Why I'm A Condescending Jerk

Reme,

Thank you for clarifying your thoughts on Mann's data. While I agree Mann has “fought back” and other scientists have supported him, I think the most damning statement about the validity of his work is the IPCC's rejection of his data. If the scientific community was truly behind his work, I would imagine the IPCC would still be displaying it.

I am fully aware that you believe the data supports man-made global warming. And, yes, I agree with you that man has damaged the planet and that much of that damage is detrimental and irreversible. Where we disagree regards the concept that man has caused massive global warming that will be the end of life as we know it.

You are arguing we have. I am arguing we have contributed slightly to global warming and that the majority of that change is natural, out of our control, and will not kill us.

However, because you brought the debate to the table and said you wanted to lay out your case, I have merely commented on your information, attacked your reasoning, and shown data to contradict yours only when necessary. I have done this because I felt it was your case to prove, not mine. If we are playing prosecutor and defense, the burden rests on you to prove your case, not on me to prove mine.

For this reason, I have provided data only when I thought it truly necessary. You seem to think I am “cherry-picking” data, but I think this is a stretch. There is a wealth of data I could present, but I am working my posts as responses to yours. You are presenting your case for global warming, while I am showing you where your case needs work.

Also, I don't think it's fair to say I'm “cherry-picking” particular portions of data, either. I believe I emphasized clearly that Solanki's own conclusion about his data differs from mine. If I'd wanted, I could have left that out altogether. It would have been disingenuous of me to withhold such information, because it would have made it seem that Solanki was against global warming, but I could have left it out of my post. Doing so would have made my case stronger.

But I didn't. I told the truth.

Yes, it no doubt seems I am being condescending. And, no doubt, it rubs you the wrong way. Could I do a better job of being nice? I could.

There are two reasons for my tone. First, you can do better. When I tell you your logic is sloppy it's because you are capable of sharper, clearer and more focused thinking. If I thought sloppiness was all you were capable of, I wouldn't bother. You're smart. Damn smart. Watching you wade through logical fallacies as if they were holy truths tries my patience because I recognize you have greater potential.

Probably it seems as if I am constantly attacking you, as an individual. I have tried to keep the focus of my attacks on your argument, on your logic. I have done so because this is an area where you can improve. I have largely acknowledged the facts you present, because facts are not debatable (only their interpretation).

My approach serves two purposes: First, it should help you to strengthen your own argument. I am pointing out flaws, and I am pointing them out roughly, but to point them out delicately makes it likely you will ignore them altogether. If you can put aside your anger at being treated poorly, you will find the ways in which to make your argument stronger. Second, it also gives you the option of changing my mind. My mind is not closed, although to some it may seem to be. I argue forcefully, but that does not mean I am not open to new ways of seeing the world. I focus on your arguments because they are weak. Go back and examine your facts and present a strong logical argument...and you may just alter my perception.

Finally, I give you rough treatment because, quite frankly, global warming advocates piss me off. Understand for a moment how I view this: Your entire argument is a fundamental attack on the principles of science and democracy. That's what I see. GWAs use pseudo-science and false logic to distract and frighten millions of people, and in doing so they undermine the two most vital systems in our nation: our science and our democratic government. That's my viewpoint.

That burns me in a place very close to my core. Therefore, you get the rough treatment.

Understand something else. When you start to make a solid argument and start taking into account all the data, you will discover my anger goes away. I am not angry at you, per se. I am not angry at your conclusion. It is a mistake to think so. I am angry with your method, which in my view is unsound and manipulative.

To try and illustrate what I mean, to be clear, let me give you some examples.

You bring up the issue of feedback loops. This is good. I like talking about feedback loops. This is a scientific place to start, a scientific debate. Excellent.

Feedback loops can play a particular role in a wide range of issues, but here of course we are focusing on changes in the climate which have effects which reinforce their initial causes, creating a “loop,” from which, at least in theory, there is no escape.

No doubt you've seen arguments for cooling loops in regards to ice ages. Temperature drops. We get more ice. More ice means more sunlight bounced off the planet. Which means cooler temperatures. Which means more ice.

On and on as you say.

In the example you give, we have a rise in temperature. Which causes ice to melt. Which releases methane. Which increases a rise in temperature. Which causes ice to melt.

A loop.

I'm still with you, and so far I'm still happy.

But you leave it there. I would assume that you would argue that such feedback loops will lead to extreme global warming and the end of life (or, at least, mass destruction). That is the general global warming argument.

And that is all you say. Which is where I start to get angry.

See, you've acknowledged feedback loops, but you've only acknowledged them as far as they support your argument. You didn't point out that there is a fundamental flaw in the overall feedback loop theory, which is that feedback loops are not iron traps. They change.

(this should be an obvious point, given that the Earth has gone through regular, periodic alterations between warm and cool)

Furthermore, in order to present information in a way that only supports your argument, you simplify it and ignore the greater complexity, and you do so specifically because if you acknowledged that complexity it would undermine your argument.

Example:

A study published in March 2001 in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society presented data showing a correlation between higher sea surface temperature of cloudy regions and fewer clouds. The data showed that a one degree Celsius increase seemed to cause twenty-two percent fewer upper-level clouds.

In other words, when the temperature increases the clouds dissipate, allowing more infrared cooling, and thus resisting changes in tropical surface temperature.

Since clouds account for the greatest influence on global temperature, this is key. In regards to the IPCC report that was out at the time this data was published, the IPCC had indicated a predicted change in temperature of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius in roughly the next century. The data published in the Bulletin took into account their research (the IPCC cloud variation models were, by their own admission, drastically uncertain) and found a readjusted projection of .64 to 1.6 degrees Celsius.

The importance here is two-fold. First, to note that feedback loops are not immutable. The earth's climate adjusts naturally to alterations in temperature. Which means that claiming that a rise in CO2 will cause warming which will cause melting which will cause warming...on and on...is a model which does not take into account the way the world works.

Second, it points out the reason we need to acknowledge this complexity. Because it will dramatically alter our projections.

And, now, you see, I'm really quite pissed off. Because the GWA argument is built very carefully, very selectively, so as to present only one narrow little view, and that view only works if it ignores whole realms of data, common sense and logic.

This is what I can't stand.

I commend your correction of my analysis regarding why we would not see a spike in temperature until the 1970/80's. Indeed, the natural world has adjusted to an increase in CO2, much of which is absorbed by the oceans.

However, I'm also confused by your clarification. You argued before that the climate is extremely delicate, and that even slight amounts of alteration can lead to drastic consequences. Except here, in your clarification of my point, you seem to be arguing that the natural world has been able to handle our CO2 dumping for decades and decades, which would suggest it is not as delicate as you first stated.

I don't really think you can have it both ways.

Below this post you will find my specific argument in the CO2 debate, in a separate post.