The theory of evolution, itself, is a shining example. There is no empirical evidence of the transformation of one species into another, however, it is universally accepted that we evolved from one-celled life. Deductive logic, anyone? Which leads me to define Climatology as that frustrated rump of Meteorology that stinks locally, therefore emotes globally.
Good post, well argued. Maurice Garoutte says: June 8, at am I think this is a good point. Leprechauns exist by majority vote! Also as I have so boringly written before, the Sun apparently contains We know for a fact that space weather is caused by Solar activity. We know that volatile activity on the Sun can cause power outages, satellite failure, communications failures, etc. If I remember correctly, Sherlock Holmes ascribed to God the beauty, the fragrance, and the perfection of a rose, since, in his opinion, these qualities of flowers had no thinkable purpose.
Thus, he Conan Doyle applied the principle of exclusion. And how wrong he was! Excellent essay in both concept and execution. Moderate in tone. Highlights one of the most major faults of the pro-AGW argument. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Certainly, Monkton has made some mistakes, he has his peccadilloes, but who amongst us has perfect knowledge of all areas of climate science. But for the most part, he gets it right. Gore will not debate, will not field skeptical questions, leads an indulgent life while dictating that the hoi polloi make sacrifice to Gaia and has made a pile of money off CAGW to boot.
The ancients did not know any other explanation, so the gods must have been responsible…right? What I did not know was that this type of argumentation has a name: The principle of exclusion, and that it has long been identified and put in its place. Thank you for the edification and the ammo!
A good follow-up post might be an expose of the precautionary principle which customarily is invoked after the postulation of the exclusionary principle. If the exclusionary principle is arguing from ignorance, than the precautionary principle is arguing from fear engendered by ignorance. Since we cannot find a reason for the increase in temperature, it must be caused by witchcraft. During the Little Ice Age many hundreds of people were burned as witches for causing the poor weather and crop failures. Now today, the entire planets economic future is to be put to the stake, again on the suspicion that we are causing the climate to change.
Not by the sin of witchcraft, but by the sin of industrialization. Google: The little Ice Age: how climate made history Brian Fagen page There are two types of exclusion 1 the type when you honestly know of no other or cannot imagine other possible mechanisms or combination of mechanisms that may explain an observation. What they are really doing is applying the principle of exclusion to fake warming. Which is complete bull. That warming is anthropogenic all right but criminal, not gaseous. Satellites observing global temperature since simply cannot see it.
What they do see is a temperature oscillation in the eighties and nineties, up and down by half a degree for twenty years, but no rise until the super El Nino of arrives. Which is correct? To find out, compare the curves. Looking at these three curves you wonder what happened to the oscillations that satellites show. They do exist in two of these curves but you have to use the same high resolution as the satellite data to see them. Then you find that the oscillations have been monkied with. The peaks of this temperature oscillation, and there are five in twenty years, correspond to warm El Nino years.
They have all been retained. But what is different is that the valleys between the peaks, the cool La Nina years, have all been lifted up and made shallow. And this has the effect of giving the entire curve an upward slope. I know of no natural process that can selectively and raise the temperature at the precise location of these valleys without changing the peaks too. It is pretty obvious that they simply reduced the valley depth to half and thereby created a rising curve. This is a long-term, coordinated deception and not a rogue action by a few zealots.
It had to start in the late seventies because prior to that there was no warming for thirty years. His first assignment at his new job was to create an improved method for recording global temperature change, which he did according to GISS. The manipulation of temperature curves started about the same time and requires complicity by three organizations, one of them CRU of East Anglia University.
It is a colossal fraud besides which the Climategate scandal is just the tip of the iceberg. But Climategate gives us clues. The global warming movement that exists today got a kick start when Hansen testified that warming had started in The warming he testified about then was a fake warming but it still is present on official temperature curves. This is an international conspiracy to fake global warming, active over a long period of time, and should be investigated. SkyWatcher Name one fact that Christopher Monckton has said that is factually untrue.
I can name many that Al Gore has said that are untrue. We can start with his implying that the ice core data shows that CO2 rises before temperature when in fact it is the other way around. Come back here for a real conversation when you understand a bit about what you are talking about. The fact that you find it so hard says more about you than it does about atmospheric science. AGW should have gone the way of the dodo bird when it was discovered that CO2 lagged temperature. If CO2 causes warming, then there must be a signature in the paleo records that shows this.
Vladimir Savchenko. Self-discovery
Over time CO2 will go up and down for reasons of chance, unconnected to temperature. If CO2 causes warming, then the signature will be there in the paleo records. The fact that this signature has not been found, only the reverse signature, that warming causes CO2, should have been sufficient to throw serious doubt on the AGW hypothesis. The simple fact that Climate Science and the IPCC did not stand up and announce that there were serious problems with the AGW hypothesis when the lag between CO2 and temperature was discovered if strong evidence that Climate Science is not opperating in accordance with accepted scientific principles.
As such, Climate Science is not engaged in Science — which is the quest for knowledge. Climate Science is engaged in politics, advertising, and promotion — advocacy of a particular point of view to the economic advantage of one group over another. It is a gravy train to benefit the few at the expense of the many. It is Robin Hood in reverse.
Taking from the poor to give to the rich, dressed in the garb of science. When the soot particles are very small aka particulates and suspended in the air they are known as an aerosol. Soot has been shown to be a major cause of what has been cited as proof of global warming , namely glacier melt and Arctic warming. To mention a glacier-like loss, Mt. Kilimanjaro regaining its snow cap Claims of Arctic warming, as previously discussed here, are complicated by the lack of a proper historical record for the Arctic with very few weather stations, especially with issues like the GISS dataset extrapolating much of the Arctic temperatures primarily from a single station in Canada.
The usual issue is global warming. Black carbon soot has been tied to signs of regional warming that are often cited as proof of global warming. Indeed, the evidence is pointing towards global cooling , either happening now or imminent.
Thus your musings about the hydrological cycle are moot. To attack it generally and give you something to consider, more atmospheric water vapor yields more precipitation which yields more vegetation, and vegetation is carbon storage. So are you certain more water vapor leads to a downward spiral? Top of the list is human bias. Even today it makes no difference to many that the hockey stick has been invalidated. What Climate Science has not considered is there are many ways that humans can be responsible for climate change. CO2 is one explanation. Another is human error and bias. Does anyone believe that Hansen adjusts past temperature free of bias?
Why did he adjust downwards after MacIntyre showed it was the hottest year on record in the US? We would certainly not trust medicine or social sciences conducted in this fashion. The AGW crowd in large part use the exclusionary principle as part of thier religion. The end game in their religion is not eternal life in heaven, but the control of us ignorant masses, redistribution of wealth etc. As has been stated, it is not about science, but forever funding of grants to prove thier holy grail of CO2 as the devil.
Unfortunately it is to the detriment of many due to policy decisions running economies into the ground, and restricting an improvement in the lives of those in less developed countries. Until politicians that believe in this false religion are voted out of office, and entreched bureaucracies are replaced, we will continue to fight this uphill battle for real science.
What is settled is AGW is junk science, but the beleivers have the main stream media and educational facilities at all levels promoting it. It appears to me from personal observation that the principle of exclusion is really not so bad — as long as you are the one doing the excluding. Cases in point: an interview with Drs. John Christy and Gavin Schmidt. Notice how the Climategate emails in question are really not of much interest — unless you are one of the scientists who has been the subject of denigrating emails for disagreeing with the Team. The principle of exclusion receives a little help through peer review, consensus, etc.
Notice how climate models of course are not proof of anything — but according to Dr Schmidt, they do provide evidence of manmade global warming. Notice how the uncertainties are considerable and the case for warming being caused by man is extremely tenuous, and yet, the principle of exclusion applied generously shows us that there is a rise in temp and there is a rise in CO2 emissions by man, and CO2 is a ghg, ergo, that is enough to work from, that is, what we do know.
I think Gavin Schmidt demonstrates well for us how the principle of exclusion really can be a powerful scientific tool! It is somewhat dangerous to strictly conflate exclusion with deduction. Exclusion is only one starting point for deduction. As any scientist knows, deduction, correctly executed, is completely reliable in and of itself, but the conclusions one draws are only as reliable as the assumptions upon which it is based. Exclusion is a risky razor to apply to facts in which there are a world of possibilities. This is the problem with climate models today.
Even a cursory look by anyone familiar with mathematical modelling is enough to convince one that any predictive value of such models is lost. But the models themselves are hopelessly inadequate. A further problem is that, because of the dynamics of climate, even if we could produce an in-principle complete and correct model and feed it unimpeachable data, its predictions would be useless, simply because of the nature of the dynamics being modeled.
Let us not cast aspersions on deduction, however badly practitioners abuse the art. It is in principle more reliable than pure induction from pure empirics. The best science combines induction and deduction so that they provide a check on one another. The Exclusionary Principle is reflected in the logical fallacy Argumentum ad Ignorantium [argument from ignorance].
Harari’s Homo-Deus: A Futurist Vision on a Darwinist Backdrop
Effect cannot precede cause. Changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature on time scales from months to hundreds of millennia. The planet is currently starved of CO2, and the biosphere is greatly benefitting from the added airborne fertilizer. Finally, there is no evidence — none — that CO2 is causing global harm.
Conclusion: CO2 is harmless and beneficial. More CO2 is better, at current and projected concentrations. It is, after all, just a tiny and beneficial trace gas. In fact, I strongly suspect that he does more harm to scepticism than he does good. All of which is perhaps a tad ad hom.
In addition to the other differentiating characteristics compared with Algore, Mr. Monckton is better educated, better informed, more articulate, and less sexually promiscuous, among other qualities , Monckton is intensely pro-American while Algore most emphatically…er, is not. Constitution, right? This is a profound pain in the Sitzplatz.
It was he who stated that once you have eliminated every other possibility, whatever is left, however unlikely, must be the truth. Of course he missed out the fact that there might be a really obvious explanation that you had simply never even thought of. A really good test of this line of thought is magic tricks. One that is so simple to do that I taught it to my then five year old daughter, who then proceeded to amaze her grandparents with it, involves a sheet of coloured paper, a pound coin, a coloured hankie and a glass.
The glass is placed beside the coin on the paper, the hankie is placed over the glass and then both are placed over the coin. The hankie is then removed revealing that the coin has disappeared.
The hankie is then placed over the glass and both the hankie and glass moved aside and the coin has mysteriously returned. There is a slightly more complex version that involves passing the coin through a solid wooden table but the principle is the same. When done well the trick is brilliantly convincing and, as already mentioned, a small child can do it. Were Holmes unable to think of an explanation, he would be forced to conclude that it was real magic, as real in fact as the Cottingly Fairies.
In fact, there is a coloured paper disc taped over the mouth of the glass that is invisible to the observers but covers the coin and makes it look as though it has disappeared. In the case of climate change, the other explanation is obvious and in plain view.
The climate has been changing for millions of years and humans have only existed for a few thousand years. The natural forces that caused these changes before humans had the slightest influence could possibly still be working. It is almost as if some people have been shown that there is a paper disc taped over the glass but prefer not to notice it and conclude that it is real magic.
This is THE logical fallacy upon which the whole charade is founded. Very well stated. BBk says: June 8, at am TomB says: June 8, at am And, others… be aware that Sir Arthur redeemed himself with this quote from his famous detective:. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. What Dr. Elementary, right? It seems there are a few babies being thrown out with the bathwater here. There is nothing wrong in principle with deduction, just its misapplication.
Consider what I believe to be the most elegant gedanken experiment of the last couple of thousand years as conducted by John Philoponus, Galileo and others. Aristotle contended that objects fall to the ground at a speed in direct proportion to their weight. An object of X units will fall half as fast as an object 2X units in weight. If we tie the two weights together, then they will fall at a rate of 3 times the speed of the smaller weight since the combined weight is now 3X units. The smaller weight will act as a drag on the larger weight, so they will fall at a rate somewhat less than an object of 2X units in weight.
Similarly, the larger weight will drag the smaller weight along faster than it would fall alone. Obviously, we do not see any object falling at different speeds at the same time; this is an impossibility. Therefore, all objects fall at the same rate regardless of their weight. Galileo attempted to demonstrate this empirically by having an assistant simultaneously dropping a wooden cannonball and an iron cannonball from a great height.
Using the Principle of Exclusion, we can deduce this was not at Pisa else the assistant was some feet tall, or the tower was feet higher at the time than now. The wooden cannonball initially fell faster than the iron cannonball, but the iron cannonball overtook the wooden one and beat it to the ground by a noticeable margin. Galileo managed a fair explanation as to why the empirical evidence failed to support the gedanken experiment. The important take-home message is that both deduction and induction are important in generating an argument to the best explanation ; the best explanation is a value judgement, there being as often as not, several competing explanations for the observed phenomena.
Andy Mayhew says: June 8, at am Coldish is correct re the Parallel Roads — they are now believed to be the shorelines of a glacial lake. The difference between the two of course is that the warmists were wrong while on the basis of the incorrect claims are enriching themselves, causing the deindustrialization of the first world and leading to starvation in the third world by raising tax and turning food stock into fuel.
Whereas those sceptics forecasting cooling were just wrong. Inductive logic can be expressed in deductive form as per Sir Karl Popper: If my Theory is correct, then I will make particular observations; I do make those observations. Therefore my Theory is correct.
To see the flaw in this argument form, consider the following: If Hilary is pregnant, then Hilary is a woman. Hilary is a woman, therefore she is pregnant. This is called affirming the consequent and is a well known fallacy. We have identified the necessary condition, but not the sufficient condition to make our argument sound. This is the problem of all inductive argument. We can never know what we have yet to discover, the so-called black swan problem. Darwin studied the modern environment and used this information to establish his ideas on the formation of these coral structures.
See The Voyage of the Beagle Chapter Thomas L. Friedman has a piece of … today. He also must have missed the memo regarding cold and food shortages. Smokey says: June 8, at am The Exclusionary Principle is reflected in the logical fallacy Argumentum ad Ignorantium [argument from ignorance]. Popper was clear that deductive science is good, real science, while inductive is non-science and illusory. The present article has it the other way around and I think it has confused the two terms. Willis Eschenbach echoed this in a recent post a rebuttal to a somewhat inductive Ravetz , stating that a scientific assertion that is true is one that might be false.
The big problem with CAGW is that it is inductive. That is to say, assumption is built on assumption in a linear manner such that the whole edifice is obscured and protected from effective falsification. Hence the foundational and sometimes even exclusive role of computer models. This led him to his insights on conjectures and refutations, which will eventually be recognised as the foundation of the scientific process. In this respect CAGW is in the same category as dialectic communism and Marxism — an impressive mountain of arguments and data but not falsifiable, not risky and thus not containing any real truth.
To think that even our greatest outpourings intentional and non intentional will permanently arrest the glacial is utterly naive. Sherlock Holmes made a similar mistake. How could the experts have missed such a simple explanation? Because they have convinced themselves that only a temperature change can cause a cloud cover change, and not the other way around. The issue is one of causation. They have not accounted for cloud changes causing temperature changes.
Recently, Dr Roy Spencer, has stated that he has changed his mind about cosmic rays and has put one foot into that camp. Tucci 78??? What does that mean? I agree with everything else you have written. My intention was to acknowledge the problems that arise when a new disease entity appears. As you point out, the syndrome of immune deficiency was well recognised albeit in other contexts but isolating and identifying the viral cause and developing antiviral treatment combinations took time etc.
That was all I was getting at. Further to my earlier comment. Pompous Git You cite a good example. Recently I came up with a similar one. At the swimming pool where my grandson attends swimming lessons, I observed that most of the adult females of child-bearing age were actually pregnant. Even the ones who were not obviously pregnant had small child ren in tow.
The inductive hypothesis from this is that swimming causes pregnancy in adult females of childbearing age. There must be a fertilising factor in the water, maybe chlorine. All I have to do now is exclude any consideration of the non-swimmers in the population and a mass of medical reproductive science. Black corals are found all over the world and at all depths.
- Humanology - Main Menu.
- Adam Smith: International Perspectives | SpringerLink?
- Expecting Better: Why the Conventional Pregnancy Wisdom is Wrong and What You Really Need to Know.
- Wet Riding Lessons: Ranchers Pregnant Pleasure (Western Cowboy Romance)?
In this chapter, I shall broaden this claim even further by arguing that the scientific method is not merely typical of all humans, but is also a key feature in the lives of most birds and mammals. Science as we know it in the Western world is the product of a highly formalized version of something very basic to life, namely the business of learning about regularities in the world.
These idiots are overstating the heat trapping effect by at least three orders of magnitude. First the warming, then the CO2 comes up. Remember, however, that virologists at that time had not yet been able to characterize many of the RNA-based retroviruses. Subsequently, I lost family members and a ton of patients to hepatic cirrhosis with liver failure and primary hepatocellular carcinoma directly attributable to this bastardly little lentivirus.
- Future Positive » Manila Home Page Archive.
- Table of contents;
- The Chocolate Jewel Case: A Chocoholic Mystery!
- A Collection of Classic Short Stories.
You may want to bone up on your Charles Mackay. Ted Wagner No one argues that the consensus of experts is always right, merely that it is the best tool we have. A More Perfect Union is meant to be the only book you need to read to become politically astute. Being a complete study, it is divided into 2 books. Part 1 analyzes the strengths and shortcomings of the various possible forms of government and which one is best for human beings.
It demonstrates how therapists are applying pseudoscience — defunct theories mixed with their own untested ideas. The Psychology and Counseling Industry is based on the false premise "external negative influences" cause poor decision-making and bad behavior. The consequences of endorsing pseudoscience go beyond wrongly blaming parents for the failings of their children. Instilling an "I am a victim" mentality in citizens is causing them to underperform. The massive social assistance programs were created to help the millions of "citizens-turned-victims.
The ramifications of understanding human nature are many. A few examples follows, demonstrating the broad range and power of this breakthrough knowledge. Foundation to Empower Marriage is a non-profit organization dedicated to educate high school seniors on how emotions work and how to use that knowledge to form and maintain successful long term personal relationships including marriage. It's Not About Love is a musical written for high school and college students. It reveals the secret to success in romance and fulfillment in marriage.
Related The Essence of Man: Discover the theory that explains human nature (Humanology® Book 1)
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved