Monday, October 05, 2009

Quotes of the Day: On the politics of global warming [update 4]

The politics [of global warming] are tough now because conservatives years ago allowed the debate to get away from them; frightened of being labelled nature-haters, they declined to attack anti-progress green arguments as they were being formed. Result: in 2009 they’re dealing with a full-blown religion, and they’re discovering that logic isn’t much of a weapon against faith.”
………………………………….Tim Blair, commenting on ‘Malcolm Turnbull’s Malcontents

 

The current Global Warming Debate is not about temperature or CO2 levels. It is an ideological clash between those who want to change us (rather than the climate) and those who believe in freedom, markets, human ingenuity, and technical progress. The advocates of global warming alarmism ask for an almost unprecedented expansion of government intrusion, of government intervention into our lives and of government control over us. We are pushed into accepting rules about how to live, what to do, how to behave, what to consume, what to eat, how to travel. It is unacceptable.”
………………………………………….- Hon Vaclav Klaus, President Czech Republic.

 

Grasp those two points, and you’ll understand why warmists are so excited – and why they can be taken seriously when they campaign to have industry shackled by forty percent from 1990 levels: because if you haven’t grasped it already this is not about logic. It’s an ideological clash.

And as Muriel Newman reminds us in her latest newsletter, the clash here in New Zealand is about to reach an historic climax:

“National’s Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill is now in front of the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee. Submissions close on the 13th of October, giving a scandalously short time frame for the preparation of submissions on legislation of this scale. Emissions’ trading is the biggest government policy to be imposed on New Zealand in recent times and promises to be just as invasive and cancerous as income tax.”

So read her latest and scientist Chris de Freitas’s briefing before getting your submission in quick smart:

UPDATE 2:  As more and more scientists and science writers see a whole decade of temperatures refusing to rise in accord with the predictions of their models, after years of non-warming – after an day in which the largest snow fall in 25 years has closed the Desert Road and the Napier-Taupo highway, it’s starting to look like the climate alarmism of Time magazine might actually be justified.  It’s just that it took thirty-five years to show it.

UPDATE 3: The draft of the Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty, on the basis of which all the world’s Emissions Trading Scams are being drawn up, is looking less of a climate treaty and more of a blueprint for world socialism.  See for example ‘From The Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty’ at the Coyote Blog, and more along these lines at Anthony Watts’s blog.

UPDATE 4: Oh, and the Coyote Blog is also the home of the free online book  'A Layman’s Guide to Anthropogenic (Man-Made) Global Warming'. It’s purpose is simple:

agw_cover_front_small     “. . . to provide a layman’s critique of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory, and in particular to challenge the fairly widespread notion that the science and projected consequences of AGW currently justify massive spending and government intervention into the world’s economies.  This paper will show that despite good evidence that global temperatures are rising and that CO2 can act as a greenhouse gas and help to warm the Earth, we are a long way from attributing all or much of current warming to man-made CO2. 
    “We are even further away from being able to accurately project man’s impact on future climate, and it is a very debatable question whether interventions today to reduce CO2 emissions will substantially improve the world 50 or 100 years from now.”

Labels: , , ,

90 Comments:

Anonymous LGM said...

The conservatives started out taking their usual un-principled, un-reality-based stand by receiving revelation from their priests and ministers. Those lunatics spouted similar collectivist environmental nonsense to the collectivist environmentalists. Checkmate!

LGM

10/05/2009 07:37:00 am  
Anonymous Monsieur said...

Oil is amazing stuff.
You can make amazing stuff from it
(as well as some shiddy, dirty by-products).
And then what do we do with it?
We burn it and use it as manure.

What do you make of a company like DuPont?
Trying to clean up it's act, while still maintaining it's commercial viability?
Maybe.
Maybe they're looking greener because they sold the really polluting processes to Koch Industries.

As an architect are you adverse to incorporating sustainable systems into your designs? I doubt it, because they are usually more empowering to their users.

We don't have to worry about global-warming.
The Problem is we've just got to clean up our crap, and develop better internalised systems to enable that.

We don't have to worry about the religious absolutes of Nature-haters and Anti-progressive Greenies. Just find viable solutions.
That's called science.

10/05/2009 10:00:00 am  
Anonymous frog said...

There is no doubt that politics are playing a big part in how the ETS debate is being handled here and abroad. What you fail to bring into the conversation, in any way at all, is the science.

The science is pretty clear that we need to act. How we respond is where the politics get sticky.

Your oversimplified, dog-whistling diatribe does little to inform readers about the real issue - the one that's happening in reality. No amount of economic wishing on your part eliminates the second law of thermodynamics. I'm afraid the physics, which is a real science, trumps the pseudo-science of economics in every instance.

10/05/2009 10:32:00 am  
Blogger PC said...

Frog, even if it were true that "the science is pretty clear that we need to act" -- and on that we clearly disagree -- there's nothing in the science that says the action that's needed is government action to ban private action.

Socialism doesn't work at fifteen degrees. There's no reason to assume it's going to work at seventeen degrees.

10/05/2009 11:37:00 am  
Anonymous Monsieur said...

@ Monsieur PC
And your solution to pollution is...?

10/05/2009 12:07:00 pm  
Anonymous twr said...

I love the way that people who know absolutely nothing about the laws of thermodynamics use them to justify their absurd positions on everything from global warming to the existence of God. It seems that they quote them and then hope their audience is just as ignorant as they are, and that it makes them sound like they know what they are talking about.

10/05/2009 12:27:00 pm  
Anonymous Sus said...

"Every time you open the fridge door, you destroy the environment."

Via Crusader Rabbit commenter 'Marian', whose brother works in IT support at a Sth Auckland primary school and overheard a teacher recently making that remark to her class.

10/05/2009 12:42:00 pm  
Anonymous Monsieur said...

Our planet is kept warm by greenhouse gases.
Without them it would be a very cold planet.
If you increase the amount of greenhouse gases, you will warm up the planet.

I know. It's really difficult to understand.

10/05/2009 12:59:00 pm  
Anonymous Sus said...

"Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend."

From Time Mag, June 1974, entitled: "Science: Another Ice Age?"

The article notes meteorologists discovering "that the atmosphere has been gradually cooling for three decades" ... "the effects of which could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic."

Hmmmm. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Let's do a Clark and move on to this, from Univ of Toronto Climatologist Kenneth Hare:

"I don't believe that the world's present popn is sustainable (!) if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row."

Frustratingly for Kenny, 35 years later we're still alive & kicking. :)

Fears, Worries & Concerns, Toad. There's (still) a lot of money & power in 'em!

10/05/2009 01:03:00 pm  
Anonymous Monsieur said...

An increase in greenhouse gases has been detected, and the portion of the carbon dioxide produced from the burning of fossil fuels has been established.

I liked the way this was covered in the IPCC 2007 report.
Those clever scientists, working all that out.
By distinguishing their isotopes. Brilliant!

10/05/2009 01:46:00 pm  
Anonymous Monsieur said...

Then there's the empirical data showing an actual warming.

Shall we dipute this?
I'm willing.

10/05/2009 02:00:00 pm  
Anonymous twr said...

"Our planet is kept warm by greenhouse gases."

So that big hot yellowy thing in the sky doesn't have anything to do with it then? It's just greenhouse gases?

10/05/2009 02:27:00 pm  
Anonymous Monsieur said...

@ twr

It's a little bit like a greenhouse.

So...
Is there a causal link between the increase in greenhouse gases and the increase in temperature?
Our theoretical understanding of the greenhouse effect would say YES.

What part of the science do you have a problem with?
The political part?

10/05/2009 02:49:00 pm  
Anonymous twr said...

I haven't seen any evidence to convince me that a tiny percentage increase in a gas that makes up a tiny percentage of the atmosphere will catastrophically change the climate of the planet.

I haven't seen any evidence that an increase in temperature akin to driving from Wellington to Kapiti will change living standards for the worse.

I haven't seen any evidence that greenhouse gases have more effect on the climate than differences in output of the sun.

I haven't seen any explanation for why an increase in temperature to a level less than that seen a few hundred years ago is worth obliterating the world economy for.

I haven't seen an explanation for why the historical record shows that CO2 levels tend to increase after temperature does, rather than before, indicating possible causation the other way if anything.

In short, I haven't seen any evidence of warming, I haven't seen any evidence that warming is bad, and I certainly haven't seen evidence that human contributions of CO2 are causing the climate to change.

And incidentally yes, I do object to the politicisation of the science.

10/05/2009 03:18:00 pm  
Anonymous Monsieur said...

"To the best of our knowledge, anthropogenic global warming is occurring"

10/05/2009 03:45:00 pm  
Blogger KG said...

"What part of the science do you have a problem with?
The political part?"

There is no "political part" to real science.

10/05/2009 04:07:00 pm  
Blogger Rimu said...

Climate change denial reminds me of the time when cigarette companies were denying the link between smoking and cancer - everyone knows the truth, but they keep on with their fake 'studies' from 'independent' 'experts' regardless.

Did you know that 92% of sceptical books are clearly linked to conservative think tanks?

10/05/2009 04:16:00 pm  
Anonymous Monsieur said...

@KG
"There is no "political part" to real science."

Then it would be ridiculous to call real science a socialist conspiracy.

10/05/2009 04:26:00 pm  
Anonymous twr said...

Climate change proponents remind me of the ministries in Orwell's 1984, ridiculing anyone who objects to the propaganda without offering anything of substance to back it up.

For example, something that is presented as a quote, with no source or evidence, as if simply saying it is enough to make it true: "To the best of our knowledge, anthropogenic global warming is occurring"

10/05/2009 04:38:00 pm  
Blogger Callum said...

So, Greenies on this thread:

How then, do you justify extortion of property and strangulation of freedom based on the weak link between human activities and climactic trends?

10/05/2009 04:47:00 pm  
Blogger KG said...

"Then it would be ridiculous to call real science a socialist conspiracy."
It would.
The 'socialist conspiracy' part comes from their perversion and distortion of real science to suit their ideology

10/05/2009 05:05:00 pm  
Anonymous Monsieur said...

Monsieur said...

To the best of our knowledge, anthropogenic global warming is occurring

What was backing it up was my previous posts.

If you would like to contine and discuss climate change, go for it.
But I don't see the point if don't accept anthropogenic global warming is occurring.

10/05/2009 05:23:00 pm  
Anonymous Monsieur said...

@PC: Re Bizarre Update 2:

In your second update you refer to an uploaded graph... "after years of non-warming".
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatures.png" on wikipedia.

I found it's full entry on wikipedia as the following...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png

Have you actually read it's interpretation?

10/05/2009 06:20:00 pm  
Anonymous Monsieur said...

@PC: Re Update 2

Furthermore, the owner of the satelitte temperature measurements graph, Robert A. Rohde, would be astounded at how you have referenced it.

Here is his website:
www.globalwarmingart.com

I thought objectivists faced facts.

10/05/2009 06:30:00 pm  
Blogger PC said...

To put it simply, Monsieur, the science is there in the satellite measurements -- whereas the politics appears in the "trend lines."

10/05/2009 06:45:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Monsieur said...

" Our planet is kept warm by greenhouse gases. Without them it would be a very cold planet. If you increase the amount of greenhouse gases, you will warm up the planet."

But we still need an energy flux,and if we transit from a period of grand maxima in open solar flux(ie the upper 10%) to say a period of grand minima in terms of open solar flux(10% of the period eg millenia scale lengths)by a remarkable "coincidence" temperatures have plateaued on a decade length despite ghg increasing clearly explanations are in order.

Maksimovich

10/05/2009 06:55:00 pm  
Anonymous LGM said...

Monsieur

As it is you who is asserting the positive, the burden of proof falls upon you. Therefore you are required to prove the following:

1/. the climate of the Earth is warming

2/. it is going to continue to so do

3/. the CAUSE is an increase in atmospheric CO2

4/. the CAUSE of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is Man's industrial activities

5/. that increases in climatic temperature are necessarily bad and harmful for Man

6/. that this is an emergency situation

7/. that coercive collectivism applied against all individuals is necessary to solve the problem


If you are unable to prove ALL of these, then there is no further point in discussing your banal superstitions or your charmless lust to witness the collective control of other people regardless of their choices, decisions, values or wishes.

As previously stated, as you are the one asserting the positive, it is you who must shoulder the burden of proof.

LGM

10/05/2009 07:03:00 pm  
Anonymous Monsieur said...

So have you actually read the graphs interpretation?

the politics appears in the "trend lines."

I repeat. Have you actually read it's interpretation?

Did you read about the recalibration in 2005.
Have you studied the Surface temperature readings that are referred to.
Temperature Gallery

And I repeat again.
I thought objectivists faced facts.

10/05/2009 07:05:00 pm  
Anonymous Monsieur said...

@LGM

In response to your questions:

As I stated before.
If you would like to discuss Climate Change you will first have to accept that Anthropogenic Global Warming is occurring.

If you are not convinced of Anthropogenic Global Warming, then why discuss it's consequences.

Only your first 4 questions are relevant to that end.

If you read my previous posts you will see that I have addressed each of them except for your second question.

2/. (Warming of the planet) is going to continue to so do.

Answer: No-one can prove the future.
We can only infer it's likelihood.
That's what a trend line does.

10/05/2009 08:24:00 pm  
Blogger libertyscott said...

One needs only to look at the choice of policies the environmental movement have to demonstrate the extent to which good intentions have been captured by a religious movement.

The logical policy on energy is let prices respond, remove controls on the energy sector raising pricing, remove planning restrictions on nuclear, hydro, wind, solar energy, and indeed carbon capture but NO it is about regulating appliance efficiency, lightbulbs, subsidising insulation and continuing to oppose new capacity including nuclear.

The logical policy on transport is to get out of the way, privatise roads, have tolls that charge a lot at peak times, stop subsidising empty buses and trains or free buses that take people from walking, stop propping up airlines and ports that would otherwise fold. No the response is large scale spending on railways that will carry at best 5% of trips in Auckland, with a measure of success how many people catch trains, not how many people shifted from cars, maintaining a duplicate national transport infrastructure of which half is barely used whilst UNDERMINING the energy efficient coastal shipping sector, AND arguing against letting empty foreign ships carry cargo domestically whilst they hop from port to port after arriving from overseas. The same people think traffic jams are good for them.

They also think peak oil is coming, in which case you'd have thought they'd say "bring it on" and let the market find alternatives. However, no. None of them buy oil futures to make a fortune they could then "reinvest" in "green" technologies or helping the "poor".

They are not THAT convinced to put their money where their mouths are.

If they were predominantly motivated by reducing CO2 emissions they would not dismiss nuclear or carbon capture, they wouldn't worship railways and wouldn't want to stop foreign ships from carrying domestic cargo.

Much like the food miles bullshit which has exposed for what nonsense it is, but it goes against the protectionist, anti-trade agenda of the green movement in Europe.

10/05/2009 11:08:00 pm  
Anonymous Monsieur said...

@Maksimovich

You'll find an excellent debunking of your remarkable "coincidence" here
Pattern of Strange Errors Plagues Solar Activity
and Terrestrial Climate Data - damon & laut 2004

10/06/2009 12:02:00 am  
Anonymous Monsieur said...

If there is a problem and you don't like any of the solutions, then just deny the problem exists (therefore no solution is required).

It's not scientific to assess the validity of research by it's consequences.

I invite you to at least examine this
EPA: Atmosphere Changes

If you continue to just trust information sponsored by Koch Industries, you are betraying your own creed. "Infringing on the liberties of others"

10/06/2009 08:24:00 am  
Anonymous Falafulu Fisi said...

Monsieur said...
@Maksimovich, you'll find an excellent debunking of your remarkable "coincidence" here

Monsieur, Maksimovich is an astrophysicist. What does that mean? Well he knows more than your simple reference debunking from RealClimate. He is not in the same league as you, because he knows his stuff pretty well. He may start quoting research papers (that he may have read but unknown to you) to support his views which are unreadable to you?

The kind of arguments you make is Ok, when you debate with non-physicists, but you would be overwhelmed with cited references that are foreign languages to you if you try and confront someone who's entire life has been dedicated to studying physics (irrelevant if that person's view is pro or against the issue at debate).

BTW, are you Eddie Visits Frequently (EVF) that I used to debate with here at Not PC a couple of years ago? EVF used to argue in a similar way as you, such as frequently quoting the RealClimate and other prowarming sources , etc...

10/06/2009 10:19:00 am  
Anonymous Sus said...

Monsieur:

You are obviously concerned about AGW. I'm not; but I *am* concerned about correct use of the apostrophe. ;)

Thus, I can go no longer without pointing out the usage: that the apostrophe in "it's" is only required when abbreviating "it is" or "it has".

Otherwise it's just "its", as in "its consequences".

Sorry, but I'm afraid this is a real nail-down-the-blackboard thing for me.

So there, er, it is. ;)

ps: I see that Callum's question remains unanswered. Thoughts?

10/06/2009 10:24:00 am  
Anonymous Sus said...

"If there is a problem and you don't like any of the solutions, then just deny the problem exists (therefore no solution is required)."

A problem or a manufactured problem?

Govts are pretty good at manufacturing problems.

They're even better at subsidising them ...

10/06/2009 10:29:00 am  
Anonymous Elijah Lineberry said...

Monsieur normally I would not have anything to do with somebody from Frogland..(dirty b*ggers, most of them)..but I shall make an exception for you.

Clearly you have swallowed 'hook, line and sinker' the global warming nonsense; these things happen (not everybody is intelligent like objectivist/libertarians).

It is not too late to do the 'big' thing and admit you were conned by Al Bore and his cronies.

No one is going to laugh at you for admitting ignorance...(even if you are from Frogland)

P.S perhaps you may wish to comment on the 10 - 15 cm of "Global Warming" which dropped on the Desert Rd, here in NZ, last night?

10/06/2009 10:49:00 am  
Anonymous Monsieur said...

@ E malo Falafulu Fisi
A scientist doesn't cook the books.

@ Sus
Who is Callum?
And what question are you referring to?

PS: Sorry about the apostrophe.

10/06/2009 10:49:00 am  
Anonymous Monsieur said...

@ Peter
Are fiction writers like Warren Meyer your best sources for information?

10/06/2009 11:25:00 am  
Anonymous Sus said...

Forgiven. Consider it a good deed. ;)

Re Callum: (posted 5 Oct, 4.47pm)

"So, Greenies on this thread:

How then, do you justify extortion of property and strangulation of freedom based on the weak link between human activities and climactic trends?"

10/06/2009 11:33:00 am  
Anonymous Monsieur said...

@ Elijah Lineberry
Re: "the 10 - 15 cm of "Global Warming" which dropped on the Desert Rd, here in NZ, last night?"

It sound's like it snowed.

10/06/2009 11:52:00 am  
Blogger PC said...

@ Monsieur: No. You?

10/06/2009 12:02:00 pm  
Anonymous Monsieur said...

@Sus
"So, Greenies on this thread:
How then, do you justify extortion of property and strangulation of freedom based on the weak link between human activities and climactic trends?"


You have assumed I'm a greenie.
(Because I accept the scientific argument for AGW).

As I have already stated.
"If you are not convinced of Anthropogenic Global Warming, then why discuss it's consequences."

10/06/2009 12:31:00 pm  
Blogger Callum said...

Monsieur:

Where in my post did I assume you were a greenie? There were people pushing the AGW line here other than you.

But to that ends, do you propose that anything should be done to (supposedly) combat global warming, that would impinge on human freedom and property?

10/06/2009 12:49:00 pm  
Anonymous Sus said...

With respect, Monsieur, you need to read more carefully. I have "assumed" nothing. I was quoting Callum.

Patently, you do believe there is a connection between human activity & climatic trends.

So how about answering his question?

10/06/2009 12:56:00 pm  
Anonymous Sus said...

'"If you are not convinced of Anthropogenic Global Warming, then why discuss it's (sic) consequences."'


That comment doesn't make sense.

In truth, my being unconvinced of AGW even *further* necessitates the need to discuss its consequences, if they're going to be foisted upon me.


ps: I thought we'd sorted the matter of the apostrophe ... ;)


Oh, come now ... I had to! You cannot deny me a bit of sport when it so willingly presents itself!!

10/06/2009 01:03:00 pm  
Anonymous Monsieur said...

@Callum
I was responding to Sus referring the question to me.

Your question:
"But to that ends, do you propose that anything should be done to (supposedly) combat global warming, that would impinge on human freedom and property?"

(I will assume that you accept AGW,
and reply...)

Before answering that question,
one must ask "How do people who contribute to global warming, impinge on the freedom and property of others?"

10/06/2009 01:18:00 pm  
Anonymous Monsieur said...

@Sus Sorry, it was an "already stated" copy/paste.
Please don't require me to repeat it.

10/06/2009 01:23:00 pm  
Anonymous Sus said...

"Before answering that question .."

Monsieur, why so reluctant to elaborate upon/back up your claim?

10/06/2009 01:44:00 pm  
Anonymous Barry said...

The traditional tort system of compensating for breach of property rights proposed by Libertarians is pretty good in many regards.

However it is poor at preventing or mitigating events such as global warming. The prove is not 100% conclusive as many people say however there is obviously enough proof there to convince most of the intelligent award-winning scientists in the world. However it would be hard to prove in court who would be liable and to what extent they should pay since it is caused by almost EVERYONE.

Only laws and regulations can effectively prevent or mitigate such an event as Global Warming and it's potential consequences.

I guess that is why Libertarians are so vehemently opposed to Climate Change as a concept - because it doesn't fit within the realms of being able to be effectively dealt with by their proposed system of property rights.

So it is easy to understand the level of agressiveness by the far-right on this issue despite the weight of the argument and evidence against them.

10/06/2009 01:45:00 pm  
Blogger PC said...

Barry, you said, "The traditional tort system of compensating for breach of property rights proposed by Libertarians is pretty good in many regards. However it is poor at preventing or mitigating [large-scale] events such as global warming."

I don't agree. I'm not going to dig them out again, since this subject comes up regularly, but if you look back in the posts tagged 'global warming' there are several posts discussing this very thing.

"The prove is not 100% conclusive as many people say however there is obviously enough proof there to convince most of the intelligent award-winning scientists in the world."

Science is not a popularity contest. In the end, the evidence has to be there in the record - and it's not. It's there in the models, sure, but those models haven't been able even to predict the present temperature record successfully, let alone decades hence.

But here's where it gets political, when you say:

"Only laws and regulations can effectively prevent or mitigate such an event as Global Warming and it's potential consequences.
I guess that is why Libertarians are so vehemently opposed to Climate Change as a concept - because it doesn't fit within the realms of being able to be effectively dealt with by their proposed system of property rights.
"

To which I say that the situation is precisely the reverse of what you describe: that is why collectivists are so excited by Global Warming as a concept, and so eager to shut down the debate - because it offers the concept offers them carte blanche (they that think) to shackle industry in the name of 'the planet' -- in whose name they're supposedly talking.

"So it is easy to understand the level of agressiveness by the far-right on this issue . . . "

Well, I'm certainly not far-right, so that looks like a huge non sequitur to me, but if you're looking for shrill and aggressive then look no further than the climate collectivists who shut down debate, break into property, destroy careers, and shout down 'skeptics' with tags like "denier."

10/06/2009 02:05:00 pm  
Anonymous Monsieur said...

@PC

If "most of the intelligent award-winning scientist" say it's true.
If most intelligent people concurr.

And then you say it's not true.
It doesn't make it false.

And it makes you look like a religion against evolution.

10/06/2009 02:56:00 pm  
Anonymous twr said...

You may be aware that once upon a time all the most intelligent scientists thought the universe revolved around the earth, and anyone who disagreed was vilified. They even made up complicated models to prove their theory, and rejected any evidence that didn't support it. Sound familiar?

And Monsieur, it should be pretty obvious by now that many of the people you are arguing with *do not* agree that AGW is occurring, so it's a bit of a lost cause trying to insist they just accept it before you'll debate them on a related issue. You might achieve more if you could point to some incontrovertable evidence for it, or even some evidence that the place is getting warmer.

10/06/2009 04:07:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Monsieur said...
@Maksimovich
You'll find an excellent debunking of your remarkable "coincidence" here

Wrong process, D&L 2004 pertains to GCR attenuation.

Here we are discussing solar flux,eg

The rise and fall of open solar flux during
the current grand solar maximum

Lockwood et al 2009

Abstract. We use geomagnetic activity data to study the rise and fall over the past century of the solar wind flow speed VSW, the interplanetary magnetic field strength B, and the open solar flux FS. Our estimates include allowance for the kinematic effect of longitudinal structure in the solar wind flow speed. As well as solar cycle variations, all three parameters show a long-term rise during the first half of the 20th century followed by peaks around 1955 and 1986 and then a recent decline. Cosmogenic isotope data reveal that this constitutes a grand maximum of solar activity which began in 1920, using the definition that such grand maxima are when 25-year averages of the heliospheric modulation potential exceeds 600 MV. Extrapolating the linear declines seen in all three parameters since 1985, yields predictions that the grand maximum will end in the years 2013, 2014, or 2027 using VSW, FS, or B respectively. These estimates are consistent with predictions based on the probability distribution of the durations of past grand solar maxima seen in cosmogenic isotope data

The delay with the GM/ isotope correlation etc,the downturn in SF starting sc23 and 24 was predicted as long ago as 1983 eg Chistyakov 1983,and of course Badalyan e al 2000 here is the conclusion ie prediction

"Our calculations provide the maximum semi-annual value of W in cycle 23 equal to 110–122 and the epoch of maximum in the first half of 2000. Hence, the present cycle is not as high as was expected and predicted several years ago, nor as
low as forecasted by some authors. This shows that the Gnevyshev–Ohl–Kopecký rule fails in this cycle. The end of the cycle is expected at 2006–2007. Proceeding
from the current CGL brightness (the second half of 1999), we can predict a low cycle 24 with the maximal W not exceeding 50 (similar to cycles 5–6) and the
epoch of maximum at 2010–2011. Thus, as inferred by our results, we are on the eve of a deep minimum of solar activity similar to that at the beginning of the 19th century."

Maksimovich

10/06/2009 05:17:00 pm  
Anonymous Monsieur said...

@ Maksimovich
"Wrong process, D&L 2004 pertains to GCR attenuation."

Same effect.

And citing Lockwood's work like that... I don't understand why?
He is a great scientist and he has concluded that current warming
has nothing to do with solar changes.
See quote

10/06/2009 07:09:00 pm  
Anonymous Monsieur said...

@ Barry
"I guess that is why Libertarians are so vehemently opposed to Climate Change as a concept - because it doesn't fit within the realms of being able to be effectively dealt with by their proposed system of property rights."

I agree.
And at the same time betraying their ideals.

10/06/2009 07:45:00 pm  
Anonymous Quoth the Raven said...

Sus - See this paper The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus A quote:
There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an
imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated
the peer-reviewed literature even then.


I think those that wish to deny the scientific evidence for climate change are in a pretty difficult position. There is an overwhelming amount of objective scientific evidence to support AGW. Those who wih to deny it should spend some time looking at what's published in scientific journals to see where the state of the debate is at. For instance the paper Global warming: a review of this mostly settled issue.
‘‘We are 95% confident that most of the warming in the past
50 years is due to humans’’ (IPCC 4AR Policy Makers
Summay 2007). In 1957 noted climatologist, Roger Revelle,
wrote: ‘‘Thus human beings are now carrying out a largescale
geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have
happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future. Within
a few centuries we are returning to the atmosphere and
oceans the concentrated organic carbon stored in sedimentary
rocks over hundreds of millions of years…’’ Revelle
and Suess (1957) also encouraged David Keeling to make
measurements of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.The resulting ‘‘Keeling Curve’’ shows dramatically the rise
of CO2 above pre-industrial levels. Figure 1.1 shows this
rise from a combination of ice-core (pre-industrial) and
atmospheric measurements as well as estimates of fossil
fuel burning in recent times, which parallel the rise in carbon
dioxide. Perhaps, more than anything else, this
documented rise in atmospheric concentration of a powerful
greenhouse gas (GHG) has served to bring the possibility of
human warming of the climate to our attention. In fact, this
rise makes warming a certainty since the physics is well
understood and GHG warming is an observational fact. The
only questions are how much and how soon.

10/06/2009 08:30:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Monsieur said...
Maksimovich
"Wrong process, D&L 2004 pertains to GCR attenuation."

Same effect.

No we have 2 separate process here,A)solar attenuation of GCR during the Hale(SOLAR) 11 year cycle and b)the gcr interstellar flux,and attenuation at the heliosphere boundary (around 100-107 au.

D&l argued that there is little trend different from the 11 year modulation observed in the ground based Neutron monitors.

However there is equally a trend(neg) in the atmospheric(balloon) gcr continuous record (0.04% yr) and which also correlates in the satellite stations at 1 au and in Pioneer and both Voyager probes,

Presently out at the boundary (and predicted by Van Allen 2005 the HM modulation is disappearing.

"Projected disappearance of the 11-year cyclic minimum of galactic cosmic ray intensity in the antapex direction within the outer heliosphere"

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL022629.shtml

Further

And citing Lockwood's work like that... I don't understand why?

A) because it is recent to be published ,and corrects errors and analysis he made earlier,(which was inconsistent with the observational data)

B)We are also at the start of the Gleissberg cycle and when solar activity starts it is highly likely (as the ice cores show)we can expect significant solar proton events.1 per bartol rotation

Maksimovich

10/06/2009 09:05:00 pm  
Blogger Callum said...

"@Callum
I was responding to Sus referring the question to me."


Okay then.

"(I will assume that you accept AGW,
and reply...)"


This currently has nothing to do with my opinion on AGW - regardless of whether it's happening or not, I still do not believe it is an excuse to shackle productivity.

"Before answering that question,
one must ask "How do people who contribute to global warming, impinge on the freedom and property of others?""


They only do so if there is a provable link between the pollution of person A, and damage to the property of person B. (PC would be better suited to discussing this topic than me).

Anyway, my latest question still needs to be answered - it is a yes or no question. If you answer yes, we can debate the issue further. If you say no, then we have no ideological disagreement.

10/06/2009 09:07:00 pm  
Anonymous Monsieur said...

@ Maksimovich

You think you're really on to something?
Publish it.
See what your peers think.

@ Callum
In response to your question.
"do you propose that anything should be done to combat global warming, that would impinge on human freedom and property?"

No. Because combatting global warming is improving human freedom and property.

10/06/2009 09:20:00 pm  
Blogger Callum said...

Monsieur,

So you believe that it's okay then, to ramshackle human industry and progress in order to combat a scientific idea?

Perhaps you should look at how much "freedom" existed before the industrial revolution, and then look at rates of poverty, starvation, disease and life expectancy. Would you consider it just to send humanity back to that in order to combat a scientific idea?

The fact is, nature by itself is brutal. Only through the fruits of industry, only through technology, can we actually enjoy nature without having to depend tomorrow's weather as to whether we'll eat or not.

And similarly, only through advancement in technology, science and industry can we become wealthy enough to look toward protecting the environment, and start using cleaner forms of energy and means of production. Try telling anyone in the third world that they can only industrialise if they use green technologies that are uneconomical in the first world.
You would be handing out a death sentence.

Not only is the idea of "increasing" human freedom through shackling industry a contradiction in terms, it is nothing more than an example of crass first-world ignorance.

You can afford, through the fruits of industry itself to look after the environment, monsieur. Most men and women in third-world Africa and Asia can't.

10/06/2009 09:42:00 pm  
Anonymous Quoth the Raven said...

@ Barry
"I guess that is why Libertarians are so vehemently opposed to Climate Change as a concept - because it doesn't fit within the realms of being able to be effectively dealt with by their proposed system of property rights."

There are in fact many libertarians who rightly accept the validity of climate change science and it is no challenge to their ideals. It is a shame that there are some who are on the wrong side of the debate and have so effectively tarred libertarianism with a climate change denier brush. As governments have done little in addressing climate change and who's actions are generally counter their own ostensible goals it is a realtively poor criticism of a libertarian to say that they aren't addressing climate change within a libertarian framework.

10/06/2009 10:33:00 pm  
Anonymous LGM said...

There are pixies at the bottom of my garden. There used to be many millions of them living there in blissful pixie harmony, singing their pixie songs, cooking their pixie fod, eating and partying all night long. But then somone said that the number of pixie parties was in decline. No longer did they party every evening. Indeed, it was soon reported that there were not so many pixies visible as before.

Soon enough I asked a university expert (a tenured professor of philosophy, no less) to check and see whether anything was going on with the pixies. He reported that even though he had never seen a pixie party before, there seemed to be less of them than previously AND the pixies were less vigorous and less active than previously. He said more study was necessary and sent a large invoice. He told me he'd recommended further investigation to some associates of his who'd know about such things as pixies and could find out more.

A professor of media studies arrived with twenty-seven under-graduate and four post-graduates and a research fellow. They tramped all over the garden mutering as they ripped up all my plants. They ate all the food in my larder. Then all the other important, expert people turned up to look into the problem. So more studies were conducted. The costs mounted up. It became very expensive for me and so I had to seek government assistance- grants and the like. In the end it was discovered that the reduction in pixie parties was down to less pixies than before and that had nothing at all to do with more of them turning up elsewhere or even not being real (any terrible person saying that was branded a pixie denier heretic- how could anyone be so insensitive to the needs of those important academics, students and such?). Yes, the reduction of pixies was a man made!

10/07/2009 08:08:00 am  
Anonymous LGM said...

Man's dreadful, messy indutrial activies and those terrible productive efforts people involve themselves in are taking people away from the mysteries of the super-natural world. As Man is further distanced from the super-natural he becomes alienated. People fail to seek out the pixies and commune with them. As a result the magic of the pixie parties wanes. The pixies move away or perhaps hibernate. Soon the super-natural world will loose the power to keep the whole wide World safe. Evil will stalk the land and the sky will fall. The wreckage will be terrible. Ruin and disaster will occur (the primary school children in room 5a sent in some convincing pictures of the devastation). The environment will be destroyed. All because of what people are doing or failing to do.

Soon the politicals realised the terrors of what is going on. They saw the opportunity to act and did so as fast as they could. They knew what to do. Everyone must spend one day a week working for the survival of the pixies in my garden. It is too much for me to do alone. Everyone must donate one day's income every week for the preservation of the pixies. Also they must stay at home on Saturday evening and not consume any electric power for the night. Instead they must sing hymns to the pixies and wish on their welbeing and safe return. This will be also good for the economy. If that does not work, then it will be increased to the product of two days labour and sacrifice of the entire weekend. That will be even better for the economy. Also it will be good for the people to re-learn the rapture of communal sacrifice for an important cause.

Now if any of you here wants to debate this, then as a necessary precursor you must first admit that pixies exist at the bottom of my garden and that Man's activities are the cause of their reduction in activity.

LGM

10/07/2009 08:08:00 am  
Anonymous Monsieur said...

@TGM

I'm not sure how to respond to your pixie analogy.
If strange things started happenning;
Pairs of new shoes appearing in the middle of the night and eerie elven singing.
Then you could document these phenomenon.
But if you had no evidence of the pixies, it would be madness to arrive at the conclusion that they were responsible.
This is not the case with Global Warming.
There is clear evidence of GW, and good theoretical understanding how that mechanism works.

As for solutions to GW, I don't think turning everything off is the answer either.
We are smarter than that.

10/07/2009 09:14:00 am  
Blogger KG said...

UN Quietly Scrubs Embattled Graph from Climate Report

10/07/2009 09:38:00 am  
Anonymous Monsieur said...

@KG Here we go again.

10/07/2009 10:41:00 am  
Anonymous Tim said...

LGM,

One can believe in AGW without believing that we all must become socialists. It is aggravating to have to point this out to you.

One is a scientific question. The other is a political one. Indeed, one is a positive matter, and the other normative.

If you can't make this distinction (which, as I understand from my discussions with many Objectivists, they can't (i.e. they don't believe in an is/ought gap)) then perhaps you should steer clear of debating this point with people who are GENUINELY interested in the scientific debate.

I happen to think that the science favours AGW. All the same, I agree with PC when he says:

"Socialism doesn't work at fifteen degrees. There's no reason to assume it's going to work at seventeen degrees."

10/07/2009 03:21:00 pm  
Blogger Callum said...

"
If you can't make this distinction (which, as I understand from my discussions with many Objectivists, they can't (i.e. they don't believe in an is/ought gap)) then perhaps you should steer clear of debating this point with people who are GENUINELY interested in the scientific debate."


I've never come across an Objectivist who can't distinguish between the scientific debate and the political debate.

The reason why the science causes so much antagonism is because it is automatically assumed to be a reason to shackle productivity by the left.

As an Objectivist myself, at the end of the day I don't care whether AGW is happening or not. I simply don't believe it is an excuse, like monsieur would have you believe, to send mankind back to the dark ages.

10/07/2009 04:46:00 pm  
Anonymous LGM said...

Monsieur

As stated before, if you want to discuss Anthropological Pixie Extinction (APE) you'll need to accept pixies exist at the bottom of my garden and that Man's activities are responsible for their reduction in activity.

If you read my post you'll see your objections were already addressed, and by professors no less. Yes, unusual things have been afoot in the garden.

LGM

10/07/2009 05:38:00 pm  
Anonymous LGM said...

Tim

It's aggravating to have to point out to you that AGW and socialism are based on epistemological errors. Both presuppose certain assumptions.

If you can't understand this (which most of your type can't), then you have no business discussing it with rational logical people.

Reality has no interest in what you THINK science "favours." That's just your arbitrary opinion. And that is just not good enough.

LGM

10/07/2009 05:52:00 pm  
Anonymous Elijah Lineberry said...

Summing up this debate over the last two or three days...

It is very clear the froggie chap has been soundly beaten by the objectivist/libertarians.

Congrats chaps!

10/07/2009 05:58:00 pm  
Blogger KG said...

"Because combatting global warming is improving human freedom and property."

Is my nomination for idiotic statement of the week.

10/07/2009 06:14:00 pm  
Anonymous Monsieur said...

Is there an idiotic nomination award?

10/07/2009 07:38:00 pm  
Anonymous Tim said...

LGM,

All logical arguments presuppose assumptions! If you disagree with the assumptions, that doesn't mean the conclusions have been reached without logic! It means the argument is not SOUND.

For example:

1. All dogs are made of marshmallow.
2. All things made of marshmallow are yummy.
3. Therefore, all dogs are yummy.

Sure, you can disagree with all of the premises, but to claim the argument is illogical is simply untrue. IF the premises were true, so too would be the conclusion. That's logic.

Perhaps you should write a book on your alternative logic.

10/07/2009 08:02:00 pm  
Anonymous Monsieur said...

My nomination for most insighful comment goes to Tim:

"(i.e. they (objectivists) don't believe in an is/ought gap)"

10/08/2009 07:31:00 am  
Anonymous LGM said...

Tim

Logic demands non-contradictory identification of aspects/entities of reality. One must refer to reality at EVERY stage. Clearly that's not what you are attempting to demonstrate. Your "example" is an immediate demonstration of where people like you go wrong- from inception. Accepting false premise is illogical. Think on it.


Returning to the original point now. Socialism and AGW are based on epistemological error. Apart from other irrational mistakes and falsehoods, both presuppose certain assupmptions WHICH ARE ERRONEOUS. Clear enough for you?

Previously posted above were a series of proofs which, at minimum, would need to be rigorously satisfied in order to make the AGW case. That those proofs have not been provided (indeed, they are consistently evaded) demonstrates the nature of the AGW position. Again, as with socialism, AGW contains an epistemological error- one you have demonstrated you do not understand. So, you'd better get studying.

Finally, maybe it's time to take some of your own advice. Until you understand the topic perhaps you should steer clear of discussing it with rational, logical people who are genuinely interested in fact of reality.

LGM

10/08/2009 07:48:00 am  
Anonymous Falafulu Fisi said...

Tim, you only cited one type of logical theorem (there are many out there) in your example which is called bivalent (boolean) logic, where its propositional values are on 2, ie, true/false, yes/no or 1/0. In multi-valued logic, ie, 3 or more propositional values, such as in fuzzy logic your cited example can have many meanings and not necessary true/false. For instance:

1. All dogs are made of marshmallow.
2. All things made of marshmallow are yummy.
3. Therefore, all dogs are yummy.

Facts #1 and #2 can be false to some degree, but conclusion #3 may turn out to be true and again to some degree.

If you don't believe that validity of the logic that I am talking about here, then perhaps you can bring your dog to my place and I will cook it in a way that makes you think that after all, the conclusion in #3 is true to some degree:

3. Therefore, all dogs are yummy.

10/08/2009 08:29:00 am  
Anonymous LGM said...

FF

Surely item three is conditional? Doesn't it depend on who is the cook?

Hope you are well.

Beer sometime?

LGM

10/08/2009 09:05:00 am  
Blogger Shane Pleasance said...

Or by extension of some of the supplied 'logic', perhaps we could just leave the dog outdoors for a few hours (supervised & prepared by FellaFulla) to cook under the CO2?
With the addition of a few fishes and loaves, (with perhaps some greenies thrown in to sweeten the mix) we ought to be able to feed our entire Libertarian voting base?

For a lifetime?

10/08/2009 09:13:00 am  
Anonymous twr said...

FF: I don't agree that #3 can be true to some extent. Use of the word "all" requires that it can only be true or not true, rather than true some of the time. If there was any kind of ambivalence here this particular kind of logic would be unusable for any practical purpose.

The only wiggle room you have is in the definition of "yummy", which is part of the second premise rather than the third.

Speaking of yummy: http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/celebrities/2941366/Kate-Beckinsale-sexiest-woman-alive

10/08/2009 09:23:00 am  
Anonymous Tim said...

LGM,

It is not a logical impossibility for dogs to be made out of marshmallow. It may just be a feature of the world (however unlikely) that we haven't discovered yet.

It is a logical impossibility for dogs to be not-dogs.

Logic isn't a synonym for common sense or prejudice.

10/08/2009 04:00:00 pm  
Anonymous LGM said...

Tim

Your "example" started with the premise, "All dogs are made of marshmallow." That is illogical. All dogs are NOT like that.

Now then, this was your "example" and it would appear you don't understand the significance of what you demonstrated by creating and employing it. What you have successfully achieved though, is to hoist yourself with your own petard.

There is a fundamental error in your approach.

LGM

10/08/2009 07:37:00 pm  
Anonymous Tim said...

LGM,

you said:

"Your "example" started with the premise, "All dogs are made of marshmallow." That is illogical. All dogs are NOT like that."

That doesn't mean it's ILLOGICAL. It means it's UNTRUE (false, not true). There is a difference.

Logic and truth are different things. This is such a boring point to have to debate with anyone. I have a two year old who would understand the difference quicker. Shall I supply a definition?

Truth: a statement's conforming with reality.

Logic: the principles and criteria necessary for valid inference and demonstration.

Who needs a straw man for libertarianism when there are people like LGM running about?

10/08/2009 09:06:00 pm  
Anonymous LGM said...

Tim

No. You remain wrong and you're not going to able to wriggle away from the trap you set for yourself this time.

You wrote, "the principles and criteria necessary for valid inference and demonstration."

Inference and demonstration? Of what?

Valid? By what standard?

Logic demands the non-contradictory identification of aspects/entities of reality. Try thinking about what that means and how it relates to your "example".

LGM

10/08/2009 10:57:00 pm  
Blogger Clunking Fist said...

Tim says: "It is not a logical impossibility for dogs to be made out of marshmallow. It may just be a feature of the world (however unlikely) that we haven't discovered yet."

Yep, just as perhaps we are yet to discover (or are in the process of
discovering) that cosmic rays promote cloud formation and solar winds tend to blow the cosmic rays away and that clouds lower daytime surface temperature by reflecting sunlight away and increase night time temperture via the greenhouse effect.
After all, what did folk think about sea-level rises before the early "scientists" released there was a link with the moon? And even after recognising the link, they continued to worship the moon as a deity.

"It is a logical impossibility for dogs to be not-dogs."
Um, wheren't some bears recently reclassified as marsupials? Are
foxes dogs or not-dogs? What about wolves?
Germs were once just germs. Now we know some germs are bacteria,
some are viral, some are spores (poisons, perhaps).

10/09/2009 07:33:00 am  
Blogger Greig McGill said...

You two are talking about different things. Tim is talking about logic in its "true" form - an abstracted, fact based system of inference and deduction based on provided facts. LGM is talking about "logic" as the common man on the street means it - applying it to reality. They are not the same thing.

Logic (the science of reasoning) only needs inputs to work. There is no validation done on those inputs. That's where LGM's use comes in. In the example above, there are no flaws in the logic (science of reasoning) leading to the conclusion that all dogs are yummy, ASSUMING the facts provided are correct. You can't say it's not *logical* to come to that conclusion, but you can say it's incorrect. Imagine those facts presented to an extremely rational being from another world who has no knowledge of our world, and doesn't, in fact, even know what marshmallow and dogs are. If he was told that the inputs were correct (and chose not to verify them), logic would dictate he'd come to the same conclusion.

It's a case of play the ball, not the player. Don't say the logic is incorrect, when it's not. Take issue with the facts themselves. Establish their reality, then re-apply logic to the correct facts.

Sorry to butt in, but that argument was going in circles, based, I think, on Tim possibly being from an academic background, and talking about logic as a science, and LGM perhaps not having encountered this usage. Damn academics, always overloading common words! ;)

10/09/2009 08:10:00 am  
Anonymous LGM said...

Greig

There is a distinction to be made between logic and the mind games some like to pass off as "logic." Such substitutions are misleading.

Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification of aspects of reality, or, if you prefer, existence. When you cut the link to reality what you end up with is NOT logic. Instead you'll have replaced logic with an intellectual game of arbitrary premise, wild assumption and extremely elastic "rules." Depending on whichever arbitrary "rules" happen to be in force (and that in turn depends on the random preferences of the game players), there may be a rude internal consistency to the game (or maybe not). Nevertheless the exercise soon devolves into an intellectual stroking session full of half-arsed musings, fairy tales, flights of fancy, wild fictions, suppositions and even fibbing and fraud. The tragedy is that many people (most of whom should know better) replace the practice of logic with the chatter of a game. Worse is when the product of such game playings are promoted as "facts" or "the truth" or even as "science." Best to be most wary of that.

It is an extremely grave error to pretend that it is logical to argue from an illogical base, employing assumptions that are arbitrary, having no correspondence to fact of reality. Acceptance of the illogical is hardly logical behaviour. Think on it, always remembering that illogical premise breed illogical conclusions.

10/10/2009 09:41:00 pm  
Anonymous LGM said...

Restating; you can't cut the link to reality and claim, "that's logical." The process of logic demands that you practice the discipline of referring to reality AT EVERY STAGE. In other words, logic is not practiced in isolation of reality (intellectual mind games perhaps, but not logic). Logic starts and proceeds with facts of reality. "Inference" and "deduction" are undertaken referent to reality, necessarily checking each conclusion, each inference, each deduction for correspondence with reality AT EVERY STEP. That is "true logic" and that aint what Tim has been undertaking or demonstrating.

You write, "Logic (the science of reasoning) only needs inputs to work. There is no validation done on those inputs."

That's well wrong. Acceptance of the illogical is hardly logical. The practice of logic demands the inputs are validated against reality and that every notion developed from those inputs must also be validated against reality. Soon enough it will be revealed whether the inputs are wrong (or not as the case may be). If they are wrong, then the entire hierarchy of ideas which presuppose them will require abandonment. Logic demands no less.

Quoting: "In the example above, there are no flaws in the logic (science of reasoning) leading to the conclusion that all dogs are yummy, ASSUMING the facts provided are correct. You can't say it's not *logical* to come to that conclusion, but you can say it's incorrect."

Well, of course it's wrong AND, yes, it is illogical as well. The ASSUMPTION is illogical. Simple check against reality demonstrates that the assumption and the entire hierarchy of thought in the "example" is purile bullshit. It starts from illogical premise and it ends up with illogical conclusion. It is illogical BECAUSE it doesn't correspond with reality- none of it does.

Quoting: "Imagine those facts presented to an extremely rational being from another world who has no knowledge of our world, and doesn't, in fact, even know what marshmallow and dogs are. If he was told that the inputs were correct (and chose not to verify them), logic would dictate he'd come to the same conclusion."

This is an example of the sort of silly game playing that goes on. We are presented with "an extremely rational being" and instructed that he "chose not to verify" presented information. You can hardly call that choice "extremely rational", let alone logical. This is an illogical exercise right from inception, repleat with hopelessly arbitrary rules, and internal self-contradiction. Yuck.

Yes, I am fully aware that this sort of thing passes for "logic" within certain sectors of academia (I held a senior position at a university for some years so I know exactly what some of those guys get up to and how badly they mislead their students). The point is that what they are promoting isn't logic at all. It's the anti-thesis of logic. Nor is it logic when others (such as politicians, lobbiests, economists, etc.) employ similar strategies to promote their various grand schemes and weird interests.



LGM

10/10/2009 09:42:00 pm  
Blogger Greig McGill said...

LGM: I hear you, and I agree with you. What I'm pointing out is that there is no use continuing that discussion. As you've seen, that is how academia identifies logic. I wouldn't argue based on an irrational premise, nor would you. What I was trying to do was to point out that this definition exists, and indeed, is widely taught. It seems pointless to continue fighting over the meaning of logic in this context, and get back to attacking the premises.

10/11/2009 06:08:00 pm  
Anonymous LGM said...

Greig

On the contrary, it isn't pointless to argue the issue.

It is vitally important to understand what logic is and what it is not. This is one of those issues one must KNOW.


LGM

10/11/2009 09:40:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

<< Home