4 ms·

Except that the weight of scientific evidence is not on his side. The science clearly points against the global warming hypothesis. It is merely that there is

by lzw 16y ago

Except that the weight of scientific evidence is not on his side. The science clearly points against the global warming hypothesis. It is merely that there is a political/religious/ideological movement to claim that "global warming is settled science" (with no citations, naturally, not that any legitimat scientist would make such a claim anyway.) The earth is getting colder. The termperature changes we've seen over short, medium and long periods of time are consistent with the ice age pattern or solar heating. CO2 has been much higher in the past than it is today without causing a runaway greenhouse effect. CO2 does not absorb sufficient IR to support the global warming hypothesis, etc. Global warming is a movement of people who do not care about these facts and just want to repeat, over and over, that "all scientists agree" (as if science was concensus based). I have yet to meet a global warming proponent who will actually argue on the science (or even is actually familiar with it) they all just repeat the same claims, or link to blogs of people who also don't understand the science, or link to papers who don't say what they want to claim they say. Global Warming is a movement that rejects science, and has the ideological defense mechanism of smugly claiming to have a monopoly on science and that anyone who is a skeptic is spewing "anti-science nonsense." Proof of the preceding claim is presented in the headline of the article in question (and virtually every other similar article out there.) Ok, now go vote me down-- for science.

nervechannel 16y ago
Are you a counter-bot?
Robin_Message 16y ago
I would downvote you, but I want people to see this response: http://royalsociety.org/The-Science-of-Climate-Change-report/ http://royalsociety.org/The-Science-of-Climate-Change-report... Yes, that's right, the Royal Society, which, for those of you who are unfamiliar with science, is the oldest scientific organisation in the world, agrees with the IPCC reports, which I would cite as the secondary scientific evidence. For the primary evidence, just read all the articles cited by the IPCC. What weighty scientific evidence points against global warming? Or is "real science" being suppressed?
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  Doubtless they're just one of the oldest parts of the one world government conspiracy...
- rimantas 16y ago
  So Royal Society agrees that Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035?
  - Robin_Message 16y ago
    Let's be clear what you are talking about here: In section 10.6.2 of the 2007 "Impacts, Adaption and Vulnerability" IPCC report, someone put in an incorrect figure for glacier melting. That's one mistake, after years of scrutiny, in the IPCC report that talks about the impact of climate change, which is not even the report that shows climate change is real. To imply you think that undermines the case for climate change beggars belief. Now, you're not wrong in saying that quoting the WWF in a scientific report seems to be a bit of a screw-up. It shouldn't have happened, and the reports need to be reviewed more carefully to stop it happening again — except careful review did find this mistake, it was corrected, and the rest of the report, all 976 pages, still stands. Additionally, as I alluded to above, this is not the "The Physical Science Basis" of climate change report, which weighs in at 996 pages and no-one to my knowledge has found any mistakes even as bad as the glacier example. You cannot disregard that particular IPCC report for one mistake; that would be absurd. And even if the whole of the "Impacts, Adaption and Vulnerability" was hogwash, you still cannot claim climate change is not happening, as it is the "The Physical Science Basis" that gives (funnily enough) the scientific basis to climate change. Bringing up the Himalayan glaciers shows a basic misunderstanding of the IPCC process, the scientific process and the magnitude of the error compared to the weight of scientific evidence for climate change. Please provide a peer-reviewed, or even non-peer reviewed, paper showing mistakes in the accepted literature and we'll talk.
    - rimantas 16y ago
      So this was the one and only mistake on IPCC part? Even if I misunderstand IPCC process looks like they are not happy with it themselves: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100616/full/news.2010.302.html http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100616/full/news.2010.302.ht...
ewjordan 16y ago
Here's the problem: while I would tend to agree with you if your claim was that global warming is not as clear cut an issue as the mainstream makes it out to be, that's not how your post comes across. The real problem with the way you're arguing is that most of the meta-critiques that you've offered about the way mainstream climate change scientists act read almost exactly the same as the anti-evolution arguments that biologists have been assaulted with for decades. "Consensus is not how science is done?" Check. "The evidence goes against prevailing opinion?" Check. "Proponents won't argue the science and just parrot talking points?" Check. "They just shout people down as 'anti-science' when they disagree?" Check. And all these claims may be true, hell, they probably are. The problem is, that's how scientists act when they're right, just as much as when they're wrong. This doesn't bear on your claim at all, of course, and I have no intention of getting into a specific global warming dispute (I don't have the expertise or the interest, and frankly, I doubt there are many people here that do); but those arguments mean absolutely nothing, because they are always offered whenever people disagree with the prevailing consensus in a field, whether it's correct or not. I've only met a couple climate scientists, but my impression was most definitely not that they were ideologically driven morons that simply want to push their preconceived notions on the world. I've always gotten the sense that they really felt that the data supported their claims. Now, that doesn't make them right, but be careful about assuming that they're just perpetrating a fraud for some reason. One of the most common mistakes people make when arguing issues like this is to assume that the other side actually knows (or secretly suspects) that it's wrong, and it's playing dirty to trick everyone else. This is rarely the case, if someone is wrong it's typically more likely that the evidence they've seen strongly suggests their hypothesis, which ends up blinding them to later evidence that might weaken it.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  >The real problem with the way you're arguing is that most of the meta-critiques that you've offered about the way mainstream climate change scientists act read almost exactly the same as the anti-evolution arguments that biologists have been assaulted with for decades. So what? In both cases people are claiming some party should fundamentally alter how they live (perhaps implicitly in the case of evolution) and/or what the believe based on their findings. Of course this will be faced with scrutiny! If the scientist is correct he/she should be able to prove it. If he/she thinks the evidence just strongly suggests their theory then it should be presented that way leaving the other side to simply agree to withhold judgment for now [1]. >but those arguments mean absolutely nothing, because they are always offered whenever people disagree with the prevailing consensus in a field, whether it's correct or not. That makes no sense at all. Arguments are meaningless because they are used too much? Utterly illogical, have I misunderstood something here? >I've always gotten the sense that they really felt that the data supported their claims. Now, that doesn't make them right, but be careful about assuming that they're just perpetrating a fraud for some reason. I'm sure most of them do. But do you think people from the other side aren't just as convinced of their opinions? A big part of the problem is both sides assuming the other is disingenuous. [1] Not being convinced is always valid unless there is concrete irrefutable proof. Forming new "theories" based on being unconvinced and evangelizing based on them is not as it is "argument from ignorance" (i.e. "See, they don't know, no one does! Therefor the true answer is...").
jberryman 16y ago
> The science clearly points against the global warming hypothesis. I can't believe this gets upvotes. No citations, no evidence. Fucking depressing.

by lzw 16y ago

nervechannel 16y ago

Are you a counter-bot?

Robin_Message 16y ago

I would downvote you, but I want people to see this response: http://royalsociety.org/The-Science-of-Climate-Change-report/ http://royalsociety.org/The-Science-of-Climate-Change-report... Yes, that's right, the Royal Society, which, for those of you who are unfamiliar with science, is the oldest scientific organisation in the world, agrees with the IPCC reports, which I would cite as the secondary scientific evidence. For the primary evidence, just read all the articles cited by the IPCC. What weighty scientific evidence points against global warming? Or is "real science" being suppressed?

anigbrowl 16y ago
Doubtless they're just one of the oldest parts of the one world government conspiracy...
rimantas 16y ago
So Royal Society agrees that Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035?
- Robin_Message 16y ago
  Let's be clear what you are talking about here: In section 10.6.2 of the 2007 "Impacts, Adaption and Vulnerability" IPCC report, someone put in an incorrect figure for glacier melting. That's one mistake, after years of scrutiny, in the IPCC report that talks about the impact of climate change, which is not even the report that shows climate change is real. To imply you think that undermines the case for climate change beggars belief. Now, you're not wrong in saying that quoting the WWF in a scientific report seems to be a bit of a screw-up. It shouldn't have happened, and the reports need to be reviewed more carefully to stop it happening again — except careful review did find this mistake, it was corrected, and the rest of the report, all 976 pages, still stands. Additionally, as I alluded to above, this is not the "The Physical Science Basis" of climate change report, which weighs in at 996 pages and no-one to my knowledge has found any mistakes even as bad as the glacier example. You cannot disregard that particular IPCC report for one mistake; that would be absurd. And even if the whole of the "Impacts, Adaption and Vulnerability" was hogwash, you still cannot claim climate change is not happening, as it is the "The Physical Science Basis" that gives (funnily enough) the scientific basis to climate change. Bringing up the Himalayan glaciers shows a basic misunderstanding of the IPCC process, the scientific process and the magnitude of the error compared to the weight of scientific evidence for climate change. Please provide a peer-reviewed, or even non-peer reviewed, paper showing mistakes in the accepted literature and we'll talk.
  - rimantas 16y ago
    So this was the one and only mistake on IPCC part? Even if I misunderstand IPCC process looks like they are not happy with it themselves: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100616/full/news.2010.302.html http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100616/full/news.2010.302.ht...

ewjordan 16y ago

Here's the problem: while I would tend to agree with you if your claim was that global warming is not as clear cut an issue as the mainstream makes it out to be, that's not how your post comes across. The real problem with the way you're arguing is that most of the meta-critiques that you've offered about the way mainstream climate change scientists act read almost exactly the same as the anti-evolution arguments that biologists have been assaulted with for decades. "Consensus is not how science is done?" Check. "The evidence goes against prevailing opinion?" Check. "Proponents won't argue the science and just parrot talking points?" Check. "They just shout people down as 'anti-science' when they disagree?" Check. And all these claims may be true, hell, they probably are. The problem is, that's how scientists act when they're right, just as much as when they're wrong. This doesn't bear on your claim at all, of course, and I have no intention of getting into a specific global warming dispute (I don't have the expertise or the interest, and frankly, I doubt there are many people here that do); but those arguments mean absolutely nothing, because they are always offered whenever people disagree with the prevailing consensus in a field, whether it's correct or not. I've only met a couple climate scientists, but my impression was most definitely not that they were ideologically driven morons that simply want to push their preconceived notions on the world. I've always gotten the sense that they really felt that the data supported their claims. Now, that doesn't make them right, but be careful about assuming that they're just perpetrating a fraud for some reason. One of the most common mistakes people make when arguing issues like this is to assume that the other side actually knows (or secretly suspects) that it's wrong, and it's playing dirty to trick everyone else. This is rarely the case, if someone is wrong it's typically more likely that the evidence they've seen strongly suggests their hypothesis, which ends up blinding them to later evidence that might weaken it.

loewenskind 16y ago
>The real problem with the way you're arguing is that most of the meta-critiques that you've offered about the way mainstream climate change scientists act read almost exactly the same as the anti-evolution arguments that biologists have been assaulted with for decades. So what? In both cases people are claiming some party should fundamentally alter how they live (perhaps implicitly in the case of evolution) and/or what the believe based on their findings. Of course this will be faced with scrutiny! If the scientist is correct he/she should be able to prove it. If he/she thinks the evidence just strongly suggests their theory then it should be presented that way leaving the other side to simply agree to withhold judgment for now [1]. >but those arguments mean absolutely nothing, because they are always offered whenever people disagree with the prevailing consensus in a field, whether it's correct or not. That makes no sense at all. Arguments are meaningless because they are used too much? Utterly illogical, have I misunderstood something here? >I've always gotten the sense that they really felt that the data supported their claims. Now, that doesn't make them right, but be careful about assuming that they're just perpetrating a fraud for some reason. I'm sure most of them do. But do you think people from the other side aren't just as convinced of their opinions? A big part of the problem is both sides assuming the other is disingenuous. [1] Not being convinced is always valid unless there is concrete irrefutable proof. Forming new "theories" based on being unconvinced and evangelizing based on them is not as it is "argument from ignorance" (i.e. "See, they don't know, no one does! Therefor the true answer is...").

jberryman 16y ago

> The science clearly points against the global warming hypothesis. I can't believe this gets upvotes. No citations, no evidence. Fucking depressing.