At the moment the left seems to be getting a lot of mileage through ring-craft alone. And one of the things we notice is the arbitrary hijacking of where the implicit burden of proof ought to be. Then they will use all their science and training in order to defend this high ground that they have captured for arbitrary reasons.
In the case of global warming, since CO2 based warming will lead to milder weather a priori, since CO2 makes plants grow faster, increases rainfall and gives the plants a greater productivity in their use of water (thus helping the world solve its allegedly impending fresh water crisis). Since CO2 is in fact THE LORD OF CREATION, is free airborne fertiliser, and is what plants breathe …..Since the natural tendency over the last 38 million and particularly the last 3 million years has been towards glaciation…… for all these reasons you would have to be quite daft to put the burden of proof where it currently stands.
So what is the relationship between A Priori and the Burden of proof? The burden of proof does not lie with he who wants to change things. That’s the exploiters chorus. Nor does it lie with he who goes against consensus. Because the iron law of persistent controversies is that the consensus must be somewhat wrong. The burden of proof, when it comes down to that (and it shouldn’t come down to that as often as it does) IS TO BE DETERMINED A PRIORI.
Yes it is true that inductive reasoning and a priori on their own cannot guarantee you the right answer. And its also true that once you know the right answer the a priori thinking can sound like the dumb guy and the dumber guy on ALAS…SMITH AND JONES.
But a priori is cost-effective, which only a tax-eating proffessor would look askance at, and it ought to direct the orchestra of other scientific methods that will give you the right answer or at the very least the best ‘default position’.
Here is a simple working model of the climate cribbed from an email I sent to someone expressing intense frustration at dumb scientists. I hope it allows people to have a sense of how these things work from which corrections and greater sophistication may be added:
We want to split this up into (a) the general situation and (b) the Cataclysmic event.
I think in general there would have to be a feedback situation like an old-fashioned thermostat. What you want is the extra energy that is accumulated in the equator to be sent to the poles via the ocean currents. Because if it isn’t you have the heat differential being sorted out through extreme weather events in the atmosphere.
The oceans can deal with the energy differential more efficiently then the atmosphere. But there is the issue of momentum.
Now with an increase of solar activity you are going to get a greater heat differential. But if the extra warming is due to more CO2 then there is going to be LESS differential and therefore less extreme weather events
But here we bring in the issue of momentum. The Gulf stream is currently about 20 times the Amazon in momentum. And that’s not going to change a whole lot quickly. But it will be the atmosphere that takes up the balance as it were if it changes and overshoots like all primitive feedback systems.
Now consider if we get CO2 based warming. There is less energy differential. So eventually the currents will slow a bit and if this overshoots then you might get periods where the atmosphere is a little bit more violent. But to my mind ON AVERAGE the greenhouse gas will have to cause milder conditions and a better planet to live on.
But here is the kicker:
The halting as opposed to any cyclic speeding up or slowing down of the Gulfstream was caused by a specific highly violent event that occurred over a few weeks or months . I mean it was a kinetic event.
You have one flow that’s going with the momentum of (lets say) 20 Amazons. It is warm salty water. Then in the other direction comes a deluge with considerably more momentum. This is cold fresh water . Pow. Lands straight on top of the Gulf Stream. There is no mystery to this. But it is from this event. Unrepeatable for another sixty thousand years at least, that these people are basing this warming equals cooling fantasy on????????
The world was very much iced over by 70 000 years ago. Then the ice oscillated backwards and forwards but hit its peak around 18,000 years ago. This was a horrid world with Australia one big anti-cyclonic system of dust storms like in Mad Max part 3.
But then the three Malinkovitch cycles came together and the melting began in earnest and continued pretty much in a straight line for 5000 years. Then about 13000 years ago Lake Aggassiz burst and stopped the Gulf Stream cold.
Here is where the momentum issue comes in. It took another thousand years before the Gulf Stream kicked off again. So according to my model you would expect a combination of violent weather and a return to colder conditions far from the equator. Which is what happened. The move to better conditions went backwards during that time. But if such an event happened you would want as much ice melted off as possible. So the warming is cooling scare is doubly foolish.
A) It can’t happen like it did 13000 years ago.
B) If it did we would be better off if we had already melted off all the ice.
There is another fact which shows that CO2 ought to be considered benign (actually highly benevolent) until proved otherwise. The contribution to warming of greenhouse gasses is logarithmic . So if X amount increases the air temperature 1 degree then you need 2X to increase it another degree 4X to up it one more degree 8X another and so forth.
But since water vapor dwarfs all other greenhouse gasses the heating effect is only going to be in the dry air. And most of the dry air is cold air. So what could be better? Its like these guys don’t want to give the Siberians an even break. Callous and no heart.
The other area where there is heating is just above the Troposphere. At the beginning of the stratosphere I think. About 8 to 14.5 kilometers up. It heats up there since this is where the greenhouse gasses are. But this doesn’t cause much heating at the ground level. Rather the extra energy spreads out like a blanket. BUT IT MELTS ALL THE ICE ON THE MOUNTAINS. So this is why the Snows of Kilimanjaro are melting. Nothing to panic about at all. But the science workers don’t explain this to people and it creates the impression that we are in real trouble. That we have some sort of runaway effect going.
Anyway you would have to double-check any matter of fact here since I’m just Joe Public trying to make sense of it via methods learned from economics and philosophy.
But it strikes me that what is needed here is Praexeology. These science workers just cannot deal with this field. Since they cannot get a handle on the whole system you would have to fall back on apriori reasoning. And since they don’t have a priori reasoning they are running about like scared nerds not even able to take a punt as to where the balance of risks lies.