[Helmling]

http://www.alternet.org/environment/...change/?page=1

I found this very interesting. In the course of reading it, I thought of many of the climate change skeptics on this board...who are, interestingly enough, the only climate change skeptics I think I know at all. But even people I know who do accept that, whether or not millions of people will be displaced along the coasts in the coming century, there is anthropogenic warming are not taking significant steps to alter their energy consumption.

Anyway, the article's a very interesting read.

[design219]

That article reminded me of the monkeysphere.

Most of us probably just can not relate to the masses of people we don't know. Our brains limit compassion to a smaller group.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Yeah, I'd agree with that.

I've always felt that's why many people who get all activist and preachy on us, regarding the poor plight of others in the world, are often (more?) well-off "globetrotters." (Take rich actors for example.) I'm sure if I went to Africa and got to form a little relationship with some poor malnourished girl who I knew would probably die before 30, I'd have an emotional attachment too; as it is, not having had any such experience, I can safely sit behind my computer and not think much about that fact rather than, "it sucks, life sucks, move on."

Kinda sad, isn't it....

greg

[ebuddy]

I found this very interesting. In the course of reading it, I thought of many of the climate change skeptics on this board...

Nothing in the article references simply "climate change". It is almost exclusively focused on anthropogenic global warming. I can safely say there is no one neither here on this board nor elsewhere who is skeptical of climate change. They are very specifically skeptical of Anthropogenic Global Warming. An attempt to frame the skeptical in this manner is in no way different than referring to you as a natural climate change skeptic. You do of course accept there are also natural phenomena driving climate change and therefore, it would be dishonest of me to frame you in this way. This is one reason why few skeptics are really listening. When tactics like this are used, your arguments are marginalized out of the gate.

But even people I know who do accept that, whether or not millions of people will be displaced along the coasts in the coming century, there is anthropogenic warming are not taking significant steps to alter their energy consumption.

It is an interesting article and I've noticed this same anomaly among those who claim faith in (a) God. You often hear that some "80+% of Americans claim to believe in God or are Christian" yet the number of those who actually practice this "belief" is rather miniscule. Why?

- It often takes a profound, tangible event in their life to rekindle this presupposition.
- It is also possible that they simply don't really buy it.

I agree. Belief takes no effort at all. Action requires effort and this is always the sticking point with people. The relative lack of action by those who supposedly truly buy off on AGW is another fuel for skeptics just as any religious leaders' unsavory actions fuel their skeptics.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

When tactics like this are used, your arguments are marginalized out of the gate.

This is a cop-out.

Helmling could have linked to an essay that used every old logical fallacy in the book. It doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming consensus among scientists is that humans cause global warming. Any remaining layperson who is still skeptical doesn't need convincing. They're already impervious to that. They need a pat on the back and a smile.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

This is a cop-out.

Helmling could have linked to an essay that used every old logical fallacy in the book. It doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming consensus among scientists is that humans cause global warming. Any remaining layperson who is still skeptical doesn't need convincing. They're already impervious to that. They need a pat on the back and a smile.

That's Climate Change now, the mean temperature has been dropping for the last ten years. Have you been watching the news?
There was overwhelming consensus among the: German, French, British , Jordanian, Egyptian, Israeli, Turkish, and many other intelligence agencies that Saddam Husein had WMD.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

That's Climate Change now, the mean temperature has been dropping for the last ten years. Have you been watching the news?
There was overwhelming consensus among the: German, French, British , Jordanian, Egyptian, Israeli, Turkish, and many other intelligence agencies that Saddam Husein had WMD.

Intelligence is not science.

And:

[vmarks]

appeal to authority fallacy ^

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

appeal to authority fallacy ^

On questions of science, yes I'm going to defer to scientists, the experts.

Thank you for revealing the anti-scientific mindset of man-made global warming deniers.

And:

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

appeal to authority fallacy ^

Appeal to Authority:
Logical Argument = yes
Fallacy = not necessarily so

I'm surprised at your Kevin-like application of Appeal to Authority (which in debate can be a logical fallacy, but is not necessarily so).

Using the reality of a "scientific consensus" on AGO is a valid method of argument. There isn't any logical fallacy to argue that the conclusion reached by an authority (in this case, a majority of climate scientists) is true. He's merely making the "conclusion" more probable by lending expert weight to a scientific issue that very, very few people understand.

If he were to use syllogistic logic and claim that the "scientific consensus" somehow cannot be wrong (or cannot be criticized) and that makes AGO "true," then it would be a logical fallacy. But I don't think that's the case here (or on this board generally).

greg

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

m surprised at your Kevin-like application of Appeal to Authority (which in debate can be a logical fallacy, but is not necessarily so).

No, it's actually pretty much always a logical fallacy. When your argument is "well, these experts say it's true", then you've engaged in a logical fallacy. Experts could very well be wrong, as has been the case countless times. It's only when you offer up their actual argument as the basis of your debate (and the argument itself isn't fallacious) that you can include the fact that they are "experts" as a side note.

[vmarks]

Your use of the smiley face as condescension is unfortunate.

here's your sign

or

bless your heart.

I recommend reading http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...y.SenateReport

[The Crook]

Sorry, I'm not playing junior detective with you.

Or anyone else for that matter. There's a scientific consensus out there that no amount of document hunting by laypersons can change. That's been my main point throughout this thread, and it's how I always view internet forum challenges to scientific consensuses on technical, scientific issues.

Also, since you'd rather call me stupid than answer our Canadian friend's excellent post on the "appeal to authority" issue, I'll helpfully quote it for you in full:

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Appeal to Authority:
Logical Argument = yes
Fallacy = not necessarily so

I'm surprised at your Kevin-like application of Appeal to Authority (which in debate can be a logical fallacy, but is not necessarily so).

Using the reality of a "scientific consensus" on AGO is a valid method of argument. There isn't any logical fallacy to argue that the conclusion reached by an authority (in this case, a majority of climate scientists) is true. He's merely making the "conclusion" more probable by lending expert weight to a scientific issue that very, very few people understand.

If he were to use syllogistic logic and claim that the "scientific consensus" somehow cannot be wrong (or cannot be criticized) and that makes AGO "true," then it would be a logical fallacy. But I don't think that's the case here (or on this board generally).

greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

Sorry, I'm not playing junior detective with you.

cop-out

There's a scientific consensus out there that no amount of document hunting by laypersons can change.

Since it seems to be "experts" VS "laypeople", I thought I'd give the other junior detectives this forum a glimpse of what this "expertise" is founded on;


Yeah, you guessed it. This sensor sight is surrounded by asphalt. Friggin' brilliant! These experts are a cut above. Next?


Wait! Is that a 65Watt light bulb?!? I know, I shouldn't have to ask. We're on hallowed, expert ground. The instructions on "setting the thermometers" you can see in this pic is obviously for laypeople.


Say it isn't so!! A little fireside sensor reading?!? Interestingly, the tennis court and condos (out of pic to the right, there are more pics including the condos) were built in the early 80's. Here are some highly-precise, SuperExpert™ readings from that sensor sight;



We're all DOOMED!!! Oh wait, Louie could you put that fire out please?

[ghporter]

Interestingly enough, an "expert" is often someone with incredible depth of knowledge in ONE subject, often so tightly focused that said expert is not well qualified to tie his own shoes. Further, being a "scientist" does not mean that a person is an expert in anything. It merely denotes scholarship.

For example, my BS says that I am a "scientist". However, having a degree, even with honors in any scientific subject in no way qualifies someone as an actual scientist. Being a scientist is more a mind-set and philosophy. Working from data rather than conviction is only a start. Basing one's decisions on solid, reliable, properly collected data is more important than almost any other facet of scientific thought. Take ebuddy's example above; what kind of cretin puts a temperature sensing device in a location that is inherently non-representative of the environment, and then tries to pass off that data as valid? That person is either a fool or has an agenda.

Trust not experts unless said experts can explain their positions in concrete terms. If they can't, then their expertise is so limited that they are not truly relevant. I can explain to ANYONE how a computer works. I can teach ANYONE how an AM transmitter and receiver work, and once I've done that, I can teach them how FM radios work... Am I an expert in these things? I once was. But the fact that I could teach those subjects is more indicative of how I could (and still can) break down complex concepts into wording that is relevant to whomever I'm speaking with. I had no degree when I started teaching anything; my expertise came from scholarship and application of those studies.

So... Appealing to an expert's opinion is almost always prone to fallacy. This is because the appeal almost never qualifies the expert, qualifies the expert's field and how narrow that field is, and because the result of the appeal is almost never phrased in terms that just anyone can understand. It needn't be a fallacy, but it is almost always used to disrupt or derail an argument rather than to provide useful facts. For facts, you need to look at real evidence. How many well constructed, repeatable studies have provided support for the evidence you present? How many times has the result you're presenting been challenged and how have these challenges been pursued? Experts are only useful as a source of evidence in scientific inquiry, rather than being "the source of knowledge." Einstein discounted quantum theory, yet your computer and how it works at the hardware level (below registers, timers and such; I'm referring to the field effect transistors that make up the guts of the devices) refutes his belief. EVIDENCE is the key to science, and that is the ONLY "belief" about science that is valid.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

Sorry, I'm not playing junior detective with you.

Or anyone else for that matter. There's a scientific consensus out there that no amount of document hunting by laypersons can change. That's been my main point throughout this thread, and it's how I always view internet forum challenges to scientific consensuses on technical, scientific issues.

Also, since you'd rather call me stupid than answer our Canadian friend's excellent post on the "appeal to authority" issue, I'll helpfully quote it for you in full:

No, no, you misunderstand.

I'm not calling you stupid at all.

You're very clearly calling everyone else who happens to disagree with you "stupid" by the use of your smiley face. You said as much when you wrote:

Originally Posted by the crook

Any remaining layperson who is still skeptical doesn't need convincing. They're already impervious to that. They need a pat on the back and a smile.

Which you followed by ending all your responses to people who disagree with you with a condescending smile.

So, let's be clear: You're calling everyone you disagree with "stupid." and you've been doing it for your past four posts.

Secondly,

It's legitimate to question whether or not the small bump in climate change up or down is man-made or man-contributed, or whether man is irrelevant to it at all.

It's likewise legitimate to question how significant any change is.

It's important to ask what we will do with that information once we have it. If climate change is significant, and if it's man-made, what lengths will we go to in order to do something about it? Do we give up on freedom and bring a stop all new construction, force everyone to live in caves, shut down the power grid, and require all food to be grown locally? Do we do less drastic things that are still an imposition on freedom? I disagree and reject any and all such social engineering - freedom is more valuable.

Lastly, the matter is not closed just because you claim there is scientific consensus, when clearly numerous scientists are in doubt (see the Senate report I linked to) and the numbers are growing. See the report on Dr. David Evans, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...6-7583,00.html for example, one of the converted who has re-examined his previously held beliefs about co2 emissions and their relationship to climate change.

Why do you so desperately want it to be a closed issue? So you can get on with enacting the changes you desire. What are these changes, how much will they cost me, and how much will they infringe on my freedom?

[OreoCookie]

Your definitions don't hold up to any scrutiny.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Interestingly enough, an "expert" is often someone with incredible depth of knowledge in ONE subject, often so tightly focused that said expert is not well qualified to tie his own shoes. Further, being a "scientist" does not mean that a person is an expert in anything. It merely denotes scholarship.

It's true that being a scientist and an expert is not at all the same thing. I am a scientist, but not an expert on the mating rituals of the bonobo. Or on sheafs and K-theory.
However, experts don't work on their own, but with other experts they collaborate with. So getting an expert opinion is almost never something they've done by themselves as experts in only one field.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

For example, my BS says that I am a "scientist".

No, your BS does not say that.
A scientist is someone who does research based on the principles of science, not someone with a title. Beyond that, a Bachelor degree is hardly enough to do any serious scientific work (unless, of course, the Bachelor isn't the end of the story).

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Take ebuddy's example above; what kind of cretin puts a temperature sensing device in a location that is inherently non-representative of the environment, and then tries to pass off that data as valid? That person is either a fool or has an agenda.

An agenda?

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Trust not experts unless said experts can explain their positions in concrete terms. If they can't, then their expertise is so limited that they are not truly relevant.

No, no, no, I wish we had a shake-head smiley.
The ability to explain something to a broader audience says zilch about the expertise of someone in that subject. To be able to explain it to a wider audience depends (i) on the subject matter, (ii) on the expertise of the audience and (iii) on the rhetoric abilities of the person. None of these things have to do with the ability of a person as a researcher.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I can explain to ANYONE how a computer works. I can teach ANYONE how an AM transmitter and receiver work, and once I've done that, I can teach them how FM radios work...

Hate to say it, but most things in science are more complicated than computers. It literally takes years to get acquainted with a subject before becoming an expert. There are so many problems involved that take a long time to solve -- and these things are impossible to communicate to a layman. As long as laymen do not challenge an expert opinion (often by taking quotes from another expert without fully understanding the context) and accept the expert opinion, there is no problem. But if they do, then the layman cannot understand the rebuttal. So in the end, you may have had a point if one person did all the work by him- or herself to reach that opinion. In practice, that's not the case, because experts from different fields collaborate.

Just take a concrete example: I broke my shoulder three months ago and the doctor was thinking about how long I should stay in a Gilchrist dressing. Too short and my shoulder hasn't healed properly, too long and all the ligaments start to stick together. In theory it's my decision, informed consent and all, but do you really think I'd have challenged the doctor's opinion on medical grounds?

Originally Posted by ghporter 

For facts, you need to look at real evidence. How many well constructed, repeatable studies have provided support for the evidence you present? How many times has the result you're presenting been challenged and how have these challenges been pursued? Experts are only useful as a source of evidence in scientific inquiry, rather than being "the source of knowledge."

Again, what you're saying is quite empty here: what is `real' evidence for you? Just the data, the numbers you can read off a measurement apparatus? You cannot separate measurement from interpretation, as long as your experiments can be confirmed by someone else, this is evidence. And how to interpret data, that is knowledge.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Einstein discounted quantum theory, yet your computer and how it works at the hardware level (below registers, timers and such; I'm referring to the field effect transistors that make up the guts of the devices) refutes his belief. EVIDENCE is the key to science, and that is the ONLY "belief" about science that is valid.

On a side note (and as a physicist): Einstein was one of the inventors of quantum physics and he has received his Nobel Prize for his work on this field (the photo-electric effect to be precise). He just didn't like the philosophical implications of the theory he helped found, though.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Take ebuddy's example above; what kind of cretin puts a temperature sensing device in a location that is inherently non-representative of the environment, and then tries to pass off that data as valid? That person is either a fool or has an agenda.

Your response;

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

An agenda?

Okay. A fool? Are agendas only for skeptics?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Okay. A fool? Are agendas only for skeptics?

Agenda is a word used by people who want to create fear. As if there is a concerted effort (quick, put on your tin foil hats!) to install make-shift heaters/CO2 sources next to your local weather station

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Agenda is a word used by people who want to create fear. As if there is a concerted effort (quick, put on your tin foil hats!) to install make-shift heaters/CO2 sources next to your local weather station

So... the expertise is founded on foolishness?

I see shortcut is now referring to this as AGO. Would the 'O' be for oscillation? Since you're a scientist, is the "O" for oscillation and if "yes", what happened to global warming?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No, it's actually pretty much always a logical fallacy.

Sigh.

No, it's not. You're wrong. You're incorrect. You don't know what you're talking about.

greg

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Since you're a scientist, is the "O" for oscillation and if "yes", what happened to global warming?

I'm a scientist, but not an expert on global climate change. Why don't you ask an expert instead?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So... the expertise is founded on foolishness?

I see shortcut is now referring to this as AGO. Would the 'O' be for oscillation? Since you're a scientist, is the "O" for oscillation and if "yes", what happened to global warming?

Hahaha I noticed that too.....actually that's the abbreviation for Art Gallery of Ontario, which has just been remodeled and I was looking at it online yesterday.

greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Sigh.

No, it's not. You're wrong. You're incorrect. You don't know what you're talking about.

greg

Correct me please greg. I don't claim to know what I'm talking about. All I can do is examine the evidences provided for or against one phenomena or another. I looked for AGO and I can find few examples relevant to the context in which you used the acronym.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Using the reality of a "scientific consensus" on AGO is a valid method of argument.

Automatic Geophysical Observatories?
American Guild of Organists?
Art Gallery of Ontario?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Correct me please greg. I don't claim to know what I'm talking about. All I can do is examine the evidences provided for or against one phenomena or another. I looked for AGO and I can find few examples relevant to the context in which you used the acronym.


Automatic Geophysical Observatories?
American Guild of Organists?
Art Gallery of Ontario?

Dude...what are you talking about man, those were two separate posts, one to you and one to someone else.

Clearly, I meant AGW. As I explained, I had been thinking about the AGO and wrote that instead.

greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Dude...what are you talking about man, those were two separate posts, one to you and one to someone else.

Clearly, I meant AGW. As I explained, I had been thinking about the AGO and wrote that instead.

greg

I had already begun drafting my response before you realized your mistake. *Edited to include; I did in fact think your response to to Stupendousman above was a response to me. I apologize.

If nothing more, I've provided the scientific term for global warming once it is found to be cooling. Oscillation. I like it. Sounds scientific and unquestionable.

(the official emoticon of SCIENCE™!!!)

[ghporter]

Oreo, if I can explain how computers work, or how radios work for that matter, to a 17 year old kid who barely knows how to change a lightbulb, I can explain just about anything (that I understand) to just about anyone. The point is not that the detailed, fundamentals of a complex concept take years of study to comprehend, but that the usefulness and implications of those fundamentals are what drive the use of those concepts in discussions such as this.

My BS says I am a Bachelor of Science in computer science. Thus it says I am a scientist. A computer scientist. However, I've been a scientist for most of my life, deriving meaning from evidence instead of from my (sometimes rather strong) feelings. Having a scientific background and applying the scientific model makes me capable of refuting my own feelings in favor of the more well supported, data-driven choice.

A "scientist" who intentionally presents skewed data as valid without any caveat is either foolish enough to believe his data is not skewed, or has an agenda that he or she does not wish to be obvious. Taking temperature readings at a highway intersection, surrounded by many square meters of black asphalt, will by necessity provide data that reflects much of the thermal characteristics of the asphalt, and presenting these data as representative of anything else if faulty.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I can safely say there is no one neither here on this board nor elsewhere who is skeptical of climate change.

Really? The entire post below seems to be skeptical of climate change.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

cop-out


Since it seems to be "experts" VS "laypeople", I thought I'd give the other junior detectives this forum a glimpse of what this "expertise" is founded on;


Yeah, you guessed it. This sensor sight is surrounded by asphalt. Friggin' brilliant! These experts are a cut above. Next?


Wait! Is that a 65Watt light bulb?!? I know, I shouldn't have to ask. We're on hallowed, expert ground. The instructions on "setting the thermometers" you can see in this pic is obviously for laypeople.


Say it isn't so!! A little fireside sensor reading?!? Interestingly, the tennis court and condos (out of pic to the right, there are more pics including the condos) were built in the early 80's. Here are some highly-precise, SuperExpert™ readings from that sensor sight;



We're all DOOMED!!! Oh wait, Louie could you put that fire out please?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Really? The entire post below seems to be skeptical of climate change.

No, it is skeptical of the instrumentation used as evidence of anthropogenic global warming. Of course the climate changes. Absolutely no one is arguing this. Though, I do appreciate the reposting of those pics. I think they're funny.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

My BS says I am a Bachelor of Science in computer science. Thus it says I am a scientist. A computer scientist.

Ummm....sorry man, I don't know about the States, but it doesn't work that way up here. Everyone and their dog has a Bachelor's degree in today's world.

You can't even work in a lab without at least be working on a graduate degree. I'd have serious trouble calling anyone without a Ph.D a scientist, myself. Maybe a Masters, but that would be pushing it.

greg

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No, it is skeptical of the instrumentation used as evidence of anthropogenic global warming. Of course the climate changes. Absolutely no one is arguing this. Though, I do appreciate the reposting of those pics. I think they're funny.

They are humorous, but I can't say that they represent the norm. From the climatology courses I took in university, I can safely say that not all weather stations are so poorly placed or constructed. I'll see your one bad example, and raise you a google of good examples:
http://images.google.ca/images?&um=1...art=36&ndsp=18

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Nothing in the article references simply "climate change". It is almost exclusively focused on anthropogenic global warming. I can safely say there is no one neither here on this board nor elsewhere who is skeptical of climate change. They are very specifically skeptical of Anthropogenic Global Warming. An attempt to frame the skeptical in this manner is in no way different than referring to you as a natural climate change skeptic. You do of course accept there are also natural phenomena driving climate change and therefore, it would be dishonest of me to frame you in this way. This is one reason why few skeptics are really listening. When tactics like this are used, your arguments are marginalized out of the gate.


It is an interesting article and I've noticed this same anomaly among those who claim faith in (a) God. You often hear that some "80+% of Americans claim to believe in God or are Christian" yet the number of those who actually practice this "belief" is rather miniscule. Why?

- It often takes a profound, tangible event in their life to rekindle this presupposition.
- It is also possible that they simply don't really buy it.

I agree. Belief takes no effort at all. Action requires effort and this is always the sticking point with people. The relative lack of action by those who supposedly truly buy off on AGW is another fuel for skeptics just as any religious leaders' unsavory actions fuel their skeptics.

Ah, but it is only recently that the conservative side of the spectrum has even admitted that the climate is warming at all. This reminds me of the backsliding by creationists to grant that "microevolution" is possible but not "macroevolution" is not--as if the distinction is significant at all. This line that "um, yes, the climate is changing but it's not us causing it" line sounds like a lot of hemming and hawing from people too stubborn to face facts. You mention the natural forces that drive climate change, and you're right to. The fact is that one of the most significant natural processes is precession and for thousands of years human activity has been pushing us AWAY from its cooling effects--effects, I might add, which are due to reverse.

Listen, we have liberated something like 10% of the planet's carbon stores into the atmosphere. We have a clear relationship between human activity and greenhouse gases that goes back millennia. Rice patty cultivation in Asia tracks with a rise in methane level which tracks with a reversal of the natural cooling cycle of precession. Similar connections can be drawn between the rise of slash and burn agriculture and CO2 levels.

Now, any reasonable person who is not struggling under the weight of some preexisting bias must look at this data and conclude what the scientific community as a whole has concluded: Human activity is altering the climate and has been for a long time.

Given that, if we look forward to the rise in per capita energy consumption and production of likely greenhouse gas emission from China and India, then it is only reasonable to begin thinking about and discussing together what changes we should make in order to prepare for the challenges this will pose to us in the near future and to our posterity.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The point is not that the detailed, fundamentals of a complex concept take years of study to comprehend, but that the usefulness and implications of those fundamentals are what drive the use of those concepts in discussions such as this.

Even the fundamentals of most sciences are beyond the grasp laymen, because they often are more complicated than, say, computers. If you focus on one single, simple thing, you can, often, pull it off to explain by analogy. This explanation by analogy would necessarily be very shallow and in most cases, you cannot easily transfer your knowledge from one example to a very different one.

In addition, very often you could not defend yourself with answers that are comprehensible to a layman if you are challenged by a seemingly simple and innocent question (simple questions needn't have simple answers). This is what's happening here: many laymen (I include myself in this group) challenge the finding of a large community of scientists -- without properly knowing what they are talking about. People like ebuddy who think that because they have found one weather station that they think will not produce reliable data, they know that the whole group of scientist cannot be trusted. Yet, they listen to weather forecasts

Originally Posted by ghporter 

My BS says I am a Bachelor of Science in computer science. Thus it says I am a scientist.

No. Sorry, but a BSc/BA is the equivalent of a scientific learner's permit: you have been taught the bare fundamentals to understand more advanced concepts.

Note that I'm not saying that you cannot do science without a specific degree. I'm just objection to your statement that your BSc makes you a scientist.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

A "scientist" who intentionally presents skewed data as valid without any caveat is either foolish enough to believe his data is not skewed, or has an agenda that he or she does not wish to be obvious.

You still pretend as if we are talking about a single person, we're talking of a rather large and heterogeneous community of people. To accuse this large group of a concerted effort to skew data (read: conspiracy) is childish and simplistic.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Taking temperature readings at a highway intersection, surrounded by many square meters of black asphalt, will by necessity provide data that reflects much of the thermal characteristics of the asphalt, and presenting these data as representative of anything else if faulty.

That's a fallacy on your part: representative of what? Does all data have to be discarded (e. g. seismic activity, air pressure)? You assume that (i) this station is used by a scientist and not, perhaps, a local school and (ii) that they accept/tolerate/knowingly use data from a station that gives `non-standard readings.'

[vmarks]

http://faustasblog.com/?p=7813 has a ton of neat links showing scientist James Hansen making things up, as well as the Russians just using data from August and duplicating it for September and October.

Does it matter if we have bad data, badly recorded data, and lies about what the data says?

And, will no one answer my question about how much cost and infringement on freedom they wish to impose?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Ah, but it is only recently that the conservative side of the spectrum has even admitted that the climate is warming at all. This reminds me of the backsliding by creationists to grant that "microevolution" is possible but not "macroevolution" is not--as if the distinction is significant at all.

Not to derail anything, but there is certainly a big difference between adaptation within a species and drastic evolution linking all forms of life. This is generally what one means when differentiating between macro and micro evolution. They are absolutely not one and the same. The adaptation of the peppered moth to the change in its habitat in no way definitively proves that said moth evolved from a single-celled organism billions of years ago. Just sayin'.

This line that "um, yes, the climate is changing but it's not us causing it" line sounds like a lot of hemming and hawing from people too stubborn to face facts.

I would say that it more has to do with the fact that political conservatives are hesitant to blindly accept something coming from the liberal left, particularly when it's something used to further a political agenda, or it's just something that goes unchalleneged for awhile. I'm sure there are some conservatives who blindly believe that climate change isn't happening at all, but for a lot of people I know, it was just a matter of ensuring that the issue was duly examined from all angles before making a final pronouncement about it.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

http://faustasblog.com/?p=7813 has a ton of neat links showing scientist James Hansen making things up, as well as the Russians just using data from August and duplicating it for September and October.

There is no question that -- like in any venue of life -- people will try to cheat. However, other scientists will check their results -- especially if the implications are important.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Does it matter if we have bad data, badly recorded data, and lies about what the data says?

You're jumping conclusions, from `there is some bad data' to `all data is tainted'.
It's like saying that because there is fraud in the banking system, you shouldn't rely on banks at all.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

And, will no one answer my question about how much cost and infringement on freedom they wish to impose?

You're directing that at the wrong person. The statement of the scientific community that there is an anthropogenic contribution to global climate change does not infringe upon anyone's freedom. It's a diagnosis, a statement of (scientific) fact supported by the current state of science. Scientists do not make policies, politicians do, they have to come up with solutions to this problem.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No, it is skeptical of the instrumentation used as evidence of anthropogenic global warming. Of course the climate changes. Absolutely no one is arguing this. Though, I do appreciate the reposting of those pics. I think they're funny.

I agree. That's a perfect example why the "IT'S SCIENCE!" appeal to authority remains a logical fallacy.

Actually, looking at those pictures, I don't know whether to laugh or cry!

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I agree. That's a perfect example why the "IT'S SCIENCE!" appeal to authority remains a logical fallacy.

Haha, you just won't give it up will you.

Legitimate Appeal to Authority

Once again: An Appeal to Authority does not have to be a logical fallacy; it can merely be a valid method of argument.

greg

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I agree. That's a perfect example why the "IT'S SCIENCE!" appeal to authority remains a logical fallacy.

Actually, looking at those pictures, I don't know whether to laugh or cry!

It's also a logical fallacy to take those pictures and project them as examples of ALL weather stations. In the climatology department at my university, they took great care to avoid artificial influences. They also had urban and rural stations because they were studying Calgary's urban heat island.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Not to derail anything, but there is certainly a big difference between adaptation within a species and drastic evolution linking all forms of life. This is generally what one means when differentiating between macro and micro evolution. They are absolutely not one and the same. The adaptation of the peppered moth to the change in its habitat in no way definitively proves that said moth evolved from a single-celled organism billions of years ago. Just sayin'.



I would say that it more has to do with the fact that political conservatives are hesitant to blindly accept something coming from the liberal left, particularly when it's something used to further a political agenda, or it's just something that goes unchalleneged for awhile. I'm sure there are some conservatives who blindly believe that climate change isn't happening at all, but for a lot of people I know, it was just a matter of ensuring that the issue was duly examined from all angles before making a final pronouncement about it.

The issue of climate change is not coming from the liberal left. It comes from science. Peer-reviewed, consensus-based science.

And about evolution, the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is completely arbitrary. We've witnessed and documented speciation in several clear examples, cichlids in Cameroon, the venerable fruit fly, numerous plants, etc. Little changes really do add up to the big changes. If you need any proof of that, go to a pet store and look at what artificial selection has done to wolves. Same mechanism, just accelerated by intent.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Your use of the smiley face as condescension is unfortunate.

here's your sign

or

bless your heart.

I recommend reading http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...y.SenateReport

If I'm not mistaken, that's the same Senate report that was blasted by many of the "400" scientists cited within it. Seems the "minority" report grasped onto anyone objecting to individual hypotheses about climate change and made it seem like they were disputing the entire question of man-made climate change.

I'd also like to point out how readily you appeal to authority when you feel as though it supports your point of view.

The IPCC, by the way, draws on the work of some 2,500 scientists.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

They are humorous, but I can't say that they represent the norm. From the climatology courses I took in university, I can safely say that not all weather stations are so poorly placed or constructed. I'll see your one bad example, and raise you a google of good examples

Umm, I gave two examples of sensor sites. Secondly, you simply google-imaged "weather stations". There are maybe three or four pictured there where you can actually see its environment. Did you even check them out?

One of them is a hobbyist's weather station in his back yard. The rain gauge is cute though and I understand he's using "weather display" software on his PC.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Scientists do not make policies, politicians do, they have to come up with solutions to this problem.

Actually, that's false - that's presuming that if there's a problem, politicians have to come up with the solution.

If the problem is so small that it doesn't matter (one contention) or the solution is going to require so much money that it bankrupts us or removes essential liberty (second contention) then there's no need for a politician's solution at all.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

If I'm not mistaken, that's the same Senate report that was blasted by many of the "400" scientists cited within it. Seems the "minority" report grasped onto anyone objecting to individual hypotheses about climate change and made it seem like they were disputing the entire question of man-made climate change.

I'd also like to point out how readily you appeal to authority when you feel as though it supports your point of view.

The IPCC, by the way, draws on the work of some 2,500 scientists.

The point, which you seemed to gloss over, is not an appeal to authority. I'm not saying those 400 scientists are right or wrong, I'm saying that there are numerous people with some scientific background who find room to disagree over how much, how little, and other details.

So, claiming the debate is over, there's no room for discussion, and anyone who disagrees needs a pat on the back and a smile is disingenuous.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Actually, that's false - that's presuming that if there's a problem, politicians have to come up with the solution.

Scientists give a diagnosis and they can and have given advice on how we could react towards these problems. But politicians (mostly legislative branch with the help of the executive branch) have to come up with solutions made into policy.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

If the problem is so small that it doesn't matter (one contention) or the solution is going to require so much money that it bankrupts us or removes essential liberty (second contention) then there's no need for a politician's solution at all.

The cost is always relative to the cost of the unfixed problem. In hindsight, fixing the levies in New Orleans would probably have been cheaper than having a large share of the city destroyed by hurricane Katrina (the damage is somewhere in the triple digit billion US$ range).

Also, it's weird that you only give the two extreme options. What about the case when counter measures/measures to alleviate some of the consequences are actually manageable and affordable?

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

So, claiming the debate is over, there's no room for discussion, and anyone who disagrees needs a pat on the back and a smile is disingenuous.

Among scientists, the debate for whether global warming is man-made is over.

Among anonymous internet forum posters, nothing is ever over, I suppose. AIDS is a government plot. We faked the landing on the moon. Second-hand smoke isn't dangerous. Evolution is totally undermined by this made-up controversy that evolutionary biologists refuse to acknowledge! Is there room to challenge the consensus? Yes, challenge it by publication in a peer-reviewed science journal.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Even the fundamentals of most sciences are beyond the grasp laymen, because they often are more complicated than, say, computers. If you focus on one single, simple thing, you can, often, pull it off to explain by analogy. This explanation by analogy would necessarily be very shallow and in most cases, you cannot easily transfer your knowledge from one example to a very different one.

In addition, very often you could not defend yourself with answers that are comprehensible to a layman if you are challenged by a seemingly simple and innocent question (simple questions needn't have simple answers). This is what's happening here: many laymen (I include myself in this group) challenge the finding of a large community of scientists -- without properly knowing what they are talking about. People like ebuddy who think that because they have found one weather station that they think will not produce reliable data, they know that the whole group of scientist cannot be trusted. Yet, they listen to weather forecasts

SOMEBODY must be able to boil down what one is doing, or it's not going to get funded. Put simply, putting what you're doing simply enough for a layman to understand why it's important is crucial. This is why it's important to be able to state the building blocks of anything in simple terms; you can build up to a more complex subject with straightforward analogies and examples.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No. Sorry, but a BSc/BA is the equivalent of a scientific learner's permit: you have been taught the bare fundamentals to understand more advanced concepts.

Note that I'm not saying that you cannot do science without a specific degree. I'm just objection to your statement that your BSc makes you a scientist.

If the learner's permit doesn't require you to behave as a scientist, then it's useless. Even the apprentice must use the scientific method, or he/she is just wandering around in the wilderness. EVERY person conducting scientific inquiry MUST be a scientist in the most fundamental sense of the word. That does not mean that such scientists are terribly productive, but when your first-semester grad student starts collecting data, doesn't he have to do it right for the entire project to go properly?

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

You still pretend as if we are talking about a single person, we're talking of a rather large and heterogeneous community of people. To accuse this large group of a concerted effort to skew data (read: conspiracy) is childish and simplistic.

That's a fallacy on your part: representative of what? Does all data have to be discarded (e. g. seismic activity, air pressure)? You assume that (i) this station is used by a scientist and not, perhaps, a local school and (ii) that they accept/tolerate/knowingly use data from a station that gives `non-standard readings.'

A single person came up with the site that ebuddy posted. Sure, a bunch of people bought into it being ok, but someone, probably a single person, sold them on it. And as I said, presenting data that comes from a particular locale without caveats implies that the data is representative of a fairly generic locale, not one that is affected by particularly well-known biases such as asphalt. Any person that promotes data as being valid must also provide the limits within which that data was obtained, or that data may be misinterpreted. My point was that that one measurement station should have a big, Major League Baseball-style asterisk after every one of its observations to denote the conditions under which it was obtained. We expect temperature observations at airports to be skewed by the enormous amount of concrete around them (heat sinks of any kind skew temperature readings), but non-airport observations must have their conditions stated for them to be relevant.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Umm, I gave two examples of sensor sites. Secondly, you simply google-imaged "weather stations". There are maybe three or four pictured there where you can actually see its environment. Did you even check them out?

One of them is a hobbyist's weather station in his back yard. The rain gauge is cute though and I understand he's using "weather display" software on his PC.

wow ... this level of dishonesty is not what I'd expect from you














One example of a poorly set up weather station does not mean that *all* weather stations are poorly set up.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

Among scientists, the debate for whether global warming is man-made is over.

Among anonymous internet forum posters, nothing is ever over, I suppose. AIDS is a government plot. We faked the landing on the moon. Second-hand smoke isn't dangerous. Evolution is totally undermined by this made-up controversy that evolutionary biologists refuse to acknowledge! Is there room to challenge the consensus? Yes, challenge it by publication in a peer-reviewed science journal.

Among scientists, there is a majority and a minority opinion, and debate within the spectrum between the two. That doesn't sound like consensus.

The real problem that you haven't addressed is, what actions do you wish to impose upon us all based on the assumption that the worst is true?

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Among scientists, there is a majority and a minority opinion, and debate within the spectrum between the two. That doesn't sound like consensus.

No there's not.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The real problem that you haven't addressed is, what actions do you wish to impose upon us all based on the assumption that the worst is true?

Something that infringes freedom, no doubt.



Politically, I'll probably go with whatever Al Gore recommends.