tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post6702732539251833697..comments2024-03-02T02:26:00.928-05:00Comments on bleakonomy: Is belief in God a disqualification for heading the NIH?tetracontadigonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04604381739383227553noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-54420752665732631612009-07-29T16:12:16.104-04:002009-07-29T16:12:16.104-04:00No, I'm not kidding. To be taken seriously (b...No, I'm not kidding. To be taken seriously (by me, at any rate) a model has to predict behaviors that occur and not predict behaviors that do not occur. A weaker requirement is that a model be able to retrodict behavior. To date, GCMs are, to the best of my knowledge, unable to retrodict climate behavior for more than a couple of decades, and are unable to predict climate behaviors. For example, none of the climate models predicted the current pause in warming, and as far as I am aware, no GCM manages to redtodict the rapid warming of the early 20th century. Until the models start predicting, accurately, observed temps, they can't be taken as confirming doom.<br /><br />And, please note that model verification is an entirely separate question from establishing a causal relationship from CO2 level to global temp (which is assumed in the models). The two are clearly correlated, but historical data shows that CO2 buildup lags global temp increases by anywhere from decades to hundreds of years. I'd need a convincing aargument as to why CO2 lags temps in the past, but the relationship in the modern atmosphere is reversed before I'll put a lot of trust in the GCM results (absent a couple of decades of statistically significant predictions from the GCMs).Gadfly Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-3868357033194254022009-07-29T12:19:41.905-04:002009-07-29T12:19:41.905-04:00John,
What! Falls far short? You are kidding ri...John,<br /><br />What! Falls far short? You are kidding right? <br /><br />JackAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-71529692430858474052009-07-29T08:48:02.228-04:002009-07-29T08:48:02.228-04:00Jim, if one "religious" Congressman show...Jim, if one "religious" Congressman shows ignorance of Biblical hermeneutics (or more likely panders for votes), it doesn't mean all believers must hold the same view. But you knew that, right?<br /><br />As for AGW (plain old GW being pretty well established), never fear. We are, today, about 5% of highest CO2 levels in earth's history, and life obviously survived -- in fact thrived -- those levels. Also, we have no observational evidence that CO2 is the driver of the current warming, but rather the claims of sophisticated models which are not yet sophisticated enough to predict important effects such as global cloud cover. We have observational evidence that the current models predict effects which are absent. In short, IMVHO, while the modelling is interesting, it falls far short of confirming doom. Sleep well at night.Gadfly Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-1905402002353479862009-07-28T05:59:47.620-04:002009-07-28T05:59:47.620-04:00Dr. Collins should feel right at home with another...Dr. Collins should feel right at home with another sincere man, Congressman John Shimkus (R) IL. As a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee listening to testimony in April concerning global warming, whipped out the bible and quoted from Genesis, "Never again will I destroy all living creatures as I have done," read Shimkus. "I believe that's the infallible word of God and that's the way it's going to be for his creation... The earth will end only when God declares its time is over." Well then, the science is settled. How in the Hell do I sleep at night?<br /><br />JimAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-16229497581237048972009-07-27T15:03:25.958-04:002009-07-27T15:03:25.958-04:00I too agree that I am a sophisticated robin. But ...I too agree that I am a sophisticated robin. But I run into definition problems when I start talking about emotions and reality. Sure, my brainstates are physically real, and we're on firm ground asserting that certain brainstates correspond to, for example, pleasurable goals that have been hardwired into our brains by evolutionary pressures. OK, so far, so good (and quite reductionist). How do I make the leap from "my brain is engineered to exhibit compassion for genetically close children" to "I love my child" without reducing love to mean Nothing But "activation of a set of brainstates?" It isn't clear to me that I just mean brainstates when I talk about Love, or Beauty, or Truth, or truth, or Right and Wrong.Gadfly Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-30210624966357161922009-07-27T11:50:19.632-04:002009-07-27T11:50:19.632-04:00I'll be happy to post more on morality (specif...I'll be happy to post more on morality (specifically, as you seem to request, metaethics) in the future!<br /><br />In response to your last question, I would agree with someone who said that I am just a sophisticated variant of that robin! (And sometimes not all that much more sophisticated). I just disagree that that means my love isn't real, or that I am hoodwinked.Elizabethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09953173396955681485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-70609902682489320632009-07-27T11:21:28.278-04:002009-07-27T11:21:28.278-04:00Elizabeth, I'd be quite interested in a post o...Elizabeth, I'd be quite interested in a post or three from you on the topic of right and wrong and how they came to be. Bonus points if you address how the various formulations of what is right and wrong can be objectively ranked.<br /><br />As you observe, the atheist falls into an easy reductionism as well as the devout. It is hard to find the road between irrational wistful thinking and a dismissive appeal to Nothing-Buttery argument (love is nothing but neurochemical reactions shaped solely by our evolutionary history, and so forth).<br /><br />In particular, while your love may be quite real and powerful to you, what do you say to someone who observes that you really are just a sophisticated variant of a robin setting on an egg while feeling the egg is just the most wonderful thing in the world?Gadfly Johnnoreply@blogger.com