Alberta Politics Thread

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I literally just pointed out a couple of the major reasons identified in government reports discussing why fires are getting much worse in Alberta in the very post you did not read.

Yes, trying to find links to those reports.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well this year is El Nino though. Its an outlier by definition? Was it last March when it was -30 in March, or the year before? Five years in the grand scheme of things and a planet that is millions of years old is a blip. That is probably my biggest concern with the science of climate change. Its extrapolating this small sample size and combining it with some familiarity and recency bias to forecast the next century.

Why do you think climate science is based on a small sample size?

[peter12]

This argument can have no resolution.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by troutman

Yes, trying to find links to those reports.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...strophic-fires

And I'll save you the effort of wasting my time: Yes, they noted climate change is *a* contributing factor. But there are more immediate causes for these.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by troutman

Why do you think climate science is based on a small sample size?

Well I just doubt the accuracy of measuring the planets temperature past a certain point. When I see the temperature increases since the 1880's for example, how accurate were those readings? Are we talking about a guy using weather data every year to gauge an average? I know we aren't talking about anything involving what we consider to be modern science at that point though, so its questionable. So lets say that you have accurate data since the 60's, or about 50 years. That's 50 years out of how many thousands/millions? Its almost a snapshot.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well I just doubt the accuracy of measuring the planets temperature past a certain point. When I see the temperature increases since the 1880's for example, how accurate were those readings? Are we talking about a guy using weather data every year to gauge an average? I know we aren't talking about anything involving what we consider to be modern science at that point though, so its questionable. So lets say that you have accurate data since the 60's, or about 50 years. That's 50 years out of how many thousands/millions? Its almost a snapshot.

Dude, do you honestly think that people with PHD's in this sort of thing haven't been able to vet and normalize the existing data? Or that there is only one set of data that shows a systematic rise in temperature over the last century+?

You're showing exactly the kind of attitude that hard core climate deniers take to the extreme, the attitude of "Well I don't understand the data, so I don't believe it."

It amazes me that this is an issue that has such a polarized view of the science. For some reason way too many people who aren't qualified or educated on the matter are completely unwilling to defer to those who are.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Dude, do you honestly think that people with PHD's in this sort of thing haven't been able to vet and normalize the existing data? Or that there is only one set of data that shows a systematic rise in temperature over the last century+?

You're showing exactly the kind of attitude that hard core climate deniers take to the extreme, the attitude of "Well I don't understand the data, so I don't believe it."

It amazes me that this is an issue that has such a polarized view of the science. For some reason way too many people who aren't qualified or educated on the matter are completely unwilling to defer to those who are.

An appeal to authority isn't exactly a strong counter-argument.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Dude, do you honestly think that people with PHD's in this sort of thing haven't been able to vet and normalize the existing data? Or that there is only one set of data that shows a systematic rise in temperature over the last century+?

You're showing exactly the kind of attitude that hard core climate deniers take to the extreme, the attitude of "Well I don't understand the data, so I don't believe it."

It amazes me that this is an issue that has such a polarized view of the science. For some reason way too many people who aren't qualified or educated on the matter are completely unwilling to defer to those who are.

I'm not suggesting that I'm the only guy to think of this or anything like that. He asked why I think its a small sample size and I gave my reasoning. Is there an easy answer for why my train of thought is wrong?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well I just doubt the accuracy of measuring the planets temperature past a certain point. When I see the temperature increases since the 1880's for example, how accurate were those readings? Are we talking about a guy using weather data every year to gauge an average? I know we aren't talking about anything involving what we consider to be modern science at that point though, so its questionable. So lets say that you have accurate data since the 60's, or about 50 years. That's 50 years out of how many thousands/millions? Its almost a snapshot.

You have asked these sorts of questions many times previously and been given answers.

At this point, you simply do not want to believe the science is accurate and no one is going to be able to convince you otherwise.

Here is the link where you previously brought up 'sample sizes': http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...&postcount=535

troutman also provided you with extensive citations in that thread as well.

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well I just doubt the accuracy of measuring the planets temperature past a certain point. When I see the temperature increases since the 1880's for example, how accurate were those readings? Are we talking about a guy using weather data every year to gauge an average? I know we aren't talking about anything involving what we consider to be modern science at that point though, so its questionable. So lets say that you have accurate data since the 60's, or about 50 years. That's 50 years out of how many thousands/millions? Its almost a snapshot.

Climate reconstruction typically involves proxies like tree rings and ice cores which gives scientist measure things like CO2 levels and temperature variation going up to hundreds of thousand of years ago.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

You have asked these sorts of questions many times previously and been given answers.

At this point, you simply do not want to believe the science is accurate and no one is going to be able to convince you otherwise.

Here is the link where you previously brought up 'sample sizes': http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...&postcount=535

troutman also provided you with extensive citations in that thread as well.

First of all I haven't asked these questions "many times" because as soon as you do around here its toxic. People are in favour of science and questioning, but not if you question them about their positions, only if you agree. So I don't even know why I waded into this today.

And I looked at basically every website that people posted in that thread and didn't see the answer.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by peter12

An appeal to authority isn't exactly a strong counter-argument.

This is precisely the stance you have taken in science based medicine thread.

Science based medicine was good enough to diagnose an issue you've had all your life without knowing about it. Even though you've lived your whole life without knowing about this diagnosis, you were willing to accept the scientific basis for this diagnosis out of hand. You trust science based medicine to help you deal with that diagnosis.

You mock people in your family for proposing solutions that aren't based in science.

Yet, for some reason, you don't trust science when used to study climate.

Why?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

This is precisely the stance you have taken in science based medicine thread.

Science based medicine was good enough to diagnose an issue you've had all your life without knowing about it. Even though you've lived your whole life without knowing about this diagnosis, you were willing to accept the scientific basis for this diagnosis out of hand. You trust science based medicine to help you deal with that diagnosis.

You mock people in your family for proposing solutions that aren't based in science.

Yet, for some reason, you don't trust science when used to study climate.

Why?

That's barely analogical reasoning.

I don't distrust the science on climate change. I distrust its haphazard application by amateurs on the Internet.

I am remarkably consistent.

EDIT: I get 20%.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Slava

First of all I haven't asked these questions "many times" because as soon as you do around here its toxic. People are in favour of science and questioning, but not if you question them about their positions, only if you agree. So I don't even know why I waded into this today.

And I looked at basically every website that people posted in that thread and didn't see the answer.

That could be - I'm not sure the "100 year sample size" was addressed in the other threads.

Here is a graph showing CO2 levels going back 400,000 years:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[Dentoman]

Originally Posted by peter12

I don't distrust science. I distrust its haphazard application by amateurs on the Internet. .

With your permission on the editing of your post, I am gonna get this put on a t-shirt!!

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by troutman

Climate Science itself does not try to explain individual events. It is big picture stuff.

Exactly. That's why it's daft when we're in a six-day -30 snap and people say "some global warming eh?" It's equally daft to point to the Fort Mac wildfires and crow "see - global warming!"

[ernie]

Originally Posted by peter12

An appeal to authority isn't exactly a strong counter-argument.

An appeal to authority is perfectly valid when the authority you are appealing to is in fact an authority. Unless you can point to why the group consensus among climate scientists (i.e. actual experts) is somehow speculative or that they aren't actually experts that can logically comment on the data and make conclusions from it an appeal to authority is logically valid.

An appeal to authority failure in an argument isn't simply Person 1 says Y is true, therefore Y is true and one can't simple accept that. There must be a reason that makes it quite unlikely that Person 1 is an expert on Y so that one logically should not take what they say as truth.

It's called facts. Science runs on them. The science is clear and while I may not know the intricacies of how they do the models or harvest the data, I know that when you have a massive group consensus around a subject in science where the scientific method has been used there is no need for me to truly doubt the over arcing conclusions or be concerned that I don't know the nitty gritty of how everything was determined.


Now one can't place the blame of a single event on something like global warming exclusively (overall trends is a different story), but my pet peeve is that people throw out "appeal to authority" as if one must never do it. That isn't true. That is exactly what one MUST do when there is an authority to appeal to. In this case a large group of very, very good scientists and experts.

Honestly, I didn't follow the entire argument/discussion, however, the appeal to authority response came based on a post about experts knowing what they are doing. They do know what they're doing. The appeal to authority in that case is perfectly valid.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Exactly. That's why it's daft when we're in a six-day -30 snap and people say "some global warming eh?" It's equally daft to point to the Fort Mac wildfires and crow "see - global warming!"

Is it daft when it's done so by scientists? Where's the line?

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Is it daft when it's done so by scientists? Where's the line?

You have to contact Alberta first call.

[DiracSpike]

Weather does not equal Climate. This should cut both ways but somehow people can point to literally any weather related event as proof positive of Climate Change, take it further and suggest said event would not have happened if not for Climate Change, and they get a complete pass for completely misunderstanding the entire phenomenon. Those people are just as ignorant as the Climate Change "deniers" that are constantly getting ragged on by you lot