averygoodun42 | Why some conservatives use the term "educated" as a derogative.

Me: Yeah, global warming is a fact. HOWEVER, the reason for the warming is not necessarily human contribution. That doesn't mean we aren't affecting it (and it *definitely* doesn't mean we shouldn't clean up our act!), but to state as fact that we humans are to blame is almost as silly as saying it doesn't exist. Almost.

MZ: If you are surprised by a fact, that's not a problem with the fact, that's a problem with your model of the world. Climate change denial is as much a fact as climate change...

LL: http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/928.asp
Climate Change Consensus? | Weather Underground
www.wunderground.com
Weather Underground provides local & long range Weather Forecast, weather reports, maps & tropical weather conditions for locations worldwide.

LL: Human activity isn't the only source of climate change, but it's a big one these days. That chart is too simplistic. 97% of actively publishing climate scientists are convinced by the evidence of ANTHROPOGENIC climate change. (source: the website I linked to above)

Me: And a majority of the scientific community in the 1400's thought the Earth was the center of the universe.

Weather data only goes back so far. Even with ice-core testing, we do not have enough data to say that we are the CAUSE. Are we exacerbating the problem? Hell yeah. But it is misleading to say that human activity is the cause of something that isn't that well documented (in longevity terms). It is possible this is a cyclical thing the Earth does every million years or so.

Me: (Also, remember that publishing is fraught with politics. Both inner and outer politics.)

MZ: "And a majority of the scientific community in the 1400's thought the Earth was the center of the universe." That is incorrect. People knew the earth was round and more or less the radius of it (at least to within 20%, if memory serves) since pre-Christian times.

Me: But it was forgotten knowledge in the west for a very long time. I should have said Western scientists, however.

MZ: That seems unlikely. Can you find references?

MZ: From Wikipedia: "The Norwegian book Konungs Skuggsjá, from around 1250, states clearly that the Earth is round - and that there is night on the opposite side of the Earth when there is daytime in Norway."

Me: Right. Fine. But did you happen to notice that I am NOT saying that humans AREN'T making things worse, but just saying that we do not have enough data to blame human civilization as the cause?

MZ: Elizabeth: I am usually assuming when people say "we do not have enough data to..." that they are not parsing probability and Bayesian updates, but using a naive version of epistomology and decision theory that, were they to apply it outside the realm of political decision making, would seem nonsensical. It is hard for me to bridge the inferential distance between that and mathematically-proven-correct decision theory in a comment on a facebook post. "Judgement under uncertainty" is a well-researched area -- the bible of that was written by Kahneman and co. -- http://www.amazon.com/Judgment-under-Uncertainty-Heuristics-Biases/dp/0521284147
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
www.amazon.com
The thirty-five chapters in this book describe various judgmental heuristics and...See More

*snip*

Me: MZ, now that I am calm enough to be coherent, I would like to point out that what I am saying is that there isn't enough evidence to label us as the cause of global warming as a FACT. It is a theory, and could be as valid as that of relativity and gravity, but seeing as it does rely on guesswork, it remains a theory.

Also, real scientists will be the first to tell you that nothing they say should be taken as Truth. There should always be a grain of doubt in any acceptance of a known "fact".

MZ: Elizabeth, I see nothing good coming out of arguing across the wide inferential distance we have. http://lesswrong.com/lw/kg/expecting_short_inferential_distances/
Expecting Short Inferential Distances - Less Wrong
lesswrong.com
Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

ETA: After cooling down a fair bit, I posted this response:

Me: You know, MZ, I was all set to come back to the internet and refute every point and counterpoint you put up, but then you used that essay on inferential distances as an argument *ender* (I lol'd at the irony, btw) and I realized there's no point in trying to get you to see my point. Which is sad, really, because it's just a matter of semantics (contrary to your assumption, I actually do get your point; I just think the semantics are very important where science is concerned). Oh, and here's a wiki article for reference in case you're not familiar with the term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics
Semantics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
Semantics (from Greek: sēmantikós)[1][2] is the study of meaning. It focuses on ...See More

Me: Honestly, I view the whole hype surrounding global warming with a jaundiced eye. Yes, it's real and threatening, but why isn't the media pointing out hyping the other ecological disasters that are looming? I, personally, think it's because global warming is the one ecological disaster that they can use for power and money (cap and trade). There isn't much to be made by trying to heal the ocean's dead zones, for example, which, if you think about it, are a far more worrisome threat than global warming (global warming = ecosystem upset and change; dead ocean = ecosystem collapse). Oh, and where the ocean dead zones are concerned, it is known, 100%, to be humans at fault. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=44677

I may regret it in the morning, but, well, today is a loss anyway. Might as well end it today rather than continue it into tomorrow.