Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

"You...You...You...You...You...you...you...yourself...you...you...you..."

Address the argument,

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Let's not, for it is a foolish thing. Let's go back to what you said and I was replying to. You said (give or take) that CO₂ affects the way thermometers interact with the air, which it doesn't. Within sensible bounds, not even the temperature affects that.

'Scuse me? Of course thermometers interact with the thing they measure. Thermometers interact with air just as much as they interact with a roasted turkey. Mobile molecules in the medium imnpart energy to molecules in the glass and in turn to the mercury or alcohol in the tube.
Again, you appear to be a reflexive critic.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

You dropped the sun spot claim.¹ You have failed in biology and especially evolution.² You don't seem to realise that except for very minor variations, any output change by the sun will be accompanied by a lot more than just an change in temperature, changes that are not found in the rocks.³ You are floundering in understanding the physics of the climate.⁴ You certainly have no idea how real scientists work or what are their motivations.⁵

1. Not really. I went looking for more detail and found this.
2. What error did you see in anything I wrote? If anyone, seems to me Megaego had to retreat from his claims about both the CO2 => CaCO3 pathway, forams in chalk, and the effect that elevated dissolved CO2 will have on CO2 sequestration at the cellular level.
3. "(E)xcept for very minor variations, any output change by the sun will be accompanied by a lot more than just an change in temperature, changes that are not found in the rocks." Cite? I'm genuinely curious. I asked about this earlier.
4. Of course. I said this at the start.
5. Wrong. I worked for years with biochemists, marine biologists, and cytologists.

Don't you think you might just admit to yourself that you are trying to argue in an arena to which you are ill trained? That perhaps the time has come to retire and actually learn a lot more before you try to tell scientists they have got it wrong?[/QUOTE]

 

[Corsair 115]

Address the argument,

It would be refreshing if you did. You have had numerous posts directed to you answering your questions and rebutting various matters you've raised. Copious citations have been provided in support of those rebuttals. (I anticipate your return to politically-themed objections any moment now as you offered no evidence-based ones.)

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Yes, we recall it very well, he said he didn't understand them, perhaps you had forgotten.

Not at all. If you write a hundred page proof that 2 ^1/2 is rational, I won't bother with the details, either. It's rubbish.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Not at all. If you write a hundred page proof that 2 ^1/2 is rational, I won't bother with the details, either. It's rubbish.

How do they know? There's an elegant and short proof that even you may know. As elegant and short as the field and laboratory expression of what many have told you here during this September. You only are saying that you don't have to provide proof of what you believe, which can be the Bible, the secret power of runes or your climatic creed, as you can go on just with your self-exaltation, and that's why you constantly turn the conversations to the side each time you're asked to provide proof, further analysis or simply to follow up your own argumentation. That's why, for instance, Halsu provided you with baby steps and you continued and will continue to add new items to that to neutralize any advance.

You're not arguing here in the honest meaning of arguing. You're just promoting and making damage control most of the time owing to the tremendously bad quality of the product you're selling, and that promotion and damage control consist in saying the same punch phrases over and over again and deviating to the sides anything felt like counteraction by changing the topic as quickly as possible, what is why most of your posts look like this:

A - And you told us that it has four legs, it barks, it shakes the tail and it hangs its tongue out when it's hot and hence you know that it happens to be a parrot, obviously, he! he!
M - Incivility noted! What I said is that you can't distinguish between a parrot making the sound of barking and another barking animal, and you all insist in parrots not having tongues when you perfectly know that parrots can be trained to speak very clearly.
​

Almost every post you have hung here in January or September can be classified as a)propaganda of well known chunks of denialism long time debunked, b) exaltation of champions of denialism and yourself, c) slander of authorities in the field mainly by innuendos, and d) counteraction like the dialogue above or rewriting the history what I call "the triumph of the wrong", like you did here:

What error did you see in anything I wrote? If anyone, seems to me Megaego had to retreat from his claims about both the CO2 => CaCO3 pathway, forams in chalk, and the effect that elevated dissolved CO2 will have on CO2 sequestration at the cellular level.

an outstandingly ridiculous claim that, form and content, depicts you full body. That boils down to just attack, propaganda, defence, deviating the blows of the opponent, attack, propaganda, defence, ...it keeps going, and going, and going ... You only have sometimes to resort to e) redefine the play field to start it over, and that is what you did with the post I'm quoting above.

Of course, as the particular areas of knowledge debated here need both field and laboratory work, you care of keeping all far from that, in a cocoon of words and verbal appreciation where you can do the job you know. So you have found this forum as a fertile place for your propaganda, what doesn't make it less propaganda nor less obvious just-propaganda.

Whether you see it or not, I'm happy your words and acts are hard-recorded here in case you have the crazy idea of becoming candidate to anything in a future election.
​

 

[Acleron]

Address the argument,

What argument? You do not know enough science to formulate a question, let alone an argument

ps While quotes are edited to save space, editing somebody else's post to try to avoid the points made is poor form.

 

[Acleron]

1. Not really. I went looking for more detail and found this.

So your earlier claim that sun-spot activities had only been observed for a hundred years was wrong.

2. What error did you see in anything I wrote? If anyone, seems to me Megaego had to retreat from his claims about both the CO2 => CaCO3 pathway, forams in chalk, and the effect that elevated dissolved CO2 will have on CO2 sequestration at the cellular level.

You claim that excess CO2 would be converted to chalk. You were shown that this could not happen to the extent that would make any difference. You then claimed your deep knowledge of the theory of evolution shows that CO2 sequestering organisms would cope by mutating. You were shown that your knowledge of the basics of the ToE was wrong. Evolution is not directional or quick.

3. "(E)xcept for very minor variations, any output change by the sun will be accompanied by a lot more than just an change in temperature, changes that are not found in the rocks." Cite? I'm genuinely curious. I asked about this earlier.

Changes in solar output cause differences in ice cores.

4. Of course. I said this at the start.

Yet still prepared to quote minority debunked hypotheses.

5. Wrong. I worked for years with biochemists, marine biologists, and cytologists.

These people will have spent six years beginning to learn their trade. They will have suffered the agonies of trying to sort out their findings to make sense of them. Most will have suffered the mortification of being wrong and shown to be wrong by their peers. They will have defended their conclusions publicly before the brightest of their discipline. They will be continually learning and being measured by their results. Working with them doesn't even come close to that type of experience.

Dyson came into physics in a savagely competitive area of science and met the greatest and most arrogant of workers. His first claim to fame was uniting both the physics and the approaches of Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga in the theory of QED. Years later Schwinger still banned students from using Feynman diagrams although it is an easier approach to the calculations. Dyson well knew the egos and the consequences, he has obviously forgotten this if his only complaint is the attitude of climate scientists to idiots.

 

[mike3]

You dropped the sun spot claim. You have failed in biology and especially evolution. You don't seem to realise that except for very minor variations, any output change by the sun will be accompanied by a lot more than just an change in temperature, changes that are not found in the rocks. You are floundering in understanding the physics of the climate. You certainly have no idea how real scientists work or what are their motivations.

Don't you think you might just admit to yourself that you are trying to argue in an arena to which you are ill trained? That perhaps the time has come to retire and actually learn a lot more before you try to tell scientists they have got it wrong?

And isn't it pretty important to point out that if he actually did that, it is highly likely that he'd come around to the pro-AGW side?

Also, I'm curious: where did you manage to get your good knowledge of these various, multiple scientific fields?

 

[mike3]

So your earlier claim that sun-spot activities had only been observed for a hundred years was wrong.

You claim that excess CO2 would be converted to chalk. You were shown that this could not happen to the extent that would make any difference. You then claimed your deep knowledge of the theory of evolution shows that CO2 sequestering organisms would cope by mutating. You were shown that your knowledge of the basics of the ToE was wrong. Evolution is not directional or quick.



Changes in solar output cause differences in ice cores.


Yet still prepared to quote minority debunked hypotheses.


These people will have spent six years beginning to learn their trade. They will have suffered the agonies of trying to sort out their findings to make sense of them. Most will have suffered the mortification of being wrong and shown to be wrong by their peers. They will have defended their conclusions publicly before the brightest of their discipline. They will be continually learning and being measured by their results. Working with them doesn't even come close to that type of experience.

Dyson came into physics in a savagely competitive area of science and met the greatest and most arrogant of workers. His first claim to fame was uniting both the physics and the approaches of Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga in the theory of QED. Years later Schwinger still banned students from using Feynman diagrams although it is an easier approach to the calculations. Dyson well knew the egos and the consequences, he has obviously forgotten this if his only complaint is the attitude of climate scientists to idiots.

I find it saddening, to think that someone presumably went through the hard, continuous-learning-and-humiliation process you mention, and yet still managed to come out with a big ego. That so much arrogance could even still be there... almost as if those lessons never stuck.

 

[Acleron]

Not at all. If you write a hundred page proof that 2 ^1/2 is rational, I won't bother with the details, either. It's rubbish.

This is a response to the question.

'Do you recall that Dyson said he didn't understand the science?'

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8605686#post8605686

Freeman Dyson: It’s difficult to say, “Yes” or “No.” It was reasonably accurate on details, because they did send a fact-checker. So I was able to correct the worst mistakes. But what I could not correct was the general emphasis of the thing. He had his agenda. Obviously he wanted to write a piece about global warming and I was just the instrument for that, and I am not so much interested in global warming. He portrayed me as sort of obsessed with the subject, which I am definitely not. To me it is a very small part of my life. I don’t claim to be an expert. I never did. I simply find that a lot of these claims that experts are making are absurd. Not that I know better, but I know a few things. My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have. I think that’s what upsets me.

By his own admission, he is not an expert and doesn't know the technical facts. He is also not particularly interested in the subject.

His conclusions are therefore irrelevant, quoting them in support of your thesis is desperation.

 

[Acleron]

I find it saddening, to think that someone presumably went through the hard, continuous-learning-and-humiliation process you mention, and yet still managed to come out with a big ego. That so much arrogance could even still be there... almost as if those lessons never stuck.

Your point is well made, but I'm not sure that it will ever be eliminated. We don't find competition in the physical arena obnoxious, the sometimes brutal demonstration of physical superiority is often appreciated. But somehow, we find the same traits in the mental sphere distasteful.

I've met some very bright people who are extremely arrogant, but it didn't affect their judgement. Often I felt the arrogance was an expression of impatience and frustration. The points they were making were obvious to them but required detailed explanations to others.

 

[Acleron]

And isn't it pretty important to point out that if he actually did that, it is highly likely that he'd come around to the pro-AGW side?

Also, I'm curious: where did you manage to get your good knowledge of these various, multiple scientific fields?

A very long life and still learning

 

[aleCcowaN]

His conclusions are therefore irrelevant, quoting them in support of your thesis is desperation.

I'm afraid it was rather a bit of acquiescent thinking on part of Malcolm. The master hasn't to prove his reasons as he has his power. Dyson is right just because he says so and he has some prestige and renown got elsewhere, so power works as a fungible commodity that can be traded by scientific reason in a different field. If you follow Malcolm's, once stated the flow of authority, the submissive subordinate turns into a bully high-ranker: the sergeant punishing the soldiers about them disobeying the lieutenant.

There is no proof needed under that way of thinking. What's the use of authority and power if you have to go justifying its existence all the time?

 

[Acleron]

I'm afraid it was rather a bit of acquiescent thinking on part of Malcolm. The master hasn't to prove his reasons as he has his power. Dyson is right just because he says so and he has some prestige and renown got elsewhere, so power works as a fungible commodity that can be traded by scientific reason in a different field. If you follow Malcolm's, once stated the flow of authority, the submissive subordinate turns into a bully high-ranker: the sergeant punishing the soldiers about them disobeying the lieutenant.

There is no proof needed under that way of thinking. What's the use of authority and power if you have to go justifying its existence all the time?

The use of authority is a problem. Scientists or at least mathematicians do use it.

Take Andrew Wiles' proof of the validity of Fermat's last theorem. Not many people understand his full proof, it had to be split between several groups of referees. But the proof is now assumed and all those authors who started a paper with 'Assuming the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture...' can now breathe a sigh of relief.

But this assumption of authority is completely different from that of Dyson and climate change.

Perhaps a reasonable scientific example would be exactly that for which Dyson made his name. I have neither the maths or even the intellect to understand the proof of QED. But the results of using that theory are so accurate that I can have confidence it works.

But how can you have confidence in Dyson when he admits he knows little about the subject and appears to care even less? Beats me.

 

[aleCcowaN]

The use of authority is a problem. Scientists or at least mathematicians do use it.

Take Andrew Wiles' proof of the validity of Fermat's last theorem. Not many people understand his full proof, it had to be split between several groups of referees. But the proof is now assumed and all those authors who started a paper with 'Assuming the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture...' can now breathe a sigh of relief.

But this assumption of authority is completely different from that of Dyson and climate change.

Perhaps a reasonable scientific example would be exactly that for which Dyson made his name. I have neither the maths or even the intellect to understand the proof of QED. But the results of using that theory are so accurate that I can have confidence it works.

But how can you have confidence in Dyson when he admits he knows little about the subject and appears to care even less? Beats me.

Authority does exist, and it's good ... part of the time. We have built societies based on the presumption of high specific qualifications coming from a piece of paper called diploma, as it would be very expensive, time consuming and imprecise to evaluate ourselves a physician each time we need medical help.

But Malcolm looking towards Dyson and implying other scientists that really work the field are clumsy or deceiving is just the way HE and others like him assign power to everyone, and I mean assigning not as an attribution but as an allotment.

The kind of authority we are talking here is not the kind of authority we'd acknowledge in the scientific field. It's more like the authority I have to recognize in Obama no matter I had no bearing in his election as high power to a mega-tribe that is alien to me (USA). But they chose him, so he certainly has a command I can perceive and should respect. The same way, the "denialist tribe" has their icons within and around. It looks like Malcolm has projected some confidence on Dyson's and he expects for us to acknowledge some reason coming from that. That's why it doesn't matter what really Dyson knows and said. He knows basic physics, doesn't he? Or better said, he knows a lot of what Malcolm believed we were talking about, so he slipped Dyson in the conversation.

Go back to every posts on Dyson and you'll see everything worked that way in spite of the rational ornate, but I assure you Malcolm already realized he bungled on Dyson's -not that he'd ever admit it-, but as we remind him constantly that, he'll mostly use the technique of going back to the last time he could be perceived believing to be right.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

'Do you recall that Dyson said he didn't understand the science?'

No. He said he didn't understand the details of the models.

His conclusions are therefore irrelevant, quoting them in support of your thesis is desperation.

No, for reasons we have already discussed. Some people in this forum asserted that the AGW conclusion follows from "basic physics", and Dyson is certainly expert in basic physics and much more. Furthermore, if Dyson observes that the models make questionable assumptions (i.e., as "parameters", not variables) about the strength of various feedbacks, then the details of how the computation proceeds are irrelevant. That's my impression of Dyson's position. He further maintains that various sequestration methods would be less disruptive than the wrenching dislocations involved in emission reduction. Again, that's my impression of Dyson's position.

It's been fun, but I have work to do. Thanks.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

So your earlier claim that sun-spot activities had only been observed for a hundred years was wrong.

I wrote:...

We have direct observations of solar variation (sunspot counts) from the last few hundred years.

I was aware that Chinese observers had seen sunspots some time ago. I was not aware it was 800 BC. That's (roughly) 280 sunspot cycles, if records are complete. They are not.

I'd be interested if anyone can cite a study that relates sunspot cycles or solar flux to chemical signatures in rocks or ice cores.

You were shown that your knowledge of the basics of the ToE was wrong. Evolution is not directional or quick.

Note the passive voice. Where do I make any assertion about evolution that you dispute? As to "evolution is not directional or quick": this depends. Consider the evolution of antibiotic resistance. Certainly it's both directional (in the sense of "predictable") and quick. Here's another example: the switch from 24 chromosome pairs in apes to 23 chromosome pairs in humans. For the gross mutation to survive even one generation, some mutant male had to reproduce with a mutant female (i.e., a sibling). That is, a large change occurred in one leap. Unusual, but not impossible, obviously. It happened.

 

[aleCcowaN]

No. He said he didn't understand the details of the models.No, for reasons we have already discussed. Some people in this forum asserted that the AGW conclusion follows from "basic physics", and Dyson is certainly expert in basic physics and much more.

Said and replied many times. You're spamming again, Malcolm! C'mon, be creative. Others have been flexible enough to move on using the box of tricks they can found in watts' or mcintyre's. Why are you so little adept managing that?

 

[Reality Check]

No. He said he didn't understand the details of the models.

No. Dyson said he did not know the technical details of the models. He states nothing about his understanding of the things he knows about the models.
Dyson in an interview by Yale Environment 360

It’s difficult to say, “Yes” or “No.” It was reasonably accurate on details, because they did send a fact-checker. So I was able to correct the worst mistakes. But what I could not correct was the general emphasis of the thing. He had his agenda. Obviously he wanted to write a piece about global warming and I was just the instrument for that, and I am not so much interested in global warming. He portrayed me as sort of obsessed with the subject, which I am definitely not. To me it is a very small part of my life. I don’t claim to be an expert. I never did. I simply find that a lot of these claims that experts are making are absurd. Not that I know better, but I know a few things. My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have. I think that’s what upsets me.

(my emphasis added)

Some people in this forum asserted that the AGW conclusion follows from "basic physics", and Dyson is certainly expert in basic physics and much more.

The AGW conclusions do follow from "basic physics". For example the physics of greenhouse effect are not complex. It is the path from the basic physics to the conclusions that is complex, e.g. climate models are extremely complex.

The problem is that Dyson is quite ignorant about climate science as he states above. He understands basic physics but does not know the path from that physics to the conclusions.
Thus is it really dumb to cite his uninformed opinion.

Furthermore, if Dyson observes that the models make questionable assumptions (i.e., as "parameters", not variables) about the strength of various feedbacks, then the details of how the computation proceeds are irrelevant.

Furthermore the strength of various feedbacks is part of the details of how the computation proceeds !
Once again you are reading the mind of Dyson and assuming that he knows about the assumptions that the models are built on.

He further maintains that various sequestration methods would be less disruptive than the wrenching dislocations involved in emission reduction. Again, that's my impression of Dyson's position.

Yep - that seems Dyson's position. It is basically wishful thinking from an uninformed person. He thinks that some technology will magically appear to fix the problem of CO2 building up in the atmosphere. He thinks that this technology will be less disruptive then proposed schemes for CO2 emission reduction.

The problem is that there is no evidence for your "wrenching dislocations involved in emission reduction" assertion. It is in fact the other way around: there is evidence that emission reduction schemes benefit the economy, e.g. The economic impacts of carbon pricing

Economic assessments of proposed policy to put a price on carbon emissions are in widespread agreement that the net economic impact will be minor. The costs over the next several decades center around $100 per average family, or about 75 cents per person per week, and a GDP reduction of less than 1%. Moreover, the benefits outweigh the costs several times over, as real-world examples illustrate.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick, are you willing to spend 75 cents a week in order to save the lives of many people and prevent the "wrenching dislocations" for millions of other people?