3 ms·

If most experts in a field believe X, you should believe X unless you have good reason otherwise. Anyway, if that was the argument in isolation, you'd have a b

If most experts in a field believe X, you should believe X unless you have good reason otherwise. Anyway, if that was the argument in isolation, you'd have a better point. There's also the matter of the rapid measured temperature increase in 20th century, glacial retreat, mass coral die-offs, historical records of Arctic sea ice, the body of published peer-reviewed work on it, among many other things. And... I take particular offense to "it's not scientifically relevant." There is a big difference between interpreting information and practicing science. The author of the link previously published an article with basic errors in its science and his two coauthors partially disavowed the work. He is publishing on a non-peer reviewed site with a known bias. And if you want get specific, read the provided "rebuttal" link. It basically amounts to "The 7-10 mm/yr claim is alarmist! If you look at this other tidal gauge, it's almost 10 mm/yr from 1995 onward, but it looks like it may have slowed to 5 mm/yr since then. Also, if you go back to 1974 - 20 before the uptrend starts - it's ony 3mm/yr!"

hueving 11y ago
>If most experts in a field believe X, you should believe X unless you have good reason otherwise. True, unless a person believes the whole field is bunk. e.g. numerology, technical analysis (looking for shapes in stock charts), faith healing, etc. Many smarter people I talk to (not typical hurr-durr Al Gore sucks types) that don't buy into the global warming story think that the climate is too complex for the current modeling to mean anything. >Anyway, if that was the argument in isolation, you'd have a better point. There's also the matter of the rapid measured temperature increase in 20th century, glacial retreat, mass coral die-offs, historical records of Arctic sea ice, the body of published peer-reviewed work on it, among many other things. I'm not disputing global warming. I was merely critiquing using popularity as a support for your argument. The real data is so much more powerful that adding that actually detracts from the evidence. >And... I take particular offense to "it's not scientifically relevant." There is a big difference between interpreting information and practicing science. A major theory has never won over critical-thinking people with the argument "it must be right because X group says so". It always comes down to actual proofs, experiments, and analysis that bring it into general acceptance. e.g. it's not scientifically relevant who believed in "spooky action at a distance" from quantum mechanics, it's only relevant that it was mathematically/physically sound and eventually shown in experiments. >And if you want get specific, read the provided "rebuttal" link. My comment is purely focused on using popularity amongst scientists as a tool for arguments. I am fine with showing that he/she is full of shit via logical/evidence-based rebuttals.
- Oletros 11y ago
  > True, unless a person believes the whole field is bunk. e.g. numerology, technical analysis (looking for shapes in stock charts), faith healing, etc. Are you comparing climatology with those subjects?
  - hueving 11y ago
    From the perspective of a denialist, that's how they will essentially view the field. So you need to understand that and realize that arguments from authority are very weak in that regard.
- unprepare 11y ago
  >think that the climate is too complex for the current modeling to mean anything. "We dont know enough, so we're sure we are correct and they are wrong" is about the dumbest reasoning I can think of, I'm sure those are really smart people you're talking to...
  - hueving 11y ago
    That's a bit of a strawman of their thinking. It's closer to, "we don't know enough, so we need to be very careful about creating policies that are economically destructive to entire industries (and subsequently industries that depend on those) that depend on cheap energy. It's not common for me to hear people claim that they are certain that the climate research is completely wrong, it's usually that the feel the evidence isn't strong enough to make such broad changes to how the world's economy functions. It's a much easier perspective to understand when you realize how many of these peoples' lives are directly tied to oil/gas/aviation/etc. Assuming complete stupidity or malice on their part does very little to advance the argument or accomplish anything in general other than feeling good about yourself.

hueving 11y ago

>If most experts in a field believe X, you should believe X unless you have good reason otherwise. True, unless a person believes the whole field is bunk. e.g. numerology, technical analysis (looking for shapes in stock charts), faith healing, etc. Many smarter people I talk to (not typical hurr-durr Al Gore sucks types) that don't buy into the global warming story think that the climate is too complex for the current modeling to mean anything. >Anyway, if that was the argument in isolation, you'd have a better point. There's also the matter of the rapid measured temperature increase in 20th century, glacial retreat, mass coral die-offs, historical records of Arctic sea ice, the body of published peer-reviewed work on it, among many other things. I'm not disputing global warming. I was merely critiquing using popularity as a support for your argument. The real data is so much more powerful that adding that actually detracts from the evidence. >And... I take particular offense to "it's not scientifically relevant." There is a big difference between interpreting information and practicing science. A major theory has never won over critical-thinking people with the argument "it must be right because X group says so". It always comes down to actual proofs, experiments, and analysis that bring it into general acceptance. e.g. it's not scientifically relevant who believed in "spooky action at a distance" from quantum mechanics, it's only relevant that it was mathematically/physically sound and eventually shown in experiments. >And if you want get specific, read the provided "rebuttal" link. My comment is purely focused on using popularity amongst scientists as a tool for arguments. I am fine with showing that he/she is full of shit via logical/evidence-based rebuttals.

Oletros 11y ago
> True, unless a person believes the whole field is bunk. e.g. numerology, technical analysis (looking for shapes in stock charts), faith healing, etc. Are you comparing climatology with those subjects?
- hueving 11y ago
  From the perspective of a denialist, that's how they will essentially view the field. So you need to understand that and realize that arguments from authority are very weak in that regard.
unprepare 11y ago
>think that the climate is too complex for the current modeling to mean anything. "We dont know enough, so we're sure we are correct and they are wrong" is about the dumbest reasoning I can think of, I'm sure those are really smart people you're talking to...
- hueving 11y ago
  That's a bit of a strawman of their thinking. It's closer to, "we don't know enough, so we need to be very careful about creating policies that are economically destructive to entire industries (and subsequently industries that depend on those) that depend on cheap energy. It's not common for me to hear people claim that they are certain that the climate research is completely wrong, it's usually that the feel the evidence isn't strong enough to make such broad changes to how the world's economy functions. It's a much easier perspective to understand when you realize how many of these peoples' lives are directly tied to oil/gas/aviation/etc. Assuming complete stupidity or malice on their part does very little to advance the argument or accomplish anything in general other than feeling good about yourself.