Global Warming = A JOKE!!

Let me just add that you are wise to not make the debate about scientific consensus because the consensus is clear.

Your position requires that we all become climatologists so that we can analyze the science. But why would becoming a professional climatologist ever lead you to reject the view of professional climatologists? We don't have to become professional climatologists. It's totally unnecessary. There are tons of them, and their opinion is clear. Your argument is both impractical and rests on the absurdity that becoming an expert in climate science would lead you to a different opinion from the experts in climate science.

Arguing with you is like arguing with a kitchen table.

deleuze wrote:

But recognize that such a choice is not motivated by a pure desire to find the truth about scientific consensus.

I don't care about consensus. That's not science.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

deleuze wrote:

But recognize that such a choice is not motivated by a pure desire to find the truth about scientific consensus.

I don't care about consensus. That's not science.

We know that. So why don't you just acknowledge that my list better reflects the consensus?

And so we finally get to the crux of the debate with the deniers; they're all ‘outhouse’ climatologists that rely on the opinions of geologists, hydrologist, dentists, etc., etc., to fulfill their political manifest destiny...Well done deleuze, your work here is truly done.BRM: keep up the good fight but, even you must realize that it's a losing battle.Shut up and Outside the box: are you guys sure that you're not the same person? Maybe just battling some type of bipolar situation?

deleuze wrote:

Your position requires that we all become climatologists so that we can analyze the science. But why would becoming a professional climatologist ever lead you to reject the view of professional climatologists?

Deleuze:

You have taken the words right out of my mouth.

deleuze wrote:

So why don't you just acknowledge that my list better reflects the consensus?

I've never denied that. So what does that have to do with science?

Jefe, there's an awful lot of climatologists on that list. And who would know better about past climates than a geologist? Certainly not someone who does his "research" by sitting in front of a computer and never going into the field.

I must have missed it, who on that list is a dentist. I'll admit that's funny. Almost as funny as having an ex Vice President as your main spokesman.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

I've never denied that. So what does that have to do with science?

The return of the kitchen table.

I have addressed this point ad nauseam in my posts.

Your view is that we should all become experts in climate science in order to form our opinion on global warming. Even if this were possible [It's not.] your argument requires the assumption that becoming an expert in climate science would lead you to have a different opinion than the experts in climate science. This assumption is literally absurd.

Any help that you can offer on this point would be much appreciated.

As an outside observer that is not a climatologist, give me a reason to reject the near consensus and accept the minority. So far, I might have reason to not blindfully follow the near consensus and maintain some skepticism, sure. But I have not been given a reason to reject the majority and side with blowing rock master. So far, you've only shown a few a few snippets of pseudo-science that I would rightfully assume the near consensus already evaluated and determined it was not dispositive.

deleuze wrote:

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.[/quote]

I don't think this is a red herring and it's not obvious to me. Are you very comfortable that scientists sampling ice cores have politics as the last thing on their minds? (What about, for example, "scientists" at the Climate Research Institute of the University of East Anglia in Britain who deleted e-mails and raw data to provent information being publised under the Freedom of Information Act? You might recall this scandal. It seems to me that politics was high up on their agenda.) Are you very comfortable that the funding that is available to scientists comes from bodies that are apolitical and is granted apolitically? Are you very comfortable that allegiance to a particular conclusion has no bearing on the furthering of a career of an individual scientist? Politics may have little to do with the facts of climate change, but it might have a lot to do with the consensus!

In any case, I'm way more interested in the consequences than the causes. What do you think the world should do about climate change?

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.

This is a difficult issue. I am not an expert on these things, and I could not offer any advice here. Sorry.

has someone out-argued the naysayer crowd of letsrun? On a political thread no less. Can we just take a moment and reflect on this?

deleuze wrote:

Your list has a number of individuals. My list has every prominent and respected climatological and meteorological organization in the world. Take your list if you like. But recognize that such a choice is not motivated by a pure desire to find the truth about scientific consensus.

The truth about consensus? That's the most laughable phrase I've seen used on Letsrun. I don't care about the truth of consensus. I care about the truth of what's really happening. Don't give me all this consensus bullsh** and expect me just to hang up my spikes and quit. If you don't know how to discuss real science, stay out of it.

deleuze wrote:

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

I've never denied that. So what does that have to do with science?

The return of the kitchen table.

I have addressed this point ad nauseam in my posts.

Your view is that we should all become experts in climate science in order to form our opinion on global warming. Even if this were possible [It's not.] your argument requires the assumption that becoming an expert in climate science would lead you to have a different opinion than the experts in climate science. This assumption is literally absurd.

Any help that you can offer on this point would be much appreciated.

Go back and read my post where I said you missed my point. Read the whole thing this time. I explained how thinking you have to be an expert to look at things scientifically at all is just a convention. People may not trust you, but if you do the science right, then that's all that matters and at least you have science on your side.

Sorry, that last post was me. Used a different name on another thread and forgot to change it.

loop de loop wrote:

has someone out-argued the naysayer crowd of letsrun? On a political thread no less. Can we just take a moment and reflect on this?

I don't get it. How have we been out-argued? It's about as settled as any other 10-page global warming thread. Which is to say not very, or leaning toward the skeptics side.

rawring wrote:

Don't give me all this consensus bullsh** and expect me just to hang up my spikes and quit. If you don't know how to discuss real science, stay out of it.

Ok. Again, as an outside observer that is not a scientist, why should I believe you and not the majority? What makes the science of the minority so much better than the science of the majority? I'm assuming you're not a climatologist. What made you believe the minority?

Score one for the trolls, 200+ posts has to be pretty close to a high for the year.

Jefe in the CO wrote:

And so we finally get to the crux of the debate with the deniers; they're all ‘outhouse’ climatologists that rely on the opinions of geologists, hydrologist, dentists, etc., etc., to fulfill their political manifest destiny...

Well done deleuze, your work here is truly done.

BRM: keep up the good fight but, even you must realize that it's a losing battle.

Shut up and Outside the box: are you guys sure that you're not the same person? Maybe just battling some type of bipolar situation?

Sorry, but the claim that there is a "consensus" about global warming and responding to the mounting evidence that the entire GW hysteria community has become corrupt and does not adhere to the scientific method, massive reviews of the process are being sought.

Belittling those who disagree with the IPCC's faulty conclusions doesn't serve your cause. Science, has been, until recently, an open process.

Support for IPCC is crumbling