The Mythology of Common Secular Ground
by BradfordStanley Fish wrote a brilliant opinion piece in the New York Times titled Are There Secular Reasons? Tom Gilson authored a blog entry on it at Thinking Christian. Fish takes notice of a debate centered around the role of religion in public life and cites an argument from Classical Liberalism that policy decisions should be formulated based on secular reasons and not values which are linked to a religious source. Fish goes on to describe this as a form of "intellectual/political apartheid known as the private/public distinction." He develops these thoughts is some detail and then refers to a new book by law professor Steven Smith titled The Disenchantment of Secular Discourse. The first paragraph at the link is a good one:
Prominent observers complain that public discourse in America is shallow and unedifying. This debased condition is often attributed to, among other things, the resurgence of religion in public life. Steven Smith argues that this diagnosis has the matter backwards: it is not primarily religion but rather the strictures of secular rationalism that have drained our modern discourse of force and authenticity.
Discussions which rule out entire blocks of thinking a priori are destined to be dull and unedifying. Moreover they cannot be searches for truth as they substitute dogma in a divide which thirsts for delineation of genuine alternatives. Fish writes this:
It is not, Smith tells us, that secular reason can’t do the job (of identifying ultimate meanings and values) we need religion to do; it’s worse; secular reason can’t do its own self-assigned job — of describing the world in ways that allow us to move forward in our projects — without importing, but not acknowledging, the very perspectives it pushes away in disdain.
Fish nails it. Identifying "secular values" entails smuggling intrinsically religious meanings and values into a secular nexus. Moreover attempts to "keep it secular" must deny this core element of secularism affording it an edifice based on a dishonest premise. Consider some of the major discussion points in America today. Global warming well illustrates the point. My own experience confirms the wisdom of Smith for when arguments proceed against global warming policies predictable responses point to data supporting global warming. Not one to hide my reasons I remind others that there is a good deal more to the issue than whether or not a warming trend exists. Opponents of global warming policies need to bear this in mind as well. When vast sums of money are earmarked for legislation in support of a cause's goals, underlying moral issues are always linked to it. To avoid rehashing the many arguments we can simply cut to the chase and point to alternative uses such funding could be put to in illustrating the balanced scale metaphorical description of any final choice. The persistent stuck in neutral arguments about warming indicate that at least some are caught up in the thinking that the tough moral decisions are dictated by temperature graphs. Yup, it's warming or no it is not, is the starting point and not the conclusive dictum required. There are similar problems in the debate about health care and in the "origin of morality" itself- a fine piece of junk science if there ever was one. A book is needed on this. Fish says this more eloquently:
No matter how much information you pile up and how sophisticated are the analytical operations you perform, you will never get one millimeter closer to the moment when you can move from the piled-up information to some lesson or imperative it points to; for it doesn’t point anywhere; it just sits there, inert and empty.
HT: Nullasalus
March 4th, 2010 at 7:46 am
Since you're making a connection between secular thinking and climate change, it seems pertinent to link to today's New York Times. Darwin Foes Add Warming to Targets:
It seems to me that in both cases conservatives work as a reactionary force. I don't mean that in a derogatory sense.
Comment by olegt — March 4, 2010 @ 7:46 am
March 4th, 2010 at 7:50 am
Discovery Institute people were interviewed for the article.
And so were folks at NCSE:
Comment by olegt — March 4, 2010 @ 7:50 am
March 4th, 2010 at 8:41 am
Now you have a reason to oppose the global warming movement Olegt. It leads to disrupting the teaching of biology.
Comment by Bradford — March 4, 2010 @ 8:41 am
March 4th, 2010 at 8:45 am
Hold on Olegt. I think you've formulated a new and distinct argument for the global warming movement. Spend trillions or else you put our educational system at risk.
Where's Judge Jones anyway? Still on speaking tours?
Comment by Bradford — March 4, 2010 @ 8:45 am
March 4th, 2010 at 9:00 am
Bradford, you have an enormous ability to project. It's your side that ties together evolution and climate change as some sort of liberal horror story.
Comment by olegt — March 4, 2010 @ 9:00 am
March 4th, 2010 at 9:06 am
A subset of my side does. But this is what happens when scientists conflate the integrity of their pet causes with the integrity of their research. They provide an opening for skeptics.
Comment by Bradford — March 4, 2010 @ 9:06 am
March 4th, 2010 at 9:09 am
If a Jew, Christian, Muslim and atheist are discussing public policy, resorting to the authority of the New Testament will not be a convincing argument (though citing the New Testament for its wisdom may be persuasive in its own right).
When discussing wanton homicide the atheist might argue based on the principle of wastefulness; the Jew on the Commandments; the Christian on love; the Muslim on mercy. Once agreeing that senseless killing is wrong, they might devise a non-religious code of conduct. So even though they found justification for this code in their individual beliefs, the end result is a secular law against murder.
Nothing about this minimizes religion or the individual conscience.
Comment by Zachriel — March 4, 2010 @ 9:09 am
March 4th, 2010 at 9:12 am
Zach, what is the principle of wastefulness and how is this a secular value?
Comment by Bradford — March 4, 2010 @ 9:12 am
March 4th, 2010 at 9:12 am
So we might ask, in order to further the discussion of appropriate actions, do you agree with the scientific consensus that 1) anthropomorphic climate change is occurring, 2) anthropomorphic climate change will have significant impact on the climate, such as sea level rise, changes in precipitation patterns affecting agriculture and acidification of the oceans, and that will affect biological diversity?
Comment by Zachriel — March 4, 2010 @ 9:12 am
March 4th, 2010 at 9:13 am
Waste not, want not.
Comment by Zachriel — March 4, 2010 @ 9:13 am
March 4th, 2010 at 9:24 am
Do other secularists understand this is one of their tenets or are your priestly dictums not yet filtered down to the masses?
Comment by Bradford — March 4, 2010 @ 9:24 am
March 4th, 2010 at 9:26 am
Not enough information for a choice. In weighing the options a policy maker needs to have a plausible estimate of remedies and their cost.
Comment by Bradford — March 4, 2010 @ 9:26 am
March 4th, 2010 at 9:30 am
Say what, Bradford? Can you answer Question 1 first? Must you necessarily conflate the reality of the warming with ameliorating measures?
Comment by olegt — March 4, 2010 @ 9:30 am
March 4th, 2010 at 9:34 am
We're not an atheist, but most atheists have typical value systems, being born social mammals. Like the common mouse, they place a high value on their children, for instance.
There's a great deal of scientific literature on climate change, regional effects, and scenarios related to different possible human choices. Turns out that mitigating global warming won't be that difficult. Most of the policies make sense in the light of other priorities, such as conservation. It costs less to act sooner rather than later, and the nations that respond most effectively will have a competitive advantage over others.
Comment by Zachriel — March 4, 2010 @ 9:34 am
March 4th, 2010 at 9:34 am
Yes, if you want to take it beyond the research facility.
Comment by Bradford — March 4, 2010 @ 9:34 am
March 4th, 2010 at 9:38 am
And the "values" of lions include a need to kill. Your argument is a case test example of what is wrong with discourse in America.
Comment by Bradford — March 4, 2010 @ 9:38 am
March 4th, 2010 at 9:41 am
A very dubious assumption on your part. The competitive advantage already lies with China. It has nothing to do with their devotion to the global warming movement. It is based on the innate competitiveness of their enterprises and the sorry state of industry among the Euros which we are fast becoming like.
Comment by Bradford — March 4, 2010 @ 9:41 am
March 4th, 2010 at 9:41 am
Bradford wrote:
So your answer to the question "Is the AGW real?" depends on what we intend to do with the AGW? That's a questionable approach.
Comment by olegt — March 4, 2010 @ 9:41 am
March 4th, 2010 at 9:44 am
Olegt, when I see the proposals I'll tell you if I think AGW is a worthy premise on which to spend trillions. That incidentally is the moral point which secularists are reluctant to acknowledge.
Comment by Bradford — March 4, 2010 @ 9:44 am
March 4th, 2010 at 9:53 am
Bradford: I am unpersuaded by arguments for GW legislation.
Secularist: Do you believe in the data pointing to AGW?
Fish: No matter how much information you pile up and how sophisticated are the analytical operations you perform, you will never get one millimeter closer to the moment when you can move from the piled-up information to some lesson or imperative it points to; for it doesn’t point anywhere; it just sits there, inert and empty.
Secularist: Do you believe in the data pointing to AGW?
Smith: Secular reason can’t identify ultimate meanings and values.
Secularist: Do you believe in the data pointing to AGW?
Bradford: Do you understand what Fish and Smith are saying? You need to find a common value and in doing so you will put the discussion on a level which focuses on competing values. At least that would be honest. Do you believe in AGW data does not point anywhere without the next value inclusion step.
Comment by Bradford — March 4, 2010 @ 9:53 am
March 4th, 2010 at 10:19 am
All animals kill. Among humans, the ability to kill prey or enemies is often considered a highly valued trait. You had suggested we were handing down dicta. Rather, we merely pointed to values commonly held by atheists and others, such as the abhorrence of senseless killing of other human beings.
Comment by Zachriel — March 4, 2010 @ 10:19 am
March 4th, 2010 at 10:20 am
Bradford, you are incredibly evasive on this issue.
It's clear as day that there are two separate issues: (1) Is there an AGW? (2) If the effect is real, what, if anything, should we do about it? It's fine if you want to argue about (2). But you wish to forestall the battle over (2) by muddying the waters over (1). That's a fundamentally dishonest approach, pardon my French.
And don't even try a tu quoque retort on me.
Comment by olegt — March 4, 2010 @ 10:20 am
March 4th, 2010 at 10:33 am
There are more issues than this. If a warming trend exists the logical next step lies in assessing its severity. You can believe in mild or severe consequences and in both cases attribute some warming influences to humans. So no I'm not the one being evasive. I've pointed out my position which lies with moderate effects.
Distinguishing between various effects models is not muddying. It clarifies.
What is dishonest is what is taking place today, namely an argument that if AGW has taken place then the discussion is over. Endorse the related legislation with your eyes closed and a clothes pin on your nose because the stench of politics and greed is overpowering.
Comment by Bradford — March 4, 2010 @ 10:33 am
March 4th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
If we cut out all areas where religions, as a whole, lack consensus– the nature of the soul, the afterlife, or how best to please God(s)– the values left are maximizing the health and welfare of human beings over their normal lifespan. So the common secular ground seems to default to secular humanism.
Is secular humanism really best characterized as smuggled religious values? In
the absence of religious values, I think it still makes perfect sense to base social rules on value for human beings simply because we all have empathy and value human company. In fact, the attribute of valuing other human beings leads to the basic formation of social units in the first place.
Comment by woodchuck64 — March 4, 2010 @ 12:23 pm
March 4th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
I loved this article. I first saw it mentioned on Thinking Christian like Bradford. Unfortunately, though, the comments on the NYT site were far less cerebral (and much less funny) than those found here. Maybe that goes to show what type of people read the NYT?
Also, thank you Bradford and Zachriel for helping demonstrate what Fish was talking about. Zachriel can only talk about what people believe or what animals do, but he cannot speak of what man ought to do. This has made my day.
And woodchuck64, you are unable to say how one state of affairs is better than another, which is kinda what Fish was making. You could base social rules off of value for human beings (but how do people have value?), or you could just say "might makes right" and let all hell break loose. You pick one arbitrary value, I choose another.
Comment by SeanSean — March 4, 2010 @ 1:20 pm
March 4th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
woodchuck64:
Every side seems to think that their programs, policies etc. advance the health and welfare of human beings. That's the problem. This is too vague. Religious people argue that abstinence can advance the welfare of people practicing it outside a marital relationship. Non-religious people are inclined to think in terms of satisfaction for the moment. Both sides will claim to be supporting the welfare of humanity. There is no default position.
Comment by Bradford — March 4, 2010 @ 1:58 pm
March 4th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
SeanSean:
Good comment. Sometimes the best way to make a point is to allow commenters to do it for you. Thanks to you and Zach.
Comment by Bradford — March 4, 2010 @ 2:08 pm
March 4th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Hi, Bradford,
Speaking of global warming, we better hurry up and fix it! Not only earth but the solar system is at risk:
Global Warming Skeptics Destroying The Solar System
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — March 4, 2010 @ 2:20 pm
March 4th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
The earth is cooling, and you are concerned about whether or not you will have a "competitive advantage".
The ice age is coming, and you are concerned with how you can gain a "competitive advantage".
We should be thinking of ways to warm the atmosphere in anticipation of the next regularly scheduled ice age instead of indulging in all this progressive political gamesmanship and wealth redistribution crap. What kind of horrible, self centered, egotistical narcissist would put his progressive political agenda above the welfare of humanity?
I find your blatant disdain for your fellow humans to be utterly revolting. You should be ashamed.
Comment by chunkdz — March 4, 2010 @ 2:48 pm
March 4th, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Hi Anaxagoras Rules,
If warming (or cooling) were a solar system phenomenon then we likely would narrow the list of suspected sources.
Comment by Bradford — March 4, 2010 @ 9:56 pm
March 4th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
Our charter lends itself only to pointing out consequences. You have to decide what is important to you.
Other planets are important to developing generalized climate models. Normal changes in the orbit of Mars are causing it to warm. Jupiter is not warming, but the heat is being redistributed equatorially. Earth is warming largely due to anthropomorphic greenhouse gases.
The evidence indicates the Earth is warming. You keep posting the same graph without any support. It's apparently the graph of a single place on Earth, the central Greenland plateau, which is apparently your proxy for the entire Earth, and an analysis that ignores the vast bulk of the evidence.
Comment by Zachriel — March 4, 2010 @ 10:27 pm
March 4th, 2010 at 10:42 pm
Zach, alot of times when you respond I get the feeling that you're just using some template.
I'd be interested to hear how, on your worldview, you get an "ought" from an "is". Or…. how you can yield presciptive fact from a fact that is descriptive.
And that blurb of yours I quoted does not provide an answer.
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 4, 2010 @ 10:42 pm
March 4th, 2010 at 10:54 pm
You can't.
The "blurb" means you have to find the answer for yourself.
Comment by Zachriel — March 4, 2010 @ 10:54 pm
March 4th, 2010 at 10:56 pm
The template has a familiar ring to it. That's it!
That's Zach's message. Zach, have you been sneaking peeks at Fox News? Tell me- it's just between you and me and the Gringo. I won't tell the swampies.
Comment by Bradford — March 4, 2010 @ 10:56 pm
March 4th, 2010 at 11:51 pm
DI's Bruce Chapman weighs in:
O, poor babies.
Comment by olegt — March 4, 2010 @ 11:51 pm
March 5th, 2010 at 12:07 am
Actually, ice core data indicates a general cooling trend for about the last 4000 years.
It's a well known graph of NOAA ice core data.
Well, there are very few ice cores at the equator unfortunately.
But here's some other ice core samples from the other hemisphere that also show a cooling trend.
Actually, the evidence indicates that ice ages happen cyclically, interglacial warm periods like the one that we are currently in are relatively short, and that another ice age will likely be along shortly. Our current interglacial period is also cooler than previous interglacial periods. We still have time to prepare for the next ice age, but greedy progressives make those preparations difficult as they thwart the third world's ability to enter the industrial age.
You should be ashamed of yourself for advocating such elitism at the expense of poor populations of your fellow humans.
Comment by chunkdz — March 5, 2010 @ 12:07 am
March 5th, 2010 at 7:58 am
chunkdz wrote:
Zachriel doesn't believe he's human. He thinks he's better than that. Hence the "we" and the "we are fond of the little monkeys (i.e., humans)" and the references to a cosmic child wiping life from the Earth as if she was cleaning a dirty marble. Delusions and fantasy.
Comment by angryoldfatman — March 5, 2010 @ 7:58 am
March 5th, 2010 at 8:38 am
You should always provide a source for the data. Instead, you post another graph without supporting data.
Climatologists are aware of the trends, as they are the ones who collected the data and discovered the trends. In order to dispute the consensus for global warming, you have to address the actual argument.
You wouldn't think it would be necessary to explain the analogy. It has to do with scale.
A commenter indicated that life occupies just about every nook and cranny of Earth. In fact, life only occupies a very thin film of the Earth's surface. On a small marble, that would be, perhaps, a thousandth of an inch. So if we took all the planets and put them as marbles in a cosmic toy box, a child would probably only notice terrestrial life, if she noticed it at all, as a small film on one of her smaller marbles. This is not controversial or nihilistic, but a matter of vantage.
–
Psalms 8:3-4
When I look at thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars which thou hast established; what is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou dost care for him?
-
We also introduced the Cosmic Gardner. Perhaps the Cosmic Gardner planted the seed of life knowing what might bloom.
Comment by Zachriel — March 5, 2010 @ 8:38 am
March 5th, 2010 at 11:53 am
According to Jay Richards if you are a publicly open skeptic of either neo-Darwinism or AGW expect the following:
If we are going to have free and open debate and dialogue in our society we need to allow skeptics and dissenters to have their say. If they cannot be defeated in open discussion and debate one has to question why that is. Perhaps, just perhaps, the evidence is not as strong and convincing as the so-called advocates believe. However, if their belief is as rational as they claim, then shouldn’t they be able to convince their opponents by reason alone?
A society that suppresses free and open discussion and debate is no longer a free and open democratic society, but one that is headed down the path oppression, tyranny and totalitarianism.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 5, 2010 @ 11:53 am
March 5th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
JAD wrote:
Not sure what you're proposing, John. Should we allocate a certain proportion of faculty positions at major universities to YECs or just stop at IDers?
Comment by olegt — March 5, 2010 @ 12:59 pm
March 5th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
In order for their to be morality, we must first agree that the concepts of "good" and "bad" are real.
Are they?
Comment by Daniel Smith — March 5, 2010 @ 1:05 pm
March 5th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
An atheist and Nobel Laureate in Physics sums up the problem:
The Christian view of the pointless universe:
Weinberg correctly lamented the now very evident death of the universe. Bertrand Russell also observed:
But physicist Kelvin combines the scientific truth with a religious idea:
The logical conclusion of pure secularism if dark. Dawkins says we have create our own meaning, which seems an illogical inference from pure secularism, since "creating our own meaning" is a religion itself, and worse yet, possibly a false religion!
Maybe there is a higher purpose for the futility the universe is subected to. The futility was by design as part of the divine drama as Kelvin asserted. If Kelvin is wrong, then we're all screwed.
I have a mustard seed of faith the Christian religion is the true description of reality. One thing I know for certain, extending Betrand Russell's keen insight, there is no salvation in atheism or Darwin.
But let me argue against this:
I have to disagree. The existence of secularism has helped underly reasons to explore religious faith. Atheists put forward questions which need to be addressed and which are too often ignored in the churches.
I've often said, Christian homes have often been the incubators of atheism. Where do leading atheists come from? Atheists homes? NO, Christian homes!
Christian homes strike me as being shallow on tough questions. Here are some basic questions which I find so few Chrsitians able to answer:
1. why do you believe God exists
2. why is there evil in the world if God is All wise and loving
3. why do you believe the Bible is true
The shallowness is rather in the inability to justify religious viewpoints empirically and rationally. The shallowness does not come from secular quarters, but rather secular quarters has exposed the shallowness and gullibility of certain religious ideas.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — March 5, 2010 @ 1:18 pm
March 5th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Not all skeptics of either NDE or AGW are YEC or ID’ists. However, the minority who do speak out claim that they find themselves to be ridiculed, marginalized or ostracized. You yourself, olegt, know how this works. You simply label anyone you disagrees with the consensus view as a 'crank' or 'crackpot,' unless of course they happen to be someone like Lindzen who gets marginalized with the more polite label of “contrarian.” Yes, the establishment will tolerate a few of those kind of people.
Lindzen, however has argued, that though that it may appear that he is a voice crying alone in the wilderness, he is not alone. He writes:
“Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.”
Is he making that up? I’d like to know.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 5, 2010 @ 1:51 pm
March 5th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Bradford:
Certainly; even with shared values, there is disagreement over how to best to achieve them. But Fish/Smith's point is that secular values are smuggled in from non-secular sources. I'm pointing out, rather, that (generally) valuing the health and welfare of other human beings is simply an intrinsic part of being human; otherwise we would not be a social species.
If we're made in the image of God, then, yes, our values come in that sense from a theological perspective. If there is no god, our values are those that have allowed societies to evolve and flourish.
Those who think solely in terms of satisfaction for the moment are probably young and immature, as such an approach leads to ruin more often than it pays off. I trust you don't think seriously that non-religious people are this way.
Comment by woodchuck64 — March 5, 2010 @ 4:38 pm
March 5th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
The earth is cooling.
Source: Buchdahl, Joe. Global Climate Change Student Guide.
Comment by chunkdz — March 5, 2010 @ 5:31 pm
March 5th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
woodchuck64:
Perhaps. But life and history are full of examples of people acting selfishly and at the expense of others. The principle problem with according value to the health and welfare of others is the ambiguity of the notion. It means one thing to me and another to Pelosi and Reid. Once a value is proposed that makes a real and obvious contrast to other values, you have an identifiable belief system which will attract both proponents and debunkers. It's unclear to me how you can label it secular i.e. uniquely outside a religious value system. You can of course cite a value that is opposite to a value held by Christianity, Islam etc. But what makes this secular as opposed to an opposite religious view and more importantly why should it enjoy favored status in the competition of ideas?
Comment by Bradford — March 5, 2010 @ 5:48 pm
March 5th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
The earth is cooling.
Alley, R.B. 2000. The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland. Quaternary Science Reviews 19:213-226.
Comment by chunkdz — March 5, 2010 @ 5:57 pm
March 5th, 2010 at 6:32 pm
From one of chunkdz references:
also chunkdz one of the plots you present only goes up to 1905 or so do you have any data to fill in the missing hundred years?
seems your sources aren't in agreement with your conclusions.
Comment by Acipenser — March 5, 2010 @ 6:32 pm
March 5th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
False.
Not only have there been much more profound changes in the past, they have often occured at staggeringly higher rates of change. According to the U.S.E.P.A
Chunkdz: ice core data indicates a general cooling trend for about the last 4000 years.
Chunkdz's source: "Although remnants of the Laurentide Ice Sheet did not disappear until about 7 Ka, the early to mid-Holocene (4,500 to 10,000 years) has often been considered to have been warmer than the last 4,500 years. A thermal maximum occurred at about 6 to 7 Ka (Figure 5.18). Conclusions about the mid Holocene warmth are based on several lines of evidence – latitudinal displacements of vegetation zones (Ritchie et al., 1983) and vertical displacements of mountain glaciers (Porter & Orombelli, 1985). Records for the last 4,500 years generally indicate that temperatures were lower than the Holocene thermal maximum."
Comment by chunkdz — March 5, 2010 @ 7:08 pm
March 5th, 2010 at 7:16 pm
The earth is cooling. Has been for thousands of years.
Source: NGRIP and EPICA ice cores oxygen isotope temperature proxies.
Comment by chunkdz — March 5, 2010 @ 7:16 pm
March 5th, 2010 at 7:19 pm
Hey it is your reference that you are declaring false which makes me wonder why you cited it in the first place.
Vertical displacement of glaciers…..latitudinal displacement of vegetation zone…why that is just what we are seeing in todays world and it makes one wonder if the earth is cooling which is in turn causing this or is it the warming that is doing the job.
also consider the effect of the rate of warming on the thermohaline conveyor currents in the ocean and what impact that will have on the planet's climate if they should slow or even stop.
Do you have any data that can be used to fill in the plot that you presented…the one that only goes to the turn of the 1900's? Or should we just forget about any trends over the last hundred years or so?
Comment by Acipenser — March 5, 2010 @ 7:19 pm
March 5th, 2010 at 7:33 pm
The author's conclusions do not refute the clear and replicable data that shows that the earth has been cooling steadily for over 4000 years. It was the data that I was citing, not the author's conclusion.
Glaciers can melt even during a cooling trend if the ambient temperatures are above freezing. The glaciers have been melting for a long, long time – a direct consequence of the holocene interglacial warm period.
Consider the effect of the next ice age on mankind.
See the above NGISP and EPICA ice core data.
Comment by chunkdz — March 5, 2010 @ 7:33 pm
March 5th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
Would you say it would be prudent to take reasonable actions to prevent/delay the arrival of the next ice age in order to minimize the impact on mankind and promote as much time as possible to promote adaptation?
In leui of the above would the slowing and/or stopping of the thermohaline ocean conveyors promote the next ice age's arrival?
And the rate of the glacial melting is in direct proportion to ambient temperatures, i.e., warmer ambient temperatures + faster retreats….what we see in todays world.
I don't think it would be very appropriate to try to add ice core data from Antarctica to the Greenland data set. However, I'll try to take a look at the NGISP data to see if it fills in the missing hundred years of data.
Comment by Acipenser — March 5, 2010 @ 8:19 pm
March 5th, 2010 at 8:30 pm
Chunk, you might want to be a little more quantitative. Tell us how much the Earth has cooled since the Holocene maximum (5-9 thousand years ago) and compare that rate of cooling to the warming rate of the past century.
Thanks.
Comment by olegt — March 5, 2010 @ 8:30 pm
March 5th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
here's something from the NGRIP data:
Oxygen isotope and palaeotemperature records from six Greenland ice-core stations: Camp Century, Dye-3, GRIP, GISP2, Renland and NorthGRIP
Journal of Quaternary Science, Vol. 16, p. 299-307, 2001
emphasis mine.
Comment by Acipenser — March 5, 2010 @ 8:35 pm
March 5th, 2010 at 8:43 pm
Maybe, if we ever actually discover what causes ice ages.
Beats me. Would giving $100,000,000 to Robert Mugabe mitigate the effects of global warming?
Doubtful. The Early holocene was much warmer.
Let me know if it completely skews the cooling trend of the last 4000-4500 years.
Comment by chunkdz — March 5, 2010 @ 8:43 pm
March 5th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
They also showed clear signals of warming from 950AD to 1250 AD. It was also hotter back then. So what?
Just so I'm clear here, Acipenser, are you trying to suggest that the data DOES NOT show a cooling trend over the last 4000-4500 years since the holocene maximum?
Comment by chunkdz — March 5, 2010 @ 8:53 pm
March 5th, 2010 at 9:07 pm
Here's a better one – compare the rate of warming at the end of the last ice age (28 deg. F over several decades) to the warming of the past century.
Comment by chunkdz — March 5, 2010 @ 9:07 pm
March 5th, 2010 at 9:13 pm
One proposed theory is the stopping/slowing of the thermohaline ocean conveyor system which pumps warm water to northern latitudes. Influxe of large amounts of freshwater disrupt this flow and (as per citations I presented previously) it appears there is already a measureable slowing in the ocean conveyor linked to fresh water imputs into the N. Atlantic
You've made several posts citing the dramatic climate changes observed in the NGRIP ice core. At the heart of these changes is the cessation of the ocean conveyor.
here is a conservative view on the topic:
http://faculty.washington.edu/...
Comment by Acipenser — March 5, 2010 @ 9:13 pm
March 5th, 2010 at 9:18 pm
I'll answer my own question:
That good and bad exist as a real phenomena can be demonstrated by the fact that nature has its own standards of perfection.
For example we can tell the difference between a good heart and a bad heart, or good and bad eyes, a good or bad back, or feet, or… well, you get the idea. This is quantifiable. Doctors the world over make judgments about whether a body part is good or bad – based on nature's blueprints – daily.
The same is true throughout nature. That things reliably tend towards certain ends gives us a standard by which to judge whether things of the same kind perform badly or perform well. So a standard of excellence exists in nature and that standard ultimately points to God.
As Aquinas points out in his Fourth Way:
Now, if good and bad are real (i.e. they are varying degrees of a standard of perfection in nature) and God is the ultimate good, then man has a standard by which he needs to live – based on the God-given nature of man and our place in the universe.
Because nature itself points to God, we can reasonably conclude that the highest duty of humankind is to know our creator.
Even if you don't accept nature as a proof of God however, the standards and perfections of nature are enough by themselves to give us moral direction. It cannot be "every man for himself" or "there are no absolutes" either, for nature itself shows us a standard of good vs. bad.
For instance, we know that procreation is good for the species, but it is also clear that procreation outside of a stable relationship often causes harm to the child, therefore we can conclude that marriage is a good thing while sex outside marriage is not.
This is not based on some arbitrary commandment of God but on a reasonable inference based on nature's standard of perfection.
Comment by Daniel Smith — March 5, 2010 @ 9:18 pm
March 5th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
Good overview from the Manchester Metropolitan University. Thanks.
Includes sections on the modeling of climate, historical climates, effect of greenhouse forcing, impact of climate change, uncertainties and possible responses.
Comment by Zachriel — March 5, 2010 @ 9:26 pm
March 5th, 2010 at 9:32 pm
Acipenser, that was a hoot! I love the conclusion…
…as well as the accompanying graphic…
Translation: The fact that we have no idea what might happen is reason to institute Cap and trade. Otherwise we will piss off the earth and be destroyed!
ROFL!
Comment by chunkdz — March 5, 2010 @ 9:32 pm
March 5th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
Since Chunk won't answer my question, perhaps I should answer it.
Since the Holocene maximum some 8 thousand years ago, the Earth has cooled down by about 1 degree Celsius. The latest warming trend has seen the temperatures rise by about the same amount over a century. The current warming rate is thus 80 times higher than the previous cooling rate.
Chunk is right that the transition from the last glacial age to the warmer Holocene was abrupt. That is what happens when warming is accelerated by feedback effects (e.g. shrinking ice caps reduce the Earth's albedo). We have not entered a period of such instability, but the fear is that eventually we might if the temperatures keep rising.
Comment by olegt — March 5, 2010 @ 9:42 pm
March 5th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
Yup. 28 degrees in just a few decades. And not a single Ford Explorer anywhere to be seen.
Please don't pretend like you know why the ice age ended abruptly. It makes you look silly and I don't think you are silly.
Not even close.
Yes, it is about fear, isn't it.
But fear cannot hide the fact that the earth is cooling. On the small scale (Record low temperatures this winter, ice pack increasing), on the slightly larger scale (slight decrease in temperatures over the last decade, snowiest decade on record), and on the large scale (steady decrease in temperatures over the past 4000-4500 years.)
Ice ages are cyclical. We are due for the next one. It's time to learn from history. It's not time to foment fear about the unknown.
Comment by chunkdz — March 5, 2010 @ 10:43 pm
March 5th, 2010 at 10:46 pm
Ya all need to get with the new program. It's about methane you AGW tards.
Comment by Bradford — March 5, 2010 @ 10:46 pm
March 5th, 2010 at 11:23 pm
Here is something relevant that meteorologist, Joe Bastardi has just written (3-4-10) on his blog.
Of course, Bastardi is only a meteorologist who studies historic long term weather trends, not a climatologist. Who is he to say that the models might be wrong, when it looks like they are wrong?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 5, 2010 @ 11:23 pm
March 5th, 2010 at 11:40 pm
Which part of the Pacific is he talking about? It is fairly apparent via E. Coast snowfalls, S. California rainfall, BC,Canada's warm/mild winter (anyone watch the Olympics), and SST in the E. Pacific that we are in the midst of a moderate ENSO event. I wonder what he is talking about.
Comment by Acipenser — March 5, 2010 @ 11:40 pm
March 6th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
chunkd:
No, this is actually true according to temperature reconstructions. You can see it by simply looking for the longest/steepest rise on the graph.
There is a very important difference between regional warming and global warming. The original claim, and the graph of temperature reconstructions, show global average temperature differences. The warming events above refer to regional temperature changes which are not seen in other data/regions at the same time. The reason for this is theorized to be changes in ocean circulation currents. More here.
For example, notice how warming in Greenland corresponds to cooling in Antarctica. This would of course average out when estimating global temperature change.
Comment by woodchuck64 — March 6, 2010 @ 1:05 pm
March 6th, 2010 at 6:05 pm
I don’t know. Why don’t you ask him? He has posted his email on his blog.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 6, 2010 @ 6:05 pm
March 7th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
And that transition was not man-made, there seems to be the issue there is a lot of warming not do to man. That seems to be the correct interpretation of the facts.
Agreed that the Earth is in danger of warming. I'm for conservation. It is a legitimate scientific question regarding the contribution by man to the warming. But I think the contribution by man is overstated for the very reason of the abrupt warming that happened that was NOT man-made since the ice ages. The sun is warming, it will continue to (which is an indirect corrolary of the Faint Young Sun Paradox).
Unfortunately, if the anthropogenic component is small, and we have a long term warming trend, then we're probably screwed no matter what we do.
But as I pointed out, the long term (as in when the universe dies) is bad for our species any way.
Turn back to the topic was the "Secular Common Ground". What do the religious folk and secularists believe in common? That the human race will eventually meet its end.
The question then, to quote Francis Schaeffer, is "how should we then live". For me, well, I try to make some money, help my family, as a hobby study physics and biology in the hope of finding evidence for God's existence and work in the universe. So what if my quest is doomed to failure, it can't be any worse than what Dawkins is living for in the end.
It seems to me the rational quest is to hope for a universe with meaning not one that is pointless (to quote Weinberg).
Personally, I find little rationality in studying a universe that only seems more pointless the more it becomes comprehensible. It only seems rational from the standpoint that exploration can be a source of entertainment.
On the other hand, if there is meaning in the universe, if is designed for a reason, then it seems more interesting to study it.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — March 7, 2010 @ 4:27 pm
March 7th, 2010 at 10:41 pm
Hoover Institute researcher Piers Norris Turner makes the following observation about the political and scientific views of Karl Popper, who towards the end of his life became a fellow at the Hoover Institute.
I would argue that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has never really been presented as a scientific theory that is falsifiable, but as an “historicist prophecy” that is irrefutable because it’s proponents believe by faith in it’s absolute certainty. This is why it is the kind of issue that unites me and other like minded fallibilists in our on going skepticism of both AGW and the neo-Darwinian synthesis. Both have been resistant to criticism. Both have postured themselves as somehow being irrefutable.
To see what I mean show me any other scientific theory that has been defended as dogmatically as AGW or NDT. Then explain to me why they needs to be defended so dogmatically. A good theory, according to Popper, is one that allows itself to be tested and critically challenged, no matter how old or “well established” that particular theory may be. Popper was careful to emphasize that while it may be true that it is the “best kind of human knowledge we have… scientific knowledge is essentially conjectural or hypothetical.” In other words, you do not defend a theory using intimidation to silence the critics because criticism is the process you need to refine and establish your theory. This is why Popper thought theories like Einstein’s theory of General Relativity were models of the way theories should be constructed. Einstein proposed ways that his theory could be empirically falsified. Einstein himself proposed ways that this could be done.
What ways have proponents of anthropogenic global warming proposed that their theory could be falsified? According to Al Gore we’re past that.
And while Darwin did propose ways that his original theory could be critically tested his modern proponents, for some reason, have decided to keep the “modern synthesis” on life support rather than look at other alternatives.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 7, 2010 @ 10:41 pm
March 8th, 2010 at 8:18 am
Sorry, but no. It's a scientific theory and subject to falsification. However, the evidence is becoming more and more convincing that anthropomorphic climate change is a real problem.
The Neodarwinian Synthesis has been modified many times in the light of new evidence. The original incarnation no longer exists in science.
Anthropomorphic Climate Change is not an absolute certainty. However, the evidence is becoming more and more convincing. Refuting this body of evidence requires more than politicians making speeches.
It's not dogmatism, but doggedly. The same happened with Heliocentrism.
Because science has been under political and cultural attack.
Just about every scientific paper in climatology proposes a falsifiable hypothesis.
Eppur si muove is a falsifiable hypothesis, but we're long past any actual falsification.
The Theory of Evolution is constantly being probed for weaknesses. That's what scientists do. And the theory has yielded many times in the past. Today's Theory of Evolution is not your Daddy's Theory of Evolution.
Comment by Zachriel — March 8, 2010 @ 8:18 am
March 8th, 2010 at 8:26 am
The recent spate of scandals linked to AGW is evidence of the need to support dogma. Copernicus did not demand fundamental changes in the way business is done and huge amounts of funding from the public trough.
It needs to be defended dogmatically? The improper use of science to shape political policies is under attack.
Comment by Bradford — March 8, 2010 @ 8:26 am
March 8th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Salvador Cordova:
Except the earth is cooling. Has been cooling steadily for over 4000 years. This is confirmed by multiple lines of evidence. Even over the short term, the earth has cooled over the last ten years. Even AGW stalwart Phil Jones from CRU agrees grudgingly that the earth is cooling.
Ice ages are cyclical, interglacial warm periods are relatively short, and the current one has overstayed it's welcome. My advice is invest in mink farming now.
Comment by chunkdz — March 8, 2010 @ 3:57 pm
March 8th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Zachriel:
Show me one regarding AGW that is useful.
Comment by chunkdz — March 8, 2010 @ 4:01 pm
March 8th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Uggh. Your graph of "earth's history" is only 2000 years old. Even YEC'ers will think you're crazy.
Comment by chunkdz — March 8, 2010 @ 4:04 pm
March 8th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Studies of climate change have scientific and public policy utility. Virtually any issue of International Journal of Climatology has articles on climate change, including many articles from countries trying to understand regional impacts.
Hansen et al., Global temperature change, PNAS 2006.
Meehl, How Much More Global Warming and Sea Level Rise?, Science 2005.
Comment by Zachriel — March 8, 2010 @ 4:45 pm
March 8th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
The falsifiable prediction of half a degree of warming, based on a computer model, can't be falsified until the year 2100.
I asked you for a useful prediction. Ughh. Moving on.
From Hansen et. al (2006)…
Approximately? Hansen fails to mention the fact that the earth has cooled steadily since the Holocene maximum, so we can call this misleading at best. Nor does he mention that the warming that led to the Holocene maximum was extremely more rapid and more dramatic than anything we see today, and that had nothing to do with human carbon emissions. Not to mention that James Hanson has repeatedly denied FOIA requests for his data so I doubt that we can trust any of his documentation until he actually allows others to examine it.
I asked for something useful and you bring me this garbage? And you expect me to give $100,000,000 to a human rights abusing scumbag like Robert Mugabe based on this useless and shoddy-ass science?
You should be ashamed of yourself, and you should apologize to every person and family member who has been tortured, raped, or killed at the hands of his regime.
Comment by chunkdz — March 8, 2010 @ 5:28 pm
March 8th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
By predicting and testing models on a variety of data, past and present, it is possible to verify the models against empirical data. Your argument is equivalent to saying that we can't predict that CO2 emissions will lead to an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, or that the physics of the greenhouse effect won't apply in the future.
You might point to the difficulty of predicting dynamic systems, but your argument is equivalent to saying we can't predict anything at all.
Troll.
Comment by Zachriel — March 8, 2010 @ 5:58 pm
March 8th, 2010 at 8:28 pm
What a gross misrepresentation. That certainly didn't take long.
More gross misrepresentation. I merely said that we can't tell if the computer model was correct until the year 2100. This follows because the prediction was that the temperature would rise x amount by the year 2100.
As for Hansen, even his former supervisor at NASA says he is "an embarrassment", and that the climate computer models are not reliable.
I tend to agree. Anyone who publishes such misleading fear mongering as the paper you just cited while refusing to release his data for others to replicate the study is indeed an embarrassment.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/200...
Coming from someone who pompously and condescendingly refers to his fellow humans as "little monkeys", I'll take that as a compliment. You, like Hansen, are an embarrassment.
Comment by chunkdz — March 8, 2010 @ 8:28 pm
March 8th, 2010 at 9:05 pm
chunkdz wrote:
Now now, he may not be a troll. He may actually believe he's a Nietzschean Übermensch, or a Lewisian Conditioner, or (as his name implies) an angel.
Much the same way people nowadays believe themselves to be animals or vampires. In a bygone era we called these people "special".
But I get the feeling he's just another Japanese-cartoon-loving, wall-scroll-hanging, HANZO-STEEL-swinging basement-dweller like this thing.
Comment by angryoldfatman — March 8, 2010 @ 9:05 pm
March 8th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
The model makes many more predictions than just the temperature in 2100, so you are simply incorrect.
Comment by Zachriel — March 8, 2010 @ 9:33 pm
March 8th, 2010 at 9:39 pm
Only if you misrepresent what I said, which was:
If your argument requires misrepresenting my statements, then it's likely a poor argument.
Comment by chunkdz — March 8, 2010 @ 9:39 pm
March 8th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
WARNING: Off-topic response to trolling.Please note the context,
defending the "little monkeys" from angryoldfatman's attack, while directly addressing Bradford's topic of the specialness of God's creation and how we assign value. On the other hand, your comment did not represent any view expressed on this thread, but was plainly meant to derail the topic through a failed attempt at provoking an emotional reaction.
Comment by Zachriel — March 8, 2010 @ 9:47 pm
March 8th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
You said this:
The model makes many predictions, and we can test those predictions. And each successful test provides greater confidence in our model. Like all scientific models, our level of confidence will vary based on a number of factors. This is true not just of computer models, but theoretical models, as well.
We can't know for sure if planetary mechanics correctly predicts the Moon's orbit for tomorrow. But we have a great deal of confidence, because the model has been successful in the past and the laws of physics aren't expected to change. It has to do with the quality of the model and data, something your argument doesn't address.
Comment by Zachriel — March 8, 2010 @ 9:59 pm
March 8th, 2010 at 10:48 pm
chunkd:
Click through to Holocene temperature variations. Eyeballing it, the steepest change I see is after the last glacial period, but that looks roughly like about 1 C per 1000 years. The current change we're seeing is about .74 C in 100 years, so there is understandable concern.
Comment by woodchuck64 — March 8, 2010 @ 10:48 pm
March 8th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
Actually I was referring to this unsolicited appraisal of your fellow man,
http://telicthoughts.com/about...
Which when considered alongside your frequent references to your fellow humans as "meat" and "tards" leaves little doubt as to what you think of your fellow humans.
Nope. The Obama administration's promise to help secure $100,000,000,000.00 as "climate reparations" to third world countries (including Zimbabwe, home of Robert Mugabe) is built largely upon the testimony and shoddy science of Jim Hansen, the very scientist you cited.
Hansen has been called an embarrassment by his former supervisor, his climate model has been declared to be flawed by one of the software programmers who worked on it, and Hansen has repeatedly and stubbornly refused to release his data even under FOIA requests.
The brutal regime of Robert Mugabe thanks you for your support. I'm sure he will spend all the money on solar panels and windmills, and all future political dissidents will be hung with 'green' biodegradable organic hemp rope.
Comment by chunkdz — March 8, 2010 @ 10:58 pm
March 8th, 2010 at 11:26 pm
Over the last 100,000 years we've seen much wider oscillations than we see during the holocene. Several degrees / century is not uncommon and even 7 degrees Celsius over 50 years was observed. All without a single Hummer in sight anywhere.
And if the temperatures seen during the holocene are a concern to you, keep in mind that this was the period where human civilization flourished and agriculture was developed.
Unfortunately, the earth is cooling and has been cooling for several thousand years.
Comment by chunkdz — March 8, 2010 @ 11:26 pm
March 8th, 2010 at 11:54 pm
Let’s take a walk down memory lane. It’s the Spring 1992; George H. W. Bush is in the White House, and Bill Clinton is running as a candidate in the Democratic Party presidential primaries. What was the status of AGW theory 18 years ago? Was the evidence as convincing as it is today? I would argue that obviously it was not. But, let's see. Here are a few choice excerpts from an article that Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT wrote for the Cato Institute back in 1992.
To me it sounds like that by 1992 AGW was not a theory but a done deal. No falsification was needed because none was ever required.
Let’s continue our walk down memory lane with Lindzen’s 1992 article.
Robert Redford, Barbara Streisand, Meryl Streep, George Mitchell and Al Gore. Are these the names of prominent climate scientists? It sounds to me like by 1990 the issue of whether Global Warming was being caused by global industrialization had already been decided, but not by scientists.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 8, 2010 @ 11:54 pm
March 9th, 2010 at 7:48 am
Which is clearly an allustion to the previous exchange, and on-topic as well. Perhaps you didn't recognize the context. Now you do.
That refers to They're made out of Meat, by Hugo and Nebula Winner Terry Bisson.
TARD is an acronym for The Argument Regarding Design and refers to the vacuous and silly anti-science views held by most of those in the ID Movement.
By the way, humans are not actually monkeys, a paraphyletic grouping, but they do share a common primate ancestor.
Comment by Zachriel — March 9, 2010 @ 7:48 am
March 9th, 2010 at 7:57 am
1988 was the hottest year on record. And the globe has continue to warm since then. Meanwhile, better computer models have become more accurate in their forecasts—but only if accounting for anthropomorphic CO2.
You're confusing falsifiability with falsified. Anthropomorphic Climate Change is a falsifiable, but not falsified, hypothesis. The evidence continue to accumulate in support of the theory.
Yes, and considering the next generation of research has added support to the theory, it means Redford was right. The sooner action is taken, the lower the cost, and the less the damage.
Most scientists are obscure individuals who publish in journals and have little public influence.
Comment by Zachriel — March 9, 2010 @ 7:57 am
March 9th, 2010 at 8:44 am
An actor showed that AGW was a political movement. We are being asked to fundamentally alter our way of life for catastrophyism. Catastrophyism is politics and not science.
That does not answer JAD's question. The founders of catastrophyism were non-scientists.
Comment by Bradford — March 9, 2010 @ 8:44 am
March 9th, 2010 at 8:51 am
How many years did it take to think this one up? It actually stands for The Argument Regarding Dementia and refers to the silly contention that policy decisions about how to direct trillions of dollars of our resources can be determined by Hollywood actors and failed ex-VPs.
Comment by Bradford — March 9, 2010 @ 8:51 am
March 9th, 2010 at 9:11 am
Anthropomorphic Global Warming is a well-supported scientific hypothesis. Because of the dangers of Global Warming, there is also a political movement to address the problem.
The most dire predictions will not occur because moderate changes in human behavior can ameliorate much of the problem.
The answer to "Are these the names of prominent climate scientists?" is no. That was implicit in the answer provided. Just because there is a political movement to address Climate Change doesn't mean that Climate Change isn't occurring. It's a scientific question that has been largely answered.
Has science reasonably determined that humans are having a significant impact on the climate?
Please quit dumping your carbon into the world's shared atmosphere. Thank you.
Comment by Zachriel — March 9, 2010 @ 9:11 am
March 9th, 2010 at 9:24 am
No. Because of chicken little there is a political movement. Catastrophyism is not a well supported scientific hypothesis.
Significant as in join the movement- no. The science need to match the claims of catastrophysim.
Why don't you tell that to the elitists who fly around in private jets and expect us plebians to take up the slack for them?
Comment by Bradford — March 9, 2010 @ 9:24 am
March 9th, 2010 at 11:24 am
TARD could also be the acronym for
The Atheists who Revere Darwinism
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — March 9, 2010 @ 11:24 am
March 9th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Well, let's consider that. Assuming nothing is done to limit greenhouse gases, what is the probable effect of Global Warming?
Comment by Zachriel — March 9, 2010 @ 1:39 pm
March 9th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Natural Global Warming is a well supported hypothesis also. Much more supported than AGW.
The cyclical nature of ice ages is also well supported.
The rapid climate change that periodically interrupts ice ages is well supported too.
The relatively short warm periods between ice ages is also well supported.
The steady cooling of the earth since the holocene maximum is also well supported.
The current increase in the ice pack is also well supported.
But the theory that sending hundreds of billions of dollars to corrupt third world banana republic governments will control the climate? Not so supported.
Comment by chunkdz — March 9, 2010 @ 2:58 pm
March 9th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
It's well-known that climate has varied dramatically over the Earth's history. This knowledge has been crucial for developing modern climate models.
Comment by Zachriel — March 9, 2010 @ 3:45 pm
March 9th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
chunkd:
Are you talking about global temperatures or regional temperatures? The increase in global temperatures we're seeing in this century is most likely unprecedented. Yes, regional temperatures over the last 100,000 years have changed dramatically, especially due to changes in ocean current, but the real concern today is the rapid increase in global temperature, not regional.
This article goes into more detail. The ice record shows that when Greenland warms up, Antarctica cools, and vice-versa. The global temperature change nets out to be small. Thus, these events do nothing to reduce the uniqueness of our current, rapid increase in global temperature.
Comment by woodchuck64 — March 9, 2010 @ 4:51 pm
March 9th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
Zach, I've been informed that TARD stands for The Argument Rejecting Design. That's not what you wrote.
Comment by Bradford — March 9, 2010 @ 5:24 pm
March 9th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
Your search – "The Argument Rejecting Design" – did not match any documents.
AS opposed to "The Argument Regarding Design".
Comment by Zachriel — March 9, 2010 @ 5:33 pm
March 9th, 2010 at 9:16 pm
1988 was the hottest year on record? Where did you get that from?
Here are the average global temperatures, based on satellite data, going back to 1979.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 9, 2010 @ 9:16 pm
March 9th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Yes, your graph shows that 1988 was a record. The graph only shows back to 1979. This shows back to 1860. New records were set after 1988 with the last decade being the warmest on record.
Comment by Zachriel — March 9, 2010 @ 9:29 pm
March 9th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
For clarity. 1988 *was* the hottest year on record, not 1988 *is* the hottest year on record.
Comment by Zachriel — March 9, 2010 @ 9:33 pm
March 9th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
How many trillions of dollars would back us up to 1860 and what is the scientific support for the figure?
Comment by Bradford — March 9, 2010 @ 9:33 pm
March 9th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
You made the Google.
Comment by Zachriel — March 9, 2010 @ 9:34 pm
March 9th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
Sorry, can't go back, even if you wanted to.
Any chance of an answer to this question? Assuming nothing is done to limit greenhouse gases, what is the probable effect of Global Warming?
Comment by Zachriel — March 9, 2010 @ 9:37 pm
March 9th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Moderate increases in temperature and moderate effects. But the premise is faulty. Technology will become more efficient and laws and incentives are already on the books. The mark of a political movement is a constant movement of the goalposts. When one legislative objective is met another proposal will follow on its heels. That's been the pattern.
Comment by Bradford — March 9, 2010 @ 9:40 pm
March 9th, 2010 at 9:45 pm
If temperatures rise, then sea levels rise. How much? What will this do to highly populated coastal areas? What about desertification? The effect of climate change on agriculture? Glaciers provide fresh water for millions of people. What about them?
Comment by Zachriel — March 9, 2010 @ 9:45 pm
March 9th, 2010 at 10:10 pm
Zach, unless price tags are part of the estimate mix the rest is a non-starter. Removing costs from a redress analysis is cowardly and manipulative. A bit like the attempt to pass a health bill that legislators and others have not read.
Comment by Bradford — March 9, 2010 @ 10:10 pm
March 9th, 2010 at 10:13 pm
There's no way to discuss whether or not action should be taken if you refuse to discuss whether there is even a problem or not.
Comment by Zachriel — March 9, 2010 @ 10:13 pm
March 9th, 2010 at 10:45 pm
There's no way to assess a problem without dollars and cents attached to the remedy. I've commented enough about my views on the subject and am even willing to stipulate that which I'm not totally convinced of. That's enough for the other side to be more forthcoming. If AGWers do not wish to discuss costs I will understand that. It will only deepen suspicions of political motivations though.
Comment by Bradford — March 9, 2010 @ 10:45 pm
March 9th, 2010 at 10:54 pm
Bradford wrote:
OK, let's apply this sort of conservative thinking to cancer. A remedy is not known. We can't attach dollars and cents to an unknown remedy. Hence there is no way to assess the problem. Let's close the NIH.
Comment by olegt — March 9, 2010 @ 10:54 pm
March 9th, 2010 at 11:20 pm
We can attach some very tangible benefits to cancer research. The results are detailed in the many studies. Some benefits are increased knowledge of biological functions and dysfunction. Other benefits include technological and medical advances. A financial expert could attempt a cost benefit analysis if desired. You get something out of this.
What a contrast to AGW. When asked for basic information about what it takes to effect climate change people act offended or annoyed that the question is even asked. No matter. Resources are limited and we deserve an accounting.
Comment by Bradford — March 9, 2010 @ 11:20 pm
March 9th, 2010 at 11:24 pm
Risk assessments are made all the time without attaching or even considering the dollars and cents costs. In reality it is difficult to even broach any mitigation measures until the risk has been assessed. Once you start to consider various means of mitigation of the risk then the dollars and cents come into play. At this point it appears to me that Zachriel is only trying to establish what the risks are with a warming planet and it doesn't appear to be any need to discuss costs until we have some agreement on the risks we are going to mitigate.
Comment by Acipenser — March 9, 2010 @ 11:24 pm
March 9th, 2010 at 11:33 pm
You can do this for the most part by ignoring all the negative results that also come at great costs. While advances, and some great ones at that, have been made with some cancers with others the diagnosis is just as bleak now as it was decades ago.
Following the analogy to AGW there will certainly be gains to be reaped from the technology generated as with the positive results in cancer research/treatment. There will also be deadends that will point the way not to go which is also beneficial because sometimes you just don't know which road to go down first.
In order to make any gains, like those in cancer treatment, there needs to be not only funding of basic research but taking established technology to the next level, i.e., CO2 removal from power generating emmisions.
Comment by Acipenser — March 9, 2010 @ 11:33 pm
March 9th, 2010 at 11:34 pm
Bradford wrote:
Aha, that's already progress! By extension, we can attach some very tangible benefits to climate research.
We can apply that equally well to gaining knowledge about the Earth's climate. In fact, such studies have been done, including cost-benefit analyses. Read the IPCC report, for Christ's sake!
Bait and switch. Let's ask the same question about cancer: "When asked for basic information about what it takes to
effect climate changecure cancer people act offended or annoyed that the question is even asked." See my point, Bradford?Comment by olegt — March 9, 2010 @ 11:34 pm
March 9th, 2010 at 11:43 pm
Acipenser:
There is latitude on likely scenarios. It's not an exact science. AGW advocates had better accustom themselves to the reality of costs. This is a major investment entailing restrictive regulatory behavioral mandates in addition to monetary considerations. Americans are not docile Euros and most of us are not in love with the public sector. I'm a nature lover with an affinity toward preserving the environment. But Waxman Markey and Copenhagen were eye openers. It's evident to onlookers that the developing world intends to use AGW as a pretext to draw on funding from the west. There is more to this than CO2 levels
Comment by Bradford — March 9, 2010 @ 11:43 pm
March 9th, 2010 at 11:48 pm
Neither is cancer treatment or research.
I don't think anyone has a problem of discussing costs but until you put the risk into perspective how can you even consider what the cost versus benefit will be in any given scenario?
Comment by Acipenser — March 9, 2010 @ 11:48 pm
March 9th, 2010 at 11:59 pm
Cancer research is funded with relatively low cost budgets and side benefits are many.
I gave my risk assessment as moderate. BTW, these things are intrinsically inexact. We can only hazard guesses about advancing technology and international cooperation. The former goes to the issue of risk and the latter to burden sharing.
Comment by Bradford — March 9, 2010 @ 11:59 pm
March 10th, 2010 at 12:22 am
You’re wrong. 1998 was the warmest year on record.
According to NASA: “Globally, 1998 has proven to be the warmest year on record, with 2002 and 2003 coming in second and third, respectively.”
Both your graph and mine agree with that. Do you wish to revise your statement?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 10, 2010 @ 12:22 am
March 10th, 2010 at 12:26 am
In another thread, Bradford seems to have agreed that
but of course he didn't stop there and immediately issued a call for action:
So his basic idea is to acknowledge that a warming trend exists but do nothing about it. Fine, that's one strategy to deal with it. But since Bradford insists on a cost-benefit analysis of fighting AGW, let's indeed move in that direction. A meaningful comparison would be to weigh the costs of fighting AGW to the costs of doing nothing. Such studies have been done, both on a global level by the British government and on a more local level of individual American states. Here is a recent study done at the University of Maryland.
Bradford, would you care to read it and weigh in?
Comment by olegt — March 10, 2010 @ 12:26 am
March 10th, 2010 at 12:31 am
What does 'moderate' mean in terms of impacts on rainfall patterns, agriculture production, sea level rise, ect.?
Cancer reseqrch is funded with relatively low budgets and that is one contributing factor to the rate, or lack ther of, of progress. The side benefits are often very expensive and in many cases fruitless yet we are willing to spend the $$ to hopefully beat the probability wheel.
What you are talking about with the dollars and cents costs of AGW mitigation is analagous to the money spent on the treatment of cancers worldwide and that is not a trivial amount. In most cases the odds are against a successful outcome. In 2006 in the USA the cost of cancer was in excess of 200 billion and despite many poor outcomes we are willing to pay the price it takes to solve the problem or (literally) die trying.
Climate research can also be conducted with relatively low budgets and a better understanding of our Earth's processes, i.e. thermohaline circulation, will benefit the many.
Comment by Acipenser — March 10, 2010 @ 12:31 am
March 10th, 2010 at 8:26 am
That is incorrect. The question is what will the effects be *without* taking any actions to change human behavior; on sea levels, coastal populations, desertification, agricultural production, forestry, weather patterns, pest ranges, glaciers relied upon for fresh water, etc.
Do you think we can narrow that down somewhat? Maybe through scientific investigation?
Comment by Zachriel — March 10, 2010 @ 8:26 am
March 10th, 2010 at 8:38 am
1988 was the warmest year on record, then it got warmer. That's pretty clear, but just to make sure you understand. When 1988 rolled around it was the warmest year on record—up to that time. It was a record, like Bannister's 4-minute mile in 1954. New records were set after that, as the globe continued to warm, and as runners became even faster.
To beat the dead horse some more,
What that means is that someone living in 1988, 20+ years ago, would have experienced the hottest global temperature on record. Then it got hotter!
Comment by Zachriel — March 10, 2010 @ 8:38 am
March 10th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Incorrect and on the wrong side of history. Diverting resources to purchase higher cost energy impoverishes. These are trade-offs.
Do you do climate research for a living because my "moderate" assessment came from a scientist who does. Maybe you could narrow down your conceptualization of costs by doing some research into developing technology. Or do you have a crystal ball?
Comment by Bradford — March 10, 2010 @ 1:58 pm
March 10th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Yes. An acronym which spells out a slur aimed at perhaps the most defenseless segment of human society; persons with mental disbilities. For you to perpetuate this slur just to score points in the culture war is just unconscionable.
You are truly a disgusting, disgusting human being.
Comment by chunkdz — March 10, 2010 @ 2:00 pm
March 10th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
Chunkdz, the slur slingers would counter that retarded people should be aborted. Those who do not have the good sense to abort should not be president.
Comment by Bradford — March 10, 2010 @ 2:07 pm
March 10th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Um, didn't ask you about diverting resources or 'energy impoverishes.' The question is what will the effects be *without* taking any actions to change human behavior, on sea levels, coastal populations, desertification, agricultural production, forestry, weather patterns, pest ranges, glaciers relied upon for fresh water, etc.
Comment by Zachriel — March 10, 2010 @ 2:15 pm
March 10th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Actually, in my experience, those who use such slurs will usually offer flaccid support for persons with mental disabilities (Oh, they're wonderful and can perform many needed services for the community, etc., etc.)
But set them loose in the culture war and it quickly becomes apparent how much regard they really have for their fellow humans.
Comment by chunkdz — March 10, 2010 @ 2:17 pm
March 10th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Ah! There's your confusion. The acronym isn't directed at those who persevere in the face of personal difficulties, people who deserve nothing but our admiration and respect.
Comment by Zachriel — March 10, 2010 @ 2:18 pm
March 10th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
See what I mean Bradford?
Zach admires and respects those who suffer with mental retardation so much. But there's a culture war going on, so that justifies the perpetuation of a disgusting polemic slur.
What a wretched human being you are, Zach.
Comment by chunkdz — March 10, 2010 @ 2:26 pm
March 10th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Good point chunkdz. Lying for the culture war only adds to the sliminess of the swampies.
Comment by Bradford — March 10, 2010 @ 2:34 pm
March 10th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Bradford made the first mention of "tards" on this thread. Then you brought "tard" up next. We pointed out our usage was as an acronym, and that it is not directed at the disabled, and as you well know. You also expressed confusion concerning the theme of Terry Bisson's They're made out of Meat.
We do admire those who persevere and maintain their spirits in the face of adversity.
Comment by Zachriel — March 10, 2010 @ 2:37 pm
March 10th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
Though not recommended, anyone can click on your name in this thread and follow the link to a thread where you use the term dozens of times over and over, including your signature.
Yes, we know. It's directed at your enemies at the expense of those who suffer with mental disability. Man, you are sick.
No, I understand perfectly your disdain for humanity. What I don't get is your use of the royal "we" in common discussion on a blog. Is this what self-absorbed elitists are into these days?
Great. Then be advised that when I call you a "dumbass", I am simply referring to the acronym "Darwinists who Use Misrepresentation and Bigotted Attacks to Spread Scientism".
Comment by chunkdz — March 10, 2010 @ 3:01 pm
March 10th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
History of Tard:
The above is a pure lie.
Comment by Pez — March 10, 2010 @ 3:46 pm
March 10th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Bradford wrote:
Bradford, you seem to have snapped. Chill down, dude.
Comment by olegt — March 10, 2010 @ 4:12 pm