Climate and Chess

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Climate and Chess

But no one expects Vlad to be rational.

Ed, the center cannot hold.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: Climate and Chess

Prominent scientist Professor Nils-Axel Morner, declared

Who also believes in Dowsing.

Mörner has written a number of works claiming to provide theoretical support for dowsing. [2] He was elected "Deceiver of the year" by Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning in 1995 for "organizing university courses about dowsing..."[2]. In 1997 James Randi asked him to claim The One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, making a controlled experiment to prove that dowsing works.[13] Mörner declined the offer.[14]

"the rapid rise in sea levels predicted by computer models simply cannot happen."

An utterly unscientific statement which, by itself, thoroughly discredits him as any kind of scientist if that's actually what he said, which coming from Vlad is at least dubious.

It appears that Ed Seedhouse only trusts eminent scientists when they agree with him and they make up data and feed that data into fraudulent models. Real scientists doing real research and making real measurements that make the data available for peer review do not count. All he can do is shout "There is a consensus."

How does Vlad know I am shouting? Does he have a bug in my house? Or is he saying things for which he has no evidence again?

One is left to question whether he understands the meaning of the word or whether Ed is our multiverse's version of Lewis Caroll's Humpty Dumpty:

It appears that Vlad Drkulec only trusts "eminent" scientists when they agree with him, and believe in dowsing. But notice that even Vlad doesn't have the nerve to claim that this person is an actual climate scientist. That at least was smart of him.

As to whether there is a consensus on global warming among actual climate scientists, I refer the interested reader (if there are any) to http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Climate and Chess

But notice that even Vlad doesn't have the nerve to claim that this person is an actual climate scientist.

No Ed, he is a sea level scientist. The preeminent sea level scientist in the world. He doesn't get to make up data like the climate scientists do. He just reports on the actual observations without reference to models which are fudged to give the preconceived result that the climate scientists want.

He says that sea levels are not rising by any significant amount and there appears to be a real consensus on his result among sea level scientists who are after all the only ones qualified to comment on this area of scientific study.

He also rightly points out that it is silly to use land that is sinking as your point of reference when trying to determine whether the sea level is rising as the totally unqualified climate scientists are doing.

HTH.

[Paul Bonham]

An Appeal from Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer: Let's Put Climate Change on Trial

Still sitting on the fence on the issue (but still leaning to be a skeptic) I have some lingering questions about alleged climate change. For example:

1) Is there proof that sea levels are rising around the world yet, and if not is it supposed to happen soon? I grant you that Venice is sinking slowly, but is the sea rising or the land dropping due to tectonic plate action?

2) Where are all the extra (and strong) hurricanes we were supposed to get as things worsened, and soon?

3) Why is the Antarctic ice sheet expanding, if I've heard correctly (and Arctic ice receding less very recently)?

4) Am I wrong to assume that after years of warm weather (followed by a short period of recently cooler weather) globally, ocean temperatures would be higher at the moment because water absorbs heat and releases it relatively slowly (setting aside any heating caused by non greenhouse gas pollution)?

5) On the political solution side, if the problem is indeed real, I don't see why money is not spent helping people directly (even relocating them if necessary) rather than transferring wealth between rich and developing countries (the truth may be that it is all part of a plan for a global government, which started with the Club of Rome's dreams for a EU decades ago)?

6) Purely from a selfish point of view, Canadians largely seem to gain if climate change is real, namely through warmer weather. I grant you, if I lived in Vancouver, or another coastal area, I might be nervous if I thought there was even a remote chance sea levels might rise, and I would be urging everyone to take action, including spending lots of money, so that I wouldn't have to relocate to an inland location.

In the 1990's on Saturday Night Live, there was a character named Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer. He was exactly as described: a caveman found frozen in the ice sheets, unfrozen and brought back to life, transported to New York and trained to be a lawyer. During any given trial, when it came time to address the jury, UCL would invariably begin with "I'm just a caveman, unfrozen by your scientists. I don't understand your modern technology. Your cars and your televisions... they frighten me. But there is one thing I DO understand: ... " and this would be followed by a totally legalese description of the facts of the case he was trying to resolve. His "blunt honesty" won over the jurors in every case, and I don't think he ever lost a case.

As UCL has seen ad infinitum ad nauseum, there seems to be incessant claims and counter-claims on both sides of this issue. Both sides are presenting what they call evidence, and both sides claim to be ready to switch their view if only they could see evidence!

UCL asks, what do we in modern society do when we need to decide the guilt or innocence of a person or group of people in respect to a crime that has been committed? We put them on trial before a judge or jury.

Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer doesn't understand our modern technology, our tide meters and our satellite measurements. But he is suggesting we put global climate change on trial before a jury.

I believe there is a global justice organization that presides over international claims. Let's let this organization pick a jury the same way a criminal court would pick one: prospective jurors are interviewed by lawyers representing both sides and have to be approved by both sides. Since they are going to be presented with complicated scientific evidence, they need to be well-educated people with high IQs. But they need to have NO VESTED INTEREST in whether or not global climate change is occuring, and it would be best if they hadn't even heard of this debate.

This jury could answer questions such as the following:

(1) is it likely that the global climate trend is currently warming and will it likely continue this trend well into the future (within normal statistical deviation)?

(2) if answer to (1) is yes, is it likely that very soon, this trend will have devasting consequences for humanity and for the world economy?

(3) if (1) and (2) are yes, is it even remotely possible that the activities of mankind are contributing to the climate trend?

These seem to be the 3 basic questions, each one leading to its successors. If the answer to (1) is no, then (2) and (3) don't even need answering.

Notice that question (3) asks "is it even remotely possible". In a criminal trial, we get either guilty, not guilty, or a hung jury. But if the answer to question (2) is a YES, then there is an urgency that affects the entire human race, and given that urgency, UCL suggests that we don't look for a definitive and absolute determination that yes, the activities of mankind are contributing. That question is too complicated. But we can reasonably ask if it is POSSIBLE that the activities of mankind are contributing, and should that be a YES, then the urgency of the problem dictates that corrective action must ensue immediately.

This trial should be given the same authority as a criminal trial. If a jury says someone is guilty of a crime, that person pays the price, unless there is an appeal on certain allowable grounds, such as trial procedure. Thus, if the climate change trial says "yes" to all 3 questions above, the global judicial authority shall have the power to hand down sentencing to all, and all nations shall submit to this authority. This could get thorny and very involved, and I'm sure the judicial authority shall need to consult others with known expertise in the area of determining what each nation state should do based on it's role in things like greenhouse gas emissions and other factors. These others should NOT be politicians. UCL understands that if we rely on politics to solve this problem (assuming the trial determines it is a problem), the solution will never come.

Every so often, perhaps every 4 years, this trial can be repeated given updated evidence, until such time as it is decided that the issue either never existed, or has been regulated out of existence, or that it never involved the activities of mankind after all.

Oh, and UCL does have something to say about chess, since this is a dual topic thread. He says old retired correspondence players should pursue their dream of becoming an OTB IM, and that they should play the French Winawer every chance they get.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Climate and Chess

HTH.

I finally had to look up "HTH" because Vlad is using it so often. I found several possible meanings, such as "Hope This Helps".

But the one that really caught my eye: "Hotter Than Hell"

So Vlad actually thinks things are going to get pretty sticky down here!?!?

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: Climate and Chess

No Ed, he is a sea level scientist.

Who believes in dowsing!!!

Actually he is no longer a scientist as he has retired, assuming the Wikipedia article is correct.

And it isn't the models that say sea level is rising, it is the actual measurements.

Now the current rise isn't very much, about 1.8 millimeters per year for the last century, and at the current rate it's no particular threat. But it is a measured fact.

If the north polar ice cap melts it will also have little effect on global sea levels, since it is floating ice.

On the other hand the Greenland ice cap and most of the Antarctic ice cap sit on bedrock well above current sea levels. The volume of these caps is quite well known and IF they melt there is no question whatsoever that sea levels will rise by many meters. That isn't difficult science, it's just simple applied arithmetic.

The mountain glaciers if they melt will also raise sea level but their total volume is very small relative to Greenland and Antarctica, so that would be a very minor effect.

The other effect that can increase sea levels is warming since when you warm water it occupies more volume. That is a relatively small effect and if I recall right, the expected sea rise due to global warming from this cause is about one meter by the end of the century.

But you know what? There are whole countries that lie less than one meter above the current sea level? And millions of people who live on land less than one meter above current sea levels.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Climate and Chess

I finally had to look up "HTH" because Vlad is using it so often. I found several possible meanings, such as "Hope This Helps".

But the one that really caught my eye: "Hotter Than Hell"

So Vlad actually thinks things are going to get pretty sticky down here!?!?

There are only two accepted sniggler definitions. Hope That Helps is one. Hope That Hurts is the other.