5 ms·

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

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.

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.