Global Warming = A JOKE!!

shut up wrote:

Ok, honestly, I'll tell you what made me change my mind. I heard all of this on the news, and right away I could tell something was up with the way they were pushing this hysteria thing. Once I actually started studying it, it took maybe a year to figure out that the mounting evidence against GW was much more rational and thought out than the evidence for it. It wasn't hard to tell that all most GW proponents had going for them were faulty computer models and guesses about the future. The way science works, things are supposed to be observable, testable, and in this case there was just not enough evidence to be convincing. Then they started pushing the consensus, and seeing how Al Gore and others vehemently denied any argument or refused to debate just made me very suspicious. To this day, most of the evidence and trends don't indicate catastrophe because the science that the GW proponent side represents is now about as clear as a conspiracy theory. Furthermore, the leaked e-mails from climategate presented compelling reasons to believe the whole consensus thing was a sham. Furthermore, I've never been able to find a valid poll or actual measure of scientists' belief in GW. It's easy to claim consensus, but harder to present a reason for that consensus. That's why I don't pay attention to the consensus anymore. It seems a lot of scientists even are politically motivated, and bullying within the community is also a concern, along with getting grant money for research. There is a lot of room for corruption, let alone the fact that scientists are only human in the first place and many of them can be misled according to preconceived notions. So far, I just don't see any reason to believe. That's why I don't. My dad was also just recently convinced as well because he was able to look beyond what he was being told through TV and books he read.

That's my reason.

deleuze wrote:

You are right that politics MIGHT have something to do with the consensus. I freely admit that some degree of bias is inevitable. However, given the choice between our sources on climate change, it seems to me that the BEST choice for the LEAST biased view on the science would be those who are judged by the quality of their science, not by their political views. That's the climatologists. Unless you are a trained climatologist, you have no other reasonable choice than to trust the climatologists. What other source is better?

If, like BRM, you fancy yourself enough of an expert to be able to sift through the research, by all means go ahead. But I do believe that very few of us have the funds or the training to actually test our hypotheses on this matter. If you find yourself in this position, your only choice is to trust the experts. It sucks, sure, not to be able to be an authority on everything, but such is the nature of life.

only me wrote:

Some Coked Up Brit wrote:

In that case I have no idea what your argument is.

See page 3:

"I would suggest (anthropocentrically) that the correct temperature for the earth is the one that allows for humans to continue to survive.

I don't know if man-made global warming is true or not, but I'd rather change my ways now and be proved wrong than wait until it is absolutely proven. If global warming doesn't exist then I look a little foolish, if it does at least I have a clean conscience - better to look foolish than to gamble the other way.

I live in a very highly populated part of the world - if more people used public transport, if the supermarkets use less packaging and plastic bags, etc., life would be more pleasant - so even if global warming is a hoax, what have I lost?"

Simple.

Some Coked Up Brit wrote:

(1) Trustworthiness is a value. When deciding whether or not to trust someone, we make a value judgement. Different people have different values.

(2) Science is pure and uncorrupted. When I look around me at humans I see some that are corrupt, others that will do anything to promote their own careers, others that are dishonest and others that are incompetent. All of them are political. Scientists are humans. The scandals that emerged concerning the Climate Research Institute at the University of East Anglia did not surprise me. Those people are humans. It may well be the case that other climate research institutes in other parts of the globe are corrupt too. We just haven't found that out yet.

(3) Scientists are a group of experts. A brief glance at human history will show examples of when a consensus of experts has been wrong. I can't be bothered to give examples now, but I will if you require them. There is a chance that a consensus held by experts now is wrong too. Humans in 50 years time will not believe the same things as today's humans. (I'm not saying here that I think that the consensus of climatologists is wrong. I don't know. I'm just saying that they don't meet my standards for trustworthiness.)

(4) I like your idea of choosing to trust scientists by the quality of their science rather than their politics. Unfortunately that doesn't answer the question of which ones to choose. How do I know which ones have high-quality science and which ones are motivated by politics? It's difficult to tell. I'm not in a position to make that call.

(5) The climate change debate is extremely political and is highly charged. Both sides of the debate accuse the other side of all kinds of treachery. The argument is unfortunately not just about the argument. It has gotten to do with one's belief system as a whole. For example, people on this forum who deny climate change caused by man are accused of believing in evolution. Both sides exchange insults readily. The debate is emotional and personal. Against this backdrop I believe it is reasonable to hold people to a higher standard of trust than one otherwise would.

(6) The stakes in the debate are very high. Potentially billions of dollars are to be lost. Perhaps we could be facing some global catastophe. Perhaps the third world if their C02 limits are capped will develop at a slower rate than they otherwise would. This could leave millions of people in poverty unnecessarily. Lots of other people on both sides of the debate have interests too. These include people that stand to make huge amounts of money from carbon trading schemes.

(7) I'm not going to express an opinion on whether scientists currently have reached a consensus. You think they have and you may well be correct. There are certain problems with a consensus view. It means that researchers who are aware of the consensus view before they begin their research struggle to do their research independently of the consensus view. They expect to find certain results and reach certain conclusions. People fear results that are not in line with the consensus. They might not get funding. They might be thought of as stupid. They might be insulted or told that they're a kitchen table. An economist whose name I forget recently wrote a nobel-prize winning book called "Microbehaviour and Macroeconomics". His arguments can be applied by analogy here. He showed that humans are much more influenced by the behaviour of other humans than they think they are. A consensus can be built very quickly: even if at an inital stage a majority viewpoint has but a small majority (51:49) rapid swings can occur suddenly. I expect unfortunately that a lot of research has not been done in a vacuum, but under the influcence of opinion-formers.

(8) I am a white, middle-class, professional, liberal, university-educated, coked up Brit. Most of my peers are white, middle-class professional, liberal, university-educated Brits. A huge majority of them believe that mankind is causing climate change and that climate change is harmful. None of them know anything about the science. For many of them it is an article of faith: they are dismayed that my own verdict is "unproven", I feel very counter-cultural. I do not think it is healthy that so many intelligent people should be so unquestioning. Acceptance of arguments without question makes people who make arguments lazy and arrogant. Arguers should be held accountable and be challenged! It helps them refine their arguments and examine them more closely. Independence of mind is something to be valued and cherished and encouraged. We should all admire BRM for making efforts to go to the science itself and applaud his efforts. The fact that he doesn't reach a different conclusion from the consensus isn't the only relevant point. He's encouraging the debate and that is a good thing. The people that hacked into the University of East Anglia's computer systems have not discovered anything useful scientific, yet I have nothing but praise for their actions! What they have done is uncovered poor science. This has the effect of encouraging scientists all over the world to raise their standards.

These are the reasons that I am not prepared to say that I trust the consensus of climatologists. Of course, I respect that other reasonable people will reach a different conclusion on this value judgement. I am glad that there are those with different views from my own because it makes me consider my views more carefully.

watchin wrote:

shut up wrote:

Ok, honestly, I'll tell you what made me change my mind. I heard all of this on the news, and right away I could tell something was up with the way they were pushing this hysteria thing. Once I actually started studying it, it took maybe a year to figure out that the mounting evidence against GW was much more rational and thought out than the evidence for it. It wasn't hard to tell that all most GW proponents had going for them were faulty computer models and guesses about the future. The way science works, things are supposed to be observable, testable, and in this case there was just not enough evidence to be convincing. Then they started pushing the consensus, and seeing how Al Gore and others vehemently denied any argument or refused to debate just made me very suspicious. To this day, most of the evidence and trends don't indicate catastrophe because the science that the GW proponent side represents is now about as clear as a conspiracy theory. Furthermore, the leaked e-mails from climategate presented compelling reasons to believe the whole consensus thing was a sham. Furthermore, I've never been able to find a valid poll or actual measure of scientists' belief in GW. It's easy to claim consensus, but harder to present a reason for that consensus. That's why I don't pay attention to the consensus anymore. It seems a lot of scientists even are politically motivated, and bullying within the community is also a concern, along with getting grant money for research. There is a lot of room for corruption, let alone the fact that scientists are only human in the first place and many of them can be misled according to preconceived notions. So far, I just don't see any reason to believe. That's why I don't. My dad was also just recently convinced as well because he was able to look beyond what he was being told through TV and books he read.

That's my reason.

You are entitled to your opinion. I just find these reasons weak.

First, we are both not scientists, so I don't see why you feel you have the knowledge and ability to differentiate between the alleged faulty science of the majority and the allegedly more compelling science of the minority. I don't have the power to do so, so I accept the majority for the time being (until they are later disproven).

Second, while I acknowledge that political motivations might influence science, I don't find the evidence nearly strong enough to support some worldwide conspiracy. Even if there are a few instances of corruption, I find it hard to believe that thousands of scientists all across the globe would have the means, motive, and capability to cook up so much data, spend so much time writing faulty reports, and collude together in a coordinated effort. At the very worst, an already-existing majority might influence the expectations of up-and-coming scientists and they might place too much emphasis on data/arguments that support global warming and too little emphasis on data/arguments that do not support global warming. But that process plagues every academic pursuit and we don't unduly scrutinize them. And the sciences are much more immune to such influences than other fields.

deleuze wrote:

Some Coked Up Brit wrote:

(1) Trustworthiness is a value. When deciding whether or not to trust someone, we make a value judgement. Different people have different values.

(2) Science is pure and uncorrupted. When I look around me at humans I see some that are corrupt, others that will do anything to promote their own careers, others that are dishonest and others that are incompetent. All of them are political. Scientists are humans. The scandals that emerged concerning the Climate Research Institute at the University of East Anglia did not surprise me. Those people are humans. It may well be the case that other climate research institutes in other parts of the globe are corrupt too. We just haven't found that out yet.

(3) Scientists are a group of experts. A brief glance at human history will show examples of when a consensus of experts has been wrong. I can't be bothered to give examples now, but I will if you require them. There is a chance that a consensus held by experts now is wrong too. Humans in 50 years time will not believe the same things as today's humans. (I'm not saying here that I think that the consensus of climatologists is wrong. I don't know. I'm just saying that they don't meet my standards for trustworthiness.)

(4) I like your idea of choosing to trust scientists by the quality of their science rather than their politics. Unfortunately that doesn't answer the question of which ones to choose. How do I know which ones have high-quality science and which ones are motivated by politics? It's difficult to tell. I'm not in a position to make that call.

(5) The climate change debate is extremely political and is highly charged. Both sides of the debate accuse the other side of all kinds of treachery. The argument is unfortunately not just about the argument. It has gotten to do with one's belief system as a whole. For example, people on this forum who deny climate change caused by man are accused of believing in evolution. Both sides exchange insults readily. The debate is emotional and personal. Against this backdrop I believe it is reasonable to hold people to a higher standard of trust than one otherwise would.

(6) The stakes in the debate are very high. Potentially billions of dollars are to be lost. Perhaps we could be facing some global catastophe. Perhaps the third world if their C02 limits are capped will develop at a slower rate than they otherwise would. This could leave millions of people in poverty unnecessarily. Lots of other people on both sides of the debate have interests too. These include people that stand to make huge amounts of money from carbon trading schemes.

(7) I'm not going to express an opinion on whether scientists currently have reached a consensus. You think they have and you may well be correct. There are certain problems with a consensus view. It means that researchers who are aware of the consensus view before they begin their research struggle to do their research independently of the consensus view. They expect to find certain results and reach certain conclusions. People fear results that are not in line with the consensus. They might not get funding. They might be thought of as stupid. They might be insulted or told that they're a kitchen table. An economist whose name I forget recently wrote a nobel-prize winning book called "Microbehaviour and Macroeconomics". His arguments can be applied by analogy here. He showed that humans are much more influenced by the behaviour of other humans than they think they are. A consensus can be built very quickly: even if at an inital stage a majority viewpoint has but a small majority (51:49) rapid swings can occur suddenly. I expect unfortunately that a lot of research has not been done in a vacuum, but under the influcence of opinion-formers.

(8) I am a white, middle-class, professional, liberal, university-educated, coked up Brit. Most of my peers are white, middle-class professional, liberal, university-educated Brits. A huge majority of them believe that mankind is causing climate change and that climate change is harmful. None of them know anything about the science. For many of them it is an article of faith: they are dismayed that my own verdict is "unproven", I feel very counter-cultural. I do not think it is healthy that so many intelligent people should be so unquestioning. Acceptance of arguments without question makes people who make arguments lazy and arrogant. Arguers should be held accountable and be challenged! It helps them refine their arguments and examine them more closely. Independence of mind is something to be valued and cherished and encouraged. We should all admire BRM for making efforts to go to the science itself and applaud his efforts. The fact that he doesn't reach a different conclusion from the consensus isn't the only relevant point. He's encouraging the debate and that is a good thing. The people that hacked into the University of East Anglia's computer systems have not discovered anything useful scientific, yet I have nothing but praise for their actions! What they have done is uncovered poor science. This has the effect of encouraging scientists all over the world to raise their standards.

These are the reasons that I am not prepared to say that I trust the consensus of climatologists. Of course, I respect that other reasonable people will reach a different conclusion on this value judgement. I am glad that there are those with different views from my own because it makes me consider my views more carefully.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. There's a lot here. My take is that the most relevant reasons are numbers 4 and 7.

For #4 the burden of proof is on you to show why the common sense claim that scientific experts are not scientific experts is false. The claim that they might not be experts is the only claim you have offered as demonstration, and I think it is obvious that this claim does not demonstrate your argument.

As for #7, I think the facts are in on this. I challenge you to click on the wikipedia link that I offered and compare it with the link that BRM offered. Come to your own conclusion about which offers the better indication that a consensus actually exists.

Finally, I admire the value of skepticism, but you have to also realize that in the face of a crisis, skepticism amounts practically to an affirmation of the belief that the crisis does not exist.

Of course, what's at stake is whether or not the sky is actually falling. Unfortunately, the claim that the sky is falling depends on some high level science that only experts can evaluate.

This fact makes me uncomfortable, too. However, just as I rush to the hospital when I am sick despite knowing that doctors sometimes make mistakes, I also look to the climatologists if I have a question about the climate. And, as in the case of health, chances are that you will have better outcomes if you stick with the mainstream view of what health is and how it operates because this is where the serious and smart people gravitate--not because of politics, but because their judgment as practitioners, their experience in the field under a variety of conditions, leads them in this direction.

deleuze wrote:

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. There's a lot here. My take is that the most relevant reasons are numbers 4 and 7.

For #4 the burden of proof is on you to show why the common sense claim that scientific experts are not scientific experts is false. The claim that they might not be experts is the only claim you have offered as demonstration, and I think it is obvious that this claim does not demonstrate your argument.

As for #7, I think the facts are in on this. I challenge you to click on the wikipedia link that I offered and compare it with the link that BRM offered. Come to your own conclusion about which offers the better indication that a consensus actually exists.

Finally, I admire the value of skepticism, but you have to also realize that in the face of a crisis, skepticism amounts practically to an affirmation of the belief that the crisis does not exist.

Of course, what's at stake is whether or not the sky is actually falling. Unfortunately, the claim that the sky is falling depends on some high level science that only experts can evaluate.

This fact makes me uncomfortable, too. However, just as I rush to the hospital when I am sick despite knowing that doctors sometimes make mistakes, I also look to the climatologists if I have a question about the climate. And, as in the case of health, chances are that you will have better outcomes if you stick with the mainstream view of what health is and how it operates because this is where the serious and smart people gravitate--not because of politics, but because their judgment as practitioners, their experience in the field under a variety of conditions, leads them in this direction.