28 August 2011

How Intellectually Interesting is the "Debate" over Global Warming and Hurricanes?


6 comments:

  1. It's hard to remember if intellect ever entered into any aspect of global warming including hurricanes, as there never has been any debate to speak of. There has only been a carefully orchestrated campaign involving talking points on consensus leading to the social meme that the "science is settled", "the debate is over" and anyone trying to debate any aspect of global warming is a "denier" or the moral equivalent of a "Jim Crow" era racist.

    As for recent politicized hurricanes, the dead bodies and damage serve as a propaganda tool to create fear about global warming which is an emotional plea that has nothing to do with intellect or debate. Let me know when an actual debate, if ever, occurs.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It shouldn't be a debate, really. The time when Burton and Speke could decide the source of the Nile by debate is long gone. Particularly when no one asked the Nile to weigh in.

    Sooner of later, there will be enough data collected for someone to write the definitive review on the subject. Until then, well, your pictures speak, er, I mean, snooze, very nicely for themselves.

    Oh, I just needed to say this, 8-2. I heard some of the chants directed at Arsene Wenger were quite cruel.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The empirical evidence of my inbox suggests otherwise. At least I think so. I stopped reading the thread a while ago.

    ReplyDelete
  4. At least the discussion has evolved a bit. The members of the media who have been following the discussion for a while are now asking better, and answerable, questions, rather than the old "was this storm caused by climate change?"

    ReplyDelete
  5. I personally think we should go back to original definitions. For economics, it was the study of political economy which more accurately describes the field. For Global Warming / Climate Change it should be Political Climate Change. Both fields, economics and climate change involve declaring validity of results that are not falsiable in the Popperian sense, let alone verifiable (talking especially about climate "models"). Similarly I find the discussion between Pielke Sr. and Gavin Schmidt illuminating. Schmidt would prefer to stick to original definitions of "warming" to be temperature rise, in order to suit his ends, whereas temperature is a lousy measure of any kind of change in extensive property without some measure of quantity. Temperature is a state variable - if you touch a hot iron it is hot. But if the mass of the iron is 1 picogram the action is totally inconsequential... no damage is possible because the amount of heat transferred is trivial, immeasurable. It is 1st lesson of Thermodynamics 101. It is also a feint of nominal science espoused by Thomas Khun to to say if there are X number of people agreeing you are allowed to claim a consensus and therefore scientifically true even if refutation or even validation is impossible.

    ReplyDelete