There's still time, brother! (250 million years)

I am a trained litigator. That is not the way evidence works in my field, and it shouldn’t work the way you describe in any field. Further, your example is not in any way indicative of what I have posted.

here is a better example of what you are saying….

Dr.: son, it looks like you have lupus

Patient: I don’t have any symptoms of lupus, what makes you suspect that?

Dr.: you have a runny nose

Patient: did you actually go to medical school?

 

This is the relevant part for us. Why did the patient mock the doctor at this point, instead of saying, “Is that a good test for Lupis?” or “Wow, you’re right, I do have Lupis!”?

 

Because the patient isn’t a dumbass and knows everyone gets runny noses from birth to death for a million reasons, and thus it has no real diagnostic relevancy for Lupus or any other illness, so the patient called the Dr out on being a dumbass, as all patients should alway do.

 

Well said. The patient was justifiably not impressed because he knew in advance that a runny nose should not count as evidence of Lupis. That is what was missing from my example of Leukocyte Adhesion Deficiency.

To bring this back to our topic, we have to know in advance what should count as evidence of anthropogenic climate change before we can determine whether the current environment is consistent with that conception of evidence. If we don’t first determine what we should observe if anthropogenic climate change were happening, we can never confidently state that it is not happening.

 

your logic is about as flawed as it could be. In my example, I don’t need to know anything about Lupus, I just needed to know that a runny nose doesn’t mean diddly. I am allowed to use common sense when discussing science (medicine) with an alleged expert. I don’t need a medical degree to know a runny nose doesn’t mean I have lupus or any other ailment.

Your method leaves to a self serving analysis. You determine in advance what you are looking for to support your conclusion, then you go out and find it. Real science doesn’t work that way. You analyze data to come to a conclusion, you don’t search for data to support your conclusion.

 

It’s funny, I keep thinking that we are about to make a communication breakthrough, but we seem to keep slipping past each other. In this case, interestingly, your characterization of my argument seems to me to be about 180 degrees away from what I was actually trying to say.

Let’s see if we can succeed with one more disease hypothetical: Imagine two people enter a doctor’s office, where one of them has lupus and the other does not. How could a doctor ever make an accurate determination of which one is which?

 

Check their ID?

 

For what?

 

to determine which one is which. Isn’t that what you asked?

 

The science is pretty simple and you should be embarrassed that you clearly don’t understand it. But I guess another Lawyer/science fail.

- global temperature rising - fact - easy to prove
- co2 and other greenhouse gases rising - fact - easy to prove
- co2 increase is attributable to man made causes - fact easy to prove
- greenhouse gases provide/cause warming - this is accepted fact and with out it the world would be inhabitable to humans.
- there are no other known measurable causes to global warming during this period - fact
- climate models up to 50 years old have been largely correct - fact
- climate models by skeptics have failed, badly - fact.

This is really quite easy. The only argument you advance is it can’t be true because Al Gore & company rides in jets.

You really should stop. Seriously.

 

No, that’s what you already said. Im asking what are you looking for on the ID that would indicate to you whether someone has lupus.

 

Let’s see here. You described weather and seasons. You described naturally occurring events. You proclaim, as if fact, without proof, (which is why you lose)….that man made conduct has a measurable relevant impact on the environment which can’t also be attributable to nature. Blah blah blah.

I don’t have to prove global warming is a fool’s cult, you have to prove it isn’t to move the needle. You can’t.

you fail.

 

That is not what your query posed. If you are asking how is Lupus diagnosed, then that is easy. Review the symptoms, conduct diagnostic tests and start eliminating causes. How long the symptoms have been exhibited is of import in diagnosis. Work your way to a conclusion. This is done by comparing your test results with other test results which were both positive and negative for Lupus. This is because there are about a dozen other diseases out there which mimic lupus, and can be easily confused.


This is why the experts are often wrong.

What you don’t do is get a new patient and have a preconceived notion she has Lupas and work towards proving your notion. That usually leads to death or serious injury, then my personal injury shark brothers start to circle. This is because you are so focused on one outcome and ignore the other dozen possibilities. Read my posts on the cancer thread in the pub.

In the case of our planet, which is 4.5 billion years old, give or take, you are trying to diagnose an ailment based upon symptoms of a tiny fraction of comparable time. Symptoms which have come and gone for 4.5 billion years. If I were to give you 1000 years of mankind on this planet, engaging in conduct which you deem to be consistent with causing global warming, you are trying to diagnose the illness of the planet using symptoms which have occurred in the last thousand years, or from a percentage standpoint of life in .114 minutes. Some math genius can check my math. So, under your analogy, you are trying to definitively diagnose somebody with lupus, who exhibited symptoms for about the same time it takes somebody to sneeze. Call me a skeptic.

Sorry for ruining your next gotcha post.

 

Weather is not climate. Google is your friend (which would make it your only friend )

CO2 / methane increase temperature. Fact. Man has increased those both, and the additional amounts in the atmosphere is directly attributable to man made activities. Fact.

You could have a 2/3 full glass of water, and then you pour more in until it overflows. According to you, “you can’t prove the water I poured in caused it to overflow!!!”

You are really embarrassing yourself and you need to stop now. I’m trying to help you, bro!

 

1. You described weather.
2. Fact: planting trees offsets CO2, Fact: I planted 3 trees last weekend. Therefore…Fact: I fixed your climate change! This is your logic, not mine. You don’t get to win a debate by proclaiming “FACT”. Regardless, you also not do get to win a debate by establishing 3 facts out of 1000 and crowning yourself the victor.
3. I don’t pour water into a mostly filled glass because I am not an idiot….but you do you bro.

 

This is a long and information packed post. I will do my best to respond to the important elements. First, I want to explain that I don’t consider us opponents and I am not interested in catching you in a gotcha moment or even changing your mind. I see now that you are viewing me as a rival, which explains the less than polite tone that has crept in occasionally, but I honestly think you’re a fine person and have no interest in trying to beat you. I’m trying to understand how you are seeing the problem.

I agree with this. Specifically I am interested in how we investigate symptoms in order to eliminate other possibilities. I know lupus diagnosis is complex, but the basis of it must come down to some situations where there is an observable difference in the patient if it is lupus vs if it is not lupus. If lupus, we should observe X, and if not we should not observe X. Otherwise, we could never have a lupus diagnosis. The same must be true for anthropogenic climate change (ACC), or else we have no way to even test the theory. If ACC, we should observe X, and if not we should not observe X.

Again, I agree. In fact, this is a crux of my argument. If we are interested in truth, we must devise a test that allows us to tease apart alternative hypotheses, wherein it is possible to confirm or falsify specific predictions associated with our hypothesis. If we cannot do this, we are simply not doing science.

I don’t think the age of the Earth is relevant for this problem. What is very relevant is the time scale and size of our effect. If the change in climate takes 10,000 years, then of course we won’t be able to measure it in 100 years. And if the effect size is tiny, than it will be swamped by confounders. But when the Earth was born shouldn’t change anything. E.g. If you add fertilizer to a lake, it likely becomes eutrophic. If one adds a lot of fertilizer, this effect will be quick and very noticeable. This will be true regardless of whether the lake was formed a year ago or a billion years ago.

As for you being a skeptic, again, I can totally sympathize. But recall what started our conversation wasn’t you expressing uncertainty, but expressing certainty:

Here, you aren’t saying “Yes, the lake became eutrophic after the addition of fertilizer, but I’m not sure if the fertilizer caused it.” Instead, you are saying something more like “Yes, the lake became eutrophic after the addition of fertilizer, but I am sure that the fertilizer played virtually no role in it.” This is a strong claim that requires its own evidence. I am interested in what evidence you’ve seen that brought you to that place of certainty.

 

I in my own way kind of like UFLawyer, once you “get” him, but make no mistake, he has no interest challenging his own point of view on this and any other matter. He has his own reasons for being skeptical of science, which I understand, but healthy skepticism and knee jerk rejection of science which doesn’t fit your preferred narrative are two different things.

 

You didn’t substantially address any of my points. I presented an argument that was essentially 1+4=5 and 2+3=5, therefore 1+4=2+3, and your response was no it doesn’t!

 

This is not at all what I am saying. You claim the age of our Planet is irrelevant. I could not disagree more. To support this I will create a rudimentary keyboard graph demonstrating the change in Earth’s Temperature for the last approximate 12k years to the present on the X axis. I can’t do a Y access on my keyboard, but it will be in 1° increments.

10BC______________________________________________2023

hopefully my rudimentary graph makes my point clearer.

my other primary issue with the hoax is the constant moving of the goal post. we went from global Ice Age to hellfire, to ice age again, now we’re back to global warming. The planet was supposed to explode in 1980, mass flooding in 1990, and don’t forget the locus massacre of mankind of 2005, but none of these events came to fruition.

And finally, you have multiple scientist, who allegedly have come up with “scientific data” to support the hoax, with all the sheep jumping on board, only to find out a after a few months, or a few years later, that the data is completely made up, or is so grossly erroneous that it is worthless.

I am all for being a good shepherd of our planet so my grandkids one day will have a nice place to live. I have no issue spending money to try to examine whether man-made global warming poses a threat down the road, but I would much rather spend the the lines share, (>90%) money cleaning up our oceans, waterways and everything else. All of this pollution is killing people with diseases, many of which we probably don’t even know about. We have our priorities wrong.

 

I love you too.