Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!

[llamabeast]

I fear that in attempting to sound intellectual Omnirizon, you may be coming across as a bit rude. The comment which made Max glad he gave you short shrift did sound quite patronising you know, although I'm sure you didn't mean it that way.

[MaxWilson]

Originally Posted by llamabeast

Can you think of another example where there has been a mass move away from the status quo to a new theory which turns out to be wrong (or at least, wronger than the old one)? I feel there would have to be quite compelling evidence to cause that kind of shift.

You know, llamabeast, I don't know. I'm not much of a scientific historian. (I mean, I could say "what about phrenology?" but I don't know whether it ever caught on to the degree you're asking for.) If you were to go looking for precedent, you'd probably have to look in a field that has the salient characteristics of climatology: the subject is too complex for experimental study, so experiments focus on studying the behavior of simplified models of the subject. The only other field I know of like that is economics, but as I said I don't know much about the history of economic theory so I don't know whether it's experienced fads.

-Max

[licker]

Originally Posted by llamabeast

Okay, I think I understand. Essentially you feel it's peer pressure. That's not entirely unreasonable. There have been strong but wildly incorrect scientific movements in the past.

Of course, until fairly recently peer pressure acted strongly in the other direction - it took some decades to get climate change widely accepted. I suppose probably you're of the opinion that at that stage the evidence was on their side, but now more recently the evidence has swung the other way (against climate change), but inertia and peer pressure have made it difficult to accept the change and so people persist in believing in man-made climate change despite the evidence against them. Is that about right? If not I'm still a bit lost.

Actually I do not think there was much peer pressure from the 'denier' side ever. There was repression from the Bush administration though, to me that is different from peer pressure. You have to realize that GW is a reletively new phenomena. It was not until the late 80s or even early 90s that anyone was publishing on it, and at that time there was much less (basically zero) research to support any position. It is in many ways a 'boom industry' and for that reason there is money thrown at it, and for that reason you have a certain group who doesn't want off the gravy train. These are the people I detest, because they are not doing science for science sake, they are perpetrating an exaggeration for their own ends. The peer pressure has nothing to do with saving face (though most research scientists are horrible ego maniacs), and everything to do with keeping funding.

Originally Posted by llamabeast

In case it wasn't clear before, I'm personally strongly in the climate-change-is-serious-and-we-have-to-take-action camp, but this particular aspect of the beliefs of the "other side" has always somewhat mystified me and I'm glad to have it clarified somewhat.

I am likewise mystified that people consider themselves strongly in that camp. However, I realize from reading the IPCC reports that they do a good job of spinning their case. I also realize that many people seem to think humans can actually control (as opposed to affect) the climate, though that notion is completely daft.

I also do not like the use of the word 'belief'. Indeed 'belief' has no place in science, either you have the evidence or you don't. As soon as people start throwing around 'belief' and 'faith' it's become a personal sort of religion, and this is why to a large extent I remain utterly skeptical of the AGW believers. They also usually don't help their cause when they behave as Omni has been behaving, alot of hostility, but no support for his position. When someone is incredulous at someone elses 'belief' (for lack of a better word atm...) and cannot provide any kind of meaningful argument you have to really wonder what their level of understanding of the theory is (and this is not directed at Omni, this is a personal observation I have made in discussions with several AGW supporters).

Originally Posted by llamabeast

Incidentally, have you come across Project Steve? I've recently been involved in organising a group of comedians to go to the Edinburgh Fringe next year. The stand-in name I suggested for the project while we were getting organised was "Steve", and it's now stuck, such that we're going to Edinburgh as "Project Steve Productions" (it's going to be an improvised comedy show, you should come!). I was startled to discover that Project Steve was also apparently a project to show that there are more respected scientists called Steve who believe in man-made climate change than there are respected scientists (of any name) who disbelieve in it. Note this is just what my (well-informed) friend told me while we were swimming this morning, so I could have got it wrong.

Heh, well I'm a pretty far way from Edinburgh, but thanks for the invite

Yes the steve thing had to do with Intelligent Design I believe, out of australia or something like that.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by licker

...It was not until the late 80s or even early 90s that anyone was publishing on it...

Quote from - http://www.newyorker.com/archive/200...050425fa_fact3

[quote=New_Yorker]The National Academy of Sciences undertook its first rigorous study of global warming in 1979. Mentions studies by Syukuro Manabe and James Hansen. The Ad Hoc Study Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate, headed by Jule Charney, found that if carbon dioxide emissions continued to increase, the climate changes would be severe. It’s now 25 years since that report was issued, and, in that period, carbon-dioxide emissions have increased from 5 billion a year to 7 billion, and the earth’s temperature has steadily risen. The world is now warmer than it has been at any point in the last 2 millennia.[quote]

[licker]

Fair enough, I should not have said 'anyone'.

There was very little research going on on the subject was my point, for whatever the theories at the time were.

James Hanson is an interesting fellow, do you know his history with GW?

[Omnirizon]

Originally Posted by llamabeast

I fear that in attempting to sound intellectual Omnirizon, you may be coming across as a bit rude. The comment which made Max glad he gave you short shrift did sound quite patronising you know, although I'm sure you didn't mean it that way.

et tu brute! I thought we were on the same side llama

actually I did mean it that way.
any intelligence was pure coincidence.


the real reason MW won't respond to my questions is due to the fundamental problem of using a social constructionist argument to attack a position you disagree with. It's like throwing rocks from a glass house.

[Omnirizon]

PS. I'm not a rude guy. I wasn't rude for the sake of being rude.

and actually llama, MW was patronising first when he dodged my question by posting a link to literature on it. The tone and specificity of that question should have made it very clear that I'm more than familiar with the literature.

I wanted MW to show a grasp of what he talks about by applying it to the argument, rather than just mentioning the concept. MW is talking tropes, llama, and any fool can do that by just regurgitating what he is spoonfed. I want him to show that he understands what he's saying by applying it to the argument.

but like I said, no one here really gives a damn about science, they are more concerned with just blowing flames at their opponents ad nausuem until someone gets bored with the whole odious ordeal and leaves, while the other person can convince themselves they've somehow 'won' a battle. I would actually theorize that the reason we see the anti-GW/GCM crowd doing the most talking is because it is only in OT threads on internet forums that they can somehow 'win' their battle. so put another notch on the keyboard there Big Dogs, because your ****ing 'flamewarriors' talking about GW in a place where no one gives a damn what you have to say.



In case anyone here decides to actually read _real_ literature related to what they are talking about and arguing, I've attached an article I downloaded using my membership to the Social Studies of Science journal. Not that anyone will, since no one really cares to understand what's actually going on in science or how it really works. But here's hoping against hope.

[cleveland]

"Modelers generally agree that the climate system is a chaotic system in both a technical and practical sense, rendering short-term weather patterns unpredictable beyond a few weeks." (pg 899)

How true that is.

Since the venerable Dick Goddard can't even tell me if it'll be 10F or 60F next week, I'm inclined to ignore anyone who says, "Based on my sophisticated computational model, the 2027 global climate will be [insert stupid opinion here] ."

Even the simplest weather models are chaotic - i.e. extremely sensitive to initial conditions. No dungeon master worth his twenty-sided die believes the outcome of this roll can be predicted.

----------------

Heat is a different story, though. Heat ("q" from thermo) can only added to the planet from a) cosmic (specifically Solar) radiation, and b) terrestrial release (e.g. burning the Cretaceous period). q can only be shed by radiation.

Atmospheric [CO2] decreases q radiation losses. Since solar q intake has been relatively stable, terrestrial q release has been increasing, and atmospheric [CO2] has been increasing, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize total planetary q is increasing.

The effect of that increased q is (obviously) quite debatable, however.

[thejeff]

Climate is actually simpler than weather. At least since you're looking for less detail in the prediction.

To extend your example, would it make sense to say, Since the venerable Dick Goddard can't even tell me if it'll be 10F or 60F next week, I'm inclined to ignore anyone who says, "despite our current cooling trend, the temperature will rise into the 90s by next August."

[Tifone]

Damn ya Fahrenheiters!! Go Centigrades!!!