CBC: Keeping Canadian Voters Confused by Paying Rex Murphy

[myata]

No, they are only logical, common sense conventions that do nothing more than ensure a meaningful, finite in time, and fruitful (in the sense that it'll produce a definite, verifiable result, rather than infinite loops around blogosphere) discussion (of course, it's already been said that it's not "where" it was published, but who it was read and reviewed by, and I'm not going to waste any more time repeating that obvious necessity to not take any junk from where it's found and put it in the foundation of a critical construction, whether your home, or the science of climate)

By all indications, "skeptic" participants for that kind of discussion are yet to be found, but I'm still hopeful.

Edited December 17, 2009 by myata

[noahbody]

By all indications, "skeptic" participants for that kind of discussion are yet to be found, but I'm still hopeful.

The IPCC states it is only 90% certain AGW is driving climate change. What does this mean to you? Does it mean the science is settled or unsettled?

[myata]

The IPCC states it is only 90% certain AGW is driving climate change. What does this mean to you? Does it mean the science is settled or unsettled?

OK, thanks! We have an actual, specific question to look into (however we cannot really start investigating it until we have looked at the statement in question in its entirety, so I'd kindly appreciate a reference to the source in which that statemnt is made).

[waldo]

The IPCC states it is only 90% certain AGW is driving climate change. What does this mean to you? Does it mean the science is settled or unsettled?

OK, thanks! We have an actual, specific question to look into (however we cannot really start investigating it until we have looked at the statement in question in its entirety, so I'd kindly appreciate a reference to the source in which that statemnt is made).

myata, I think I could assist briefly, as I believe the relevant IPCC AR4 'likelihood' categorization statements that would seem to apply to noahbody's inferred uncertainty/unsettled premise would be:

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is

very likely

(> 90% probability)

due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is

extremely unlikely

(< 5% probability)

that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and

very likely

(> 90% probability)

that it is not due to known natural causes alone.

of course, noahbody could equally suggest the likelihood probability figure that... settles it for him... particularly, since the "settled" term is one so often purposely misused to infer "close-mindedness in the face of degrees of uncertainty". Skeptics seem to revel in absolutes... in guaranteed proofs... while failing to recognize that science doesn't deal in proof - that scientific theory is not predicated on proof. Equally, if he's aware of one, I'm still looking for the likelihood probability breakout structure that skeptics rely upon... the one skeptics use to evaluate the probabilities associated to the latest skeptic flavour of the day.

... we've already had a lengthy thread discussion around this previously (when Simple tried to cast doubt on the IPCC report/process by highlighting a "likely - 66%" association the IPCC has made in regards one of the many, many statements that reflect the various component breakout sections within it's reports)... but noahbody would know that already... since he posted within that thread.

in any case, I expect noahbody will be along shortly with the actual IPCC AR4 report links to coincide with the above quotes... or... of course, provides his own links/quotes to support the statement he made.

[myata]

Thanks for the reference. I wouldn't like to prejudge the conclusion on reading the report, but the question appears to be legitimate in at least these perspectives:

1) What is the exact meaning of "probability categorisation"? If the report is a summary of a certain (set of) results presented to general public, what methodology was used to translate the original research into the "90%" probability? Does that methodology stand the scrutiny?

Another question is how good, i.e clear, accurate and convincing it is in conveying the meaning of the original research?

2) Assumption that the conclusions of the report are based on original peer reviewed research (validity of which can be addressed only in a professional forum and could not be discussed here in any meaningful way) would also need to be verified by a critical reader.

Regarding #1, prior to reading the report I can only note that it can be interpreted in two ways, again, as a "public" summary of certain expert conclusion (with methodology used to summarise/present it yet to be explained) or as a statistically meaningful statement about correlation of two processes, observed general warming of our planet, and human activity in releasing GHG.

Finally, to noahbody's question of science "being settled or not", let me point out that even the most solid, reliable science - the mechanics, a brilliant summary of our daily experiences in moving our bodies, driving vehicles, operation of factories, construction, etc still cannot be considered 100% settled. In the sense that if I throw a ball at a glass three feet away and it knocks it over, the mechanics won't guarantee absolutely certain causal relation between my act and the consequence (due to eg. effects of Brownian motion). It is true that it guarantees it with a certainty of such tremendous precision that it settles it to be taken as true in our everyday lives.

Which lends to another legitimate question that can and needs to be discussed in public forums, what level of confidence (to the best of science of the day) in the projections of catastrophic global climate change should the science provide to make majority of population aware of the problem and willing to do meaningful act to avoid or at least mitigate it? Do we have to see and live the catastrophe to start doing something (however useful it'd be at the time), or would we find sufficient intelligence and will to act when our rational minds tell us to, even if our lazy bodies would be looking for any way or excuse to avoid meaningful act?

[Riverwind]

Which lends to another legitimate question that can and needs to be discussed in public forums, what level of confidence (to the best of science of the day) in the projections of catastrophic global climate change should the science provide to make majority of population aware of the problem and willing to do meaningful act to avoid or at least mitigate it?

Catastrophic climate change is nothing but an unverifiable hypothesis until it actually occurs. No amount of climate modelling can change that. Public policy much take that uncertainty into account.

If you disagree then tell me what you would do if scientists created a drug that prevented cancer but had never been tested on humans yet they claimed their computer models of the human body showed that it was safe and effective. Would you take the drug?

Edited December 18, 2009 by Riverwind

[myata]

If you disagree then tell me what you would do if scientists created a drug that prevented cancer but had never been tested on humans yet they claimed their computer models of the human body showed that it was safe and effective. Would you take the drug?

Most certainly if my life was at stake and the consensus of medical professionals recognised it as such. In our lives we make many decisions that we've never tested ourselves (like e.g. not walking off the roof), having to rely on other people's conclusions and experiences. There's nothing wrong with it, if those conclusions are rational and the best we can have.

I won't be commenting on "unverifiable" coming from non-professional in the subject area, modern science uses many complex and indirect methods of verification (e.g. nobody actually can actually "see" or touch elementary particles, verification of their existence comes from complex pattern of interactions with existing materials) to discuss which one'd need reasonable level of knowledge in the field.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I continue to think most people onboard with global warming or climate change are just nuts. Extremists are at both ends of this issue and both cite science as their basis of support. From my point of view, when it rains you take out the umbrella, when it is cold you add layers of clothing and when it is hot you remove layers of clothing. I can't control the weather, and don't know of anyone who claims to. I simply react to the environment to the best of my ability. I do this for the reason that I believe it is in my best interest to do so.

I don't live on a flood plain, nor do I live next to a volcano. I don't live on a shore line or up in the mountains. I live in an area of reasonably predictable weather. That is just me.

Now with all due respect to folks, the only smart move for citizens is to adapt to the changes of our environment. I am a little pissed off at my government for jumping onto the bandwagon of Kyoto, and a little choked about our position on climate change. In my view the government needs to put together a panel of our best scientists and have them provide a professional opinion about the issues. The government should not be able to dodge the bullet and should be made to listen to the report. Once we have that report we can then decide what to do, but not until then.

[Keepitsimple]

Meanwhile, it's getting colder. Mother Nature has indeed joined the ranks of the skeptics:

LONDON - On the upside: For many, school holidays started a day early. The drawback? Travel chaos across parts of Europe, as a cold snap and snow Friday caused discomfort and disruption a week ahead of Christmas.

Hundreds of schools across southern England shut down after 5 centimetres to 15 centimetres (2 inches to 6 inches) of snow fell - unusual in a country whose winters are cold, wet and dark but not often white.

Gatwick Airport south of London shut its runways for several hours Friday, causing many flight delays and cancellations. Trains also ran into trouble, and police in the counties of Essex, Kent and Cambridgeshire cautioned people to travel by road only if essential.

In Belgium, the first snow and biting cold caused record traffic jams.

Brussels International Airport was shut down Thursday night and continued to struggle Friday with dozens of flight cancellations and delays that left thousands of passengers stranded.

Overnight frosts turned the morning rush hour into a frustrating drive, with 350 kilometres (220 miles) of traffic jams in and around Brussels.

In Wroclaw, southwest Poland, temperatures fell to minus-12 degrees Celsius (10 degrees Fahrenheit), causing cracks in an old steel railway bridge over the Oder River. Long-distance trains suffered 2 1/2-hour delays.

Sudden low temperatures and heavy snow caused road delays in Warsaw and nationwide.

Police in Hamburg, northern Germany, were dealing with 130 car accidents caused by heavy snowfall.

Link: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/091218/world/eu_europe_winter_weather

[myata]

Granted, if and when one cannot talk substance a load of unrelated and irrelevant noise could certainly be the argument of choice.

To JF: it all comes down to intelligence, i.e. seeing and reacting to patterns of connections and causality in the Universe. E.g. of one cannot see the connection between stepping on a rake and the blister on their forehead, "adapting" to regular hits may be the only option.

Edited December 18, 2009 by myata

[Michael Hardner]

Meanwhile, it's getting colder. Mother Nature has indeed joined the ranks of the skeptics:

Reporting recent weather as being relevant to the warming debate is one of the easiest ways to get yourself discredited as a serious debater in this discussion, IMO.

[Riverwind]

Most certainly if my life was at stake and the consensus of medical professionals recognised it as such.

Really? You would take a drug which had been never tested on real subjects simply based on the the say-so of the medical establishment?

Sorry, I do not share your blind trust and nor do many other people. It is unreasonable for you to expect people to be as naive as you when it comes to science.

I won't be commenting on "unverifiable" coming from non-professional in the subject area, modern science uses many complex and indirect methods of verification

Science is about making predictions and demonstrating that they come true. Scientists studying elementary particles can verify their hypotheses by designing experiments based on the theory and predicting outcomes. If a scientist cannot design an experiment to test their hypotheses then their hypothesis in unverifiable. It may or may not be correct but since it is unverifiable it cannot be treated as a scientific fact.

The catastrophic climate change hypotheses is unverifiable. We cannot know if it is true or not until it actually happens and no amount of wishful thinking on your part will change that.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

Really? You would take a drug which had been never tested on real subjects simply based on the the say-so of the medical establishment?

Sorry, I do not share your blind trust and nor do many other people. It is unreasonable for you to expect people to be as naive as you when it comes to science.

It depends on what you mean by "expect".

Saying you "expect" something, can imply that you demand it. Or it can mean that you believe it likely.

Many people took the H1N1 vaccine, based on limited testing because of assurances from the medical community. That is what I expect would have happened. That is, I think it likely that people would take the vaccine but I don't demand that they do.

Science is about making predictions and demonstrating that they come true. Scientists studying elementary particles can verify their hypotheses by designing experiments based on the theory and predicting outcomes. If a scientist cannot design an experiment to test their hypotheses then their hypothesis in unverifiable. It may or may not be correct but since it is unverifiable it cannot be treated as a scientific fact.

In a black and white world, you're right. However, with the H1N1 vaccine example - sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't work, sometime the patient dies from the vaccine.

Should the H1N1 vaccine have ever been allowed given that it causes needless deaths ?

The catastrophic climate change hypotheses is unverifiable. We cannot know if it is true or not until it actually happens and no amount of wishful thinking on your part will change that.

The future is unverifiable, but that doesn't prevent us from acting on probabilities.

[Bugs]

Reporting recent weather as being relevant to the warming debate is one of the easiest ways to get yourself discredited as a serious debater in this discussion, IMO.

Love to know why.

What's 'climate' but a running average of weather?

When winters over large areas of the earth start sooner and last longer than they did a decade ago, and when this is happening over whole continents, possibly that will affect the running average?

Unless, of course, you depend upon the CRU for your information. They produce scientific data designed with your mind in mind.

I think that saying that the the science is settled, and that weather has no relationship to climate, is simply a way of ducking the issues.

[Michael Hardner]

Love to know why.

What's 'climate' but a running average of weather?

Yes, an average of a multiplicity of points over a long period of time.

Telling me it snowed yesterday isn't useful.

When winters over large areas of the earth start sooner and last longer than they did a decade ago, and when this is happening over whole continents, possibly that will affect the running average?

Unless, of course, you depend upon the CRU for your information. They produce scientific data designed with your mind in mind.

I think that saying that the the science is settled, and that weather has no relationship to climate, is simply a way of ducking the issues.

We should treat the CRU problem as a point of investigation and determine if there are wider implications or not. If there are, then we have to reassess, redesign, and move forward. If not, then we just move forward.

What we don't do is throw out all of science because of it.

[myata]

Science is about making predictions and demonstrating that they come true. Scientists studying elementary particles can verify their hypotheses by designing experiments based on the theory and predicting outcomes. If a scientist cannot design an experiment to test their hypotheses then their hypothesis in unverifiable. It may or may not be correct but since it is unverifiable it cannot be treated as a scientific fact.

Indeed, just as particle scientists verify their theories by the number and character of scintillations recorded in water or gas tanks, climate scientists can verify theirs by any number of indirect observations, be it the retreat of glaciers, melting of polar ice, global temperature trends, rising of oceans, change in composition of water, change in ecosystems, etc.

The catastrophic climate change hypotheses is unverifiable. We cannot know if it is true or not until it actually happens and no amount of wishful thinking on your part will change that.

No more "unverifiable" than the theory of particles before you could actually see one, or the theory of evolution before you had a chance to touch a living dinosaur (as some still think). Your lack of understanding that there're many indirect ways of verification that are just as valid as seeing with your own eye only highlights the incompetence to comment on matters scientific.

[Halfempty]

I really don't see anything wrong with Rex Murhpy's comments; in fact I support him (and CBC for allowing him to speak) because while his views may or may not be correct, at least they represent an alternative to the mainstream theory of man-produced global warming.

I actually believe in global warming and do not personally agree with Murphy. I have another belief however, which is that we, as citizens, should be told ever single aspect of the arguement so that we'll be able to make our own, informed decisions. When one side of the arguement has a total monopoly on the discussion and research it's borderline propoganda; getting constantly blasted with one side of the arguement is not a good thing imo.

[Riverwind]

indirect observations, be it the retreat of glaciers, melting of polar ice, global temperature trends, rising of oceans, change in composition of water, change in ecosystems, etc.

Properly designed experiments must control for different variables. Even in medicine a double blind study is required to separate the placebo effect from the drug. Looking at real observations from a single subject is not enough to show that the theory has any merit. The theory can only verified if it predicts outcomes that unambiguously come true.

No more "unverifiable" than the theory of particles before you could actually see one

All verifiability requires is the ability to construct experiments and successfully predict the outcome. That cannot be done in climate science therefore all hypotheses are unverifiable.

[Keepitsimple]

Reporting recent weather as being relevant to the warming debate is one of the easiest ways to get yourself discredited as a serious debater in this discussion, IMO.

That might be true except for the fact that in spite of increasing carbon emissions, the world IS starting to cool, regardless of what the gas-bags in Copenhagen would have you believe. I have a little more faith in Environment Canada's teperature readings than I do the CRU. Although one could say that Canada only presents a localized reading on a Global stage - Canada's temperatures do cover a huge area and can be viewed in a relative fashion - going up each year or down - at least establishing an accurate trend for our part of the world. It should at least be food for sober thought.

Keep in mind that the temperatures have been climbing by one degree each century for many centuries.....so we can expect temperatures to rise and fall over a century - arguably within 30 year cycles.....so it shouldn't be surprising to see 2 or 3 decades of slight cooling followed by 2 or 3 decades of warming....all netting out to somewhere around one degree of warming per century.

Environment Canada has only posted temperatures going back to 1948. We know that 1934 was the warmest year this century so it's probable that other years from 1900 to 1947 would affect the rankings. Here is how the current decade has unfolded in Canada:

Since 1948:

2000 - 11th warmest

2001 - 4th

2002 - 18th

2003 - 8th

2004 - 32nd

2005 - 6th

2006 - 2nd

2007 - 13th

2008 - 16th

2009 - 26th*

* the Annual has not been posted yet but 2009's winter is 33rd warmest, spring is 42nd, summer is 27th and autumn is 3 warmest - I've averaged the seasons to show the 26th warmest year.

Link: http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/ccrm/bulletin/annual08/Ntable_e.html?region=n&table=temperature&season=Annual&date=2008&rows=61

Edited December 18, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[myata]

Properly designed experiments must control for different variables. Even in medicine a double blind study is required to separate the placebo effect from the drug. Looking at real observations from a single subject is not enough to show that the theory has any merit. The theory can only verified if it predicts outcomes that unambiguously come true.

Would that imply that biology, sociology, some areas of psychology and probably many other disciplines should also be declared un-scientific because they fail to fit your narrow and oftentimes clueless, in the context of some disciplines, understanding of "experiment"?

As said repeatedly, I've little time or interest for generic pseudo about scientific musings that could (and will) go on forever without bringing any verifiable result. Virtually anybody here can create loads of pseudo quasi scientific gibberish but it in no way means that anybody has any obligation to read it.

The conventions for a meaningful discussion were posted and if they are of no interest, I do not believe there's much to discuss, in the matters of sciense in question, with that poster. My suggestion would be to open a blog.

Edited December 18, 2009 by myata

[wyly]

That might be true except for the fact that in spite of increasing carbon emissions, the world IS starting to cool, regardless of what the gas-bags in Copenhagen would have you believe. I have a little more faith in Environment Canada's teperature readings than I do the CRU. Although one could say that Canada only presents a localized reading on a Global stage - Canada's temperatures do cover a huge area and can be viewed in a relative fashion - going up each year or down - at least establishing an accurate trend for our part of the world. It should at least be food for sober thought.

Canada covers a huge area????...actually Canada is insignificant, it covers only about 2% of the planets surface....

[wyly]

Meanwhile, it's getting colder. Mother Nature has indeed joined the ranks of the skeptics:

the scientific ignorance of deniers never ceases to amaze and amuse me...6th grade science is still a

mystery to them

1-snow is what?............................................. ...............frozen water vapor

2-water vapor comes from what/where?.............................liquid water/evaporation

3-evaporation is caused by what?......................................heat

4-recent snow storms in Canada resulted from what?.........winter arctic air masses in the north(surprise!) meeting warm humid air masses coming from the south(USA)....it snows in winter what a surprise:rolleyes:...

Edited December 18, 2009 by wyly

[Michael Hardner]

That might be true except for the fact that in spite of increasing carbon emissions, the world IS starting to cool, regardless of what the gas-bags in Copenhagen would have you believe.

Link: http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/ccrm/bulletin/annual08/Ntable_e.html?region=n&table=temperature&season=Annual&date=2008&rows=61

Thanks KiS,

I respect your ability to back up your statements. When it comes to data analysis, though, I'm afraid I don't think either of us are qualified to do so, so I defer to the scientific community.

If you have doubts as to their methods, then let's both wait to see what comes from the CRU controversy.

[Riverwind]

I've little time or interest for generic pseudo about scientific musings that could (and will) go on forever without bringing any verifiable result.

You are the one who keeps says the 'consensus' scientfic opinion should be accepted as a fact and that it is irresponsible to question the basis for that opinion.

As more facts come out it is becoming more clear that climate science is a field infested with group think and that we must assume that all of the claims are biased towards exagerrating the effect of CO2 and the risks associated with AGW.

[Michael Hardner]

....it snows in winter what a surprise:rolleyes:...

I think you'll agree, Wyly, that we need is productive discussion and since KeepItSimple has provided data and rationale, I don't think he deserves sarcasm or rolled eyes here.