¤ milky moon ¤

I wish to discuss the subject mentioned recently in the last entries of that insufferable thread. The title of this thread suggests that the relationship of the three entities are the focus and I will begin with "Anthropogenic climate change", formerly and significantly known as "global warming".

Here are the four posts from the aforementioned thread.

Relayor wrote:Personally, I never allowed the slightest hope that I would live to see a reversal of this unscientific juggernaut (Anthropogenic cause of "global warming").

(_^_) .... on October 8, the Post carried an op-ed by Mann which attacked preemptively Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the potential chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, who will likely launch an investigation of Climategate. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) may do the same if he takes over a Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security. Mann asks, What could Issa, Sensenbrenner, and Cuccinelli possibly think they might uncover now, a year after the e-mails were published? He claims that he has been fully exonerated by several internal investigations of Penn State (his present employer), UEA, and the EPA and again appeals to the failed science of the IPCC (which, however, no longer gives any credence to his hockey stick result).

Rep Joe Barton (R-TX), in a letter to the Post (October 12) reminds that his public hearings in 2006 "made it clear that Mr. Mann's global warming projections were rooted in fundamental errors of methodology that had been cemented in place as 'consensus' by a closed network of friends."

In responding to Barton's letter of October 12, the chairman of the National Academy panel Prof. Gerald North (Letter, October 17) then claims that "we have not found any evidence that his [Mann's] results were incorrect or even out of line with other works published since his original papers." North's statement is factually incorrect: There are numerous papers, published in peer-reviewed journals, which show clearly that the 20th century was not the warmest in the past thousand years (as claimed by Mann). Medieval temperatures were substantially greater -- and so were temperatures during the earlier Roman Warm Period. All of this is in addition to the valid criticism of Mann's statistical methodology. Tellingly, Canadian Prof. Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (M&M) showed that even random data fed into the Mann algorithm would always yield a warmest 20th century.

r-enter-ested wrote:I just can't believe that that was the last post!

Byron wrote:Well it's called climate change, not global warming, and any attempts to prove that it's unscientific or non-anthropogenic are laughably ridiculous at this stage.

As for that being the last post- at some point people are bound to give up on responding rationally to such obvious attempts at causing controversy and seeking attention. No, not en-terested, thanks.

r-enter-ested wrote:Well, it doesn't matter what you do or do not call it.

Let us see what your "rational" response would be to this:

What is "stasis"?

If you can answer that and tell us what is it's relevance, then you will have improved your chances of sleeping better at night.

There are three positions on "Global Warming".

First, an observation on the phrase-change. Where is the error? Anybody? What is the reason that I no longer lose sleep over the warming of my Globe?

If you can answer that, then you have a deep understanding of the subject.

Three positions?

1. I WANT it to be true that humans are changing climate.
2. I do NOT want it to be true that humans are changing climate.
3. Reality: the truth about our effects on climate.

Yes, I know that 1 or 2 will be equivalent to 3 if the truth becomes....available.

Byron wrote:Well it's called climate change, not global warming, and any attempts to prove that it's unscientific or non-anthropogenic are laughably ridiculous at this stage. ...

Let us, in leui of the gift of #3, agree that laughter, derision and "contempt prior to investigation" are not part of the scientific method.

All the evidence shows that climate is and always was not static. No stasis. There are many known trends of both cooling and warming which are deduced from several circumstantial sources--glacial ice cores, for example.

...to be continued.

All available evidence also suggests that we've had an influence on global climates beyond the effects of non-anthropogenic warming. Since a very long time ago indeed, in fact - the levels of methane in the ice core samples skyrocket after humans start domesticating large animals, and a consequence is the hastening of the end of the last ice age in Europe, permitting the spread of the Neolithic there.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the climate was static before we came along. That would obviously be wrong. The scientific community, which has as near to a consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change as regarding anything you care to mention, isn't stupid; or even if you think climate scientists are stupid, you'd have to admit that they're unlikely to survive peer review if they don't bother to account for variables other than human behaviour, such as long term trends, in their work.

At least, humans are changing the climate as much as any other species. And one would have to admit that we punch far above our weight in terms of biomass - we may not be as heavy, combined, as the shrimp, but we sure as hell make up for it with our abilities to build a smokestack and idle in traffic.

Some climate change is anthropogenic. There is very strong evidence to suggest that greenhouse gas emissions (and other human behaviours) are involved in deleterious (for human existence as we know it) climate change. Consequently, regardless of the extent to which greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for that change, we should be seeking to reduce them: we should be seeking to ameliorate any cause of that change, anthropogenic or otherwise.

I thank you for that thoughtful reply, Jordan~.

I'm surprised if you believe actually that I mentioned meteorological stasis in an attempt to refute anyone "arguing that the climate was static before we came along." I wrote:

r-enter-ested wrote:... All the evidence shows that climate is and always was not static. ...

This statement asserts that there is no meteorological stasis--historically and presently. What could be the reason that I introduce such an agreeable point?

In your first paragraph, you argued the point I will make in this post. To wit:

Jordan~ wrote:All available evidence also suggests that we've had an influence on global climates beyond the effects of non-anthropogenic warming. Since a very long time ago indeed, in fact - the levels of methane in the ice core samples skyrocket after humans start domesticating large animals, and a consequence is the hastening of the end of the last ice age in Europe, permitting the spread of the Neolithic there.

This quote implies a beneficial influence on climate. The remainder of your post asserts change of climate without specificity--other than "deleterious" and the implications of "a smokestack and [idling] in traffic."

What is, apparently, indisputable--except by Young Earth Creationists--is that Earth's most recent ice-age ended within the last 10,000 years: Where I sit now typing this, nothing lived beneath massive glaciers during that ice-age.

Given that there is no meteorological stasis, which climate change do you prefer? You could get on your knees and pray for an oscillation around some pleasant medium. Good luck with that.

Simply and plainly, I welcome warming as opposed to cooling, given we are to have one or the other.

I don't have anything to assert about unspecific climate change, though it should be obvious that I don't welcome any "deleterious ... climate change". An anarchist, misarchist or nihilist might wish for such a thing.

You should infer, by now, that I consider what used to be "global warming" to be preferable to the opposite, given no stasis, and that I don't entertain the possibility of some pleasant oscillation around some medium.

Further, let me be clear that I deem pollution to be self-evidently deleterious, unless the solution is more harmful than the symptom.

What remains to be considered?

There are those who wish there to be an anthropogenic cause of perceived severity of weather, local or otherwise. I doubt that it is possible to infer, by any method, an increase of severity of weather, hence the qualifier "perceived". Notice that I did not write "anthropogenic increase"

I have, again, broached the subject of those who wish for an anthropogenic cause to any climate change, which I introduced in my post containing the three positions to anthropogenic change.

My purpose here is to draw attention to the manifest, non-scientific elements using an argument that does not rely on the strength or weakness of any putative, scientific data.

Assuming that I've been understood so far, I ask, do you think your first paragraph contradicts the last sentence in your final paragraph?

That paragraph:

Jordan~ wrote:... Some climate change is anthropogenic. There is very strong evidence to suggest that greenhouse gas emissions (and other human behaviours) are involved in deleterious (for human existence as we know it) climate change. Consequently, regardless of the extent to which greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for that change, we should be seeking to reduce them: we should be seeking to ameliorate any cause of that change, anthropogenic or otherwise.

--------Edit: 'and' to 'an' @ "... pray for and oscillation..."----------------------

Hi r-enter-estered, I want to apologise for the tone of my last reply- being drunk and seeing your celebration of a post that referred to anthropogenic climate change as an 'unscientific juggernaut' was not the ideal combination. That doesn't seem like your perspective now though, and you seem genuinely interested in having a discussion about these issues.. I still don't fully understand your position though. I also don't see how Jordan contradicted himself, but I'll leave that for him to respond to.

The three perspectives you've devised don't seem to account for much- I really don't think a significant portion of people actually want climate change. Our beliefs are shaped by fear and ignorance as much as desire. Maybe it'd be better understood as 1) I believe in... 2) I don't believe in... 3) Reality/science, with 1 and 2 accounting only for a lack of awareness, or in the case of 2, possible awareness + denial.

Your observations about the climate either warming or cooling seem very 'black and white'/'all or nothing' in nature. Obviously you were putting it plainly, and communicating a preference for warming, rather than cooling. But even if some warming is inevitable, wouldn't you prefer relative stability to unbridled, destructive warming?

As for the effects of humans on climate, just to put things in perspective, here's a handy graph which shows the extent to which greenhouse gases have influenced global temperatures since 1900, relative to external natural processes:



Sorry for the large image, I have no idea how to resize it. Anyhow the data shows that greenhouse gas emissions have risen at an exponential rate since the Industrial Revolution, resulting in an unprecedented contribution to overall temperature increases. This is the specific anthropogenic climate change which I suggested would be ridiculous to deny.

About Mann's inaccurate projections: although we're not living at the warmest time presently, the scientific consensus predicts global temperatures to reach the highest since meteorological recording began by around 2050. Along with up to 35% of species going extinct by then, unless greenhouse gas emissions are reduced by ~70%.

And in response to your claims about people who 'wish there to be an anthropogenic cause of (weather severity)'- current projections actually indicate that this is likely to occur in the future. Warmer temperatures allow for greater moisture and humidity in the atmosphere, which doesn't necessarily equate to more storms, but more intense storms, since storm severity is largely determined by humidity.

I hope this wasn't too apocalyptic; if you're concerned about climate change, go veg or vegan! It's probably the best thing we can do for the environment at the moment.

Edit: Graph created by Robert A Rohde from published data: Meehl, Gerald A.; Washington, Warren M.; Ammann, Caspar M.; Arblaster, Julie M.; Wigley, T. M. L.; Tebaldi, Claudia (2004). "Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate". Journal of Climate 17: 3721–7 (see http://www.cawcr.gov.au/staff/jma/meehl_additivity.pdf), via wikipedia.org.

r-enter-ested wrote:Simply and plainly, I welcome warming as opposed to cooling, given we are to have one or the other.

Both would be catastrophic; we should be trying to minimise the impact of either scenario. Presently, we appear to be facing hastened warming that leaves us with little time to adapt, to the effect that weather patterns will change in a short enough space of time that rather than gradually reducing their dependence, those who depend on them for sustenance (broadly speaking, everyone) will be more or less suddenly deprived. If we could reduce (or, more ambitiously, eliminate and reverse) the anthropogenic factor, we would slow down climate change, giving us time both to find technological solutions to its problems and to adapt gradually, as we have in the past.

r-enter-ested wrote:I don't have anything to assert about unspecific climate change, though it should be obvious that I don't welcome any "deleterious ... climate change". An anarchist, misarchist or nihilist might wish for such a thing.

You should infer, by now, that I consider what used to be "global warming" to be preferable to the opposite, given no stasis, and that I don't entertain the possibility of some pleasant oscillation around some medium.

Further, let me be clear that I deem pollution to be self-evidently deleterious, unless the solution is more harmful than the symptom.

The lack of specificity is, I think, part of the intention of shifting from language of 'global warming' to 'climate change': global warming was not inaccurate, as the global average temperature is still predicted to rise; however, the phrase 'global warming' fostered an popular misconception that temperatures would rise uniformly everywhere, which has never been the prediction. Many parts of the world would become far, far colder as a result of the disruption weather patterns, oceanic currents, and so on, which presently warm them to a higher temperature than the average at their latitude. Western Europe is one such region, such that warming - which you prefer to cooling - would actually mean cooling for many people, including myself. The term is also intended to reflect that the effects of warming extend far beyond temperature: more frequent and powerful cyclones and storms, desertification of presently fertile regions through soil erosion, large-scale habitat destruction and ecosystem collapse in excess even of the current anthropogenic mass extinction, and so on.

r-enter-ested wrote:Assuming that I've been understood so far, I ask, do you think your first paragraph contradicts the last sentence in your final paragraph?

No, I don't think it does. I said that the available evidence suggests that we've had an influence on global climates beyond the effects of non-anthropogenic warming. This is not incompatible with the imperative that we should seek to ameliorate any cause of that change, anthropogenic or otherwise, "regardless of the extent" of its magnitude. I happen to believe that the magnitude of the anthropogenic influence on climate is very great; my point was that even if one believes that it's relatively minor, the courses of action currently being widely espoused - the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, chiefly - still make sense.

(Note that I'm largely using the anthropogenic/non-anthropogenic distinction rhetorically, as I'm not wholly persuaded that there's a clear dichotomy between the two. If greenhouse gas emissions triggered an oceanic clathrate release that resulted in greatly accelerated warming, where does responsibility lie - with humans or with clathrates? Actor-Network Theory, and all that: agency overflows the frame; it flows through heterogeneous networks rather than animating discrete actors.)

I thank you, too, Byron for your thoughtful reply and apology. (If polliwog has read any of this, I'm sure he's thinking, "I don't believe any of this civil discourse and bet on imminent fireworks. lol.)

It was nearly 25-years ago that I first heard and read claims that anthropogenic global warming was not correct. It was then that I began to entertain this possibility. At that time, I did not have an interest in the subject but did have an interest in what I'll summarize with the phrase "critical analysis", which has been a continuous theme in my life since that time.

Take the expression, "Opinions are like assholes--everyone has one." During the beginning of the period I mention, I committed to read, in English and multiple translations, Friedrich Nietzsche, where I learned of the Ephectics and "intellectual conscience" and became focused on not what my opinions were but how I could decide any particular thing. My default position on anything--that wasn't urgent--was, "I don't know", followed by, "By what means can I decide _____?"

[--Diogenes Laertius, Proem. XI (16), says: ‘Philosophers were generally divided into two classes,--the dogmatics, who spoke of things as they might be comprehended; and the ephectics, who refused to define anything, and disputed so as to make the understanding of them impossible.’ The word ‘ephectic’ is derived from the verb ἐπέχω, ‘to hold back,’ and was used by the philosophers to whom it is applied as a title because they claimed to hold back their judgment, being unable to reach a conclusion. (See footnote 387 here)--]

I knew that some people had bad opinions, that some had good opinions accidentally and that some had good opinions through research. I strived to have--at the very least--examined opinions and no opinion whenever my intellectual conscience told me that I did not have enough information--or, when I did not know how to decide. (This was one of the main themes when I posted here early this decade.)

I found this exercise in determining how to decide something very instructive!--particularly when someone presented me with an assertion or claim of fact, but always when I had the urge to adopt some opinion or was asked to give my opinion.

My enumeration of the three positions to climate change was a sideways attempt to draw attention to the manifest, unscientific hidden agendas (biases) that pervade the issue. To state differently:

1. Unscientific: I DO believe in an anthropogenic cause to deleterious climate-change; my bias is that the Homo Sapien race is the scourge of the planet, for example; and/or I loathe the opposing camp. (Observation: when this type of person is "white" will be susceptible to generalized "white guilt".)

2. Unscientific: I DO NOT believe in an anthropogenic cause to deleterious climate-change: ... I loathe the opposing camp.

3. Scientific: I believe whatever proper, scientific research reveals.

Excepting a fourth position of, "I don't know", I believe everyone is accounted within the above three.

Byron wrote:... Your observations about the climate either warming or cooling seem very 'black and white'/'all or nothing' in nature. Obviously you were putting it plainly, and communicating a preference for warming, rather than cooling. But even if some warming is inevitable, wouldn't you prefer relative stability to unbridled, destructive warming? ...

My observation is no stasis. When I suggested that one might pray for an oscillation around some pleasant medium, I was attempting to convey that this scenario is akin to fantasy. (Oscillation: Earth warms, but not too much; then cools, but not too much; warms again, but not too much, and so on until we perish, where the average of all this change is the "pleasant medium".)

I have to leave this internet source, so have to post this unfinished.

...to be continued.

The only thing that I had left to write in response to your post, Byron, is to ask the source, that is, attribution for your graph and to clarify that I am not concerned about climate-change of any origin.

Alrighty, the post is edited to include the source. Nietzsche always makes for interesting reading, thanks for sharing!

Thank you for providing that link, Byron.

The .pdf that I display doesn't contain the graph for which I requested ownership.

Will you please give attribution for that graph? Thanks.

How is study of philosophy going?

Study's kind of nonexistent at the moment- I graduated last year, and since then I've just been floating around and trying to figure out what to do next. The graph isn't published; it was created by a wiki user whose profile can be viewed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragons_flight. For plenty of information about the graph itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Clim ... bution.png. If it seems less credible for being a product of wikipedia, or for being based on two studies rather than being included in one itself, there is lots of scientific, peer-reviewed data about climate change available online.

Byron wrote:Study's kind of nonexistent at the moment- I graduated last year, and since then I've just been floating around and trying to figure out what to do next. The graph isn't published; it was created by a wiki user whose profile can be viewed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragons_flight. For plenty of information about the graph itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Clim ... bution.png. If it seems less credible for being a product of wikipedia, or for being based on two studies rather than being included in one itself, there is lots of scientific, peer-reviewed data about climate change available online.

A few years ago, I decided to join a Philosophical forum, or two, or three...possibly four. Not consequitively, but serially: I may have been banned by one or two, but on one a guy committed suicide a short time after I began posting in my previously, uh...insensitive manner. I don't wish to discuss this now. (I saved the posts...)

About a year and half ago, I joined a Christian forum called "Evolution Fairytale" by way of a facebook reference.

The debate was, and still is, of a super-high caliber. (I was debating 'Evolution', origin of the Universe, God's existence and so on.)

Whenever I landed in one of these places, I would announce that I don't and won't entertain any content from Wook-eePee-dia. I've stuck to that and you've provided positive reinforcement in that regard. I thank you, Byron. (lol)

When I lived in the heart of la-la land--I don't mean Hollywood--I shared a house with, that is, "played house" with a Philosophy major enrolled at Smith College. This would be central Massachusetts, USA. (La-la land? The town where I worked made the cover of Time magazine in the mid-90s as a "lesbian haven", the heart of the "Five-college area". I knew people who went to nude parties at Hampshire College.)

Tell me about your neglected education. I hesitate to add, here, that my philosophical paramour went on to become a partner in a software company and is wealthy now. We split when she went to graduate school in Ohio.

What did you learn about "philosophy"?

A lot... The compulsory capstone subject was entirely metaphilosophical- philosophy of philosophy- so I'm not sure which aspects of it would be particularly engaging or worthy of discussion. It was interesting to learn about philosophy's traditional rejection of the 'feminine', and how it's unfortunately still the most male-dominated area of the humanities today; and that many of its interests have been somewhat subsumed by modern science, while postmodern deconstructionism has seen a shift towards subjectivity and temporality in certain strands of thought; and the continued relevance of areas like political philosophy, philosophy of language and applied ethics for societies today.

Have you heard of Noam Chomsky? He's my favourite philosopher at the moment- an amazing contemporary academic who's done some really good work in political activism and raising awareness of media agendas and corporate influence. Peter Singer is great as well; I'm going to see him speak next month.

How about you, did you study? Has your interest in critical analysis led to any rewarding insights?

Thanks Byron! You made me run down to my book stack for the title of a book on philosophy of science I read but it wasn't there--though I did find my Dictionary of Philosophy. I have read philosophy of mathematics, science and, probably, some others of this type that I can't recall at the moment.

FYI, I meant to write previously, "simultaneously", instead of, "consecutively"--which I never wrote, as I mispelled it as 'consequitively'. That's funny.

I have heard and read--years ago--some Chomsky and I read this about Singer after reading your post.

You should have--I hope--infered my penchant for what you wrote as, "philosophy of philosophy", in my post above, marked '04 Jul 2015, 17:09'.

I am very interested in political philosophy and I believe that is where and what all the "fighting" is about.

What do I mean?

I mean the fighting amongst the dominant Nations in the past several Centuries--the European or "Western" societies. What is wrong--if you pardon the word--with Peter Singer's focus is that it is akin to addressing the bad rash you have on various parts of your body while the cause is something in your blood: You might apply some medical lotion but the rash breaks-out elsewhere and the underlying cause becomes resistant to the medicine.

What is required of this perspective is a proper knowledge of history, particulary from 19th Century to present-day. The two massive, awful upheavals known as the first and second "world wars" and the subsequent, resultant "cold war" period must be assessed and understood in order to evaluate the current state of the world. The role of scientific discovery can not be ignored in any assessment.

One of Nietzsche's themes--he addressed many subjects--was the condition of European society. He wrote while the great ideological struggles were forming, simmering and festering. This is very important if one is to understand what he attempted to warn us about. It is his diagnosis and description of the ills of the state of Western society--intellectual, spiritual, philosophical--and the direction in which it was moving which I found valuable for an analysis of the current state of the world. (There are other benefits I found to reading his works, but will discuss those later: I have acquired valuable insight.)

You should infer that measuring the "maleness" of any of this does not take one very far--unless, of course, you're examining the plight of women and Christians under Sharia Law in many parts of the world as I type these words.

I think, Byron, that you were on the right bus when you chose Philosophy, but you need to determine whether you've strayed onto some back-road or cul-de-sac.

--------Edit----------

I've begun, here, in this post, some foundation to how I've arrived at a position, or stance, on these serious subjects.