Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

The pedigree's of the people opposing global warming is significant. The director of NOAA atmospherics studies, Dr Gray of Colorado State, if I recall.

That would be interesting, since NOAA is expending great effort to document and study the current Warming Trend of our planet, so that we can better understand what is happening right now.

[MaxWilson]

Originally Posted by llamabeast

licker, I guess maybe you missed my last post in the flurry that followed it, but I'd really be honestly interested to hear - what, in your opinion, is the reason that so many scientists (certainly the enormous majority, but if that's in dispute let's just say really a lot) are concerned about global warming and think that taking action would be helpful. I'm just interested to know if you think they're all dumb, or they're part of a conspiracy, or they're over-excitable, or what.

I'm not licker, but give my take on it anyway:

The explanation I've heard from researchers like Morner (http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/publi.../33-37_725.pdf) is that it's all about grant pressure--in the EU, he says, you have to show support for global warming or you can't get funding. I think that's reductionist, and I'm not really willing to take Morner's word for it. However, I have observed that the "overwhelming consensus" for current climate theory models comes from within current climatology community (among physicists the issue is controversial, and meteorologists appear to think the data don't support the theories), and to me that says less about monetary pressure per se than Kuhn's /Structure of Scientific Revolutions/. People get stuck on a theory (string theory, or global cooling in the 1960's) and it becomes hard to challenge it from within the paradigm. (Read Richard Feynman's CalTech talk on cargo cult science.) Morner's comments are actually consistent with this phenomenon, unfortunately. Perhaps we have to wait for this generation of climatologists to die off (like Ignatz Semmelweiss' critics).

Or, maybe they're right, and they'll convince all the physicists. It's not like the physicists are universally skeptical, and if the climate models are actually valid it should be possible to show it.

-Max

[licker]

Originally Posted by Omnirizon

Did you even read the article, or did you just jump on its title line and ignore the rest. Do you even understand how science works?

Well a bit rude, but from the rest of your post it appears I've somehow touched a nerve. I will do my best to respond kindly. But yes, I do understand how science works, I am in fact, an analytical chemist who has in the past studied atmospheric chemisty. Not that internet credentials are worth anything, but there you go.

Originally Posted by Omnirizon

It's pretty clear that the scientists are working within the paradigm of global warming.

Clearly, and this should be an issue if they are presupposing there results as you seem to be doing for them. In any case, paradigms have certainly shifted before, the question is how deeply scientist allow themselves to be immersed in the paradigm, and thus how likely they are to resist the actual data they measure which disagrees with their preconceived notions.

Originally Posted by Omnirizon

The robots provide data that tests the paradigm and allows it to be further refined. nothing the robots said conclusively leaned one way or the other, in fact, in the light of other data, their reports seem very confusing. This either means they are faulty, the methodology of their deployment and recording is incomplete, or the theory of global warming needs to be further nuanced and additional variables accounted for.

I'm sorry... nothing they said leans one way or the other??? Seriously, this is what you are saying? These robots measured NO temperature change, but rather than accept this 'surprising' (surprising because you have already decided what you expected to find) data as accurate you immediately assume it is somehow flawed. What do you base this on, other than that it doesn't support your current paradigm? Oh, you pay lip service to refining the theory of global warming, but I don't think you are intellectually honest when you say this. That is, you assume that GW is at this point an unstoppable force (considering we haven't taken whatever actions you think would stop it), so anomalous data needs to be somehow explained away or fit into the theory, rather than the theory being modified (or indeed rejected if needs be) as the data begins to unravel it.

Originally Posted by Omnirizon

While the theory is available to be nuanced, the rote "warming of the sun" is an irrelevant variable because it presumably effects all other variables, assuming its even true. Further, it smacks of a deus ex machina that just solves all problems, and forecloses the need for any further science (which is basically your tactic here). But let's take it seriously for a moment.

I would hardly call changes to the largest input to the system you are measuring 'irrelevant', nor is your supposition that it would affect all other variables true. How, for example, does the input of the sun affect the concentration of anthropomorphic greenhouse gasses?

But in any case I think you have misread me. I am clearly not calling for an end to investigations of climate, I am actually doing the opposite. I am saying that we need to be open to all of the various studies and datum we find, not working from our preconceived notion that we've already isolated the dependencies and therefore can ignore the rest.

Originally Posted by Omnirizon

Here the oceans are rising, the air is getting warmer, but for some reason the oceans are cooling slightly. Yet you would eagerly jump on a theory that says "the sun is getting warmer" and then switch to a "the oceans are getting cooler" without realizing the salient inconsistency between the two. It is so entirely clear you only select data that supports your viewpoint, even when the bricolage of data you select contradicts itself. internal consistency of your data means nothing to you, only that each individual piece when taken alone seems to contradict GW. You've already decided a priori what you want to see, and you only look for data that supports it. Of course, this data inevitably contradicts itself.

roflmao...

sorry, but your grasp of logic is severely lacking. Where did I say again that the sun is warming? Look closely and you'll see I imply the opposite. If the energy of the system (being the climate) cannot all be accounted for, and the other variables (GHGs primarilly) are constant or increasing, then it stands to reason that the INPUT has decreased. Of course following that with actually looking at sun activity shows that this is indeed the case, and allows one to postulate that the warming was largely the result of an 'overactive' (as a relative term) sun. There is no contradiction to be had here.

Originally Posted by Omnirizon

Basically what you suggest is...

...lets just stop doing science and accept this one very marginal theory as true because it supports my viewpoints the best. It would be akin to the church telling Galileo to stop looking through his telescope and trying to solve eternal mysteries because he might disprove the Ptolemiac Astronomy system the church favored. Except in this instance the theory you're suggesting is already marginal.

Ehh? You're off your rocker here. No where have I said we should stop doing science, indeed you are the one supporting the suppression of data which does not agree with your view of the system. I'm saying we need to actually do the science first, and do it right before letting people like Al Gore and the politicians writing policy summaries lead us blindfolded.

Originally Posted by Omnirizon

so no scientists, don't continue investigating the mystery the robots posed, or trying to solve the problems they raised. just stop looking through your telescopes and trying to understand the world around you. we already have a theory that best supports those with power and money. anything else is just wrong. wag the dog.

Licker seems to lack the reflexivity to understand the game he is a pawn of.

It's getting pathetic. You can try to put words in my mouth (so to speak) but the facts are that you have either willfully or ignorantly misinterpreted what I have been saying in some (one can only assume) zealous attempt to defend a world view not based so much on science as it is based on an agenda created by politicians and other non scientists putting together policy summaries for the IPCC.

The funny thing is that the power and money you think is so 'evil' is actually on your side of this argument right now. My opinion is that the power and money should butt the hell out and let the scientists actually get on with what they doing without the constant pressure (and I know these pressures all to well) to formulate your results before you actually have the data.

If anyone believes there is not alot of money at stake for these researchers (and yes that would apply from both sides of the debate) you are deluding yourselves.

[licker]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

That would be interesting, since NOAA is expending great effort to document and study the current Warming Trend of our planet, so that we can better understand what is happening right now.

Jim-

You do realize that one can appreciate a change in the climate while disagreeing about the cause correct?

The issue, though not explicitly stated always, is with the notion of anthropomorphic GW, not GW, which as anyone who can read a chart can see that the temperature rose over some decades, and for the last decade has seemingly leveled off.

I would not imagine that anyone serious disagrees with the facts that it has gotten warmer, the question of interest is what caused the warm up, and what is causing it to have slowed/stopped?

[Omnirizon]

Originally Posted by MaxWilson

I'm not licker, but give my take on it anyway:

The explanation I've heard from researchers like Morner (http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/publi.../33-37_725.pdf) is that it's all about grant pressure--in the EU, he says, you have to show support for global warming or you can't get funding. I think that's reductionist, and I'm not really willing to take Morner's word for it. However, I have observed that the "overwhelming consensus" for current climate theory models comes from within current climatology community (among physicists the issue is controversial, and meteorologists appear to think the data don't support the theories), and to me that says less about monetary pressure per se than Kuhn's /Structure of Scientific Revolutions/. People get stuck on a theory (string theory, or global cooling in the 1960's) and it becomes hard to challenge it from within the paradigm. (Read Richard Feynman's CalTech talk on cargo cult science.) Morner's comments are actually consistent with this phenomenon, unfortunately. Perhaps we have to wait for this generation of climatologists to die off (like Ignatz Semmelweiss' critics).

Or, maybe they're right, and they'll convince all the physicists. It's not like the physicists are universally skeptical, and if the climate models are actually valid it should be possible to show it.

-Max

What you are pointing out here is what actually makes global warming theory so amazing from within the scientific community. As Kuhn points out, science is intrinsically conservative, it is very difficult to change paradigms. Basically, there simply has to be no place left to hide for one paradigm before another can take over; as long as there is doubt, the old ones will remain.

However, this means that when a paradigm falls out of favor, its out for good, and the one that replaces it has already undergone rigorous testing. Read up on the history of global warming and you will see that its ascension is fairly recent (as recent as the last half century). Before that, it was only one among a group of competing theories. The intrinsic conservatism of science that Kuhn talks about (and Popper sometimes laments) is in this case lending some favor for global warming and against its (ironically) conservative detractors.

What makes this even more amazing is that science is actually moving in opposition to state interests in extending global warming. typically, since the state controls the flow of money, it has a strong say over what is defined as "science". This is witnessed in virtually all social science from psychological testing to sociological tabulating: the state funds science and what ever gets funded becomes "science" while the rest becomes marginal. The almost reactionary attitude within science and pressure to accept global warming is a defense mechanism against this state intervention. without it, scientists would be easily bought by state money, and science itself would be defined by this money. In this sense, scientists have been taking the literature on science studies produced since Kuhn and up through constructionist like Latour very seriously. They know and are taking seriously the golden law: who has the gold makes the laws; even scientific ones. Science is in a double-bind: it can either opt for reactionary conservatism protecting its community production, or it can sell out to conservatism of the liberal economy (thats a twist, but yes its real. think neo-cons, its basically their game.)

As for whatever licker wrote. I'm not bothering to read it. I just think its funny to watch you go through the pains and spend all the time on carefully quoting everything I wrote and viciously rebutting it. This is game forum. Get real. No one here gives a ****. Not like what you say is actually going to change opinions. If you really gave a damn about science, then you should go get a PhD.

[licker]

As for whatever licker wrote. I'm not bothering to read it. I just think its funny to watch you go through the pains and spend all the time on carefully quoting everything I wrote and viciously rebutting it. This is game forum. Get real. No one here gives a ****. Not like what you say is actually going to change opinions. If you really gave a damn about science, then you should go get a PhD.

Well played... run away since you completely got it wrong... and hide behind the 'no one gives a ****' after you apparently gave one.

And what makes you think I don't have a PhD?

This is a game forum though, perhaps you should have checked your tone in your initial post to me, perhaps not. I don't really care, I can keep the game separate from the rest of this, but I don't mind a little provocative discourse either.

[licker]

Anyway, I propose we settle this on the field of battle!

You can take whatever heat loving nation you like and I will play some cold loving nation, then we'll see just who's got the right of it!

For better results we should put some neutral nations in the middle and see if we can cause some extinctions...

[Omnirizon]

that sounds tempting. I'm already involved in two games though, and that's about my limit.

I'll take a rain check though

[licker]

Yeah, i'm a bit loaded up at the moment and about to leave for a 2 week vacation.

Perhaps in January we should arrange a battle of hot vs. cold?

No reason to limit the fun to just the 2 of us anyway

[Trumanator]

Don't forget to rename all important commanders after scientists that support your view. And make sure to post AARs in character.