3 ms·

> Remember 15 years ago the way people were predicting foot to meter per year seawater rise? What you suggest was far from a generally accepted prediction. The

by dalke 11y ago

> Remember 15 years ago the way people were predicting foot to meter per year seawater rise? What you suggest was far from a generally accepted prediction. The IPCC's 2001 report was for <1 meter rise over the entire century. See http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/429.htm#1151 http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climat... . It emphatically was NOT a "foot to meter per year seawater rise." Do you have evidence that it wasn't just kooks saying what you suggested? > "as some predicted" Who predicted that? Some guest on Coast to Coast AM who also thinks alien UFOs create chemtrails? > use technologies such as levies to prevent flooding As brought up several times in this thread, levies won't work at KCS. Water would simply go through the porous rock under any such levy. If these statements of your are false, or at best straw man arguments, why should anyone believe the rest of what you write?

mseebach 11y ago
There's a lot of motte/bailey'ing[1] going on in the climate change debate. There is tons of histrionics and scare mongering out there. I particular remember during the COP15 meeting in Copenhagen, art installations illustrating how the city would be under water if sea level rose 7 meters, which is the estimated rise if all of the ice on Greenland melts. The Day After Tomorrow, not to mention An Inconvenient Truth. While there certainly are and were voices critical of these things and their dubious relationship with the science (whether settled or consensus or not), their usefulness in advancing the agenda appears to be appreciated more than their role in misrepresenting the science. This is an actual quote from a scientist listed in the "criticism" section of the "The Day After Tomorrow" Wikipedia page[2]: "I'm heartened that there's a movie addressing real climate issues. But as for the science of the movie, I'd give it a D minus or an F. And I'd be concerned if the movie was made to advance a political agenda.". This is an actual scientist on the record believing that TDAT is "addressing real climate issues". That is like applauding Swordfish[3] for addressing cyber security issues. That is the Bailey. Then, years after, when these things perhaps look a bit more absurd (and some very specific predictions turned out not to come through, at least not as unambiguously as expected), we get "The IPCC's 2001 report was for <1 meter rise over the entire century ... Do you have evidence that it wasn't just kooks saying what you suggested?" That's the Motte. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If it was only kooks saying it, certainly none of the non-kooks bothered throughly rebutting them at the time. 1:http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/09/motte-and-bailey-doctrines/ http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/09/motte-and-baile... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After_Tomorrow#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After_Tomorrow#Critici... 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swordfish_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swordfish_(film)
- mikeash 11y ago
  I can't understand what you're getting at with The Day After Tomorrow. The scientist is basically saying "WTF this sucks, what were they thinking?" but more nicely. Have you ever seen someone express a position that you agree with, but do it so badly that you wish they hadn't, because they make you uncomfortable and just give ammunition to your opponents, while convincing nobody of the merits of your position? And then you try to formulate some sort of response to say, well, you're right, but oh how I wish you hadn't made your case so badly? That's basically this.
- dalke 11y ago
  Where are the people who said that the sea level would raise 1 foot to 1 meter per year? You didn't answer that question. Everything you wrote is a distraction, which ends up increasing the confusion you describe and complain about. You pointed to some artists and movies. So what? I can point to movies who have depicted meteors crashing into modern day Earth, and volcanoes erupting in Los Angeles, and even have the core of the Earth stop spinning. Artists have different goals. They are not required to only depict what science predicts +/- 1 sigma. You point to a scientist who liked that "The Day After Tomorrow" used climate change as a plot device, even if the science was awful. So what? I'm sure some Spacewatch people like "Armageddon" and that some geologists like "The Core", even though the science is awful in both. Are you equally disdainful towards those scientists? Or do only climate scientists draw your ire? (BTW, "Water World" used global warming as a plot device, was almost 9 years before TDAT, and portrayed an equally scientifically absurd future.) You mentioned "An Inconvenient Truth". Does Gore make a prediction that there will be 30cm or higher water rise per year? Does he even predict that the Atlantic will have reached the base of the Empire State Building by now? How is the IPCC 2001 report not an attempt at a thorough rebuttal? What level of rebuttal would you require before you say it was sufficient? Do we all need to be like Neil deGrasse Tyson and pinpoint every single scientific flaw in a movie? Or go even further and reject every movie with a flaw? In other words, I'm not going to get into a goalpost argument with you before you even say what the goalposts are. Your argument of the structure of the argument is useless. It's so easily inverted. Watch: You have set up your own Motte and Bailey about what's going on in this HN thread, so nothing I say can dissuade you. You have inserted irrelevant commentary from your bailey to defend your views. Now you can ignore me because you think I'm using irrational arguments, because you have placed me in a spot where you think I can be ignored. Now you can enjoy your motte. I argued that the OP presented a straw man argument that misrepresents what the large majority of climatologists and policymakers like Gore were making 15 years ago. Do you agree or disagree with me? I presented the IPCC report to supports my argument. Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" also supports my argument. If you disagree, do you have an actual examples of people who predicted 30+cm/year sea rise, or even that much of Manhattan would be underwater by now?

by dalke 11y ago

mseebach 11y ago

There's a lot of motte/bailey'ing[1] going on in the climate change debate. There is tons of histrionics and scare mongering out there. I particular remember during the COP15 meeting in Copenhagen, art installations illustrating how the city would be under water if sea level rose 7 meters, which is the estimated rise if all of the ice on Greenland melts. The Day After Tomorrow, not to mention An Inconvenient Truth. While there certainly are and were voices critical of these things and their dubious relationship with the science (whether settled or consensus or not), their usefulness in advancing the agenda appears to be appreciated more than their role in misrepresenting the science. This is an actual quote from a scientist listed in the "criticism" section of the "The Day After Tomorrow" Wikipedia page[2]: "I'm heartened that there's a movie addressing real climate issues. But as for the science of the movie, I'd give it a D minus or an F. And I'd be concerned if the movie was made to advance a political agenda.". This is an actual scientist on the record believing that TDAT is "addressing real climate issues". That is like applauding Swordfish[3] for addressing cyber security issues. That is the Bailey. Then, years after, when these things perhaps look a bit more absurd (and some very specific predictions turned out not to come through, at least not as unambiguously as expected), we get "The IPCC's 2001 report was for <1 meter rise over the entire century ... Do you have evidence that it wasn't just kooks saying what you suggested?" That's the Motte. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If it was only kooks saying it, certainly none of the non-kooks bothered throughly rebutting them at the time. 1:http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/09/motte-and-bailey-doctrines/ http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/09/motte-and-baile... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After_Tomorrow#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After_Tomorrow#Critici... 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swordfish_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swordfish_(film)

mikeash 11y ago
I can't understand what you're getting at with The Day After Tomorrow. The scientist is basically saying "WTF this sucks, what were they thinking?" but more nicely. Have you ever seen someone express a position that you agree with, but do it so badly that you wish they hadn't, because they make you uncomfortable and just give ammunition to your opponents, while convincing nobody of the merits of your position? And then you try to formulate some sort of response to say, well, you're right, but oh how I wish you hadn't made your case so badly? That's basically this.
dalke 11y ago
Where are the people who said that the sea level would raise 1 foot to 1 meter per year? You didn't answer that question. Everything you wrote is a distraction, which ends up increasing the confusion you describe and complain about. You pointed to some artists and movies. So what? I can point to movies who have depicted meteors crashing into modern day Earth, and volcanoes erupting in Los Angeles, and even have the core of the Earth stop spinning. Artists have different goals. They are not required to only depict what science predicts +/- 1 sigma. You point to a scientist who liked that "The Day After Tomorrow" used climate change as a plot device, even if the science was awful. So what? I'm sure some Spacewatch people like "Armageddon" and that some geologists like "The Core", even though the science is awful in both. Are you equally disdainful towards those scientists? Or do only climate scientists draw your ire? (BTW, "Water World" used global warming as a plot device, was almost 9 years before TDAT, and portrayed an equally scientifically absurd future.) You mentioned "An Inconvenient Truth". Does Gore make a prediction that there will be 30cm or higher water rise per year? Does he even predict that the Atlantic will have reached the base of the Empire State Building by now? How is the IPCC 2001 report not an attempt at a thorough rebuttal? What level of rebuttal would you require before you say it was sufficient? Do we all need to be like Neil deGrasse Tyson and pinpoint every single scientific flaw in a movie? Or go even further and reject every movie with a flaw? In other words, I'm not going to get into a goalpost argument with you before you even say what the goalposts are. Your argument of the structure of the argument is useless. It's so easily inverted. Watch: You have set up your own Motte and Bailey about what's going on in this HN thread, so nothing I say can dissuade you. You have inserted irrelevant commentary from your bailey to defend your views. Now you can ignore me because you think I'm using irrational arguments, because you have placed me in a spot where you think I can be ignored. Now you can enjoy your motte. I argued that the OP presented a straw man argument that misrepresents what the large majority of climatologists and policymakers like Gore were making 15 years ago. Do you agree or disagree with me? I presented the IPCC report to supports my argument. Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" also supports my argument. If you disagree, do you have an actual examples of people who predicted 30+cm/year sea rise, or even that much of Manhattan would be underwater by now?