Climate Change: We're Doomed

Alleviating worldly suffering along the way.

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Kim O'Hara » Sun Jan 05, 2014 2:29 am

Hi, Zhen Li,
What a wall of text!
Zhen Li wrote:What should you do then?
Simple, just think for yourself. Look at the evidence, evaluate its accuracy, analyse it, and develop the most likely theory. It's called the scientific method.

I've done that - and still do that - to the best of my ability. :smile:
Booker is wrong - always. Read about him here - http://www.carbonbrief.org/profiles/christopher-booker/ and http://denierlist.wordpress.com/2012/09/24/christopher-booker/ and http://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php.
Anyone who defends him is either ignorant or deliberately lying. (I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now and suggest you read this thread from the beginning to see what you've missed.)
Meanwhile, some of what you say about the media is correct (and I knew it already), some is quite dubious (mainly because it's a biased over-simplification) and all of it is off-topic for this thread.
If you want to talk about the media, please start a new thread. If you want to talk about climate change, please (as I said) read what has already been said here.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Zhen Li » Sun Jan 05, 2014 3:25 am

Kim, thanks for your reply.

I appreciate your interest in trying to inform me, but if you are trying to respond to what I said, please address the argumentation, rather than using fallacies.

Ad hominem isn't an argument or a refutation, here's why:
http://www.carbonbrief.org/profiles/christopher-booker/

Doesn't address this specific claims in the article which refer to information only available in 2012.
http://denierlist.wordpress.com/2012/09/24/christopher-booker/

Similar to the previous link and also irrelevant to his claims.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php

This has nothing to do with peer review, it is a report on the BBC media practice. Why would a journalist be publishing scientific papers, and what does that have to do with the BBC's "research" practices?

I hope you don't take this personally, I am just trying to get you to engage with the topic properly, and I am not the one who raised the topic of the media, you were.

I look forward to seeing some solid reasons against my claims.
:anjali:
Image
User avatar
Zhen Li
 
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Kim O'Hara » Sun Jan 05, 2014 3:43 am

Zhen Li wrote:Kim, thanks for your reply.

I appreciate your interest in trying to inform me, but if you are trying to respond to what I said, please address the argumentation, rather than using fallacies.

Ad hominem isn't an argument or a refutation, here's why:
http://www.carbonbrief.org/profiles/christopher-booker/

Doesn't address this specific claims in the article which refer to information only available in 2012.
http://denierlist.wordpress.com/2012/09/24/christopher-booker/

Similar to the previous link and also irrelevant to his claims.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php

This has nothing to do with peer review, it is a report on the BBC media practice. Why would a journalist be publishing scientific papers, and what does that have to do with the BBC's "research" practices?

I didn't raise general media practice as a part of the topic. Someone else mentioned a report on alternative media which I thought was dubious and I said that if it was genuine it would certainly appear in mainstream media before long. (For the record, it didn't - so it wasn't. If it had been true, it would have been the lead story everywhere for the last week.)
As for "Ad hominem isn't an argument or a refutation", I guess your were referring to my attack on Booker and if so, you are wrong: when someone has been conclusively shown to be a systematic liar, as he has, nothing they say can be accepted at face value.
I hope you don't take this personally, I am just trying to get you to engage with the topic properly, and I am not the one who raised the topic of the media, you were.

I look forward to seeing some solid reasons against my claims.
:anjali:

Which claims?
Seriously, the trouble with your wall-of-text discussion style is that you can raise half a dozen topics and make half a dozen claims and then end with a request for responses which is really very vague.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Zhen Li » Sun Jan 05, 2014 4:48 am

I didn't raise general media practice as a part of the topic. Someone else mentioned a report on alternative media which I thought was dubious and I said that if it was genuine it would certainly appear in mainstream media before long. (For the record, it didn't - so it wasn't. If it had been true, it would have been the lead story everywhere for the last week.)
We both know that's not true, right? Does that make logical sense to you? If it does, then, I am sorry, we must just be incapable of understanding one another, maybe we have bad karma together from a past life.
As for "Ad hominem isn't an argument or a refutation", I guess your were referring to my attack on Booker and if so, you are wrong: when someone has been conclusively shown to be a systematic liar, as he has, nothing they say can be accepted at face value.

Once again, does that argument which you just made make logical sense to you? I think perhaps we just have different thinking styles. I may be logical-analytic, and you may be more intuitive-feeling oriented.

Essentially, you're making a number of problematic claims here:
1. Booker has been conclusively shown to be a systematic liar.
This is problematic for a number of reasons, firstly, a conclusion wasn't established through posting links to irrelevant articles from biased sources. Secondly, a conclusion is an opinion. Conclusions, except in deductive logic, are never black and white, and are always subjective. Conclusions are one's evaluation of a theory. A theory is one's explanation of how the facts presented fit together. You have neither provided a theory related to the claims made by booker, nor have you made one self-evident. I have established that this is not clear, and politely asked you to make it clear, but you are using quite rash and I think impulsive language here. This is just my feeling, and I may be misinterpreting something, but I feel like you are not fully thinking out what you're writing.
2. nothing they say can be accepted at face value.
Nothing anyone says should be accepted at face value, we have both already agreed to that premise. However, this is a classic definition of an ad hominem and it is rooted in a very poor logic. You are jumping from the assumption that Booker is a systematic liar, to the conclusion that nothing he says can be accepted at face value. Even assuming the first claim is true, which I don't accept based upon the evidence I have seen, the conclusion does not follow because it is a universal claim. Moreover, the most fundamental characteristic flaw of arguments like ad hominem is that they distract one from the actual argument, and try to discount it by pointing to information which is not under contention. Whether one's character is flawed is irrelevant to whether one should consider what they say or not. From the Buddhist perspective, this is clear, because even if one has what appear to be habits strongly fixed by one's karma, they are still subject to impermanence and one cannot predict whether or not they will be different in the future. Kim, I have found it difficult to connect to you on a logical level in the past, and found you incessantly rely upon flawed reasoning and quick judgments, but that doesn't mean I dismiss talking to you, because these habits and perceptions of both you and me are impermanent, and they may change sometime in the future. If this were not true, I would not be trying to talk to you now, I might as well talk to a plant, but it is true, so I am talking to you. Likewise, I know you see some reason to talk to me, so you continue - you must assume impermanence of some sort in my position, and you must be assuming that I can be convinced - otherwise you're just performing for others, or for your own pleasure. Since we both are agreeing to talk to one another, we both are accepting not only that we have impermanence in our views, but that we both value truth above falsehood, we are both trying to find the truth - which makes us both philosophers in our own right. This respect and mutual recognition, is what keeps us going, and I thank you for it.
Which claims?
Seriously, the trouble with your wall-of-text discussion style is that you can raise half a dozen topics and make half a dozen claims and then end with a request for responses which is really very vague.

Kim, I know you are better than that. I know that you can use reason to figure out what claims matter, and how it relates to the issue at hand.

I also know that you are capable of seeing that dirty tactics like logical fallacies aren't ethical, and are deceptive. Even if there are a dozen possible topics, that is besides the point. Every sentence anyone speaks, even those of a three year old, can spawn a million other sentences - and indeed they do. That is neither here nor there. I am not asking that you respond to every claim, that is unreasonable, I am simply asking that, if you do respond, please do it fairly and respectfully, and not in such a haphazard way. Please have some consideration, I spend a lot of time thinking about and researching for my replies, and if you are going to bother replying to me, you should have some compassion and actually address a point I made in a rational and useful way that I and others can respond to in a constructive manner. Using dirty tricks and tactics to dismiss the topic is not right, and is not respectful.

I really care about you and have consideration for you. The only reason I reply to you, and try to get you to think about these issues, is because I think that the truth is more complex than the way you are presenting, and I am trying to help you to see what I think is more sceptical and more rational. I don't claim to know the correct answers, I just think that you should open up your eyes a little bit more and not dismiss things because you already have a prejudice against them. Personally, I feel that you may have a bit of hatred and perhaps a bit of resentment towards me. I think that you may have some emotional baggage that you are projecting onto me because I am challenging your views in a way that someone in your past did to you, and perhaps that is causing those bad feelings to arise and manifest themselves towards me. Otherwise, maybe we had a conflict in a past life, which causes our karma to manifest bad affinities and connections between us, shrouding our true views of one another, tinting our glasses so we can't see one another for who we really are. I don't know. All I know is that something isn't right here. And I think that you know it. I can't talk to you about issues like I can with others. Whatever it is, I hope you feel better after this. In fact, if you like, we can take a break and I won't reply to you if you want. If my replies make you feel angry or if they cause you to hate or resent me, then just let me know, and I will stop replying to you, because I can't go on knowing that I may be causing you emotional pain.

Wishing you are well and happy,
:anjali:
Image
User avatar
Zhen Li
 
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Kim O'Hara » Sun Jan 05, 2014 6:04 am

Zhen Li wrote:
I didn't raise general media practice as a part of the topic. Someone else mentioned a report on alternative media which I thought was dubious and I said that if it was genuine it would certainly appear in mainstream media before long. (For the record, it didn't - so it wasn't. If it had been true, it would have been the lead story everywhere for the last week.)
We both know that's not true, right? Does that make logical sense to you? If it does, then, I am sorry, we must just be incapable of understanding one another, maybe we have bad karma together from a past life.

In the context of the thread, my argument was reasonable and my conclusion was proven correct. I understand you well enough - I just disagree with you. If you are "incapable of understanding me," please ask for clarification of the specific point that is problematic.
Zhen Li wrote:
I didn't raise general media practice as a part of the topic. Someone else mentioned a report on alternative media which I thought was dubious and I said that if it was genuine it would certainly appear in mainstream media before long. (For the record, it didn't - so it wasn't. If it had been true, it would have been the lead story everywhere for the last week.)
We both know that's not true, right? Does that make logical sense to you? If it does, then, I am sorry, we must just be incapable of understanding one another, maybe we have bad karma together from a past life.
As for "Ad hominem isn't an argument or a refutation", I guess your were referring to my attack on Booker and if so, you are wrong: when someone has been conclusively shown to be a systematic liar, as he has, nothing they say can be accepted at face value.

Once again, does that argument which you just made make logical sense to you? I think perhaps we just have different thinking styles. I may be logical-analytic, and you may be more intuitive-feeling oriented.

Your discussion style is logical-analytic but its content is not. You tend to present a wall of factoids and then say "therefore X" when in fact the factoids are unproven and/or irrelevant, and you have failed to establish any connection between them. I, on the other hand, am a genuine logical-analytic type - boringly so, in fact. :emb:

Zhen Li wrote:Essentially, you're making a number of problematic claims here:
1. Booker has been conclusively shown to be a systematic liar.
...
2. nothing they say can be accepted at face value.
...

I stand by what I said. For a bit of extra clarity I should perhaps have added an extra step:
Booker is a systematic liar.
Nothing he says can be trusted.
Therefore any argument based on his claims is faulty.
Zhen Li's argument accepts Booker's claims at face value.
Therefore Zhen Li's argument is faulty.

ZL wrote:I also know that you are capable of seeing that dirty tactics like logical fallacies aren't ethical, and are deceptive. Even if there are a dozen possible topics, that is besides the point. Every sentence anyone speaks, even those of a three year old, can spawn a million other sentences - and indeed they do. That is neither here nor there. I am not asking that you respond to every claim, that is unreasonable, I am simply asking that, if you do respond, please do it fairly and respectfully, and not in such a haphazard way. Please have some consideration, I spend a lot of time thinking about and researching for my replies, and if you are going to bother replying to me, you should have some compassion and actually address a point I made in a rational and useful way that I and others can respond to in a constructive manner. Using dirty tricks and tactics to dismiss the topic is not right, and is not respectful.

I really care about you and have consideration for you. The only reason I reply to you, and try to get you to think about these issues, is because I think that the truth is more complex than the way you are presenting, and I am trying to help you to see what I think is more sceptical and more rational. I don't claim to know the correct answers, I just think that you should open up your eyes a little bit more and not dismiss things because you already have a prejudice against them. Personally, I feel that you may have a bit of hatred and perhaps a bit of resentment towards me. I think that you may have some emotional baggage that you are projecting onto me because I am challenging your views in a way that someone in your past did to you, and perhaps that is causing those bad feelings to arise and manifest themselves towards me. Otherwise, maybe we had a conflict in a past life, which causes our karma to manifest bad affinities and connections between us, shrouding our true views of one another, tinting our glasses so we can't see one another for who we really are. I don't know. All I know is that something isn't right here. And I think that you know it. I can't talk to you about issues like I can with others. Whatever it is, I hope you feel better after this. In fact, if you like, we can take a break and I won't reply to you if you want. If my replies make you feel angry or if they cause you to hate or resent me, then just let me know, and I will stop replying to you, because I can't go on knowing that I may be causing you emotional pain.

Wishing you are well and happy,
:anjali:

To summarise all that: you present yourself as the calm, rational, helpful and well-informed participant here and project all sorts of limitations onto me. In fact, half of it is simply a passive-aggressive ad hominem attack on me and the other half is irrelevant.
I don't accept any of it, except that I don't (yet) deny your good intentions.
If you want a useful discussion, you must ask your questions and state your own beliefs clearly enough so that a sensible answer is possible.
If you do that, I will answer to the best of my ability. If you can't or won't, all I can do (as I have done just now) is say you're not clear enough.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Zhen Li » Sun Jan 05, 2014 5:31 pm

Kim O'Hara wrote:In the context of the thread, my argument was reasonable and my conclusion was proven correct. I understand you well enough - I just disagree with you. If you are "incapable of understanding me," please ask for clarification of the specific point that is problematic.

How can you seriously believe that the reasoning in the following sentance is sound? It just baffles my mind: "If it had been true, it would have been the lead story everywhere for the last week."

You really have as much faith in the mainstream media as your own senses? :jawdrop:

So, if something is true, it must be a lead story? Do you realise that they only choose very particular things to be lead stories? And that if it threatens the mainstream opinion then they will relegate it to only being mentioned in editorials or not even mention it?
Your discussion style is logical-analytic but its content is not. You tend to present a wall of factoids and then say "therefore X" when in fact the factoids are unproven and/or irrelevant, and you have failed to establish any connection between them. I, on the other hand, am a genuine logical-analytic type - boringly so, in fact. :emb:

Using an ad hominem doesn't make logical sense.

The reason I suggest that you may not be of a logical-analytic style is that you repeatedly rely on fallacies and non sequiturs. Here's a clear example:
Kim O'Hara wrote:I stand by what I said. For a bit of extra clarity I should perhaps have added an extra step:
Booker is a systematic liar.
Nothing he says can be trusted.
Therefore any argument based on his claims is faulty.
Zhen Li's argument accepts Booker's claims at face value.
Therefore Zhen Li's argument is faulty.

How can you believe that you can make any kind of argument without proving any of the premises? Really, if you can't see how this is a non sequitur, then we just can't see eye to eye.

Moreover, my argument isn't accepting Booker's claims at face value, you have failed to analyse my argument and identify the key premises and refute them (you just emotionally reject it out of hatred):
Booker wrote:When, last week, those names were finally revealed – thanks to another blogger, Maurizio Morabito (see omnilogos.com) and the Wayback Machine, which stores information deleted from the internet – the result was even more startling than had been suspected. Only three of the “28 specialists” invited to advise the BBC were active scientists, none of them climate experts and all committed global-warming alarmists. Virtually all the rest were professional climate-change lobbyists, ranging from emissaries of Greenpeace and the Stop Climate Chaos campaign to the “CO2 project manager” for BP, one of the world’s largest oil companies.

You see, it doesn't even depend on Booker as an end point. You see how full of holes your claim is now? Booker is using references which means that anyone who refers to his argument is not relying upon blind faith from authority. I only posted his argument because it is a coherently argued piece. It has premises backed by evidence and a conclusion.

You on the other hand appear to have had a visceral gut emotional reaction to my posting it, as if you hate the man, and reject anything he says out of hand without even investigating to see whether it is true or not.

Do you not see how unethical and cruel that is? Please just have some compassion for others and don't assume they are right or wrong, turning your back on any consideration of their words before you even read them. Is that really the Buddhist approach? Is that evaluating gold like a goldsmith? No, it's rejecting the gold because one has an emotional reaction to gold. Please have some common sense.

Another major issue with your reduction of my claims, is that you have also simplified my words to an incoherent and illogical level, just as you do with Booker. You did not even quote a single sentence of my explanation.

Is this because you are afraid? Why are you afraid? What have you got to lose and why are you running from facing the facts?
Kim O'Hara wrote:To summarise all that: you present yourself as the calm, rational, helpful and well-informed participant here and project all sorts of limitations onto me. In fact, half of it is simply a passive-aggressive ad hominem attack on me and the other half is irrelevant.
I don't accept any of it, except that I don't (yet) deny your good intentions.
If you want a useful discussion, you must ask your questions and state your own beliefs clearly enough so that a sensible answer is possible.
If you do that, I will answer to the best of my ability. If you can't or won't, all I can do (as I have done just now) is say you're not clear enough.

This is all nice to say, but when you don't even quote a single word of my explanation, and explain why they are invalid and unsound, then you have hardly been fair to me.

I have spent a lot of time trying to consider your arguments, and I really think you should try as hard with me if you want to address this issue.

You write as if I am only posting a bunch of baloney, and then putting a conclusion, as if one sentence doesn't follow from another. But yet, you do not actually quote my argument and show that this is the case. Is this because you fear I am actually right? If I am right, what does it matter?

Is it that you are afraid of reading paragraphs larger than the size of those found in newspapers? If so, we can make an agreement to stick to single claim replies. I didn't think that'd be necessary, but if you really are that fearful of addressing claims in paragraphs which don't look like easy to read lines, then I can do it. :shrug:

:anjali:
Image
User avatar
Zhen Li
 
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Kim O'Hara » Sun Jan 05, 2014 10:33 pm

Zhen Li,
None of your previous post is about the topic of the thread, which is climate change.
I'm therefore not going to bother replying to any of it.

I asked you before to keep your posts focused and you haven't even tried ... or, if you have, you need to try harder. Avoiding rhetorical questions would be good. So would avoiding guesses about what I think or feel. Most of all, stick to the topic!

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Zhen Li » Sun Jan 05, 2014 11:38 pm

Okay, let's make it to the point:

Why should you wait until the mainstream media report something before you accept it?

I do not believe you should, because the mainstream media are influenced by lobbyists and have an incentive to lie or promote a bias when it makes them more money than presenting the truth or an even-handed approach to each issue.
:anjali:
Image
User avatar
Zhen Li
 
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby dharmagoat » Sun Jan 05, 2014 11:48 pm

Zhen Li wrote:Why should you wait until the mainstream media report something before you accept it?

I do not believe you should, because the mainstream media are influenced by lobbyists and have an incentive to lie or promote a bias when it makes them more money than presenting the truth or an even-handed approach to each issue.

It comes down to funding. I doubt coercion plays any part.

I do agree with Kim. If a breaking story is big, you can be sure the mainstream media will want a piece of the pie.
Last edited by dharmagoat on Sun Jan 05, 2014 11:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
May all beings be happy
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 1199
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Malcolm » Sun Jan 05, 2014 11:53 pm

http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 11729
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby dharmagoat » Mon Jan 06, 2014 12:27 am


An interesting article, and a good summary of the argument for anthropogenic climate change.
May all beings be happy
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 1199
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Zhen Li » Mon Jan 06, 2014 12:33 am

Since I'm following a new rule of one point per reply, the article will have to wait for later. :tongue:
I do agree with Kim. If a breaking story is big, you can be sure the mainstream media will want a piece of the pie.

Does big = true?

:anjali:
Image
User avatar
Zhen Li
 
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby dharmagoat » Mon Jan 06, 2014 12:38 am

Zhen Li wrote:Since I'm following a new rule of one point per reply, the article will have to wait for later. :tongue:
I do agree with Kim. If a breaking story is big, you can be sure the mainstream media will want a piece of the pie.

Does big = true?

Ultimately, yes. When a significant story breaks, investigation by a variety of parties always follows.
May all beings be happy
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 1199
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Kim O'Hara » Mon Jan 06, 2014 1:05 am


Thanks, Malcolm. Good arguments, concise and accurate.
You may also like http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php - not completely up to date but covers most of the common misperceptions.
Recency is really important in climate science because the field is advancing so quickly. RealClimate http://www.realclimate.org and Climate Progress http://thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/ keep up with it pretty well and are very reliable.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Kim O'Hara » Mon Jan 06, 2014 1:06 am

dharmagoat wrote:
Zhen Li wrote:Since I'm following a new rule of one point per reply, the article will have to wait for later. :tongue:
I do agree with Kim. If a breaking story is big, you can be sure the mainstream media will want a piece of the pie.

Does big = true?

Ultimately, yes. When a significant story breaks, investigation by a variety of parties always follows.

Exactly my point.

:smile:
Kim
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Zhen Li » Mon Jan 06, 2014 1:13 am

Ultimately, yes. When a big story gets out, all sorts want to get to the bottom of it.

If mainstream media is always correct, then they should never make mistakes.

But since they do make mistakes, such as this one, they are not always correct.

There are plenty of other examples of mainstream media news stories which are inaccurate or biased.

This is because mainstream media news stories are written by humans.

Humans cannot always know the truth perfectly.

Therefore, mainstream media cannot always report the truth perfectly.
Image
User avatar
Zhen Li
 
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby dharmagoat » Mon Jan 06, 2014 1:20 am

Zhen Li wrote:
Ultimately, yes. When a big story gets out, all sorts want to get to the bottom of it.

If mainstream media is always correct, then they should never make mistakes.

But since they do make mistakes, such as this one, they are not always correct.

There are plenty of other examples of mainstream media news stories which are inaccurate or biased.

This is because mainstream media news stories are written by humans.

Humans cannot always know the truth perfectly.

Therefore, mainstream media cannot always report the truth perfectly.

I agree that the mainstream media are not always correct. And it is useful to be reminded of the fact.

(I particularly like your creative style of linking. :smile: )
May all beings be happy
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 1199
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Kim O'Hara » Mon Jan 06, 2014 1:46 am

Zhen Li wrote:
Ultimately, yes. When a big story gets out, all sorts want to get to the bottom of it.

If mainstream media is always correct, then they should never make mistakes.

But since they do make mistakes, such as this one, they are not always correct.

There are plenty of other examples of mainstream media news stories which are inaccurate or biased.

This is because mainstream media news stories are written by humans.

Humans cannot always know the truth perfectly.

Therefore, mainstream media cannot always report the truth perfectly.

Zhen Li,
:offtopic:
(1) You are still off topic. If you continue to distract us with off-topic posts, I will report them to the admin team.
(2) Quite separately, your argument is a straw man. No-one here has ever claimed that mainstream media are always correct or never make mistakes.
(3) In spite of the fact that mainstream media gets some stories wrong and ignores others, it is fairly reliable most of the time and for stories of general interest it is more reliable than the non-mainstream media. Suggesting otherwise is silly.

:focus: or :guns:

Kim
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Zhen Li » Mon Jan 06, 2014 2:38 am

EDIT: Kim, I am just trying to emphasize open mindedness. It's more of a reductio than a strawman. A basic principle with media and science is to accept things only with a grain of salt. Most people don't have enough time or energy to investigate things till there is no reasonable doubt. So I would suggest agnosticism and Daoist non-action on all issues until you do have time to scrutinize. When you do scrutinize, you must try your best to disprove every claim, that's the only way to really filter out truth from garbage.

ALWAYS, look at the OTHER side of the story. And, as Plato suggests, ALWAYS follow the argument wherever it leads, even if it takes you to what you usually consider enemy territory. Otherwise, you don't really love truth, and you do yourself and unethical and immoral service by deciding to live and believe a lie. Start from first principles, and always be open to challenges.

dharmagoat wrote:I agree that the mainstream media are not always correct. And it is useful to be reminded of the fact.

Good, so we both agree that the mainstream media is not infallible, and that reports and editorials are still subject to debate.

You cannot really hold the belief that they are always true, especially when reports are opinion pieces and editorials.

Remember also, that science is about refutation. If you are unfamiliar with the scientific method, or how it works before responding to me please read Popper and Kuhn. Then you will be sufficiently open minded and logical to discuss science.

The issue with the Salon article is that it doesn't cite who is making these arguments, or how common they are. Some of them I haven't even seen before, others I have seen, and some are convincing to me. Here's one:
7 ways to shut down a climate change denier wrote:After the NRC review was released, another analysis by four statisticians, called theWegman report, which was not formally peer reviewed, was more critical of the hockey stick paper. But correction of the errors it pointed out did not substantially change the shape of the hockey stick graph. In 2008 Mann and his colleagues issued an updated version of the temperature reconstruction that echoed their earlier findings.

But hypothetically, even if the hockey stick was busted… What of it? The case for anthropogenic global warming originally came from studies of climate mechanics, not from reconstructions of past temperatures seeking a cause. Warnings about current warming trends came out years before Mann’s hockey stick graph. Even if the world were incontrovertibly warmer 1,000 years ago, it would not change the fact that the recent rapid rise in CO2 explains the current episode of warming more credibly than any natural factor does—and that no natural factor seems poised to offset further warming in the years ahead.

If "the recent rapid rise in CO2 explains the current episode of warming more credibly than any natural factor does," then that recent rises in CO2 should be correlated with increases in global mean temperature according to models and adjusted for volcanic activity. It is reasonable to allow for room for error in atmospheric science, but this is really a topic which is still under research, and I don't think we should be drawing conclusions for a few decades yet because the models we currently use are still not corresponding with data. This only means that there may be other factors at play. It doesn't mean that CO2 has no effect, and it doesn't deny that the climate is changing. It is merely saying that we still have reasonable doubt to conclude that one factor is of unquestionable influence. (Energy budget constraints on climate response, Otto, Alexander, Stevens, Bjorn, Otto, Friederike E. L, Church, John, Boucher, Olivier, Johnson, Gregory C, Allen, Myles R, Shindell, Drew, Gregory, Jonathan, Knutti, Reto, Myhre, Gunnar, Lewis, Nicholas, Marotzke, Jochem, Hegerl, Gabi, Gillett, Nathan P, Forster, Piers M, Lohmann, UlrikeNATURE GEOSCIENCE, V. 6 (6), 06/2013, p. 415-416) There is a problem with relying upon models as if they are as infallible as the Dharma when, "almost all the global climate models around which much of the IPCC’s AR5 WGI report was centred had been warming faster than the real climate system over the last 35-odd years, in terms of the key metric of global mean surface temperature."

We simply cannot claim from a scientific basis that absolutely "no natural factor seems poised to offset further warming in the years ahead." Not only since warming in the past 30 years has been very slight (0.1 C per decade), but because it is a matter of scientific investigation, meaning, it's a claim up for contention. There are peer reviewed articles which do not fit the story you are told by the mainstream media perfectly, contrary to what the Salon article tells you, the question of other influences is being asked by scientists whose job it is to investigate these things (“How Natural and Anthropogenic Influences Alter Global and Regional Surface Temperatures: 1889 to 2006″, Judith L. Lean and David H. Rind, Geophysical Research Letters, 16 September 2008) (“An influence of solar spectral variations on radiative forcing of climate“, Joanna D. Haigh, Nature, 7 October 2010) (“The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24“, Jan-Erik Solheim et al, submitted to the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 10 February 2012 ) (“The Long-term Variation of Solar Activity“, Leif Svalgaard, Nagoya Workshop on the Relationship between Solar Activity and Climate Changes, 16 January 2012)

There are too many factors to consider to be speaking with such certainty, e.g.
(“Variations in Solar Irradiance and Climate“, Judith Lean”, Nagoya Workshop on the Relationship between Solar Activity and Climate Changes, 16 January 2012) wrote:Slide 9: There are Many Causes of Climate, Atmosphere and Ozone Change

Natural Forcings: solar variability and volcanic eruptions

Internal Oscillations: El Nino Southern Oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation, Quasi biennial Oscillation

Anthropogenic Forcings:

atmospheric GH gases – CO2, CH4, CFCs, O3, N2O
tropospheric aerosols – direct and indirect effects of soot, sulfate, carbon, biomass burning, soil dust
land cover changes
Slide 41: Conclusion: A new Maunder Minimum will NOT cause another Little Ice Age

7 ways to shut down a climate change denier wrote:Climatologists conspire to hide the truth about global warming by locking away their data.

I think when people claim this, they are just referring to the remarks of people like McIntyre or the Climategate email scandal:
From the testimony of Stephen McIntyre before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (the July 2006 hearings which produced the Wegman Report). wrote:In response to a request for supporting data, Philip Jones, a prominent researcher {U of East Anglia} said “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'? wrote:If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (aka CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)
When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be "the greatest in modern science". These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:
"In an odd way this is cheering news."
But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph's MPs' expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.
Here are a few tasters.
Manipulation of evidence:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Suppression of evidence:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:
Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.
Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….
And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as "How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie" - CRU's researchers were exposed as having "cherry-picked" data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.
I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that's sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.
The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore's Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called "sceptical" view – which is some of us have been expressing for quite some time: see, for example, the chapter entitled 'Barbecue the Polar Bears' in WELCOME TO OBAMALAND: I'VE SEEN YOUR FUTURE AND IT DOESN'T WORK – is now also, thank heaven, the majority view.
Unfortunately, we've a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.
But to judge by the way – despite the best efforts of the MSM not to report on it – the CRU scandal is spreading like wildfire across the internet, this shabby story represents a blow to the AGW lobby's credibility from which it is never likely to recover.
UPDATE: I write about this subject a lot and the threads below my posts often contain an impressive range of informed opinion from readers with solid scientific backgrounds (plus lots of cheap swipes from Libtards – but, hey, their discomfort and rage are my joy).
Here are a few links:
Interview in the Spectator with Australian geology Professor Ian Plimer re his book Heaven And Earth. Plimer makes the point that CO2 is not a pollutant – CO2 is plant food, and that climate change is an ongoing natural process.
An earlier scandal at the Climate Research Unit, this time involving "cherry-picked" data samples.
A contretemps with a Climate Bully who wonders whether I have a science degree. (No I don't. I just happen to be a believer in empiricism and not spending taxpayers' money on a problem that may well not exist)
59 per cent of UK population does not believe in AGW. The Times decides they are "village idiots"
Comparing "Climate Change" to the 9/11 and the Holocaust is despicable and dumb
Copenhagen: a step closer to one-world government?
UK Government blows £6 million on eco-propaganda ad which makes children cry
and a very funny piece by Damian Thompson comparing the liberal media's coverage of Watergate with its almost non-existent coverage of Climategate


Really, the matter is beyond the scope of a forum reply, and if I were to fully address the issue it would be too long for you to want to read it.

All I am saying is, even if the mainstream media tells you that you ought to think it is true, remember that science is always changing and that you shouldn't act upon data which is still under contention. The same goes for reports on medicine, be careful not to rely on "breaking news" about what you should and shouldn't eat or do, because it is a question of science, and therefore one of empirical investigation subject to falsification and change at any time.

You may not accept the fact that the mainstream media were advised to report that global warming shouldn't be question by lobby groups and were given funds specifically for this task by the government. But you should have an open mind at least, otherwise you have no business talking about science, sorry.

The main issue is that the topic is extremely politicized: that's why you don't get articles like "7 ways to shut down a climate change denier" when talking about medical controversies over media reporting of the issue of eggs and cholesterol. Imagine "7 ways to shut down a cholesterol denier." You just don't see it.
Last edited by Zhen Li on Mon Jan 06, 2014 2:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Zhen Li
 
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jan 06, 2014 2:48 am

Zhen Li wrote:The main issue is that the topic is extremely politicized...



The scientific consensus is that human caused climate instability is a fact. Politicians are the only reason we, as a global civilization, are not effectively responding to this state of affairs.



M
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 11729
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

PreviousNext

Return to Engaged Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

>