Essay: On the Abandonment of Logic

Guest essay by Andi Cockroft

As I have outlined several times here, I am no scientist, despite having studied at University. But by far and away the vast quantity of learning has been obtained during life’s journey – both good and bad. All contribute to a depth of knowledge impossible to achieve through any 3 or 4 years of “Higher” education.

So what if I am not a qualified psychologist? How are psychologists qualified in any event?

Please then consider the arguments here rather than my lack of formal credentials – i.e. avoid Ad Hominem attacks and play the ball not the man. After all, at my time of life negative opinions of me are worth naught.

So why argue about the Abandonment of Logic?

clip_image001

I have met folks in my life who are seemingly exceptionally intelligent, yet believe in things I simply cannot comprehend. And I am not simply talking of Climate here, but, many aspects of modern living and knowledge.

It seems that in so many realms, Faith replaces Logic on so many levels.

In the beginning, and in so many cultures, the belief in some form of “supreme” being is fundamental. Be he the Christian and Judea God, the Muslim Allah, Viking Thor, Greek Zeus or any of the multiplicity of gods worshipped by races throughout the world such as the many gods of the Australian Aboriginals.

clip_image003

To this day, faith in Gods and Religion hold strong ties. Although some argue that the more liberal westernised societies are seeing a significant drop in spiritual feelings. Worship attendances are dropping for many, yet increasing for others.

But faith in some deity or other is only part of the changes taking place in western society. There is also an observable increase in the willingness of the same western societies to blindly follow argumentum ad verecundiam or the appeal to false authority.

One truly notable ruling authority of yesteryear was the Catholic Church. Galileo fell foul on suggesting the Sun was the centre of the Solar System, and the Earth revolved around it.

According to Wikipedia:

Galileo’s championing of heliocentrism and Copernicanism was controversial during his lifetime, when most subscribed to either geocentrism or the Tychonic system. He met with opposition from astronomers, who doubted heliocentrism because of the absence of an observed stellar parallax. The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism was “foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture.”

Galileo was tried by the Inquisition, found “vehemently suspect of heresy”, and forced to recant. He spent the rest of his life under house arrest.

Nowadays, I have friends, many friends, who obtained post-graduate qualifications later in life – so they did have some life experiences before returning to study. Yet even these folks seem unable to think freely for themselves and blindly accept pronouncements from persons of elevated authority without at least researching facts for themselves.

In New Zealand, we have an expression known as the post tortoise:-

“When you’re driving down a country road and you see a fence post with a tortoise balanced on top, that’s a post tortoise. You know he didn’t get up there by himself. He doesn’t belong there; you wonder who put him there; he can’t get anything done while he’s up there; and you just want to help the poor, dumb thing down”

I’m told the expression is used in many Countries but let’s say it’s Kiwi just for now!

In far too many areas of “Science” these days, we see “Post Tortoises” occupying senior posts, some even tenured, but one has to wonder how on earth they actually got there.

This is no name-and-shame game, but perhaps you can connect the dots from your sphere of knowledge.

Now I will return to Climate, but I do have many other areas of research that warrant equal attention and perhaps I’ll cover these later.

clip_image005

This graph was featured prominently in the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR)

Why I wonder do so many people (albeit a diminishing number) blindly trust the “authority” figures predicting doom and gloom. A scenario of predictions that to my knowledge have all failed to eventuate. The last I wrote about here was a prediction for sea-level in 2300 – as though anyone can challenge the result nor be around to see if it works out or not.

Now I have to admit that the first time I saw Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” presentation, I was shocked by what he had to say, his rhetoric and the graphics were extremely compelling.

However, it didn’t take long for me to begin the logical process and unwind thread by thread his arguments. I remembered the doom-and-gloom merchants of the 70’s foretelling of another ice-age. I remembered the freezing winters in England of the early 60’s. I remembered my father retelling of the summers he enjoyed during the 30’s. In all it just didn’t quite add up.

clip_image007

I remembered a wonderful History teacher I had in Jack Carlton who brought history to life for me and the rest of the class. In particular I remember the retelling of London Frost Fayres of the mini-ice age of the 17th and 18th centuries. Of how Henry VIII and Elizabeth I were to be seen being hauled along the frozen Thames.

Again from Wikipedia:

On the 20th of December, 1688 [misprint for 1683], a very violent frost began, which lasted to the 6th of February, in so great extremity, that the pools were frozen 18 inches thick at least, and the Thames was so frozen that a great street from the Temple to Southwark was built with shops, and all manner of things sold. Hackney coaches plied there as in the streets. There were also bull-baiting, and a great many shows and tricks to be seen. This day the frost broke up. In the morning I saw a coach and six horses driven from Whitehall almost to the bridge (London Bridge) yet by three o’clock that day, February the 6th, next to Southwark the ice was gone, so as boats did row to and fro, and the next day all the frost was gone. On Candlemas Day I went to Croydon market, and led my horse over the ice to the Horseferry from Westminster to Lambeth; as I came back I led him from Lambeth upon the middle of the Thames to Whitefriars’ stairs, and so led him up by them. And this day an ox was roasted whole, over against Whitehall. King Charles and the Queen ate part of it.

So simply from my schoolboy recollections, I began to smell a rat. Further research showed quite simply that since the 1850’s, temperatures had been slowly yet inexorably rising. As in any inexorable rise, on average, each year should statistically be hotter than the previous. Inevitably then coming out of a “mini-ice age” we will see record after record temperature recorded. QED.

That’s my logically thinking.

But things are never simple, and that should show a trend not a guarantee of increasing temperatures.

The last time I had my IQ measured, it came in quite high – but a good 20 percentage points down from my 20’s. This is not for personal aggrandisement but rather a simple statement of fact. For I see IQ measurements simply as demonstrating A can think faster than B. It does not give any indication of the way in which A “thinks” better than B.

I know of many with an IQ higher than mine, yet of low intellect. Likewise many with a lower IQ yet an intellect and clarity of thought that far surpasses mine.

A friend of mine beats me hands down at chess, bridge and even poker. His motor skills are superb so he also beats me at pool, snooker and billiards – to such an extent that it’s hard to understand how we remain friends. Yet he is regarded as educationally below-par.

So intellect to my mind is the greater thought process, although regrettably it seems we only have quantative measurements.

As Ozzy Osbourne was quoted as saying “Out of everything I’ve lost, I miss my mind the most!”. Perhaps that’s why my IQ has dropped 20 percentage points – Sex, Drugs and Rock ‘n Roll will do that to a person.

But is not rational thought an expression of intellect?

So why are so many of today’s “Top Minds” not thinking for themselves?

clip_image009I have watched with abject horror the changes in the Education System over the decades. When I was a child of the ‘50’s we learned everything by rote. 9 x 1 = 9, 9 x 2 = 18, 9 x 3 = 27…… 9 x 9 = 81 etc.

It was my fortune to have at junior school, a Maths teacher who introduced a dartboard into the equation. Once we had completed our rote learning, it was time for some real-world mathematics. Someone would throw a dart, then teacher would point at some poor soul and say “add” or maybe “subtract” but worst of all would be “multiply” or “divide” – at which point a second dart was thrown – and so it went on – some poor soul having to do the sums after the second dart. I cannot remember anyone falling behind at their darts score though!

I wonder what todays “Liberal” educators would make of my old schoolmaster’s methods?

Then again, it also seems as though the idea that a child should be taught to think for themselves almost seems alien in today’s scholastic system. Is it any wonder then there are so many unwilling to challenge the authoritative “Consensus” pronouncements?

Over the years, I have also observed a major shift in the style, type and calibre of teachers and lecturers. My teachers were mostly elderly (yes I know I was just a child), but grey hair and arthritis figured large. I recollect at a time of searching for a University my then School Masters always say “Don’t worry, if you don’t make University you can always go to Teacher training College” – and so it was. Other than one chap who actually wanted to teach, it was those who failed to gain University places who ended up becoming Teachers.

With this emphasis (or lack of it) in England of the 60’s, is it any wonder the degradation in Educational Values was to accelerate? Just sayin from personal observation.

So again, now having said everything above, why are so many “supposedly” well educated people willing to accept the chicken-little type doomsayers foretelling all manner of catastrophe that will befall us all. From ice-age is coming through catastrophic global warming. From global pandemics to asteroid impacts. Even appealing to the biblical scholars end the “End of the World is Neigh” brigade. The willingness to accept anything that belittle us as a specie is astounding.

Carl Sagan during his final years warned of the dangers of what we now call “Fake News”. His reminder “Mistrust arguments from authority…. Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else”

Carl Sagan’s last interview with Charlie Rose is on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8HEwO-2L4w

As is his best seller “The Demon Haunted World – Science as a Candle in the Dark”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0yII8OT5fc

So it seems to be human nature that blinds us to “Real Science”, and the true scientific principle. How then do we persuade folks to simply demand that any doomsday claim is proven and not simply postulated?

Answer that my friends and you have the “Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything”

clip_image010

Originally uploaded by en:User:Martinultima

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
197 Comments
ferdberple
March 14, 2018 6:40 am

who learns logic in school? how many people know that “and” is false if either side of the “and” is false?
how many know that the same holds true for science. that a theory. is false if any prediction is false.
instead people are taught to weigh true and false. if something is more true than false it must be true. this is science by consensus.
science by consensus fails the most basic element of logic, the “and” condition.

Reply to  ferdberple
March 14, 2018 7:31 am

For the logical– T + T + F = F T= true F=false

Reply to  Rockyredneck
March 14, 2018 9:10 am

well no, if the ‘+’ is logical OR.
T + T + F = T.

Reply to  ferdberple
March 14, 2018 8:57 am

True and false are relative now.
Furry logic.

Phoenix44
March 14, 2018 7:02 am

I’m not sure this is logic so much as scepticism. I see nothing in history that suggests that being sceptical doesn’t mean you are “right” more often than you are wrong.At a very rough estimate, i would guess that perhaps 85% of science has been wrong over the last 200-300 years, and I see no reason why we would now be getting more things right.
What makes some people scepical and others not?I don’t know, but I don’t think it is connected to intelligence (or at least what we currently measure as intelligence). Perhaps it is certain types of experience, where the real world clashes with forecasts and predictions?

Reply to  Phoenix44
March 14, 2018 9:37 am

I think the best phrase here is ‘critical thinking’ .
E.g to understand the implicit truth of ‘one swallow doesn’t make a summer’ ‘correlation is not causation’ etc etc.
One can proceed from a false assumption through pure logic to a preposterous conclusion. Logic is not at a fault here. Neither will scepticism work in this case – scepticism may recognise the conclusion is preposterous but only critical thinking can examine each chain in the reasoning, find them all correct and therefore return to question the original assumptions.
In the case of Climate Change ™ we have a simple progression of logic:
1. CO2 absorbs and re-emits radiation in a specific way.
2. All other things being equal this would lead to a global temperature change proportional to the log of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
3. This however is an insignificant factor.
4. Global temperature rises since the 1970s -2000 have been significant.
5. If we ascribe these to CO2, there must be some amplification going on. CO2 alone can’t do that.
6. With that much amplification is going on, we are in a scary scenario of man made climate change.
7. Lets set up the IPCC to see how scary and what might happen. |but never to question if in fact it will)
The key here is point 5.
And the conditional that is omitted by all climate alarmists. They START with the assumption that CO2 is THE main driver of modern climate change. From then on its all *very logical*. There must be amplification, This makes it all scary. The pause must be something else (though NEVER the original scary rise from 1970-2000)
Alarmists NEVER mention that IF.
‘Denial of point 5’ becomes ‘denial of points 1-4 and point 6-7’.
The key weakness of the AGW hypothesis is that amplification.
It should produce a tropical tropospheric hotspot. It doesn’t.
It should result in a monotonic increase in temperature as CO2 rises, It hasn’t – 30 years or rise and 18 years of pause.
It should amplify the effects of volcanic eruptions. It didn’t.
All the evidence is that there is no amplification at all and in fact a small negative feedback which would dampen the effect of CO2 is more likley.
Such conclusions lead to a completely uninteresting slight sensitivity of world climate to CO2 that would be utterly dwarfed by its effect on photosynthesising plant mass.
THAT is how critical thinking identifies the key point at which the logic of climate change has been correctly applied to a single false assumption.
The temperature rises of the late 20th century cannot be ascribed to Carbon Dioxide alone. Or even be largely caused by CO2
Accept that and the whole edifice collapses.

Reply to  Leo Smith
March 14, 2018 9:38 am

I am at a total loss to understand how my post can possibly be triggering moderation.

Reply to  Leo Smith
March 16, 2018 3:07 am

Isn’t the problem not so much logic or skepticism but the failure to test the key premise of the CO2 theory, which is that CO2 back radiation will warm an atmosphere? Isn’t that what the scientific method is about, testing a hypothesis? It seems that we’re making all these assumptions about how radiative physics acts without doing the most fundamental of tests: does CO2 do what we say it does? Does longwave back-radiation, whatever the heck that really is, warm a surface?
Nahle’s experiment says no. http://www.biocab.org/Experiment_on_Greenhouses__Effect.pdf Now what? We explain the results of the experiment or we replicate/refute the experiment or we put CO2 in a column and control for confounding factors and measure this elusive back-radiation to prove it really acts like we suppose it must act.
Instead since Nahle’s experiment, if valid, blows our paradigm to smithereens, we don’t want to look at it. Instead we seem to be pronouncing that it must be invalid because it contradicts our paradigm.
An experiment contradicts our image of how the world works so we throw out the experiment? Are we caught in a paradigm and can’t get out? Does our paradigm blind us at the same time as it illuminates the world for us?
The meta-paradigm: paradigms are just paradigms. We have this illusive thing called “intelligence” that can’t be put in a box. Paradigms are boxes.

Reply to  Don132
March 16, 2018 5:02 am

Stay on it, Don!
You’re poking around in the heart of the matter.
Without a “Greenhouse Effect,” there is no CO2 caused global warming.
Without CO2 caused global warming, there is no anthropogenic global warming.
Without anthropogenic global warming, there is no catastrophic antropogenic global warming.
Without catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, there is no need to destroy the American capitalist economy.
The entire manipulative and destructive edifice is constructed on an imaginary foundation.
Keep pointing out that the Emperor Has No Clothes. Sooner or later, the throngs of supplicants, elbowing for a place close to the Emperor, must concur to the reality.
Stay on it!

Reply to  Leo Smith
March 16, 2018 8:27 am

Kent,
I’m not a smart guy but I’m as persistent as hell. People want to gloss over or ignore Nahle’s experiment. Look at it: what is it telling us?
You’re right, this is the heart of the matter. This simple, elementary but well-done experiment refutes the entire edifice not only of CO2 warming but of some of our key ideas about radiative physics. I’m surprised that I’m not being bombarded with reasons why that experiment is wrong. If it’s wrong, speak up. If not, then what is it telling us?
I’m OK with being proved wrong. It’s not about being right. It’s about what’s really going on.

Reply to  Don132
March 16, 2018 8:37 am

Don,
Stay on it, brother.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but there are those who throng around the emperor admiring the fine cloth, the excellent sewing, the exquisite tailoring, arguing among themselves about the best technique for attaching jewels to the Emperor’s collar, and discussing the finer points of production of the new silk, and on and on, and on and on….
All of that throng will be totally irrelevant when the day comes that all recognize that THE EMPEROR IS TOTALLY NUDE!
People would rather have an important place in an irrelevant throng than for the whole scam to disappear.
I specialize in exposing scams. There is a long, long history of people willingly participating in being defrauded. Bernie Madoff is an excellent example. Wayne Simmons is another.
Don’t give up.
The emperor has no clothes!

Latitude
March 14, 2018 7:18 am

“This graph was featured prominently in the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR)”
I hate those stupid blown up scale graphs…..if they showed my temp like that…I’d look like I was going to die too
Same with the CO2 graphs…..another 100 ppm is nothing

Reply to  Latitude
March 14, 2018 5:30 pm

Well since the graph was NOT in the TAR, looks like you swallow everything an author says without checking. Fake sceptic

Alasdair
March 14, 2018 7:23 am

Well said Andi,
Logical thinking is not province of a university education. There are many examples of this. The IPCC logical? route to its conclusions is littered with anomalies, dubious assumptions, errors of definition and inappropriate use of equations that one doesn’t really know where to start.
However here is a supreme example:
I doubt anyone remembers that time when sat in their nappies they placed a wooden block on top another and noticed that the height of the column increased. Well little did they know but this was a demonstration of the first law of thermodynamics which states that when an energy flux passes from one thermodynamic system to another the total enthalpy(energy) of the recipient system increases.
Now fast forward to the IPCC definition of Radiative Forcing. Précis it in your own terms and decide whether it complies with the first thermodynamic law.
Here is the definition:
The definition of RF from the TAR and earlier IPCC assessment reports is retained. Ramaswamy et al. (2001) define it as ‘the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus longwave; in W m–2) at the tropopause after allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values’. Radiative forcing is used to assess and compare the anthropogenic and natural drivers of climate change. The concept arose from early studies of the climate response to
changes in solar insolation and CO2, simple radiative-convective models.
I have emboldened the relevant bit! ( seems the bold got lost in the pasting. The bit is: “—-but with the surface——————at the unperturbed values”.)
Later a value of some 1.6 Watts/sq.m is given as this forcing flux, which opens up the question as to how an increase in CO2 ppm levels could somehow make the Sun shine brighter! Now, of course this is ridiculous and shown to be; but and I repeat but; only by explaining that the radiative Forcing is not a flux; but only a perceived reaction due to the properties of Albedo and Emissivity of the GHG in question. ( A matter of inappropriate reverse logic?). Indeed a complex subject.
To me it is a good example of what Andy Cockcroft is saying and the implications are serious as it seems that this figure of 1.6Watts/sq.m is now, I believe, probably taken as a given flux to be included in modelling calculations hereafter. A bug in the system?
I have raised this issue on numerous occasions over the last 10 years; but have never obtained any satisfactory response either from the warmists or the sceptics. Very frustrating —-: C’est la Vie!
My regards Andi.
Alasdair

BallBounces
March 14, 2018 7:25 am

“Faith replaces Logic”. This is a false dichotomy. Perhaps you meant blind faith.

renbutler
March 14, 2018 7:31 am

Faith and Logic can and do absolutely co-exist. I agree with those here who suggest that only unquestioned or blind faith is problematic.
Anyway, I’ve recently come to the belief that two things that need to be taught in schools are personal finance and logic. Understanding of both is sorely lacking these days.

Donna K. Becker
Reply to  renbutler
March 14, 2018 10:52 am

I’ve been saying for years that logic and ethics should be taught in schools, as well as the basics of personal finance. I’d like to add that objective history, if such a thing exists, also should be taught. It should be tied to geography, geology, paleontology, climate, agricultural practices, and prevailing philosophical and political belief systems. For example, the founding principles of the United States, and the reasons therefor, should be emphasized.

TA
March 14, 2018 7:33 am

Huge propaganda machines operate to promote the CAGW narrative so it is understandable that many people are not skeptical of CAGW. Everywhere they turn it is promoted, and most people are not inclined to dig into the details. So they go along with the crowd. Which is a human inclination.
The people I don’t understand are the ones who are genuinely afraid that CAGW is going to appear and destroy their lives. If I were one of those persons, I would want to know every little detail about my possible destruction.
And if I had a reasonable amount of intelligence, I would eventually see that the CAGW narrative is a scam. A huge scam, pushed by many entities, but a scam nonetheless. And then I would feel a lot better. 🙂

WXcycles
March 14, 2018 8:36 am

Your body is incomparably more intelligent than your thinking can ever be. But you don’t even see it.Thinking is often out of whack with ‘reality’ in the intelect because imagination is over used, and its ideas are hugely over rated and mostly useless.
An idea will never describe the physical cosmos because the cosmos is not a part of ideas. Tell that to a cosmologist and they definitely will not have thought processing intelligence that can grasp the truth of that, instantly.
Thinking does not work without ideas in memories being recalled, but the cosmos is not an idea recalled from memory, so how can an idea ever explain something not related to a memory?
Even when stated like that they still wont follow.
It is simply intellectually unacceptable to suggest their thinking is not capable of understanding.
They don’t even understand thinking, so how will they understand anything real via thinking about it.
But this never even permiates to the surface.

March 14, 2018 8:54 am

“argumentum ad verecundiam or the appeal to false authority …”
I don’t believe argumentum ad verecundiam needs the qualifier “false”; it’s just the appeal to authority.
Take it from me. I’m the expert.

Sheri
Reply to  Max Photon
March 14, 2018 9:08 am

Depends. If you’re a climate scientist, then yes, it does. That way all the people on your side are the “not false” authorities and everyone else is a false one. Climate science, I believe (but still cannot confirm), added the “appropriate authority” for that very reason—they could dismiss anyone who disagreed. The actual fallacy was “appeal to authority” and philosophy knew this until politics took over. When I studied philosophy, it was just “appeal to authority”—nothing whatsoever about “appropriate”.
I acknowledge your expertise, of course. 🙂

Sheri
March 14, 2018 9:03 am

Since this started with religion bashing, I stopped reading. Psychology was very careful not to call religion a delusion. The author’s lack of knowledge is very evident. So is his inability to not attack religion right up front. Bad choice. Try actually learning some psychology and philosophy. MIght help.
Science and logic cannot prove themselves. They are taken on faith as much as religion. Belief that science is the ultimate truth can no more be proven than God exists.

March 14, 2018 9:07 am

RE: “The Tortoise Pole”
If you had very little knowledge of nature and animals, etc. (e.g. 3 years old), a perfectly valid conclusion is that tortoises can climb poles.
Let’s say people you trust confirm that they actually can climb poles. Now imagine what it would take for you to completely change your thinking on how that tortoise got there.
I think that’s a metaphor for a lot in life today.

Sheri
Reply to  mpcraig
March 14, 2018 9:10 am

“Now imagine what it would take for you to completely change your thinking on how that tortoise got there.”
A good game cam and patience.

eyesonu
March 14, 2018 9:18 am

42
That answers many things, especially concerning “climate science”.
Was it derived and calculated by use of a turboencabulator?
Relationship of 97 is becoming more apparent that it is 42. Precision is likely calculated to infinite decimal places.
Only a hitch hiker would understand. When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead go ask Alice, I think she’ll know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboencabulator

MarkW
March 14, 2018 9:40 am

My older brother has an IQ that puts him in the top 1%. However I learned long ago not to leave him alone with power tools.

Michael 2
March 14, 2018 10:17 am

“It seems that in so many realms, Faith replaces Logic on so many levels.”
These concepts are not diametrically opposed. Logic is a process of argumentation; starts from assumptions and ends with conclusions. Logic does not require or assume the truth of its propositions.
Thus it is rather common for “faith” to assume the truth of propositions, and the logic produces deductions. Or you can reverse it, start with observations (deductions) and work back to causes in a process of induction. Since many causes can exist, “faith” will decide which one you personally prefer to believe is THE cause.

March 14, 2018 10:36 am

Intellectuals being climate alarmists is not about climate or nature but about social-economic order. The climate discussion is not scientific but religious and social in nature. Religion answers questions about the unknown. God is another word for what we don’t know. Religious theses cannot be proofed and become true by authority and consensus which is the reason that heretics have to be silenced (like Galileo) Nobody understands the climate. The reason for us being vulnerable to salesman of fear is secularisation. Religion is (among other aspects) a firewall against fear. This firewall has collapsed and so fear became a successfull business model. Religion places the future in God’s hands (which means: we don’t know the future and cannot be responsible either) but now we are responsable for a future we cannot know. This raises fear and uncertainties. This makes us build a crazy energy system.
For more: http://www.davdata.nl/math/mentalclimate.html
I regard climate alarmism as the revolt of a new elite that fears resource shortages and therefore wants to control the economies of nations. The fear to miss connection the fear not being part of this future new elites, makes intellectuals skip logical reasoning.

March 14, 2018 10:53 am

“This graph was featured prominently in the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR)”
err NO, you copied it from wikipedia. it was NOT in the TAR.
. the axis says pages2k data… Pages2k project starting in 2013 .
The chart you showed did NOT appear in the TAR, it was created by Stephan Ramesdorf after Pages2K
Funny dude talks about the abandonment of Logic and he cant even get a frigging chart right
You know Willis always Moans when someone quotes IPCC and doesnt give the page number.
where is willis?

March 14, 2018 12:10 pm

“teacher who introduced a dartboard”
Such steel sharp-pointed throwing weapons would not be allowed in today’s PC classrooms.

March 14, 2018 1:09 pm

I have a friend who is home-schooling an awesome 10 year old. (She’s just the cutest little smarty-pants.)
My friend asked me for advice about what to teach. My answer is to provide the tools for intellectual self-defense, and those tools should include, at an age appropriate level:
— logic (and logical fallacies)
— probability and statistics
— basic double-entry accounting
I am forever encountering adults who are blithering idiots — for example, the homeopathy crowd — because they are oblivious to one or more of the above fields.
Anyway, it’s great. My friend’s daughter has logical fallacies on flash cards (I think she’s up to about 40), and is getting better everyday at spotting them in the wild. She loves knowing them, and it’s a treat to watch.
I swear to God, she’s way more fun and interesting to talk to than 95% of adults I know.

March 14, 2018 1:24 pm

Maybe a little off-topic, but not really if were talking about logic and truth.
Can anyone find fault with Nahle’s experiment? If it’s valid, what does it say? It seems to me to be sound and to refute the theory that LWIR warms an atmosphere.
http://www.biocab.org/Experiment_on_Greenhouses__Effect.pdf
It seems like this would be a good project for high school students: replicate and refute Nahle.

Reply to  Don132
March 15, 2018 12:00 am

Correction: Nahle’s experiment seems to refute the idea that “trapped” LWIR warms a surface. So is it really saying there’s no such thing as trapped LWIR? If CO2 scatters LWIR, does that necessarily mean it’s emitting LWIR? Is the emission exactly balanced by the absorption? So why don’t we flip it around and instead of saying that CO2 emits LWIR, it absorbs it? Maybe all-in-all it’s doing neither; it’s just scattering LWIR.
Random late-night thoughts.

March 14, 2018 3:08 pm

“End of the World is Neigh”, and a good neigh to you as well.

John
March 14, 2018 3:59 pm

It worries me to see some of the young folks leaving college and entering the work force. Many of them are technically savvy, but lack critical thinking and decision making skills. It also upsets me that my field of engineering, perhaps like many others, has allowed itself to be “decaffeinated” if you will, over the years. Many institutions have continually lowered the necessary hours required to earn an undergraduate degree, and lessened the significance in achieving professional certification after graduation. It seems the impetus has become getting the kids (and money in hand) in and out of school as fast as possible, rather than actually preparing them adequately for their respective exits.
Although I shouldn’t, I do find myself sparring a bit with nimrods on the various message boards regarding the climate issues occasionally. It is baffling how many folks are so jaded by political ideology, are so ignorant of basic physics, and completely buy in to the shotgun inundation of alarmist propaganda from the liberal media.
My kids will be armed and ready when they hit the indoctrination efforts of HS science.

Mark Wiener
March 14, 2018 6:47 pm

Stream of consciousness meaning what? The RATE of global warming is the nexus of logical arguments. IMO the bigger issues relative to quality of life involve toxic pollution and equitable distibution of wealth. Regardless of global temps, toxic pollution and inequitable distribution of wealth will persist.

Mike Schlamby
March 15, 2018 5:06 am

Having students think for themselves is not only alien in today’s education system, it’s anathema.

ptolemy2
March 15, 2018 5:15 pm

Horrible news about this University of Florida bridge collapse:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43418898
What story will emerge from that?

Reply to  ptolemy2
March 16, 2018 1:46 am
March 20, 2018 4:18 pm

The deductive logic is easy. It’s the inductive logic that throws global warming climatologists. Using the deductive logic one draws specific instances of it from a general rule. Using the inductive logic one draws a general rule from specific instances of it. For the purpose of regulating Earth’s climate the regulator needs an information providing general rule but builders of global warming models are unskilled in the art of inducing one.