Australian Politics Forum - Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation?

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation?
Reply #120 - Feb 4^th, 2012 at 8:31pm

muso wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 12:45pm:

Anyway, you didn't comment on the central point I made, which was that there are other influences and we know their magnitude. I hope I addressed your ahem.... "Lord Sauron" post.
Quote:

What I have said all along is that the global climate is too complex, with unknown factors and interactions, as well as not fully understood factors and interactions....

Well, I think you've demonstrated that basic High School Science is too complex for you to recognise B/S when you read it.

We do not know their magnitudes - becasue we do not know ALL of them. Climate science is like brain science - we know everything about chemistry but it doesn't tell us anythibng about the mind. We have not the faintest idea about how he mind works, even as we map the brain.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation?
Reply #121 - Feb 5^th, 2012 at 11:12am

Soren wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 8:31pm:

muso wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 12:45pm:

Anyway, you didn't comment on the central point I made, which was that there are other influences and we know their magnitude. I hope I addressed your ahem.... "Lord Sauron" post.
Quote:

What I have said all along is that the global climate is too complex, with unknown factors and interactions, as well as not fully understood factors and interactions....

Well, I think you've demonstrated that basic High School Science is too complex for you to recognise B/S when you read it.

We do not know their magnitudes - becasue we do not know ALL of them. Climate science is like brain science - we know everything about chemistry but it doesn't tell us anythibng about the mind. We have not the faintest idea about how he mind works, even as we map the brain.

We've been through this before.. Nobody is pretending that an intense study of dopamine, noradrenaline, adrenaline, histamine and serotonin levels in the brain will give us a clue as to what you'll decide to have in your lunch box on Monday morning.

In the same way, we're talking about some very well established and deterministic relationships between solar irradiation, atmospheric sulphate emissions, aesrosols, greenhouse gases and their effect on a single variable - global mean temparture.

This is akin to brain surgery in the same way as predicting that you'll get drunk if you drink half a bottle of Glen Fiddich. (Only single malts are worth getting drunk on - not that I do that any more)

It's really not brain surgery at all.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation?
Reply #122 - Feb 5^th, 2012 at 8:15pm

Indeed, we have been through this before. Yet the mind is not the brain. You can have brain surgery but you cantt have mind surgery. You can map the brain and all the chemicals and electrical firings, yet you will never read another's mind by doing all that brain analysis.

I am not suggesting that the mind and the climate are the same or comparable - except in that they are both understood in a very limited way, all the analysis and modelling in both cases notwithstanding.

Fifty years ago, electric shock therapy was all the rage. No longer.
Science used to prescribe lobotomy. No longer.
Down syndrome babies used to be aborted. No longer.
The history of science is replete with 'no longers'.

So when science says 'We've got it all covered, baby, we've got this sucker ( climate change) all figured', people are rightly sceptical.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation? Reply #123 - Feb 6^th, 2012 at 8:29am Soren wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 8:15pm: Fifty years ago, electric shock therapy was all the rage. No longer. Was it the case fifty years ago that we didn't think alcohol caused intoxication? That's how basic it is. Have you read Roger Scruton's latest book?
Back to top	« Last Edit: Feb 6^th, 2012 at 9:06am by muso » 1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation?
Reply #124 - Feb 6^th, 2012 at 10:33pm

muso wrote on Feb 6^th, 2012 at 8:29am:

Soren wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 8:15pm:

Fifty years ago, electric shock therapy was all the rage. No longer.

Have you read Roger Scruton's latest book?

Not yet. I have heard an interview with him about it.
Needless to say, I agree with him.

As he so brilliantly argues in this book, the only way to save the planet is to work together to protect the home we all love.

“The shift away from radical, government-shaped solutions should be welcomed by Conservatives, since this promises the thing that environmentalists of both persuasions need, which is a way of sharing our problems and co‑operating to solve them.”

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation?
Reply #125 - Feb 8^th, 2012 at 8:35am

Soren wrote on Feb 6^th, 2012 at 10:33pm:

muso wrote on Feb 6^th, 2012 at 8:29am:

Soren wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 8:15pm:

Fifty years ago, electric shock therapy was all the rage. No longer.

Have you read Roger Scruton's latest book?

Not yet. I have heard an interview with him about it.
Needless to say, I agree with him.

As he so brilliantly argues in this book, the only way to save the planet is to work together to protect the home we all love.

“The shift away from radical, government-shaped solutions should be welcomed by Conservatives, since this promises the thing that environmentalists of both persuasions need, which is a way of sharing our problems and co‑operating to solve them.”

- except that you disagree with his position that it's a serious issue.
Quote:

So if the facts are granted, and the market is not the answer, what can a conservative offer to combat climate change? Scruton writes: “We should introduce a flat-rate carbon tax. The more you emit, the more you pay.” Admittedly, what Scruton wants is not exactly the tax introduced by Australia’s Labor Government, supported by the Greens and so vigorously opposed by the conservative Opposition. He wants a tax on products based on the amount of carbon released in the process of their production, whether they were made in the country imposing the tax or made elsewhere and imported. This would, if it could be done, provide an incentive for the country of manufacture (read: China) to reduce the amount of carbon emitted by its export industries.

He goes on to talk about local solutions to renewable energy. On the whole, a very sensible approach. I wish we had politicians in Australia who took that stance.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 8^th, 2012 at 10:20am by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged