4 ms·

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 de

by 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.

by hugh4 11y ago

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.