Post number 100!

This is my 100th post.

June and July have seen this blog start to get some attention (last month alone getting more hits than the previous 5 months together and July is nearly at the same point now). I hope that my work has offered something useful to my readers. What I really hope for is to stimulate conversation and action in adapting to our changing world rather than to be yet another view going along with deniers in endless circular debates. I personally am very optimistic in our potential to meet the changing world and prosper by doing so. I am, however, pessimistic in our ability to overcome this business-as-usual inertia.

In responding to a “sceptic” of science, I developed the following analogy, which I wish to share. Please let me know if you find any errors in it! 🙂

A wife was found with another man, both murdered in her bed (ie. temperature record). Later, the husband was found randomly driving around the streets. He had the victims’ blood on his hands and clothes (ie. global temperature anomaly, night warming trends, longwave radiation brightness changes etc). He had the weapon in his coat pocket (ie. greenhouse gas emissions). No other prints, except for the three individuals were found in the room, nor was there any evidence of forced entry or items being taken (ie. clearly not correlated to solar activity or urban heating effect).

Although he was vague, he didn’t clearly admit to the crime.

Are you telling me that you think that the husband is not responsible or at very suspicious simply because a few years ago a couple were found dead in their bed, which turned out to be the result of house invasion (ie. other climate change events)? Is this a logical use of the available evidence?

This clearly ignores the differences between the two cases; such as the love-triangle, no evidence of a house invasion in the latter event, that only the husband can be traced to the room and has the murder weapon in his pocket and is covered with the victims’ blood and was obviously not attempting to contact the police.

All you’re basically telling me is, because the victim didn’t clearly admit to the crime (ie. the argument that, “we need to be 100% certain of anthropogenic climate change before we take action!”), you think the evidence against the husband is nothing but speculation?

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Post number 100!

  1. “All you’re basically telling me is, because the victim didn’t clearly admit to the crime (ie. the argument that, “we need to be 100% certain of anthropogenic climate change before we take action!”), you think the evidence against the husband is nothing but speculation?”

    I seem to remember that we had a conversation along similar lines a while ago but you said that you were an advocate of sustainability and therefore kept out of the AGW debate or words to that effect.

    I must say you are doing a great job at the latter with this post.

    Cheers

    Roger

    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

    Like

    1. Ol’ Roger’s back! G’day mate! Hope the world’s treating you well.
      In light of folk, like yourself, I decided to make my point regarding AGW incredibly clear and based on the literature at hand. How funny that, oh two and a half months later, you drift back my way and attack one of the few post that isn’t riddled with scientific literature.
      Well done!
      If you wish to look over the reference material that I constantly refer to in the brackets of this analogy, please refer to a post I published yesterday and the Innovation is key series I completed last month. Indeed, I did such detailed work because I was tired of repeating myself to those who ignore science and the weight of evidence that supports AGW. I look forward and like planning. This trivial debate largely entertains people who have nothing better to do.
      Otherwise, if you’re only going to make pointless attacks like this, I’ll just start deleting your comments. I have no time for this kind of thing.
      Have a nice day 🙂

      Like

      1. 1. I have not attacked anything so far that I can discern.

        2. Your reply, although it is certainly very kind that you reply so promptly, does not seem to have anything to do with my comment.

        Cheers

        Roger

        Like

      2. You’re still on arguing that no-one replies to your comments?
        You made an irrelevant comment about previous conversations followed by a smug dismissal of this post. I’ve since made a move to cover more in regards to AGW because of comments made by you and others. It seems I had to take a few steps back, because many people are still stuck on the initial problem. It would be nice to get into stimulating conversations regarding improvements, however, I had to clarify the scientific basis first. You comment regarding this analogy is a bit late in the day.
        Luckily I have my inbox open all day and as it’s sitting on my lab bench, if nothing is truly pressing, I can be quite quick to reply. Being a Friday arvo, it’s pretty relaxed – although I’m off to buy some equipment in a minute.
        I try to do my best to reply as soon as convenient.
        Cheers
        Tim

        Like

    1. lol… Cheers for the compliment, however, I suspect it’s my writing style..
      I had the same problem when I used to write creatively. I don’t think I was born to write. As much as I love everything from the scientific literature that I get through the uni to the amazing world of Wells, I have, at best, an interesting quirk that limits the appeal. It’s okay though; I love literature, so nothing will stop me 😀

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s