Originally posted by: sactoking
Originally posted by: Lemon law
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The little problem with the sactoking argument is that he thinks his argument only cuts one way. And if it can't be proved conclusively and to his sanctification, therefore the do nothing argument therefore wins.
But as soon as we ask sactoking to prove the validity of his do nothing argument, the sactoking position collapses like a house of cards. Because in such a battle of wits, sactoking comes to the battle quite unarmed, naked, and with very little to PROVE his do nothing argument is the correct position.
Yes, sactoking, PROVE YOU ARE RIGHT---------we await your proof.
A couple of things, Lemon. One, I NEVER advocated a 'do nothing' position in this thread. The question posited was 'Ocean temperatures are up, how does that not prove global warming?' I am trying to explain the narrative fallacy in the affirmative responses. The fallacy is that we have data (which may or may not be valid) and are attempting to craft a narrative to explain that data. If you answer in the affirmative, 'Yes, rising ocean temperatures are proof of global warming', you're affirming that your narrative is the ONLY explanation for the data. I contend that is wrong.
Second, you have every right to call me out for proof like I have been doing to Yogi's buddy. You have to realize though that booboo's position is that the narrative is the one and only true explanation for the data. Proof of such a position is monumental, likely impossible. My position is that the narrative is NOT the one and only possible explanation for the data. That position is much more easily defended as any one other rational narrative serves not only to validate my position but also to invalidate booboo's.
Now if I really wanted to be slimy, I'd claim that my requests to "prove it" were in fact in response to booboo's claim that I was "ignorant" and wrong. That, being opinion, would therefore be an impossibility to prove for while heyheybooboo might have convinced himself, and maybe even yourself, of my ignorance I'm sure that others, like my coworkers, would find claims of ignorance to be preposterous.
The crux of my contention, if you'd like a cleaner explanation, boils down to chaos theory. Chaos theory is very good for forecasting, but it is terrible at backcasting. The reason is that the permutations involved are near infinite and cannot be computed.
Take, for example, the commonly-known "Butterfly Effect." Somewhere in Asia a butterfly flaps its wings and, two years later, a hurricane forms off of Baja California AS A DIRECT RESULT. Given the proper time and tools, and following the proper tenets, a chaotician could compute and forecast the inevitable hurricane.
Now, reverse the butterfly effect. Somewhere in Asia a butterfly flaps its wings and, two years later, a hurricane forms off of Baja California AS A DIRECT RESULT. But this time, instead of knowing about the wing flap and computing the hurricane, you're told that there was a hurricane and asked to compute the cause. It's impossible. The permutations are so immense as to render it pointless.
But that is exactly what you're asking climatologists to do. You're giving them the end result and asking them to backcast the one and only true causation. That just cannot be done. The variables involved are too complex. Oh, it may be possible to backcast over a short enough time span, say a few hours or maybe even a day, if you can limit the variables involved. But the further back you go, the more impossible the task becomes.
Facebook
Twitter