5 ms·

Not much different than global warming believers that point to just trends that support their position.

by talmand 11y ago

llamataboot 11y ago
Anthropogenic global warming is a scientific theory with a preponderance of evidence. Like all scientific theories it is open to being revised if/when contrary data emerges. At the moment, the vast majority of data supports it as a theory.
- talmand 11y ago
  I don't say otherwise in my statement. I am simply pointing out that both sides of the argument can cherry pick, and often do. Much like any other debate, especially on the internet.
  - yarrel 11y ago
    You're creating a false equivalence between a theory that has the weight of evidence on its side and critics of that theory who tend to lie about the evidence. So no.
    - talmand 11y ago
      Well, when I see people cherry pick their data and cherry pick events that only support their side, I'm sorry to say I have to disagree with you. I have seen such things on both sides of this debate. Just because you haven't seen it, refuse to see it, or incapable of seeing it doesn't make my observations on the matter incorrect. I can pull out a fancy term as well, I think you may have a case of confirmation bias. But since I don't know you, don't know your full opinion on the matter, nor don't know what you've read, I don't think I'll label you with negativity as you have done me.
- hugh4 11y ago
  This is true, and if only global warming people would start phrasing it in that way instead of the rather less scientific "It's an undeniable fact! You can't deny it! Expressing skepticism makes you a bad person!" then I could quit arguing with them. I don't know how we ever got into the situation where the big argument is between "this is undeniable fact!" and "this is probably true". The dumb part is that the actions you should take in response to a reasonable probability of deleterious consequences are not all that different to the actions you should take if the probability is one hundred point zero percent.
  - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
    But that's not how most people understand probability. Or science. Remember, many deniers literally believe that climate change research is a hoax created by scientists to gain funding. A smaller but non-trivial percentage literally believe that NASA has a moon base and/or a mars base and access to free energy technology. When faced with kookiness of that order, nuances of phrasing are politically irrelevant. For deniers, argument by evidence is pointless, because many of them don't understand the scientific method anyway. That's why they're deniers. If they were looking at the evidence objectively instead of cherry-picking it, or blanking it, or saying ill-informed things like "Another record cold winter - must be that global warming I keep hearing about, heh heh heh" they'd be as terrified of where we're going to be half a century from now as many climate scientists are. All policy makers have left is argument by rhetoric - which isn't very scientific, but is more politically expedient.
    - hugh4 11y ago
      So you lie to people because you think they can't understand the subtleties of the truth, then you complain that they detect they're being lied to, which obliges you to lie even harder.
    - midwest1 11y ago
      I used to agree with your characterization. Most global warming deniers do not understand the nature of climate change. I do like to get all sides of a debate, unless of course the debate includes your average Trump voter. There are a minority of climate researchers who are not certain our level of CO2 emissions warrant any action. I understand that this is not the climate-scientist-majority position; however, I've seen so many red flags from the majority over the past few years that I've re-evaluated my position that deniers are all either morons or evil. Perhaps Judith Curry is a soulless leach paid off by powerful polluting interests, I do not know. In the absence of evidence for her corruption, applied with a neutral judging eye (i.e. applying the same standard to both sides) I'm going to assume she has something valid to say. And she's a climate modeler, not a statistician, or a reporter, or Breitbart.
Daishiman 11y ago
So the entirety of climate science is a "trend". I guess we can just take the whole of astronomy as a trend that the Earth is round too.
- talmand 11y ago
  Hmmm, I reread what I wrote. I don't see where I made that claim.
  - splawn 11y ago
    Would you also say that gravity, evolution, and germ theory believers also point to just trends that support their position? Of course the thing these all have in common with climate change is scientific consensus..they just lack all the political "opposition". Actually it just hit me that people still debate evolution too.. lol.
    - rimantas 11y ago
      Climate science is complicated by the fact that there are gazillions of variables and we hardly understand them and their interaction. Gravity is predictable enough for us to fly some apparatus millions of kilometres and land it on the comet. We are far far away from this kind of precision in regard of climate.
      - splawn 11y ago
        Are you claiming there isn't scientific consensus on climate change? Edit: and by "climate change" I mean the notion of "humans are causing the planet to warm up with CO2"
        midwest1 11y ago
        The term consensus seems... polluted. The scientific consensus refers to the number of scientists that believe in anthro-climate change, but not the number of scientists who actually study climate change detection and its relation to greenhouse gases. In other words, the opinion of a natural scientist, who relies on models developed by scientists who study climate change detection and attribution, does not matter at all. In the same way my opinion on relativity, as an engineer, means nothing about the consensus of people who can say relativity is an accurate theory. I believe there is definitely a majority. But the oft-mentioned studies mentioning 97% consensus are highly misleading.
talmand 11y ago
This has been an interesting thread. Especially the comments by people who seem to think they know my feeling about climate change. It's the usual, assume and attack. Well, not all of them I would agree. Anyway, as most of the comments to me seem to suggest, I'm not a denier. I just have problems with some of the "science" involved, on both sides.

Not much different than global warming believers that point to just trends that support their position.

by talmand 11y ago

Not much different than global warming believers that point to just trends that support their position.

Anthropogenic global warming is a scientific theory with a preponderance of evidence. Like all scientific theories it is open to being revised if/when contrary data emerges. At the moment, the vast majority of data supports it as a theory.

talmand 11y ago
I don't say otherwise in my statement. I am simply pointing out that both sides of the argument can cherry pick, and often do. Much like any other debate, especially on the internet.
- yarrel 11y ago
  You're creating a false equivalence between a theory that has the weight of evidence on its side and critics of that theory who tend to lie about the evidence. So no.
  - talmand 11y ago
    Well, when I see people cherry pick their data and cherry pick events that only support their side, I'm sorry to say I have to disagree with you. I have seen such things on both sides of this debate. Just because you haven't seen it, refuse to see it, or incapable of seeing it doesn't make my observations on the matter incorrect. I can pull out a fancy term as well, I think you may have a case of confirmation bias. But since I don't know you, don't know your full opinion on the matter, nor don't know what you've read, I don't think I'll label you with negativity as you have done me.
hugh4 11y ago
This is true, and if only global warming people would start phrasing it in that way instead of the rather less scientific "It's an undeniable fact! You can't deny it! Expressing skepticism makes you a bad person!" then I could quit arguing with them. I don't know how we ever got into the situation where the big argument is between "this is undeniable fact!" and "this is probably true". The dumb part is that the actions you should take in response to a reasonable probability of deleterious consequences are not all that different to the actions you should take if the probability is one hundred point zero percent.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  But that's not how most people understand probability. Or science. Remember, many deniers literally believe that climate change research is a hoax created by scientists to gain funding. A smaller but non-trivial percentage literally believe that NASA has a moon base and/or a mars base and access to free energy technology. When faced with kookiness of that order, nuances of phrasing are politically irrelevant. For deniers, argument by evidence is pointless, because many of them don't understand the scientific method anyway. That's why they're deniers. If they were looking at the evidence objectively instead of cherry-picking it, or blanking it, or saying ill-informed things like "Another record cold winter - must be that global warming I keep hearing about, heh heh heh" they'd be as terrified of where we're going to be half a century from now as many climate scientists are. All policy makers have left is argument by rhetoric - which isn't very scientific, but is more politically expedient.
  - hugh4 11y ago
    So you lie to people because you think they can't understand the subtleties of the truth, then you complain that they detect they're being lied to, which obliges you to lie even harder.
  - midwest1 11y ago
    I used to agree with your characterization. Most global warming deniers do not understand the nature of climate change. I do like to get all sides of a debate, unless of course the debate includes your average Trump voter. There are a minority of climate researchers who are not certain our level of CO2 emissions warrant any action. I understand that this is not the climate-scientist-majority position; however, I've seen so many red flags from the majority over the past few years that I've re-evaluated my position that deniers are all either morons or evil. Perhaps Judith Curry is a soulless leach paid off by powerful polluting interests, I do not know. In the absence of evidence for her corruption, applied with a neutral judging eye (i.e. applying the same standard to both sides) I'm going to assume she has something valid to say. And she's a climate modeler, not a statistician, or a reporter, or Breitbart.

Daishiman 11y ago

So the entirety of climate science is a "trend". I guess we can just take the whole of astronomy as a trend that the Earth is round too.

talmand 11y ago
Hmmm, I reread what I wrote. I don't see where I made that claim.
- splawn 11y ago
  Would you also say that gravity, evolution, and germ theory believers also point to just trends that support their position? Of course the thing these all have in common with climate change is scientific consensus..they just lack all the political "opposition". Actually it just hit me that people still debate evolution too.. lol.
  - rimantas 11y ago
    Climate science is complicated by the fact that there are gazillions of variables and we hardly understand them and their interaction. Gravity is predictable enough for us to fly some apparatus millions of kilometres and land it on the comet. We are far far away from this kind of precision in regard of climate.
    - splawn 11y ago
      Are you claiming there isn't scientific consensus on climate change? Edit: and by "climate change" I mean the notion of "humans are causing the planet to warm up with CO2"
      - midwest1 11y ago
        The term consensus seems... polluted. The scientific consensus refers to the number of scientists that believe in anthro-climate change, but not the number of scientists who actually study climate change detection and its relation to greenhouse gases. In other words, the opinion of a natural scientist, who relies on models developed by scientists who study climate change detection and attribution, does not matter at all. In the same way my opinion on relativity, as an engineer, means nothing about the consensus of people who can say relativity is an accurate theory. I believe there is definitely a majority. But the oft-mentioned studies mentioning 97% consensus are highly misleading.

talmand 11y ago

This has been an interesting thread. Especially the comments by people who seem to think they know my feeling about climate change. It's the usual, assume and attack. Well, not all of them I would agree. Anyway, as most of the comments to me seem to suggest, I'm not a denier. I just have problems with some of the "science" involved, on both sides.