the LIA - even the THC scenario, so popular recently - has been questioned by its author, Broecker.

I would suggest, though, that we do have well-tested theories about what conditions were like, and can match and compare these conditions with the present, and thereby make sound inferences about the current climate in relation to the past, which, whilst unprovable (in the strict definition), can be tested [against a range of proxies] well enough to have confidence in them.

The second part of your post is harder to accept. The solar forcing of the climate is incorporated into most of the GCMs now and is already being taken into consideration. Whether the models underestimate the level of this forcing is still an issue, I accept, but no (realistic) estimate takes solar influence above CO2 influence as a forcing. The cosmic ray theory has been thoroughly analysed and it doesn't look like a good prospect for an alternative hypothesis as it stands, though I also accept that this could, in theory, change, as more information becomes available.

There is always the chance that an new or as yet unverified hypothesis will come up which explains the changes in our climate better than the current theories, but, to be honest, the matches between the current ideas and the instrument record, as well as the huge analytical power of the models being used both to test them and make forward projections (not predictions) are getting substantial enough to allow the huge majority of scientists to accept that the theory is sound.

I've just seen your add-on; I'll have a look at it in a mo.

:)P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
Must be the University lecturer in me that spots these things. I don't need to prove anything, however. The scientific community has already won the AGW argument. It's up to the maverick fringe like you and Wilson to try and disprove it.

(i) I'd never have guessed you lectured :)

(ii) You need to prove whatever you state as being fact If you don't accept this then you need to ask why it is your opinion is the only one that does not require the burden of proof.

(iii) I think you're right about the scientific community, but I'd hardly call it winning; they have based their summarisations on evidence - which clearly you seem not to require, anyway.

(iv) I don't think I've fostered an opinion either way, do you? I do not understand why you consider me a 'maverick' That is, of course, unless you've seen my play poker; and in that case I fully concur :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Viking141
Why do I get this feeling you are trying to be cleverer than you really are? Must be the University lecturer in me that spots these things. Occasionally see it in (usually male) students. The OED definition of conclusive is the benchmark. No real debate or need for argument about it, frankly. I don't think that's 'an argument', just a statement of fact. Of course, you can always find quirky dictionaries for definitions, and if you quote them I won't be able to say the quotes are 'wrong', simply that the source is not as reliable as the OED.

I don't need to prove anything, however. The scientific community has already won the AGW argument. It's up to the maverick fringe like you and Wilson to try and disprove it. I'm not holding my breath.

And now we resort to ad hominem insults and the "Im a University lecturer therefore Im cleverer than you" tactics. As you said before "yawn." Im just suggesting that you stick to trying to prove the conclusiveness of AGW using facts and logical argument instead of a sweeping series of statements which appeal to all the baser emotions and are so full of logicall fallacies as to resemble a swiss cheese!

I am as receptive as anyone else to the notion that AGW may be the outcome of the current phase of warming. I am a "sceptic" in the sense that I remain to be convinced. What I am looking for from someone who repeatedly states this as being gospel, is proof. If it is your BELIEF that the case for AGW is sound then fine say so. But to repeatedly state with absolute certainty that it is conclusive - case closed is a rather different kettle of fish. As Dawlish said "your apparent certainty surprises me" yes well me too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Viking141
Morning, Viking141: in response to your beliefs (which I shall endeavour to respect, nonetheless),

a] The current warming phase (GW?) is not all of our making. The bit that is over and above what would normally be expected of a naturally varying climate is, conclusively and decisevely, of human origin. The number of scientific papers I can produce in support of this would now run into thousands. The fuss is about how much more warming our interference is going to cause. Can you agree, then, that whether or not all the recent warming is of our making is not relevant?

b] I am not sure exactly what you mean, here - do you mean that more warming is the only logical outcome, or that more human influence on the climate is the only logical outcome? For the first; a simple answer is not easy, but, on a global scale, over 100 years, even accounting for regional variations such as to the THC, every modelling exercise, run thousands of times over, with thousands of variables changed and every possible known cause of warming or cooling put in, comes out with the same result; more warming. Whilst, strictly speaking, more warming is not the only possible outcome, it is, by a long margin, the most likely. It is tempting to some people to say that not believing that it will happen is no longer logical, but this is, I think, unfair.

If you meant the second, then it is more difficult still. The physics dictates that, with CO2 staying around in the atmosphere for up to 200 years and with more being added every year, the human influence on the climate will continue even if we stop all carbon emissions withing 15 years. Most scientists and economists are convinced that some GW is manageable, but that more than about 2C of warming will cause widespread problems. They also accept that continuing as we are will lead to a warming of 2C or more. Some scientists still take issue with the numbers, the causes and the consequences, but this is a whole other kettle of fish...

Hope this helps,

:)P

Chrisl; asking for evidence is not 'tripping people up'; it is asking if they can back their beliefs with either facts or good hypotheses. I understand that not everybody has the science background, or the desire, to look for evidence, so perhaps, in a forum like this, the question can sometimes be rephrased as 'what reasons do you have for believing this?', or 'Why do you think this?'. people explaining their reasoning is absolutely essential, as it is the only way a discussion/debate can make progress.

:)P

Hi P3

In answer to your questions:

a: absolutely agree, unfortunately some do not see it that way!

b: the former was the point i was alluding to - apologies if i didnt make it absolutely clear - whilst there may be a lot of evidence to say AGW will be the outcome that does not amount to conclusive proof yet (I remain open to persuasion however, as I made clear in my response to WIB)

What I cannot accept, however, is someone making the sweeping statement that x is conclusively proven and then states that he "doesnt have to prove anything" to back up that statement. Good science is all about proof. If you cannot prove something then you shouldnt go about a) saying that something is conclusively proven and not be prepared to back that up with evidence, b.) aggressively attack all those who disagree with this argument and c) resport to petty ad hominems, insults and, as you rightly pointed out, inflammatory language.

Surely, it is part and parcel of good scientific debate, that when someone says x is conclusively proven or beyond argument, those who either disagree or are perhaps unsure are quite right to demand evidence of same?

LOL Looks like Ive caught your double posting thing P3!

Edited by Viking141
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
And now we resort to ad hominem insults and the "Im a University lecturer therefore Im cleverer than you" tactics. As you said before "yawn." Im just suggesting that you stick to trying to prove the conclusiveness of AGW using facts and logical argument instead of a sweeping series of statements which appeal to all the baser emotions and are so full of logicall fallacies as to resemble a swiss cheese!

I am as receptive as anyone else to the notion that AGW may be the outcome of the current phase of warming. I am a "sceptic" in the sense that I remain to be convinced. What I am looking for from someone who repeatedly states this as being gospel, is proof. If it is your BELIEF that the case for AGW is sound then fine say so. But to repeatedly state with absolute certainty that it is conclusive - case closed is a rather different kettle of fish. As Dawlish said "your apparent certainty surprises me" yes well me too.

Viking141: you say 'what I am looking for...is proof.' Are you asking for irrefutable proof, or more general 'proof'? I ask because the distinction is important. You won't get the first kind of proof, because it is impossible (technically). If you mean 'enough evidence to find the defendant guilty'-type proof (if you like, the 'burden of evidence'), then there is some chance of you being convinceable.

In the absolute sense, there is no 'proof' possible that the Sun will rise tomorrow (yes, I know it doesn't, we go round in circles, but you know what I mean). But our experience tells us, as the Sun always has risen, every new day in the past, that it will do so once again; the degree of uncertainty is miniscule, because of our ability to make the inference from the evidence of experience. 'It might not rise tomorrow' is, in this sense, correct, but if somebody walked up to you in the street today and told you that is was not going to rise tomorrow, what would your reaction be? Is the case for AGW similarly made?

I caould, if pressed, post maybe three or four thousand references which seem to support the case for AGW. On the other hand, I have found only a tiny number of references yet which, without prejudice, support the case against AGW, and, please believe me, I have looked.

So, I will ask you the same question I asked Essan (Andy) before; what is lacking from the evidence so far that leaves you unconvinced?

:)P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Viking141
Viking141: you say 'what I am looking for...is proof.' Are you asking for irrefutable proof, or more general 'proof'? I ask because the distinction is important. You won't get the first kind of proof, because it is impossible (technically). If you mean 'enough evidence to find the defendant guilty'-type proof (if you like, the 'burden of evidence'), then there is some chance of you being convinceable.

In the absolute sense, there is no 'proof' possible that the Sun will rise tomorrow (yes, I know it doesn't, we go round in circles, but you know what I mean). But our experience tells us, as the Sun always has risen, every new day in the past, that it will do so once again; the degree of uncertainty is miniscule, because of our ability to make the inference from the evidence of experience. 'It might not rise tomorrow' is, in this sense, correct, but if somebody walked up to you in the street today and told you that is was not going to rise tomorrow, what would your reaction be? Is the case for AGW similarly made?

I caould, if pressed, post maybe three or four thousand references which seem to support the case for AGW. On the other hand, I have found only a tiny number of references yet which, without prejudice, support the case against AGW, and, please believe me, I have looked.

So, I will ask you the same question I asked Essan (Andy) before; what is lacking from the evidence so far that leaves you unconvinced?

:)P

Yes I agree that it would be almost impossible to have absolute proof that "x" is the case. To use your legal analogy what we have IMO at the moment is proof which is "on the balance of probabilities" which is sufficient for a conviction in a civil court, however, I require the criminal burden of proof, i.e. "beyond all reasonble doubt" does this make it clearer?

Incidentally, you seem to be missing the point I am making somewhat. I am not asking YOU to prove anything. I am asking WIB to prove the case that what he has said has been conclusively proven and is beyond argument - he has signally failed to do that. I am making the point that in a supposedly scientific debate it simply will not do to make such sweeping statements and not be prepared to back that up with evidence. I dont mind people having firmly held BELIEFS but just because you believe something to be the case doesnt make it so. Indeed, just because a lot of people believe "x" to be true it does not logically follow therefore that "x" IS true, which, as I have pointed out before is a logical fallacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Guess!
  • Location: Guess!
Yes I agree that it would be almost impossible to have absolute proof that "x" is the case. To use your legal analogy what we have IMO at the moment is proof which is "on the balance of probabilities" which is sufficient for a conviction in a civil court, however, I require the criminal burden of proof, i.e. "beyond all reasonble doubt" does this make it clearer?

Incidentally, you seem to be missing the point I am making somewhat. I am not asking YOU to prove anything. I am asking WIB to prove the case that what he has said has been conclusively proven and is beyond argument - he has signally failed to do that. I am making the point that in a supposedly scientific debate it simply will not do to make such sweeping statements and not be prepared to back that up with evidence. I dont mind people having firmly held BELIEFS but just because you believe something to be the case doesnt make it so. Indeed, just because a lot of people believe "x" to be true it does not logically follow therefore that "x" IS true, which, as I have pointed out before is a logical fallacy.

Yes. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
Yes I agree that it would be almost impossible to have absolute proof that "x" is the case. To use your legal analogy what we have IMO at the moment is proof which is "on the balance of probabilities" which is sufficient for a conviction in a civil court, however, I require the criminal burden of proof, i.e. "beyond all reasonble doubt" does this make it clearer?

Incidentally, you seem to be missing the point I am making somewhat. I am not asking YOU to prove anything. I am asking WIB to prove the case that what he has said has been conclusively proven and is beyond argument - he has signally failed to do that. I am making the point that in a supposedly scientific debate it simply will not do to make such sweeping statements and not be prepared to back that up with evidence. I dont mind people having firmly held BELIEFS but just because you believe something to be the case doesnt make it so. Indeed, just because a lot of people believe "x" to be true it does not logically follow therefore that "x" IS true, which, as I have pointed out before is a logical fallacy.

No, I did get the point you were making, but I chose to ignore it: WIB can defend himself, should be choose to. I wanted to get away from the personal and back to the general point, which I will now.

There is an important, if subtle, distinction to be made here, between science and society/law. In a legal case, 'beyond all reasonable doubt' is a decision a jury can make, even when the defence presents evidence, because it can choose not to accept the truth of the evidence as presented; in other words, it decides whether a statement or claim is or is not 'evidence'.

(I'm no lawyer; I think that is right). In science, however, beyond all reasonable doubt is, almost by definition, not manageable; a hypothesis must be falsifiable, therefore, until such time as all (reasonable) efforts to falsify it have failed, it is generally accepted as the best available hypothesis. As time passes, even the most rigorous scientific proofs are revised in the light of new knowledge and discovery, even if they are still correct in principle (consider Newton, for example). So in science, a decision needs to be made when a hypothesis has been sufficiently tested to render it reasonable to accept. I believe this is now the case for AGW. Is it then 'beyond all reasonable doubt'? Not in the strict sense, because 'reasonable doubt' is of the essence of scientific progress. Is it 'sufficiently tested' to accept as a sound hypothesis? Again, I would say yes.

My conclusion, then, is that what you want of AGW is more than it is able to give you; on these terms, you may never be sufficiently convinced as to change your mind (or find the case 'proven'). If, however, you are willing to accept the lesser (but eminently reasonable) alternative, then perhaps...

:)P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-29 07:13:16 Valid: 29/03/2024 0600 - 30/03/2024 0600 THUNDERSTORM WATCH - FRI 29 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    Difficult travel conditions as the Easter break begins

    Low Nelson is throwing wind and rain at the UK before it impacts mainland Spain at Easter. Wild condtions in the English Channel, and more rain and lightning here on Thursday. Read the full update here

    Netweather forecasts
    Netweather forecasts
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-28 09:16:06 Valid: 28/03/2024 0800 - 29/03/2024 0600 SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WATCH - THURS 28 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather
×
×
  • Create New...