The Great CAGW Debate

[_Water Dog]

Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Debate

The basic proposition: is CAGW true?

Res Ipsa is for the proposition. I am against.

I believe this will primarily be between me and Res Ipsa, but anyone is welcome. So long as they play nice, don't derail, and act within the format and rules.

What are the rules? Let's take a moment to define that. RI, what would you suggest? I'd like to see a more official kind of debate, like one would see at a university. Not quite so constrained, but some reasonable limits on things like number of posts. Anybody else jumping in needs to be strictly on point or booted out. We also need to be disciplined and keep to one thing at a time. Ideas?

[_Res Ipsa]

No dog, You’ve posted enough material to spend months on already. You’ve already shown that you know “F” all about climate science and just cut and paste whatever crap you can find on denier sites. I’m going to spend some time going through everything you’ve posted to date just to show, point by painful point, how you have already shown the depth of your ignorance and mendacity. And I intend to be pretty damn brutal, be cause you and your denier ilk are a threat to the well being of those I love. Buckle up, buttercup.

[_Water Dog]

So, you're all talk? Like Bill Maher, you'll debate, but on your terms where you can control the environment. That's disappointing. I was all ready to nerd out and get into the mechanics. Well, my offer stands if you ever want to do more than talk.

The other thread is a political thread. Maybe I'll respond to something you post, maybe I won't. I welcome any response you want to provide. Knock yourself out. in my opinion, you're showing the nature of your character. My proposition here is to do a hard reset and start at the very beginning. Let the silliness be water under the bridge, and work through the arguments in a measured and fair way. Without the venom and other distractions.

What else would you have me say? I do not believe in your religion - CAGW. I do not use the word "religion" to insult, but to make a point and say that this is how it comes across to me. I do not believe the IPCC report. I do not find it credible. I do not find the media's politicization credible. You can try to ramrod whatever position you like, do you think that will be persuasive to me? Or will it just reinforce what I think, about your religion, about the people that follow it, and about you?

I'm trying to be sincere and extend an olive branch. I'm willing to put in real time here, walk though all the arguments and data. If you don't want to take me up on that, okay, fine, but that is on you. I'll sleep just fine knowing I gave it a real try. So, go on, try your "damnedest" to make me look like an idiot in the other thread. Ridicule and disparage. Do all the things you say your team doesn't do. Show your true colors.

[_Res Ipsa]

So, you're all talk? Like Bill Maher, you'll debate, but on your terms where you can control the environment. That's disappointing. I was all ready to nerd out and get into the mechanics. Well, my offer stands if you ever want to do more than talk.

The other thread is a political thread. Maybe I'll respond to something you post, maybe I won't. I welcome any response you want to provide. Knock yourself out. in my opinion, you're showing the nature of your character. My proposition here is to do a hard reset and start at the very beginning. Let the silliness be water under the bridge, and work through the arguments in a measured and fair way. Without the venom and other distractions.

What else would you have me say? I do not believe in your religion - CAGW. I do not use the word "religion" to insult, but to make a point and say that this is how it comes across to me. I do not believe the IPCC report. I do not find it credible. I do not find the media's politicization credible. You can try to ramrod whatever position you like, do you think that will be persuasive to me? Or will it just reinforce what I think, about your religion, about the people that follow it, and about you?

I'm trying to be sincere and extend an olive branch. I'm willing to put in real time here, walk though all the arguments and data. If you don't want to take me up on that, okay, fine, but that is on you. I'll sleep just fine knowing I gave it a real try. So, go on, try your "damnedest" to make me look like an idiot in the other thread. Ridicule and disparage. Do all the things you say your team doesn't do. Show your true colors.

Hit dog holler, am I right?

Of course the other thread is political -- or at least your posts in it. Because you are driven by the political and not the scientific. You're so afraid that the UN is going to send soldiers into your house to force you to use cheaper and more efficient light bulbs that you don't care what the IPCC actually says, you just know that since it has to do with the UN, you don't trust it. It's all political for you, science be damned.

Forgive me if I don't believe your offer of a "hard reset." You didn't even try to frame our "debate" in neutral terms. You assigned a position to me and demanded I defend it. "Catastrophic" is a loaded word, and you know that. You can't even set up a debate in neutral terms because of your extreme political views.

Now, for all persons not named Water Dog, a short piece on why Evolution and Global Warming Deniers love debate.

Science is complicated. To explain a particular scientific issue or concept often takes lots of times, lots of words, and lots of explaining.

Denial is simple. Often it consists of presenting facts that are false, out of context, or misleading through omission. It often consists of just showing a graph and saying, if Global Warming is true, explain this. It's quick and it's easy.

Deniers know this. They know that they can make a dozen false or misleading points in the same time it takes to give a science based explanation for just the first point. They exploit this in what we call the Gish Gallop, after Duane Gish, a famous evolution denier. Water Dog has done this over in the other thread. He runs to denier websites, cuts and pastes a bunch of stuff without ever bothering to do the homework.

So that's what a debate would look like. Water Dog cutting and pasting snippets of false and misleading information off denial websites and me spending a ton of time and effort explaining each one. It's a sucker bet for science. If he wants to actually understand what climate scientists do, what they say, why they say it, etc., it's going to take him a concerted effort. Because reading, studying and trying to understand is actually how to figure scientific issues out. Water Dog won't, because he's motivated by politics to reject the science. As he's said in the other thread, he doesn't care.

[_DoubtingThomas]

There is no need for a great CAGW debate. Daniel Schrag kicked Lindzen's @$$ here
https://youtu.be/sZsnAdGaxkY?t=3604

and Lindzen's buddy changed the subject!

[_DoubtingThomas]

Now, for all persons not named Water Dog, a short piece on why Evolution and Global Warming Deniers love debate.

Science is complicated. To explain a particular scientific issue or concept often takes lots of times, lots of words, and lots of explaining.

Denial is simple. Often it consists of presenting facts that are false, out of context, or misleading through omission. It often consists of just showing a graph and saying, if Global Warming is true, explain this. It's quick and it's easy.

Deniers know this. They know that they can make a dozen false or misleading points in the same time it takes to give a science based explanation for just the first point. They exploit this in what we call the Gish Gallop, after Duane Gish, a famous evolution denier. Water Dog has done this over in the other thread. He runs to denier websites, cuts and pastes a bunch of stuff without ever bothering to do the homework.

Exactly!

[_Water Dog]

RI, this is your chance for a science thread, if you want to get into that. You're conceding defeat before even getting into it? That really seems unlikely given where we are, which is to say you have a lot of fans to cheer lead your side of the debate.

I appreciate some of what you're saying, other parts are silly and border on offensive. I think you'd be quite surprised if you knew who I actually was. I am not this knuckle dragging caricature you imagine me to be. I get caught up in the heat of the moment of these message board wars like everybody else, act the fool and post troll comments, but I'm really a pretty reasonable fellow. I am probably a much bigger nerd about energy efficiency than you or anyone on this board. I've got every silly in order to thing you can imagine to reduce my bill. I have a heavy science background. I am no climatologist, but I do have a solid understanding of a lot of the underlying physics. I can quickly learn whatever I don't know for sake of our debate. And while not a climatologist, I am an expert on certain things within the energy space. If you want to talk about energy production, consumption, efficiency, etc., I think you'll find me very well informed on a great many subjects. Fancy light bulbs or whatever is not directly relevant to a CAGW discussion, however.

At any rate, I promise to be fair. I'm not going to play games by throwing "denier" sources at you. Whatever that means. That's why we need to lay down the ground rules. That being said, I'm not going to not seek out whatever information I can find, or consider arguments being made by someone simply because you are branding them a "denier." I'll seek out sources, and then we can see how it shakes out. My goal would be to get to original sources as much as possible. Sure, I'll use high level sources as part of that process. But I really want to get down the nuts and bolts, the actual data and look at that. I'd like to take a look at some of these models, understand how they work, what they're based on, and see what I think about all that. If my sources are bad, that's part of what the debate will suss out. You can respond and challenge the sources. And if you're right, and they're misrepresenting data or fundamentally wrong in some way, I would accept that reality and move on. Some of that is subjective. I simply want that process to happen in a calm and fair way, free of distractions and name calling.

I have no doubt that some of these skeptical sources are weak. But that's the same on your side as well. Clearly there are competent people on both sides of the debate. You may regard someone like Lindzen a "denier," which in the sense that he's skeptical and denies the alarmist claims, is true, but he's not incompetent. He's a legitimate source. But you're right, I agree, science is complicated. I understand that very well. Which is also a two way street. Science being complicated isn't an excuse for failing to meet evidentiary standards. I won't be unfair, but I'm also not going to compromise reasonable standards. If you can't meet those standards sufficiently to substantiate your argument, well, that's how it goes. Then, at the very least, maybe you'll understand why people aren't buying the arguments and have an appreciation for how those people aren't unreasonable to react in such a way.

[_canpakes]

Dog, the last line of defense for the denialist crowd is to hide behind the label, ‘catastrophic’. You’ve decided upon that term in framing your debate. The term needs to be defined first.

This is even before you tackle the problem that a question framed as, “Is CAGW true?” is a nonsense question. This isn’t F&T meeting.

ETA: looks like RI has also mentioned the problem with your terminology.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I propose this as the title to the debate:

Are current global warming trends driven by anthropogenic activity?

I'd read a pro and con thread about that so hard.

- Doc

[_Res Ipsa]

RI, this is your chance for a science thread, if you want to get into that. You're conceding defeat before even getting into it? That really seems unlikely given where we are, which is to say you have a lot of fans to cheer lead your side of the debate.

What do you mean this is "my chance" for a science thread. The other thread was a science thread. I've posted science on every global warming thread I've participated in. If you weren't posting science, that's your problem not mine.

I appreciate some of what you're saying, other parts are silly and border on offensive.

I think you've probably figured out by now that the least of my worries is whether you are offended by what I say or how I say it. I don't think that a guy who deliberately posts things he believe will be offensive to others has any standing to complain about being offended.

I think you'd be quite surprised if you knew who I actually was. I am not this knuckle dragging caricature you imagine me to be.

I don't think you have the faintest idea of how I imagine you. If you are not how you present on the board, that's not my problem -- that's yours. Act like the guy you think you are when you post here, and you'll get a different response from me. But you're going to have to establish a track record with me because the only WD I know is the guy you've been presenting up to now.

I get caught up in the heat of the moment of these message board wars like everybody else, act the fool and post troll comments, but I'm really a pretty reasonable fellow.

So is that what you were doing in the other thread -- not making genuine arguments but acting the fool and posting troll comments? When others were attempting to have a serious conversation about climate change? So how is that supposed to lead me to want to engage you in serious discussion now or ever?

[

I am probably a much bigger nerd about energy efficiency than you or anyone on this board. I've got every silly in order to thing you can imagine to reduce my bill.

And that's great. I try to do the same, and I'm sure we could have a perfectly fine discussion about ways to save energy at home.

I have a heavy science background.

Which makes the way you discuss climate science kind of hard to believe.

I am no climatologist, but I do have a solid understanding of a lot of the underlying physics. I can quickly learn whatever I don't know for sake of our debate. And while not a climatologist, I am an expert on certain things within the energy space. If you want to talk about energy production, consumption, efficiency, etc., I think you'll find me very well informed on a great many subjects. Fancy light bulbs or whatever is not directly relevant to a CAGW discussion, however.

All that tells me is that you've gone after climate science in full attack mode without even trying to learn about it. That makes me simply think "why waste my time?" What you need isn't a debate -- you need an education.

At any rate, I promise to be fair.

WD, I've read hundreds of your posts on this board. You never approach a subject fairly. Why should I have any confidence that you'll do a turnaround after all this time?

I'm not going to play games by throwing "denier" sources at you. Whatever that means. That's why we need to lay down the ground rules. That being said, I'm not going to not seek out whatever information I can find, or consider arguments being made by someone simply because you are branding them a "denier." I'll seek out sources, and then we can see how it shakes out. My goal would be to get to original sources as much as possible. Sure, I'll use high level sources as part of that process. But I really want to get down the nuts and bolts, the actual data and look at that. I'd like to take a look at some of these models, understand how they work, what they're based on, and see what I think about all that. If my sources are bad, that's part of what the debate will suss out. You can respond and challenge the sources. And if you're right, and they're misrepresenting data or fundamentally wrong in some way, I would accept that reality and move on. Some of that is subjective. I simply want that process to happen in a calm and fair way, free of distractions and name calling.

I have no doubt that some of these skeptical sources are weak. But that's the same on your side as well. Clearly there are competent people on both sides of the debate. You may regard someone like Lindzen a "denier," which in the sense that he's skeptical and denies the alarmist claims, is true, but he's not incompetent. He's a legitimate source. But you're right, I agree, science is complicated. I understand that very well. Which is also a two way street. Science being complicated isn't an excuse for failing to meet evidentiary standards. I won't be unfair, but I'm also not going to compromise reasonable standards. If you can't meet those standards sufficiently to substantiate your argument, well, that's how it goes. Then, at the very least, maybe you'll understand why people aren't buying the arguments and have an appreciation for how those people aren't unreasonable to react in such a way.

Sigh. For some reason you think this is the first time I've done this. This isn't my first rodeo. I've chased arguments of the so-called skeptics down rabbit holes for at least 20 years. Almost all of them promise to be fair. To be serious. I've spent hours and hours patiently responding to the Gish Gallops. I've watched dozens of skeptics put out math and charts and graphs "proving" that cooling is just around the corner, only to be proved flat wrong. I've reviewed publications by Heartland and GWPF, and found lie after lie after lie. I know why people attack climate science: money and politics. The fossil fuel companies have huge investments in reserves that they are fight to the death to make a buck off of. They link up with conservatives and libertarians who are extreme free market/anti-government regulation types to try and stall off any action on climate change as long as possible. To make a buck. That's how the market works. And then ordinary citizens just like you, who oppose government regulations and fear the UN, lap it all up and post it on message boards just like this one. How long should I really have to do this -- rebut the same false and misleading information time after time after time after time?

I'm not going to debate. I can take what you've posted so far, and use you as the poster child for why no one ever should take denier arguments seriously. And I would be perfectly satisfied with that, because that's what needs to be done with these despicable people who are threatening my children and their children.

So, no, I won't engage in your loaded debate. But I might be willing to discuss some issues with you, if you can convince me that there is a Water Dog other than the one presented on this board. So, for a start, please post a link to every post in the other thread in which you were trolling or "playing the fool" as opposed to making a serious factual argument.