Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
justin01
Trad climber
sacramento
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2011 - 01:52am PT
|
blahblah...if there were a simple hand clap icon, I would implant it. I suppose there is some clever .gif, probably even printed on another thread, but I am lazy. I may even be accused of acting in a smug manner.
You laid it out perfectly. Taleb in my mind does not pick sides, he only picks holes. And like economics, climate models are rife with low hanging fruit. Whether they turn out to be useful is a different subject (though one to be talked about). His main thrust has to do with epistemology. And at the end of the day, climate models do not have an impressive track record, leading to my skepticism of what they know vs. what they think they know.
It goes back to the experiment portion of science. If one can not set up a meaningful experiment, one can not validate or falsify it's conclusions. Many of the proponents here talk much of science, but from my view point, climate science lacks this ability. Of course this is through no fault of their own. I am sure ever climate scientist dreams of cloning the earth and running all sorts of geoengineering studies.
Many of Taleb's arguments can be turned for or against any position, such is the nature of illuminating fallacies, they are agnostic to the viewpoint. But one can not leave the book thinking anything but the fact that man's view of the world is completely clouded by his imperfect ability to analyze simple facts and assign appropriate conditions on their significance.
I must admit I was a little surprised by Ed's dismissal of the author, but I do not think it appropriate to imply falsehood in his having read it. In all fairness, I have found many people who do not lend a sympathetic ear to his form of skepticism. It is quite cynical and does not leave one with any form of confidence, except for the keen sense of when someone is pulling the wool over you eyes (which may or may not be applicable to climate science).
|
|
justin01
Trad climber
sacramento
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2011 - 02:05am PT
|
FM, you could use Taleb's thoughts in supporting your position. Though, this would take a level of intellectual curiosity that I am not sure you have a capacity for (note K-man, I am intentionally being smug). As stated before, his fallacies are agnostic to a position. They are only useful in illuminating hubris, and neither side has a corner on that market.
For all I know he could morally agree with carbon sequestering.
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2011 - 02:13am PT
|
Jul 20, 2011
Next Climate Debate Bombshell - from CERN
Dennis Avery Tuesday, July 19, 2011M CFP
Get ready for the next big bombshell in the man-made warming debate. The
world’s most sophisticated particle study laboratory - CERN in Geneva -
will soon announce that more cosmic rays do, indeed, create more clouds in
earth’s atmosphere. More cosmic rays mean a cooler planet. Thus, the
solar source of the earth’s long, moderate 1,500-year climate cycle will
finally be explained.
Cosmic rays and solar winds are interesting phenomena - but they are
vastly more relevant when an undocumented theory is threatening to
quadruple society’s energy costs. The IPCC wants $10 gasoline, and
“soaring” electric bills to reduce earth’s temperatures by an amount too
tiny to measure with most thermometers.
In 2007, when Fred Singer and I published Unstoppable Global Warming Every
1,500 Years, we weren’t terribly concerned with cosmic rays. We knew the
natural, moderate warming/cooling cycle was real, from the evidence in
ice cores, seabed sediments, fossil pollen and cave stalagmites. The
cycle was the big factor that belied the man-made warming hysteria of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
..Correlation is not causation - but the lack of CO2 correlation is deadly to the IPCC theory.
(more)
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate
|
|
justin01
Trad climber
sacramento
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2011 - 02:42am PT
|
Because he is stupid rich putting his money where his mouth is.
as much as it pains me...Keynes said something to temper my comment.
"Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent."
Note: this was directed towards your previously edited comment regarding why you should listen to Taleb.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 21, 2011 - 01:34pm PT
|
(note K-man, I am intentionally being smug)
Justin, I should have never put the statement about you being smug into my post because it gave you something to hang your hat on other than the real point of my post.
The point of my post was that you misread/misrepresented the point of the piece you quoted, and claimed victory based upon your misunderstanding. Irony is that the piece you quoted gave much weight to the exact opposite point of the one to which you were claiming victory.
You then ride the discussion into the work of an economist, which (as Ed points out) has nothing to do with the science of climate change.
I see this over and over again in this thread. Climate change deniers put forth an argument that supports their denial belief. Thier "smoking gun" gets shot down immediately, after which the denier either changes the subject, starts ranting or name calling, or simple shuts up for a period.
It is rare to see someone actually say "Wow, I guess I was wrong." (Although you did come closer than anyone when you stated, "my quoted author took more editorial license than I expected.")
So instead of you commenting on my calling you smug, it would have taken real courage for you to stand up and say "I realize that when I claimed victory, I was totally wrong about the primes on which I based my 'proof.'"
It's clear, from the way you highlighted the piece, that you did not actually try to understand the words that you quoted. Instead, I assume you simply looked for the words that appeared to support your predetermined stance (in this case, "uncertain"), and claimed the quoted text "illustrates the point I was trying to make quite well."
I do see that you're approaching this debate with the best intentions. However, I look forward to day when somebody displays an understanding when their beliefs are shown to be fallacious when opened up in the light of day.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2011 - 02:30pm PT
|
You then ride the discussion into the work of an economist, which (as Ed points out) has nothing to do with the science of climate change.
k-man, you're as wrong as wrong can be on this one.
As I noted above, Taleb explicitly discusses climate change models and his problems with them in The Black Swan. I cite to pages. It's in the index of that book.
Taleb may be right, wrong, or whatever, but to say that his work has "nothing to do with the science of climate change" is provably false in about 10 seconds.
Let's see you (and Ed) man up and say "Wow, I guess I was wrong." Fat chance!
(By the way, as I noted above and just so you can't "catch me," Taleb cannot at all be described as a climate change "denier" or someone who is opposed to taking action to prevent or reduce effects of CG.)
|
|
justin01
Trad climber
sacramento
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2011 - 02:42pm PT
|
K-man. I saw what you were saying in regards to the highlighted post. But I disagreed. I did not find their understanding of the topic based on the authors qualifying statements to be impressive, and maybe you did. That’s fine, if you did not come away with the same impression, there is little I could do to fix it. We could go through it sentence by sentence, but I doubt that would change minds in this regard. But if you would like, let us engage in this activity. We went down that road because I was challenged to find supporting evidence from my original copy paste job of a poorly understood climactic forcer. The portion on aerosols seemed to be as good a topic as any. Now maybe it is not, and I should have focused my energies on magnetic fields and solar flares, or something else. I was trying to following the undulations of the discussion.
The Black Swan issue was brought up and carried through because it is relevant to the topic. It was actually more of an off hand comment to weschrist, not one I intentionally went down. But since it is now a topic, I would like to point something out. Philosophers (in the classical sense) are not only relevant to philosophy. Taleb did not write about economics, he wrote about epistemology sometimes using economics as a framework to display his point. He could just of easily written his book using failed scientific thoughts to display his point. This is not a topic limited to any facet of life. It may not be something you want to talk about, because you are not familiar with the authors work. That is fine, I too like to steer a discussion in the direction of things I feel competent in. If none of you all have read his thoughts and therefore cannot speak intelligently about his fallacies, then let us move along. There is no loss in that. But to dismiss it in such a simple minded and disrespectful way is not going to get anyone to move along. Your and Ed’s tone thus far regarding Taleb shows either an allergy to skepticism as a worldview (not in regards to climate), or your own poor reading comprehension.
Your point about switching the subject is probably true with regards to some of the skeptics here as well as some of the proponents. Again, there is no corner on that market. I have not been involved in this discussion long enough to assign blame. If I have been avoiding some topic, call me out, or bring me back. That is fine.
I did come down on you for the smug comment (maybe inappropriately), because I want my discussion with you all to avoid name calling (its pointless). I did not find your point to have merit regarding the rehighlighting, so I just moved along, figuring it would be painful and possibly futile to hash out.
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2011 - 03:06pm PT
|
Ed - How can you not believe that Correlation does not equal causation?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/09/a-study-the-temperature-rise-has-caused-the-co2-increase-not-the-other-way-around/
Using two well accepted data sets, a simple model can be used to show that the rise in CO2 is a result of the temperature anomaly, not the other way around. This is the exact opposite of the IPCC model that claims that rising CO2 causes the temperature anomaly.
We offer no explanation for why global temperatures are changing now or have changed in the past, but it seems abundantly clear that the recent temperature rise is not caused by the rise in CO2 levels.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 21, 2011 - 03:33pm PT
|
Taleb explicitly discusses climate change models and his problems with them in The Black Swan.
bb, So now Taleb is a qualified scientist and is able to understand the ins and outs of climate change models? I thought he was an economist. Which is it?
I'll see if I can find the Black Swan, and will be happy to state that I'm wrong if indeed Taleb has the scientific background to make his claims. However, just because somebody gets something published doesn't mean they know of what they speak.
Maybe you can quote the part that you think is compelling. You did say he addressed climate science only in one very short section.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 21, 2011 - 03:41pm PT
|
I did not find your point to have merit regarding the rehighlighting ...
Interesting Justin. I thought the very fist highlight of mine ("... this calculation is chosen to reflect prior knowledge and uncertainty ...") was enough to counter your claim that the body of work was based on uncertain inputs. This section to me says that they were aware of the uncertainties, and here's how they accounted for them.
As well, the last section, starting with "Alternatively ..." shows that they did not use that methodology due to the reasons explained, yet you chose to highlight those reasons as sort of proof that the models were biased.
Please tell me how you read this differently.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 21, 2011 - 03:44pm PT
|
Taleb did not write about economics, he wrote about epistemology ...
e·pis·te·mol·o·gy [ih-pis-tuh-mol-uh-jee] noun
a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge.
Right, I'm getting the picture, thanks.
Not a scientist, a philosopher.
Let us know when you want to talk about the science behind AWG claims.
Your and Ed’s tone thus far regarding Taleb shows either an allergy to skepticism as a worldview (not in regards to climate), or your own poor reading comprehension.
OK smartass, let's see how "my allergy to skepticism" pans out when you describe how your highlights in the AR4 text support your point of view, or how Taleb can undermine the climate models when he is not a scientist.
|
|
justin01
Trad climber
sacramento
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2011 - 04:18pm PT
|
Not to be deterred by you lack of reading comprehension, you use this same tactic again as you tout an economist in a debate about scientific findings pertaining to climate change.
Familiar k-man? It is really quite simple, stop being a "smartass" and we will have a nice rational conversation.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 21, 2011 - 04:21pm PT
|
A study: The temperature rise has caused the CO2 Increase, not the other way around -- By Anthony Watts
You mean *this* Anthony Watts:
Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer.
...
Analyses in scientific papers: no temp. trend bias
Independent analysis, Menne et al 2010 show no temp. trend bias
Results of analyzing the SurfaceStations data did not match Watts's expectations; a NOAA analysis of the Surface Stations data showed "no indication from this analysis that poor station exposure has imparted a bias in the U.S. temperature trends."[16]
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 21, 2011 - 04:31pm PT
|
OK Justin, you got me. I tried to edit out that barb because I wanted to keep the discussion civil. Looks like I didn't get to it fast enough.
But that doesn't detract from the point I was trying to make, does it? To restate: Can you show me how the AR4 quote you posted supports your conclusion, and does not support the exact opposite of what you claim?
Why did you highlight sections of the quote that addressed why the authors did *not* use "expert opinion" in an attempt to bolster your conclusion? Did you understand the text, or not?
Addendum
Justin, so far you're not batting so hot. Your first post was shown to be opinion and not based on facts. Then you tried to support your claim that the models in AR4 were based unknown factors (yet your attempt backfired), and lastly you're using the work of a philosopher to discredit the work of a large body of international scientists. Perhaps it's time for a reality check.
|
|
justin01
Trad climber
sacramento
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2011 - 04:46pm PT
|
Give me a few hours and I will try to pull it apart with comments.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 21, 2011 - 06:39pm PT
|
^^^^^^^^^ Holy Cow, that gal is onto something! ^^^^^^^^^
!~!~!~!~!~!
Justin, take your time--I look forward to your reply.
Also, sorry if I'm sometimes short in my replies. It's true that I'm frustrated with the way that folks bring up arguments denying the findings of the climate scientists. Many times I've found the authors of the "hit" pieces to be shills propped up by big oil, and little research is done into the source of the claims put forth by the "deniers." Couple that with how the US media handles the subject, and you get a real cause for frustration.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2011 - 07:00pm PT
|
Global Warming Muted in 2000s by Aerosols: Can This be Engineered?
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/184661/20110721/global-warming-aerosols-geo-engineering.htm
For example, if aerosol levels increase like they did in the 2000s, global warming will likely be muted. However, if they decrease like they did in the 1960s, global warming could accelerate.
The buffer effect of aerosol begs an interesting question: could man manipulate global temperatures by artificial techniques like putting aerosols in the atmosphere?
Scientists are already thinking about this possibility. They even have a name for it: geo-engineering.
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2011 - 09:05pm PT
|
Ed - you do know that more CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by natural warming. Admitting it would F the funding enjoyed by so many so it has to be
refuted. Doubtle$$ the $imple$t cau$e and effect in thi$ debate.
Your refusal to acknowledge the science that the warming anomaly we are experiencing causes CO2 levels to go up naturally ends the debate.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2011 - 10:15pm PT
|
I watched Taleb give a talk on his ideas at the American Geophysical Union meetings in San Francisco last fall. That's an audience you can't bluster with generalities about science, and he didn't try. Most people seemed interested and accepting with respect to Taleb's basic premise that outliers happen and they matter, but when questions came they were skeptical about his claims to be able to predict them.
In 2007 after the book came out, with its broad-brush attack against statistics, The American Statistician ran a special issue of reviews. That too is an audience you can't bluster, and Taleb had to defensively reply that he'd aimed his arguments (against experts) at the general public but now they were being judged by professional standards instead. The statistical critique, like the AGU audience, had no trouble believing that outliers exist but had no patience for the claim that statisticians don't understand this -- there are whole branches of the field devoted to them, which Taleb evidently did not know about. He's since grown wiser in his generalizations, I think.
Westfall and Hilbe wrote a passage that seemed insightful to me at the time, partly because I've been writing about outliers and non-normal distributions myself for more than 20 years:
It seems, therefore, that Taleb has fallen victim to his own curse: having observed a few statisticians with an outlier-avoidance mindset (let us call these statisticians "White Swans"), he then violates Hume's anti-inductive admonishment and assumes that all statisticians are "White Swans." What makes Taleb's error particularly egregious is that his sample of statisticians from which he makes such generalizations is both small and systematically biased!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!