New Buddha

In reply to #64. I believe I agree with you. As I would state it: Historical temperature records are non-replicable time series - and past results do not guarantee future returns. Climate science is largely concerned with discerning trends in the historical data by constructing models that parameterize the known cycles and forcings (solar insolation, aerosols, sunspot cycles, AMO, PDO, albedo, CO2 emissions, clouds, etc) to match the historical record. From this, future projections are made. Does this sound like a reasonable assessment of the science? I hope you don't think that I'm taking this post in baby-steps to spring some "irrefutable trap" on you (lol) - I'm trying to make sure that we have a shared vocabulary. This is very hard to do on forums. And I do appreciate your participation.

Do you agree with Rand's quotes that I posted regarding copyrights? If you replied to this already in a previous post, I apologize.

howardofski in #276 gave An example would be: homeowner contracts with roofer. Roofer does the work. Homeowner doesn't pay. Where is the force? The amount of force is small, but it is enough to keep roofer's money in homeowner's pocket so retaliatory force is justified to remove roofer's money from homeowner's pocket. It is Roofer's money because Roofer complied with the contract by doing the work. As an aside: Under our current laws, the Roofer would be allowed to file a Mechanic's Lien against the property and would actually acquire a security interest in the physical property. It would be legally recorded to the tile and not removed until payment was made. If the property were sold, the lien would accompany it. Been there, done that...

"It is an interesting thought regarding economics, though I certainly don't see a unique relationship with climate. I think the core thing that makes economics extra devilish is that you are trying to model the behaviors of economic actors who are fully sentient with a set of possible synaptic combinations that breaks math, such that the complexity of predicting their behavior in all circumstances can explode a bit (especially if they are self-aware you are studying them and seeking to game it, etc.)" Let's build on this. This is where all my previous posts were headed. Do you think that the problems with modeling climate are attributable to a lack of historical data, data quality an/or a lack of computational power? In a nut shell, I'm interested in your views on Determinism. Do you believe, that with enough knowledge of the existing conditions it would be possible to construct models of extreme (infinite?) precision? Would it be possible to construct models that could predict hundreds, even thousands of years into the future what the temperature anomaly will be?

From the Real Climate link in Post #44 "Recently, Cowtan & Way have shown that recent warming was underestimated in the HadCRUT data. After using satellite data and a smart statistical method to fill gaps in the network of weather stations, the global warming trend since 1998 is 0.12 degrees per decade – that is only a quarter less than the long-term trend of 0.16 degrees per decade measured since 1980. Awareness of this data gap is not new – Simmons et al. have shown already in 2010 that global warming is underestimated in the HadCRUT data, and we have discussed the Arctic data hole repeatedly since 2008 at RealClimate. NASA GISS has always filled the data gaps by interpolation, albeit with a simpler method, and accordingly the GISTEMP data show hardly a slowdown of warming. This "smart statistical method" to fill gaps is a fabrication of data where none exists. Whether it's biased towards hot or cold irrelevant to the fact that this is highly unusual in the practice of science. And the warming is occurring in a place where there are no temperature records..... And your reference to Tamino's extraction of forcing from historical temperature records to show "leftover warming" is an example of how data is routinely changed in climate science. This too, is highly unusual. And as an aside, Real Climate is run by Michael Mann of the hockey stick fame.

Temperature data are adjusted. This is not an accusation of fraud - it is just a fact. And I'm not implying that those making the adjustments are doing so with the intent to deceive. And in order to create a global temperature average, data is created by extrapolation from the sparse network of measuring stations to create a "grid". Again, this fact does not imply that it is done to deceive. And yes, in both instances, the major record keepers are starting to do a better of job of making the adjustment process more transparent. What I'm trying to address is that in climate science, the historical temperature data is of a different nature than data in the applied sciences (for example engineering and medical research). In the applied sciences replication (of data) and validation (of models) means something entirely different from replication and validation in climate science. Software Nerd can probably see where I'm headed with this: Climate science (both it's data and models) more closely resembles economics than the applied sciences.

@wax, I'm really trying to be civil here, but you are making it very difficult for me to do, because you are literally ranting in your replies. I mean, if you are getting so aggravated, why continue replying? I'm trying to move the conversation in the direction of the philosophy of science and the nature of knowledge, induction, probability, etc. If this is of no interest to you, or if you feel that you have nothing to learn because you already have an answer to everything, let me know and I'll quit posting. You are being unconscionably rude.

@wax This is in response to post #41 and what I touched upon in my bullet point where I stated that "the climate cannot be modeled". I'd like to build on that and have you respond to the following. Despite large advances in the quality of meteorological tools, the science is still incapable of making accurate forecasts beyond 5 days or so. The questions that I would like you to answer are: Why do you think this is? Will the science of meteorology ever advance to the point that accurate forecasts can be made for months and even years into to future? If so, how will this be accomplished? Better tools and computers? And If not, why not? edit for typo

Despite my better judgment, I'm going to jump back into this post. My first contribution had to do with copyrights - something which I deal with on a day to day basis, and am reasonably familiar with and, in fact, profit from. (And other than copyrights, I only touched briefly on Trademarks). In my ever to be humble opinion, a large problem with this post is that people tend to just discuss "IP" without specifying whether the IP in question is Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, Trade Dress etc. The "hypotheticals" are exactly that - way too hypothetical - and of no real value to the discussion. Despite the misgivings that many of us share about the intrusive nature of the State in our day-to-day lives, this does not mean that every law that is on the books is bad. IP laws developed for a reason, and it behooves us to understand their role before we just categorically branding them as "evil" and cast them aside. The following is from Rand's Lexicon, and the underlines are mine: An idea as such cannot be protected until it has been given a material form. An invention has to be embodied in a physical model before it can be patented; a story has to be written or printed. But what the patent or copyright protects is not the physical object as such, but the idea which it embodies. By forbidding an unauthorized reproduction of the object, the law declares, in effect, that the physical labor of copying is not the source of the object’s value, that that value is created by the originator of the idea and may not be used without his consent; thus the law establishes the property right of a mind to that which it has brought into existence. How this translates to every day life is that if someone were to steal the unpublished manuscript of Atlas Shrugged, and sell it to a publisher, it is accepted by everyone on this forum that Rand would have the right to restitution for the theft, but WITOUT COPYRIGHT LAWS the only monetary compensation she could recoup would be the market value of the paper. Without copyright laws, the value of the story has no protection. The same is true for Architecture. Drawings and Specifications can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce, but copies only $100 dollars. Taken to it's illogical extreme, imagine if someone were to go into a museum and deface a historical painting. Sure, you could demand restitution for the destruction of property, but being true to the anti-IP mentality, the only thing the criminal would have to compensate the museum for is the cost of the frame, canvas and paint. We live in a complex society, and ideas of ownership, value and property cannot just easily be reduced to material costs. In fact, the value of materials is itself an issue equally as complex as IP. We are not concrete-bound animals. Value is conceptual, and should be treated as such.

@wax "The sum of all this looking at many different lines of evidence has produced a range of estimates from 1.5 to 4.5 "warming per doubling" for awhile now, which is the offiical IPCC sensitivity assessment." The 1.5 to 4.5 increase that that you are referring to is actually an increase to the global temperature anomaly, relative to a base line temperature, correct? And not an absolute temperature change. And you say that it's been the official IPCC estimate "for awhile now" - which is not actually the case at all. From the 2007 AR4: "It is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantial higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values. And from the just released AR5: "Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)16. The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing. And they added the footnote: "No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies." And as an aside, even you have to admit that it's funny that for years climate skeptics were decrying that the 1998 el Nino spike was unduly inflating the perceived temperature increase, and now the alarmist are saying that the1998 el Nino spike unduly deflates the perceived temperature decline.

I'll try and keep this brief, but below is an outline of how I came to rejection the notion of CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming). Until climategate I believed AGW was real. In my business (Architecture) I have a great deal to gain if cap and trade limits are set. Buildings that need to be designed with a zero-carbon footprint are expensive, and typically fees are based on a percentage of construction costs. (Architects really cleaned up on ADA legislation). However with the release of the climategate emails, I very innocently began looking into the matter. Here's a brief outline of what lead me to change my mind: The historical temperature data upon which the models are built is of horrible quality. No engineering or medical professional would ever be allowed to use data of such poor quality. The observational error of the instrumentation actually exceeds the claimed global temperature anomaly observed in the last 150 years. The degree of claimed precision exceeds that of the instrumentation. The data is routinely “adjusted” or “homogenized” in an attempt to try and account for urban encroachment, time of date observation changes, station relocation, instrumentation changes, etc. YOU CANNOT DO THIS. No other profession is allowed to change data. Could you imagine engineers or doctors changing data? Not only would they loose their license and professional liability insurance but they could be held criminally accountable as well. In addition to changing data, DATA IS MADE UP. Since there is no blanket, global instrumentation coverage of the planet, the only way that you can reach an averaged global temperature anomaly is through extrapolation or “gridding” the data. And once again, no other profession would EVER be allowed to do this. The whole notion of trying to create a global temperature anomaly set against an arbitrarily established base line is both misleading and meaningless. Historical temperature “data” is not “data” because it cannot be replicated. When a structural engineer designs a building, he does so based on data which can be replicated by any laboratory in the world. The strengths of materials and the validation of models is determined by empirical tests. Both the fabrication of materials and the validation of the models follow very carefully prescribed and transparent industry standards that are well documented. None of this happens in climate science because because the climate itself cannot be modeled. What climate science calls a “model” is unique to the climate science profession. And I don't even want to get going on proxy data....

Since you are sticking around and engaging in an extended conversation, I'll try and throttle any sarcasm that rears it's ugly head. Your use of the term "a priori" leads me to believe that you truly have no real understanding of the philosophy of Objectivism, since Objectivist reject any notion that knowledge is "a priori". Simillarly it doesn't make much sense that you perceived your "pro-science" and "pro-reason" stance to be in conflict with Objectivism. I mean, you do realize that the hero's in Rand fictional novels were, almost uniformly, inventors, engineers and scientist - and that Objectivism formally endorses atheism? Also Rand roughly traces her philosophical roots back through Aquinas and Aristotle - and that it was precisely her advocacy of Reason that caused Objectivism to be rejected by the main-stream logical positivists that dominated the Universities during her time. And to just touch briefly on the "conservative" issue. Typically Objectivist are accused of being borderline anarchist - so it's slightly amusing that you would see us "conservative". If you hang around this blog long enough you'll see that the biggest pissing matches are Objectivist vs. Libertarian vs. Minarchist vs. Anarchist, etc. About the only people who accuse Objectivist of being conservative are Anarchist. I'd like to also address in another post why it appears that the stance on AGW seems to fall along "party lines". It does do so, but not for the reasons that you and most others might think.

Moving on, Howard. I should have dropped this discussion on your response #205. In my book, your views are parasitical. I can't imagine that anything will come of further discussions.

See post 261.

@wax, I find it amusing that, in the same post, you make these statements: "....questions of science that force a choice between political ideology and scientific reasoning, and the reasons why science is so consistently and quickly rejected in the face of such contradictions..." and "....I was young, and essentially disappointed to learn that "objectivism" in practice is essentially another name for conservatism." So you rejected Objectivism because it conflicted with your young, pre-held, anti-conservative political ideological bias? lol You didn't reject it because you disagreed with Objectivism's stance on the contextual nature of essence? Or because of it's position on universals or induction or concept formation or the validity of the senses? Or how it applies these positions to political and economic ends? But rather, because it didn't conform to your pre-held political ideology? And we're ideologically driven?

Howard, As near as I can tell, if you stole the unpublished manuscript of Atlas Shrugged, and sold it to a Publisher, you would agree that Rand would have the right to take you to court, but only for the $10 or so value of the paper that the manuscript was printed on?

I had thought that our respective positions on copyright were well understood. Since that seems to not be the case.... It is moral for an architect to be able to assign copyright protection to the drawings and specifications that he produces, in order to prohibit their unauthorized use in the construction of a building. I do not concede your notion that copyrights are an unethical abuse of State power, or that they in some way constitute an initiation of force, either explicit or implied.

I didn't use the term psychobabble. I'm truly interested in your position. Is my example of franchising an accurate depiction of your position? That the government protection of trademarks is immoral and a Statist abuse of power? Added, I'm not BS'ing you. I'm trying to understand the full implications of your position as it would apply to the current economic system.

I don't see much point in continuing this debate. Your convinced that the unauthorized use/reproduction of patents, trademarks and copyright protected material is moral and should not be prohibited by law. I disagree. Here's another example. Suppose that you wanted to open a coffee house. You could, in your world, open a Starbucks without paying a franchise fee. You could recreate the signs, call your business Starbucks, use the same logos, cups, call your coffee "Starbucks" coffee, etc. and this would be moral. Starbucks cannot prohibit your use of the Starbucks brand, because this is IP and not real property and to do so would be a use of force against you. This is the same for Levi's Jeans, Nike shoes, etc. Brands cannot be protected by law.

Your statement assumes that a violation of my copyrights is not theft. I hold that a violation of my copyrights is theft, and therefore it's moral for me to seek a way to prevent you from doing so. That's the point on which we disagree, not whether the use of force is moral to protect life, liberty and property (IP or Real property).

@waxliberty Lol, I've been following the climate blogs for over 5 years now, and I can smell "talking points" from a mile away. 2 posts, both climate related.....

While I don't agree with you, I appreciate that you answered this is a very straight forward way.

@howard, If an recording artist produces an album, in your opinion, there is nothing that should prevent you from making multiple copies and selling them a fraction of the price? If an author (JK Rowling) writes a novel, there is nothing that should prevent you from making copies and selling at a reduced price?

The issue of secrecy has nothing to do with the argument (not sure where that came in). The issue is Ownership of a design/drawing. Suppose I spend $600,000 dollars developing a complete set of drawings and specifications for a building. The whole ball of wax. Architectural, Civil, Structural, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical. In your world, there would be nothing that could prevent someone making a copy of the drawings/specifications and building from it without compensating me? My company and my consultants would have no protection under the law?

Much of the discussion of IP in this thread seems to be along the lines of "Life Boat Rules" in which questions of ownership are unclear or in dispute. We do live in a society which has enacted fairly objective laws which govern such things as trademarks, patents, copyright, etc. Real life disputes, which do happen, are the exception and not the norm. There are some outliers, but these are (just a wild ass guess) far less than 1%? But for the most part, issues of IP ownership are resolved fairly equitably. Here's an example from everyday life. In my profession, architecture, it's not uncommon for a company (say Nike) to approach and architectural firm to develop a new concept for a store design. The copyright of the design and drawings is negotiated by the two parties and reflected in the fees. If the design is to be used one-time then the fee is 'X', if the design is to be used multiple times by the client, then the fee is 'Y'. The ownership of the design and the drawings is negotiated upfront. I have been in a dispute where the client did not realize that he did not own the design, and after paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in design fees, woke up to that reality when he requested that the CAD files be sent to another company. The issue was resolved, in part by the long-term relationship that existed with the client and with the expectation of further work. It was a sticky situation, but it was resolved. Howardofsky, do you have specific examples where the law should be changed? Where people are demonstrably incurring a disadvantage by the present rules?