[Tichy]

Sorry I could not follow you completely. Probably it is still too early in the morning for me.

Refuting the theory of a random commentor on HN is just strawman argumentation, though (sorry martythemaniak).

"AGW advocates like martythemaniak delight in comparing themselves to Darwinists and their critics to creationists."

Um, that is kind of turning it on the head: all this is in reply to an article that tries to defame AGW people as advocates of eugenics. It's as if you say "AGWs are like Creationists", then AGWs reply "no we are not" and you claim victory by saying "see, AGWs think their opponents are creationists".

I myself am simply no expert on climate change. Some knowledge from my area of expertise spills over to climate research, though: the so called "no free lunch theorem". There is no such thing as a free lunch - maybe it has not been universally proven in a mathemacially rigorous sense, but in general it seems to hold.

Hence I personally consider it very likely that human activity influences the climate. There are also countless examples of nature being destroyed for good by human actions.

As for the details of CO2, it would be great if we could just trust expert and politicians to sort it out. Apparently it is not so. I am interested enough to ask for more information. What are good sources to read, that are not opinionated?

[william-newman]

The creationist comparison shows up other places, too. I've encountered it several times before, and you can Google "denialist creationist" to find more.

Me trying to refute martythemaniak may not impress you, but if when you first read that topmodded post you nodded vaguely, might there be some validity in Crichton's implication that the arguments invoked for AGW could be arguments for eugenics if you filed off the serial numbers? It's an offensive charge, but it's not a goofy one IMHO: it is far more true of the arguments for AGW than of the arguments for actual "settled science" like quantum mechanics or natural selection or antibiotics or the Big Bang.

"What are good sources to read, that are not opinionated?"

One non-opinionated source as background both for my exasperation about the Darwinist analogy, and for my claims about the flabbiness of 10-year-old climate predictions, which also happens to be interesting reading for hackers interested in machine learning: _The Minimum Description Length Principle_. Lots of math to help you think precisely about questions like "by how many bits did this hypothesis reduce the surprisingness of the world compared to alternative hypotheses?"

For sources more specific to the AGW controversy, good luck finding someone unopinionated. The controversy long ago became uncivil, and all sides are indignant about various scummy folk who have lined up on other sides. But I can point you to sources that seem (opinionated but) sound. As far as I know, the IPCC reports (see martythemaniak's URL) are a reasonably good presentation of the highbrow case for crisis AGW (high CO2 climate sensitivity, low natural variation): I've never seen an advocate claim that vital parts of the pro-crisis case were overlooked or horribly poorly presented there. And I think McIntyre's critiques of the IPCC reports --- mostly centered on the historical climate record reconstruction I mentioned --- are generally sound. He has a website, Climate Audit; he has also written the Mann critique up as at least one traditional journal paper. Besides his Mann critique, he has also done things like catching a Y2K bug in temperature records. (Of course that's not impressive as virtuoso rocket science, but I think it's pretty convincing evidence that he's a careful guy who does a lot of homework.) It is natural for AGWists to find him irritating, but it is inexcusable to try to dismiss him as a ignorant closedminded crank by analogy with modern disbelievers in natural selection.

And besides the math and technical background, some academic sociology background: McIntyre is not the only opinionated grouchy outsider who has torpedoed a politically correct prestigious academic consensus in the last decade or so, Cramer did too: http://law.bepress.com/nwwps/lep/art9/ .

[Tichy]

"The creationist comparison shows up other places, too."

So what point are you trying to make? Do GW people as a rule compare AGW people with creationists? And even if they would, what bearing would it have on the debate?

I have found McIntyre's blog, he seems to be a busy individual. At the moment he is discussing something about prehistoric buckets. That might be too much detail for my entry level... Also, I wonder what he would dig up if he spent the same energy on finding evidence FOR global warming.

Didn't find suitable articles at the Cramer link. Anyway, I will do my own searching.

[william-newman]

Here's a nice example of equating AGW skeptics to creationists, one that I vaguely remembered, but had trouble digging up: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/11/hello_stan_palmer... .

As I said, the controversy long ago became uncivil.

Besides illustrating the creationist comparison, I think it illustrates my point about AGW advocacy resembling eugenics advocacy. If a lazy screenwriter wanted rhetoric for a 1920s eugenicist scorning a prominent critic, he could do worse than "the myopic little nitpickers, people who scurry about seeking little bits of garbage in the fabric of science (and of course, there are such flaws everywhere), and when they find some scrap of rot, they squeak triumphantly and hold it high and declare that the science everywhere is similarly corrupt." But wouldn't those words sound out of place in a defense of a successful theory like quantum mechanics or of the germ theory of disease?

Admittedly, those words are here in the mouth of a defender of the successful theory of natural selection. But he seems to be a sadly devolved specimen of the breed. Some years ago I read Darwin's reaction to Lord Kelvin's criticisms (in some webbed version of Origin of Species). Darwin just didn't declare victory because Darwin had assembled a "rational synthesis" and Kelvin had not: Darwin reacted as though addressing criticism on the details was important in and of itself.

(I myself tend to dismiss modern creationists, but certainly not because I think that details are unimportant compared to one's "coherent picture on a scientific issue." Details are very important, and one of my beefs with creationists is that they tend to be stubbornly spectacularly wrong on the details. E.g., ICR continues to misstate the second law of thermodynamics http://www.icr.org/article/456/ . It is easy for evolution to be consistent with the second law, because so much entropy is carried by food and O2 and CO2, or by sunlight and IR. In that particular article, the main sleight of hand seems to be ignoring the outgoing IR.)

[Tichy]

Well that is somebody's blog post who admits in the beginning that he is very cranky right now - a major strawman. If you show that off as a proof against GW, then it is VERY weak evidence.

You are doing the same thing as Crichton: trying to make an emotional argument, rather than a scientific one.

I suppose you could also find lots of quotes against quantum mechanics, even of famous physicists of the day. Why else would there be that quote about new scientifc discoveres not being accepted by the existing elite - rather, the old people die and the young ones embrace it.

Your last quote about creationists: details are important, but I have also seen that kind of thing: they find some ancient bone that somehow doesn't fit into the exact THEORY on the history of that specific bone (like whatever some animal has not lived 20000 years ago, but only 10000 years), and then claim they have thereby refuted evolution theory. That's ridiculous, and too much detail indeed.

[william-newman]

If I had misrepresented Myers as making the most best arguments the AGW folk have, and knocked his arguments down and proclaimed victory, you could honestly say "major strawman." But I am not playing that rhetorical trick. I already acknowledge more level-headed arguments for AGW, when I acknowledged martythemaniak's cite of IPCC as the highbrow case for AGW, and nominated McIntyre as a critic that I think makes solid criticisms. (And I note you aren't impressed with historical buckets, fine, they don't float my boat either. Try bristlecone pines, taking note of how heavily they were weighted in the famous hockey stick temperature reconstruction, and how prominently that reconstruction figured in the Gore/IPCC case for global warming. McIntyre is also a persistent critic of data not being archived, and of records like tree rings ending decades ago and not being brought up to date, and IMHO he's dead right on those things, and the relative incuriosity of the pro-AGW people is curious.)

I didn't knock down Myers to dishonestly imply that that shows I can refute the most valid arguments that AGW has to offer. I used Myers' post as an example to support two of my previous claims about AGW arguments. (1) The way martythemaniak casually compared AGW critics to creationists is not, as you argued, just an isolated instance provoked by Crichton's use of a point-by-point analogy to eugenics. (2) The controversy is uncivil. Crichton's choice of an emotionally-charged historical examples may not be a good thing, but it is not a case of AGW critics dragging a previously high-minded discussion into the emotional mud.

(And once I reread the article, I noticed that passage which seemed so ripely reminiscent of the emotional arguments of a B-movie eugenicist, making it a dramatic example of my other point, the tendency to defend AGW with arguments suitable to defend pseudoscience. You may say picking on a grouchy professor with a well-read blog is unsuitable. Do you suppose the "very cranky right now" professor thought better of his words a few days later, and qualified them and/or apologized for them? I doubt it: usually that's done by adding some kind of text on the web page itself, like "UPDATE: foo," and I didn't see anything like that. So I think you're trying to hold me to an unreasonable standard: most people would agree that a professor of science with a well-read blog is a pretty solid choice as an example of argument tactics used by AGW supporters.)

You wrote "they find some ancient bone ... ridiculous, and too much detail indeed." It's true that an actual important failing of creationists is blowing up some irrelevant detail, often exaggerating or outright misrepresenting it. It's also true that Myers might have been trying, in a dimwitted but virtuously vigorously partisan way, to allude to an important failing of Intelligent Design: unfalsifiability. Either failing could be used as a starting point for a complete rewrite, building something intellectually honest over the rubble of Myers' indignation at creationists for too stubbornly criticizing one of his favorite theories. But would the resulting valid criticism of creationists be applicable as a valid criticism of McIntyre? McIntyre is obviously guilty of what Myers accuses the creationists of, stubbornly criticizing one of Myers' favorite theories. But I don't consider that a sin, and it doesn't seem to me that McIntyre is guilty of the actual sins of the creationists, like being vastly sloppier with details than those they criticize, or claiming a vacuous theory is an improvement over a theory with considerable predictive power.

(And why are you comparing the AGW defenders to people making remarks against QM? My point was that an awful lot of AGW arguments don't look like the arguments characteristic of correct theories. If AGW advocates make remarks that resemble QM skeptics, that doesn't weaken my point, it sorta strengthens it. It is true that in politically charged controversies like Darwinism, flaky arguments were made both on the correct side and on the incorrect side. But that doesn't excuse invalid arguments "on the correct side." I don't know the intellectual history, but I'd guess that Darwin supporters who honored the flaky arguments for Darwinism might have been a contributing factor to the rise of politicized pseudoscientific knockoffs like social Darwinism and eugenics.)

[Tichy]

Can't go into detail, short of time. However, the blog post you linked to was NOT an example of discussion about GW. I don't think it was meant as a contribution to the discussion - it does not contain any scientific arguments to argue about. So your remark "don't look like the arguments characteristic of correct theories" is completely out of place - it was never meant to be that (I suppose).

Criticizing the "argument tactics" is just "ad hominem". Surely you could find lots of examples for Anti-GW folks arguing in a away you find inappropriate. It does not prove anything. What are you trying to say, Anti-GW people are nice people and GW-people are rude, therefore we should believe the Anti-GW? I highly doubt such a generalization, sorry. You write "that doesn't excuse invalid arguments "on the correct side" - sorry, that is complete nonsense, as we are talking about individuals, not about organizations. How could individual A be responsible for what individual B is saying, even if they appear to be on the same side? It is impossible, they can not censor each other. For all I know, some Antio-GW people could be posing as rude GW people to give GW a bad name (it is a standard tactic in warfare, agent provocateur).

On the other hand, yes, McIntyre's stuff LOOKS impressive, but it could also be compete nonsense, for all I know. For somebody who does not know anything about the subject, the "detailed" mountains presented by creationists might also LOOK impressive, but to someone in the know they might immediately be recognizable as irrelevant.

"Either failing could be used as a starting point for a complete rewrite, building something intellectually honest over the rubble of Myers' indignation"

What rubble? Myers did not present any arguments for GW in that article, so there is no rubble. I am also not sure that GW defendants should be obliged to deal with McIntyre's theories, if they are convinced that they are irrelevant (I can not judge that, I have no idea). It could just be a major waste of time.

I remember when I read all those books about evolution theory, like Dawkins. Half of the books were dedicated to refuting useless creationst claims, and I kept thinking for myself: the evolutionists wasted so much time over this, they should have just skipped over it and dedicated that time to advancing their theories. It could just be a tactic by Anti-GWs to seed lots of irrelevant "problems" to distract GW proponents from their main cause.

[william-newman]

Of course since I didn't take offense at being accused of making a "major strawman" argument, I won't mind being accused of another dishonest rhetorical tactic. At least it's not major ad hominem, yay.

When a discussion is devoted to trying to resolve a technical question, it is indeed bad to get distracted by personalities and sociology. But Crichton's article is not a technical article, it's an article on some meta-level like sociology. Not every thread has to resolve technical questions, and it is not a fallacy to talk about sociology in a thread started by a sociological analogy. There is a technical question underneath, certainly. But there are also entire websites (and professional journals, and other things) devoted to the underlying technical question. This thread doesn't need to be devoted to the underlying technical question too.

Imagine if the thread had started from an article analogizing Singularity attitudes today to Christian millenarian attitudes ca. 1000 AD. (Riffing on the "rapture for nerds" idea.) On such a thread, it would not be off topic to talk about personalities and behavior. Sociological discussion isn't necessarily trumped by the question of whether Singularity ideas are technically correct.

Of course, it would be bad if some reader got confused and thought that sociological considerations settle technical questions. If someone correctly perceived that was a major danger, it might even be OK to remind people: "let's remember not to delude ourselves into thinking that talk of personalities and sociology trumps the underlying physical truth." But it would be bad if a reader started firing off accusations of attempted rhetorical trickery at selected nontechnical/sociological remarks. Such a reader would himself be falling prey to the fallacy of being a major twit.

"What are you trying to say, Anti-GW people are nice people and GW-people are rude, therefore we should believe the Anti-GW? I highly doubt such a generalization, sorry." You have willfully misunderstood my argument and then attacked the misstated version. Do you know any technical terms for that?

I stated explicitly some of the things I was trying to say. One thing I was trying to say is that martythemaniak's remark "the horrible politicization by GW opponents is perhaps the second-best example of politicized science being overshadowed only by the disbelief in evolution by creationists" looks like a repetition of a common ad hominem attack on AGW skeptics. I remain unconvinced by your analysis that it is merely an appropriate response given Crichton's provocation.

("It's as if you say 'AGWs are like Creationists', then AGWs reply 'no we are not' and you claim victory by saying 'see, AGWs think their opponents are creationists'." Indeed? It looks to me like someone wrote an article saying AGWs are like creationists, and the top-ranked response was "the irony is overwhelming, because the truth is that AGWs are the modern eugenicists." Though neither analogy is quite fair to martythemaniak, since both make it sound like he was merely posting an ad hominem attack. At least he had the good grace to back up his general rhetorical slam with a paragraph of actual technical information.)

Have a selectively outraged day.

[Tichy]

"Of course, it would be bad if some reader got confused and thought that sociological considerations settle technical questions."

So what else was the point of Crichton's article? I am seriously asking. Did he really wrote that lengthy article just to point out that some unnamed GW defenders chose the wrong words in defending their theory? That seems highly unlikely.