CDZ "Climate Science" is no longer any such thing.

[RedTeamTex]

I guess what i'm saying is that you're only talking about the controversy. Not much of what you're saying is touching on the actual science. I gave you the basic logic of why I believe, but you haven't even addressed it. If you object to "denier", quit acting like one and confront the actual theory, science and logic behind the controversy. If there's spin doctoring going on, you're guilty, IMO. The points you discussed in the OP were in reference to the controversy, NOT the science.

Good morning kondradv,

You haven't provided any "basic logic" just yet. Here are your serious posts:

Prove where excess CO2 is coming from, if not from man, and/or prove that CO2 does not absorb infrared radiation. That should be easy enough, but the deniers have trouble with the basics, that's why all we hear about is how the data is treated. The deniers know that most people don't understand advanced statistics or higher mathematics, so they can make it appear that it's all voodoo and fudging.

I'm just talking about global warming. "Catastrophic" and "imminent" are loaded words that don't do either side any good. Either CO2 is going up or it isn't. Either it absorbs infrared radiation or it doesn't. Whatever the time course, if those two things are true, warming is inevitable. Looking to the future then, this is the hockey stick that counts, because it's the one that really contributes to added CO2 and subsequent warming.

I concede the possibility that industrial human existence can affect the climate. If and to what degree that it's dangerously so, I'm not sure. The political controversy centers around the widely held belief that the issue is decidedly 'dire' and we've been told there's a short window of time to make dramatic changes to industrial existence before they're made for us in the way of...umm..."undesireable?" environmental changes.

Scientists have participated in the political advertisement of this belief. Governments around the world are spending vast sums of money discussing it year after year.

So while I can concede perhaps the word "imminent" is a shade too harsh if these same scientists claim we can still avert negative outcomes, I don't understand the aversion to "catastrophic." Nevertheless, I'm amenable to finding a different mutually agreeable word. "Urgent?" I do expect the liberal end of this discussion to admit they're arguing for policy changes because global warming is "bad" in some respect.

Are you prepared to admit you're using 'climate science' to argue world and federal policy changes? Something we ought to change for some reason?

If so, then my best guess to what your logical argument would be is this:

Humanity is generating excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Carbon dioxide does not absorb infrared radiation.
[An excess of carbon dioxide failing to absorb infrared radiation causes atmospheric heating]

If you've decided to pick up the liberal side of the argument with some agreeable word indicating a negative value judgment, then I can also give you credit for implying:
[Atmospheric heating is bad enough that we should avoid it]
[Therefore: Humanity should stop generating excess carbon dioxide.]

That resembles a valid argument. With a little work in the predicates it could get there, and then we could dive into a discussion of metrics of atmospheric sensitivity to CO2.

But it's definitely not my intention to put words in your mouth and if I'm mistaken about your implied logic, please correct me. I do have the capability of arguing any number of liberal arguments and then my conservatively inclined cohorts could take up the other side of the argument, but I don't think many readers would find that genuine...so it just seems fair to let the left speak for itself.

Have a good weekend.

 

[konradv]

You haven't provided any "basic logic" just yet. Here are your serious posts:

Prove where excess CO2 is coming from, if not from man, and/or prove that CO2 does not absorb infrared radiation. That should be easy enough, but the deniers have trouble with the basics, that's why all we hear about is how the data is treated. The deniers know that most people don't understand advanced statistics or higher mathematics, so they can make it appear that it's all voodoo and fudging.

That IS the basic logic in a nutshell. If you want to see it in the form of a syllogism, here it is:

CO2 and other gases are known to absorb infrared radiation.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased almost 40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution with no evident natural cause.

Therefore, if the trend continues, an anthropogenic increase in global temperatures is inevitable.

I don't care if ANY rise can be proven at the present time. The rise in CO2 alone proves it's coming. If people deny that statement, it's incumbent on them to show what's happening to the energy absorbed by CO2, if not to heat the earth. The Law of Conservation of Energy demands that it must go somewhere and statistically 50% of any energy re-emitted should go towards earth.

 

[RedTeamTex]

That IS the basic logic in a nutshell. If you want to see it in the form of a syllogism, here it is:

CO2 and other gases are known to absorb infrared radiation.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased almost 40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution with no evident natural cause.

Therefore, if the trend continues, an anthropogenic increase in global temperatures is inevitable.

I don't care if ANY rise can be proven at the present time. The rise in CO2 alone proves it's coming. If people deny that statement, it's incumbent on them to show what's happening to the energy absorbed by CO2, if not to heat the earth. The Law of Conservation of Energy demands that it must go somewhere and statistically 50% of any energy re-emitted should go towards earth.

Thanks for the clarification.

kondradv, even if I stipulate to all your points of fact, the argument you've articulated here even I find inductively appealing. It's just not terribly Liberal. I don't mind throwing a few federal bucks at some science to see what kind of slope we're looking at...assuming the funded scientists behave themselves and act professionally before humbly presenting their math.

I hope you're seeing why I'm asking someone on the other side of the fence to actually argue something stronger, something more indicative of the actual argument of capital-L Liberal politics we currently enjoy. That political rhetoric includes professional scientists who seem to have no problem declaring arguments far stronger, far more specific, and including urgent imperatives of not just study, but policy changes based on "the settled science." Rather profound ones.

So far you don't seem to be embracing that argument, and I'm not sure where you stand on it. When we get down to brass tacks, how bad is the problem? I'm worried unless you say something more debatable you're going to start losing some Liberal cred.

Thanks for your post either way. (If the libs do throw you out, we've got room for ya.)

Are there any Democrats here who care to take up a Democratic argument? I'm told you guys are better at science. Help us out?

 

[konradv]

Are there any Democrats here who care to take up a Democratic argument? I'm told you guys are better at science. Help us out?

It's obvious to me that you don't really care about the science, just the controversy. IMO, you're violating the terms of the CDZ by being a troll. Refusing to discuss the science as I presented it and asking for arguments of your choosing is typical troll behavior. Answer the posts as they are, not as you wish they were.

 

[RedTeamTex]

It's obvious to me that you don't really care about the science, just the controversy. IMO, you're violating the terms of the CDZ by being a troll. Refusing to discuss the science as I presented it and asking for arguments of your choosing is typical troll behavior. Answer the posts as they are, not as you wish they were.

I think the OP is pretty clear that we're discussing a controversy. This is a political message board forum. It was my preference to do so with a scientific debate, but so far the other side just hasn't shown up for it.

I'm addressing a widely held position that "the science is settled, therefore we should act." If that's your belief, you're not yet copping to it here. Since I'm not necessarily objecting to any other argument, there's nothing here yet for a scientific discussion to settle. Not that an aimless walk in the wilderness wouldn't be entertaining, but it sure wouldn't be efficient. Nor logical.

I think I have responded to posts as they are. That's a different thing entirely than being pulled off-topic.

***
Some observations: a mastery of climate science sufficient to say "the science is settled" in the same respect Evolutionary Theory is "settled" is a tall order. There's far more people wandering around thinking and declaring "the science is settled" than there are people who have the skill to judge it so. If this is because trust in some passionate climate scientists is well placed, then it's time to examine the quality of their work so we can confirm the wisdom of that trust.

I wouldn't necessarily expect the people who are qualified to confirm "the science is settled" to be loitering around these particular message boards; however I'm sure there ARE some bright folks who are plugged into other bright folks who could probably swing a presentation of the case. I would think the chance to refute my OP positions are motivation enough.

So I can let it percolate a while and see what we come up with. If a few weeks or months go by and still no one wants to argue "the science is settled, therefore we must attempt any number of Democratic policy positions" WITH a scientific case for "settled science," then we might proceed with the working assumption the science isn't really settled and go on to the other supporting parts of my post 1 assertions.

 

[Iceweasel]

My answer to the science is settled disciples is "Good, then we don't need to fund it anymore."

 

[konradv]

My answer to the science is settled disciples is "Good, then we don't need to fund it anymore."

But since most DON'T say that and there are many who contest the statement, more research is obviously required. The statement is repeated so much, it seems to underscore the right's fear of the science, hence their repeated stabs at ridiculing it.

 

[konradv]

I wouldn't necessarily expect the people who are qualified to confirm "the science is settled" to be loitering around these particular message boards; however I'm sure there ARE some bright folks who are plugged into other bright folks who could probably swing a presentation of the case. I would think the chance to refute my OP positions are motivation enough.

IMO, you're confirming my contention by doubling down on arguing the controversy, instead of the actual science.

 

[Iceweasel]

My answer to the science is settled disciples is "Good, then we don't need to fund it anymore."

But since most DON'T say that and there are many who contest the statement, more research is obviously required. The statement is repeated so much, it seems to underscore the right's fear of the science, hence their repeated stabs at ridiculing it.

Making idiotic assertions don't help your position. The right doesn't science but apparently you fear honesty. If the consensus is in then the few that object are meaningless, unless of course it's a lie. You can't have it both ways, Sport.

 

[konradv]

My answer to the science is settled disciples is "Good, then we don't need to fund it anymore."

But since most DON'T say that and there are many who contest the statement, more research is obviously required. The statement is repeated so much, it seems to underscore the right's fear of the science, hence their repeated stabs at ridiculing it.

Making idiotic assertions don't help your position. The right doesn't science but apparently you fear honesty. If the consensus is in then the few that object are meaningless, unless of course it's a lie. You can't have it both ways, Sport.

The idiotic assertion is that research should be stopped. You stepped into that one all by yourself. Listen to the denialists and America will turn into a third world backwater.

 

[Iceweasel]

My answer to the science is settled disciples is "Good, then we don't need to fund it anymore."

But since most DON'T say that and there are many who contest the statement, more research is obviously required. The statement is repeated so much, it seems to underscore the right's fear of the science, hence their repeated stabs at ridiculing it.

Making idiotic assertions don't help your position. The right doesn't science but apparently you fear honesty. If the consensus is in then the few that object are meaningless, unless of course it's a lie. You can't have it both ways, Sport.

The idiotic assertion is that research should be stopped. You stepped into that one all by yourself. Listen to the denialists and America will turn into a third world backwater.

Then you can't comprehend words in sentences. If the science is settled that means there's no need for further research. That's what words mean, it's been proven.

A consensus by definition is a majority. There's no such thing as a 100% consensus. So by saying we need to continue to fund research on something already proven for the few who reject it is either incredibly ignorant or dishonest. Or both.

 

[konradv]

A consensus by definition is a majority. There's no such thing as a 100% consensus. So by saying we need to continue to fund research on something already proven for the few who reject it is either incredibly ignorant or dishonest. Or both.

Research is always needed. Even if the possibility of AGW is proven, the time course and possible solutions are still matters for study.

 

[RedTeamTex]

...are still matters for study.

Then so far you're not arguing with me or the OP. What's the point in dueling research citations with you at this point if we're not dueling?

If you're addressing the topic (which as I defined in the OP is anthropological in scope, specifically scientific professionalism, and in this case the absence of it contributing to political propaganda) then you'll do one of these three things:

1) adopt a stronger argument for the Liberals and argue "the science is settled, therefore we should act."
2) Concede "the science isn't settled" and yet try to argue the phenomenon we refer to as 'Climate Science' and Liberal utility of it hasn't crossed the threshold to junk science.
3) Agree with the OP.

If you opt for 2), I'll concede the burden of proof is on our side to make the case 'Climate Science' has drifted into 'junk science.' I think I was fairly stringent in the OP about what that means.

But before I do, I sincerely want argument 1) to have a fair chance to make its case.

 

[Iceweasel]

A consensus by definition is a majority. There's no such thing as a 100% consensus. So by saying we need to continue to fund research on something already proven for the few who reject it is either incredibly ignorant or dishonest. Or both.

Research is always needed. Even if the possibility of AGW is proven, the time course and possible solutions are still matters for study.

Solutions to a problem that hasn't been proven sounds like a scam to me.

 

[konradv]

Research is always needed. Even if the possibility of AGW is proven, the time course and possible solutions are still matters for study

Solutions to a problem that hasn't been proven sounds like a scam to me.

CO2 absorbing IR radiation has been proven. CO2 going up since the Industrial Revolution has been proven. What more do you need?

 

[Iceweasel]

Research is always needed. Even if the possibility of AGW is proven, the time course and possible solutions are still matters for study

Solutions to a problem that hasn't been proven sounds like a scam to me.

CO2 absorbing IR radiation has been proven. CO2 going up since the Industrial Revolution has been proven. What more do you need?

Well, we warmed up from ice ages without the help of SUVs so clearly there's more to it than toggle switch analysis. But like I said, let's pull the funding and declare the science settled.

 

[konradv]

Well, we warmed up from ice ages without the help of SUVs so clearly there's more to it than toggle switch analysis. But like I said, let's pull the funding and declare the science settled.

Just because there was one reason in the past, it doesn't mean there can't be a different reason now. Also, you're ignoring the time course. With regard to the Ice Ages we're talking thousands to tens of thousands of years. With AGW we're talking the last 200.

 

[Iceweasel]

Well, we warmed up from ice ages without the help of SUVs so clearly there's more to it than toggle switch analysis. But like I said, let's pull the funding and declare the science settled.

Just because there was one reason in the past, it doesn't mean there can't be a different reason now. Also, you're ignoring the time course. With regard to the Ice Ages we're talking thousands to tens of thousands of years. With AGW we're talking the last 200.

200 years ago we weren't producing much more CO2s beside what we were exhaling. Your mission has failed.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Research is always needed. Even if the possibility of AGW is proven, the time course and possible solutions are still matters for study

Solutions to a problem that hasn't been proven sounds like a scam to me.

CO2 absorbing IR radiation has been proven. CO2 going up since the Industrial Revolution has been proven. What more do you need?

Not so fast.
Some evidence has demonstrated that not only did heat escaping the atmosphere not decrease as expected with AGW theory but it in fact increased. So the jury is still out on that one. And that is the most profound aspect of the entire AGW theory. It's the essence of the greenhouse effect claim.
What's more, any of those scientists who don't toe the AGW line become objects of disparagement and ridicule by the political forces. This is a scam. It's about political control and the best way to do that is to manipulate the economy.
Here's a link from this past year that addresses the politically driven ostracizing of so-called skeptics...

The Political Assault on Climate Skeptics

 

[konradv]

CO2 absorbing IR radiation has been proven. CO2 going up since the Industrial Revolution has been proven. What more do you need?

Some evidence has demonstrated that not only did heat escaping the atmosphere not decrease as expected with AGW theory but it in fact increased. So the jury is still out on that one. And that is the most profound aspect of the entire AGW theory. It's the essence of the greenhouse effect claim.

Don't just tell me, show me. If you're going to make a claim like that, extraordinary proof should be required, since the ability of CO2 to absorb IR is a given physical fact. You'll have to show how its presence alone could possibly result in an increase in energy escaping the atmosphere

What's more, any of those scientists who don't toe the AGW line become objects of disparagement and ridicule by the political forces. This is a scam. It's about political control and the best way to do that is to manipulate the economy. Here's a link from this past year that addresses the politically driven ostracizing of so-called skeptics.The Political Assault on Climate Skeptics

Like I've been saying, argue the politics with someone that's interested. IMO, this is just a distraction from the fact that you're hand waving the science.