Tuesday, April 1, 2014

James Lovelock: I Was “a Little Too Certain”

An Environmentalists Decides to Follow the Data

If even evolutionist Matt Ridley’s criticism of AGW (anthropogenic, or man-made, global warming) has no effect on environmentalists then surely James Lovelock, Mr. Gaia Hypothesis himself, should open eyes. Lovelock now admits that he was “a little too certain” and that “You just can’t tell what’s going to happen.” And as for the environmental movement, Lovelock says, “It’s become a religion, and religions don’t worry too much about facts.” It is not that Lovelock rejects AGW altogether, but he realizes the problem is far more complex and uncertain than the dogmatic insistence of AGW proponents would have it. That is to his credit.

124 comments:

  1. CH,

    Yea, I'm betting it has zero effect on the environmental movement, or it's apologist here for that matter. It's a false religion, hence impervious to facts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As opposed to what? True religions which are not impervious to facts?

      Delete
  2. "Asked if his remarks would give ammunition to climate change sceptics, he said: "It’s just as silly to be a denier as it is to be a believer. You can’t be certain."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Velikovsky,

    So they should stop claiming certainty. Besides, that's not quite right, if you claim the person denying the claim is wrong you are asserting certainty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. eklektos: Besides, that's not quite right, if you claim the person denying the claim is wrong you are asserting certainty.

      In science, it has to do with degrees of confidence. Lovelock has frequently been an interesting thinker, but just as frequently overstated his case.

      Delete
    2. eklektos

      if you claim the person denying the claim is wrong you are asserting certainty

      Then denial of the claim is asserting certainty as well.


      Delete
    3. Zachriel,

      "In science, it has to do with degrees of confidence."

      Exactly what is a 'degree of confidence?' I would be really interested in learning how one measures degrees of confidence?

      My suspicion is that it would simply boil down to degree of confidence = one's opinion.

      You see my opinion is that climate change, global warming, etc., is based on a whole bunch of politics backed up with large amounts of pseudo-science. Of that, I'm very confident.

      Delete
    4. eklektos: So they should stop claiming certainty.

      I don’t think anyone claimed to be absolutely certain. That would be prophecy. Do you find the very idea of *other* sources of absolute certainty objectionable?

      eklektos: Besides, that's not quite right, if you claim the person denying the claim is wrong you are asserting certainty.

      Not necessarily. Science doesn’t prove anything. Rather, it only disproves theories. And, even then, only tentatively, since observations are themselves theory laden. As such, observations used to criticize theories can be mistaken, rather than the theory in question.

      Just as one can personally have an experience of the sun orbiting the earth, One can personally have an experience of proving something is true. However, in both cases, those perceptions do not survive rational criticism.

      Delete
    5. nic: Exactly what is a 'degree of confidence?' I would be really interested in learning how one measures degrees of confidence?

      It's a relative term. We're quite sure the Earth moves, for instance.

      nic: You see my opinion is that climate change, global warming, etc., is based on a whole bunch of politics backed up with large amounts of pseudo-science.

      There is substantial evidence of anthropogenic climate change. The scientific question is the climate sensitivity.

      Delete
    6. So one of the big beefs with science is the belief that it makes unjustified claims of certainty for some of its conclusions? If the actual scientific research makes such claims then, yes, it is going too far. But I doubt you will find anything like that. More likely you will find estimates of probability and, as Zachriel says, expressions of degrees of confidence.

      I don't see the problem with the idea of degrees of confidence. A couple of days ago my cat knocked a pen off my desk and it fell to the floor. He seems to think that is vastly entertaining. I have a high degree of confidence that if he does the same thing tomorrow the pen will fall to the floor again. I can't be absolutely certain, of course, but I'm pretty sure. On the other hand, when the TV weatherman tells me that snow will be moving through the area tomorrow I'm less confident that I will see it where I am. Past experience has taught me that, although they are reasonably accurate in short term forecasts, they can still be wrong.

      Scientists are well aware of this which is why their published research is hedged around with estimates of probability and expressions of contingency. From a journalists perspective, however, such caution doesn't make for good copy. Lurid headlines and scaremongering sell a lot more copies than the research papers on which the popular reports are based.

      Of course, if the research uncovers trends in the data that indicate a threat to the planet, it would be irresponsible of science not to try and warn people about it, wouldn't it?

      Delete
    7. Zachriel,

      "It's a relative term. We're quite sure the Earth moves, for instance."

      So are opinions relative terms. This is not an explanation as to how degrees of confidence have any explanatory meaning.


      "There is substantial evidence of anthropogenic climate change."

      The climate has always changed, it's nothing new. In Tudor England they used to hold winter festivals on the frozen Thames.

      Temperatures are rising on Mars, is that anthropogenic?

      Delete
    8. Nic: So are opinions relative terms. This is not an explanation as to how degrees of confidence have any explanatory meaning.

      Degrees of confidence aren't explanations. They evaluations of explanations. In some cases, we can give specific probabilities. In others, it requires judgment.

      So we're confident the Earth moves, but less confident that the recently discovered gravity waves confirm inflation. If other researchers use independent methods to measure the waves, and if plausible objections are dealt with, then our scientific confidence will increase. However, in science, confidence can never be absolute. How sure were physicists of Newtonian Mechanics? Pretty darn confident, but there were still problems that became more and more apparent.

      Nic: The climate has always changed, it's nothing new.

      Wonder what those climatologists will discovery next!

      Nic: Temperatures are rising on Mars, is that anthropogenic?

      No.

      Delete
    9. Velikovsky,

      Then denial of the claim is asserting certainty as well.

      Obviously. But denial of the claim being certain is not the issue. You can't say someone's denial is wrong unless you know it's wrong. You may say we're uncertain, but you cannot say it's wrong, because you're uncertain. But is that what is frequently being claimed? No, it's not.

      Delete
    10. Zachriel,

      "Degrees of confidence aren't explanations. They evaluations of explanations. In some cases, we can give specific probabilities. In others, it requires judgment."

      So, in short, 'degrees of confidence' is generally a useless term.

      "Wonder what those climatologists will discovery next!"

      That, I'm sure, will depend on the funding available.

      Nic: Temperatures are rising on Mars, is that anthropogenic?

      Zchriel: "No."

      So why do we assume it is on Earth? If solar activity is responsible fro the warming of Mars, why is man responsible for the warming on Earth?

      Delete
    11. eklektos: You can't say someone's denial is wrong unless you know it's wrong.

      One doesn't have to have absolute certainty to contest a scientific claim, otherwise science could never progress.

      Delete
    12. Zachriel,

      You can't even say it's most likely wrong. You're equivocating again.

      Delete
    13. Nic,

      Zachriel likes to play semantic games. He doesn't like to think, or be honest, or admit when he's wrong. And he thinks a google search is the fount of all knowledge.

      Delete
    14. Zachriel said

      "One doesn't have to have absolute certainty to contest a scientific claim, otherwise science could never progress."


      One doesn't have to have absolute certainty to contest AGW, otherwise science could never progress

      Delete
    15. nic: So, in short, 'degrees of confidence' is generally a useless term.

      No. For instance, if you evidence of a claim, then discover additional, independent evidence of the claim, then you will have increased confidence in that claim.

      nic: So why do we assume it is on Earth?

      For a number of reasons, including that changes in insolation are not sufficient to account for the warming trend on Earth.

      Blas: One doesn't have to have absolute certainty to contest AGW, otherwise science could never progress

      That's right. One should be skeptical, but that's not the same thing as denying facts because they require action on your part.

      Delete
    16. eklektos: You can't even say it's most likely wrong.

      Why would we say that?

      Delete
    17. Zachriel,

      "One doesn't have to have absolute certainty to contest a scientific claim, otherwise science could never progress."

      I doubt that you're aware of it, Zachriel, but you've just hoisted yourself on your own petard.

      Delete
    18. Zachriel said

      "That's right. One should be skeptical, but that's not the same thing as denying facts because they require action on your part. "

      I saw the other way. Before make me pay taxes or stop the development of my country show me that your predictions are credible.

      Delete
    19. Zachriel,

      "For a number of reasons, including that changes in insolation are not sufficient to account for the warming trend on Earth."

      Seeing as temperatures have been stable, if not declining over the last twenty years, I think you would have a difficult time presenting any type of sound argument for these other factors.

      A question. What role do you believe carbon dioxide plays in the environment?

      Delete
    20. Nic

      So why do we assume it is on Earth? If solar activity is responsible fro the warming of Mars

      Do you have some evidence that Mars is actually warming? Thanks

      Delete
    21. Blas

      Before make me pay taxes or stop the development of my country show me that your predictions are credible.

      What exactly do you require? Than the climate is warming,second that man's activities are having an effect?

      The carbon tax is not to stop development but to make it reflect the actual enviromental costs.

      Delete
    22. nic: I doubt that you're aware of it...

      No, it just shows you don't understand our position, or science for that matter.

      Blas: Before make me pay taxes or stop the development of my country show me that your predictions are credible.

      Climate scientists keep publishing the data supporting anthropogenic warming.

      nic: Seeing as temperatures have been stable, if not declining over the last twenty years

      The heat content of the atmosphere-hydrosphere-cryosphere is still increasing.
      http://www.zachriel.com/blog/Levitus2012.gif

      nic: What role do you believe carbon dioxide plays in the environment?

      It's essential for plants, of course, and is essential as a greenhouse gas. The Earth’s average temperature without the greenhouse effect would be a chilly ≈-18°C rather than the balmy ≈+15°C that it is.”

      Delete
    23. eklektos

      But denial of the claim being certain is not the issue.

      It doesn't matter, not X is just as much a claim as X

      You can't say someone's denial is wrong unless you know it's wrong.

      The logic of the negative is subject to the same scrutiny as the affirmative.

      You may say we're uncertain, but you cannot say it's wrong, because you're uncertain.

      So it is silly argument . Everyone has the same handicap, what is a bit shady is acting as if only your opponents suffer from it. Science is religion comes to mind.

      Think I will pick up the Grand Canyon geology on this thread,it is more accessible, read your source,you sure it says that the sequence is an issue? I thought their problem is with the reliability of radiometric dating.

      Delete
    24. Zachriel,

      "No, it just shows you don't understand our position, or science for that matter."

      It's got nothing to do with the science. It has to do with what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, aka; a double standard.

      nic: Seeing as temperatures have been stable, if not declining over the last twenty years

      "The heat content of the atmosphere-hydrosphere-cryosphere is still increasing."

      And that's why over the last twenty years temperatures have been stable or dropping? Yeah, I guess that makes sense.

      nic: What role do you believe carbon dioxide plays in the environment?

      Zachriel: "It's essential for plants, of course, and is essential as a greenhouse gas. The Earth’s average temperature without the greenhouse effect would be a chilly ≈-18°C rather than the balmy ≈+15°C that it is.”

      So you recognize the fact carbon dioxide is not a toxin, that's good. I've heard climate change alarmists call for the elimination of all carbon dioxide emissions, demonstrating a clear and total
      ignorance of the facts. Granted, none of them were qualified scientists, but it does demonstrate the fact there is a great deal of ignorance vis a vis the role of carbon dioxide. I recently had a conversation with an individual who argued we were poisoning trees as they were being stressed by having to store too much carbon dioxide.

      Do you believe it's possible the solution to what many see as an excess of carbon dioxide could be quickly and easily remedied but simply slowing down deforestation, and leaving industry alone?

      Delete
    25. Velikovsky,

      as I said you may say I don't know or it's uncertain, but you cannot say someone is wrong if your are uncertain. You may say their evidence does not change your uncertainty, but if you say their wrong then you're claiming certainty. It's not that difficult to grasp. You cannot say Not X because I'm uncertain of X. You may say X is not supported in my opinion, but that is all you can say. Because all you're giving is an opinion. You are uncertain. They may have information, knowledge, ect. that you do not have. What I see here is a constant bait and switch between X is uncertain and X is not true. And everyone else sees it too, beyond your little cadre. We have one guy who thinks that philosophy is science and one who thinks game theory is science. You seem to like to interject irrelevances into the discussion when you think you can make a point.

      Delete
    26. eklektos,

      Here's a helpful article on fallibilism, which addresses the supposed paradox you seem to be alluding to.

      http://nautil.us/issue/2/uncertainty/why-its-good-to-be-wrong

      From the article...

      The trouble is that error is a subject where issues such as logical paradox, self-reference, and the inherent limits of reason rear their ugly heads in practical situations, and bite.

      Paradoxes seem to appear when one considers the implications of one’s own fallibility: A fallibilist cannot claim to be infallible even about fallibilism itself. And so, one is forced to doubt that fallibilism is universally true. Which is the same as wondering whether one might be somehow infallible—at least about some things. For instance, can it be true that absolutely anything that you think is true, no matter how certain you are, might be false?

      What? How might we be mistaken that two plus two is four? Or about other matters of pure logic? That stubbing one’s toe hurts? That there is a force of gravity pulling us to earth? Or that, as the philosopher René Descartes argued, “I think, therefore I am”?

      When fallibilism starts to seem paradoxical, the mistakes begin. We are inclined to seek foundations—solid ground in the vast quicksand of human opinion—on which one can try to base everything else. Throughout the ages, the false authority of experience and the false reassurance of probability have been mistaken for such foundations: “No, we’re not always right,” your parents tell you, “just usually.” They have been on earth longer and think they have seen this situation before. But since that is an argument for “therefore you should always do as we say,” it is functionally a claim of infallibility after all. Moreover, look more closely: It claims literal infallibility too. Can anyone be infallibly right about the probability that they are right?

      Delete
    27. Scott,

      Yea, that's just another article arguing against foundationalism. But nobody operates that way in reality. Because to deny foundations is to be flopping around in midair. Plantinga talks of warranted belief. But Plantinga is a theist. Popper is just confused. Which is why his writings are contradictory. To deny foundations is to turn everything into arbitrary opinions. You want to make your foundation science. But naturalism is unfounded, because it relies on what we can know naturally, i.e. based on our reason and senses. However, as we know they can be fooled so that is not a foundation. From a Christian perspective our foundation is confirmed by both reason and the Spirit. But it's a paradigm which is foolishness to those on the outside. You cannot understand it solely with reason, nor can you get there with reason alone. This why Paul talks about "preaching the foolishness of the cross". It takes a supernatural act to put you inside the paradigm. There are plenty of folks who deceive themselves into believing for a while, but because they are not reborn they do not actually believe. So their faith is an unnatural act contrary to their nature. True faith runs far deeper than mere intellectual assent. That's pretty deep theology, but I don't believe in candy coating things as seems to be the norm in theological circles these days. I have no interest into tricking people into a false confession, as this actually leaves them worse off than before. Nor is such a thing biblical. The command is repent and believe, if you truly do this you will be inside the paradigm. But it's not a half in/ half out thing. I hope this makes Christian belief clearer for you. :)

      Delete
    28. nic: And that's why over the last twenty years temperatures have been stable or dropping?

      Ocean heat has been increasing.
      http://www.zachriel.com/blog/Levitus2012.gif

      nic: Do you believe it's possible the solution to what many see as an excess of carbon dioxide could be quickly and easily remedied but simply slowing down deforestation, and leaving industry alone?

      It's industry that that is deforesting. How will leaving industry alone slow the emissions of greenhouse gases?

      eklektos: You can't say someone's denial is wrong unless you know it's wrong.

      This seems very muddled. All empirical claims are not absolutely certain, but can be certain enough to be considered fact. That dinosaurs once roamed the Earth is a fact.

      There are many ways to qualify a claim; beyond reasonable doubt, probably true, strongly supported, not plausible; each having their own negation.

      nic: We have one guy who thinks that philosophy is science and one who thinks game theory is science.

      Game theory is mathematics. Whether a particular model pertains depends on the application.

      Delete
    29. Last comment should be attributed to eklektos.

      Delete
    30. eklektos

      hat I see here is a constant bait and switch between X is uncertain and X is not true

      Probably that should be X is uncertain and not X is untrue.

      Socrates is a man
      Socrates is bald
      All men are bald

      Now all men could be bald,uncertain, but that argument logically fails, untrue.

      And everyone else sees it too, beyond your little cadre.

      Every scientist sees evolution as scientifically true except a little cadre of scientists. Does that mean evolution is therefore true as science?

      We have one guy who thinks that philosophy is science and one who thinks game theory is science.

      The assumption of methodological naturalism is a philosophy, that assumption is part of science, philosophy is part of science.

      That is DrHunter argument that science is driven by religion, that they are inseparable.

      Game theory/ social interactions is part of social psychology ,a science.

      You seem to like to interject irrelevances into the discussion when you think you can make a point.

      I have little technical knowledge about biology,but I can spot a bad argument. Bad arguments seem relevant whenever they appear

      Delete
    31. eklektos: Yea, that's just another article arguing against foundationalism. But nobody operates that way in reality. Because to deny foundations is to be flopping around in midair.

      Pointing out this is one of many articles that criticizes foundationalism does not represent a response to the criticisms those articles contain, which are relevant to your claims.

      eklektos: Plantinga talks of warranted belief. But Plantinga is a theist. Popper is just confused. Which is why his writings are contradictory. To deny foundations is to turn everything into arbitrary opinions.

      Then you should have no problem actually expressing Popper’s view and criticizing it. Please be specific.

      eklektos: You want to make your foundation science.

      I do? Why would I want to do that, given my position on foundationalism? Apparently, you’re unable to even conceive of a non-foundationalist epistemology long enough to accurately state my position.

      eklektos: But naturalism is unfounded, because it relies on what we can know naturally, i.e. based on our reason and senses. However, as we know they can be fooled so that is not a foundation.

      You’re not disagreeing with me here, as this is one of the reasons why I have discarded foundationalism.

      eklektos: From a Christian perspective our foundation is confirmed by both reason and the Spirit.

      The article specifically addresses our inability to infallibly interpret any infallible source, should one actually exist, in practice.

      eklektos: There are plenty of folks who deceive themselves into believing for a while, but because they are not reborn they do not actually believe. So their faith is an unnatural act contrary to their nature.

      It’s unclear how being “reborn” somehow magically allows us to infallibly interpret an infallible source.

      It is hard to contain reason within bounds. If you take your faith sufficiently seriously you may realize that it is not only the printers who are fallible in stating the rules for ex cathedra, but also the committee that wrote down those rules. And then that nothing can infallibly tell you what is infallible, nor what is probable. It is precisely because you, being fallible and having no infallible access to the infallible authority, no infallible way of interpreting what the authority means, and no infallible means of identifying an infallible authority in the first place, that infallibility cannot help you before reason has had its say.

      A related useful thing that faith tells you, if you take it seriously enough, is that the great majority of people who believe something on faith, in fact believe falsehoods. Hence, faith is insufficient for true belief. As the Nobel-Prize-winning biologist Peter Medawar said: “the intensity of the conviction that a hypothesis is true has no bearing on whether it is true or not4.”

      You know that Medawar’s advice holds for all ideas, not just scientific ones, and, by the same argument, to all the other diverse things that are held up as infallible (or probable) touchstones of truth: holy books; the evidence of the senses; statements about who is probably right; even true love.


      The key point here is “before reason has it say”. Apparently, you believe some magic event occurs that allows reason to be infallible post rebirth.

      Delete
    32. Zachriel.

      nic: Do you believe it's possible the solution to what many see as an excess of carbon dioxide could be quickly and easily remedied but simply slowing down deforestation, and leaving industry alone?

      Zachriel: "It's industry that that is deforesting. How will leaving industry alone slow the emissions of greenhouse gases?"

      ALL industries are involved in deforestation? Do you want to rethink that argument?

      nic: "We have one guy who thinks that philosophy is science and one who thinks game theory is science."

      I'm assuming this was meant for someone else.

      Delete
    33. nic: ALL industries are involved in deforestation?

      No, but most deforestation is due to human industrial activities. You didn't answer. How will leaving industry alone slow the emissions of greenhouse gases?

      Delete
    34. Zachriel,

      "No, but most deforestation is due to human industrial activities."

      Not so. Most deforestation is due to agricultural activity.

      "You didn't answer. How will leaving industry alone slow the emissions of greenhouse gases?"

      I don't see industry as the culprit. It's as I said, deforestation. If we cut back on deforestation the carbon dioxide will be taken care of. Besides, no one has yet conclusively demonstrated that carbon dioxide is a problem at this point.


      Delete
    35. nic: If we cut back on deforestation the carbon dioxide will be taken care of.

      Do you have specific numbers on this? Fossil fuel usage would remain "extraneous".

      Delete
    36. Zachriel,

      "Do you have specific numbers on this? Fossil fuel usage would remain "extraneous".

      Well, you could start getting information by searching 'deforestation and its effect on carbon dioxide levels'. You could also apply common sense and realize this is a no-brainer.

      Delete
    37. eklektos: But naturalism is unfounded, because it relies on what we can know naturally, i.e. based on our reason and senses. However, as we know they can be fooled so that is not a foundation.

      Scott: You’re not disagreeing with me here, as this is one of the reasons why I have discarded foundationalism.

      To clarify….

      Fallibilism, correctly understood, implies the possibility, not the impossibility, of knowledge, because the very concept of error, if taken seriously, implies that truth exists and can be found. The inherent limitation on human reason, that it can never find solid foundations for ideas, does not constitute any sort of limit on the creation of objective knowledge nor, therefore, on progress. The absence of foundation, whether infallible or probable, is no loss to anyone except tyrants and charlatans, because what the rest of us want from ideas is their content, not their provenance: If your disease has been cured by medical science, and you then become aware that science never proves anything but only disproves theories (and then only tentatively), you do not respond “oh dear, I’ll just have to die, then.”

      It’s unclear why your belief in a source of knowledge that will not lead us into error would not also be subject to error as well.. As such, I’m suggesting you’re asking the wrong question.

      The question about the sources of our knowledge . . . has always been asked in the spirit of: ‘What are the best sources of our knowledge—the most reliable ones, those which will not lead us into error, and those to which we can and must turn, in case of doubt, as the last court of appeal?’ I propose to assume, instead, that no such ideal sources exist—no more than ideal rulers—and that all ‘sources’ are liable to lead us into error at times. And I propose to replace, therefore, the question of the sources of our knowledge by the entirely different question: ‘How can we hope to detect and eliminate error?’

      Delete
    38. nic: Well, you could start getting information by searching 'deforestation and its effect on carbon dioxide levels'.

      We had given you the benefit of the doubt, but okay.

      See Baccini et al, Estimated carbon dioxide emissions from tropical deforestation improved by carbon-density maps, Nature 2012.

      Deforestation accounts for about 6-17% of heat-trapping emissions. So you were wrong when you said "If we cut back on deforestation the carbon dioxide will be taken care of."

      Delete
    39. Zachriel,

      "Deforestation accounts for about 6-17% of heat-trapping emissions. So you were wrong when you said "If we cut back on deforestation the carbon dioxide will be taken care of."

      I don't think you understand what the report is saying. Deforestation is contributing between 6-17% of emissions. If deforestation was curtailed that 6-17% of co2 would not be released, and those trees would continue filtering co2. The result would be a massive reduction in co2.

      At present levels co2 accounts for only 0.04% of our atmosphere. That's an increase of about 70-75% since 1800. In that same time the world's population has increased over 700%. Now do you seriously believe there can be that much of a population increase without a rise in co2?

      Now reconsider the 17% reduction that could be achieved simply by curtailing deforestation. Now factor in the amount of co2 which would be filtered by the presence of those forests.

      So no, I'm not wrong when I say curtailing deforestation would handle the problem.

      Delete
    40. Nic: I don't think you understand what the report is saying. .. The result would be a massive reduction in co2.

      Perhaps we're missing it. Can you quote the section of the study which calculates the amount that would be sequestered above and beyond what was lost through deforestation?


      Delete
    41. Zachriel,

      "Can you quote the section of the study which calculates the amount that would be sequestered above and beyond what was lost through deforestation?"

      My comment is based solely on the first line of the abstract, The fact that the process of cutting these trees results in 6-17% of the co2 released into the atmosphere. If you first remove the 17% from the equation by not cutting the trees and then add in the reduction of co2 those trees would facilitate, it simply and logically follows you will achieve a great reduction in co2 levels.

      Delete
    42. Nic: My comment is based solely on the first line of the abstract

      What you said was "I don't think you understand what the report is saying. .. The result would be a massive reduction in co2." That's not what the study showed.

      Nic: The fact that the process of cutting these trees results in 6-17% of the co2 released into the atmosphere. If you first remove the 17% from the equation by not cutting the trees and then add in the reduction of co2 those trees would facilitate

      If you stopped cutting trees, it would cut emissions by 6-17%. If you replaced those trees, which would take years to regrow, it would reduce emissions somewhat, but clearly not sufficient to reduce CO2 levels.

      Delete
    43. Zachriel.

      "which would take years to regrow, it would reduce emissions somewhat, but clearly not sufficient to reduce CO2 levels."

      Oh, I get it. If it doesn't reduce co2 levels significantly and instantaneously it's not worth doing, despite the fact that even the smallest tree absorbs co2. Isn't there anything about that attitude that seems silly to you?

      Doesn't it ever occur to you you're arguing against the basic facts of elementary science? Whether it does or not, that's exactly what you're doing.

      Delete
    44. Nic: Oh, I get it. If it doesn't reduce co2 levels significantly and instantaneously it's not worth doing

      We didn't say that. Trees are important carbon sinks, and deforestation has other deleterious effects on climate than just carbon emissions.

      You had claimed ending deforestation would result in a "a massive reduction in co2". It would not. Perhaps you meant to say it would result in a significant reduction in CO2 emissions. That is certainly the case. But CO2 levels would continue to rise.

      Delete
    45. Zachriel,

      Nic: Oh, I get it. If it doesn't reduce co2 levels significantly and instantaneously it's not worth doing

      Zachriel: "We didn't say that."

      It was certainly implied.

      "Trees are important carbon sinks,..."

      What do trees do with the carbon dioxide they take in?

      "Perhaps you meant to say it would result in a significant reduction in CO2 emissions."

      On that point you are correct. My wording was poor. My intent was to convey that reduced deforestation would result in a massive reduction in rising co2 levels. Co2 is essential to life so a massive reduction would be as harmful as a massive increase.

      Delete
    46. nic: What do trees do with the carbon dioxide they take in?

      The carbon is used to make their organic structure, primarily wood.

      nic: On that point you are correct. My wording was poor.

      Okay.

      nic: My intent was to convey that reduced deforestation would result in a massive reduction in rising co2 levels.

      Reduced deforestation is necessary, but not sufficient to alleviate the problem of climate change.

      Delete
    47. Zachriel.

      nic: "What do trees do with the carbon dioxide they take in?"

      Zachriel: "The carbon is used to make their organic structure, primarily wood."

      You had better do some reading on what really happens with the co2 trees take in.

      "Reduced deforestation is necessary, but not sufficient to alleviate the problem of climate change."

      So you keep saying.

      Delete
    48. Nic: You had better do some reading on what really happens with the co2 trees take in.

      Over years, it is stored as wood. Over longer periods, it depends on the type of forest. Temporate and boreal forests store carbon in the soil, but much of this can remain in the soil even after the trees are harvested. The processes involved in soil sequestration are much too slow to counteract the emissions from fossil fuels.

      Delete
    49. Zachriel,

      "The processes involved in soil sequestration are much too slow to counteract the emissions from fossil fuels."

      Is that all that happens with the co2, it's either used for growth or it is sequestered?

      Delete
    50. nic: Is that all that happens with the co2, it's either used for growth or it is sequestered?

      Most cycles through the biosphere, but that doesn't change net atmospheric CO2.

      If you have a point, you might want to make it.

      Delete
    51. Zachriel,

      "If you have a point, you might want to make it."

      My point is quite simple and obvious. Trees don't actually sequester co2, they process it. They take in co2 and use it in combination with h2o to produce energy for growth. The oxygen is then exhaled.

      Delete
    52. nic: My point is quite simple and obvious. Trees don't actually sequester co2, they process it.

      That is incorrect. Some of the CO2 is fixed, primarily as cellulose. If you plant a new forest, then the trees represent a carbon store, the biomass of the trees. In mature forests, when a tree dies, most of it is decomposed, but replaced by new trees, for a relatively constant biomass. However, in boreal and some temperate forests, some of the decaying matter is integrated into the soil, which can slowly sequester large quantities of carbon. This is a slow process, much slower than the process of carbon emissions from fossil fuels. Tropical forests do not typically sequester carbon in the soil.

      Delete
    53. Zachriel,

      "That is incorrect."

      Sorry, it is correct. Argue all you like, that's just the way it is. The carbon is stored, the oxygen is exhaled.

      Delete
    54. Nic: Argue all you like, that's just the way it is. The carbon is stored, the oxygen is exhaled.

      Yes, the carbon is fixed as carbohydrates. Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere, and the oxygen is exhaled. As trees grow, the carbon is primarily stored in the form of cellulose, i.e. wood.

      Delete
    55. nic: What do trees do with the carbon dioxide they take in?

      Zachriel: The carbon is used to make their organic structure, primarily wood.

      nic: You had better do some reading on what really happens with the co2 trees take in.

      Still have no idea what you're trying to say.

      Delete
    56. Zachriel,

      nic: "The carbon is stored, the oxygen is exhaled."

      Zachriel: "Yes, the carbon is fixed as carbohydrates. Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere, and the oxygen is exhaled. As trees grow, the carbon is primarily stored in the form of cellulose, i.e. wood."

      I'm glad to see you're now agreeing with me, as that is not what you were saying before. You were arguing that trees stored the co2, now you agree they do not store co2 but only carbon. That is a very important distinction.

      Zachriel: "Still have no idea what you're trying to say."

      I was simply trying to point out what you have now come to realize. Trees do not sequester co2, they process it and retain the carbon while exhaling the oxygen. I've run across many global warming enthusiasts who are completely ignorant of that fact.

      Delete
    57. nic: I'm glad to see you're now agreeing with me, as that is not what you were saying before.

      Z: Trees are important carbon sinks

      Z: The carbon is used to make their organic structure, primarily wood.

      This seems a distraction from your previous claim concerning whether the end of deforestation was sufficient to stop the rise in atmospheric CO2.

      nic: Trees do not sequester co2, they process it and retain the carbon while exhaling the oxygen.

      The effect is to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. While it is more precise to call it carbon fixation, it is sometimes called "carbon dioxide fixation". .
      http://www.google.com/search?q="Carbon+Dioxide+Fixation"

      Delete
    58. Zachriel,

      "While it is more precise to call it carbon fixation, it is sometimes called "carbon dioxide fixation".

      Well, as the two are not at all equal, those who refer to the process as 'carbon dioxide fixation' are simply wrong and do not at all understand the process. This fact only supports the argument that many proponents of global warming are simply ignorant of the facts.

      Delete
    59. Nic: Well, as the two are not at all equal, those who refer to the process as 'carbon dioxide fixation' are simply wrong and do not at all understand the process.

      A look at the link showed the term used in published research in the Annual Review of Microbiology, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, as well as by a professor of biochemistry. It seems unlikely they "do not at all understand the process".

      You seem to have abandoned your claim.

      Delete
    60. Zachriel,

      "A look at the link showed the term used in published research in the Annual Review of Microbiology, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, as well as by a professor of biochemistry. It seems unlikely they "do not at all understand the process".

      If they in fact used the term 'carbon dioxide fixation' to refer to the process by which trees take in co2 and release oxygen, then no, they do not understand the process.

      "You seem to have abandoned your claim."

      In what way?

      Delete
    61. Nic: If they in fact used the term 'carbon dioxide fixation' to refer to the process by which trees take in co2 and release oxygen, then no, they do not understand the process.

      Sure. That's believable.
      nic: In what way?

      nic: If we cut back on deforestation the carbon dioxide will be taken care of.

      We provided sufficient evidence that your claim is false. You have neglected the claim in lieu of a semantic argument.

      Delete
    62. Zachriel,

      Nic: If they in fact used the term 'carbon dioxide fixation' to refer to the process by which trees take in co2 and release oxygen, then no, they do not understand the process.

      Zachriel: "Sure. That's believable."

      Entirely. It certainly would not be the first time people who should know better, in reality, don't, or distort the facts to suit their agenda. Perhaps you believe what someone says based solely on their credentials, or that they are completely objective in their motives, I certainly don't. If they're wrong, they're wrong, even if their walls a papered in degrees. And if these people did indeed claim that trees store co2, as you claim they did, they are wrong and you are wrong for accepting what they say.


      nic: In what way?

      nic: If we cut back on deforestation the carbon dioxide will be taken care of.

      Zachriel:"We provided sufficient evidence that your claim is false. You have neglected the claim in lieu of a semantic argument."

      No, you didn't provide any evidence my claim was false, you simply asserted it was false. What you did demonstrate was that you did not know what was actually occurring in the process. That was made abundantly clear via your claims that trees 'sequester co2'.

      Delete
    63. nic: Entirely.

      No, not even a little bit. The papers we mentioned make clear the authors know exactly what chemistry is involved. Furthermore, the oxygen from photosynthesis comes from water, not carbon dioxide. This is the basic reaction:

      2H2O + 4γ → 4e- + 4H+ + O2

      nic: you didn't provide any evidence my claim was false, you simply asserted it was false.

      See Baccini et al, Estimated carbon dioxide emissions from tropical deforestation improved by carbon-density maps, Nature 2012.

      Deforestation accounts for about 6-17% of heat-trapping emissions. So you were wrong when you said "If we cut back on deforestation the carbon dioxide will be taken care of."

      Delete

    64. "Furthermore, the oxygen from photosynthesis comes from water, not carbon dioxide."

      Oh, I see, trees retain the oxygen found in co2, but exhale the oxygen found in h2o.

      You do you realize how ridiculous you're sounding. You're simply desperate at this point.

      Delete
    65. Nic: Oh, I see, trees retain the oxygen found in co2, but exhale the oxygen found in h2o.

      Old news.

      See Ruben et al., Heavy oxygen (O18) as a
      tracer in the study of photosynthesis, Journal of the American Chemical Society 1941.

      None of this is relevant to your original claim.

      Delete
    66. Nic

      You do you realize how ridiculous you're sounding. You're simply desperate at this point.

      So likewise it would be distortion of the facts to say that Gordie Howe scored 1,071 goals when actually it was the puck which scored the goals

      Delete
    67. veliskovskys

      "So likewise it would be distortion of the facts to say that Gordie Howe scored 1,071 goals when actually it was the puck which scored the goals."

      Yes, that would be a distortion of the facts, and the process. The facts are that trees take in co2, process it in combination with h20 to produce sugar and exhale the oxygen. They do not store co2.

      Delete
    68. Nic: Oh, I see, trees retain the oxygen found in co2, but exhale the oxygen found in h2o.

      Well?

      Nic: They do not store co2.

      They store carbohydrates, which are made up of carbon dioxide and hydrogen. None of this is relevant to your original claim.

      So now you are sidestepping two of your previous claims.

      Delete
    69. Zachriel,

      I think it's time you came to the realization that continually repeating the same falsehoods does not make them true. At this point that is all you're doing.

      Delete
    70. veliskovskys,

      Re: Gordie Howe.

      The stat I would really like to see is the number of guys who skated into the corner with Howe, but did not skate out, having become a victim of 'Elbows'.

      Delete
    71. Nic: I think it's time you came to the realization that continually repeating the same falsehoods does not make them true.

      Have you decided to forego defending your previous claims? We can presume you abandoned the claim that the oxygen from photosynthesis comes from CO2, when it has been shown that CO2 is retained, while the free oxygen comes from water.

      That leaves your other claim that "If we cut back on deforestation the carbon dioxide will be taken care of." We have also provided evidence that this claim is not accurate, that carbon emissions from deforestation are only about 6-17% of total emissions.

      Delete
    72. Zachriel,

      "They store carbohydrates, which are made up of carbon dioxide and hydrogen."

      They are not made 'of' co2 and hydrogen, they are made from co2 and hydrogen. Being made 'of' and being made 'from' are not the same thing. And no, it's not semantics.

      I'm not sidestepping anything, you just can't shoot straight.

      Delete
    73. Nic: They are not made 'of' co2 and hydrogen, they are made from co2 and hydrogen.

      We didn't say "made of". We agree, though, "made from" would be more precise.

      In any case, you haven't defended your original claim about deforestation, and we note that you have abandoned your claim about photosynthesis and CO2.

      Delete
    74. Zachriel,

      "Have you decided to forego defending your previous claims?"

      Nope, no need too.

      Zachriel: "when it has been shown that CO2 is retained, while the free oxygen comes from water."

      Oh really, where?. Show me how you know the only oxygen exhaled is that which comes from water. I won't be holding my breath. You're grasping at straws again.


      Zachriel: "We didn't say "made of"

      Yes, you did.

      Zachriel: "They store carbohydrates, which are made up of carbon dioxide and hydrogen. And please, don't say the inclusion of 'up' makes a difference.

      Delete
    75. Nic: Oh really, where?. Show me how you know the only oxygen exhaled is that which comes from water.

      We already provided a citation to the classic study. See Ruben et al., Heavy oxygen (O18) as a tracer in the study of photosynthesis, Journal of the American Chemical Society 1941. It's a very straightforward result.

      Here's an animation.
      http://life9e.sinauer.com/life9e/pages/10/102001.html

      Nic: Yes, you did.

      We said "made up of". They have slightly different senses in English. A car is made of steel. A car is made up of steel parts.

      It would be more accurate to say "made from", though it's doubtful anyone was confused. Not sure why you belabor a point that's already been granted.

      Were you intending to still defend your original claim about deforestation. If so, you need to address Baccini et al.

      Delete
    76. Zachriel,

      @Ruben et al.,...,"

      Take a look at DeNiro, Cooper.

      "you need to address Baccini et al."

      "Despite the importance of measuring tropical forest biomass, the accuracy of biomass estimates is poorly constrained due to fundamental weaknesses in the design and implementation of field studies."

      Clark & Kellner; Journal of Vegetative Science, 2012.

      In other words, Baccini, et al., is lacking in credibility.

      Consider Baccini addressed. I am however, convinced you will simply hand wave it away. Cest' la vie.

      Delete
    77. Nic: "Despite the importance of measuring tropical forest biomass, the accuracy of biomass estimates is poorly constrained due to fundamental weaknesses in the design and implementation of field studies."

      So you are arguing that your original point about deforestation is *not* supported.

      Hmm. Reading Clark & Kellner, they aren't saying we can't estimate tropical forest biomass. Rather, they advocate for direct measurement to improve those estimates.

      Delete
    78. Zachriel,

      "So you are arguing that your original point about deforestation is *not* supported."

      That's what you take that to mean? Based on what?

      "they aren't saying we can't estimate tropical forest biomass. Rather, they advocate for direct measurement to improve those estimates."

      And of course you're assuming such improvement will result in confirmation of your position. Of course that's what would happen, how could it be any other result.

      Delete
    79. Nic: That's what you take that to mean? Based on what?

      According to your reading of Clark & Kellner, you don't know how much carbon is being emitted from deforestation, so you can't say whether it is a big factor or a small factor in increases of atmospheric carbon. But your reading is wrong.

      Nic: And of course you're assuming such improvement will result in confirmation of your position.

      Not knowing a precise figure is not having a reasonable estimate. You say Baccini, et al. is lacking in credibility, but that is simply not supported by Clark & Kellner.

      Estimates ARE poorly constrained. Please note that Baccini, et al. provide a wide range of possible values, 6-17% of heat-trapping emissions. Clark & Kellner advocate more direct measurements to reduce that uncertainty.

      Are you satisfied with the chlorophyll-oxygen question?

      Delete
    80. Zachriel

      "According to your reading of Clark & Kellner, you don't know how much carbon is being emitted from deforestation,..."

      No, what Clark & Kellner are saying is that there is so much exchange among the oxygen from co2 and water that you can't accurately determine whether the oxygen is coming from co2 or water.

      "But your reading is wrong."

      Of course it is, it counters you're argument, it couldn't be anything else but wrong.

      "You say Baccini, et al. is lacking in credibility, but that is simply not supported by Clark & Kellner."

      It's irrelevant whether or not Clark & Kellner support the lack of credibility. The results speak for themselves. There is simply too much uncertainty for the results to be credible. Providing a wide range possible values only increases the lack of credibility, it does not improve it.

      Delete
    81. Nic: what Clark & Kellner are saying is that there is so much exchange among the oxygen from co2 and water that you can't accurately determine whether the oxygen is coming from co2 or water.

      Um, oxygen is nowhere mentioned in the essay. The concern is the design and implementation of field studies, such as measuring tree sizes in a given area in order to combine this with remote sensing.

      Nic: It's irrelevant whether or not Clark & Kellner support the lack of credibility.

      It's relevant when you first cited Clark & Kellner, then claimed "In other words, Baccini, et al., is lacking in credibility."

      Nic: There is simply too much uncertainty for the results to be credible.

      That's not what Clark & Kellner say. They say the estimates are poorly constrained, not that the estimates were not credible. They are poorly constrained. That's why Baccini, et al. provide a wide range.

      Nic: Providing a wide range possible values only increases the lack of credibility, it does not improve it.

      Huh? A valid estimate includes a range, regardless of whether that range is small or large.

      Delete
    82. Zachriel,

      "oxygen is nowhere mentioned in the essay."

      Sorry, that was the DeNiro, Cooper study.

      "That's not what Clark & Kellner say. They say the estimates are poorly constrained, not that the estimates were not credible."

      The fact they are poorly constrained leads to their lack of credibility.


      "Huh? A valid estimate includes a range, regardless of whether that range is small or large."

      Your range can be so large as to be useless, thus is the case here.

      For example, consider a government department trying to determine per capita compensation. They would need accurate estimates of the numbers involved, not something between 100,000 and 1,000,000.

      So, no, a valid estimate is not any range one wishes to toss out.

      Delete
    83. Nic: Sorry, that was the DeNiro, Cooper study.

      Can you provide a citation?

      Nic: The fact they are poorly constrained leads to their lack of credibility.

      No. That doesn't follow. If we can show that the actual value is within the given range, then the estimate is credible.

      Nic: For example, consider a government department trying to determine per capita compensation. They would need accurate estimates of the numbers involved, not something between 100,000 and 1,000,000.

      That's what they would want, but sometimes you have to deal with the data that you have.

      For instance, the actual value could be 0%, or 90%, but they've ruled out those values. The actual value, according to the study, is likely between 6-17%. That's important information. Waving your hands doesn't constitute an argument.

      Delete
    84. Zachriel,

      "Can you provide a citation?"

      Like I told you before, you have to look it up. I've given you the source.

      Nic: The fact they are poorly constrained leads to their lack of credibility.

      Zachriel: "No. That doesn't follow. If we can show that the actual value is within the given range, then the estimate is credible."

      That's the point, they can't.

      Nic: For example, consider a government department trying to determine per capita compensation. They would need accurate estimates of the numbers involved, not something between 100,000 and 1,000,000.

      Zachriel: "That's what they would want, but sometimes you have to deal with the data that you have."

      When your data is that inaccurate you cannot possibly work with it in any credible manner.

      "The actual value, according to the study, is likely between 6-17%."

      That's a range which still leads to questionable results, and as you indicate, (is likely between,...), they are not even sure of that.

      Delete
    85. Nic: Like I told you before, you have to look it up. I've given you the source.

      In other words, no, you can't provide a citation.

      Nic: That's the point, they can't.

      Well, your point was that the large range itself made the estimate not credible. That would mean you don't have to look at the data.

      Nic: When your data is that inaccurate you cannot possibly work with it in any credible manner.

      Accuracy and precision are different. Please say why you don't think the Baccini, et al. is accurate.

      Nic: That's a range which still leads to questionable results

      Questionable in what way? They've constrained the value to 6-17%. That contradicts your claim above that ending deforestation would stop the increase in atmospheric CO2. You've provided no evidence otherwise.

      Are you satisfied as to the source of free oxygen from photosynthesis?
      http://life9e.sinauer.com/life9e/pages/10/102001.html

      Delete
    86. Zachriel,

      "Are you satisfied as to the source of free oxygen from photosynthesis?
      http://life9e.sinauer.com/life9e/pages/10/102001.html"

      You don't read well, do you?

      I responded to that question by reference to Clarke & Kellner. You're only response was that I read it wrong. The fact is, you never read the reference and you were simply grasping at straws again, something you do very often.

      So, unless you've got something other to present for your case, other than you don't agree with me, I think it's time to move on. I'm quite tired of answering the same arguments over and over again.

      Delete
    87. Zachriel: Are you satisfied as to the source of free oxygen from photosynthesis?


      Nic: I responded to that question by reference to Clarke & Kellner.

      No. That citation concerned deforestation. Nor did Clarke & Kellner say that Baccini et al. "lacked credibility". They said estimates were poorly constrained, which they are, which is why Baccini has large error bars. However, that doesn't mean all values are equally likely, or that estimates are impossible.

      In any case, that doesn't address the source of oxygen from photosynthesis. It's very straightforward to show that the oxygen comes from water, not carbon dioxide. See Ruben et al., Heavy oxygen (O18) as a tracer in the study of photosynthesis, Journal of the American Chemical Society 1941.
      http://life9e.sinauer.com/life9e/pages/10/102001.html

      Delete
    88. Zachriel,

      "It's very straightforward to show that the oxygen comes from water, not carbon dioxide. See Ruben et al., Heavy oxygen (O18) as a tracer in the study of photosynthesis,"

      You're a real treat. It's obvious you have not read the Clarke & Kellner study, and that in no way surprises me. So, it's your argument the only oxygen exhaled is that which comes from water?

      Okay, let's grant you that only for the sake of moving on. Now tell me, how does that counter my position that trees do not store co2 but in fact process it?

      Delete
    89. Nic: oxygen exhaled is that which comes from water?

      That is correct. It has little to do with your erroneous deforestation claim, but rather a Nic-pick you made above.

      Nic: Now tell me, how does that counter my position that trees do not store co2 but in fact process it?

      Trees fix carbon, in particular, carbon dioxide and hydrogen fractured from water.

      In any case, there is far more carbon dioxide being emitted than can be accounted for by deforestation, and more than can be fixed by reforestation. You cited Clarke & Kellner, but they don't support your position. But if you would like to quote exactly what you think supports your position from the paper, we'd be happy to look at it.

      Delete
    90. Zachriel,

      "we'd be happy to look at it."

      So, in fact you have not looked at the paper. I didn't think so. Clarke & Kellner specifically stated the emerging o2 could not be categorically shown to originate only from water as there was too much exchange in the process. If you had taken even a quick look at the paper you would have found that right away. I'll just expect to see more claims that I simply don't understand what they're saying. That seems to be your default response.

      Like I said, I'm tired of responding to the same tired arguments over and over again, so unless you've got something new to put forth I'm moving on. You've utterly failed to refute my position or support yours.

      See you later.

      Delete
    91. Nic: So, in fact you have not looked at the paper. I didn't think so.

      We've read Clarke & Kellner, Tropical forest biomass estimation and the fallacy of
      misplaced concreteness, Journal of Vegetation Science 2012. If so, we have read the article.

      Nic: Clarke & Kellner specifically stated the emerging o2 could not be categorically shown to originate only from water as there was too much exchange in the process.

      We don't see where the article mentions molecular oxygen. Our parchment might be getting old. Can you provide an exact quote (as we had previously asked).

      Delete
    92. Zachriel,

      "We don't see where the article mentions molecular oxygen. Our parchment might be getting old. Can you provide an exact quote (as we had previously asked)."

      Please accept my apologies, I have been referring to Clarke & Kellner, when in fact the correct reference is Lee Cooper & Michael DeNiro, in Plant Physiology; 1989. I jotted down the wrong names on some reference notes. You will find the reference I have been using there.

      Again, please accept my apologies.

      Delete
    93. Nic: Please accept my apologies, I have been referring to Clarke & Kellner, when in fact the correct reference is Lee Cooper & Michael DeNiro, in Plant Physiology; 1989.

      It happens. No biggie.

      Cooper & DeNiro say, "The present study and that of DeNiro and Epstein indicate, contrary to the model of Ferhi and Letolle, that neither 02 nor CO2 has any influence on the 18-0/16-0 ratios of cellulose." So they confirm that the oxygen in cellulose does not come from CO2, nor does it come from O2.

      They propose that the excess is due to incorporation of senescent portions of the plant and the isotopic effects of that process. This doesn't change the findings regarding photosynthesis, but instead provides additional confirmation.

      Delete
  4. Uh oh, the gravity waves so triumphantly heralded in here are already being questioned. And only three days out from the announcement. It would pay people to reserve judgment. How many times was the Higgs Boson found?

    http://creation.com/inflation-doubt

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. eklektos: the gravity waves so triumphantly heralded in here are already being questioned.

      Of course the results are being questioned! How did you think science worked? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

      eklektos: How many times was the Higgs Boson found?

      Maybe once.

      Delete
    2. Equivocation. You were just bragging in the other thread about how their prediction was proven, now it's not. Same with the Higgs Boson, not that I have any problem with the Higgs boson. But these things aren't certain. This is why people find you dishonest. You just can't admit your wrong, ever. You say one thing here, one thing there, you move the goalposts, ect. Science that's not yet proven isn't proof of anything, merely indicative. Cosmology, astronomy, physics, et al. have nothing to do with uniformitarian geologic assumptions can be used to verify a dating method, or the inverse. but still you bring them up.

      Delete
    3. eklektos: You were just bragging in the other thread about how their prediction was proven, now it's not.

      Science doesn't deal in proof, but evidence.

      eklektos: now it's not.

      Of course scientists are going to try to look for the flaws in the study. That's what they do!

      We'll be happy to modify our position once more data becomes available.

      eklektos: But these things aren't certain.

      All scientific claims are considered tentative.

      "In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' " —Stephen J Gould

      Delete
    4. Zachriel,

      you said" was that prediction a lucky guess?". We don't even know if the prediction is correct. Don't equivocate.

      Then why did you trumpet it?

      The last is just more equivocation. You asserted Keefe/Szostak was correct, even in the face of contrary evidence. So you're being inconsistent.

      Delete
    5. eklektos: Then why did you trumpet it?

      Because it is significant evidence.

      eklektos: You asserted Keefe/Szostak was correct

      Their results have been replicated many times. It's a standard experiment, like the Lederbergs Experiment, or Galileo's inclines.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  5. Zachriel,

    It's not evidence till it's confirmed.

    There "evidence" is not sufficient to support their claim. Repeating the same evidence doesn't support the claim either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. eklektos: It's not evidence till it's confirmed.

      Of course it's evidence, though it may not be definitive.

      Delete
  6. eklektos: It's not evidence till it's confirmed.

    Again, how do you propose to confirm anything, in practice. Please be specific.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Scott,

    With regards to Keefe/Szostak? I gave specific reasons why it was wrong and the assertions were false.

    With regard to gravity waves? I'll have to wait till the data is published and I can verify it. Or lacking technical expertise I will have to wait for the experts to verify it. Then If I still think it's questionable I'll have to learn about the issues and then evaluate it. But nobody is asserting the data is anything but preliminary, other than the popular press, and some folks on less than circumspect websites. Particularly the ones trying to disprove creationism ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. eklektos: With regards to Keefe/Szostak? I gave specific reasons why it was wrong and the assertions were false.

      You redefined function, even though binding is a common natural protein function.

      eklektos: Particularly the ones trying to disprove creationism

      Not sure what that has to do with it. The Big Bang already has a lot of supporting evidence.

      Delete
    2. eklektos: It's not evidence till it's confirmed.

      Scott: Again, how do you propose to [confirm] anything, in practice. Please be specific.

      eklektos: With regards to Keefe/Szostak?

      Usually, anything would refer to, well anything, not just Keefe/Szostak. It’s unclear why you’d think otherwise.

      eklektos: I gave specific reasons why it was wrong and the assertions were false.

      Are you referring to the following from the article?

      In other words, you cannot make a definitive claim of proof of anything unless you have first ruled out all other possibilities that might cause the same effect.

      Given the set of “all other possibilities” would be infinite in number in regards to all propositions, not just Keefe/Szostak, how do you propose this would be possible, in practice.

      IOW, using your criteria, it’s unclear how there could ever be evidence for anything.

      Delete
  8. Zachriel said:

    "Climate scientists keep publishing the data supporting anthropogenic warming."

    Human population is growing and the planet is still a very good placee to live. Why I should care?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Blas: Human population is growing and the planet is still a very good placee to live. Why I should care?

      Most people want to leave a better world for their children. You may not care.

      Delete
    2. Show me that it will be worst.

      Delete
    3. Blas: Show me that it will be worst.

      Have you abandoned your previous stance then?

      See Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, from Working Group
      II of the IPCC.

      Delete
    4. "Have you abandoned your previous stance then?"

      No. I still do not see any reason to make suffer this generation to reduce the chance future generation suffering.

      "See Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, from Working Group"

      None of the catastrofic prediction made since the time of Malthus happened, why I should believe this. Specially when this peple has his own agenda?
      II of the IPCC.

      Delete
    5. Blas: I still do not see any reason to make suffer this generation to reduce the chance future generation suffering.

      No one can make you care.

      Blas: None of the catastrofic prediction made since the time of Malthus happened, why I should believe this.

      You asked to be shown how it will be worse. Now, you say you won't be bothered to look.

      In any case, it doesn't have to be worse—not if people make the necessary adjustment to their technology. Humans created the problem. They can certainly solve it.

      Delete
    6. Zachriel said

      "No one can make you care."

      True, but you can showme that it is logical to care.

      Blas: None of the catastrofic prediction made since the time of Malthus happened, why I should believe this.

      You asked to be shown how it will be worse. Now, you say you won't be bothered to look.

      Zachriel said

      "In any case, it doesn't have to be worse—not if people make the necessary adjustment to their technology. Humans created the problem. They can certainly solve it. "

      Yes off course, the point if which do you understand as solution. Reduce the development of underdeveloped countries? Force the population reduction?

      Delete
    7. Blas: True, but you can showme that it is logical to care.

      Nope. Can't do that either.

      Blas: Reduce the development of underdeveloped countries?

      That would be counterproductive. People have the right to development, but climate change threatens that development.

      Blas: Force the population reduction?

      People have the right to have children, but climate change threatens the future well-being of children.

      Delete
    8. And then which is your position? What have we to do respect the supposed AGW?

      Delete
    9. Blas: And then which is your position? What have we to do respect the supposed AGW?

      If you were to care about children, then anthropogenic climate change is expected to negatively impact the future well-being of children.

      Delete
  9. Blas

    True, but you can showme that it is logical to care

    Perhaps a environmental version of Pascal's Wager.

    Blas: None of the catastrofic prediction made since the time of Malthus happened, why I should believe this.

    Because our knowledge and technical abilities have increased in the last two hundred years.

    Yes off course, the point if which do you understand as solution

    There are already treaties which attempt to limit Co2,

    Reduce the development of underdeveloped countries?

    "The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is an international treaty that sets binding obligations on industrialized countries to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The UNFCCC is an environmental treaty with the goal of preventing dangerous anthropogenic (i.e., human-induced) interference of the climate system. According to the UNFCC website, the Protocol "recognises that developed countries are principally responsible for the current high levels of GHG emissions in the atmosphere as a result of more than 150 years of industrial activity, and places a heavier burden on developed nations under the principle of 'common but differentiated responsibilities'

    Force the population reduction?

    If you are wrong,your decision will do exactly that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. velikovskys said

      "Perhaps a environmental version of Pascal's Wager. "

      That would be very interesting, coud you present that wager?

      For example you said:

      "If you are wrong,your decision will do exactly that."


      Then the wage is:

      If I reduce the population now I will reduce the chances of a thought reduction of humans in the next generations.

      What I loose if I´m wrong, the chance to perform a planned reduction.

      What I loose if I´m right a big part of the actual humanity.

      Seems to me I will take my option in that wage.

      Delete
    2. Blas: If I reduce the population now I will reduce the chances of a thought reduction of humans in the next generations.

      The claim is that if people voluntarily moderate their reproduction now, it will mitigate the chances of a catastrophic collapse of population later.

      Delete
  10. Blas

    That would be very interesting, coud you present that wager?

    If climate models are true,sacrifice now pays big dividends in the future , if the climate models are false, it won't matter because you will be past caring.

    Then the wage is:

    If I reduce the population now I will reduce the chances of a thought reduction of humans in the next generations.


    Or maybe use less electricity, drive less. If it is true you just aren't leaving a mess that someone else has to clean up, simple courtesy.

    What I loose if I´m wrong, the chance to perform a planned reduction.

    You lose nothing you are just paying your bills.

    What I loose if I´m right a big part of the actual humanity.

    So you owe it to humanity to increase its size?

    Seems to me I will take my option in that wage.

    Of course you will, no sacrifice now of any kind, you win no matter what. Hope this isn't a test of a God cause then you may be in big trouble, that is Pascal's wager .

    ReplyDelete