4 ms·

You could, but to be intellectually honest, you could only use that argument if you yourself would be convinced that no shrinking of the sea ice was evidence ag

You could, but to be intellectually honest, you could only use that argument if you yourself would be convinced that no shrinking of the sea ice was evidence against global warming. Belief in global warming can really only come down to belief in the experts, especially the IPCC. My understanding is that the most important evidence is global temperature trends. This is (and should be) analyzed very critically since the data is very complex and suffers from many issues. However it seems that the debate has already been won.

pdonis 13y ago
Belief in global warming can really only come down to belief in the experts, especially the IPCC. Let's transfer this claim to another domain: "Belief in how to best organize our economy for prosperity can only come down to belief in the experts, particularly Wall Street investment bankers." Does it still seem reasonable? (And, btw, I suspect you may not have meant that you think belief in the experts is a good thing; if so, I'm giving another reason for not thinking it is.) Also, it's easy for people to believe in experts that say things they want to hear; not so easy to believe in experts who say things they don't want to hear. How well are the experts in biology doing in convincing creationists to accept the theory of evolution? (Which, by the way, is much better supported scientifically than any theory about how the climate works.) The plain fact is that you can't trust experts. You can't trust anyone. You also can't verify every single fact for yourself. There is no magic formula that will guarantee that we can get the right answers. There may not even be any right answers. With regard to climate change, even if we accept for the sake of argument some particular set of predictions about how the climate will change, there will still be plenty of disagreements about whether that change is good or bad. China and India don't seem to care much that they are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere by building new coal-fired power plants like gangbusters. If we in the US decide to emasculate our economy in order to "prevent" global warming, all we may end up doing is making ourselves into a much poorer country while China prospers.
- yetanotherphd 13y ago
  Experts in climate change are not obviously biased in the same way as investment bankers might be. They do not profit directly from the outcome of their recommendations, and they are in principle paid by the government to be objective. That said, any set of beliefs can be self-reinforcing, and I was initially skeptical of global warming because there are strong incentives to toe the official line. I'm sure that many researchers keep on playing with their data until they get a "result" i.e. evidence for global warming. However there has also been a lot of outside scrutiny, and I also think that in spite of this bias, academia also has the ability to be self correcting. I've never heard any argument that global warming might be good. China and India both recognize the importance of CO2 emissions. However, they claim that since their per capita emissions are lower than the West, it is the West who should reduce their emissions first. They claim that any global cap-and-trade system should be based on per-capita quotas.
  - pdonis 13y ago
    How does this... Experts in climate change are not obviously biased ...square with this? there are strong incentives to toe the official line Doesn't that equate to bias, at least in practical terms? They do not profit directly from the outcome of their recommendations They most certainly do. Recommendations that there is a big problem that needs lots of analysis lead to secure jobs and political power for the scientists doing the analysis. Recommendations that "there is nothing to see here, move along" don't. they are in principle paid by the government to be objective. Perhaps they are, in principle, though I would argue that that isn't really true. You can't combine scientific objectivity with a political agenda, but that's exactly what government funding of science does. academia also has the ability to be self correcting This is certainly possible, but it's not easy, and the mechanism by which it happens is thwarted by claims of "consensus" or that "the science is settled". I've never heard any argument that global warming might be good. Google is your friend: https://www.google.com/search?q=benefits+of+global+warming https://www.google.com/search?q=benefits+of+global+warming China and India both recognize the importance of CO2 emissions. No, they recognize that CO2 emissions give them a political lever to use, and they are using it, exactly as you describe: They claim that any global cap-and-trade system should be based on per-capita quotas. In other words, they want to make sure that cap and trade, if it happens, does more economic damage to us than it does to them.

pdonis 13y ago

Belief in global warming can really only come down to belief in the experts, especially the IPCC. Let's transfer this claim to another domain: "Belief in how to best organize our economy for prosperity can only come down to belief in the experts, particularly Wall Street investment bankers." Does it still seem reasonable? (And, btw, I suspect you may not have meant that you think belief in the experts is a good thing; if so, I'm giving another reason for not thinking it is.) Also, it's easy for people to believe in experts that say things they want to hear; not so easy to believe in experts who say things they don't want to hear. How well are the experts in biology doing in convincing creationists to accept the theory of evolution? (Which, by the way, is much better supported scientifically than any theory about how the climate works.) The plain fact is that you can't trust experts. You can't trust anyone. You also can't verify every single fact for yourself. There is no magic formula that will guarantee that we can get the right answers. There may not even be any right answers. With regard to climate change, even if we accept for the sake of argument some particular set of predictions about how the climate will change, there will still be plenty of disagreements about whether that change is good or bad. China and India don't seem to care much that they are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere by building new coal-fired power plants like gangbusters. If we in the US decide to emasculate our economy in order to "prevent" global warming, all we may end up doing is making ourselves into a much poorer country while China prospers.

yetanotherphd 13y ago
Experts in climate change are not obviously biased in the same way as investment bankers might be. They do not profit directly from the outcome of their recommendations, and they are in principle paid by the government to be objective. That said, any set of beliefs can be self-reinforcing, and I was initially skeptical of global warming because there are strong incentives to toe the official line. I'm sure that many researchers keep on playing with their data until they get a "result" i.e. evidence for global warming. However there has also been a lot of outside scrutiny, and I also think that in spite of this bias, academia also has the ability to be self correcting. I've never heard any argument that global warming might be good. China and India both recognize the importance of CO2 emissions. However, they claim that since their per capita emissions are lower than the West, it is the West who should reduce their emissions first. They claim that any global cap-and-trade system should be based on per-capita quotas.
- pdonis 13y ago
  How does this... Experts in climate change are not obviously biased ...square with this? there are strong incentives to toe the official line Doesn't that equate to bias, at least in practical terms? They do not profit directly from the outcome of their recommendations They most certainly do. Recommendations that there is a big problem that needs lots of analysis lead to secure jobs and political power for the scientists doing the analysis. Recommendations that "there is nothing to see here, move along" don't. they are in principle paid by the government to be objective. Perhaps they are, in principle, though I would argue that that isn't really true. You can't combine scientific objectivity with a political agenda, but that's exactly what government funding of science does. academia also has the ability to be self correcting This is certainly possible, but it's not easy, and the mechanism by which it happens is thwarted by claims of "consensus" or that "the science is settled". I've never heard any argument that global warming might be good. Google is your friend: https://www.google.com/search?q=benefits+of+global+warming https://www.google.com/search?q=benefits+of+global+warming China and India both recognize the importance of CO2 emissions. No, they recognize that CO2 emissions give them a political lever to use, and they are using it, exactly as you describe: They claim that any global cap-and-trade system should be based on per-capita quotas. In other words, they want to make sure that cap and trade, if it happens, does more economic damage to us than it does to them.