UOG. Here boy, here boy,... that's a good boy, sit! rollover! and if you behave yourself, I'll give you a biscuit.

UOG! In my research, do you know what Ive found UOG?, that people will convince themselves of absolutely anything.

God! its hard at the top. lol

EVO

The implied bestiality says it all

Spindoc

The trip was fine, thanks. I’m glad you were able to watch the MIT Sloan address.

Before I tackle your other ‘9 points’, I would like to clarify your statements;

1. You say “the (AGW) debate is binary”. This by definition means the debate is a “two-valued logic” system – implying someone is right and someone is wrong.

My response is that binary reasoning limits our knowledge and reduces ‘our’ response (to issues like AGW) to a feeble mindset. Computers operate in binary mode (on/off) and this alone explains why ‘artificial intelligence’ is so difficult to achieve.

However, humans have the ability to make decisions outside simplistic dualism (e.g. in/out, yes/no, right/wrong, black/white, capitalism/communism, theist/atheist, Christian/Muslim, conservative/liberal, guilty/not-guilty, AGWarmer/AGWdenier, etc). This human ability or capacity enables us to be distinguished from the ‘lesser intelligent’ animals or machines.

Unfortunately (as we have seen) many people don’t use this ability.

2. You say “the (AGW) debate is circular”. Also to be clear, this means the hypothesis (AGW) to be proved is assumed implicitly (or explicitly) in the premises.

This is a typical argument put forward by so called ‘deniers’ – it is a logical fallacy.

We can theorise that the Sun will shine tomorrow. However, we can’t “prove” it until we have finished conducting the experiment (waiting until tomorrow to see if the Sun actually shines).

Corollary: the only way to “prove” AGW is to conduct the experiment. This clearly is illogical (and unscientific) – we only have one test-tube to experiment with, the planet.

IMO, if anyone engages in “circular argument”, it is the ‘deniers’, e.g.

. A scientist provides a ‘simplified’ explanation of AGW

. An AGW ‘denier’ in rebuttal states “this begs the question (insert your own) ...

. The scientist explains why the rebuttal is incorrect and provides a more detailed explanation

. The AGW ‘denier’ argues the science is too complex to understand and accuses the scientist of obfuscation and appealing to authority

. The scientist attempts to provide a ‘simplified’ explanation to the ‘denier’s rebuttal ... and around and around we go.

Cont’d

Cont’d

3. Finally, you say “the (AGW) debate is a zero sum game”. Again to clarify, this means that there will be both winners and losers by the various stakeholders in addressing the issues of AGW.

Yes, this is one outcome and is founded on ‘power and control’ of limited resources by those seeking to expand their sphere of influence. The size of the cake is fixed. If I take a bigger slice, your slice will be correspondingly smaller. Winners are balanced by losers and it is a zero sum end game.

In terms of AGW, it is not uncommon for lobbyists to argue against acting on climate change due to their perceived loss of ‘competitive advantage’ e.g. the Lavoisier Group’s submission to the Garnaut Report, George W Bush’s refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the coal industry trying to find a future for ‘clean coal’ (sic), etc.

However, this adversarial approach to solving global issues is counterproductive, in my humble opinion.

If you are familiar with “zero sum game” analysis, then you would also be familiar with both “positive” and “negative” sum games (and the Nash Equilibrium). This is what the MIT Sloan lecture by John Sterman was alluding to – there are opportunities for growth and development in a sustainable way without succumbing to the tried (and failing) meme of the power and control freaks.

Clearly, there are smart and intelligent people who are trying to tackle the problems of AGW, from all countries around the world. Some will be meeting in Copenhagen in December and believe it or not, they accept the science of AGW. They are even now accepting (and negotiating) a real possibility of a positive sum game.

Nevertheless, the game becomes more complex as it progresses, and progress is exponentially more difficult to achieve the nearer an agreement becomes. Ergo, the last 10% of the negotiations will be harder than the previous 90%.

Ratification of Kyoto mk2 will prove even more testing, i.e. the last 1% the hardest of all.

tbc – those word/post limits got the better of me, again.

Hi Q&A,

Your “clarifications” are appreciated but misinterpret what I said.

1. I did not say the debate was the result of binary reasoning, but that it had “become” a binary outcome, for or against, no middle ground, thus a Binary result.

2. I suggested that the debate “had become circular” because science, at this point, is inconclusive. Thus there is no circuit breaker; we all agree to disagree in the absence of a scientific outcome. We have simply had to “adopt” someone else’s opinion because we are not qualified to create our own.

3. The debate has become a “zero sum game” means no winners and no losers, because until and unless there is a scientific conclusion, self evidently the debate cannot be resolved either way, no winners, no losers and no end game. Now that is logic.
Your position remains that, << This is a typical argument put forward by so called ‘deniers’ – it is a logical fallacy.>> Can you please explain?

Your academic explanations of the above are excellent however; they vividly support my assertion that this scientific debate should positively not be in the public domain where it is exposed to manipulation, potentially generating political and economic disadvantage for our nation. We are not qualified to make such far reaching decisions in the absence of unfettered scientific process. If there were scientific certainty there would be no debate.

Indulge me. We are building a new jet liner which we must have because we “think” the current planes are ripping the ozone layer apart. (Implied urgency and threat). Our scientists and technicians are undecided but we “must” make a political commitment to a solution. We have made available to the public, as many “interpretations” of the data as possible hoping that the public, media, academia and intelligentsia will support whatever policy decisions governments might make. Our main problems are the lift/drag coefficient algorithms for the airframe profile and the thrust modeling for the exit vectors on the power units. There is some “scientific” consensus on the issues but nothing is proven.

What would you do?

(Continued)

(Continued)

Q&A,

<< . Computers operate in binary mode (on/off) and this alone explains why ‘artificial intelligence’ is so difficult to achieve>>.

Not so, “Computers” are a composite of (from the top down) human interface (GUI), applications, operating system, driver routines, OSI Stack, POPS Interpretive, Instruction set (machine code) and the processor. The processor is the only component that is binary, it can only “add”, “subtract” or “compare”, nothing else. It’s logic and intelligence is driven by hard wired “Boolean algebra”, very fast and very powerful, nothing whatsoever to do with (AI) artificial intelligence. AI is an “application” whose logic derives from algorithms written by “Quant’s”. Far from being “difficult to achieve” AI is the most prolific application today, its in your car, washing machine, DVD player, Mobile phone, iPod and hundreds of appliances. The most sophisticated and intense, non-military AI applications are in “games and simulator” software. It’s back to school for you my boy.

Your second post May 25.

I’ve addressed my concerns about “assumption closes” in earlier posts. Your response is seeded with assumption closes that AGW is “the” definitive problem. Everything after that assumption is so what do we do about it?. This is also the case in the MIT Sloan lecture by John Sterman.

<< Addressing the issues of AGW>>, <<tackle the problems of AGW>>, <<, they accept the science of AGW>>, << They are even now accepting (and negotiating)….>>.

Your case is clearly that you believe AGW “Is”. To others AGW “Is not”.

Isn’t it interesting, everyone seems to have a view on the science but nobody is interested in looking at how we have arrived at the impasse?

Looking forward to your response to the nine points.

Now I too am out of ammo.

tbc