Journal pudge's Journal: A Word on Anthropogenic Global Warming "Probability" 18
Regarding the latest IPCC report.
The stated probability that anthropogenic warming has had a discernible influence on many physical and biological planetary systems is "likely," which means between 67 and 90 percent. However, this does not mean what it actually says. It does not mean that they can scientifically verify that there is somewhere between 2/3 and 9/10 probability that man is causing global warming, it means that 89 percent of observational series from 75 studies support the hypothesis.
But that is not what "probability" means. That is, just because 89 percent of studies support the hypothesis, it does not follow that there is a probability of 89 percent that the hypothesis is correct.
In other words, it is unsupportable to say that there is an 89 percent chance that global warming is caused by man; what is supportable to say is that the scientists are 89 percent certain that global warming is caused by man.
There's a huge difference between those two statements. If a scientist does a study that says that 89 percent of people who fell out of airplanes without a parachute who landed a certain way were able to survive, and then jumped out of an airplane himself to test the hypothesis, you might properly say that he was 89 percent certain he would survive. But the actual probability of his survival is, I would guess, far less.
Unfortunately, that did stop the aforementioned Mr. Oppenheimer from falsely stating, "the last report concluded that there's a broad, manmade climate change afoot, and this report says that that manmade climate change is already having significant effects." In fact, of course, the reports say no such thing. He is misrepresenting what the reports actually claim, while the reports misrepresent what the scientists are capable of saying. So he's got two levels of misrepresentation there!
I do not know the truth on global warming. No one does. Don't be fooled by the lies of people like Mr. Oppenheimer that claim otherwise. And yes, I am saying he is lying, because I respect his intellect too much to think he doesn't know that the report does not conclude that man is causing global warming.
It's something we see a lot of: if someone cannot convince you of something with the truth, they lie to you. So an anti-gun zealot made up lies about the history of guns in the U.S. to convince them to favor laws against guns. So teachers unions lie about the links between money and actual learning to get you to increase their salaries and give them less work.
So scientists lie about a causal link between man's actions and global warming to get you to favor significant policy changes.
Unlike the anti-gun zealot and the teachers unions, the scientists may, in the end, be right. Man might be causing global warming. But it annoys me to no end that they lie about what the science actually says specifically because they know they can't prove it, and that we are less likely to be convinced if we know that they can't prove it. To them, that justifies the lie, because they are convinced that their view is the truth. But even if their view is the truth, the lie still isn't justified.
Wouldn't you lie... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Did anyone see the report that stated that over the same period of time that Earth's temperature has risen, so has the temperature on Mars? Of COURSE you didn't, because the even the dolts in the media can connect the dots and see that that's evidence that global warming is linked to the output of the sun, and they don't want anyone to think about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I suppose they think so, but then if they really think so, are they lying? Or, rather, are they lying on purpose? And if they are lying on purpose and secretly think mankind is not the problem, how would they be thinking that they are saving mankind?
I guess I see a problem with the logic:
1) if they
Re: (Score:2)
1) if they believe that mankind is the problem, they are not "lying" by saying mankind is the problem.
Well ... no. They are still lying by saying the evidence PROVES that mankind is the problem. They do believe mankind is the problem, but they cannot prove it, but they say they can prove it. But they think this lie is justfied because if they do NOT lie, then people will be less likely to agree with them, which means that the world is more likely to be destroyed.
So in their mind, "lying == save the world, truth == world ends." So for them, the choice is clear: they lie.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So scientists lie about a causal link between man's actions and global warming to get you to favor significant policy changes.
This is complete and utter bullshit and shows a complete and utter lack of understanding of how the scientific community works.
False, and false.
It is a lie. There is no causal link demonstrated. You can call it bullshit, but it's true. No one has even come close to demonstrating a causal link. They have some good circumstantial evidence: they have a theory that says "if this happens, then that will happen," and this happened, and then that happened. They have lots of data that back up the theory. But that is not demonstration of causation. Indeed, it may not even be possible to demonstrate causation, because to do so you ne
Re: (Score:2)
Nope - the real, er, inconvenient truth is that all we know for sure is that humans are not entirely to blame for the slight increase in global average temperatures. We don't know for sure that a causal link between increased CO2 levels and temperatures exists at all - or if it does, what direction it works in, since the correlation most visible in historical data actually suggest
Re: (Score:2)
the correlation most visible in historical data actually suggests that rising CO2 is a result of increased temperatures rather than a cause thereof.
I wouldn't quite say it suggests that. If the graph suggests any causal link, then yes, we would have to think that temperature has been, or can be, a cause of increased CO2, but I don't think it does suggest a causal link. It only suggests a link, but it could be one way, the other way, or both ways; or, it could be some other causes affecting both (e.g., alien machines that increase the temperature of the Earth and release CO2 as a byproduct :-).
There is a good case to be made that man is causing a sig
Backwards (Score:2)
The stated probability that anthropogenic warming has had a discernible influence on many physical and biological planetary systems is "likely," which means between 67 and 90 percent. However, this does not mean what it actually says. It does not mean that they can scientifically verify that there is somewhere between 2/3 and 9/10 probability that man is causing global warming, it means that 89 percent of observartional series from 75 studies support the hypothesis.
You've made a bit of a mistake there. You've misunderstood what the data series were being used to support. I'll try to explain. Let's look at three related but separate hypotheses which are under discussion.
Hypothesis 1, the existence of global warming.
This is an established, observed fact. The earth is getting warmer. In the past century mean surface temperature has increased by over 1 deg F. (Wikipedia currently pegs it at 0.74 +/- 0.18 deg C, which jibes with what I've read.)
Hypothesis 2, the
Re: (Score:2)
The stated probability that anthropogenic warming has had a discernible influence on many physical and biological planetary systems is "likely," which means between 67 and 90 percent. However, this does not mean what it actually says. It does not mean that they can scientifically verify that there is somewhere between 2/3 and 9/10 probability that man is causing global warming, it means that 89 percent of observartional series from 75 studies support the hypothesis.
You've made a bit of a mistake there. You've misunderstood what the data series were being used to support.
False. I've made no mistake, nor misunderstood anything. I was, however, not as clear as I should have been, but at the time I didn't think it was necessary.
I'll cut to the chase, to save us all some time: I was talking the entire time about what you call "hypothesis 3." I even stated so right at the top of the entry, in which context the rest of the post should be read: The stated probability that anthropogenic warming has had a discernible influence on many physical and biological planetary systems is
Re: (Score:2)
I was talking the entire time about what you call "hypothesis 3."
OK, good to know. You really confused me with statements like:
Unlike the anti-gun zealot and the teachers unions, the scientists may, in the end, be right. Man might be causing global warming. But it annoys me to no end that they lie about what the science actually says...
which are hard to read any other way. You kind of seemed to conflate 2 and 3, thinking (as you still sort of argue) that global warming not only does not matter, but somehow does not exist, if its effects are not already discernible on existing systems. You know, right?, that if a tree burns in the forest, it still actually does burn, whether you care about the tree or not.
Oh, and all your commenters seemed to miss the point, saying that sc
Re: (Score:2)
You kind of seemed to conflate 2 and 3, thinking (as you still sort of argue) that global warming not only does not matter, but somehow does not exist, if its effects are not already discernible on existing systems.
No, no. I recognize that the effects could increase: after all, the amount of warming is estimated to at least triple in the next 100 years, and many people think it will be many more times than that. But on the other hand, those larger estimates are based in large part on assumptions about how much global warming we have caused, which is part of what we are less certain about in the first place.
You know, right?, that if a tree burns in the forest, it still actually does burn, whether you care about the tree or not.
But (as I just alluded to above) part of the equation of how much anthropogenic global warming is having a si
Re: (Score:2)
Great! Maybe he can correct your misunderstanding on what Dr. Oppenheimer and the IPCC meant by "conclude"!
Re: (Score:2)
Oppenheimer (Score:2)
Unfortunately, that did stop the aforementioned Mr. Oppenheimer from falsely stating, "the last report concluded that there's a broad, manmade climate change afoot, and this report says that that manmade climate change is already having significant effects." In fact, of course, the reports say no such thing. He is misrepresenting what the reports actually claim, while the reports misrepresent what the scientists are capable of saying. So he's got two levels of misrepresentation there!
I don't know much about Dr. Oppenheimer (though I do know he earned a Ph.D. in Chemical Physics before you were born). But I can speak about this statement, which you unfairly ripped from context:
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know much about Dr. Oppenheimer (though I do know he earned a Ph.D. in Chemical Physics before you were born). But I can speak about this statement, which you unfairly ripped from context:
I didn't.
Really? You're saying he's lying?
Did I stutter?
Would you like to read that quote from the report again?
It is a qualified conclusion (high confidence). Oppenheimer stated it without qualification. So yes, he lied. Absolutely.
Let's say a Congressional investigative report comes out that concludes it is very likely that Karl Rove illegally used a third-party e-mail account for official government business (it doesn't matter why it says only "very likely" for the sake of this argument). And then Senator Leahy says that the report concludes that Rove broke the law. Leahy would be ly