Martin Cohen sent me an email with a series of links that all look at global warming alarmism as a phenomenon.
In defence of scepticism
By Martin Cohen, editor of the Philosopher
Climate Hysterians have been redoubling their efforts to portray the debate as one between a few cranks (especailly right-wing ones) and ‘scientists’, whereas the truth is very different. Here, for example, are just four recent substantial articles challenging climate change science, from a neutral or ‘philosophy of science’ perspective.
1. Professor John David Lewis of Duke University, USA, has challenged many of the claims made by proponents of man-made climate change theory, in an article in the prestigious journal Social Philosophy and Policy (Volume 26 No. 2 Summer 2009), saying: ‘Those predicting environmental disasters today focus on particular issues in order to magnify the gravity of their general claims, and they push those issues until challenges make them untenable. Rhetorical skill and not logical argument has become the standard of success.’
2. In a separate review article, published in the Times Higher on the 03 December 2008, Professor Gwyn Prins, the director of the Mackinder Programme for the Study of Long Wave Events at the London School of Economics, says that the ‘principle product of recent science is to confirm that we know less, less conclusively – not more, more conclusively – about the greatest open systems on the planet’, and goes on to predict that for this reason, the ‘Kyoto Flyer’ is about to hit the buffers at Copenhagen.
3. Professor Mike Hulme’s defence of scepticism in the December Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574571613215771336.html
4. And (last but not least!) my own feature article ‘Beyond Debate?’, is in the current (10 December 2009, and not on the website, timeshighereducation.co.uk until that date – but well worth a look!) issue of the scuprlously neutral Times Higher Education. None of these accounts are motivated by either improper influence or a right-wing agenda. As my article explains, climate change lobbyists such as Al Gore (and now Gordon Brown!) are:
* Using images, such as the polar bears supposedly trapped on a melting iceberg, ships in a dried up sea as crude propaganda to appeal to people?s fears rather than their reason.
* Presenting irrelevant ‘data’, such as unusual weather events of high summertime temperatures, as though these were connected to the main climate change hypotheses, of carbon dioxide trapping heat, even though this theory in fact only concerns night-time temperatures. All these articles point out that the supposed causal link between carbon dioxide levels and temperatures has no historical basis, and relies instead on computer models that have been shown to be unreliable and misleading. It says that if, for those at, the Copenhagen summit, the idea of manmade global warming is incontrovertible, the consensus is less a triumph of science and rationality than of PR and fear- mongering.
The full text is at:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=409454&c=2
“It might be due to the pursuit of government funding, which appears (clearly in the CRU emails) politically ‘policy’ driven.”
Wally, didn’t I predict that government and money would come up?
Waldo,
YOur deliberate obtusenbess in pretending that government and money is not a relevant factor in this is simply ignorant on your part. Pretending that you predicted someone would bring up money, when every AGW promo site, and book stores shelves are lined with, writing about how skeptics are cynically funded by a vast conspiracy is silliness on your part.
The problem with being a polite troll is you are still a troll:
Shallow, unserious, dissembling, deceptive and wrong.
Waldo,
The anonymous poster above pointed out the issue with your “analogy.” What you’re effectively doing is saying that a select few established climate scientists have monopoly on evaluating climate research. I suppose for someone who doesn’t trust their own abilities to critically evaluate a scientific argument, that response makes sense. However, for those of us with a scientific background, it sounds asinine. To change your analogy to be more accurate of the situation, you’re saying an ER doctor can’t evaluate the work of surgeon. You see, all sciences, and even other analytical fields such as econ, are sufficiently similar that the tools that make one a biologist or economist, allow you to evaluate the work of other fields, with the caveat that you’ve caught up on the back ground. You even recently stated that an economist, who is in the business of looking for patterns, is well suited for infectious disease modelings. That is a pretty accurate statement. So, what of climate modeling? Is that not also looking for patterns? I’m just not sure how you can have it both ways. Either we can apply our tools to multiple fields or we can’t. Unless you want to say that econ and epidemics are more similar than econ and the climate?
-“It might be due to the pursuit of government funding, which appears (clearly in the CRU emails) politically ‘policy’ driven.”
-“Wally, didn’t I predict that government and money would come up?”
Nice that you predicted it and all, but its part of the argument. Predicting it would come up doesn’t prove we should ignore it, or that it isn’t a valid argument. Just as predicting people will say you’re just using an appeal to authority, insulate you from criticism from using an appeal to authority. I mean seriously? How about I say this: I know you’re just going to claim this is an ad hominem attack, but you’re so stupid that no one should listen to what you say, ever for anything. There, since I’ve predicted your normally valid argument against me, you can’t use it, we have to discuss your intelligence and you have to prove your smart enough to talk to.
To say “The argument by non-scientists against AGW is fundamentally the same as non-doctors playing doctor” isn’t an “analogy”, it’s “simply” confusing the issues. The issue of purported Global Warming is a scientific one. But all policy in response (or rejection) of any aspect of that are Policy questions, political, and hence absolutely NOT the domain of ‘experts’ or cliques of any kind, but the proper domain of citizens, regardless of credentials, professions or what-have-you. In questioning Policy reactions, if any, to such scientific theory, there is no privileged class (unless, of course as always, and properly, it be wealth). In such discussions scientists have very correctly no special standing whatsoever and appeals to such are mere sophistry and deceitful.
Wally said:
You see, all sciences, and even other analytical fields such as econ, are sufficiently similar that the tools that make one a biologist or economist, allow you to evaluate the work of other fields, with the caveat that you’ve caught up on the back ground.
— Not buying this. Sure, some of the shared skills would allow for some evaluation, but not enough to put you all on a level playing field. A climate scientist prob. knows best about climate science, as an astrophysicist prob. knows best about that stuff. Otherwise what would be the point of peer-reviewed journals, using peers from the relevant field?
Anyway, I think this arg. is getting nowhere. Might I suggest a kind of loose return to first principles. Then you can pinpoint the contentious issues without having to go over all these insignificant accusations.
@ ADiff
What are you talking about re. science vs policy? Maybe I’m missing the context here but most of what is been discussed here is science and reason. No one here is asking policy questions. And even if we were, you do know that gov’ts have advisors and some of them are actually experts in a given field. That is because most reasonable gov’ts want to make informed decisions on issues. Makes sense.
Do you think the issue of whether to accept or deny AGW should be left up to democratic vote?
Maybe I’m not getting you…
And I think Waldo’s analogy still holds.
Wally said:
‘What you’re effectively doing is saying that a select few established climate scientists have monopoly on evaluating climate research.’
The analogy says nothing about a ‘select few’.
“What you’re effectively doing is saying that a select few established climate scientists have monopoly on evaluating climate research.”
Nope. Just that we should listen to them because they are established climate scientists.
“I know you’re just going to claim this is an ad hominem attack, but you’re so stupid that no one should listen to what you say, ever for anything.”
Yup. Ad hominem attack. Usually these come up much earlier. I thought perhaps this board was above that but you, Wally, just proved me wrong. I usually figure that the ad hominem attack comes after someone is unable to shout someone else down, and I guess that’s the case. Sorry that I frustrate you but it’s your problem. Sticks and stones anyway.
And I have to agree with Shills here. I don’t buy your contention, Wally, that any old science training qualifies you to work in any old field you want to. This is so silly, in fact, I think its reasoning speaks for itself.
“this arg. is getting nowhere. Might I suggest a kind of loose return to first principles. Then you can pinpoint the contentious issues without having to go over all these insignificant accusations.”
Smartest thing said on this board yet.
Shills,
“Not buying this. Sure, some of the shared skills would allow for some evaluation, but not enough to put you all on a level playing field. A climate scientist prob. knows best about climate science, as an astrophysicist prob. knows best about that stuff. Otherwise what would be the point of peer-reviewed journals, using peers from the relevant field?”
Oh, sure to certain degree scientists in a given field know best, but that doesn’t exclude other scientists out side of that field from critiquing or expanding on that field, which was my point. For instance, I was a Microbio and Physics major in my undergrad, I’m currently in a Ph.D. program at some cross roads between developmental biology and math. I’ve never had a development class, nor was I math major. But I picked it up as my interests carried me. My undergrad and graduate training, besides giving me plenty of area specific background knowledge in areas I will soon forget, has given me the tools to be a good scientist above all else. I can always brush up on the specifics or desired methods for a field given enough time. I believe an intelligent, well trained scientist could equip himself to be a so called “expert” in any scientific field given maybe 1-2 years of hard work. And at the drop of a hat that scientist could at least critique a given research paper to determine if it’s following the most basic scientific principles, which it has become obvious that several prominent figures surrounding AGW have not been doing.
“Anyway, I think this arg. is getting nowhere. Might I suggest a kind of loose return to first principles. Then you can pinpoint the contentious issues without having to go over all these insignificant accusations.”
After all that, yes, agreed.
“Nope. Just that we should listen to them because they are established climate scientists. ”
What about climate scientists that don’t meet some sort of “established” threshold? Like say a post doc?
But to not misrepresent you, so you’re saying we should base public policy on established climate scientists?
“Yup. Ad hominem attack. Usually these come up much earlier. I thought perhaps this board was above that but you, Wally, just proved me wrong.”
Sadly you did not understand that my point there was not to insult you, but to point out the irrelevance of predicting that someone will point out your fallacious argument. I do not actually believe you are stupid. You are, however, terribly misguided on this issue of defaulting to the “established” scientist(s).
“Wally, that any old science training qualifies you to work in any old field you want to. This is so silly, in fact, I think its reasoning speaks for itself.”
You’re building strawmen, sir. I didn’t say any science training alone qualifies you to work in any field….try again.
“What about climate scientists that don’t meet some sort of ‘established’ threshold? Like say a post doc?”
I guess I would say I would take an IPCC-employed scientist over a post-doc over an ABD in climate science over an MA candidate over an undergraduate physics major over Brad Pitt over Mike Tyson over a hotdog vendor in Central Park over a coma patient…
But here is where the debate has derailed. We are now splitting hairs and playing rhetorical ping-pong rather badly.
I will try to say it as simple as I can.
Suppose tomorrow we wake up and see that all of the world’s best mathematicians declare that from now on 2*2 should equal 5, and all the math that we use should be adjusted for this new fact. Waldo says we should listen to them and we all would. But what would be different between Waldo and some of the other people here is that Waldo would listen, accept and get busy redoing the traditional math as we know it, while other people would listen, analyze, find that 2*2 does not after all equal 5, and concentrate their efforts on checking what exactly is it that made our very best mathematicians go insane.
That’s what is meant by having to think for yourself and that’s what’s going on in the debate on catastrophic AGW.
Waldo,
By any other name, yer still a Troll.
Waldo,
It takes two to play pingpong, and you are the one, according to the consensus here, who is unable to play.
Waldo,
“But here is where the debate has derailed. We are now splitting hairs and playing rhetorical ping-pong rather badly.”
That’s generally what tends to happen when someone can’t give up a fallacous argument. Either someone points out the appeal to authority, and you stop, or you keep it up and we diverge on the red herring of explaining why you shouldn’t use that argument. So, in short, if you want a better debate, make an argument without such an obvious logical fallacy.
“I guess I would say I would take an IPCC-employed scientist over a post-doc over an ABD in climate science over an MA candidate over an undergraduate physics major over Brad Pitt over Mike Tyson over a hotdog vendor in Central Park over a coma patient…”
Nevermind the evidence any of these people have to support these claims….
“according to the consensus here”
So now consensus matters? I’ll that the scientific consensus, thank you.
“That’s generally what tends to happen when someone can’t give up a fallacous argument.”
Pot meet kettle – sure, continue the uncritical acceptance of unqualified opinion.
People have an apacolypse gene – no? A commonly recurring theme in human history – no? Climate change is religion:
Only climate scientist (priests) can talk to god. It would be dangerous for people to see the data (try to talk to god). People must give up fossil fuels (sacrifice) or there will be storms, flood, droughts (apacolypse). We (priests) need $billions$ (offerings) to continue our work (conversations with god on behalf of the people). To become a climate scientist requires years of special training and sacrifice with little tangible reward (trust us, we are priests). Many fail. We must act now, by the time you see the damage it will be too late (have faith).
And every religion needs evil. (demonic) Oil company executives are seeking to destroy the world (providing a pleasure that will ultimately lead to destruction). Paid (possessed) industry shills spew disinformation (lies). It ir righteous to protect the people from disinformation (temptation) because they might get confused (fall from grace and refuse to sacrifice and make offereings).
Waldo is helping the good priests save the world from the devil. You’re gonna convince him otherwise.
“That’s generally what tends to happen when someone can’t give up a fallacous argument.”
‘Pot meet kettle – sure, continue the uncritical acceptance of unqualified opinion.’
First that’s a strawman, I have hundreds of peer reviewed papers that don’t support AGW (list here: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html), statements from supposed “qualified” person’s opinions, etc. Second, even if we assume you’re correct, and I am doing this, two wrongs don’t make right. Either way you lose.
And lets look back at this comment of yours: “But here is where the debate has derailed. We are now splitting hairs and playing rhetorical ping-pong rather badly.”
If by this we assume you want to get back to a more serious debate of the issue and don’t want to play ping-pong, you’re last post was very hypocritical. Either make valid, factual argument about something, or admit you’re just here to play ping-pong.
I too am just a layperson who reads.
For Waldo who cites IPCC (as well as other institutions like NOAA, NASA, etc.) as authoritative, I have read that many scientists who participated in IPCC disagree with the Summary for Policy Makers, saying that it does not accurately represent the actual work done. The peer review process has also been criticized, most notably by Richard Lindzen who did participate in the 1st 3 reports, and is highly critical of the IPCC overall. I also suggest you look at the Petition Project for a sizable list of scientists from many disciplines who disagree with AGW theory.
The argument on it’s face to me is absurd – that an increase in Co2 of about 110 ppm (from 270 to 380) – completely overwhelms all other climate forcings (PDO, AMO, OHC, solar variations, clouds, etc.). That this increase alone is putting the planet in peril and we must make dramatic, life altering changes in our lifestyle, otherwise, we are doomed (sea level rise, more violent storms, drought, famine, on and on and on).
I have found charts on other sites showing that over the last 600 million years, Co2 levels were as low as they are today in 2 other periods, and that Co2 levels have been many times higher in other periods, even during ice ages. I don’t know how accurate this information is, but I find the info as credible as information I find on RealClimate and other AGW sites.
Other factors like feedback, the diminishing effect of increased levels of Co2, etc. also make me question the assertion that Co2 alone can cause the kind of catastrophe being projected by AGW supporters.
As for the anger part, I will quote hunter since I think it is worth repeating:
AGW creates anger because those promoting it are dodging open discussion of their work, are demanding everyone in the world (exempting them and their pals) dramatically reduce their lifestyles and destroy well established honorable and vital industry, and are now well caught, despite your steadfast ignoring of the topic, as misleading a rather large number of people. AGW creates anger because its hardcore true believers are calling for the criminalization of dissent from their beliefs.
More on the anger part.
Over the last 2 decades, the world has been systematically brainwashed by AGW in the media and via TV shows airing on Discovery, Science Channel, and National Geographic. There has been no honest questioning done by the media, and in fact, the MSM openly criticizes anyone who is skeptical, and openly supports the assertion that any scientist who disagrees with AGW has been paid off by the fossil fuel industry, yet the MSM does not question Gore’s motives. In any show that purports to show 2 sides of the story, invariably, 90% or more of the time spent is showing catastrophic events, scientists making claims about AGW, then a small amount of time for a rebuttal by a “denier”, followed by an assertion that the denier is associated with big oil – it’s a pretty consistent formula.
The only reason the debate is over is because it was never allowed to happen, except in the blogosphere.
Enough Already,
I agree with you about AGW being a religion. Most of the non-scientific advocacy community and a portion of the scientific community involved in the issue are clearly approaching it like religion. ‘Environmentalism’ is certainly a religion for part of that community. For many (if not most!) their positions are ‘Received Truth’ (based faith, however disguised by Scholasticism or other defensive shibboleths). Questioning their dogma is either misguided and/or evil. At any rate, much of the AGW advocacy and ‘environmentalist’ community are about as effectively anti-Science as it gets.
This is all wrapped up with anti-Western, anti-Capitalist philosophical contexts to some degree or other depending on the stylistic preferences of individual participants and cliques… After all, isn’t AGW, like so many popular hysterics, ‘bubbles’ and crazes, really just a matter of style (primarily for self-identification)?
BTW, no point in responding to Waldo’s posts unless he decides offers substantive & cogent argument (instead of the rhetoric and declamation that are all seen so far). It’s generally better not to feed Trolls.
I find it interesting that the few (apparent) AGW Believers who’ve I’ve seen post here (including Waldo among their number) have offered NOTHING in the way of critiques or issues on the plethora of technical challenges presented on this site, but exclusively resort to “Is not…Is So” declamations or rhetorical techniques like Appeal to Authority or Bandwagon. While this doesn’t prove there are no substantive answers to these criticisms from AGW, it does at least suggest that if such exist, they certainly haven’t become common knowledge among the ‘Movement”s evangelists at least.
The “science” is rife with fundamentalism. Consider proxy temperature reconstructions and surface station temperature reconstructions.
Climate scientists are attempting to pull tiny signals from very noisy data. At worse, it’s a rorschach test; at best, the certainty is overstated. But try suggesting, over on RC, that maybe a global average temperature so derived is not a terribly useful parameter; try suggesting that a millenial reconstruction without a midieval warm period or a little ice age is, at a minimum, questionable. Or, god forbid, ask for the data.
Don’t question the scientists (priests)!
This will all make very intersting history – one day.
Why don’t we try find some common ground to start from.
Like what kind of sources we think are the most reliable. My choice would be peer-reviewed lit. Are their legit. charges of failure in this system?
Anyway, stop going on about appeals to authority. It seems like such a buzz word here, and other threads. It is NOT an appeal to authority to say you trust an expert opinion more than a non expert, that makes sense. It is only an appeal to authority when you say that the experts opinion/facts are nec. true.
@Shills:
You suggest we stop questioning appeals to authority and switch to discussing which sources we think are most reliable??! Yeah, right…
How about we discuss actual science? Do you have anything to say here?
@ Anon
Whats ya problem? You see some contradiction or somethin?
Let me clarify. Sure we should question/point out appeals to authority when they exist, but it seems that a lot of peeps don’t know what that is and so false accusations are coming up often. Appeals to authority are a lot rarer than you might think. Sure peeps might say: this expert says this point that refutes this point by that non expert. But they are not saying that the point is correct because it comes from an expert (the fallacy), rather the point is prob. correct because it is a result of the studies/work done that we find experts doing.
By coming to a mutually held standard for sources and evidence we at least agree on something, and thus have one less thing to argue about. Sounds good, right??!
@ Anon
And yes, discussing science, by referring to scientific peer-reviewed journals, is exactly what I’m advocating.
Also, I saw your 2*2 analogy. If that were to happen, it would be because there was a strong and robust argument built against the consensus view, that eventually changed all the mathematicians minds. As a layperson, in might seem insane to you that 2*2=5, but if the experts are honest, who are you to dismiss it (honest questioning is fine though). Maybe kinda like how it might have seemed insane to our forefathers when they were told the earth is not flat. All the skeptics would be laughing and saying, ‘well why don’t we fall of the earth then!’
I understand that my analogy of flat earth (Earth) is epistemically different to yours (maths), but mine actually fits better with the AGW issue (Earth).
From reading some of the above comments, I now know why my PhD supervisor looked at me as if I was a martian when I suggested that we get a professor from another department, who was expert in the particular statistical techniques we were using, as part of my review committee.
He obviously would have nothing to say that was useful, not knowing the intricacies of our field.
Shills,
I’m not sure the people here really want to discuss or debate anything; they want the choir. I think they have (had) a safe space where they can reinforce their beliefs and they simply want a limited discourse with people who already think like they do. I suspect that these beliefs were formed before they actually read anything about AGW and I suspect most of these beliefs are politically motivated (Al Gore is the anti-Christ here). And I think they would prefer that we simply leave so they can get back to their round-robin. But what gets me is how incredibly paranoid the whole thing is, for instance, Skeptical at least answered a direct question with this:
** “AGW creates anger because those promoting it are dodging open discussion of their work, are demanding everyone in the world (exempting them and their pals) dramatically reduce their lifestyles and destroy well established honorable and vital industry, and are now well caught, despite your steadfast ignoring of the topic, as misleading a rather large number of people. AGW creates anger because its hardcore true believers are calling for the criminalization of dissent from their beliefs.”
I believe Skeptical is earnest but where does this come from? The IPCC puts its publications out for all the world to see along with its codes – all one needs is an Internet connection and a computer or a library. They are completely open. And what dramatic reductions are we talking about here? What industries are about to be destroyed? Skeptical seems to be summing George Orwell or Aldous Huxley.
Without this kind of gross exaggeration and politicization, though, I suspect the whole thing would die down – it’s not that often that we as a society question our scientists. One wonders (assuming Skeptical is an American) how he/she feels about the $700-billion-plus spent on the Iraq war or the implications of the Patriot Act. Perhaps Skeptical is just as agitated about these too…perhaps…
Your comment about the flat earth above is pretty funny…considering. Repeatedly the CS crowd has rallied around the ‘would-you-have-believed-the-authorities-when-Galileo-yadda-yadda’ strategy. But, my friends, you are the crowd that would have demanded that Galileo be silenced, not the other way around.
Waldo,
Gosh, I don’t even rate an attribution?
** “AGW creates anger because those promoting it are dodging open discussion of their work, are demanding everyone in the world (exempting them and their pals) dramatically reduce their lifestyles and destroy well established honorable and vital industry, and are now well caught, despite your steadfast ignoring of the topic, as misleading a rather large number of people. AGW creates anger because its hardcore true believers are calling for the criminalization of dissent from their beliefs.””
And then you have this non-productive strategy of not answering the question or substantively address the point, and then dismiss it as some sort of one-sided anger.
If you watch the news, and understand it, COP15 riots were not by skeptics storming the sacred halls. The riots, until it got too cold, were of AGW extremists demanding even *more* be done.
The IPCC regurgitates what is shown to be junk science.
The IPCC, it is now clear, has suppressed critical reviews of AGW theory.
Industries set for destruction are oil and coal, to start with, along with companies that burn coal and refine oil. In the US, the EPA is empowered to regulate CO2 as it sees fit. Its leadership is very political.
You assert skeptics are Orwellian, yet you are the one drifting into the Iraq war and patriot act.
You can also assert that Galileo would have been condemned by skeptics, but sans time machine, you should not be so confident that you, with you grovelling dependence on peer reviewed authority, would not have been urging those in authority to shut down that pesky man.
Yeah, it’s very uncool to riot under almost any circumstance, and it simply makes accomplishing anything harder in the long run. Nevertheless, hunter, you do realize how much of the world and to what extent the world is concerned with the issue?
But this statement is pure exaggeration –
** “AGW creates anger because its hardcore true believers are calling for the criminalization of dissent from their beliefs.”
You are probably referring to Hansen’s statements to ABC and such. And you are wrong. Hansen called for the heads of the fossil fuel industry to be tried for crimes against humanity for spreading disinformation about AGW. You have made a fairly typical exaggeration prompted, I suspect, by the blogosphere. And even if Hansen did say that fossil fuel chiefs should be tried, so what? Do you honestly think we are going to start rounding up and trying AGW dissenters? Point to one person arrested on such grounds. Likewise, no one is talking about “destroying” any industries; regulating, yes, destroying, no. You are trying to deceive me through exaggeration. In reality, this is more like the kinds of things that will happen:
Sen. Robert Byrd on Thursday issued a long statement with an unusually stern message for the coal industry and its attempts to counter opposition to mountaintop removal mining.
Byrd, D-W.Va., says the coal industry needs to stop using “fear mongering, grandstanding and outrage as a strategy” and instead help stave off global climate change and curb the mountaintop method.
“As your United States Senator, I must represent the opinions and the best interests of the entire Mountain State, not just those interests of coal operators and southern coalfield residents who may be strident supporters of mountaintop removal mining,” Byrd said in both the written statement and audio recording released Thursday.
“The IPCC regurgitates what is shown to be junk science.”
No. Blogs like this one purport to contradict the science…but do they? I’ll go with the IPCC.
Waldo,
“But, my friends, you are the crowd that would have demanded that Galileo be silenced, not the other way around.”
Really? When we’re the ones outraged by the apperent Penn State/CRU manipulation of the peer review system? Sorry Waldo, that doesn’t jive with arguments being presented, nor do you even point out which particular posts or statements support the mentality to silence anyone. For what I can tell, everyone here is advocating more free access to information (CRU raw data for example, where did that go?) and for the freedom of ideas to published based on merit of reseach not the conclusion from the data. Sorry Waldo, you’re proving to be more and more of just a troll with ever passing comment. You’re not here for a honest, logical, factual discussion, you’re here to incite the crowd.
Waldo,
So it is OK to try corporate execuutives for their climate views, as long as only corporate execs are the ones getting tried?
What about the calls to terminate the professional licenses of, say, meteorologists, who disagree?
http://wx-man.com/blog/?p=500
How about if they call for trying politicians?
“David Suzuki, celebrity scientist on politicians ignoring climate alarmists: “What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act.”
And you are cheering the senile Senator because his staff has written a threat against a group of Americans over his signature for their temerity to disagree with AGW, and you dare say that skeptics are extremists?
The head of the IPCC is directly profiting from his position by earning huge fees as a consultant in the green energy finance sector.
Yet you would rather go with his advice.
And you snark around pretending to be sophisticated and clever.
A troll, no matter how polite he tries to be, and no matter how smart, always ends up showing that nothing is really behind the facade.
Getting you guys to talk is the key. It is the Queeg strategy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zgeQmzV9kk
Wally,
The only thing our friend Waldo is inciting is laughter. And not with him.
The whole Galileo analogy could go either way, but probably, in my opinion, history will show that the AGW skeptics are the traditionalists who can’t/ won’t separate ideology/religion and science. Why? because the chance that science has really sacrificed so many of it’s principles (those principles that were defended so much by those like Darwin and Galileo) for money, is a huge stretch of the imagination like most conspiracy theories. I say it could go either way because, it’s not an impossibility that the sun won’t rise tomorrow.
Whatever, it’s just an analogy.
@ Hunter.
We all have lines of argument that aren’t been addressed by the opposing side. How ’bout you puts some of yours down again so we can get them addressed.
This AGW arg. is not gonna bring fruit:
science is only responsive to science that has gone through the mainstream scientific processes. The skeptics believe these processes are corrupt, so there is no point submitting through the mainstream processes. So where is this all gonna go? To the court of law?
How do the AGW skeptics see this ending? I am interested to know?
Shill,
It is not tradition. It is authoritarianism. Galileo and his telescope were popular wiht the Bishops and priests, until he started challenging the status quo.
It is the AGW promoters who cannot stand challenges to their authority, and seek to try, de-frock and defame their challengers.
As a skeptic, I see this ending as it ended in Kyoto, Jakarta and now Cop15: with much waste of breath, a lot of hand waving, and no action.
I see it ending with a whimper, as fewer and and fewer people believe the ever-increasing level of hysterical shrieking, because no matter how loud the sales pitch, enough people still go out doors and notice the lack of a climate apocalypse.
@ Hunter
Well I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. We both think our cause is the voice of rational science against the ideologues.
I find your prediction of the ending a little confusing. If I was a person who believed that a great portion of the scientific community was pulling the wool over the world’s eyes, I’d expect a lot of heads to roll in the future. And some firm changes to how science is done.
But am I right about this?:
science is only responsive to science that has gone through the mainstream scientific processes. The skeptics believe these processes are corrupt, so there is no point submitting through the mainstream processes. So how does AGW skepticism get its point across?
So where is this all gonna go?
“climate apocalypse”
Sigh. Will the hyperbole never end? I always suspect people begin to exaggerate when they are losing an argument and feel that their point is not being made forcefully enough.
Huh, Waldo, that’s funny. What do you think of people that use logical fallicies as their main argument in general?
@Shills:
“You suggest we stop questioning appeals to authority and switch to discussing which sources we think are most reliable??! Yeah, right…” —
“Whats ya problem? You see some contradiction or somethin?”
Yes. There is a contradiction. The first part of the sentence invites not to discuss questions related to authority. The second part of the sentence invites to discuss questions related to authority. Discussing “which sources we think are most reliable” is exactly discussing who has and who hasn’t authority to state something in the subject area of science.
I suggest we discuss science, not sources. The message instead of the messenger.
“By coming to a mutually held standard for sources and evidence we at least agree on something, and thus have one less thing to argue about. Sounds good, right??!”
No. That’s just smoke and mirrors that could be too easily used to subvert the discussion. If you want to discuss that, please go ahead, but I will stay out of it because in the next five minutes someone will bring up the ever-wonderful thought of “let’s stick to peer-reviewed publications for starters”, which will short-circuit it all and make us go in rounds.
The discussion we, skeptics, want to have is this:
Scientific arguments in favor of catastrophic AGW are unsound, but the contrarian point of view has never been fully heard because the pro-AGW folks were hiding code and data, and hijacking the publication process to silence their opponents. Let’s leave it to investigators and prosecutors to determine who exactly is guilty of what, and by all means let’s have a real scientific debate, with numbers, as to whether catastrophic AGW is real or not and whether we should rush to save our lives or not. Here are our scientific arguments (eg: http://www.iea.ru/article/kioto_order/15.12.2009.pdf) that disprove the numbers posed by the proponents of catastrophic AGW. We invite the proponents of catastrophic AGW to adjust their numbers and results or tell us why they won’t do it.
That’s it. If your answer to this is “well, let’s start by discussing which sources we think are most reliable”, that’s just evading the real discussion and going back to discussing whom you’d rather take on faith.
Waldo,
The intersting thing about AGW trolls like yourself is that when the very terms used by their guys is used, the try, as you are now, to slink away and blame the one quoting the term.
360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2210
A blog that supports AGW promotion and promoters, has even done a nifty analysis of how people are tuckered out by the constant drumbeat of apocalypse soon by the global warming hype machine.
So please do not think you are fooling anyone, except possibly yourself and other trolls, that using the term ‘apocalyptic’ is a misuse of what is in regular use in the AGW community.
And there are some 3,000,000 google references to ‘apocalypse’, and they are used almost exclusively by AGW promoters and believers to describe what they think is awaiting us.
But Waldo, I do agree with your point: The losing side does raise the level of their claims to screeching hyperbole.
As your side does daily.
Google ‘apocalypse’, google ‘worse than was predicted’, google ‘climate catastrophe’.
You could apply some of that excess integrity (how does one have ‘excess integrity, by the way?) to this, and try an honest answer. For once.
“the very terms used by their guys”
“the global warming hype machine”
“As your side does daily.”
Textbook. Us vs. Them.
Hannity, Michael Moore, Limbaugh, Coulter, Al Frankin and all that awful bunch make a killing off this mentality.
And yes, hunter and Wally, for the record – hyperbole and distortion on the pro-AGW side is just as dishonest and disturbing. They too have an Us vs. Them mentality all too often.
Waldo,
It may be text book, but it is also accurate.
You seem to acknowledge that you were wrong to claim that I was misquoting AGW narrative regarding apocalypse. Is that true?
Your list of opinionators is intersting, but meaningless. None of them, as far as I can tell, are posting here. Unless you are……?
Awful? Maybe annoying, maybe over the top, but none of them were writing the e-mails or testifying to congress or writing op-ed pieces about crimes against humanity. I do not even think one of them holds themselves out as a climate scientist. One did squeak into a Senate seat, which he is working hard to dishonor. But awful?
Did you have a point behind your (feeble)’textbook’ snark, or were you just hoping the amazing power of your kung fu would silence us pesky denialists?
@ anon
You don’t understand:
You said:
‘The first part of the sentence invites not to discuss questions related to authority. The second part of the sentence invites to discuss questions related to authority.’
First, WHAT SENTENCE are you referring to?
Second, Lets pretend there was such a sentence, let me correct your interpretation of it. (CORRECTIONS IN BOLD):
‘The first part of the sentence invites not to FALSELY ACCUSE OF LOGICAL FALLACIES . The second part of the sentence invites to discuss questions related to authority.’
See the difference? Did you even read my initial reply?
ANon says: ‘I suggest we discuss science, not sources. The message instead of the messenger.’
Well sure, throw some science up. But you know what. Wouldn’t it be better use of time if you submitted that science to a good peer-reviewed journal (one that isn’t part of the conspiracy) and see what happens. If you get knocked back, it’s because either your science is shit, or there is conspiracy against you.
I know I’m not the boss of this forum so we don’t have to discuss sources if you don’t want. Hey actually now I agree that sticking to peer-reviewed lit. would short circuit the discussion but that’s because you skeptics ASSUME the system is corrupted (assumptions are not what good skeptics make).
That Russian doc. you have will need explaining to those of us who can’t read it. I sure can’t. And if it is proof than go send it to a peer-reviewed journal or some law firm who thinks you have a case.
Tell us how it all goes, Anon.
@ Hunter and Waldo
who really cares about which side says what more often? No matter who said it first, two wrongs don’t make a right. And whoever said it the most doesn’t a proof of losing make.
@ Wally
Whose making logical fallacies?
For the third time, I still wanna know what you all think of this: (right,wrong?):
science is only responsive to science that has gone through the mainstream scientific processes. The skeptics believe these processes are corrupt, so there is no point submitting through the mainstream processes. So how does AGW skepticism get its point across?
******”You seem to acknowledge that you were wrong to claim that I was misquoting AGW narrative regarding apocalypse. Is that true?”
Oh hunter, hunter, hunter, you seem to deliberately misunderstand me at every turn. (I actually never thought you were quoting anybody; it never occurred to me.)
So, let me set you straight: people, including AGW scientists, including you, including bloggers who insist on the end of the world, who grossly exaggerate in an attempt to mask the weakness of their statements have already lost the argument.
Silly hunter, you crack me up.
Waldo,
You don’t even know what your people say. Then you berate me, assuming I am just making up extreme statements.
Then I show you I am honestly quoting you.
Then you imply that I lost because I accurately quoted your schmuck extremists.
Then you come up with a psychotic statement that I am somehow predicting the end of the world.
By your own standards, you have lost, and your side has lost.
But, troll you are, behind your facade, to even comprehend how vapid you are.
I would agree with your assessment of who is losing and add that clever trolls, who carefully cultivate their ignorance, and blithely avoid actually acknowledging arguments and evidence, ahve already lost, as well.
“I accurately quoted your schmuck extremists”
Us vs. Them. Textbook.
And hunter does not see, and never will see, that he is an equal extremist to anybody he is “accurately quoting.” And no, hunter, you never quoted me – you may have quoted people just like you on the opposite end of the spectrum, but that’s all. I don’t like them any better than I like you, my good man. Both extreme ends are screwing up the honest evaluation of AGW as extremists do with so many things.
But this exchange is going nowhere.
@Shills:
“WHAT SENTENCE are you referring to?”
I meant my sentence “You suggest we stop questioning appeals to authority and switch to discussing which sources we think are most reliable??!” in which you apparently found no contradictions.
“let me correct your interpretation of it.”
I won’t. I paraphrased exactly what you said. Your exact phrase was “It is NOT an appeal to authority to say you trust an expert opinion more than a non expert, that makes sense.” It is wrong. Trusting a (scientific) opinion on the basis of its origin and not substance is exactly what appealing to authority is.
“That Russian doc. you have will need explaining to those of us who can’t read it. I sure can’t. And if it is proof than go send it to a peer-reviewed journal or some law firm who thinks you have a case.”
If you don’t understand science, all you contribute to the discussion are your personal beliefs. Do what you preach and leave the field to those who can discuss actual numbers, statistics and graphs (and in 90% of the cases this is college grad math, not difficult to follow) instead of fluffy stuff like beliefs.
And, if you are curious about the content of the Russian paper, it shows that:
When interpolating temperatures for Russia, CRU used only a small portion of the station data that has been available, covering only 60% of the country. The stations they chose to use were bad with respect to track length and track continuity. The majority of chosen stations were in cities instead of in rural regions (no shortage of those, CRU has just chosen not to use them). Data for some of the chosen stations has been altered, with the effect of the changes being to emphasize warming. The chosen stations show significantly higher warming trends than the remaining ones.
Let’s discuss that, maybe?
@Shills:
I think I might have been a bit too harsh. Sorry for that. I stand by what I said, but I apologize for the tone. Let’s give it one more try.
First, your corrected message:
“The first part of the sentence invites not to FALSELY ACCUSE OF LOGICAL FALLACIES . The second part of the sentence invites to discuss questions related to authority.”
Corrected as above, this does not contain any contradictions.
However, this invites to discuss “who” instead of “what”, sources instead of science. I am not interested in that. Nor should anyone who wants to know whether we are seeing catastrophic AGW, and should take action, or not.
If you don’t feel qualified to discuss numbers and logic behind papers, that’s OK. What’s not OK is when you (might not be you personally, but we have an example in this thread already) start accusing others that they, too, are unqualified to do that, and that the only people who are qualified are “experts”. If you can’t tell exactly, with math and logic, why the critique is unsound, you have no grounds to dismiss that critique.
Second, Russian doc:
“That Russian doc. you have will need explaining to those of us who can’t read it. I sure can’t.”
If you meant the fact that the paper is in Russian, here is an English version:
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/iea1.pdf
@ Anon.
You said:
‘Your exact phrase was “It is NOT an appeal to authority to say you trust an expert opinion more than a non expert, that makes sense.” It is wrong. Trusting a (scientific) opinion on the basis of its origin and not substance is exactly what appealing to authority is.’
Sure, I agree the you shouldn’t trust science ‘on the basis of its origin and not substance’?
No one is saying that. Sure, it is a logical fallacy to take what scientists say as truth purely based on the fact that they are experts. That is a confusion of cause and effect:
the fallacy is to think: Expert – leads to – good research.
Where as in reality: good research – leads to – Expert. – leads to -probably reliable opinion
It is the standard of research, understanding, time devoted etc. that makes an expert opinion more reliable than a non expert. It is not a certainty, just a probability. But still, the probability that they are correct is higher than a non expert. It makes sense for a layperson to trust (more) an expert, just as it makes sense for a punter to go with the champion boxer and not the challenger. If the challenger wins, well then the challenger is proving himself in his chosen field and steadily becoming an expert worth bettin’ on.
Again, I agree that the research is what truly matters but, not everyone is able to analyse the research appropriately, so laypeople, undergrads writing a paper, politicians etc go with who are regarded as experts. NOT because they are experts, but because their work makes them experts.
There is no exclusivity to being an expert. Like you say, the research just requires ‘substance’, and then they are possibly worth referencing.
If I was to say to you: I don’t care what you show me, you are wrong and the experts are right.–that would be an appeal to authority.
I merely say: not knowing the science, I feel safer betting on the expert side.
You say:
‘If you can’t tell exactly, with math and logic, why the critique is unsound, you have no grounds to dismiss that critique.’
I totally agree. As a layperson, I would certainly have no grounds for dismissing it, but I would be inclined to suspend judgement on it until some (other) experts have looked at it.
Re. that Russian paper you have:
Get it to the journals, or the court of law if the journals are corrupted. If this gets past the relevant hurdles then the authors too may become experts in my eyes.