4 ms·

I disagree about him hand-waving away quantitative arguments. I’ve watched a number of relatively lengthy interviews and presentations he’s given that have bee

I disagree about him hand-waving away quantitative arguments. I’ve watched a number of relatively lengthy interviews and presentations he’s given that have been about or have touched on the topic of climate change, and he consistently references measurements of carbon’s effects and emphasizes the importance of real world measurements. His criticism is of abstract models of climate that attempt to make long term predictions. If you’re most familiar with his positions through quotes and third hand reporting, I encourage you to listen to videos of him. I found him quite enjoyable to listen to. He was not the partisan he was sometimes painted as, although he was interviewed by people that were, but rather seemed genuinely curious and interested in truth and exploration. Here are a few videos. https://youtu.be/5hswLwqRIW8 https://youtu.be/5hswLwqRIW8 https://youtu.be/8xFLjUt2leM https://youtu.be/8xFLjUt2leM https://youtu.be/-mmI6DorL_Y?t=3m07s https://youtu.be/-mmI6DorL_Y?t=3m07s His core claims appear to be that A) Increased CO2 has measurable, beneficial effects B) CO2 is one of many factors contributing to a complex system effecting climate that we don’t fully comprehend C) The positive or negative effects of climate change we’re observing depend on the region D) It is better to create a wide range of practical engineering solutions to deal with the effects of a changing climate than to think we can fully control it or know what effect our interventions or lack thereof will do in the future. Some of those claims might be wrong, but I think it’s inaccurate to say they weren’t scientifically based.

mannykannot 7y ago
The A, B, C and D are exactly the sort of places where he raises an issue and then starts handwaving over the quantitative questions that should be the next step, while at the same time dismissing and even belittling the work who have looked into these issues in more detail. For example, when he claims effects will balance out, it is just his opinion - he does not offer a quantitative scientific justification. He starts with something that is science-based, but he doesn't follow through. There is also something of the motte-and-bailey fallacy when he claims that the modeling is not accurate enough to be trusted, while also telling us how things are going to work out.

mannykannot 7y ago

The A, B, C and D are exactly the sort of places where he raises an issue and then starts handwaving over the quantitative questions that should be the next step, while at the same time dismissing and even belittling the work who have looked into these issues in more detail. For example, when he claims effects will balance out, it is just his opinion - he does not offer a quantitative scientific justification. He starts with something that is science-based, but he doesn't follow through. There is also something of the motte-and-bailey fallacy when he claims that the modeling is not accurate enough to be trusted, while also telling us how things are going to work out.