A scientist does not end at conjecture, using data he moves on.
Please do some work and get some references or hard numbers.

On Tue, 24 May 2005 21:45:53 GMT, "Coby Beck"
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
On Tue, 24 May 2005 19:03:34 GMT, "Coby Beck"
Two problems for me with using summer and winter to make the general point
about short term chaotic behaviour and long term patterns. First, it is
not really an analogy about climate and weather, it is the very issue at
hand. Analogies work by putting an aspect of the unfamiliar into a familiar
context. Second, the cycle of summer-winter can be thought of as a steady
state, cettainly it is not a pattern that will be affected by global warming
(at least not in a broad sense). I think it does not successfully isolate
the easiest way to debunk the classic "you don't know if it will rain
tomorrow, how can you tell it will be warmer in 100 yrs".

Climate is per definition average weather, so there are two operators
in that classic, one, how can you predict average weather, when you
cannot predict isolated instances of weather, and two, how can you
predict the average result of some forcing which influences the
weather, when you cannot predict what will result from that forcing
on any particular day. I'd say the cyclical annual change in
insolation over the seasons should demonstrate quite well, that one
can indeed predict the former rather more reliably than the latter.

Yes, this all make perfect sense. I guess the deeper philisophical question
here is how to provide a serious and thoughtful rebuttal to a shallow and
ridiculous claim.

I think a shallow and ridiculous claim cannot be dealt with the same
way in circumstances where 'reason is king' is acknowledged, as it can
in circumstances where that is not the case. In the former case
rebuttal would likely center on the claim itself, the assumptions that
underlies it, and its implications.

In the latter case the strategy would likely have to be completely
different, the weight being put on discreditation of the claim by any
effective means, with no options taken off the table, rather than
through strictly rational rebuttal. A thoroughly scientifically minded
person would not be very good at this.

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 24 May 2005 21:45:53 GMT, "Coby Beck"
Yes, this all make perfect sense. I guess the deeper philisophical
question
here is how to provide a serious and thoughtful rebuttal to a shallow and
ridiculous claim.

I think a shallow and ridiculous claim cannot be dealt with the same
way in circumstances where 'reason is king' is acknowledged, as it can
in circumstances where that is not the case. In the former case
rebuttal would likely center on the claim itself, the assumptions that
underlies it, and its implications.

In the latter case the strategy would likely have to be completely
different, the weight being put on discreditation of the claim by any
effective means, with no options taken off the table, rather than
through strictly rational rebuttal. A thoroughly scientifically minded
person would not be very good at this.

One qualification to this: I think that motive is an essential element, and
the motive of whomever puts forward the argument is actually more critical
in terms of the best response tactic than is the quality of the argument.
The "weather vs climate" fallacy can actually be offered up sincerely by
naive rather than manipulative people.

I think one of the biggest challenges scientist face in dealing with lay
people is determining what is obvious or not and what points can be taken
for granted. Being wrong on these counts can lead to misinterpretation of
questions or confusions.

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

On Thu, 26 May 2005 20:05:42 GMT, "Coby Beck"
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
I think a shallow and ridiculous claim cannot be dealt with the same
way in circumstances where 'reason is king' is acknowledged, as it can
in circumstances where that is not the case. In the former case
rebuttal would likely center on the claim itself, the assumptions that
underlies it, and its implications.

In the latter case the strategy would likely have to be completely
different, the weight being put on discreditation of the claim by any
effective means, with no options taken off the table, rather than
through strictly rational rebuttal. A thoroughly scientifically minded
person would not be very good at this.

One qualification to this: I think that motive is an essential element, and
the motive of whomever puts forward the argument is actually more critical
in terms of the best response tactic than is the quality of the argument.
The "weather vs climate" fallacy can actually be offered up sincerely by
naive rather than manipulative people.

Surely motive is an essential element. However -- it is hard if not
impossible to gauge motives on a medium like this. What one can
gauge is whether it is possible to engage the other person in a
meaningful dialog. That should IMO in all cases be attempted.
Dialog is a deadly weapon against manipulation, if it succeeds,
manipulation will have to cease. But, if it sorely fails, one should
be willing to change tack, to use language in a different mode, as a
stick or a whip, rather than a tool for discourse. Importantly, if it
comes to that, it must be done with cold deliberation rather than
out of frustration and anger.

I think one of the biggest challenges scientist face in dealing with lay
people is determining what is obvious or not and what points can be taken
for granted. Being wrong on these counts can lead to misinterpretation of
questions or confusions.

Yes, that is true, but if a dialog can be got going, the frailties of
language, the inevitable misinterpretations and language use confusion
should not pose insurmountable problems.

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 May 2005 20:05:42 GMT, "Coby Beck"
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
I think a shallow and ridiculous claim cannot be dealt with the same
way in circumstances where 'reason is king' is acknowledged, as it can
in circumstances where that is not the case. In the former case
rebuttal would likely center on the claim itself, the assumptions that
underlies it, and its implications.

In the latter case the strategy would likely have to be completely
different, the weight being put on discreditation of the claim by any
effective means, with no options taken off the table, rather than
through strictly rational rebuttal. A thoroughly scientifically minded
person would not be very good at this.

One qualification to this: I think that motive is an essential element,
and
the motive of whomever puts forward the argument is actually more critical
in terms of the best response tactic than is the quality of the argument.
The "weather vs climate" fallacy can actually be offered up sincerely by
naive rather than manipulative people.

Surely motive is an essential element. However -- it is hard if not
impossible to gauge motives on a medium like this. What one can
gauge is whether it is possible to engage the other person in a
meaningful dialog. That should IMO in all cases be attempted.
Dialog is a deadly weapon against manipulation, if it succeeds,
manipulation will have to cease. But, if it sorely fails, one should
be willing to change tack, to use language in a different mode, as a
stick or a whip, rather than a tool for discourse. Importantly, if it
comes to that, it must be done with cold deliberation rather than
out of frustration and anger.

Nicely said. (This is just a "me too" post

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")