Wow! Via Meadia almost stood for something! Tell us–by what evidentiary standard ought we to judge of climate change and cholesterol: by a preponderance of the evidence? By clear and convincing evidence? Beyond reasonable doubt? Via Meadia’s suggested standard is the weakest, easiest one, and is subject to the logical problem of the heap (which I am certain I don’t need to elaborate to Via Meadia). Also, Via Meadia seems to be playing both sides of the aisle here. On the one hand it urges continued suspension of belief; on the other it must, to be consistent with its adopted evidentiary standard, support all McKibben & Co. policies until such time, if ever, as a marginal bit of evidence shifts the preponderance to the other side.
I always take the conclusions of non-mathematical sciences with a pinch…no… large chunk of salt. By the way, why are you so sure that they have got it right this time ?
did Bloomberg give you a permission slip for that salt?
My position is that we should, at the very minimum, expect that science be competent and demonstrate minimal levels of integrity. First, scientists shown to be liars and frauds should not continue to have influence. Climate science flunks that test. Second is the requirement of basic competence. That is, the statistics and software used should not be badly flawed, that logic should be employed when making conclusions, and that all the work should be made available so that it can be replicated by others. Climate science today fails all 3 of these minimum requirements. Anyone who accepts this kind of shoddy work is no more discerning than Turkey Lurkey accepting Chicken Little’s warning that the sky is falling.
I don’t know what impact humans have had on the climate. But I do know ridiculous incompetence and ethical misconduct when I see it repeatedly.
“Our position—that the preponderance of evidence points firmly to the conclusion that the climate is changing and that human activity plays a significant role—remains unchanged.”
Don’t get too dogmatic about that. The climate has been changing since the earth began. What empirical evidence do you have that human activity plays a significant role?
Its not “greenhouse gasses” which compose less than 1/2 of 1% of the atmosphere and most of which are naturally produced. Human activity may cause local climate change as in Beijing and Delhi, but not the whole planet. Too say a that a component of the atmosphere amounting to a minuscule 0,04% can change the whole planet is absurd.
Small changes in a chaotic system like our climate can have significant effects.
The problem is, in a chaotic system like our climate, we have no idea what those effects will be.
I suggest you have a look at recent books by two Earth scientists, “Heaven and Earth” by Ian Plimer and “Climate: the Counter Consensus” by Robert Carter. You might find the preponderance leans heavily the other way.
Your position that that human activity plays a significant role in climate change is completely unsupported by the facts! TAI’s denial that, based on the facts, the AGW hypothesis lies in tatters is, to say the least, distressing.
I too am mystified at WRM’s obduracy on the matter. I guess he won’t be invited to trendy parties if he’s ever caught breaking faith in print with the Most Cherished Articles of Faith of people who throw trendy parties. Time and again he invokes the permanent open-endedness of science, only to slam it shut when it comes to AGW. I have been the first to agree that human activity can have a local or even regional* impact, but NEVER, NEVER, NEVER a global impact. Crikey! 70% of the earth’s surface is water, and there just ain’t much we humans can do or ever have done to affect so much absolute territory.
*I’m thinking of defoliating goats in the Mediterranean region, so perhaps that technically isn’t human agency.