If I want to stop relying on the testimony of experts, I will have to go for a PhD. Maybe after I did that, I would conclude that there really is some vast conspiracy afoot, or at least that the consensus is mistaken. As of now, if I thought myself qualified to make such a claim, I’d be foolish.
[/quote]
I agree with you that laymen need to be able to rely on experts, but the experts I like to rely on can generally withstand heavy cross-examination by skilled examiners prepped by competing experts. I would really like to see some cross-examination with prep from the best experts from both sides and see where things sit after a few weeks of testimony. Some of the things Aragorn is posting are giving me some pause before blindly accepting the consensus; I’d feel better about accepting the consensus after I saw how the best weathered a direct assault.
[/quote]
Yeah, listen I’m not running down the street shouting about the end of the world here, and of course I’d like to see what you mention above. But I cannot, on the totality of the available, credentialed testimony, say anything other than that I know that the climate is changing, and I think humans are contributing to that change.
…And what I certainly can’t do is accept nonsense about “pseudoscience” and “logic” launched–by people, mind you, who are not within a hundred thousand miles of being educated or employed in even a peripherally scientific capacity–at what is without doubt the present consensus of the scientific community.
Allowing people with ulterior motives to redistribute wealth between nations, institute reproductive programs, and etc. to deal with the problems exactly how they wish (lots of progressive issues crammed in environmental law/regs.) . “You can’t get this green money until you allow/do this.” And you’ll be ‘holding the line’ while big business, and city and state governments have already left you behind.
Read the Earth Charter. At first you might be like “ok, not too crazy”…And, then, boom! Major mission creep. Pure, unadulterated, economic/social progressiveness starts flooding into what should be a tightly focused document. Environmental literature turning quickly into a DNC pamphlet.
These guys will have singular, unopposed, political power on the issue because the GoP will have handed it to them. And with that power will come all the mission creep (social/economic issues) that can be shoe-horned under the Climate Change/environmental umbrella.
You should look into actually came to light, because it isn’t a tenth as damning as you think it is. Yes, I know that you can link me to some hysterical critic who will yell about the word “trick” without explaining what exactly the word meant and why it was said. I’m not interested. I’ve read through it and it’s weak.
[/quote]
Of course you’re not interested. It runs contrary to your religion.
Past predictions are entirely relevant as the same people and bodies are making similar predictions today. If I claimed in 1993 that the earth’s temperature was going to rapidly increase over the next 20 years and it failed to do so you would be right to be sceptical of any future predictions I made. If I claimed in 2007 that polar ice caps would be gone by 2013 and then they increased by 50% you would be right to be sceptical. Especially if I then claimed that their increase was due to global warming.
That quote is a criticism of the unsubstantiated alarmism in the report you linked to.
If I want to stop relying on the testimony of experts, I will have to go for a PhD. Maybe after I did that, I would conclude that there really is some vast conspiracy afoot, or at least that the consensus is mistaken. As of now, if I thought myself qualified to make such a claim, I’d be foolish.
[/quote]
I agree with you that laymen need to be able to rely on experts, but the experts I like to rely on can generally withstand heavy cross-examination by skilled examiners prepped by competing experts. I would really like to see some cross-examination with prep from the best experts from both sides and see where things sit after a few weeks of testimony. Some of the things Aragorn is posting are giving me some pause before blindly accepting the consensus; I’d feel better about accepting the consensus after I saw how the best weathered a direct assault.
[/quote]
Yeah, listen I’m not running down the street shouting about the end of the world here, and of course I’d like to see what you mention above. But I cannot, on the totality of the available, credentialed testimony, say anything other than that I know that the climate is changing, and I think humans are responsible.
…And what I certainly can’t do is accept nonsense about “pseudoscience” and “logic” launched–by people, mind you, who are not within a hundred thousand miles of being educated or employed in even a peripherally scientific capacity–at what is without doubt the present consensus of the scientific community.[/quote]
All I’m saying is that my ears perk up a bit when Aragon posts because he does represent to have some pretty good credentials. I would love to watch a few weeks of real honest-to-god combat in a courtroom over the issue to see where things shake out. Brutal cross forces experts to retreat to only what is defensible or they get ripped to shreds; it would be interesting to see how the best hold up live in a trial setting.
All I’m saying is that my ears perk up a bit when Aragon posts …
[/quote]
Oh me too.
I haven’t been following along much, by the way, but I’m pretty sure it was in this exact thread that I asked him about his views straight-up, and he responded that the climate is changing and he is inclined to believe that man is contributing.
I know he doesn’t subscribe to the hysterics–neither do I–but I also know that, if there is one credentialed observer hereabouts, he falls, very broadly, into the same camp as do I.
You should look into actually came to light, because it isn’t a tenth as damning as you think it is. Yes, I know that you can link me to some hysterical critic who will yell about the word “trick” without explaining what exactly the word meant and why it was said. I’m not interested. I’ve read through it and it’s weak.
[/quote]
Of course you’re not interested. It runs contrary to your religion.[/quote]
It runs contrary to reality. The picking of phrases out of context in order to overblow them is too obvious an act of sophism to merit time-consuming refutation. Besides, even if you proved that a handful of climatologists were bad scientists, would you be logically proving your thesis here? Would you be successful in denying or invalidating the consensus I’ve shown? No, not remotely.
But you and I are not talking about predictions. We are talking about the overwhelming consensus as it relates to the evidence for what is, not predictions about what might be.
I linked to many reports and they proved my contention about the consensus. I’m not making any sweeping claims or predictions here. I am observing reality.
Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors? claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world?s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism. - Forbes
My larger point is about a certain kind of fallacious argumentation that seems to be enjoying an unsettling amount of favor lately. It goes like this:
“Most scientists say X, but they are wrong. You want me to prove it? Here is a scientist, and he says ~X.” For example, a debate about evolution will feature a Creationist calling the best scientists on Earth “psuedoscientists” or “religious acolytes” while at the same time offering up isolated and cherry-picked instances of specific, dated, and (almost always) heavily-criticized scientific work, so long as that work–regardless of its quality–supports his claims.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors? claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world?s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism. - Forbes
See, you already questioned that study, and I agreed with your criticism and discarded it. I linked to several more, and offered a graphic representation of a number of peer-reviewed studies that were conducted by actual scholars.
Now, I have proved my contention with regard to consensus. What remains is for you to simply say “I don’t care about consensus.” At which point, I suppose the whole things ends.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors? claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world?s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism. - Forbes
And how do you know that the person who claims that the consensus was doctored isn’t doing some doctoring toward their own side with the percentage figure?
You don’t. You’ve just found a narrative that agrees with your world view closely enough to hang your hat on and say “HA! See? I know something!” when in fact, you don’t know fuck all about virtually anything.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Dr. Leslie Woodcock, emeritus professor at the University of Manchester (UK) School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, is a former NASA scientist along with other impressive accomplishments on his distinguished professional resume…[/quote]
If appeals to authority are going to stand as evidence here, you are going to lose, in both quantity and quality.[/quote]
How 'bout appeals to logic?[/quote]
It would be nice to see one.[/quote]
He that hath eyes let him see.[/quote]
Look I’m not painting doomsday signs here.
I am making this point (which I have substantiated where substantiation was necessary): If you are going to appeal to scientists who deny anthopogenic climate change, you are guilty of special pleading unless you prove that there is some reason to discard the testimony and findings of the vastly greater body of scientists–and we are talking about men and women of the highest credential–who affirm anthropogenic climate change.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors? claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world?s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism. - Forbes
See, you already questioned that study, and I agreed with your criticism and discarded it. I linked to several more, and offered a graphic representation of a number of peer-reviewed studies that were conducted by actual scholars.
Now, I have proved my contention with regard to consensus. What remains is for you to simply say “I don’t care about consensus.” At which point, I suppose the whole things ends.[/quote]
I’m interested in facts. And the fact is a huge number of scientists say they don’t know if anthropogenic climate change is having a significant effect on global temperatures. Additionally the entire field of climate science relies on government funding. It’s not surprising that they’re not all eager to talk themselves and their colleagues out of a job. If anthropogenic climate change is not significant then their entire careers have been wasted, their hypotheses wrong and their jobs redundant. They’re the modern day flat earthers.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors? claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world?s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism. - Forbes
And how do you know that the person who claims that the consensus was doctored isn’t doing some doctoring toward their own side with the percentage figure?
You don’t. You’ve just found a narrative that agrees with your world view closely enough to hang your hat on and say “HA! See? I know something!” when in fact, you don’t know fuck all about virtually anything.
Not that anybody else does either though.
[/quote]
Because I looked into the claims made by the journalist and the survey methods used by the alarmists. In fact if you had read the article you’d see the author explains in simple terms what’s wrong with the survey and why.
[quote]
And the fact is a huge number of scientists say they don’t know if anthropogenic climate change is having a significant effect on global temperatures. [/quote]
Means very little to me. “A huge number”? What is this number? Should we be doing our thinking in soft, wishy-washy terms like these, or should we be doing our thinking in terms of hard numbers. You have done a good job of questioning one study. Though the criticism you linked to has serious problems–(e.g., if the handful of questionable calls made in the original study and identified in your criticism were to be reversed, what would that leave us with, 96 percent? 95? Does that help your cause at all?)–I agree with you that it is weak enough that we should discard it. Consider it discarded.
Now note that I cited a handful of other studies, and those were conducted by scholars and published in peer-reviewed journals.
Take a look at that picture again. Yep, it came from Wikipedia, but the information it represents was drawn from a series of peer-reviewed studies into the consensus on climate change. There is only one conclusion that can be drawn, and it is mine.
(Actually, it really isn’t, “huge number” being subjective, but lets pretend it is for now.)
What evidence do you have of it? It should certainly be reputable and peer-reviewed, as my evidence is. What constitutes “a huge number”? Forty percent of climatologists? Fifty? Can you prove to me, in direct refutation of the evidence I’ve already offered, that numbers like these exist? How about for scientific societies?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
In other words, this is a claim of fact:
(Actually, it really isn’t, “huge number” being subjective, but lets pretend it is for now.)
What evidence do you have of it? It should certainly be reputable and peer-reviewed, as my evidence is. What constitutes “a huge number”? Forty percent of climatologists? Fifty? Can you prove to me, in direct refutation of the evidence I’ve already offered, that numbers like these exist? How about for scientific societies?[/quote]
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University…
Catastrophic effects in 50-100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.