3 ms·

Yes, Feynman's Cargo Cult Science lecture is an old favorite of mine, and anyone who doesn't bend over backwards to repeatedly question every assumption and bit

by bfe 15y ago

Yes, Feynman's Cargo Cult Science lecture is an old favorite of mine, and anyone who doesn't bend over backwards to repeatedly question every assumption and bit of evidence and source of information is never going to reach the best available analysis. And doing that is hard, and all of us humans have huge limitations in our analytical abilities, and as a result I find it tremendously important to nurture an intellectual humility about my own understanding and knowledge and analysis. At the same time I find it important that at some point when you've done a lot of analysis on a lot of evidence over a long time, not to waffle about contradictory opinions that a hard look will show have little to no substance, because it's just a giant and completely uninteresting waste of time, and trying to debate every person who is wrong on the Internet who demands you provide a complete body of analysis and evidence that the Earth is not in fact flat, could easily absorb and completely waste every waking moment of one's life. I also find it tremendously important to respect every person, even when I don't believe or respect an analysis or opinion of theirs, both as a basic axiom of human existence and because doing so makes me happier and because it's the only way to open the other person to a reasoning dialog, and obviously I haven't quite mastered that yet but I am practicing. I admire that you kept to an honest effort at reasoned debate after my exasperated flame. With that said, I'm puzzled how after citing Feynman's Cargo Cult Science lecture and the importance of looking to rebut the strongest evidence rather than the weakest in an opposing view and looking straight to original scientific findings instead of to meta-meta-opinionating, the one real argument you bring up is Landsea's resgination letter. The worldwide efforts to study the Earth's climate and to study what we might want to do about it involve untold thousands of people around the entire world for years on end. What are the chances that some one human being somewhere in there doesn't spend every moment of their life behaving in an absolutely rational and honest manner? And if the chances of that are non-zero, how much do all the molecules in the Earth's oceans and atmosphere care about that? And if those molecules don't care, what would you find a more useful focus of inquiry on which to spend your brain's finite operational lifetime?

glenra 15y ago
You made a big batch of assertions to the effect that all skeptics are being completely fooled by organizations that are funded by Exxon and/or Koch. You said this with great confidence and amplified upon it based on "your research". But it's an extraordinary claim - basically you're saying everybody who disagrees with you has been fooled by a big conspiracy - it's a conspiracy theory. It's a "denial" of the more obvious possibility that some people just happen to disagree with you. Like you, I'm kind of tired of debating CAGW and so I had no intention of trying to convince you CAGW is actually wrong. I only hope to disabuse you of your view that all skeptics are in thrall to The Cabal. To do that, I only need to find a counterexample or two. CAGW is in practice an extremely complex chain of assertions; there are a great many particulars in which somebody might reasonably have a specific differing view from "the consensus" or be skeptical that the case for "the consensus" is sufficiently well-established to act upon. So: Landsea. Landsea was skeptical of the IPCC's views on hurricanes - with good reason, since he was the relevant expert helping to write that chapter. McIntyre was skeptical of the IPCC's views on Paleo reconstruction, again clearly with good reason and with no prior connection to the Kochtopus - statistics was a hobby interest of his and he just got curious. I have a friend named Peter Ward who is an expert on volcanoes who does think AGW is a big important problem but is skeptical about CO2 as the primary driver - he thinks sulfur dioxide is more important than is commonly recognized (and has recently published a journal paper on the subject, albeit in a minor journal.) So that's three people who are "skeptical" about some aspect of AGW not because they got talking points from whats-her-name but because what is commonly claimed contradicts their own expert assessment of the relevant literature. Given the fact that there do exist people like that, your claim was false. That was all I was trying to say. I wasn't trying to prove that all skeptics are right or that none have been "duped" or, contrariwise, that all AGWers are mistaken. Just that some number of skeptics come by their views as a result of an honest assessment of the literature in areas of their own expertise. Or by evaluating the claims of others who have done that. I absolutely agree with you that a few bad apples in the IPCC process don't necessarily spoil the whole bunch. The opposite of stupidity is not wisdom, sometimes it's just more stupidity. The AGW hypothesis is certainly worth somebody investigating. I just think claims of "consensus" and a need to "act right away, we don't have time to be certain" are a warning sign that one should probably wait and think some more about it. (This attitude has served me especially well when buying used cars. :-) ) BTW, here's the caltech lecture Aliens Cause Global Warming: http://s8int.com/crichton.html http://s8int.com/crichton.html

by bfe 15y ago

glenra 15y ago

You made a big batch of assertions to the effect that all skeptics are being completely fooled by organizations that are funded by Exxon and/or Koch. You said this with great confidence and amplified upon it based on "your research". But it's an extraordinary claim - basically you're saying everybody who disagrees with you has been fooled by a big conspiracy - it's a conspiracy theory. It's a "denial" of the more obvious possibility that some people just happen to disagree with you. Like you, I'm kind of tired of debating CAGW and so I had no intention of trying to convince you CAGW is actually wrong. I only hope to disabuse you of your view that all skeptics are in thrall to The Cabal. To do that, I only need to find a counterexample or two. CAGW is in practice an extremely complex chain of assertions; there are a great many particulars in which somebody might reasonably have a specific differing view from "the consensus" or be skeptical that the case for "the consensus" is sufficiently well-established to act upon. So: Landsea. Landsea was skeptical of the IPCC's views on hurricanes - with good reason, since he was the relevant expert helping to write that chapter. McIntyre was skeptical of the IPCC's views on Paleo reconstruction, again clearly with good reason and with no prior connection to the Kochtopus - statistics was a hobby interest of his and he just got curious. I have a friend named Peter Ward who is an expert on volcanoes who does think AGW is a big important problem but is skeptical about CO2 as the primary driver - he thinks sulfur dioxide is more important than is commonly recognized (and has recently published a journal paper on the subject, albeit in a minor journal.) So that's three people who are "skeptical" about some aspect of AGW not because they got talking points from whats-her-name but because what is commonly claimed contradicts their own expert assessment of the relevant literature. Given the fact that there do exist people like that, your claim was false. That was all I was trying to say. I wasn't trying to prove that all skeptics are right or that none have been "duped" or, contrariwise, that all AGWers are mistaken. Just that some number of skeptics come by their views as a result of an honest assessment of the literature in areas of their own expertise. Or by evaluating the claims of others who have done that. I absolutely agree with you that a few bad apples in the IPCC process don't necessarily spoil the whole bunch. The opposite of stupidity is not wisdom, sometimes it's just more stupidity. The AGW hypothesis is certainly worth somebody investigating. I just think claims of "consensus" and a need to "act right away, we don't have time to be certain" are a warning sign that one should probably wait and think some more about it. (This attitude has served me especially well when buying used cars. :-) ) BTW, here's the caltech lecture Aliens Cause Global Warming: http://s8int.com/crichton.html http://s8int.com/crichton.html