May I just say that I wholeheartedly agree. If the result of your hypothesis will cost lots of money and make large scale changes to global economies, then of course, you better have your i's dotted and your t's crossed. Agree 100%. Where the break down occurs is when science presents the kind of evidence you are calling for, and the public reaction is, I don't understand it, or, I don't care enough to have an opinion, or, I have other people giving me conflicting information, or, etc. What we really need to sort out all of the cable tv hot air is a way to organize all of the best scientific analysis of a given problem. In the case of the global warming debate, this is called the IPCC.
The IPCC is, I don't know, a 700 or 800 page document. It doesn't conduct any new research. It merely brings together data produced by the scientific community from all over the glove. The IPCC's conclusion, which comes from a comprehensive review of the best science we have, that AGW is undoubtedly occurring, is dominated by human carbon emission, and will be a serious threat to human beings has been accepted by over 120 nations, nearly every major academy, NASA, NOAA, the branches of our US military, the insurance industry, the list goes on and on. The position that AGW is not man made is completely refuted by mountains of scientific study. The position that AGW is occurring, but natural cycles are equally at play is not supported by the vast majority of the science coming from peer reviewed sources. I've tried to provide lots of evidence for that throughout the last thread. Sure, there are some people taking that position, but a cherry picked paper here and there from a handful of skeptics doesn't refute an overwhelming consensus of published science.
The reason it is not clear to you, or that you think it can't be clear to any non specialist is because you incorrectly assume all information is equal. I post a link, the other side posts a link, the position is 50/50. You even have Matt here, taking the skeptic side, and after all, he seems very knowledgeable about this topic. But you can't take his knowledge as evidence that the skeptic side is on equal footing. You have to look at the entire picture.
Another reason you see this as unclear is you, like me, and almost everyone has preconceived notions. You have political ideologies, you have religious ideologies, and these things bleed into peoples' scientific beliefs. I have them too. So when one person with bias debates another with bias, we have to stick with the science. Anyway, I'm on vacation and time is limited.
.
If you don't like politics, don't read. :- ) There will be a fresh baseball thread, a cubicle or two to the left.
.......
At most sports blogs, there is a strict rule against religion and politics, ostensibly because the community isn't capable of discussing such without breaking down into chaos. That isn't true; at Bill James Online he cheerfully mixes politics, religion, and baseball. Because he is firm and fair, no trouble arises.
We say "ostensibly" because the possible chaos isn't the real reason for the ban. Field Gulls, the strictest of anti-political sports blogs, will be glad to run a front page article bashing the Redskins for their team name, because it likes that particular political theme, and will censor only those comments that run counter to the party line.
For a while FG had a "religion guidlines" flow chart comparing two hypothetical quotes: Using the name of Jesus Christ in reverence would get you banned; using it as cursing was perfectly fine and encouraged. In the comments at FG today, the tiniest mention of God creates an explosive reaction as though you had thrown boiling water over everybody, causing third degree burns. Dr. D thinks you can guess his visceral reaction to this state of affairs.
The point is: Seattle Sports Insider is not beholden to Groupthink in any way, shape, or form. It wouldn't matter if every (other) blog on the Internet agreed that God and Apple Pie were persona non grata. We are interested in life issues as they pertain to baseball, and we'll try to discuss them fairly and intelligently.
But we will also isolate such discussions (as BJOL certainly does not) so that anybody who wants a "baseball-only" SSI has no problem finding the right threads.
Just avoid the "Sports-Political Commentary" threads :- )
.........
From a mercernary, traffic standpoint :- ) ... We'd been asked for a new thread on environmentalism. The last one got 90 replies -- not 1-sentence replies, but 90 separate essays. After 50 replies, it is awkward to use our threads at SSI.
So, thanks for your interest and here's a fresh thread! Please use a hyper-respectful and cordial tone in this one.
.
Matt Sez,
Found this today and thought it would be of interest to you folks.
Prominent economist and AGW-believer Richard Tol - whose career has been spend analyzing the economic impacts of climate change and remediation strategies - took the Cook paper that everyone cites as proof of 97% consensus on climate change and absolutely DEMOLISHED it. Brought it to RUIN.
http://richardtol.blogspot.it/2014/10/erl-does-not-want-you-to-read-this...
In short...whether intentional or not, the folks reviewing climate abstracts evidently worked toward a predefined conclusion and there was no attempt at producing a consistent, objective standard. They changed rating schemes multiple times after discussing their results, and each time, the changes were to make the consensus larger.
- See more at: http://seattlesportsinsider.com/article/more-science-set-free?page=1#sth...
.
Rick sez,
"Every good scientist ought to be a skeptic - Dyson"
Interesting fellow, Matt. He definitely falls in the AGW "consensus" yet counts himself as a "skeptic". His problem is the uselessness of the models that are getting all the funding, and the areas that get ignored have the least funding but the most useful information. His suggestion that land use methods to capture more carbon on the ground and thus not forcing it into the atmosphere is an interesting alternative to carbon offsets and destroying the fossil fuel market. As an Oak Ridge scientist, it's pretty hard to put him in the pocket of the Koch bros. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/05/freeman-dyson-speaks-out-about-cli...
.
Matt Sez,
Dyson is an opinionated fellow :- ) And I happen to agree with him that sequestration concepts make a heck of a lot more sense than attempting to force the global economy to slow down until renewables can power it. As I've said...I think humans are causing some of the climate shift of the last century, and that's probably not good long term...I just don't see a need to panic about it. The amount we're altering climate is probably on the order of a few tenths of a degree per century - enough that we might want to consider plans to sequence CO2 in the future. Not enough that we should feel compelled to give up our economy to Mother Gaia. - See more at: http://seattlesportsinsider.com/article/more-science-set-free?page=1#sth...
.
Rick Sez,
Since neither your nor Dyson are deniers regarding GW, I propose we divide into three camps: Alarmists, Denialists, and Realists. I'd put lr and Al Gore in the first camp, you and Dyson in the third, and I'm somewhere between second and third, leaning third. - See more at: http://seattlesportsinsider.com/article/more-science-set-free?page=1#sth...
.
Matt Sez,
There are definitely people in Group 2 ...but they no longer represent the majority of climate skeptics...there's been a tug of war on that front for years. I would put Willie Soon, Lord Monckton, and Dr. Coleman (former CEO of The Weather Channel) in group 2. I have doubts about the instrumental temperature record too...but Spencer's satellite data is pretty solid and shows a similar level of warming in the most recent 35 years, so I tend to believe the general shape of the reconstructed climate record back to 1880 or so. I also believe natural cycles are contributing a good half to 2/3 of the signal. I guess that would put me in group 3, but with some remaining skepticism about the magnitude of warming we're causing. - See more at: http://seattlesportsinsider.com/article/more-science-set-free?page=1#sth...
.
Dr. D sez,
The whole AGW debate looks to me like a house of mirrors. Every time you think you're reaching a conclusion, here comes something on the other side to counter you.
It is not clear to me how any non-specialist, such as myself or LR, could take any position on it. It is also not clear to me how a specialist could take a dogmatic position on it.
A European dignitary once gave a speech with the theme "I do not suppose you insure your house when the cost is great and the risk is small or unknown." That, to me, is the default position on AGW spending, and the other side has the burden of proof. If somebody asks the U.S. to spend $2.2 trillion because Coke and Cheet-ohs might lead to the extinction of salamanders, I think the proof should come from those wanting us to write the $2.2 trillion check.
It's my tentative position; I stand ready to be corrected. Costs beyond research are questionable.
...........
I think it should be clear, to the fair-minded observer, that those trying to cast the "skeptics" as liars and dishonest, are behaving shamefully.
It should be clear, also, that there is an alarming number of fronts in American, in which this syndrome is occurring. Pat Caddell, Democratic strategist, fights bitterly against this monolithic MSM voice, saying "It's a threat to our democracy."
...........
To the extent that enviornmental activism is based on sincere concern for our planet, I'm 100% empathetic. To the extent that it is rooted in resentment of rich fat Judeo-Christian Americans, I'm 100% resistant.
Enjoy,
Jeff