Guess what? NOAA made some changes in their Global Land and Ocean Data set. The monthly anomalies are now available at NOAA Land/Ocean; the new ReadMe File says:
In July 2009, NCDC transitioned to the use of an improved Global Land and Ocean data set (Smith et al., 2008) which allows better analysis of temperatures throughout the record, with the greatest improvements in the late nineteenth century and since 1985. Improvements in the late nineteenth century are due to improved tuning of the analysis methods.
I plotted the new NOAA trends; as you can see below, both least squares trends since Jan. 2001 and Jan 1990 now happens to be lower than the trend based on GISSTemp:
Other reportable tidbits (all given using the NOAA baseline, not the figure baseline):
- Despite the developing El Nino, NOAA’s July temperature dropped to 0.5696C from 0.5928C in June 2009.
- NOAA’s July 2008 temperature anomaly was 0.5084C, or roughly 0.06C lower than the current July reading.
- NOAA’s July 1998 and July 1997 anomalies were 0.698C and 0.475C respectively. July 1998 was the whopper El Nino year; some like to compare to the previous year on the theory that our current El Nino could become a whopper but hasn’t yet.
- July 2006, 2005 and 1998 were warmer than July 2009 making July 2009 the fourth warmest July reported by NOAA.
- The least squares trend since Jan 2001 is negative. Because I believe the long trend trend is positive, I expect this to change. I’ll admit I don’t know when I expect it to change.
I’m not a big fan of “what if’s”, but in anticipation of the question people like to ask I will volunteer this: If the temperature anomaly mysteriously holds constant at months value of 0.5696C, the least squares trend since 2001 will flip positive after 33 months. Should the anomaly zoom up to 0.6364C and stick there, the trend will flip positive in 8 months. (The value of 0.6364C represents the 12 month smooth value in the NOAA record.) NOAA expects El Nino to deepen; plus, as I said, I believe the underlying trend is positive. This means I think we should expect to see some scorching hot months soon. If so, I’ll be reporting a positive least squares trend beginning in Jan 2001 in less than 8 months.
In related news: Hadley data is still lost, so they can’t improve it.
Scooter,
With respect to the claim Hadley data are lost: I remain skeptical.
I know the response to Roger Pielke Jr’s FOI indicated it was lost but, given the preponderance of the evidence, suggest it may not really be lost. One possible alternate hypothesis: The person who wrote the letter to Roger thought it was lost, but someone else has a backup somewhere.
I called my bank this morning and told them that the data in my check-ins account seemed wrong and that it could be “improved.”
They told me they understood completely and that they would adjust it.
They adjusted it using the wrong sign +/-, obviously.
They won’t let me have access to the data.
SOBs. 😉
Andrew
Perhaps we should ask them for code and data.
“I believe the underlying trend is positive. This means I think we should expect to see some scorching hot months soon.” What if we see some freezing cold months soon and thereafter for 30 years? LOL (I am a proud skeptic, tending rapidly to be an outright denier)
VG– If mile high glaciers of ice are spotted over the Wisconsin Dells next year, and start creeping toward Chicago, I will turn into a denier. Does that answer your question?
Obviously if future data show the earth temperatures dropping, one eventually be unable to claim that’s consistent with some notion of a positive underlying trend masked by weather noise. As that has not happen, no one is required to change their current expectation based on events that have not happened. My expectation is based on events that have been observed and our understanding of physical processes which have been observed. My expectation is not at the level of certainty. (In contrast, if I drop a lead brick while standing in my back yard earth, I am 99.9999999..% certain it will fall down. If it does not occur, I would seek many reasons before suspending my belief that gravity exists and lead is dense.
““I believe the underlying trend is positive. This means I think we should expect to see some scorching hot months soon.â€
Interesting times, these are. It seems pretty certain that “something” besides CO2 is (also?) affecting temperatures, but in an opposite direction. We may know within a couple of years whether that “something” is the sun.
lucia (Comment#18059) August 18th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
I got pictures, do you want ’em? :p
The thing with field observations is that you rarely know anything to 1 part in 10 million, even that there were no hidden strings. And I mean this as a serious point.
Lucia,
“My expectation is based on events that have been observed and our understanding of physical processes which have been observed.”
Observed by other people, in both cases, right? Not observed by you, obviously.
Andrew
Andrew_KY,
How many relativistic events have you personally observed?
How many evolutionary ones?
How many quantum mechanical ones?
For consistency, I am assuming that if you answer ‘none’ to any of those questions, that means you do not accept that particular theory.
David,
Why are you changing the subject to me and my beliefs about other non-climate theories?
I can’t say that I’ve observed any of the events you ask about, because I don’t know how to recognize them as what you describe.
As far as believing in the theories you mention, I don’t believe in them because I haven’t seen the evidence supporting them. I don’t just believe in things because people like you think I should. Why should I believe these theories, David?
Andrew
After that revelation, what more can one really say?
oliver,
I agree. Tis a sad indictment on science teaching, really.
(But at least Andrew_KY is consistent. ;))
“The least squares trend since Jan 2001 is negative. Because I believe the long trend trend is positive, I expect this to change. I’ll admit I don’t know when I expect it to change.”
You know, it looks to me like the lukewarmer position is increasingly similar to the view long ago espoused by Pat Michaels and Robert Balling, which they have recently reiterated (Climate of Extremes)-namely that while models are predicting rather “large” amounts of future warming, the underlying trend appears to be at least a little more modest than 2 degrees per century. AGW is plausible or even likely, but not as bad as the current paradigm is suggesting.
Not that I want to put words in anybody’s mouth. I would understand if some were more reluctant to say that rapid warming is implausible. But wait and see if it doesn’t start to look like somewhere around 1.5 degrees by 2100 is more likely than 3.
David Gould (Comment#18069)-So if you happen to believe in those things, but not the AGW alarm…that’s inconsistent? Oh dear, I’d better stereotype up or learn to live with believing six impossible things before breakfast. I wouldn’t want to be “inconsistent”…
Andrew_FL,
No. The consistency comment was to do with the reasons for disbelief. Andrew_KY disbelieves consistently because he disbelieves all of those theories because he is using one particular methodology to evaluate them – that of personal observation.
In other words, when I attempted to point out an inconsistency in his thinking – that he believed in other theories without such personal observation – he demonstrated that there was no such inconsistency.
David Gould: “How many relativistic events have you personally observed?
How many evolutionary ones?
How many quantum mechanical ones?”
If you have ever used a laser (or a CD or DVD player), you have observed quantum mechanical effects.
If you have used GPS, you are counting on proper relativistic corrections:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS
Steve Reynolds,
It depends on what is meant by ‘observed’, I guess. To ‘truly’ observe a quantum event might be tricky without the correct equipment and an understanding thereof, even though a lot of our technology is based on our understanding of quantum mechanics.
As an example of how tricky it might be to pin down what an observation might be, I believe that I have observed the effects of AGW, for example, in looking at graphs showing an upward slope in global temperature and a statistically significant correlation with atmospheric CO2 concentrations that is consistent with predicted values. I suspect that Andrew_KY would not consider this to be an obsevation.
Steve Reynolds (Comment#18074)-And if you’ve ever been infected with two different strains of the flu, well, you get the idea. 😉
David Gould (Comment#18072)-I’m paranoid. Once I had some serious questions about how paleoclimate data was analyzed, and I was called a “creationist” and “geology denier”-fortunately I found someone more tolerant who answered my questions to my satisfaction.
Andrew_Fl,
The internet is always an … interesting … medium through which to communicate, isn’t it? 🙂
Uh, yeah, I guess so.
Lucia,
Do I have this right? I now have from Jan 2000 to present an OLS slope of 0.06 deg/decade for NCDC/NOAA. It had been 0.10 deg/decade.
Did I mess up my spreadsheet or is it “not as bad as we thought”?
Andrew_KY (Comment#18062)
Andrew you already conceded the point about shared observations. so please don’t start your silliness again. I did not witness my weight at childbirth. I did not measure my weight today. I weigh more than I did at childbirth. I did not witness the far side of the moon today or any other day. I don’t doubt that it exists.
JohnM– I’d have to look up my spread sheet to confirm the values since 2000… I know they are positive.
I can say for sure that the trend since 2000 is lower than the multi-model mean trend for the AR4. So is the trend for any time since… I’d have to look it up. I think since the measurement record began. Whether or not it’s as bad as we thought depends on whether “we” thought the trend was as rapid as the multi-model mean based on the multi-model mean from AOGCMs used in the AR4.
If “we” thought surface warming was as rapid as in the models, then it’s not as bad as we thought. On the other hand, if “we” never believed it would be that rapid, it’s not as bad as “we” thought.
Maybe it’s “less worse than we thought.” 🙂
Once in awhile there is a very funny comment. This is one:
“Maybe it’s “less worse than we thought.†”
THANK YOU!
On a side note, I hope the courtesy level stays at a high level on this blogsite despite any personal differences. I rather enjoy the tenor here especially in comparison to some other informative, but somewhat hairy, websites.
Andrew_KY, if you have any interest in discussing some of the more flame-attracting topics that have been brought up here, either in a separate thread or privately, I would be more than happy.
A serious question. Why does acceptance or rejection of ALL scienitific theories have to have the same level/ type of proof. Some theories maybe much harder to observe than others for all kinds of reasons — time, distance, necessary equipment etc. So for those who accept AGW because they have seen a temperature record issued by some government do they also accept Iraq had WMDs — the government told them so. Isn’t it possible that we only accept the proof that already confirms our bias?
Please note I’m not putting down AGW as some government conspiracy but rather asking the striaght forward question — if we can doubt the evidence put forward by the government once whynot again. Where does it end?
If someone could convince me of AGW, It would only be you Lucia. And BTW I would believe it. On the other hand we are now dealing with another problem re journals:
It would seem to me that the major journals dealing with climate will steadfastly lose ground to serious scientific blogs such as CA , WUWT, World Climate Report, and rankexploits, etc… They will have to make 100% sure that they publish credible work based on “real dataâ€. The must provide ALL the raw data and the methods publicly. The current hypothetical models etc… and the “ifâ€, “could†and “maybe†will not work in the future. My advice to them is ADAPT or disappear! (this is speaking as a scientific Journal Editor). If Nature etc.. continue to publish the trash that has been soundly been shown to be wrong, they will become irrelevant (in climate matters ONLY…because they are superb in Medicine etc), against these blogs (ie Ryan O and Jeff ID, Hu MCcollugh re Steig is just one example). BTW same applies to media that continues to trump this trash. You know people are not noticing any increase in temps?. (remember the y2k problem?). In this sense thank God for the internet.. It will keep the B@#@ honest as they say…WE are entering a new world my friends and its very good for Science. BTw nothing against Steig he just did an analysis….
VG–
There are a lot of good journals publishing a lot of good papers. Some stuff that turns out to be incorrect is still not “trash”.
Blogs are not going to replace formal publication. They have a role. RC goes to far when they write things that suggest blogs are somehow nothing. Blogs are having an impact.
David,
You dinna answer my question. 2nd Try: Why should I believe these specific theories you mention?
Andrew
Steven,
You trust the information about your birth because you trust the person/entity that recorded the info. AND you have had personal experience of your own development and weight gain. You witnessed it.
Now, if you knew your birth info had been “adjusted” after the fact, how would you know for sure what your weight was back then?
Andrew
The new NOAA dataset are based on the ERSST data with a little stagional adjustment.
Here the difference from NOAA new dataset and ERSST (Land+Ocean) in the last few years: http://i27.tinypic.com/nv2seh.jpg
The difference from NOAA to ERSST from 1900 is the same:
http://i28.tinypic.com/2njkk9f.jpg
Now the trend from 1976 (start of second GW wave based on the oceanic, climate shift) is reduced from +0,172°/decade to +0,169°/decade:
http://globalwarming.blog.meteogiornale.it/files/noaa-old-new-76-08-09.JPG
The last few year trend (from 1997) is reduced from +0,084°/decade to +0,052°/decade. A lot.
http://globalwarming.blog.meteogiornale.it/files/noaa-old-new-97-08-09.JPG
Lucia: The new NCDC dataset should be based on the ERSST.v3 data they released last year, then updated this year (ERSST.v3b) due to complaints about the downward satellite bias. Refer to the following link. Although the dataset is ERSST.v3b, they also discuss in the links the changes they made to their calculations of land surface temperatures.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/ersstv3.php
I’ve discussed the new dataset in a number of posts:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/search?q=ersst.v3b
Steve McIntyre also had a few:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6038
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6100
My favorite ERSST.v3b dataset is the Southern Ocean SST anomalies:
http://i41.tinypic.com/29zxus7.jpg
It gets even funkier when you compare the Southern Ocean South of the Southeast Pacific with the remainder of the Southern Ocean:
http://i41.tinypic.com/qsjwwp.jpg
Note how the “Remainder of Southern Ocean” appears to have what could be a 100-year cycle, but that portion South of the Southeast Pacific has all of the unusual variation. Curious.
Andrew_KY–
As far as I’m concerned, you can continue to not believe quantum mechanics, relativity and all sorts of other theories. I’m now satisfied that I now a) know where you are coming from and b) have discovered adhere to different epistemological principles than I do.
If you think the only thing you can know are things like the grass is green, that’s ok with me. But I’m going to continue believing the preponderance of evidence that exists is consistent with theories like quantum mechanics. I’ll believe this even if I have not personally witnessed any quantum events in any direct sort of way.
Going forward, I’ll bear in mind that your epistomology likely does not permit you to believe in quantum mechanics and (I’m guessing here) plate technonics, evolution, many aspect of molecular biology, possibly mitosis (unless you’ve personally watched it in action as opposed to having someone else watch it in action, film it and relate their experience, including showing the film.) I’ll judge your lack of belief in AGW on this basis. Which is to say:
You being unconvinced is consistent with an epistemology in which once can “know” almost nothing and which mostly falls outside of the tradition of science in general. Which is fine. There is now law of the universe that says every individual needs to cling to the traditions of science.
Lucia,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. But I’m afraid I have to criticize your argument further:
You are appealing to the “tradition” of science. Science has a history of being wrong as much as it has a history of being right.
So you have one set of standards because you “believe” in science more than I do, and I have a more demanding standard.
I’m not trying to impose my beliefs on you through gov’t power. You and like-minded warmers are trying to impose your beliefs on me through gov’t power.
Andrew
Andrew_Ky-
I’m not appealing to the tradition of science. My points are a) a tradition of science exists and b) your epistomology does not fall inside that tradition. Period.
That observation has nothing to do with what the government should or should not do. The observation doesn’t chastise you for adhering to an epistomology that does not fall inside the tradition of science. It is simply an observation.
I don’t see how the observation tries to impose my beliefs on you at all, much less through government power. If you want to adhere to epistomology, that’s fine with me. I’ll simply observe that a) I don’t and b) your epistomology falls outside the tradition of science.
Andrew, I think that it’s tough to get through even an average day without some level of trust in the experience of others. I agree with you that the history of science, as opposed to the goals and practice of it, can call forth numerous examples of error and worse. But the unconscious living of the autonomic parts of your life (trusting your watch or the digital displays directing traffic) probably are a stark contradiction to the moral principle of ‘being from Missouri’ and examining the evidence in all cases at all costs.
I pretty much agree with Lucia about AGW–I think it’s (probably) quite real, if more modest than alarmists claim in terms of its future. And I have not stood outside with a thermometer every day measuring it. I do trust the accepted methodologies that have produced the theory behind AGW and at least some of the evidence in support of it. But maybe that’s because I also trust that skeptics and doubters will be given the opportunity to introduce evidence to the contrary.
I don’t think the debate is over, or that the science is settled. I do think that what we’ve seen so far is sufficient to say that warming has happened, that we are emitting CO2 and other greenhouse gases in profusion, and that to ignore this correlation without investigation would be a bit odd.
Lucia,
Well, then the tradition of science isn’t worth a whole lot to this conversation, if you and I don’t recognize it as some kind of authority.
And if you hadn’t noticed, spreading the belief in Global Warming is enabling, if not enhancing, the political goals of the Global Warming movement, which are tyrannical to say the least.
Andrew
Thanks Tom Fuller,
Yes. This IS a matter of who do you trust. I do not trust people who make unsupportable claims, especially when money and power and fame are involved. Do you?
Andrew
Andrew_KY–
Nonsense.
You were discussing your epistomology and AGW. The scientific falls within the realm of epistomolgy. AGW is a scientific theory. So, clearly, the issue of the tradition of science is fair game in this conversation. The observation that your epistomology fall outside the tradition of science is also fair game when you decide to bring up epistomology during a discussion of a scientific theory.
The political goals of the global warming movement whether real or imagined are irrelevant to the evidence for or against warming.
Lucia,
You are missing the point. If the tradition of science is a mixed bag of discoveries and errors, it is not reliable.
“The political goals of the global warming movement whether real or imagined are irrelevant to the evidence for or against warming.”
In reality, the political goals are dependent on the real or imagined “evidence” of Global Warming. The squiggly lines are what the political movement is based on.
Andrew
Andrew_KY-
I did not miss the point you wished to make. You want to change the subject from whether or not your epistemology falls in the tradition of science to whether or not science is always correct.
Your epistemology does not fall in the tradition of science.
I have no idea what point you are trying to make by veering off into a discussion of political goals of some ill-defined group who you refer to by some label. For all I know their goals may including tearing the wings off all flies in the US and forcing everyone to wear green sneakers: I think these goals are irrelevant when weighing the evidence in support of the theory of AGW.
Your point: Your epistemology does not fall in the tradition of science.
My point: The tradition of science is not reliable, so…So What?
Cap and trade legislation is ill-defined? Is it ill defined enough for senators and congresspeople and the president to sign it and pass it into law? Is the “science” that such legislation is based on ill defined? The papers authored by specific climate scientists and official organizations? Are they vague imaginings?
The squiggly lines? They aren’t really there?
Am I talking to a real or imagined person? 😉
Andrew
Andrew_KY–
Cap and trade legislation is legislation. It is not a group of people. You should avoid anthropomorphizing bills.
I object to AGW being called a theory. Some aspects may be solid theory, but there’s a lot of hypothesis in there to.
That’s my “epistemology”-question untested hypotheses vigorously, and insist on testing of any and all hypotheses so that science can be the arbiter.
Lucia,
Cap and trade legislation was written by specific people, pushed by specific people, etc… real people, not squiggly-lined stick people. lol
Andrew
Andrew_FL…
Hmmm… I insist on testing too. That said, I think the word “theory” applies to AGW.
In common speech, the word theory is pretty flexible. It is applied to anything from
“An unproven conjecture; An expectation of what should happen, barring unforeseen circumstances; (sciences) A coherent statement or set of statements that attempts to explain observed phenomena; (sciences) A logical structure that enables one to deduce the possible results of every experiment ..”
to
“a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of …”
See
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=pd8&defl=en&q=define:theory&ei=LCGMSpS3GY3eNZDEvJMO&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
Certainly, AGW falls somewhere in that range.
Andrew_KY–
So? You still haven’t described precisely which individuals make up the group you label as “the Global Warming movement”, shown they collectively have precisely the same political goal nor that those goals are “tyrannical to say the least”.
These sorts of vague claims make it impossible to agree with or disagree with what you claim because no one can know precisely who you are accusing of anything and/or what you accuse them of.
Similarly vague accusations are rife in comments at Open Mind, Rabett, Only in it, RC etc, but the targetted “them” seems to be a somewhat different groups. In both cases, it’s impossible to discover precisely who “they” are and so impossible to figure out whether or not “they” believe anything attributed to them.
lucia (Comment#18115)-Well I think I tend to prefer the scientific use rather than the colloquial. I’m glad we both like to test hypotheses though! 🙂
Lucia,
You have descended into non-seriousness, but I will help you get started anyway:
“OpenCongress Summary
This is the Waxman-Markley comprehensive energy bill, known for short as “ACES,” that includes a cap-and-trade global warming reduction plan designed to reduce economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent by 2020. Other provisions include new renewable requirements for utilities, studies and incentives regarding new carbon capture and sequestration technologies, energy efficiency incentives for homes and buildings, and grants for green jobs, among other things.”
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2454/show
Note the words Global Warming in the summary. And there is a tab you can click to see who voted for and against it. My suggestion is that you help oppose this bill since it is based on unsupported claims.
Andrew
Andrew_KY–
I have no idea why you think I am not serious when I criticize your various and sundry claims.
Your wild attempts to tap dance away from subjects you bring up, but later decide are dead ends are not unnoticed. You comment Comment#18121 does not provide any evidence of your claim about the existence of any group with tyrannical goals. Rather than defending your previous claim, you are changing the subject to describing a piece of legislation, explaining why you don’t like it, telling us the legislation contains the word “global warming” and suggesting I help oppose the bill.
Lucia,
Legislation is proposed gov’t action. If the gov’t action is oppressive, it’s tyrannical. Is there anything else I need to explain to you? Feigning ignorance doesn’t go unnoticed, either.
Andrew
And for further clarification, for all practical purposes, the Global Warming movement includes all the congresspeople who voted for the legislation I cited. It discloses that Global Warming is an important reason the legislation exists.
Andrew
Andrew_KY–
Once again: You changed the subject rather than sticking to the earlier issue. You now want to complain that I do not launch into your new subject. My not veering off on your wild tangents is not “feigning ignorance”.
Let me repeat
To do fulfill this, you must at a minimum
a) describe precisely what the group is
b) tell us exactly who is in the group, preferably naming names, and describe how, precisely, one we can recognize a member of the group. Your definition should be sufficiently precise that we could actually tell whether the following people are, or are not, in the group whose goal is tyrranny: Me, Gavin Schmidt, Roger Pielke Jr and Sr, You, Marc Morano, Boris, David Gould, Zeke Hausfather, Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts etc. (Then each of these people can explain whether or not they are in the group.)
c) explain precisely how you have determined that each individual you claim to be in the group holds tyrannical goals.
d) define what the heck you mean by “tyranny”, and use tyranny in a way that comports with the normal use of that word. (For example, your definition should not be so overbroad as to simply make enacting any and all laws acts of tyranny.) and
e) probably more stuff.
Well I guess if we identify all government-funded science with Da Govt and it’s Agenda, we’re probably in trouble as far as any of this more difficult experimental stuff goes. And since the Govt, even in a democracy, is Them, We should be afraid. Really afraid.
A government passing any law when that government is not representative is engaging in acts of tyranny whatever those laws may be. If that government is at least in theory representative, not all laws are tyrannical, but usually just most of them. 😉
I don’t know what my Ohioan friend’s definition of tyranny is, but this is as good as any other:
“The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name — liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names — liberty and tyranny. ”
~Abraham Lincoln, Address in Baltimore, Maryland (18 April 1864)
Yeah, I know that some libertarians don’t like Lincoln. But see, I don’t have that problem. I’m a Republican (oooooo scary!). And I have always taken comfort in this fake quote from someone imitating Chuck Schumer-“Abraham Lincoln didn’t free the slaves…he was a Republican.”
(Nearly as good as “Ronald Reagan didn’t win the Cold War against Communism…I’m still here.”)
Are you taking advantage of people who don’t know that Wisconsin Dells is in the Driftless Area, and was not covered by glaciers in the last glacial period?
(flamboyant gesture) “Science!”
Scooter– 🙂
But I’ll be convinced if the Kettle Moraine area ends up covered by mile high glaciers too.
Lucia,
I gave you a link with the legislation that is tyrannical and there is a list of congresspeople who voted for it. If that doesn’t mean anything to you in regards to who/what is the global warming movement, you need more help than I can give.
Andrew
Andrew_KY–
Your link does not clarify who is in the group, how you define “tyranny”, that any particular legislation is tyrannical etc.
Your link shows that some duly elected officials are working on passing legislation. That’s all. Not only that, but was are all aware of that legislation. I think it’s a poor bill. But that fact does not advance your claim about some vague group consisting of shadowy figures whose goal is tyranny.
Votes by Representative
Name Voted
Rep. Neil Abercrombie [D, HI-1] Aye
Rep. Gary Ackerman [D, NY-5] Aye
….[snipped for taking up excessive screen space on ]
Rep. Jeff Flake [R, AZ-6]
Rep. John Sullivan [R, OK-1]
http://www.opencongress.org/roll_call/show/5807
Legislation that purports to address a non-problem is in error. That in itself is tyranny when gov’t operates beyond reasonable limitations. Obviously, cap and trade which wastes time and money on a non-solution to an imaginary problem is tyranny.
Andrew
Andrew_KY. I do not allow comments that are so long one must scroll numerous panes, so I snipped.
1) Legislative errors are not tyranny.
2) Your definition of tyranny is now based on “reaonable limitations” which you do not define. (And, absurdly, you seem to include an example of congress passing legislation permitted under the powers granted to congress under the constitution to represent congress acting outside reasonable limits. )
3) Your conclusion about tyranny does not follow.
4) While you have suggested some legislators in the list of people in that group whose goal is tyranny, you have not mentioned whether others are in the group. Am I? Is Gavin Schmidt? What criteria other than voting for a bill you do not endorse puts people in your vague group. So your definition of “them” is still uber-vague.
Look, I get that you don’t like Waxman-markey. I’m not a big fan. Either is Jim Hansen. But posting a list naming everyone in congress doesn’t prove the existance of any group whose goal is tyranny.
I like KY. But I think he’s being silly here. I happen to think even less of W/M than lucia, but I know not to try to be over the top about it if I’m not reasonably sure I can get away with it!
Which reminds me-I’ve been talking to another libertarian who seems to be an ardent believer in AGW-are you familiar with Tokyo Tom and his ideas lucia? I’ve never got him to elucidate them to me but he seems to think that some “property rights” mechanism could be used to “address” this “issue”, but I don’t understand what he’s getting at. Any idea?
Andrew_FL,
I’ve run across Tokyo Tom at Volokh, Roger Jr’s blog and other places. I often have no idea what he is trying to say. I know he thinks he is libertarian. I know he uses the term “tragedy of the commons” a lot.
“I often have no idea what he is trying to say.”
You are not alone.
Lucia,
You asked me who is in the Global Warming movement. I provided a list of names.
W/M is “bad”. We agree as far as that goes. I submit that it is tyrannical (I’m not the only person with this opinion). You have other reasons for your opinion. You and me and Andrew_FL “don’t like it.” 😉
Andrew
Andrew_KY–
Prior to your providing the long list, I specifically asked this:
In any case, I have no idea why you would think simply posting a list of single congressional representatives votes including yays, nays and abstentions would be recognized as you describing who is in “the group” whose goal is tyranny.
I still have the original email and notice your list includes Rep. Kay Granger [R, TX-12], She voted Nay. Are you now revealing that everyone named in the list in your comment is in the group whose goal is tyranny? Is that list complete, or might this group include others not on the list?
Lucia,
The group is the politicians and their supporters who desire the global warming related legislation be passed. The list is not comprehensive. It does establish that there is such a group. They are on the record.
Anyone who votes for tyrannical gov’t action approves of tyranny, at least in this case, if not other cases.
Andrew
In addition, anyone who wants to go on record as supportive of the Global Warming movement is certainly free to do so. 😉
Andrew
Andrew_KY-
a) You have not established there is any group whose goal is tyranny.
b) The list you posted included people who oppose WaxmanMarkey and voted Nay.
c) I’m bowing out because this is repetitive and boring. Feel free to have the last word, but bear in mind that I will snip anything that requires endless scrolling to get reach the next comment.
Lucia,
I just explained:
Congresspeople are on the record as voting for or against Global Warming legislation. The gov’t itself has them on record. I listed the nays and the yays so people can see who voted which way.
Tyranny is obviously approved of if a legislator votes for tyrannical legislation.
Andrew
I believe the discussion would have profited by using the term water monopoly empires, Andrew_KY. The legislation proposed might be claimed to be worse than anticipated since it will be the codifying of US energy and its use into a water monolopy empire with potential take over of the enforcement to the UN resulting in a loss of soverienty of the US. But you did not make that argument.
That argument was my ace-in-hole, John F. Pittman. To be “whipped out” at the proper moment. 😉
Andrew
Andrew Kennett,
In many ways, I am a conservative, in that I tend to place trust in organisations/entities/governments that have demonstrated trustworthiness over the long term. This means that I tend to have reasonable trust levels in the Australian system of government, while not believing everything that any particular government says on every issue. I also tend to trust methodologies that have proven themselves trustworthy over the long term.
I do not believe AGW because I have seen one graph that one government has put out. I believe AGW because multiple organisations, including many that I trust, have put out many pieces of evidence for AGW over a long period of time. These organisations operate across multiple countries and over long periods of time, and thus have been in jurisdictions ruled by both the left and right of politics in quite a few different countries.
Obviously, that does not mean that it is certain that AGW is true. But nothing can make such a thing certain. In my opinion – although obviously not in the opinion of others – there is more than sufficient evidence from trustworthy sources to come to a belief in AGW.
Re WMDs, while I personally did not think that Iraq had WMDs, it seemed to me that it was a possibility. I supported the invasion of Iraq, however, but on other grounds.
Andrew_KY,
You asked me why you *should* believe in quantum mechanics, relativity and evolution.
I am not good with shoulds, as a should by itself has no meaning for me. A should can only be defined by me in relation to specific intentions/goals.
As an example, if you want completely secure communications and are willing to invest money in a way of doing so, you *should* invest in quantum cryptography. As investing in this would only make sense if you believed in quantum mechanics, you therefore *should* believe in quantum mechanics. Obviously, neither of those shoulds apply if you are neither interested in secure communications nor willing to invest money in such research.
So you will have to be more specific about your goals.
David Gould (Comment#18169)-You really don’t believe that some things are “shoulds” for no particular reason? No “shoulds” are just “shoulds”, only the kind that you can personally justify?
No wonder you aren’t religious! I have to say though that while it may be irrational, I think some things are “shoulds” just for their own sake. “Shoulds you just should”.
You may be hard to talk to-many may simply be operating from completely different axioms…
Andrew_FL,
For me, “shoulds” only make sense in the context of goals. This means, for example, that I do not believe in such a thing as objective morality.
You will likely discover that my beliefs are very, very unusual (weird ;)).
And, yes, it can be difficult to talk to people who operate with different axioms. But it can also be fun. 🙂
Andrew_FL–
I’m close to David Gould on the “should” issue. The overwhelming majority of “shoulds” for me are motivated by intentions and goals.
I”m an ENTP on the briggs myers scale. See http://www.massmatch.com/MBTI-2.php?id=3 You probably aren’t. 🙂
I am INTP.
“I do not believe in such a thing as objective morality.”
There is nothing you regard as objectively immoral? That seems a bit of a stretch. When people claim to not believe such things, I have to wonder if they know what that implies. It is one thing to reject certain moral codes, but saying that objective morality is something you don’t believe in, well, I don’t believe you! 🙂 This probably isn’t satisfying but I have to admit I don’t articulate everything clearly when I’m not to interested in a particular line of argument.
I don’t like to box myself in, and I see a little of me in many different parts of those.
However, I have to say it isn’t really that I don’t think most shoulds are motivated by personal goals. I just reject the hard view that all shoulds are that way.
Andrew_FL,
Objective morality doesn’t make any sense to me, as it relies on the existence of ‘shoulds for no reason’. And those are to me simply gibberish.
Can you give me an example of a ‘should for no reason’?
“I do not believe in such a thing as objective morality.â€
Yes, saving the earth from Global Warming is neither good nor bad.
Destroying the earth is really quite acceptable, if that is your goal.
LOL
Andrew
Andrew_KY,
It is obviously acceptable – to you – to destroy the world if that is your goal, so I am unclear what your point is. 🙂
Are you arguing that my position means that if someone else’s goal is to destroy the world I thus must accept their actions as good?
ISTJ here on Myers-Briggs, but I’ve got to tell this story (absolutely true, but probably not an “innocent” mistake.)
A typical corporate MB training session. Some guy is dutifuly describing his “type” and gets through the first 3 without trouble. Comes to the 4th letter, which can be either a J or a P.
“Actually I tested in the center on these two. I came out a slight J but I show both traits. My J-ness usually serves me well, but it’s my P-ness that really gets me into trouble.” (/blush)
(I’d probably get zambonied for this over at CA, and I know how that feels.)
http://cache.deadspin.com/assets/resources/2008/02/zamboni.jpg
My goal is to destroy the world, David. I think it’s something I should do. On what grounds should I stop pursuing my goal?
Andrew
Andrew_KY,
I would endeavour to discover other goals of yours that would not be satisfied by the destruction of the world and use those as a basis to argue that you should not destroy the world.
Is your argument that I would be better off telling you that it is objectively evil to destroy worlds? Why would that convince you?
David,
You aren’t answering the question. Let me rephrase: Why should I stop destroying the world?
Andrew
Andrew_KY,
As this is a hypothetical, I am not going to bother going through the discussion with you.
But I have outlined my general strategy: I would find other goals of yours that conflict with the destruction of the world and attempt to use those to convince you not to.
If I failed to convince you, and I believed that you had the capability of carrying out your intention, I would obviously then attempt to stop you by other means (such as, for example, getting the police to arrest you).
As an example, I think that Iran has the goal of getting nuclear weapons. I do not want them to get nuclear weapons. Thus, using other goals of theirs to convince them that getting nuclear weapons is not in their interests would be the initial strategy. If that looked like failing, sanctions and (since I am not a big believer in sanctions acheiving anything) military force would then be the options deployed.
Do you think that telling them that ‘Iran getting nuclear weapons’ is objectively evil’ would be a better strategy?
David,
As you won’t answer my question, I’m not going to bother, either.
Good night.
Andrew
Andrew_KY,
No problem. 🙂 Have a nice sleep.
David Gould (Comment#18179)- “Are you arguing that my position means that if someone else’s goal is to destroy the world I thus must accept their actions as good?”
If you say they are “bad” and I ask what your basis is, you have to appeal to something? Their decency? That’s their morality. Your stuff is in the world? So it is wrong to destroy your stuff? Environmentalism-earth is good for it’s own sake? That’s what you are rejecting exactly.
Is murder objectively bad, or only if it conflicts with someone’s goals? If so, you are perverse man.
Your use of good and bad are subjective, then? So you have no problem if I declare that what you say are good and bad are exactly wrong, you can’t object, after all, those must be subjective choices. I think you can see where this is going.
By the way, what is reason for being unable or unwilling to accept any “shoulds for no reason”?
“Objective morality doesn’t make any sense to me, as it relies on the existence of ’shoulds for no reason’. And those are to me simply gibberish.”
They are gibberish-but that’s a subjective belief of yours. Now you might say, that has nothing to do with morality. I disagree. You say, “you can’t just redefine terms” why? Some morality? I know not of what you speak. Since it is all subjective, you cannot say there is anything wrong with me making you say things you didn’t say-putting words in your mouth-after all, it’s my goal to win this argument and unless there is some objective moral code of argumentation…You see where I’m going by now right? Well anyway. Here’s a should for no reason. You should believe in shoulds for no reason. You should because you do, even if you think you don’t. Prove me wrong. My subjective morality says I don’t have to prove myself right.
Andrew_FL,
I think that you have fallen into the trap that many people who believe in objective morality fall into when discussing the issue with someone who doesn’t.
You raised the issue of how it can be difficult to discuss things with someone who has different axioms than you do. The above is an example of why.
The problem is, you are using axioms inherent to belief in objective morality to discuss subjective morality.
When you talk about how I cannot object if you declare me evil, you are correct. I most certainly cannot say, ‘You are objectively wrong for declaring me evil.’
However, I can say, ‘In my subjective opinion, you are wrong for declaring me evil,’ (assuming I had any interest in contesting the issue with you.)
My ‘morals’ (and I put them in inverted commas to remind people that when I discuss morality I am not talking about an objective set of rules held in common by everyone, but rather *opinions*) are what I use to make judgments with.
Thus, when I say something like, ‘What you are doing is evil,’ (although I try to avoid using the term) what I mean is, ‘I don’t like what you are doing.’ It is that simple.
As such, I can certainly take issue with any claim that you make and disagree with you and try to prevent you to take actions based on those claimes that I disagree with. None of this is at odds with my belief that morality is subjective and derives from goals.
Regarding your last paragraph in particular, can you tell me why I *should* try and alter your opinion regarding my disbelief in shoulds? 😉
And once again we are a long way off topic. 🙂
David — this is scary we both claim to be some sort of conservative and have the same MB profile and yet we find so much to disagree about.
With your discussion with the other Andrew prehaps I can propose a compromise of Utilitarianism, then you need just one objective moral position “the greatsest good for the greatest number” and then all else follows.
Of course we then get to argue over the definition of greatest good.
David, we went way off topic long ago. It’s not as if we could really have a very long discussion of NOAA’s change in methodology.
David Gould (Comment#18189)-Actually half my post was attempting to reason from the perspective of having no objective morality. In refuting me you have proved me correct. Am I bad for saying such a thing when I can’t support it? I suppose that “depends”. Frankly my point was not really that objective morality exists but that arguing that it doesn’t puts one in the awkward position of losing the ability to object to anything. Replacing that with subjecting to things just makes it impossible to deal with people, as there is no reason one cannot easily subject back. Such a situation smacks of futility…But if your goal in dispensing with objective morality is futility, well, no wonder discussions with you are so futile…
Andrew Kennett (Comment#18191)-how do you know that isn’t my morality already? (not saying that it is or isn’t, I haven’t done the math to reduce it to it’s most basic component) Well, I suspect that David’s un-recognized objective moral code disallows him from having a non-subjective moral code as “bad”….But he has said something along the lines of his beliefs not being his choice, which would seem rather odd if he believes his moral code is his choice, which he would have to to adopt Utilitarianism…
Andrew_FL,
Unfortunately, you failed in your attempt. The reason is that you were not able to completely discard objective morality and thus were unable to adopt a perspective of having no objective morality. (I have had this discussion numerous times, so am familiar with the way these things go.)
The word ‘object’ and the word ‘objective’, while related, do not mean the same thing.
As such, I can certainly object to anything I wish to, despite having no objective morality, and still be philsophically consistent.
Andrew Kennett and Andrew_FL,
I do not believe in free will (or the self, for that matter … told you I had weird beliefs ;)).
Everything we believe ultimately comes down to our biology and our experiences. This is why reasonable people can come to opposite conclusions on every topic.
As an example of how a subjectivist might think on a particular topic, imagine that I, a subjectivist, was subject to an attempted murder by another subjectivist.
From my perspective, my subjective goal is not to be killed.
From their perspective, their subjective goal is to kill me.
Obviously, these goals conflict.
From a subjectivist perspective, their own individual goals are the most important things. If they were not, then the subjectivist would not have those goals.
Thus, from *my* perspective, not being killed is ‘good’.
From their perspective, killing me is ‘good’.
There can be no argument here as to who is *really* right here, as from a subjectivist perspective there is no right without a perspective.
As I am me, my goal is the right one *from my perspective*.
As they are them, their goal is the right one *from their perspective*.
Thus, I can most definitely object to and take action to avoid being murdered and be perfectly consistently subjectivist.
Andrew Kennett,
Re conservatism and disagreement, I have in the past labelled myself as a socialist neoconservative. On politics blogs, I have never fitted in with those on the left or those on the right, because I agree with some of the views of both sides. However, in my heart of hearts I consider myself to be ‘true left’. Those on the left who disagree with my positions on some things are obviously ‘false left’. 😉
David — the old false v true left debate it has provided me with much amusement. Just like the squirm of the AGW “rational” believer when confronted with some of the more outlandish claims e.g. shrinking sheep or the amusment of watching atheists debate about morality or christians about angels and the head of pins
Andrew_Kennett,
Re atheists debating about morality, I hope that I am providing amusement. 🙂
“As such, I can certainly object to anything I wish to, despite having no objective morality, and still be philsophically consistent.”
No, not really. What you are doing is subjecting. Everyone. To tedious nonsense. So let’s drop it and we can both come off thinking the other is wrong.
Andrew Kennett (Comment#18199)-Me and David are the atheists debating morality, right? Good, because I wasn’t aware I was an atheist! Before anyone thinks that explains everything (David) I didn’t say I was a theist either. Actually maybe the reason me and David can’t agree is that he is an objectivity denier and I am a subjectivity denier-well, not quite, but what I mean is that I do not believe in subjective morality. I think even David has one of some kind. If that doesn’t make sense, you are caught up in your subjective decisions to not understand 😉
Andrew_FL,
If you don’t want to discuss it, you just have to say so. 🙂
Okay then.
“shrinking sheep” Why is it absurd?
Lucia, â€The least squares trend since Jan 2001 is negative. Because I believe the long trend is positive, I expect this to change. I’ll admit I don’t know when I expect it to change.â€
I am not a statistician, and I am a bit confused about the use of the word “trendâ€. Sometimes it is obviously used as a strictly mathematical term referring to a given set of data, for example as shorthand for describing all observations of the global temperature between, say, 2001 and June 2009. To verify or falsify such a statement you only have to check your calculations. But in what you say above it is also used as some kind of prediction, a so called “long trendâ€. Obviously “long trend†(as in “the long temperature trend for the 21st century is +2 ï‚°Câ€) is not a purely mathematical concept but refers to something out there, a climatic trend perhaps? If so, then your method of checking it out will have to wait until you see what Nature has in store for us. It is an empirical statement that has to be justified by some theory concerning the climate system, not just by previous statistical trends.
Maybe it would be clearer to people like me if one uses terms like “mathematical trend†for the first type, and “natural trend†for trends that refer to climatic trends inherited in the climate system itself.
Ingemar
Of course. I believe the theory that GHG’s tend to warm the atmosphere and I believe the increased concentration of GHGs caused part of the warming in the 20th century. Of course we can’t know how much warming is in the future until it comes, so yes. With regard to the future: That’s a prediction contingent on a concerning the climate system.
“Thus, from *my* perspective, not being killed is ‘good’.
From their perspective, killing me is ‘good’.”
David Gould,
Just for your information…I think (and a lot of people have this same general perspective about life) that the presence of your life in our shared experience is always good. And that anyone who thinks otherwise is in error.
Now you can claim you think the position I just described has no real validity. But according to your own philosophy, it’s just as valid as any claim you can make to the contrary.
Andrew
Andrew_KY: keep it up. Really.
Lucia,
Well, the reason I bring this up is the annoying habit of some people (I do not accuse you of this fallacy) to use the a priori truth of mathematics (incuding statistics) to justify things which are merely guesses about the future. They say “See this trend (pointing at an undeniable statistical trend of the past) ? Therefore the long term trend, or the “underlying” trend, is such and such. Therefore it is improbable that anything will deviate from that trend in the future.”
But the fact is of course that a natural trend may change at any time. It all depends on the real mechanisms of climate. And what you predict about the future natural trend (and in the long run, your prediction about the a purely statistical trend) is completely dependen on what you believe about those real mechanisms.
Would you agree?
Ingemar–
Yes. I agree.
Lucia,
So, if you accept my distinction between natural trends and statistical trends, then exacly what are you falsifying when you falsify the predictions of the IPCC? I have enjoyed your postings here about that very much. But I have always felt a bit uneasy about what you, and they, are doing.
Obviously, since the IPCC make a prediction on the basis of a climatic theory of the real world they seem to predict a natural trend of GT. And you show pretty convincingly that that natural trend has not shown itself lately. Therefore if the IPCC makes a claim about the natural trend so far they are wrong. And they are wrong whatever will happen in the future, because the natural trend between 2001 and now was not as they predicted.
On the other hand, they might say that “oh, we only wanted to make a prediction/scenario about long term trends”. And if “long term trend” is interpreted as a statistical trend, then the only thing they say is that after 90 years if we look back over the GT observations during the 21st century we will find a rise of GT with two degrees centigrade! So, nothing you do now will falsify their purely statistical prediction in the least.
Getting back to the topic of this post…
Lucia, you missed the opportunity for a perfectly in-theme subtitle. 🙂
Now with more tuning!
Has anyone read Smith et al, 2008? I’m curious what constitutes the test for “improved” tuning of analysis. Is there some objective measure or does the fact that the tuning of analysis methods is new automatically qualify it as improved? I know, I should RTFP, but does anyone have any initial thoughts?
Ingmar:
The multi-model mean trend is presumed to be describing an ensemble average of the possible observed trends associated with weather realizations that could be observed on earth.
So, in some sense, that IPCC multi-model mean trend is a “underlying trend” which I think you want to call a “climactic trend”.
The t-tests on a single realization of weather are designed to test whether a specific realization of weather is consistent with a “climactic trend” given some set of assumptions about the statististical model that applies to the “weather noise”.
Since the multi-model mean exists at all particular times, it is possible to apply a statistical test to determine whether the observed trend over a time period “T” is consistent with the trend that corresponds to the multi-model mean trend.
If we apply a t-test in a standard way, and assume the earth’s “weather noise” is read, then the observed trend since 2001 is not consistent with the climate trend obtained from the multi-model mean of the models under the AR4.
Ingemar (Comment#18220) August 20th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Ingemar,
I think we would be in agreement there are varying degrees of “faith” in the future prediction. If I observe a pool ball moving at some speed in a straight line, then I feel safe in inferring that it will mostly continue its current trend in the near term. On the other hand, if I measure the orbital velocity of a satellite, then given what we know about objects such as this (and our knowledge of the gravity field), then I can project the future path with reasonable accuracy, but this will not be a simple trend unless the projection is VERY short!
I saw a post some time ago at Open Mind where the author simulated a geophysical data record comprising a linear trend plus noise. If I remember correctly, the conclusion was that the trend “really exists” (by mathematical construction!) despite the noise, even if a best fit shows a somewhat different trend due to the noise. I guess you might also agree this analogy is bogus, but the readership was mostly appreciative.
So I quote you again, since I agree as well:
And yes, it is annoying.
lucia (Comment#18226) August 20th, 2009 at 11:40 am
But as I believe you yourself have noted in the past, that approach contains at least three large presumptions:
1) The multi-models cover the space of weather variability
2) The multi-models are not systematically biased (e.g., wrong physics)
3) The averaging process makes sense
A question about variability in the (multi-model) future scenarios was posed recently to Tapio Schneider at a talk. It’s a bit hard to summarize the entire response, but the relevant part was that all it takes is a few models which are oversensitive in a given part of the domain to swamp that portion of your multi-model “average.”
The possible mitigating factor for the “hand-waviness” of the ensemble averaging is that they have to assume/provide some underlying model for the weather noise if the attempt to average it out is meaningful. Then it might be fair to compare the predictions against their OWN model as Lucia has been doing. But unfortunately I don’t think it sheds a lot of light on the actual future climate.
Oliver
P.S.: This post could surely use (more) editing but it’s just some coffee break blabber, please disregard if it makes no sense!
Oliver
This made me laugh. It can be annoying to feel the constraint of what is thought to be true based on some interpretation of physics. Of course, I could just make predictions based on reading the entrails of goats. Such freedom!
oliver (Comment#18229)-Yes but we might want to know if any of those hypotheses are invalid. The conclusion of the statistical tests appears to be that any of those assumptions could be wrong, or they aren’t but models are missing the target for some completely different reason. And as with statistical tests there is always a probability that the rejection is a chance occurrence. That last possibility is rare but not unheard of. So of these hypotheses, one of them is false, or some other hypothesis is, or there is nothing incorrect about these hypotheses but the statistical test is result in a “false negative”.
The hypotheses are (and there may be more):
1) The multi-models cover the space of weather variability
2) The multi-models are not systematically biased (e.g., wrong physics)
3) The averaging process makes sense
You don’t think maybe we’d want to know if these being wrong was the case?
I nominate this entire post as the ‘poster child’ for the phrase “Ad Nauseum.”
Andrew_KY (Comment#18096)
Andrew,
I have no record whatsoever of my birth weight. I have no reports whatsoever of my birth weight. It is unobserved. I have no record or observation of my weight today. I feel like I always do. I have not observed my weight gain, nor do I have records of it. Yet, I seriously doubt that you would say that I haven’t gained weight since my birth. You haven’t observed me at any time, nor have you observed any records, recorded by people you trust or otherwise. Yet, you believe in my weight gain. And you believe in the dark side of the moon even though you have never observed it. You even believe that you have a brain in your head even though you have never seen your brain or smelled it, or touched it, or heard it. I, however, reserve judgement on that matter
Andrew Kennett (Comment#18089)
“A serious question. Why does acceptance or rejection of ALL scienitific theories have to have the same level/ type of proof.”
They don’t. There is no such thing as proof of a theory. There is confirmation and disconfirmation. Proof is for math and logic. Theories explain past data and predict future data. They do so with varying levels of accuracy. Data can be explained by many theories. The most useful theory survives, usually.
Andrew_KY (Comment#18105)
“And if you hadn’t noticed, spreading the belief in Global Warming is enabling, if not enhancing, the political goals of the Global Warming movement, which are tyrannical to say the least”
I am sorry I have not seen these goals or touched these goals or heard these goals or smelt these goals. Lucia did you se it in Chicago? And Andrew where is this global warming movement anyway. I looked for it outside just now. Didn’t see it.
Steven,
You are engaging in selective sight. I posted a list of people trying to enact global warming legislation. Perhaps you should read it.
Andrew
steven–
Like you, I have neither seen, felt, heard, tasted or touched “the global warming movement”. It’s sort of like a dream, right?
David Gould (Comment#18176)
“Objective morality doesn’t make any sense to me, as it relies on the existence of ’shoulds for no reason’. And those are to me simply gibberish.”
Where did you get that sort of notion?
You should do X.
Why?
Because X is good.
Is X good?
What? can’t you see that X is good? Is your moral sense is broken?
X is red.
is X red?
What? can’t you see that X is red, are you color blind?
I don’t want this thread to devolve into a debate about the foundations of ethical theory and the requirements for foundations in theories. That will lead us to Godel.
Lucia and Steven,
If you don’t accept official gov’t records of legislation and who voted for and against it, I suggest you watch C-Span for when said legislation is debated in the Senate. If you don’t accept that either, I suggest you need more remedial help. There are lots of resources out there. You can watch Al Gore’s propaganda film. Or have you guys seen it already?
Andrew
Andrew_KY– Just as I’ve never seen “Global warming” on C-span, I’ve also never seen any “global warming movement” on C-Span. I also don’t see any “movement” when I watch an inconvenient truth.
“Political Movements” like “Scientific Theories” are something anyone can see, hear, feel, touch or taste. Being able to sense the “thing” with one of these was supposedly, your criteria.
I hate to get us back on temperature data again, but do my eyes deceive me or is the UKMet July anomaly exactly the same as the June one?
Both 0.499
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly
JohnM–
The bot watching for updates told me they updated. I saw what you are seeing. Too many numbers are held over from June. I’m waiting for Hadley’s other sources to update because that is clearly WRONG. Heh.
steven mosher (Comment#18261)
Even if I accepted your premises that:
a) there existed such a thing as ‘a moral sense’; and
b) that this moral sense led people to the same conclusions about what is and is not good,
(and note that I accept neither of these premises)
why *should* I do that which is good instead of, say, that which is fun, or that which is expedient, or even that which is evil?
And, yes, this is still way off topic.
If I said “the environmental movement” would I have to explain what that is? Just curious because some things are obvious.
Let me see if there’s a way to rephrase this so that it works for the “GW movement”-
“Group of people active in encouraging or actually being a part of the government’s legislative process in the action of passing legislation which would use government power to attempt to address the effect of our emissions from economic activity’s perceived negative effect on the Earth’s climate.”
Said group, to be sure, may include people with very different ideas of what said legislation would be, but the “movement” would be those people…are they trying to advance tyranny? Let me ask my good buddy J Edgar Hoover!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellow_traveler#J._Edgar_Hoover
“In his 1958 book, Hoover defined a “fellow traveler” as one of five types of dangerous subversives. [3] He believed any of them might promote the goal of a Communist overthrow of the United States government. The five types were:
* 1) The card-carrying Communist, one who openly admits membership in the Communist party.
* 2) The underground Communist, one who hides his Communist party membership.
* 3) The Communist sympathizer, a potential Communist because of holding Communist views.
* 4) The fellow traveler, someone not a potential Communist but nevertheless who may hold views shared by Communists.
* 5) The dupes, a person who is obviously not a Communist or a potential Communist but whose views may coincide with some of those of the American Communists. Examples are a prominent religious leader who opposed increased military expenditures and war, or a prominent jurist who opposed Red-baiting tactics on civil liberty grounds.
While the card-carrying Communist was known as a ‘Red’, Hoover called the Communist sympathizer, the Underground Communist and the Dupe a ‘Pink’ or ‘Pinko.'”
This hierarchy is not only useful for categorizing commies, but also well describes virtually all dangerous political movements (and non-dangerous ones?). The vast majority of the “movement” are dupes. The leadership is even probably pretty dopey. BUT there is an undercurrent of people with much more banal agendas than “merely” forcing emitters to by coupons from each other and the government or lose all right to do any emitting…
Now, one could call mere taxation, no matter how minimal to be “tyrannical”-just try not paying!-but it would be more accurate to say “not conducive to the preservation of liberty”. Of course, that is even more sinister. It is one thing to have liberty denied to you, quite another to have it taken from you.
“It is one thing to have liberty denied to you, quite another to have it taken from you.”
Oh, is that why so many of the guardians of Liberty also despise Science?
oliver (Comment#18268)-If that wasn’t satire, go jump off a cliff. I was weened on science for Deity’s sake.
And what about our hostess, who is not a denier like me, but leans libertarian?
Andrew_Fl–
If you were discussing a “global climate change movement” stephen and I wouldn’t be giving you a hard time. The problem with Andrew_KY is he insists on standard for “proving” a theory that, if applied to “proving” the existence of a movement, would mean we can’t prove the existence of a movement.
But… then… in the cross talk, he changes his standards.
You on the other hand, disbelieve AGW without suddenly deciding to bring forward epistomological claims about p each person having to read the thermometers individually or it somehow doesn’t count.
That’s why stephen is giving Andrew_KY a hard time.
Andrew_FL (Comment#18269) August 21st, 2009 at 7:37 pm
I’ll keep that in mind when I update my list of oughts, which I keep as a liner note in my copy of The Communist Manifesto.
Somehow, I don’t see her thumbing through J. Edgar Hoover’s notes to ascertain whether AGW is a tyrannical movement. More likely she’d ask some inconvenient questions and get banned from the web by the man.
David Gould (Comment#18266)
“Even if I accepted your premises that:
a) there existed such a thing as ‘a moral sense’; and
b) that this moral sense led people to the same conclusions about what is and is not good,”
Note. You will not find me making any statement like b whatsoever. Further I don’t expect you to accept a)
I am pointing out that your characterization of objective morality is flaw. As you argued “should” implies doing things for no reason.
“why *should* I do that which is good instead of, say, that which is fun, or that which is expedient, or even that which is evil?”
why should I have to give you a reason to do the good? Why shouldn’t I just force you to? You see, you believe I should give you reasons. That is, you believe in the morality of reason. That unless I can give you a reason you are not obligated to do something.
yes OT. You should give up. No wait, I order you to keep arguing.
lucia (Comment#18260)
Many threads ago I warned Andrew_KY ( slippery name that) that his epistemology put him in a position of not being able to convince others. So, ya, this whole global warming movement is like a dream.
On a serious note. When I started looking at AGW I had two knee jerk reactions. I trotted out my skeptical tools. espistemological for the science and moral scepticsm (no objective morality) for the public policy. These are tools any one of us with liberal education carries around to hold our ground when we don’t really understand the subject matter or the issues. Over time as I got my footing on the science and the real issues it became clear to me that Lukewarming was a position that made the most sense.
I didn’t have to run around and deny radiation physics ( crap I worked on IR sensors I knew better) and I didn’t have to toss out my sense of stewardship WRT the planet and future generations.
Neither did I have to swallow some of the crap that Mann wrote or believe that the planet would burn up in 10 years if we didnt cut C02 immediately. In some sense both sceptics ( who fear being controlled by others) and the alarmist (who fear the apocalypse) are driven by emotion.
( that’ll get em going)
Sadly, it’s become a religious movement on both sides (and not in the complimentary sense). Being Lukewarm only means you’ll get hate from all involved.
Which is a pity since it is after all a relevant and scientifically interesting topic.
“Neither did I have to swallow some of the crap that Mann wrote or believe that the planet would burn up in 10 years if we didnt cut C02 immediately.”
He didn’t say that. We have a short time to act to prevent what is going to happen, since the lag time on the climate change due to AGW is long. I also don’t recall him ever using the word ‘burn’.
stephen mosher,
I didn’t understand that post at all, to be honest. 🙂
Lucia,
You can see the Global Warming movement. You can see people who espouse the belief in Global Warming and are attempting to enact legislation based on that belief. That’s what the Global Warming movement is. You can see the people (in person if you really want to), hear their words and understand what it is they are trying to accomplish.
Are you saying this is beyond your perception?
Andrew
Andrew_KY–
I can only see actions and hear words. “A movement” is neither actions nor words. So, there has been no seeing, hearing, touching, tasting or feeling of “a movement”.
To the extent that I believe any “movement” exists, this is because I do not apply the standard of evidence you claim you require for us to believe in global warming.
It’s clear you don’t really apply that standard of evidence to things whose existence you believe in– like “movements”.
Lucia,
A political movement is the combination of actions and words by a group of people to achieve a political goal.
All the parts there are tangible. The people, the expression of belief in speech and written words and the legislative goal.
It’s not a squggly line derived through the use of imagination.
Andrew
bugs (Comment#18275)
Reread the sentence you are commenting on. Mosher didn’t say Mann used the word “burn”. Also, Mosh’s comment about Mann’s “crap” is unrelated to the 10 year crap.
oliver (Comment#18271)-FWIW, I’m not some huge J Edgar Hoover fan. But he did create a useful way of analyzing the structure of “movements”.
david gould,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/opinion/23wright.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1
This thread wandered off into discussion of believe v know, for those still interested you may want to check the discussion on the Capital Imperialist Pig blog at
http://capitalistimperialistpig.blogspot.com/2009/08/certainty.html
Andrew Kennett (Comment#18694)-Is that the guy that Lubos is always beating the crap out of in comments at The Reference Frame?
Andrew_FL — I’m not sure I had a quick look at The Reference Frame but couldn’t find any cross-refs but that is my first visit there.