Q:What do Christopher Dorner and Drone Executions have in common, A: Gun Control

Power creep is inevitable.  You see it all the time in gaming, in DnD every new book contained powers or abilities which surpassed those of previous books. In World of Warcraft, or really any MMO you see new abilities and gear that makes you more powerful tier for tier than previous versions.  All games give us new things, its what keeps us glued to our monitors or TV's. The thing about gaming power creep is that if they introduce something new that we don't like or that grossly unbalances the game, we can leave. That's not so true for government.

See government also experiences power creep. every generation of lawmakers or presidents wants to surpass the previous generations. It's not necessarily malicious. This happens at all levels of the government. Reason.com recently had a post detailing a list of events and occurrences of police mischief where citizens died due to police misconduct or zealotry  and that was only in the past few years. In most of these cases there is a marked lack of responsibility and the perpetrators are rarely, if ever, punished. If you want a more visual example there's this map from the Cato Institute detailing botched swat raids. The Cato Institute also released this map of police misconduct and that's just from 2009 and 2010 incidences.  I'm sure you or someone you know has their own story.

While my encounters with police aren't as rapey or murder prone, and i'm not some sort of legal or ethical saint, I have still faced questionable ethics and law enforcement.  I have been pulled over and yelled at by an officer who followed me for over 2 miles with his lights off hoping he'd get a DUI bust out of it. I have been pulled over for traveling in the left hand lane of the mass pike. One of the funnier incidents was when I received a written warning that my inspection sticker was going to expire in a month. The most powerful incident was the summons I got for minor with transportation when I was a designated driver, that one drove me towards my libertarian outlook. But my favorite abuse of power is this ticket that my signiicant other Robyn received over the summer.

Looks like any other ticket but there are a few fun discrepancies. First it says that we were traveling 72 in a 40 on interstate 93, the problem... There is no 40 mile an hour zone. The lowest speed limit is 45mph which wasn't even where we were stopped. why on earth would an officer lie about such things? Well the difference between 72 in a 40 and 72 in a 45 is about 185$. see your charged 5$ per mph over the speed limit and that goes up to 10$ per mph for speeds greater than 30 mph.  There are a few other details in the ticket that irk me and show either massive incompetence or a lack of sobriety on the officers part.

But why shouldn't an officer lie. I mean their paid not to, but their also paid to serve and protect not shoot your dog on your property without a warrant. All an officer has to do is say he didn't do something and fellow cops, DA's, the courts, and unions will stand in the way to protect them regardless of the charges or evidence. prosecution is just starting to occur due to the widespread use of cellphone cameras, thank god for technology.

Which brings us to Christopher Dorner. He alleged that a partner of his kicked a  mentally disabled man, a charge which the man and the mans father corroborate. He was then fired when the offending officer was cleared. I dont pretend to know what really happened that day. I do know on the appeal of his termination a judge declared that there was evidence that he wasn't lying, I also know the case is being reviewed again, and that the LAPD is notoriously corrupt and abusive.

Without a trial Dorner met his end when the police decided to light his cabin on fire using gasoline.  They of course deny trying to light the cabin on fire but there is a video so take that as you will. I don't condone his acts of violence but we need to be consciously aware that the LAPD decided without a trial or a jury to execute a man for his crimes. Is that really a power we want a notoriously corrupt group to have?

 What about the shots fired into a civilian pickup that simply looked like Dorners' shouldn't we at least punish them for that.

Pictured: Police Prudence

The drone strikes against Anwar a-alwaki and his son raise the exact same questions for president Obama.  In this case we have the execution of an american and his son without trial and jury, that's bad, that's incredibly bad, in fact the history of the modern legal system and governance is based entirely around the prevention of such unilateral power. Being judge jury and executioner isn't the only legal liberty Obama has taken, there's indefinite detention, the undeclared wars, bypassing congress for appointments and many many other civil liberties and legal violations that the executive branch has taken. Are these really the powers we want the government to have over us? Even if Anwar al-alwaki committed terrorist acts, which there is no evidence he did, doesn't he still deserve a trial? Isn't that in the constitution

It used to be that there was ample opposition to such power grabs and brutality. The antiwar movement, democrats and liberal media criticized the abuses of executive power. That was until their man got elected of course. Obama is defended by these has been critics of Bush. The government is ripe with hypocrisy. Apparently injustices are only unjust when its not your man pulling the trigger. This acceptance or silence in the face of federal power seizures is why we experience power creep.

In the gun control debate there were some choice bits from gun control advocates. Anything from how the second amendment protects muskets to how its about sport shooting.  The reality, and the somewhat discomforting fact is the founding fathers were well aware of power creep. The bill of rights is what is supposed to stand in its way, assuming a strict interpretation.  That's why there is some very frank and clear language in there such as congress shall make no law abridging, or, shall not be infringed. It's not that speech should generally not be abridged, or that gun rights are okay to infringe on just a little bit as long as hunting isn't impaired. Everyone has the right to a trial by jury of their peers, that doesn't just disappear if you've been bad.

Free speech and the right to bear arms are the first and second amendments because we need to be able to freely stand up to the government, and if, for whatever reason, the government doesn't listen we can make it. Even if Dorner was crazy, I haven't seen anything proving he wasn't, how would you act if the legal system was so corrupt that it protected murderers, rapists and sadists, then threw you out for reporting them. That, ladies and gentlemen, is why we have the second amendment and why it SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Why Democrats are Anti Science

Yes the title was meant as Provocation. But in all seriousness neither dems nor reps are particularly good at the whole sciencing of things as demonstrated by the presidents speech last night. I say that because we heard about climate change and what we should do about it. This inevitably means subsidizing ineffective technologies while leaching tax money away from effective ones. In this case through the idea of a carbon tax.  All of this less than a week after the IPCC announced a 2 degree reduction in the estimates for future warming. 

Science is supposed to be data driven and falsifiable, the discussion around catastrophic climate change, particularly from the democrats, is decidedly not. Even though climate science has gotten incredible amounts of funding we hear more about children, polar bears and ad hominem attacks than we do about actual data. We hear more about new wind farms or green jobs than we do on the actual data surrounding their costs and net growth rates. It begs the question why.

The answer is that the data doesn't support the narrative.  The data says we lose at least 2 traditional jobs for every green job created. The data says we've lost billions to failed energy companies and that green jobs costs hundred of thousands or even millions of dollars per job. More importantly the data says that all of those green projects are an enormous waste of resources.  For all of the fanfare and end of the world speeches we heard regarding carbon dioxide and global warming, no one bothered to weed out  the natural variation, the bias or other effects. Well, except for the skeptics.

From Bjorn Lomberg's facebook page

Heres the abstract of the paper http://www.pnas.org/content/110/6/2058.abstract

See skeptics are slowly but surely chipping away at the numbers to determine how much of the warming was caused by CO2. That's kind of important, you see if it's assumed that CO2 is the principle driver of climate and all temperature increases are assumed to result from CO2 then predictions for warming are likely to be high. If that's not the case, and the warming is due to a variety of factors, then those predictions will be wrong.  Now when we chip away at the data sets, if CO2 is the main factor, then we should see relatively small reductions in the warming trends. 

What we have managed to extract so far is that actual decadal warming increases peaked out at between .12 and .16 degrees celsisus per decade. That's down from some analysis that indicated a possible .3 degree celsius decadal warming rate. In short the data says that actual warming is less than half what was being estimated. This didn't gain much positive press and was actually met with vitriol. Now more recent analysis cuts that trend in half again. Eliminating the data outlier of 1998 actually drops that rate a bit further. so in short our highest rate of warming which is based on the shortest window of data and includes a statistical outlier only comes to a maximum warming rate of .08 degrees celsius. we get that number just by cleaning up the noise in the data. We haven't even begun to deal with other thermal effects

The thing that doesn't get discussed a lot in the debate is that global warming as a theory has been around since about 1988. Until 2001 nobody cared, then Al Gore created a presentation, and while loaded with misrepresentations of data, and emotional pleas, terrified people. Skeptics have been trying to comb through the research and data ever since fighting an uphill battle against groups that are frankly better funded. We exist because there are some real questions about the methodologies, data and interpretation of the mainstream climate scientists. Even though climatologists had a 13 year head start, with papers and publications held in check only by their ambitions, better funding and the fact that it was their actual job the skeptics are making progress. We aren't winning because of a sudden funding increase, or greater acceptance. Were winning because the data disagrees with the narrative, and now, finally some scientists are taking notice. Democrats aren't.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter what the theory or the science says. If the data disagrees the science is shit end of discussion.

Ha Ha!! North Koreas Has Nukes

It's so funny it makes me cry, I mean really cry like sobbing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21421841

For people who don't understand why Libertarians are against the wars in the middle east and excessive spending let me explain. There are real world threats, threats that can hit american cities and american citizens. We as a nation need to have the resources, the capital, the lending partners and political allies to deal with crises when they occur. We need to appear rational not vindictive, calm not aggressive, and by all means thoughtful not a mindless war machine.

We need to watch out for the Hitler's, the Stalin's and well anything that comes out of North Korea which is the definition of a crazy breeding ground. These are the people with armies, the professional kind not like the ones trained on a jungle gym. We need to look out for the people who would happily sit back and watch the world burn if they couldn't rule it, because those people are the actual threats. Those people and the ones who allow them to rule are crazy enough to give up their lives for a dark vision and false promises.

North Korea at Night: If you can get by the starvation

it's a great place for stargazing.

There are always going to be crazies who find a way to kill innocents, sometimes its a mass shooting, or a bombing or a plane crash. On 9/11 we lost over 3,000 american lives as a result of our actions since then we have lost over 6,000 more delivered by the government to the insurgents doors. Sure we allegedly got their leader, huzzah!! But what was the cost to our personal freedoms and liberties or...  the sheer dollar value.

"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," Osama Bin Laden

Truth is if that was his goal he's winning. We pissed away money hunting and chasing an ideology. We burned political bridges and threatened civilians who were simply born in the country. We have spent the resources we need to stop a world war III on a dispute with a fringe group. Have we killed alot of insurgents or just general bad guys? sure, but the drone campaign is acting like a jihadist recruiting poster. It's like wielding a blade against a hydra every time we lop off a head two grow in its place.

We're a superpower and its time to start acting like one.  Lets put down our weapons in the middle east and try to let them deal with the problem. Even if al'qaeda remains they at least wont be able to easily target american soldiers and we wont be spending trillions of dollars to essentially recruit for them. We need to learn to live within our means and manage our responsibilities so when a real threat does emerge we don't turn to find our resources exhausted. We don't get paid to be the worlds police, it's time to stop acting like we do. 

Is there Climate change? a synopsis

So if you don't feel like reading the rather long previous posts let me summarize. First the research does support the theory of greenhouse gasses and the idea that man has had AN effect on our temperature. However the quantity of that effect as well as its significance is up for debate. Furthermore there is no actual evidence that proves causality or validates that any future warming will be catastrophic. While there are claims for catastrophic evidence none of them can prove causality and a great many of them have been invalidated with later research.

The truth is I got bored reiterating arguments I constantly make and didn't feel like delving into the issues surrounding the theory of climate forcing factors. I also didn't tackle the claims of extreme weather, or why it would be a psychologically popular theory. Quite frankly its pretty dull hearing that global warming/climate change/extreme weather will cause both more and less snow, warmer and colder winters increased drought and increased rain. Anyone even remotely knowledgeable on the subject knows that climate change is supposed to occur over long trends and that the data doesn't support the extreme weather hypothesis.

So what does that mean for us? ultimately we need to wait and see whats going to happen.  We need to recognize that there is always a shaman preaching how, if we just spend money in such a way, we can prevent bad things from happening.  Before throwing money in tax subsidies, breaks credits or mandatory purchasing agreements for the alternative energy crowd we should have proof that the investment will pay off, as it stands now we don't. Even if CO2 did raise the temperature to dangerous levels, it is still cheaper to build nuclear and natural gas power plants than wind and solar. They last substantially longer and in the case of natural gas we have already seen a reduction in atmospheric CO2.

Lets Have a Frank Discussion on Climate Change Part 4: The Skeptics Argument

The skeptics argument is first and foremost a criticism of the climate research itself. Now when I say criticism I'm not saying its a scolding or disagreement it means that there are questions concerning the methodology, results or assumptions used to determine those results.  Before a skeptic begins to offer their own analysis they need to explain what they find unsatisfactory about the existing research.  It can't simply be that they don't like it or its implications so lets start by examining the research on climate change in reverse order.

First most of the climate models have been found to be wildly inaccurate predicting recent temperature rises which have simply not occurred. Not that the temperature isn't rising, it is, just not as drastically as the models predicted. Nor is it anywhere near rapid enough to come close to the UN's IPCC worst case, or likely scenarios (please note this was the previous scenario not the recently released scenario which are still high compared to actual observation).  All the models predict a temperature that is much higher than actual observed warming. This indicates a non rational bias towards positive temperature forcing in both the models and literature supporting them.

Credit wattsupwiththat.com

As a matter of fact while the temperature has risen it is statistically insignificant meaning that it is indistinguishable from normal background variation. To be clear the period of temperature insignificance is half of the period of modern satellite records, which we have had for about 33 years. At this point you can almost claim that non warming is more the norm than warming. Strangely enough even with this observable data that technically falsifies the claims for CAGW there is an insistence that a mysterious cooling effect is in play and that warming will recommence, just wait and see I suppose. In some cases models are adjusted to try to back forecast observed temperature using various hypothesis as to what the mysterious force may be. It would seem that there is again a non rational bias or belief in warming that persists in the face of data.

The initial statements were to simply wait for the fifteen year mark before we get to call CAGW bullshit. After 16 years of no warming we now have to wait for 20 years to declare the models incorrect. While I appreciate the calls to patience, and understand that given the timescale of warming forces its important to wait,  ten years ago with only about 15 years of data warmists were calling for doom and gloom, emergency action the green economy and scrambling for Nobel prizes. To be clear 15 years of warming data are enough to call for action but 20 (or more) years are needed to call these theories bunk. It just seems biased.

Now even if we hit the 20 year mark and start to see statistically significant warming again shouldn't we wait another 40 years before declaring that warming is the norm? What if significant warming cycles are simply periodic oscillations? What if temperatures are to suddenly plummet? what happens to the models then? 

How far off are the models? well the least wrong is twice as high as actual climate. The SAR model predicted a temperature increase over the past decade of about .3 degrees and what we've actually seen is an increase of .12-.16 degrees. The IPCC estimated over the next century to be up to 6.4 degrees. Literally in order to hit this value wed need to see warming over the next 10 decades that is 4 times greater than a rate of warming we have ever seen.

That satellite record is important because while we do have temperature records dating back 150 years or so the farther back you go the less accurate they are. There are issues with quality control, widespread deployment and accuracy, as well as precision. Don't forget 30 years or so ago while computers did exist they were incredibly expensive and remote data collection methods were almost non existent and at best primitive. While we do have records that extend back 150 years, sampling errors and convenience bias are likely to create an impression of warming. But what about those records dating back hundreds or even thousands of years.

Those temperature records the ones that go back hundreds or even thousands of years have a large amount of scientific debate over them.  The oldest temperature records come from tree, ice and rock samples. They  are called proxy records as they approximate a temperature. There is ample arguments over their validity and they don't paint a perfect AGW or CAGW picture like say the hockey stick.

Michael Mann created this out of a set of data from tree rings and the subject matter is called dendrochronology. While there is ample scientific debate around the legitimacy of tree ring temperature proxies, the hockey stick graph once appearing in the IPCC's report on climate change has since been removed. The reason for this fall from grace was a simple statistical test, using a set of random junk data Mann's analysis algorithm produced a hockey stick. 

So in short it didn't matter whether he took actual results or not he still got a similar shape. In Mann's defense the peak was smaller but a smaller hockey stick is still a hockey stick and thus both pieces of evidence are irrelevant. Since then the data has been reevaluated and several algorithm's show no massive uptick in temperatures and histroical temperatures that may eve be higher. 

If you want to argue dendrochronology keep in mind that there is no means of recording or controlling the conditions which the trees grew in outside of the past few hundred years. As such tree ring data could proxy rainfall, sunlight, drought, CO2 and/or temperature.  Of course there was a recent article in nature which indicates the roman period may have been warmer than once believed, So take that as you like it

the ice cores that Al Gore used in his presentation were kind of a problem.

See how those two lines are seperated rather than overlapping? Well that's because the CO2 graph lagged the temperature graph by about 20 years.  So for years this has kind of been a problem for the pro warming community because it didn't support their theory. Granted it does make sense because of something called Raoul's law which deals with liquid gas saturation. The oceans hold CO2 and as they warm the gas is expelled colder oceans can hold more CO2. A warming period would have to start and warm the oceans before the gas is released thus validating the graph. The graphs were held apart to show the similarity between the curves without revealing the time function. This was literally disinformation.

That being said a recent study in nature found some way of having temperature lag CO2 if they start from the assumption that CO2 drives climate change and work backwards. Maybe Im exggerating but thats ind of how the abstract reads

"The co-variation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than
global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. "

Personally that is literally stating 'I believe this, haven't been able to prove it and here's how I'm gonna do it'.  That's not to say this is malicious, but it is seriously compromised objectivity. Attempting to explain the methodology, they didn't like the results from one inferred temperature record so they used other inferred temperature records to correct the previously inferred record. 

The geological proxy records are a bit more interesting from a skeptics point of view. not because they hold more weight or show some profound secret its because of what they don't show. See the geological proxy records show that we are not rising faster nor are we hotter than other warm periods. They also tend to be less stable and last for shorter periods of time than the extended ice ages in between. 

See that graph it shows the relatively short period of warming lasting about 11500 alongside the relatively long 100000 year glacial periods. We are well within natural variation 

That graph also shows CO2 and its pretty clear that there is a correlation. That being said fossil fuels have only been utilized for 150-250 years human beings have only been around for about 120,000 years so what was the climate driver 300,000 400,000 or 800,000 years ago.  If our fossil fuel emissions are whats driving climate now, then there would have to be some natural effect producing CO2 at the rate of a modern industrial society in a cyclic variation every hundred thousand years. Not only that but that the factor driving climate has to suddenly disappear at the end of the warming cycle. 

So lets have a synopsis of this information.
1. The models showing catastrophic warming don't agree with observed data.
2. The proxy records of historical warming don't find our current levels or rate to be outside of the historical norm.
3.  There seems to be a bias towards warming in data and results even to the point of some data being misrepresented.
4. There doesn't seem to be any major reason to assume catastrophic warming 6 degrees in 100 years
5. The IPCC estimates for temperature change range between 2-4x the rates ever observed.

Clearly the science behind the theory is solid, but there is no evidence that we are going to hit the levels required for catastrophic warming within the next century. The prediction models are wrong, and there doesn't seem to be enough data to suggest doing anything at the moment much less the drastic and expensive policies being pushed by warming proponents. This has led to a bevy of research into what I like to call warming catastrophe now tertiary studies. These studies will not be studying temperature related effects on a population they will be field studies that attempt to be causally linked to a warming planet. They always start with the conclusion the AGW can be observed through a trend and if no trend is observed they look for confounding variables.

There are lots of exaples of these such as this study in nature which found that phytoplankton, the oceanic food chain building block, was in decline. This would be devastating if true but thankfully a rebuttal was offered in nature. This rebuttal clearly illustrated the "observed" biomass loss was predominantly due to methodology not global warming. So there was an alternative explanation that accurately accounted for the observed phenomenon which was not considered pas AGW. Guess which publication was picked up and distributed by the Associated Press.

What about those poor polar bears? Al gore had them s the mascots of his presentation. suspended on ice that was disapearing.

No this isnt the inconveneint truth picture its awesomer (yes its a word)

The thing is polar bears don't spend their time living on ice flows they hunt on some sea ice after hibernation but then travel sometimes tens or even hundreds of miles to better feeding grounds.  In fact the whole arctic goes quiet in the winter months waiting for warmer waters that allow food to reproduce. but there was concern over polar bears and they became the mascots of the environmental movement against climate change. a study even found their population was on decline. But like I said a study as in one. because that study used a method called convenience sampling to only test the population of polar bears that was convenient to access from a human village where polar bears are considered a pest problem. Almost every other study has found the opposite. 

 The Inuit natives have been complaining about the polar bears increasing number. In fact the Hudson bay area where polar bear populations were thought to be on the decline was surveyed and found there were about 1000 bears doing just fine.  to be clear models predicted that the Hudson bay bear population should have dwindled to 650 individuals since 2004 but in fact there has been no change. No doubt that will also be blamed on climate change but there certainly isn't a mass polar bear extinction about to happen. 

What about our food supply, all those droughts and what not? Well yes we had a bad  drought but nowhere near as bad as the droughts in the 1950's or 1930's. IS it due to global warming? That's harder to answer. did it affect the food supply? a little bit but we still have more than enough to stuff our faces with whatever we want.  But that's not the only global warming may be affecting our food supply research with no actual evidence. 

There was this study in science which said that our food production has dwindled. this was based on a model predicting food production made in the 1980's and it ignored population growth. So while we are producing less food than anticipated our populations has grown by less than anticipated and our food growth has matched our population growth. Not to mention this assumes food production only from the top 5 grains and does not include the variety of foods which are now available due to increased household wealth and globalization. Does that mean the conclusion was wrong.... um yes? 

There are lots of other examples, pretty much anytime an association is made between warming and a population or trend there should be healthy skepticism. Not because its all false but because there is an inherent bias or assumption going into the study.  Correlation does not equal causation and the best example of this comes from the Flying Spaghetti Monsterism proof. 

Score One for the FSM

Before posting editing corrections understand this is a summary article and my opinion is tl;dr

Let's Have Frank Discussion on Climate Change Part 3: The Climatologists Argument

As it stands now the observation is a warming planet. the theories are as follows,

1. that humankinds fossil fuel emissions have produced CO2 forcing the planet to warm and
2. The warming of the planet is predominantly due to natural variation
Now IF you've been paying attention it becomes clear that the theory of CO2 warming the planet can NEVER be verified. We cannot pump or regulate CO2 levels with enough control to test the theory. Therefore any proposals, beliefs or assertions no matter how loudly they are spoken or derisively they are spat are anymore valid than the other sides opinion. By the same token the idea that warming is predominantly due to natural variation can also NEVER be proven. At least not until we obtain a time machine. But scientists are more like engineers than mathematicians so it is our goal to get as close as reasonably possible to an actual result.

So how does each side approximate a solution? well lets begin with the more scientifically and politically popular version. The idea of carbon dioxide inducing warming is not unfounded. It is based on a theory known as the greenhouse gas theory which in turn is based on the absorption of light. This is a known demonstrable phenomenon and can be calculated using the Beer-Lambert equation. In fact this is so reliable we can use this phenomenon to determine concentrations of various chemicals in solutions.

with an explanatory diagram

Most people don't speak math but rearranging the equations lets you see that a unit increase in the concentration increases the amount of light absorbed ten fold. A big thumbs up for the theory. But there's a problem CO2 has an extremely narrow absorption spectrum and that falls out of the range of the incoming radiation to the planet.as such effectively all the incoming radiation in that spectral range is absorbed but there isn't much there. But it does fall well within the the spectrum of the outgoing radiation from the earth. a fairly helpful picture.

So there you have it CO2 has some absorption within the normal radiative remission from the earth. That;s an excellent argument and it has solid science and research behind it. Thats where the good science ends and the things start to get fuzzy. See temperature is a function of the energy in a system. It is a function of how much energy is coming and how much energy is leaving. When there is more energy coming in then there is going out the temperature rises, The opposite means the temperature falls, If the system is in equilibrium the temperature is constant. As the radiative energy is absorbed by the CO2 it is passed on to other molecules through collision and is eventually radiated into space.

A traditional energy balance looks like : Accumulation=in-out+generation-consumption

While we can calculate the incoming energy from the sun. It is much more difficult to estimate the energy going out, especially when were trying to estimate the effect of reabsorption. Even if energy is reabsorbed it will still be reemitted, not just some of it all of it. Energy is a loosely defined term so think of it like a fish tank with a hose connected and a hole drilled through the side. You can think of reabsorption as the expansion or change in the fish tank volume. there are two ways the tank volume can change it can grow wider or it can grow taller. If the tank grows taller the water level wont change and volume of water will remain the same. if the tank expands horizontally the height of the water wont change but the volume of water will.

As it stands now we don't know the dimensions of the tank, The volume of water or the flow rate out of the hole, or how the parameters are changing. We are trying to figure those dimensions out but the truth is all we can offer now are estimates. We call these estimate climate sensitivity and there is an incredible amount of debate as to how significant or large the values are. The idea is to reduce the very complex problem of our input/output values to a single value depicting the effect of carbon dioxide on temperature.

Guesstimating these numbers isn't on the table and they aren't simply based on CO2 absorption values. climate temperature is not a single factor there are multiple things that feed into and affect temperature variability. Factors such as cloud cover, or glacier coverage are going to depend on temperature and they in turn are going to affect temperature. These provide what are called feedback effects where an individual variable which is affected by temperature also affects temperature. Some of these factors will increase the climate sensitivity others will decrease climate sensitivity. Much of these estimates and factors are pulled from published literature. Once collected these factors are collected and used in a series of equations attempting to determine the actual course of climate in what we know as climate models.

But once you develop a model how do you test it? Well the easiest answer is look to previous years of temperature data. Assuming that we have a reasonably accurate mathematical interpretation then we should have a relative match with previous temperature records. Then using future projections to simulate some of the variables which are unknowns the model should reasonably predict temperature increases into the future.

Now I feel I have been fair to the believers of AGW. The predictions and methodology currently used is similar to what I'd pursue if I was attempting to answer the questions of significance around climate change. It is intelligent and methodical but this is where the science behind the theory of AGW takes a backseat and the skeptics argument begins.

Lets Have a Frank Discussion on Climate Change Part 2: Let's Eliminate the Soap Box

So now that I have laid out my personal viewpoint on climate change lets try to have a reasonable discussion on what we know. We frequently hear that the debate is over or about a scientific consensus. While clearly the debate isn't over what about the scientific consensus.

 In a sample of scientists from all fields there was an absolute consensus in regards to evolution. Some 97% of respondents agree that evolution is the primary means of species differentiation. However in the same study only 86% agree with the belief that man has had an effect on global temperatures. While that is a majority it is not a consensus. I state that using the traditional significance level of around 5% if 95% of scientists agreed then we could say it was a consensus. but as it sits now it doesn't even find significance at the 10% level much less the traditional 5%.

Proponents of the consensus would point out that most dissenting scientists are not climate or atmospheric scientists, and that they tend to come from fields related to geology or engineering. That does not change the fact that evolution seems to find ground among scientists outside of the field of biology. Nor does it take into account that skeptics like myself would have responded yes to the question because it simply asks if there has been an effect. there is no discussion of significance of the effect, Efficacy of environmental proposals, or whether the modern catastrophic theory is entirely correct. So lets put the idea that there is a consensus of pro catastrophic global warming scientist advocates to rest. It doesn't exist and given the timescales that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) is supposed to play out it is unlikely that there will be a true consensus within our lifetime.

How can scientists who have looked at most of the same data and come to different conclusions. The answer is it has to do with the scientific method and more specifically how it is applied to the soft science fields like climate science or even psychology. To do that we need to bring up the scientific method how it works and why it works and where it differs in these fields.

The traditional scientific method is an actual step by step process.It is as follows
1. make an observation
2. develop theory to explain the observation
3. conceive an experiment to test the theory
4. analyze the experimental data in order to make an observation
5. repeat

According to that procedure we technically are never likely to know the exact truth about reality. There is an engineering joke that explains the scientific methods. A mathematician and an engineer are placed in a psychological experiment they are placed in a room with a beautiful naked and willing woman and the distance between the two is halved every minute. The mathematician is informed of the experimental rules looks at the women and cries that he shall never truly reach her, thus abandoning the experiment. The engineer listens to the rules looks at the woman and takes his position in the experimental room with a smile. The psychologist is perplexed by the engineers response particularly after the mathematician. The engineer looks at the psychologist and simply replies in ten minutes ill be close enough for practical purposes.

This is similar to the scientific method. The idea is that we proceed through this iterative process and in time we arrive at an answer or a solution that closely approximates reality. As long as we get close enough we can use that information to affect ourselves and environment. This approach has allowed the human race to advance farther in the past 200 years than we have in the past 120,000 years that we as a species were on this planet.

The difference between the hard sciences and the soft sciences is the hard sciences stick to this process and the soft sciences play a little bit with the steps particularly the first two. While there is no direct reason why the steps have to be followed in a very specific order it does help to eliminate personal as bias. This difference Explains why fossil fuels were blamed for global cooling 50 years ago and then global warming 20 years later. Its why Carol Gilligan a psychologist published scientific theories that have yet to be proven either by herself her disciples or any actual tests. If you start with a theory you can find or convince yourself that an observation fits that theory.

The second key point of contention is typically in regards to whether or not the theory is falsifiable. In order to be falsifiable the theory must be able to be tested. Both the time frame (effects are expected to be verifiable 50-100 years away) and the nature of the subject (we don't have a weather control machine) means that it is inherently non falsifiable. Any discussion as to the fallout or effects from global warming is assumed based on correlations and literature. Elementary statistics teaches the correlation does not equal causation.

While I and most other scientists acknowledge the inherent challenges associated with the subjects matter we don't feel they get a free pass to make predictions or advise policy without making it abundantly clear that the theories are inherently untestable or verifiable until the appropriate amount of time has elapsed, regardless of the information those theories are based on.

Outside of bias which both of the primary arguments have, and the non falsifiability of any claims regarding the future made for 50-100 years from now, the most common and ironically least credible argument made by both sides revolves around attacking the credibility of your opponents. Arguing that a study or result is less credible because of its source is one of the well known and understood logical fallacies. a list of others can be found here.



In short the idea of attacking your opponent rather than the statements is not the same as defending your arguments or attacking your opponents rhetoric. It is known as an ad hominem attack. Reviewing that list you should honestly take a look at the arguments you have used or fellow supporters have used to defend your stance. Its pretty easy to see that most of the arguments used in the climatological debate are logical fallacies.

Everyone knows that environmentalists are going to support investigations and studies that support their argument and the petrochemical industry is going to finance studies that look into factors that undermine them. that doesn't mean those studies are incorrect. Any theory that does not incorporate contradictory or conflicting arguments is not a scientifically valid argument. In fact contrarian arguments hold much larger sway than do non contrary arguments. It is and always should be easier to disprove a theory than it is to prove one.

The point is that neither side of the debate, particularly the extreme sides are arguing a completely sane or scientifically grounded position. Assuming the opponents are all shills or dismissing their arguments is not just disingenuous to the debate but its actually blatantly wrong. So what we all need to do is sit down and examine the methodology, and the data to try to figure out what to do. We need to acknowledge our inherent biases and understand how effective the technologies were arguing about are. I intend to do this at this blog. Its going to take a large amount of time effort and energy. I will try to be as even handed as possible and not dive too deeply into the body of work that surrounds each argument simply because most people are not scientifically literate enough to make sense of it. So to begin Lets start with the mainstream argument, its methodology and why the approach is used in part 3 of Lets Have a Frank Discussion of Climate Change.