tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post1870560896175910916..comments2024-02-29T03:34:23.190-05:00Comments on Who Were the Sea Peoples?: Sunlight-stealing aliens invade the Solar System!gcallahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-68706010098572331592015-03-08T22:24:53.704-04:002015-03-08T22:24:53.704-04:00I am confused: no matter how many times I note tha...I am confused: no matter how many times I note that I am not really interested in the details of this debate itself, but just in illustrating a larger philosophical point, people keep filling me in on the details of this debate!gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-41536055225804892412015-03-06T16:31:46.874-05:002015-03-06T16:31:46.874-05:00Ah, I think I have it, Gene; this might help. *Nob...Ah, I think I have it, Gene; this might help. *Nobody* except maybe random commenters on blog posts denies the simple chemistry/physics behind the claim that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that other things equal, more CO2 in the atmosphere is a forcing factor. But the "consensus" computer models all have *positive feedback effects* which amplify the direct warming coming from increasing CO2 concentrations.<br /><br />That's what the debate is about. It's not that Richard Lindzen, say, denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Rather, the scientists in this debate are arguing over the interaction of a bunch of different factors. <br /><br />So it really wouldn't do for one group to say, "Well, our only point here was that CO2 made the Earth warmer than it otherwise would have been." Nobody denies that. What they are arguing about is the absolute level of temperatures to be expected, because that drives the relevant policy recommendations.Bob Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04001108408649311528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-53302596759901311512015-03-06T16:28:55.898-05:002015-03-06T16:28:55.898-05:00Gene, I totally get what you're saying, and ye...Gene, I totally get what you're saying, and yes, depending on the status of the global warming debate as of 2013, it is theoretically possible that this new stuff about solar activity could be like your alien example.<br /><br />However, the *actual* status of the debate circa 2013 does not allow that possibility. The people building the computer climate models took into account solar activity and said it's not a big deal. They knew (I am pretty sure) all of the facts about the sun that the article you linked to is discussing, and nonetheless said the Earth is going to continue to warm through the 21st century.<br /><br />Let me put it this way: Surely Gene you agree from the perspective of the philosophy of science that in *some* cases it makes sense to say, "The evidence showed that this particular model was very inaccurate."Bob Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04001108408649311528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-61728608604435409622015-03-06T13:22:56.538-05:002015-03-06T13:22:56.538-05:00And what *I* am saying is: I am not interested in ...And what *I* am saying is: I am not interested in what these people think: I am just trying to illustrate a broader philosophical point about testing theories.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-75582605035746319162015-03-06T12:58:05.339-05:002015-03-06T12:58:05.339-05:00Suppose you are about to drink from a glass and I ...Suppose you are about to drink from a glass and I say "Gene, that's full of poison, it will kill you if you drink it!" You ignore me and drink from the glass. Seconds later, Bob shows up angry about your argument over sunk cost, and shoot you dead. <br /><br />In that situation the fact that the drink didn't kill you doesn't mean I was wrong. <br /><br />However, if the reason you don't die is that the drink was just fruit juice, then that would mean I was wrong. <br /><br />What Bob and I are saying is that the Ice Age theories are more like the second case. The people promoting the theories don't think that human activity has an appreciable warming effect on the planet. It's all just the sun. Josiah Neeleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04991797256901556143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-56768362001110332062015-03-05T21:07:52.155-05:002015-03-05T21:07:52.155-05:00That is absolutely correct, rob. And I think the A...That is absolutely correct, rob. And I think the AGW camp probably has over-stated the certainty of their claims!gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-37030649114257402912015-03-05T21:01:50.616-05:002015-03-05T21:01:50.616-05:00The degree of wrongness of the the climate scien...The degree of wrongness of the the climate scientists would depend upon the strength of the claims they had made, wouldn't it ?<br /><br />No matter how good their model were, If they had said "We predict with 100% certainty that there will no ice age in the foreseeable future" they would have been plain wrong wouldn't they ?robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04682517711551179057noreply@blogger.com