William Connolley (and Polargeo) vs Lar, Global warming wars Options

[Cla68]

RfC time. I take it WMC did not appreciate being called on his actions.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

And the quest for drama continues.

[Cla68]

And the quest for drama continues.

That is referring to this I believe and this discussion. I've heard that at least a couple of the IDCab regulars changed user names. I do see some familiar names in action here. The global warming topic is related somewhat to the Intelligent Design episode, in that some of the involved editors apparently believe they're fighting to save civilization from anti-science religious fanatics.

By the way, Hipocrite used to be this editor, who does appear to believe in that cause. If I remember right, he wrote an anti-Wikipedia Review essay at one point, naming editors (including me) who were members here. I don't know what happened to it.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[thegoodlocust]

The global warming topic is related somewhat to the Intelligent Design episode, in that some of the involved editors apparently believe they're fighting to save civilization from anti-science religious fanatics.

I suppose they must've missed my thoughts on the subject then - oh well.

[anthony]

The global warming topic is related somewhat to the Intelligent Design episode, in that some of the involved editors apparently believe they're fighting to save civilization from anti-science religious fanatics.

I suppose they must've missed my thoughts on the subject then - oh well.

Unfortunately, correlation has never and can never prove causation – the only way to establish causation with regards to global warming would be to take a few identical planets, alter their CO² levels and then measure the effects. This is clearly beyond our current means and since such a scientific experiment is not possible, the AGW hypothesis cannot be disproved which makes it completely at odds with the scientific method.

So, by that argument, is evolution also "completely at odds with the scientific method"?

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Unfortunately, correlation has never and can never prove causation – the only way to establish causation with regards to global warming would be to take a few identical planets, alter their CO² levels and then measure the effects. This is clearly beyond our current means and since such a scientific experiment is not possible, the AGW hypothesis cannot be disproved which makes it completely at odds with the scientific method.

So, by that argument, is evolution also "completely at odds with the scientific method"?

You lost me there. What the Good Locust is saying here is correct. Correlation is frequently used as a substitute for causation, including by astrologers, incompetent economic forecasters, and the AGW people (although to be fair, the AGW people first manicure the data to remove anything that might correlate incorrectly.) None of this has anything to do with evolution, properly understood, although you might be thinking of the Darwinian approach, which is mainly just an apology for social engineering.

[anthony]

Unfortunately, correlation has never and can never prove causation – the only way to establish causation with regards to global warming would be to take a few identical planets, alter their CO² levels and then measure the effects. This is clearly beyond our current means and since such a scientific experiment is not possible, the AGW hypothesis cannot be disproved which makes it completely at odds with the scientific method.

So, by that argument, is evolution also "completely at odds with the scientific method"?

You lost me there. What the Good Locust is saying here is correct.

So, you agree that the *only* way to establish causation with regards to global warming "would be to take a few identical planets, alter their CO² levels and then measure the effects"?

If so, (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/shrug.gif), I've got nothing more to say to you about it. (*) I'd still appreciate the Good Locust's answer though, because from what I've read from him so far this seems to be an uncharacteristic error.

(*) I take that back. I'll pose this question to anyone who wants to defend that statement. How do you show that evolution caused humans to arrive on earth? Build a bunch of planets, throw in a bunch of bacteria, wait a few billion years, and watch humans spring up?

Now look, I haven't researched the topic enough to be completely convinced one way or the other (as it's just not a topic which is all that relevant to my life). But from what I have read, anthropogenic global warming is the most plausible theory for what is happening (and whether or not anything is happening). I certainly wouldn't take the position that the Good Locust is taking, that I absolutely won't be convinced no matter *what* evidence is presented to me (that's essentially what he's saying).

Furthermore, I don't think it particularly matters whether or not global warming is caused by humans, because all the evidence I've seen is that it would be far too costly to stop it and much more reasonable to deal with it. I'd rather my grandchildren live close to the beach in air conditioning, than in the stone ages. (Which, I hope needless to say, means I don't buy into the "runaway global warming" scare mongering and Environmental Pascal's Wager.)

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Milton Roe]

Furthermore, I don't think it particularly matters whether or not global warming is caused by humans, because all the evidence I've seen is that it would be far too costly to stop it and much more reasonable to deal with it. I'd rather my grandchildren live close to the beach in air conditioning, than in the stone ages.

False choice. We can avoid the stone ages, or even very much of a change in civilization, by building 10,000 really big nuclear reactors (obviously including some fast breeders, else we run out of U-235 in a decade or two, whereas with breeders, our bridge-time to fusion or whatever, is a century or two).

Do this right, and about the only difference you'll notice is some smaller cars and a lot more mass transit.

We're about halfway though the planets' oil, and we've already burned the easy half. The remaining half can be used for airtravel, petrochemicals, and so on, so long as we quit wasting it on heat and ground transportation.

As for the remaining coal, God help us if we burn it all. It's not just a matter of being hotter and closer to the beach, it's a matter of dead ocean reefs from acid and just a few more degrees of temp. And with them, a whole ecology that we probably need, and that's not even being chicken little.

Of course, I doubt very much if we'll build those reactors when we need them. We'll do what we're doing now, which is more or less nothing. The eco freaks will keep us from doing it until gas gets to $10 and then $20 and then $50 a gallon, and then there will be much weeping and wailing and THEN we'll start to build reactors. Expect some dislocations in the meantime. Including no air conditioning. And I hope you don't like fish.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

We can avoid the stone ages, or even very much of a change in civilization, by building 10,000 really big nuclear reactors (obviously including some fast breeders, else we run out of U-235 in a decade or two, whereas with breeders, our bridge-time to fusion or whatever, is a century or two).

On this, sentient warmers and skeptics should be able to agree. Except that you're way to pessimistic about fusion.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

We can avoid the stone ages, or even very much of a change in civilization, by building 10,000 really big nuclear reactors (obviously including some fast breeders, else we run out of U-235 in a decade or two, whereas with breeders, our bridge-time to fusion or whatever, is a century or two).

It is also worth mentioning that with such a plan, combined with this project, we could begin to talk about a real economic recovery for the US, as opposed to the present policy of simply shutting everything down in order to feed the vampires.