Entire Antarctic Shelf splitting away from Continent.

[gatorback]

You've been saying that for days.  That's about all you've been saying too.

[Clem1029]

perhaps if you could restate for us the 'valid concern' which has been expressed here?

I'm sorry...I forgot the overall state of your reading comprehension skills. Let's see if I can break this down for you...using small words where I can.

You frequently state that those of us that aren't worshiping at the altar of AGW need to cite the IPCC report to back up our issues. That translates to treating the IPCC reports as authoritative on the issue. At least, until your argument gets obliterated and you move the goalposts once again. But, I'll play along with your current "debate requirement."

So, walking through the quotes DIRECTLY from the IPCC reports...

Quote #1 (as posted above) - "may be partially predictable." The IPCC fails to quantify, anywhere, what qualifies as "partially." Could be 99%, could be 1%. So up front, the IPCC is saying "we're making some predictions here that may or may not be accurate." It'd be nicer if they were more honest about it, but what can you expect from a political, rather than scientific, report?

Continuing on the bolded part, "However the ability to actually do so is limited because we cannot accurately predict population change, economic change, technological development, and other relevant characteristics of future human activity." Frankly, I want to know where my flying car is...I mean, we were supposed to have those by now, according to predictions 50 years ago, right? Basically, the IPCC here is saying that there are completely unknowable variables that are being factored into their predictions. In other words, they're completely guessing. Now, we'll address this in further detail in a bit, but the IPCC is saying that whatever models they're using, there's some level (again, completely unquantified - probably because it's unquantifiable) of human bias built into the models. Is this sounding like science to you?

Quote #2 - "illustrative examples of possible outcomes." So, it's not just that these are "possible" outcomes (again...quantifiable?)...it's "illustrative examples" of said "possible outcomes." Illustration is scientific? That's news to me. The IPCC is outright admitting that they really just making things up.

Quote #3 - this is my personal favorite. Let's be very clear - from 1850 to today, we have some level of observable conditions. Not universal, but general enough. Call it 150 years of data. And the IPCC models have "SOME skill" in simulating climate changes over the past 150 years. So models that are supposed to definitively demonstrate what the planet's climate is going to do 100 years from now have "some skill" (again...quantify "some") in modeling climate over the last 150 years. So models that aren't 100% accurate in simulating data we DO have are authoritative in predicting data we DON'T have? Once again, this isn't science.

Quote #4 - if your eyes don't focus on the word "subjective" you might want to get them checked out. Science isn't "subjective." It's completely objective, observing real world conditions to test hypothesis. Any time a "subjective component" is introduced, it ceases to be "science" and begins to enter into the realm of what someone "believes" to be true. Any time human bias enters into "science," it ceases to be science.

Quote #5 - do I really need to spell this out? The IPCC is stating outright that it is not possible to predict long term climate impacts. Now, this should be obvious at this point in our discussion - they can't accurately simulate the last 150 years, they've admitted the studies are completely subjective, so of course they can't predict long term climate impacts. Not that I'd expect those that worship at the altar of the faith of AGW to admit the IPCC isn't right. But at the end of the day, it's not science - you have to BELIEVE that the subjective components aren't introducing bias, but accurately reflecting reality.

If you want to believe that, it's your right. But it's as subjective of a faith as those religions you constantly indict.

So, with that said...care to move the goalposts? Obviously the IPCC can't back you up...what's next? Or are you going to argue the way I phrased the argument rather than arguing the (lack of) science involved?

[BridgeTroll]

Very nice Clem...   Quote#3 and quote#5 have been the basis for my disagreement with AGW all along.  There simply is not enough accurate data to create an accurate model.  Even the relatively accurate 150 years worth of data we do have is not enough to create a consistantly accurate model representing that time frame... let alone predict future climate.

[gatorback]

Very nice indeed Clem.  I'm a newbie to all of this as well.  Yes, I read all I can on anything to do with climate and the weather(I can't wait till the 2009 Atlantic Hurricane Season starts), but I do have a question for you.  How do you determine that the "models that aren't 100% accurate in simulating data we DO have are authoritative in predicting data we DON'T have?" 

A second note, we all what models are, so why do we base our argument against GW because we are using models?

It seams that America, and in fact, the entire world is committed now to reducing CO2 emissions based on the report group think or not.

[Charleston native]

You've been saying that for days.  That's about all you've been saying too.

And you're not repetitive at all, huh?

You really are trying to instigate me, and I won't bite. I have too much work to do anyway. BTW, Clem sums it up pretty nicely for me, which is why Stephen's and your inquests for IPCC debate fall on deaf ears:

You frequently state that those of us that aren't worshiping at the altar of AGW need to cite the IPCC report to back up our issues. That translates to treating the IPCC reports as authoritative on the issue. At least, until your argument gets obliterated and you move the goalposts once again.

Well said.

[gatorback]

Wow, a post that didn't have you calling me a bleeding heart liberal.  Wow, you're turning the page and moving on.  Maybe the world is freezing over.

[Clem1029]

How do you determine that the "models that aren't 100% accurate in simulating data we DO have are authoritative in predicting data we DON'T have?"

I may have been less than clear in my statement - I'm not saying this, the IPCC (and it's supporters) are saying this. The statement is that they have "some skill" in simulating "since 1850." Problem is, we have actual mesuarable and testable data from 1850 to today - these models, if they're worth they're salt, should be able to completely accurately (ok, I'll allow a slight "margin of error" fudge factor) simulate climate over the past 150 years. They don't...they have "some skill" not "complete accuracy." Science is about proving a hypothesis using testable, verifiable methods that can be duplicated by anyone trying. These models test a hypothesis (namely, that a given model accurately simulates the planet's climate over the last 150 years) - and those tests FAIL. The tests prove the models have "some skill," but they need to be reformulated (or in scientific terms, the hypothesis needs to be revisited). So if the models are wrong using data we can actually test, why should be base decision making around them about data we CAN'T test (namely, future data)?

A second note, we all what models are, so why do we base our argument against GW because we are using models?

I'm not arguing "models are bad, mkay?" I'm saying that even the IPCC argues that their models are flawed, and creating accurate predictions from them is simply impossible. Show me a model that accurately simulates climate over the last 150 years, then we might talk about what that model says about tomorrow. Or better yet, show me such a model that also removes any element of subjectivity and assumptions of the tester, and then we REALLY might be onto something. But the models we have now? Even the IPCC says they're basically useless.

It seams that America, and in fact, the entire world is committed now to reducing CO2 emissions based on the report group think or not.

This is a total straw man argument. Nobody here is screaming "MORE CO2 PLEASE!!" There's plenty of valid reasons to advocate reducing emissions. The argument is that forcing businesses to spend massive amounts of money (which will then be passed on in increased costs to consumers) is not the right way to handle it, especially when the argument is based on flawed AGW pseudo-science. Not only that, but we see today how so-called "environmental standards" laws prevent companies from making certain business decisions that would have a greater positive impact on the environment (see: Ford, CAFE standards, and their extremely fuel efficient cars they only sell in Europe but not in North America since it would cause a net loss money-wise due to said CAFE and other environmental laws). There should be a way to 1) continue to work intelligently on emissions, GW or not while 2) keeping costs reasonable for businesses and consumers. The backlash you get is when the AGW hype turns into "we must do something now, regardless of cost, or we're all DEEEEAADDDD!!!!"

[gatorback]

You don't have to convince me the argument is "flawed."  If you care, you'll write your congressman.  I think you wont get very far since #1 there is a preponderance of the evidence of man contributing to GW, and #2, plans are now underway to reduce CO2 emissions.

This is a total straw man argument...

That wasn't an argument, I'm simply stating the obvious.

Next, just because we cannot model the system today doesn't mean it's not happening.  Remember, it takes year and many failed attempts to prove nature. Like, curved space.  Einstein said it happened, but couldn't prove it.  Finally, with the full eclipse, he got the proof luckily.  So, if we can't get the models to support the data because it's to complex, it's not happening?  Are you saying that just because the model doesn't support the current data, yet the data we have clearly indicated CO2 emissions a factor,we shouldn't act.

This sounds like old school thinking.  You know, there's a power plant in DC that is pouring out pollution and nothing is ever done about it because the lobby in W. VA has the power to keep that plant going.  Is this what you want.  Lobby to prevent progress, or do you want progress. 

[BridgeTroll]

the entire world is committed now to reducing CO2 emissions

This is simply NOT true.  Until the two most populous nations on earth commit to it then your statement is false.  Both India and China are not committed by Kyoto nor are they committed to reducing CO2 emissions.

[Clem1029]

#1 there is a preponderance of the evidence of man contributing to GW...

Thank you...you have just proven why the AGW isn't about science.

"Preponderance of the evidence" is NOT a scientific term. It is a LEGAL term. Science is about creating a hypothesis and testing the hypothesis. In turn, the hypothesis is either proven true, or it's proven false, and either the hypothesis or the test needs to be reformulated until it passes. That is the basic of the scientific method.

As such, scientific hypothesis are binary - true or false, 100% or 0%. If it's "partially true," then in scientific terms, it's completely false. "Preponderance of the evidence," on the other hand, is 50% plus one. That, along with the idea of "consensus" are not science. If you want to argue "preponderance of the evidence" or "consensus," be my guest. Just don't ever pretend it's scientific.

Next, just because we cannot model the system today doesn't mean it's not happening.  Remember, it takes year and many failed attempts to prove nature. Like, curved space.  Einstein said it happened, but couldn't prove it.  Finally, with the full eclipse, he got the proof luckily.  So, if we can't get the models to support the data because it's to complex, it's not happening?  Are you saying that just because the model doesn't support the current data, yet the data we have clearly indicated CO2 emissions a factor,we shouldn't act.

Simply put, yes, because the data is so complex, we should completely be very cautious about what we do until we're sure we get it right. Law of Unintended Consequences anyone? Who's to say that our particular climate at this particular time in the history of the universe is the perfect ideal that must be preserved at all costs? As has been demonstrated, we can't accurately model the climate when we KNOW the decisions that have been made, and we KNOW their impact. Why should we rush of in a "just in case" mode when we have NO IDEA what the results of our actions will be?

Second - act on WHAT? Curved space is a terrible analogy for you to use here - the was a mathematical, scientific proof. Until it could be tested, it was just that - a proof. Ask mathematicians how often proofs are wrong.

More importantly, what is the POLICY that was held at a standstill waiting for Einstein's theorems to be proven true? Anything? Not really...once it was proven true it opened up a whole other area of research, but as far as actual governmental policy, it didn't even register.

On the other hand, you're arguing that we take drastic policy actions "just in case" these models happen to be true. In other words, you're advocating making policy changes that 1) we have no idea if they'll "work" in terms of the models and 2) we have no idea what the positive or negative impact might be (heck, we can't accurately say WHAT a positive or negative impact looks like since we can't define ideal conditions). It comes off as doing something for the sake of looking like we're doing something, which is a terrible way to make policy.

[gatorback]

Policy?  Argue that that power plant, in DC, the one everybody talks about as a huge polluter, that the policy letting that plant continue to operate is a better way to make policy.  You know the  one that spews out pollution like crazy.  The one next to the capital.  Why don't you explain how the policy that lets the plant continue to operate is the right policy.

[gatorback]

You want policy by lobby. AND THIS IS BETTER POLICY? You want things as they are now.  The same old DC.

[tufsu1]

Science is about creating a hypothesis and testing the hypothesis. In turn, the hypothesis is either proven true, or it's proven false, and either the hypothesis or the test needs to be reformulated until it passes. That is the basic of the scientific method.

I'm not too comfortable with waiting to see if the hypothesis is true...by then, it may be too late to reverse course!

[Clem1029]

Policy?  Argue that that power plant, in DC, the one everybody talks about as a huge polluter, that the policy letting that plant continue to operate is a better way to make policy.  You know the  one that spews out pollution like crazy.  The one next to the capital.  Why don't you explain how the policy that lets the plant continue to operate is the right policy.

Honestly, I've never heard of this power plant that you're talking about, but for sake of this discussion, I'll play by your rules. From the question you're posing, I am gathering the following data about referenced plant:

1. It provides power to DC
2. It is a heavy polluter
3. You advocate that shutting it down is the better plan.

Let me know if I've got anything wrong there. But working from that, let's ask some basic questions -

First, how much of the power used by DC (and surrounding) area is provided by this plant? If the plant went away, is there enough power capacity elsewhere in the DC area to pick up the slack without straining the system? If not, what is the plan to make up for the slack if this plant needs to shut down?

Second, is it possible to clean up the plant somehow? Will the cleanup make the plant more or less efficient? If less, see above questions on how the slack is to be picked up. What will it cost to clean up the plant? How will that cost be passed along to consumers (i.e., how far will the user's rates go up in order to clean up the plant)?

Third, if the plant can't be cleaned up, can it be replaced? Is there a cleaner power source that can be built in the area to handle the load (say, nuclear)? Or is replacing the plant going to be impossible due to local NIMBY-ism? Can a replacement plant handle all of the load, or will additional plants be necessary to pick up the slack? What will said cost be (and again, how will it be passed on to the consumer)?

Fourth, what is the overall impact of not doing anything and letting that plant continue to run?

As you can see, it's really easy to come up with slogans ("Close the massive polluter"), but in reality, there are plenty of other considerations that need to go into implementing those slogans. That's called policy my friend - and policy needs to deal with the whole of the impact, not just one suggested area (such as AGW). I don't know the answers to these questions I've posed above, but as you can see, depending on how those questions are answered, it's perfectly logical to have a policy that allows that plant to continue operation.

You want policy by lobby. AND THIS IS BETTER POLICY? You want things as they are now.  The same old DC.

1. Explain how I want policy by lobby. I want policy that has a chance to work based on what we've observed in the past and what we know has been successful and unsuccessful. Go figure - I want an efficient government.
2. More importantly, even if this meets the definition of "policy by lobby," explain why the AGW lobby is less of a problem? Or is it lobbying by those that think "rightly" should be supported, and lobbying by those that think "wrongly" should be ignored. Where have I heard something like that before?

Science is about creating a hypothesis and testing the hypothesis. In turn, the hypothesis is either proven true, or it's proven false, and either the hypothesis or the test needs to be reformulated until it passes. That is the basic of the scientific method.

I'm not too comfortable with waiting to see if the hypothesis is true...by then, it may be too late to reverse course!

Here's the fun thing about this debate friend - you don't HAVE to wait to see if it's true. See the entire discussion about simulating climate from the past 150 years of data that we actually have. If those models (or alternatively, hypotheses) are wrong FOR WHAT WE KNOW, how can we trust them to predict TOMORROW?

And the "it may be too late" argument is useless - again, it's simply doing something for the sake of doing something, and not implementing policy that will address what we know is the problem in order to bring about a solid solution. More importantly, "too late" for what? Still undefined is the ideal climate setting for the planet.

[gatorback]

You got it right.  Here's an article:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5673425

A huge Coal Lobby from W.VA keeps contributing to the election camps of the lawmakers.
I suppose this is a better form of policy huh?

Clinton tried to get the new pollution controls installed, but lobbyist stopped it on the hill.
Bush rewrote the law to support the good old boys which his family has ties to.
Sad huh?