Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

PaulConventionWV said:
He's making the claim that it's *not* reliable. You're making the claim that it *is* reliable. The burden of proof is on you.
Click to expand...

so when I say you're not an honest person or not a child molester, it's on you to prove that you are?
 
Shh. Still counting. Now I have to start all over again. I ran out of fingers anyways. One. Two. Three. Eleven. Fifteen...
 
I go about my daily life and the notion of global warming only occurs to me when PRB declares it as fact. I wonder why that is!
 
I predict that we'll see an upsurge of "meth labs" in rural areas. These will combine with cow gas and a scorching summer to create miniature explosions all across the countryside. There will be no water to put out the fires because all the rivers will be dried up. The fires will eventually combine to obliterate America in biblical proportions.
 
PRB said:
Counting is your only way of "knowing", no wonder you're surprised that somebody knows more than you.
Click to expand...


"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." -Mark Twain
 
PRB said:
so when I say you're not an honest person or not a child molester, it's on you to prove that you are?
Click to expand...

The null hypothesis is that I am an honest person because that's the norm unless you have a reason to believe otherwise.

This is basic stuff, and it's taught in accredited universities around the nation. This isn't just something I pulled out of my arse.

When you meet someone, you generally assume they're good, right? So if you say I'm NOT a good person, then you are making the positive claim that I AM a liar or a bad person and you need to prove it so that you can be taken seriously. That's just how society works. When faced with the unknown, we revert to the norm and anything outside of that, we have to prove.
 
Last edited:
PaulConventionWV said:
The null hypothesis is that I am an honest person because that's the norm unless you have a reason to believe otherwise.

This is basic stuff, and it's taught in accredited universities around the nation. This isn't just something I pulled out of my arse.
Click to expand...

So the null hypothesis is that the norm is true?

"You're an honest person" is not a positive claim which has the burden of proof?
 
Last edited:
PRB said:
So the null hypothesis is that the norm is true?

"You're an honest person" is not a positive claim which has the burden of proof?
Click to expand...

Yes, that is the way it works. The norm is true unless you have a reason to believe otherwise.

See, positive and negative claims are interchangeable because you can also make the question positive or negative. So if someone asks a positive question (Is this happening?), the positive response is that, yes, it is.

Now if we just followed that rule, obviously, you could go around demanding proof of just about anything, which you are doing, so we base it on what the norm is. If you make a positive claim that departs from the norm, then the burden of proof is on you.
 
Yep, that's how it works. Of course, people can quibble about what the null hypothesis might be in a particular case. Relevant to the topic at hand is to consider that there was a time (quite recently, in fact) when nobody considered greenhouse gas emissions from human activities to affect the climate (i.e. this was once a norm). Then, one day (again, quite recently), some folks came along and suggested it. Interestingly, it was suggested early on by a climate scientist as a beneficial mechanism to mitigate global cooling believed to be taking place at the time (during the late 1960's I believe). AGW has since been widely accepted based on the knowledge of our greenhouse gas emissions and our understanding of the greenhouse effect. So, one might consider AGW as a new norm.

Now, it was somewhat later (during the late 1980's I believe) when some started to express concern that the effects of AGW on climate might prove disastrous. This has not yet been demonstrated to be the case. In other words, the "norm" in this case is only that AGW exists - we do not yet understand its effects, and certainly do not know it will have disastrous consequences. I mentioned in another post that a major problem, if not THE major problem with the AGW debate, is that several considerations are unjustly conflated. The perceived danger from AGW is generally introduced into the debate surreptitiously with the underlying AGW concept itself (sort of like a Trojan horse). For example, PRB has been doing this throughout his discussions of the matter. It's an oblique (read: deceptive) but effective rhetorical strategy, and especially for those who already perceive a danger from industry, "capitalism", or "globalism" for other reasons. Hence the association of Marxists, so-called "liberals", and permaculturists with the AGW concept. The strategy often works simply because so many assume that if human activities are affecting the climate, then it can only be in a bad way - somehow. Another interesting possibility is that many of the proposed interventions for AGW could be considered as beneficial, such as economic "stimulus" by those influenced by the Keynesian economics perspectives. The proposed interventions might also be considered to be beneficial for political reasons, such as a means to "redistribute" wealth, or as a means for beneficent politicians to control "big oil", coal, and other "evil" multi-national corporations. In other words, I believe those who believe AGW will cause disruptive and disastrous climate events are doing so for reasons other than the preponderance of the evidence for that that conclusion. Rather, I believe they are doing so for other reasons. I take the view quite simply because the evidence is simply not there. Defending the claim represents a rationalization. It does not represent sound reasoning.
 
Last edited:
buenijo said:
Yep, that's how it works. Of course, people can quibble about what the null hypothesis might be in a particular case. Relevant to the topic at hand is to consider that there was a time (quite recently, in fact) when nobody considered greenhouse gas emissions from human activities to affect the climate (i.e. this was once a norm). Then, one day (again, quite recently), some folks came along and suggested it. Interestingly, it was suggested early on by a climate scientist as a beneficial mechanism to mitigate global cooling believed to be taking place at the time (during the late 1960's I believe). AGW has since been widely accepted based on the knowledge of our greenhouse gas emissions and our understanding of the greenhouse effect. So, one might consider AGW as a new norm.

Now, it was somewhat later (during the late 1980's I believe) when some started to express concern that the effects of AGW on climate might prove disastrous. This has not yet been demonstrated to be the case. In other words, the "norm" in this case is only that AGW exists - we do not yet understand its effects, and certainly do not know it will have disastrous consequences. I mentioned in another post that a major problem, if not THE major problem with the AGW debate, is that several considerations are unjustly conflated. The perceived danger from AGW is generally introduced into the debate surreptitiously with the underlying AGW concept itself (sort of like a Trojan horse). For example, PRB has been doing this throughout his discussions of the matter. It's an oblique (read: deceptive) but effective rhetorical strategy, and especially for those who already perceive a danger from industry, "capitalism", or "globalism" for other reasons. Hence the association of Marxists, so-called "liberals", and permaculturists with the AGW concept. The strategy often works simply because so many assume that if human activities are affecting the climate, then it can only be in a bad way - somehow. Another interesting possibility is that many of the proposed interventions for AGW could be considered as beneficial, such as economic "stimulus" by those influenced by the Keynesian economics perspectives. The proposed interventions might also be considered to be beneficial for political reasons, such as a means to "redistribute" wealth, or as a means for beneficent politicians to control "big oil", coal, and other "evil" multi-national corporations. In other words, I believe those who believe AGW will cause disruptive and disastrous climate events are doing so for reasons other than the preponderance of the evidence for that that conclusion. Rather, I believe they are doing so for other reasons. I take the view quite simply because the evidence is simply not there. Defending the claim represents a rationalization. It does not represent sound reasoning.
Click to expand...

Actually, I would like to point out that the norm is not what people believe (that AGW exists) but what the reality of the situation is. For instance, we don't consider it the norm that people are generally good because most people BELIEVE that people are generally good, but because people will normally treat you that way when you interact with them. That means that the norm is based on what the usual outcome is, not the belief of what the outcome will be.

Things don't get moved into the "norm" category simply because most people believe them and there is a so-called consensus. Norms, in the context of the null hypothesis, are much more immovable than the opinions of society at large.

People generally believe that warming has happened or is happening (not for almost 18 years, though) because people believe it has been proven. It still has to be proven, though, because it is still a positive claim that deviates from the norm of "temperatures will stay about the same".

It is easier to believe these, however, because it has been well-proven that temperatures do not stay the same forever. They fluctuate. Now, the idea that they will fluctuate to a larger extent than normal is certainly NOT the norm, and is, in fact, an extraordinary claim that must be proven.
 
Oh my, that chart! (post #95)

Need to prevent another global ice age ASAP...

Should we find some virgins and an active volcano?

Oh, there might be a problem here unless there's no minimum age cut off...
 
PaulConventionWV said:
Actually, I would like to point out that the norm is not what people believe (that AGW exists) but what the reality of the situation is. For instance, we don't consider it the norm that people are generally good because most people BELIEVE that people are generally good, but because people will normally treat you that way when you interact with them. That means that the norm is based on what the usual outcome is, not the belief of what the outcome will be.

Things don't get moved into the "norm" category simply because most people believe them and there is a so-called consensus. Norms, in the context of the null hypothesis, are much more immovable than the opinions of society at large.

People generally believe that warming has happened or is happening (not for almost 18 years, though) because people believe it has been proven. It still has to be proven, though, because it is still a positive claim that deviates from the norm of "temperatures will stay about the same".

It is easier to believe these, however, because it has been well-proven that temperatures do not stay the same forever. They fluctuate. Now, the idea that they will fluctuate to a larger extent than normal is certainly NOT the norm, and is, in fact, an extraordinary claim that must be proven.
Click to expand...

Ok, I see I was interpreting "norm" in a different light. You're considering "norm" as used in statistics where I was considering the term as it's sometimes used in philosophy or law. Yes, this is one way to expose a problem with AGW, but I am focused on a different perspective - hence my error. I'm focused on clearly defining the terms of the debate. I think the main problem in discussing this topic is an underlying vagueness or lack of precision in the terms. Even the term Anthropogenic Global Warming has no clear definition. Although, for purpose of discussion, PRB and I agreed in previous discussion that AGW entails only the process by which greenhouse gas emissions from human activities affect climate. This suggests that AGW can contribute to a warming trend, or mitigate a cooling trend, but not necessarily in any measurable or material way.
 
Last edited:
buenijo said:
PRB, any thoughts about the chart?
Click to expand...

Would showing that people 300 years ago

1. Died before age 55
2. Had more earthquakes
3. Didn't have air conditioning or refrigeration
4. Had no electricity
5. Had no efficient transportation devices

Mean that people today
1. Killed at 55
2. Died from an earthquake
3. Lost their air conditioning or refrigerator
4. Went days without electricity
5. Losing their only car
Is "no big deal, after all, people 300 years ago survived fine"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jkr
White House Wants To Block Sunlight To Save Planet From 'Global Warming'
Replies
7
Views
880
Anti Globalist
Anti Globalist
Brian4Liberty
Texas is Turning Blue… Thanks to Republicans
Replies
4
Views
186
unknown
unknown
PAF
Trump (Again) Demands More Easy Money To Help Fund Even Bigger Deficits
Replies
15
Views
131
Anti Globalist
Anti Globalist
Anti Federalist
Rasmussen poll: 41 percent think civil war in US likely within 5 years
Replies
13
Views
1K
oyarde
O
Brian4Liberty
  • Featured
Why Ron Paul Is the Only Politician World Leaders Should Emulate
Replies
0
Views
1K
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
Back
Top