4 ms·

What part of the "CO2->Global Warming->Catastrophe" thing is it that you don't buy? What is "false consensus"? Are you in a position to judge the conclusions su

What part of the "CO2->Global Warming->Catastrophe" thing is it that you don't buy? What is "false consensus"? Are you in a position to judge the conclusions supported by a vast majority (that's only my perception, but how likely is it to be completely mistaken?) of experts? What brings you to the conclusion that global warming could be a hoax? Do you have a reason for not trusting the experts? Who could be interested in spreading the global warming hoax? Wouldn't it be much easier and profitable for them to e.g. sell oil? These are questions I haven't seen answered so far.

boona 10y ago
Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, wrote an interesting piece on this topic. http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-problem-and-climate-change-science http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-pro...
- jstimpfle 10y ago
  Thank you, very interesting!
- intended 10y ago
  He starts out by saying that "he totally believes the scientific consensus" And then begins to undermine it by effectively saying "well, so what? If there is a problem with global warming, we will just do something to scrub the air clean." While also dumping a laundry list of canards and debunked arguments about climate deniers. For example: > 1. A theory has been “adjusted” in the past to maintain the conclusion even though the data has changed. For example, “Global warming” evolved to “climate change” because the models didn’t show universal warming. Really?? Climate change? Changing the name is a big deal? And that to after politicians and their media managers helped force that change ? And inherent in this statement is a full assault and repudiation of science and scientifists. If science updates their models and the conclusions stay the same, then it improves confidence. That science. What Adams ends up implying is that liars cheat and fudge their data, and that's when their results stay the same. HMMMM, suspicious. > 3. The models require human judgement to decide how variables should be treated. This allows humans to “tune” the output to a desired end. This is the case with climate science models. Shocking ply this is the case with many mathematical and statistical models. You expect trained and expert scientists to do this and do it well. That's the whole damn point. > 4. There is a severe social or economic penalty for having the “wrong” opinion in the field. As I already said, I agree with the consensus of climate scientists because saying otherwise in public would be social and career suicide for me even as a cartoonist. Imagine how much worse the pressure would be if science was my career. Again, the Fox News-esque assassination of science and scientists continue. The reason people follow the consensus is becusse they are afraid. 5. There are so many variables that can be measured – and so many that can be ignored – that you can produce any result you want by choosing what to measure and what to ignore. Our measurement sensors do not cover all locations on earth, from the upper atmosphere to the bottom of the ocean, so we have the option to use the measurements that fit our predictions while discounting the rest. .... To top it off, he concludes with "so I hold both positions. If it turns out it was a disaster, i get to say i believes science. If it's not a disaster I get to say I told you so ". This is not logic, this is mood manipulation.
- freen 10y ago
  I don't always science, but when I do, I prefer to trust cartoonists.
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago
  Scott Adams doesn't believe in fossils and thinks that wishing can makes things true. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scott_Adams http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scott_Adams It's hardly surprising therefore that he has issues with Climate Science and supports Trump.
  - jstimpfle 10y ago
    Thanks - very good to know. Puts things in relation for me (I'm not deeply invested in climate science)
phkahler 10y ago
OK, I'll bite: >> What part of the "CO2->Global Warming->Catastrophe" thing is it that you don't buy? I don't buy that CO2 emissions are going to be a problem. I don't buy that the observed changes in climate are due to CO2. >> What is "false consensus"? Are you in a position to judge the conclusions supported by a vast majority (that's only my perception, but how likely is it to be completely mistaken?) of experts? I do not believe that a majority of experts believes that stuff. The IPPC reports are not actually singed by a majority, only a few people who claim to represent that majority. To be honest, I trust engineers judgement more than I trust funded scientists. If you like that idea you may want to read Burt Rutans take on it here: http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm Like you say it's your perception of experts. What about the documented case of a computer program that showed the same "trend" regardless of input? There is documented fraud on the GW side. Does that invalidate all of it? Of course not, but it should call it into question. >> What brings you to the conclusion that global warming could be a hoax? I never said that. I do think it's being used to further political agendas (don't you?) whether those people believe in it or not. >> Do you have a reason for not trusting the experts? Sure, go read about climate and weather models. They are very tricky. Sometimes a part of a model is improved based on some real experimental data, but it throws off the weather models which had been tweaked to work with the old assumptions (sorry, I don't have a link handy). New tweaking is needed. This points to known problems with the models, which are not 100% physics based and are not inclusive of all phenomena as they'd like you to believe. One of my biggest complaints is the lack of consideration of water vapor in the models - it is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. Here, just read this: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/artificial-weather-revealed-post-9-11-flight-groundings http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/artificial-weather-revealed... I live in Michigan and while everyone was feeling the trauma of those events, I noticed the unusually cloud-free the sky was at the time. It was a beautiful deep blue every day. Notably different to the norm. One may also notice that the change in "climate" over the last 50 years is also concurrent with the rise in air travel. I don't think that's a coincidence. BTW, the weather models do not incorporate much in the way of contrail effects - precisely because they are very sensitive to it. Until we can understand the effects of water vapor, I don't see how we can vilify carbon. Then there is the benefit plants - had we not dumped carbon into the air we were dangerously close to having too little. Lots of studies are starting to show how plants thrive in our modern high-carbon world. Let's talk historical records - not 50, 100, or 100 years. I'm talking 100K or 10M years. We are in an interglacial period, which is near it's end if you look at history. If we do nothing, you should expect glaciation in geological short order. Then there's the fact that glaciations didn't used to happen at all. If you go back even farther, the earth was in fact warmer and life flourished. If you watched the recent Cosmos series, I believe the whole thing was propaganda. I watched the final episode which was on Climate Change. It was sadly science-free. That is to say he talked a lot about the things you see in the paper but didn't give any evidence - no data, no plots, nothing. And then at the end he's up in the arctic talking about some coastal tundra eroding and there's old plant matter buried in there! Imagine plants thriving in the arctic - I don't even see a problem with some warming even if it's not caused by CO2. Then lets talk about desertification, which people like to attribute to climate change. Here's a great TED talk about how farming practices can reverse that (and may be the cause): https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_worl... I would hope that all of this at the very least can cast some doubt on the notion that CO2 is this big global problem that's going to destroy everything if we don't do something about it. Cast some doubt. Start a debate based on data not a media promoted "consensus". And not doctored data: https://www.google.com/#q=doctored+ocean+temperature https://www.google.com/#q=doctored+ocean+temperature Oh, and finally this has been going on so long that the longer term predictions are starting to fail: https://www.google.com/#q=failed+climate+change+predictions https://www.google.com/#q=failed+climate+change+predictions But I'm not trying to convince you, just maybe cast a little doubt.

boona 10y ago

Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, wrote an interesting piece on this topic. http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-problem-and-climate-change-science http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-pro...

jstimpfle 10y ago
Thank you, very interesting!
intended 10y ago
He starts out by saying that "he totally believes the scientific consensus" And then begins to undermine it by effectively saying "well, so what? If there is a problem with global warming, we will just do something to scrub the air clean." While also dumping a laundry list of canards and debunked arguments about climate deniers. For example: > 1. A theory has been “adjusted” in the past to maintain the conclusion even though the data has changed. For example, “Global warming” evolved to “climate change” because the models didn’t show universal warming. Really?? Climate change? Changing the name is a big deal? And that to after politicians and their media managers helped force that change ? And inherent in this statement is a full assault and repudiation of science and scientifists. If science updates their models and the conclusions stay the same, then it improves confidence. That science. What Adams ends up implying is that liars cheat and fudge their data, and that's when their results stay the same. HMMMM, suspicious. > 3. The models require human judgement to decide how variables should be treated. This allows humans to “tune” the output to a desired end. This is the case with climate science models. Shocking ply this is the case with many mathematical and statistical models. You expect trained and expert scientists to do this and do it well. That's the whole damn point. > 4. There is a severe social or economic penalty for having the “wrong” opinion in the field. As I already said, I agree with the consensus of climate scientists because saying otherwise in public would be social and career suicide for me even as a cartoonist. Imagine how much worse the pressure would be if science was my career. Again, the Fox News-esque assassination of science and scientists continue. The reason people follow the consensus is becusse they are afraid. 5. There are so many variables that can be measured – and so many that can be ignored – that you can produce any result you want by choosing what to measure and what to ignore. Our measurement sensors do not cover all locations on earth, from the upper atmosphere to the bottom of the ocean, so we have the option to use the measurements that fit our predictions while discounting the rest. .... To top it off, he concludes with "so I hold both positions. If it turns out it was a disaster, i get to say i believes science. If it's not a disaster I get to say I told you so ". This is not logic, this is mood manipulation.
freen 10y ago
I don't always science, but when I do, I prefer to trust cartoonists.
ZeroGravitas 10y ago
Scott Adams doesn't believe in fossils and thinks that wishing can makes things true. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scott_Adams http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scott_Adams It's hardly surprising therefore that he has issues with Climate Science and supports Trump.
- jstimpfle 10y ago
  Thanks - very good to know. Puts things in relation for me (I'm not deeply invested in climate science)

phkahler 10y ago

OK, I'll bite: >> What part of the "CO2->Global Warming->Catastrophe" thing is it that you don't buy? I don't buy that CO2 emissions are going to be a problem. I don't buy that the observed changes in climate are due to CO2. >> What is "false consensus"? Are you in a position to judge the conclusions supported by a vast majority (that's only my perception, but how likely is it to be completely mistaken?) of experts? I do not believe that a majority of experts believes that stuff. The IPPC reports are not actually singed by a majority, only a few people who claim to represent that majority. To be honest, I trust engineers judgement more than I trust funded scientists. If you like that idea you may want to read Burt Rutans take on it here: http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm Like you say it's your perception of experts. What about the documented case of a computer program that showed the same "trend" regardless of input? There is documented fraud on the GW side. Does that invalidate all of it? Of course not, but it should call it into question. >> What brings you to the conclusion that global warming could be a hoax? I never said that. I do think it's being used to further political agendas (don't you?) whether those people believe in it or not. >> Do you have a reason for not trusting the experts? Sure, go read about climate and weather models. They are very tricky. Sometimes a part of a model is improved based on some real experimental data, but it throws off the weather models which had been tweaked to work with the old assumptions (sorry, I don't have a link handy). New tweaking is needed. This points to known problems with the models, which are not 100% physics based and are not inclusive of all phenomena as they'd like you to believe. One of my biggest complaints is the lack of consideration of water vapor in the models - it is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. Here, just read this: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/artificial-weather-revealed-post-9-11-flight-groundings http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/artificial-weather-revealed... I live in Michigan and while everyone was feeling the trauma of those events, I noticed the unusually cloud-free the sky was at the time. It was a beautiful deep blue every day. Notably different to the norm. One may also notice that the change in "climate" over the last 50 years is also concurrent with the rise in air travel. I don't think that's a coincidence. BTW, the weather models do not incorporate much in the way of contrail effects - precisely because they are very sensitive to it. Until we can understand the effects of water vapor, I don't see how we can vilify carbon. Then there is the benefit plants - had we not dumped carbon into the air we were dangerously close to having too little. Lots of studies are starting to show how plants thrive in our modern high-carbon world. Let's talk historical records - not 50, 100, or 100 years. I'm talking 100K or 10M years. We are in an interglacial period, which is near it's end if you look at history. If we do nothing, you should expect glaciation in geological short order. Then there's the fact that glaciations didn't used to happen at all. If you go back even farther, the earth was in fact warmer and life flourished. If you watched the recent Cosmos series, I believe the whole thing was propaganda. I watched the final episode which was on Climate Change. It was sadly science-free. That is to say he talked a lot about the things you see in the paper but didn't give any evidence - no data, no plots, nothing. And then at the end he's up in the arctic talking about some coastal tundra eroding and there's old plant matter buried in there! Imagine plants thriving in the arctic - I don't even see a problem with some warming even if it's not caused by CO2. Then lets talk about desertification, which people like to attribute to climate change. Here's a great TED talk about how farming practices can reverse that (and may be the cause): https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_worl... I would hope that all of this at the very least can cast some doubt on the notion that CO2 is this big global problem that's going to destroy everything if we don't do something about it. Cast some doubt. Start a debate based on data not a media promoted "consensus". And not doctored data: https://www.google.com/#q=doctored+ocean+temperature https://www.google.com/#q=doctored+ocean+temperature Oh, and finally this has been going on so long that the longer term predictions are starting to fail: https://www.google.com/#q=failed+climate+change+predictions https://www.google.com/#q=failed+climate+change+predictions But I'm not trying to convince you, just maybe cast a little doubt.