tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post1498240304882563551..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Climate Change: The Mere Fact of Natural ChangeAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-40180313852139694662009-12-16T04:20:00.082-07:002009-12-16T04:20:00.082-07:00Hi Gang,
I notice that the "crimson robes&qu...Hi Gang,<br /><br />I notice that the "crimson robes" are here again.<br /><br />The simple story is this. <b>"We have a fire. Before some of our citizens join the bucket brigade, they have to be satisfied that they know how the fire started and who started it."</b><br /><br />You guys with the "crimson robes" need to stand aside while we put out the fire!!!antonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02909850387414677663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-39101540129658068082009-12-15T14:16:19.707-07:002009-12-15T14:16:19.707-07:00First, the "scientists" who are trying t...<i>First, the "scientists" who are trying to hide how warm it was years ago, before the effects of the modern combustion engine and coal burning etc., are the ones using the garbage argument.</i><br /><br />Please provide evidence of scientists "trying to hide how warm it was years ago" in any way that would have any effect on the peer-reviewed climate science.<br /><br />If you are talking about the "hiding" referred to in the emails, note that they were not trying to "hide how warm it was years ago". They were trying to account for a discrepancy in tree-ring data as a proxy for global temperatures during a period in which tree growth was less than computer models predicted. Saying that this represents "trying to hide how warm it was years ago" is a gross misrepresentation of the relevance to the tree-ring proxy in the overall knowledge of climate science.<br /><br />If you are referring to something else, please provide an account of the "something else" you are referring to.<br /><br /><br /><i>The better way would be for the one side to admit that the climate has been drastically warmer in the past, and to seek to explain why it occurred, and to prove that the changes today are caused by something different different than previous changes.</i><br /><br />I recall all sorts of claims that climate has been drastically warmer in the distant past. Also, carbon dioxide levels were, at times, much higher in the distant past. However, it is not necessary to be able to explain every single climate event in order to determine the current causes of current climate changes.<br /><br />More importantly, the existence of unexplained changes does not argue against the possibility of knowing a current cause.<br /><br />Consider the example of the murder trial again. The defense attorney in every murder trial that takes place can argue, "There have been deaths that my client could not have caused," and can even argue, "There have been unexplained deaths."<br /><br />The mere existence of unexplained deaths does not prove that the accused in this case is innocent, any more than the mere existence of deaths the client did not cause does not prove that the accused in this case is innocent. If it did, then nobody could ever be convicted of a crime. We are constantly surrounded by unexplained events.<br /><br />Again, you need a standard of evidence that actually makes sense, and not to invent standards that are impossible to meet.<br /><br /><i>To go back to my analogy, it would be as if the prosecutor tried to deny that millions of people die naturally of heart attacks. The prosecutor would immediately lose all credibility, and likely the murder conviction along with it.</i><br /><br />Now, provide evidence that something like "tried to deny that millions of people die naturally of heart attacks" has ever occured in the climate science.<br /><br />Keep in mind that there are countless cases in which some evidence has been destroyed or declared inadmissable, yet the remaining evidence is more than enough for a conviction.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-68554234907944177152009-12-15T12:24:09.318-07:002009-12-15T12:24:09.318-07:00John, don't worry too much about Eneasz - I...John, don't worry too much about Eneasz - I'm surprised he hasn't called you a racist or homophobe yet.<br /><br />Alonzo, can I trust that, in the interest a full ethical treatment on the subject, you will be devoting posts to arguments & tactics a moral person would not use to *promote* belief in humankind's contribution to global warming? As anybody who's been following the real fallout of ClimateGate knows, East Anglia could definitely use a good ethicist....Calvinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08732753126859648649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-16283332255543459602009-12-15T11:58:20.529-07:002009-12-15T11:58:20.529-07:00Eneasz, I pointed out in my comment that this so-c...Eneasz, I pointed out in my comment that this so-called "garbage" argument is valid. First, the "scientists" who are trying to hide how warm it was years ago, before the effects of the modern combustion engine and coal burning etc., are the ones using the garbage argument. They are attempting to lie to the public. The better way would be for the one side to admit that the climate has been drastically warmer in the past, and to seek to explain why it occurred, and to prove that the changes today are caused by something different different than previous changes. To go back to my analogy, it would be as if the prosecutor tried to deny that millions of people die naturally of heart attacks. The prosecutor would immediately lose all credibility, and likely the murder conviction along with it. <br /><br />So, I respectfully disagree that this ia a "garbage" argument, and in fact I believe that, if you were a true ethicist and not just a global warming cheer leader, that you would attack the global warming crowd who tried to cover up how warm it was in times past.<br /><br />And I do not see anywhere in Al's post where he distinguished some as being morally reprehensible. He lumps everybody making this argument together. That's just plain dumb, but it is also counter-productive. Many innocent people will see themselves as having made the same arguments, will know that they did not do so intentionally trying to be "morally reprehensible", and will cease to listen to Al's arguments. Perhaps I shouldn't waste time trying to make his case more effective, but then again, I'm neutral (leaning skeptic), not a cheerleader for either side.John Doehttp://maaadddog.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-70527596321277117982009-12-15T11:45:12.415-07:002009-12-15T11:45:12.415-07:00Yep, this is pretty much it.
Furthermore, I have ...Yep, this is pretty much it.<br /><br />Furthermore, I have presented four specific arguments that would never appear in the claims of a morally responsible skeptic.<br /><br />The Three Percent Argument<br />The "It's Not the End of the World" Argument<br />The 1970s Fear of a New Ice Age Argument<br />The Mere Fact of Other Natural Causes Argument<br /><br />I will have a few more arguments that will not appear in the claims of a morally responsible skeptic. However, this leaves open the possibility that a skeptic can make a case <i>without using these morally reckless arguments</i>.<br /><br />In the course of this discussion I have also criticized the following:<br /><br />"You cannot justify a multi-trillion dollar expenditure without proof."<br /><br />"The only standard of proof that is acceptable is one in which nobody has ever been equally confident and yet still been wrong."Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-39127969969115947372009-12-15T11:02:06.339-07:002009-12-15T11:02:06.339-07:00Again, John Doe? When did you abandon your persona...Again, John Doe? When did you abandon your personal integrity?<br /><br /><i>EVERYBODY who is a skeptic is in your eyes "morally contemptible" and "reckless" and "morally irresponsible" and "worthy of contempt." Does that kind of hyperbole work in your day job</i>?<br /><br />This is classic projection. You make a greatly exaggerated and false claim - dare I say a hyperbolic claim - and in the very next sentence you accuse your opponent of hyperbole. The self-blindness is staggering. No wonder you can do little but sputter.<br /><br />If you still haven't seen it, note that I've retained the original use of CAPITALIZATION in quoting you. Alonzo is not condemning "EVERYBODY who is a skeptic", only those who use reckless and reprehensible arguments to hide and distort information that can end up devastating cities/populations.<br /><br />Much like you just did.Eneaszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14500232958398471146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-71463844436074457862009-12-15T08:50:44.042-07:002009-12-15T08:50:44.042-07:00Talk about morally reprehensible. EVERYBODY who is...Talk about morally reprehensible. EVERYBODY who is a skeptic is in your eyes "morally contemptible" and "reckless" and "morally irresponsible" and "worthy of contempt." Does that kind of hyperbole work in your day job? Everybody who disagrees with me is unethical, and a morally contemptible individual. <br /><br />As a lawyer, I can tell you that if other people have died of this very malady as the alleged victim, then YES, it is VERY relevant what has happened in the past. Say the person died of a heart attack. My client's on trial for murder, then yes it is relevant that heart disease is a leading cause of natural death. The prosecution then has a very heavy burden of proof to rule out natural causes. It is not "unethical" to point this out. In fact, it would be malpractice not to point it out. That would be the beginning point of the trial. If the prosecution does not prove that this particular time the heart attack was caused by my client.<br /><br />You seem to be entirely too invested in this topic. You have lost (if you ever had it) the ability to discuss this issue rationally. But even still, I don't stoop to calling you "morally reprehensible", I just think you are too emotionally invested in the topic. <br /><br />Here's a free tip from the court room. [I assume that you actually want to convince people that your position is the correct position.] Quit writing as though you were a street preacher, screaming and shouting, calling everybody else a sinner, crazy and wrong if they don't believe exactly the same way that you do. Concede points you can't win (such as those e-mails in Climategate, and that those "scientists" ought to be fired), tone down the hyperbole, grant that there are good people on both sides of the issue. <br /><br />Stick to the facts. Right now, you are just a wild-eyed know-it-all who is turning off all but other rabid believers. Course, if you don't want to persuade people, just keep up what you are doing.John Doehttp://maaadddog.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-7793996818324178732009-12-15T08:44:01.972-07:002009-12-15T08:44:01.972-07:00I am one who posted this argument here before.
Th...I am one who posted this argument here before.<br /><br />The point that I was trying (although totally ineffectually as I reread it now!)to make is this: <br /><br />We know that these things have fluctuated in the past, and it did not become a runaway, planet killing process. Therefore there must be some natural process that promote and inhibit the greenhouse gas level. Obviously, we do not understand all of these processes well enough to definitively state cause and effect. I think that before we commit the planet to such a divisive and potentially economically destructive path, we need to make very sure that we are creating a potentially runaway situation that we need to make ourselves responsible to stop. <br /><br />So far, I have heard nothing that says that we are definitively sparking a situation that could turn into a runaway effect, nor have I heard that we really posses the capability to reverse it. <br /><br />Plant life on the planet has the best chance for reversal in my opinion, but back to the extinction point, if we hold everything in stasis at great expense, we will never know if a natural process would have corrected the spike.<br /><br />I think a great deal more study before extreme sacrifice is indicated. That is NOT to say that we should be unmindful and wantonly wasteful and reckless, but we should make sure that we are causing a real problem, that will not be naturally corrected before we kill ourselves to stop it.<br /><br />Just as an aside, I have nothing but the utmost respect for you and your blog, and I feel hugely outmatched to disagree with you.Rexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14234383655803897848noreply@blogger.com