Re: [Phys-L] just for fun?

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 01/04/2014 12:30 PM, Richard Tarara wrote:

> Sorry if I'm too stupid to see that if A happens first then B
> happens is exactly the same as if B happens first then A happens,
> which seems to be your reading of the historical data which is what
> one would have to believe to be satisfied with Gore's presentation.
> Fine...I give up (but you might want to watch the film again ;-) )

Well, I'm kinda busy right now; perhaps somebody
could do me a favor, save me some time, by telling 
us the timestamp within the video where Al Gore 
says "if A happens first then B happens is exactly 
the same as if B happens first then A happens".

Similarly, perhaps somebody could tell us the
timestamp where Al Gore says it's a really simple
system with only two variables and no feedback.

Perhaps more to the point,
 a) Al Gore's video is a lot closer to the center
  of the scientific consensus than the opposing 
  works are.
 b) I still vehemently object to the idea that if
  something he said is not quite dead-center on
  top of the consensus, and/or not maximally detailed
  it "gives people a excuse for ignoring everything 
  else he said".

  I reeeeeeally don't want to play that game, but
  if you insist on playing it, here's what the next
  move would look like:
  
   1) The Heartland Institute has an infamously long
    track record of being a liar for hire.  This is
    a very good reason to disbelieve more-or-less
    anything they say, even before watching any
    particular video of theirs.

  2) If you actually watch their climate video, it 
   is one flagrant fallacy after another.  This is 
   a very good reason to disbelieve what they are 
   saying.

  3) Ditto for the "Great Global Warming Swindle"
   video.  Pure propaganda, with flagrant contempt
   for the truth.

  4) Even more so for the book
     Senator James Inhofe
     _The Greatest Hoax_
     _How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future_

So if you want to play that game, we've got vastly 
more and better reasons to disbelieve what the deniers 
are saying.

OTOH as I have said repeatedly, this sort of double-
negative reasoning is itself fallacious.  It makes
an ordinary straw-man fallacy look good by comparison.
I'm embarrassed even to discuss it.  Instead, could 
we please focus attention on the actual factual data?

========================

I am stung by the following inconsistency:

++ We have physics textbooks that purport to be 100%
 factual and scientific, yet have 1000 errors in
 1000 pages ... and nobody seems to care.

-- However, when some non-scientist makes a video
 that does not uphold the highest standards of
 scientific detail and rigor, OMG it's a scandal,
 and it invalidates everything the scientists have
 done.

> from my reading of the web site you earlier suggested, that is still
> an area where much more work is needed.

Needed for what purpose?  From a public-policy point
of view, are you seriously arguing that there is not
enough information to form the basis for making
decisions?

Do you really think that anthropogenic CO2 is not
messing with the climate?  If so, I've got some
real estate in Vanuatu to sell you.  Also some
reinsurance contracts.

Seriously, that's where the rubber meets the road.
Could we pleeeeease discuss things that really
matter, as opposed to what this-or-that non-scientist
may have said or not said?

And could we please teach students to do the same?????