17 ms·

I think it is possible to believe in climate change and not believe in anthropogenic warming. It's just like pascal's wager. Let's assume just the two options

by fnid2 17y ago

I think it is possible to believe in climate change and not believe in anthropogenic warming. It's just like pascal's wager. Let's assume just the two options where the globe is warming, is it man's fault or not? Let's assume it is man's fault and there are two options, we can do something or we can't. If we can't and we try, we wasted a huge effort to stop something we can't stop. If it isn't our fault, then we start to look at ways to adapt and have a better chance of survival. No one is suggesting better air conditioners as a solution to global warming, but something like that may be our only hope. The problem with blaming man is that it might be our behavior that is actually keeping the globe cool. For example, Global Dimming may be counteracting the effects of what could be a natural warming cycle due to sun spots: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming and PBS's Nova did a show on it as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o1iXRU_5WU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o1iXRU_5WU If we stop polluting through the emission of particulate matter, then the global warming may actually get worse!

cema 17y ago
Should not be a matter of belief. Should be a matter of science.
- fnid2 17y ago
  Should be, except that the science has been corrupted by special interests.
  - DaniFong 17y ago
    How can you be so sure that your understanding of science has not been corrupted by special interests? It seems to me that if one were to pick a population to corrupt, one would pick the intellectually lazy majority...
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      Not necessarily; it might be easier to corrupt scientists because they are traditionally black/white on controversial issues. As someone not in either the "intellectually lazy majority" or the hardcore scientific minority it's fairly clear both things are going on. The science is being corrupted quite a bit by the media and politico's to be spoon fed to the populace on their own agenda :)
      - ErrantX 17y ago
        (im interested where the disagreement lies here? any comments?)
      - cgranade 17y ago
        Actually, science is characterized largely by an absence of black and white thinking. Speaking as a theoretical physicist, I can assure you that those of us in science will argue ad naseum about whatever detail of a theory you want. It is this precise mechanism that allows us to produce theories which are incredibly well-tested. Where science tends not to see shades of gray is in defending its work from politically-motivated attacks. One might as well accuse biologists of being "black/white" on evolution when defending against entirely insubstantial attacks from creationists. Creationists aren't interested, say, in whether it's genes or species that are evolving, but only in whether they can sow enough distrust of science to get into the public discourse. Similarly, climate denialists don't really care about specific problems with climate models as much as they do with undermining how science is perceived. Thus, denialists don't see the actual teeming debate within science over the specifics over how AGW takes form, where real climate skeptics point out problems that are then addressed by the rest of the community. To a denialist, it probably seems as if the world is simply screaming "no" at them over and over again, but that doesn't mean there's not a rich world within the science that they denigrate.
        ErrantX 17y ago
        Im not sure that is the case for controversial theories. Just take a look at the differing opinions on quantum theory (especially the argument over light quanta) and atomic structure in the past. That was pretty black/white for many years (by which I mean you had scientists very staunchly on both sides of the theories). This black/white scenario is ripe for corruption by a (political) third party. They can play the two off against each other and ultimately try to present one as right or wrong. Going back to the specific quote: It seems to me that if one were to pick a population to corrupt, one would pick the intellectually lazy majority As I read it DaniFong is saying that the general populace is being corrupted by denialists (agreed, as it happens). He uses this as a(n abstract) proof that non-denialist climate change science is accurate and scientists are not corrupted by political motives etc. My argument is that firstly this is a tautology (because both could be true) and actually that both are true. We've seen some politically motivated science hit the news even over the last month or so. Just as much it is clear that the denialists are trying to sway populists to their opinion through a combination of pseudo-science and (more often) by undermining the science (as you mention). Arguing that only one exists doesn't really work any more. I think that if you want to hold an opinion on this you, sadly, have to go and do some realistic research of your own into the topics. It's no longer safe to trust politicians, activists (both for/against) or news agencies (and, yes, some scientists). As an aside: this whole debate amuses me because as I observe it seems incredibly black/white for everyone involved. People are getting so hung up on whether we have an effect on climate or GW that it completely disconnects from the actual main issues. It seems often like there is a minority of people actually trying to do something sensible while the rest bicker of (albeit very important) meta-issues. (btw I'm not a denialist :))

by fnid2 17y ago

cema 17y ago

Should not be a matter of belief. Should be a matter of science.

fnid2 17y ago
Should be, except that the science has been corrupted by special interests.
- DaniFong 17y ago
  How can you be so sure that your understanding of science has not been corrupted by special interests? It seems to me that if one were to pick a population to corrupt, one would pick the intellectually lazy majority...
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    Not necessarily; it might be easier to corrupt scientists because they are traditionally black/white on controversial issues. As someone not in either the "intellectually lazy majority" or the hardcore scientific minority it's fairly clear both things are going on. The science is being corrupted quite a bit by the media and politico's to be spoon fed to the populace on their own agenda :)
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      (im interested where the disagreement lies here? any comments?)
    - cgranade 17y ago
      Actually, science is characterized largely by an absence of black and white thinking. Speaking as a theoretical physicist, I can assure you that those of us in science will argue ad naseum about whatever detail of a theory you want. It is this precise mechanism that allows us to produce theories which are incredibly well-tested. Where science tends not to see shades of gray is in defending its work from politically-motivated attacks. One might as well accuse biologists of being "black/white" on evolution when defending against entirely insubstantial attacks from creationists. Creationists aren't interested, say, in whether it's genes or species that are evolving, but only in whether they can sow enough distrust of science to get into the public discourse. Similarly, climate denialists don't really care about specific problems with climate models as much as they do with undermining how science is perceived. Thus, denialists don't see the actual teeming debate within science over the specifics over how AGW takes form, where real climate skeptics point out problems that are then addressed by the rest of the community. To a denialist, it probably seems as if the world is simply screaming "no" at them over and over again, but that doesn't mean there's not a rich world within the science that they denigrate.
      - ErrantX 17y ago
        Im not sure that is the case for controversial theories. Just take a look at the differing opinions on quantum theory (especially the argument over light quanta) and atomic structure in the past. That was pretty black/white for many years (by which I mean you had scientists very staunchly on both sides of the theories). This black/white scenario is ripe for corruption by a (political) third party. They can play the two off against each other and ultimately try to present one as right or wrong. Going back to the specific quote: It seems to me that if one were to pick a population to corrupt, one would pick the intellectually lazy majority As I read it DaniFong is saying that the general populace is being corrupted by denialists (agreed, as it happens). He uses this as a(n abstract) proof that non-denialist climate change science is accurate and scientists are not corrupted by political motives etc. My argument is that firstly this is a tautology (because both could be true) and actually that both are true. We've seen some politically motivated science hit the news even over the last month or so. Just as much it is clear that the denialists are trying to sway populists to their opinion through a combination of pseudo-science and (more often) by undermining the science (as you mention). Arguing that only one exists doesn't really work any more. I think that if you want to hold an opinion on this you, sadly, have to go and do some realistic research of your own into the topics. It's no longer safe to trust politicians, activists (both for/against) or news agencies (and, yes, some scientists). As an aside: this whole debate amuses me because as I observe it seems incredibly black/white for everyone involved. People are getting so hung up on whether we have an effect on climate or GW that it completely disconnects from the actual main issues. It seems often like there is a minority of people actually trying to do something sensible while the rest bicker of (albeit very important) meta-issues. (btw I'm not a denialist :))