Global Warming = A JOKE!!

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

I should have given you this link earlier:

http://www.lomborg.com/faq/

Bjorn Lomborg is a Danish Political Scientist and Statistician who has written several books covering the cost/benefits of trying to stop global warming. His basic conclusion is that the money could be better spent elsewhere.

For the record, Lomborg believes humans are the main cause of warming.

Thanks - this will be interesting reading!

shut up wrote:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.htmlhttp://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm

Read the links.

The first link: The Cato Institute is ground zero for a politicized look at the science. They have a serious political interest in the issue. It's not an unbiased, scientific source. Why should I believe the Cato Institute's take on the science instead of what climatologists say?

The second link: the logic of the second link is totally flawed. Its main assertion is that most climatology papers don't take a stand on the consensus view. Its argument depends on the unstated premise that all papers that don't take a stand on the consensus view are necessarily opposed to the consensus view. This is obviously a false premise, and the argument offered by this random blogger is unsound.

Your two links show two things: that your arguments are a)politically motivated and b) unsound.

Now, the interesting part.

Watch what happens when confronted with the fact that the links "shut up" provided actually undermine the reasonability of his claims. I predict two reactions. 1) I will be insulted personally and be labeled with ad hominem attacks. and/or 2) "shut up" will change the subject and attempt to argue a different point. The ad hominem and the red herring: the last gasps of the defeated thinker. There is of course a third option: 3) "shut up" will change his mind and acknowledge the absurdity of his position. This option is doubtful.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

I understand his argument. Like you he thinks science is something that gets voted on. Sorry, that's not how it works.

The position is not that science is something that gets voted on. The position is that those who are not experts in climatologists ought to trust the scientific consensus.

Most of you good folk have been arguing that a) the scientific consensus is not really a consensus [false],

and

b)sometimes arguing that each of us as citizens has a duty to educate ourselves to be experts on climatology and figure the science out on our own [not practical and unnecessary, since there are tons of folks out doing the science already.]

deleuze wrote:

Your two links show two things: that your arguments are a)politically motivated and b) unsound.

Of course his arguments are politically motivated! Does anyone here claim that their arguments are not politically motivated? Do you think your arguments are not politicall motivated? Argument is almost by definition a political activity. Humans are inevitably and inexorably and inextricably political.

My arguments are definitely political - I don't pretend not to have beliefs, loyalties, interests and allegiances. Oil tycoons are political. George W. Bush is political. Everyone at Hopenhagen was political. Let's not pretend that those however many consensus-reaching scientists and climatologists are not political too.

Some Coked Up Brit wrote:

deleuze wrote:

Your two links show two things: that your arguments are a)politically motivated and b) unsound.

Of course his arguments are politically motivated! Does anyone here claim that their arguments are not politically motivated? Do you think your arguments are not politicall motivated? Argument is almost by definition a political activity. Humans are inevitably and inexorably and inextricably political.

My arguments are definitely political - I don't pretend not to have beliefs, loyalties, interests and allegiances. Oil tycoons are political. George W. Bush is political. Everyone at Hopenhagen was political. Let's not pretend that those however many consensus-reaching scientists and climatologists are not political too.

Red herring. Yes, argument is a political activity, as is science. Who we take as the authority for scientific truth has important political consequences. But this truth has almost nothing to do with the facts about climate change.

When climatologists are sampling ice cores in Antarctica, my suspicion is that politics is the last thing on their minds and the truth about what those ice cores say is the first thing on their mind. For example, what beer you decide to drink tonight may or may not have political consequences, but your decision is not based upon those political consequences. Such is the case with climatological science. This seems an obvious point, but I'm glad I got the chance to explain it to you.

And you got all that about me from a couple of links? Tell me, is it better than outsidethebox's "poll" or are you not willing to examine him just as closely as you do me? Please tell me, what do the climatologists say, since you know and the Cato Institute does not? That's the problem: you don't know what they say. No source is completely unbiased, there is always some flaw that can be pointed out, and that's why I immediately think less of people who resort to debating the legitimacy of sources as opposed to discussing actual science, which is what really matters, not what another fallible man has to say.

shut up wrote:

And you got all that about me from a couple of links? Tell me, is it better than outsidethebox's "poll" or are you not willing to examine him just as closely as you do me? Please tell me, what do the climatologists say, since you know and the Cato Institute does not? That's the problem: you don't know what they say. No source is completely unbiased, there is always some flaw that can be pointed out, and that's why I immediately think less of people who resort to debating the legitimacy of sources as opposed to discussing actual science, which is what really matters, not what another fallible man has to say.

The red herring: No source is completely unbiased, there is always some flaw that can be pointed out. [the issue is not an epistemological one about the possibility of unbiased sources, it's about the bias of the actual source.]

The ad hominem:: and that's why I immediately think less of people who resort to debating the legitimacy of sources as opposed to discussing actual science, which is what really matters, not what another fallible man has to say. Do you think less of me or my argument?

My work here is done.

deleuze wrote:

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

I understand his argument. Like you he thinks science is something that gets voted on. Sorry, that's not how it works.

The position is not that science is something that gets voted on. The position is that those who are not experts in climatologists ought to trust the scientific consensus.

Most of you good folk have been arguing that a) the scientific consensus is not really a consensus [false],

and

b)sometimes arguing that each of us as citizens has a duty to educate ourselves to be experts on climatology and figure the science out on our own [not practical and unnecessary, since there are tons of folks out doing the science already.]

Yes, but then how do we ensure that the information relayed to us is accurate? Do we trust CNN and FOX news for all our figures and opinions and "science?" Finding reality will ALWAYS require some digging, so why not look at the scientists? We can't simply trust what we are told about what scientists believe because eventually, we won't be able to know anything by ourselves and our perceptions of reality will be completely based on some other imperfect human being telling us what is right simply because they are more trusted and "educated" while they still hold many of their preconceived biases.

shut up wrote:

Yes, but then how do we ensure that the information relayed to us is accurate? Do we trust CNN and FOX news for all our figures and opinions and "science?" Finding reality will ALWAYS require some digging, so why not look at the scientists? We can't simply trust what we are told about what scientists believe because eventually, we won't be able to know anything by ourselves and our perceptions of reality will be completely based on some other imperfect human being telling us what is right simply because they are more trusted and "educated" while they still hold many of their preconceived biases.

I agree with what you say here. For information on climate change we ought to ask climate scientists, not media organizations, political organizations, random message board bloggers, etc.

That's my take. Is this really so hard to understand?

FWIW, here is a list of professional climate science organizations who have endorsed the scientific consensus on global warming. Should I believe these guys or the Cato Institute?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

It's good to see you can find flaws with my words, but I wasn't saying that with the intent of tricking you with logical inconsistencies. They are legitimate concerns, and you fail to answer any questions once again. Every source, including mine, including yours, is biased in some way, and to find the little biases in each is a waste of time. Try to connect with what I'm saying on an idea level, instead of scouring my sentences for logical flaws. I'm not perfect, nor are you. Stop pretending like you can sit there and pick out mistakes without being subject to the same questioning of your ideas. I asked why you wouldn't examine outsidethebox's sources just as you did mine, but you were not willing to address that concern, so I am assuming that you will forever be lost on semantics instead of the crux of the issue.

shut up wrote:I asked why you wouldn't examine outsidethebox's sources just as you did mine, but you were not willing to address that concern, so I am assuming that you will forever be lost on semantics instead of the crux of the issue.

The crux of the issue is that practically every professional organization of climate scientists endorses the view that global warming is a real and man-made phenomenon.

The link I just provided gives dozens of their statements, if you scroll down. I have examined the issue, and I find the claim that there is no scientific consensus on the issue absolutely false. I think if you look at the link that I provided you will also be convinced.

Cheers!

I live in Baltimore and weve had the biggest snow year and week since they started recording etc etc etc. No global warming right?

Except that weather is caused by global warming- not climate change- warming. The super warm water in pacific shifts jet stream etc etc El Nino- how much of that is directly related to snow in the east coast I dont know.

What I do know is that the only way we get more than a foot of snow in this area is to have a low come up the coast and then stall off the coast and have wraparound moisture for 24+ hours. This has happened 3 times this year and twice in the last week. The temperature during these episodes was 28-34 degrees the whole time. Above average at night in other words and below average during the day due to clouds obv.

What I also know if youre looking for antecdotes about weather(which as already stated dont really matter) is that I cant remember the last time it was below zero here. It has been years and it used to happen fairly regularly like every other year. I cant even remember when its been below 10. Were talking about temperature not precipatation- its global warming not global nosnowing.

deleuze wrote:

shut up wrote:

Yes, but then how do we ensure that the information relayed to us is accurate? Do we trust CNN and FOX news for all our figures and opinions and "science?" Finding reality will ALWAYS require some digging, so why not look at the scientists? We can't simply trust what we are told about what scientists believe because eventually, we won't be able to know anything by ourselves and our perceptions of reality will be completely based on some other imperfect human being telling us what is right simply because they are more trusted and "educated" while they still hold many of their preconceived biases.

I agree with what you say here. For information on climate change we ought to ask climate scientists, not media organizations, political organizations, random message board bloggers, etc.

That's my take. Is this really so hard to understand?

You missed my point. We don't know what the scientists are saying except through certain mediums (CNN, FOX, internet, etc.). I believe educating yourself on the evidence is a much better alternative to simply asking the media what the scientists are saying. And to say that you have to be an expert who has all these degrees to understand even the least bit of science is just a convention of our society. Sure, a lot of people won't trust you because you are not "educated," but at least you will have science as your main arguing point, not "Expert A says B, and I know this by looking at source C, and this proves that it is right, since experts are never wrong and don't have any biases." For the record, I am not saying you should not be educated. I think it is important, and I am currently pursuing an education myself, but you don't need to be an expert to have a relatively objective point of view and examine the facts in a way that allows you to make a valid conclusion.

deleuze wrote:

shut up wrote:I asked why you wouldn't examine outsidethebox's sources just as you did mine, but you were not willing to address that concern, so I am assuming that you will forever be lost on semantics instead of the crux of the issue.

The crux of the issue is that practically every professional organization of climate scientists endorses the view that global warming is a real and man-made phenomenon.

The link I just provided gives dozens of their statements, if you scroll down. I have examined the issue, and I find the claim that there is no scientific consensus on the issue absolutely false. I think if you look at the link that I provided you will also be convinced.

Cheers!

And yet again, instead of answering questions, you refer to some hazy notions about "the crux of the issue." I didn't say that to ask you what the shady meaning of the crux of the issue was, but rather to start you looking in the right place. But I will read your link, I haven't gotten around to it yet.

shut up wrote:You missed my point. We don't know what the scientists are saying except through certain mediums (CNN, FOX, internet, etc.).

Okay, this is true. Everything is expressed through a medium. So the key is to try to get as close to the source as possible. I just linked you a wikipedia page that has statements from the professional organizations of climatologists and meteorologists. The wikipedia page has direct links to the websites of these organizations. My view is that this is the best possible way to understand what scientists think.

As I mentioned before, it is unnecessary and impractical to suggest that everyone become a professional climatologist. There are tons of those already, and they have already come to a view. Why would you suspect you would come to a different opinion than every other scientist if you became a professional climatologist and did your own study?

deleuze wrote:

FWIW, here is a list of professional climate science organizations who have endorsed the scientific consensus on global warming. Should I believe these guys or the Cato Institute?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

And for the record, wikipedia is about as good as a blog when it comes to such politically charged issues. Saying it's a reliable, objective source would be a major mistake. So to think that you would apply such stringent requirements for the objectivity of the source to my sources but not yours our "outsidethebox's" sources (must I remind you?) is laughable.

The wikipedia page links directly to the statements of professional climatological organizations. Click on the link and look at it, and then come to your own opinion about whether this wikipedia page is politically motivated.

deleuze wrote:

FWIW, here is a list of professional climate science organizations who have endorsed the scientific consensus on global warming. Should I believe these guys or the Cato Institute?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Dueling Lists, though as I've pointed out, this has nothing to do with science.