Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Latest WMO figures

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by Miaplacidus

I love these threads. If confirmation were ever needed of the Dunning-Kruger effect...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect

I's loves you all.

A timely reminder.
Infallibility is the mark of a fool...and I am never wrong about that.

I find it hard to understand however why discussions where there is a difference in the beliefs get so personal. There is no point in getting annoyed if someone does not share your viewpoint.

[madbadgalaxyman (Robert)]

Originally Posted by Miaplacidus

I love these threads. If confirmation were ever needed of the Dunning-Kruger effect...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect

I's loves you all.

Ah...but does that mean that you are so ultra-competent that you can recognize incompetence in those who post in this thread?

As amateur science enthusiasts, it is consistent with the facts that we may all be incompetent to a greater or lesser degree, but does this mean that people who are not experts in a particular field of science should not discuss it at all?

I think that it is still possible to enjoy a discussion and to be intellectually stimulated by it, and to be stimulated to learn a lot more about the topic under discussion, even if all the participants are wrong about the topic to some extent.

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

I find it hard to understand however why discussions where there is a difference in the beliefs get so personal. There is no point in getting annoyed if someone does not share your viewpoint.

Is it a lack of training or experience? Or just that people feel they can be rude via email - more rude than they would ever be in person?

I was at (yet another) seminar earlier this week on the causes of the Australian megafauna mass extinction. This debate has gone on for decades. The presenter was completely blaming humans but some in the audience clearly didn't agree. There were some pointed questions and some counter-arguments presented but no one would think of name calling or questioning someone's competency. You stick to the issue and deal with the evidence (or lack thereof).

Some years ago we had a conference here where the past climate of inland Australia, as revealed by studies around Lake Eyre, was discussed. During the debate a local academic and a visiting academic went at each other hammer and tongs. No name calling but they each clearly thought the other's interpretations were completely wrong and each thought the other couldn't see facts that stood out like sore thumbs. You would think they hated each other. Actually the visiting academic was staying with the local academic who had had some BBQs for the visitor and other academics. Personally they got on fine and really had great respect for each other despite their disagreements. A bit more of such maturity would be nice here (and elsewhere!) at times.

[xelasnave]

Back to topic.
It is wonderful China is on board. Considering their plans for more coal powered electricity generating plants their goal seems very ambitious maybe it can be realised by greater efficiency and shutting down less efficient plants. I find it encouraging that at least something is happening.
A question ... How do they get data for the amount of come in the atmosphere.
I tried to find put by goggle but kept getting sceptic sites explaining that all figures were unreliable..so I have up and thought I would ask here.

[xelasnave]

Sorry David I missed your post cause I was posting..give me a moment and I will reply when I have read it

[xelasnave]

David I can only guess as to why it is so.
Maybe antonimity has something to do with it but for myself I would not act differently I would like to think. But even though the experienced you refer to did not see name calling it seems the underlying annoyance was present.
Given that there were no eye witnesses present re the mega fauna extinction it is curious why either side can believe that their view is absolutely correct.
I have experienced many humbling experiences of having all the facts but nevertheless being wrong...No matter how compelling the facts one can be wrong.
So one should be humble in my view. Being humble makes giving respect to others way easier.

[sjastro]

It's not surprising that academics can be fierce rivals at a professional level and civil at a personal level when discussions are based on the exchange of facts rather than opinions.
One of the most famous rivalries was between Einstein and Bohr, yet both maintained respect for each other.

This forum is comparatively tame to others I have participated in.

Steven

[madbadgalaxyman (Robert)]

Originally Posted by AstralTraveller

During the debate a local academic and a visiting academic went at each other hammer and tongs. No name calling but they each clearly thought the other's interpretations were completely wrong and each thought the other couldn't see facts that stood out like sore thumbs. You would think they hated each other.

I know that this is just extending the long digression from the thread topic, but....

Respected scientists all know that Argumentum ad Hominem is a logical fallacy, but it seems to feel good for them when they engage in it.

Here are some actual (and amusing) real-world examples that I have experienced, in the speeches and writings of scientists, or which I have read about in scholarly accounts of various actual scientific disputes:

"his work has had little impact"
"Most of his work was actually done by his PhD students"
"he is in late career, and no longer very active in the field"
"he is in a different field, therefore he is undeniably poorly qualified to express an opinion on this matter"
"he really doesn't understand the topic, he just doesn't get it"
"he is largely retired"
"He is more of an administrator than a researcher"

Most of these barbs turn out to be substantially untrue, so their low cunning masks what is essentially similar to bad behaviour in the schoolyard!

Scientists, even the very greatest of them, display the same variety of personalities and motivations and moralities that "lesser mortals" do. I can name several who are out and out super-egoistic psychopaths who want to destroy the opposition and hog all of the credit. On the other hand, I can name others who are true gentlemen of humility and courtesy, always willing to share data, and also credit where it is due.

_________
sorry about the constant use of 'his' in this post. It would have been ridiculous to constantly say 'her/his'

[xelasnave]

Hi Steven I must say you have always been very certeious with me which I appreciate greatly.
Your help enabled me to move forward in so many respects to seek a better understanding.
I visit a science site where they would and do destroy someone who dares to try and offer a non mainstream view. In fact that site only allows non mainstream views in one section where ideas must be presented with evidence and math otherwise they fry you.
I could tell I frustrated you but your were always polite and very helpful.
I learnt how scientific method works and I believe I am the richer as a result.
So rather than destroy my interest you enabled me to learn.

[xelasnave]

Robert the understanding of logical fallicies
is very useful. I don't think it is only scientists who are aware of them however.

I have been instructing my daughter to recognise their use and fortunately although she does not like the latin titles is starting to get the idea.
I think it is wonderful that members here can be so respectful generally.
Ones position is diminished when one attacks the man rather than his argument.

[xelasnave]

Please forgive my spelling it is not great at the best of times but this phone ours words into my mouth and often it slips by. I try to edit but that does not always work.
One thing as I hinted at above is the alarming number of sceptic sites... Still on the positive at least the matter is causing discussion.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Hi Steven I must say you have always been very certeious with me which I appreciate greatly.
Your help enabled me to move forward in so many respects to seek a better understanding.
I visit a science site where they would and do destroy someone who dares to try and offer a non mainstream view. In fact that site only allows non mainstream views in one section where ideas must be presented with evidence and math otherwise they fry you.
I could tell I frustrated you but your were always polite and very helpful.
I learnt how scientific method works and I believe I am the richer as a result.
So rather than destroy my interest you enabled me to learn.

Hello Alex,

I assume you are referring to the Cosmoquest site and specifically to the "Against the Mainstream" forum.
As a "mainstreamer" myself who basically disagrees with everything presented there, I must admit it I find it quite appalling how individuals presenting non mainstream ideas are subjected to a Spanish Inquisition type environment.

I think the forum should be a free expression of alternative ideas.
If the ideas are presented elsewhere then it should be subject to scrutiny.

Regards


Steven

[xelasnave]

Yes you are correct Steven.
I do like the site.
I now rarely read the..against mainstream posts..because it is so predictable.
I do enjoy the run down on new papers which gives you a hint of what is happening at a glance. I like reading KenGees for whatever reason so far I find his stuff interesting.
They certainly don't suffer anything against climate change as you would be aware.
For those who don't visit there it goes like this...any view on climate change that is not mainstream must be posted in the against mainstream section...
I suspect if Robert tried to post the opening post of this thread it would be moved to..against mainstream..and he would then be carved up...
They ban you in a blink of the eye..nevertheless rudness is not tolerated.
There is a lot I do not understand but I learn somethingsometimes.
Anyways you will be happy to know that these days I see myself as mainstream in that I respect our current best theory..eg big bang..and recognise why it is best this way...So until I can offer a complete better theory...you will recall my push gravity conviction..I will support the mainstream.
There is stuff I don't like re big bang but that is not the point..all I have to do is come up with a but theory that fits observations etc if not shut up.
So how good is that...there is no point in disagreeing if you can not offer better.
I don't like religion but am at a loss to offer the masses a better alternative...same with capitalism..it has problems but what could you replace it with..

[Tropo-Bob (Bob)]

There has been mention of how scientist suffer have follies that the rest of us suffer. Similiarly, they also have emotional attachment to the debate.

I found letters from researchers on the website: http://isthishowyoufeel.weebly.com/t...el.html#steven

Following is one of the many letters available on this site:-

"The main things I feel about this are deep disappointment and anger, though I should probably try not to.

People have always faced challenges and adversity. When these are accepted and faced together, it can bring out our best – I believe this is what allows peoples of the world who endure great hardships to remain happy nonetheless.

The opposite is happening with this issue. We face a problem that could be addressed with relatively minor shared sacrifices, but instead there is a mass effort to ignore, defer, deny, and lie. Knowing that it will fall mostly on our own children, and their kids. On the part of people – of a generation – who are farther from hardship than almost any in history.

Global warming doesn’t bother me as much as what it is revealing about humans. Maybe I need to just grow up and get over it!

But that won’t help my kids any."

Steve Sherwood.

[xelasnave]

I felt anger and disappointment tonight because I watched mega cities on tv.
Las Vegas..the energy consumption of the casinos is disgusting..One casino has a power bill of 2 mill a month unless I misunderstood...
$120,000 pa for their spot light...What a waste ...what a huge carbon foot print that place must have...for what..gambling..

[Tropo-Bob (Bob)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

I watched mega cities on tv.
Las Vegas..the energy consumption of the casinos is disgusting..One casino has a power bill of 2 mill a month unless I misunderstood...
$120,000 pa for their spot light....

Scary ... because in 2016, plans are afoot to build an 8 Billion-Dollar Casio complex about 5kms from my place. I hope they have no spotlights!

(PS-8 Billion is not a misprint).

[xelasnave]

Mind numbing numbers.
Of course every dollar spent means more co2.
I wonder what turnover they expect..
Spot light or not I suspect it will add to light pollution.
I know I am grumpy but I hate gambling.

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by madbadgalaxyman

Respected scientists all know that Argumentum ad Hominem is a logical fallacy, but it seems to feel good for them when they engage in it.

Here are some actual (and amusing) real-world examples that I have experienced, in the speeches and writings of scientists, or which I have read about in scholarly accounts of various actual scientific disputes:

"his work has had little impact"
"Most of his work was actually done by his PhD students"
"he is in late career, and no longer very active in the field"
"he is in a different field, therefore he is undeniably poorly qualified to express an opinion on this matter"
"he really doesn't understand the topic, he just doesn't get it"
"he is largely retired"
"He is more of an administrator than a researcher"

Most of these barbs turn out to be substantially untrue, so their low cunning masks what is essentially similar to bad behaviour in the schoolyard!

Robert, the fallacy in the ad hominem argument is due to the irrelevant nature of the appeal made, not to its falsity. There is only one (maybe two at a stretch) of the premises stated above that really fall in to that category.

Incidentally, the converse to the ad hominem logical fallacy is the appeal to authority. An example of that would be if someone were to imply that their capacity to write (or quote others) in one field of scientific endeavour (let's say galaxy morphology) lent substance to an argument they had made in an unrelated science; the economics of adapting to climate change for instance.

[multiweb (Marc)]

On a brighter note latest observations from NASA about the ozone layer seem to point to a recovery. Still a way to go but the good news is that it's headed in the right direction now.

[Dave2042 (Dave)]

Originally Posted by clive milne

Robert, the fallacy in the ad hominem argument is due to the irrelevant nature of the appeal made, not to its falsity. There is only one (maybe two at a stretch) of the premises stated above that really fall in to that category.

Incidentally, the converse to the ad hominem logical fallacy is the appeal to authority. An example of that would be if someone were to imply that their capacity to write (or quote others) in one field of scientific endeavour (let's say galaxy morphology) lent substance to an argument they had made in an unrelated science; the economics of adapting to climate change for instance.

Absolutely.

Further to this, all the mud-slinging in the world is moot in the face of a paper that clearly and objectively sets out a proposition which can then be examined and tested.

The peer-reviewed publication process is certainly not perfect, but our technological world is a pretty solid endorsement that it gets there over time, and I'm yet to hear any convincing argument that there is a workable alternative (ie other than just refinements of the fundamental process).

Re the topic at hand, both sides go in for a whole lot of name-calling, but only one side has its position set out in a large body of published research that has stood the test of sustained scrutiny and counter-publication.