7 ms·

This has really become more of a religious argument than a science argument. Some people will never be convinced man made climate change is real. Others will ne

This has really become more of a religious argument than a science argument. Some people will never be convinced man made climate change is real. Others will never be convinced it isn't. The rest of the people don't care.

MaysonL 13y ago
The rest of the people don't care. Except that they will, as the consequences become evident.
acqq 13y ago
It would be a clear science argument if there weren't groups that are very motivated (money, power) to misdirect the public by making "doubts" for their own gains, as the article clearly illustrates. There is a practical scientific consensus that the current global warming is real and caused by the human activity. The illusion of "maybe yes maybe no" (quasi-religious doubts) can come only from the media who give the equal attention to the one doubter and to the group of almost all world's scientist. In the internet speak, the deniers are successfully trolling the public.
- seehafer 13y ago
  I'm not unsympathetic to the exasperation of scientists concerning that their work is being dismissed by people who don't have the expertise to evaluate it, but all this talk about a "consensus" is where they shoot themselves in the foot. Science doesn't advance by "consensus". And using that as the defense is just a different type of faith (faith in the omniscience of the group). Prior to the 80's the 'consensus' was that stomach ulcers are caused by stress and spicy foods. Two lone Australian medical researchers thought a bacterium was the causal agent, and so one of them actually swallowed a petri dish to prove his point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall
  - acqq 13y ago
    The problem is that deniers don't advance the science. They are just trolling, effectively obstructing the possible improvements. Please read the article for an example of a huge trolling action. The consensus just means that the different scientists can independently reproduce the similar results. You can do the calculations yourself too.
    - seehafer 13y ago
      > The consensus just means that the different scientists can independently reproduce the similar results. You can do the calculations yourself too. But that's not how the 'consensus' is being used in argument. The way that advocates use it as a bludgeon: that because 99% of all climate scientists agree with anthropocentric climate change that any argument to the contrary is ludicrous and ought to be dismissed outright. Now, I don't think (I guess I hope) that the actual scientists think in those terms. But that's how their advocates (Al Gore and the like) frame the issue. And that both hurts their cause and provides fuel for the opposition. I'd bet that if Al Gore had never entered the cultural debate over climate change it would be much, much healthier.
      - acqq 13y ago
        I hope you understand that trillions of dollars of capital have a major interest in finding errors in the science and still all they have't found anything significant all they effectively do is trolling, just like in the article?
  - onetwofiveten 13y ago
    The talk of "consensus" emerged because previously there was a concerted effort from vested interests to make the public believe that climate change was a controversial issue amongst the scientific community. This severely muddied the waters of public opinion. So it's important to continue the message of scientific consensus. The scientific consensus is our best model for reality. That isn't about having faith in any group, it's about having faith in the scientific process. Your example of stomach ulcers only supports that point. Once new evidence was found, the new explanation was quickly adopted into the scientific consensus (so it remained the best model for reality).
    - seehafer 13y ago
      > Once new evidence was found, the new explanation was quickly adopted into the scientific consensus (so it remained the best model for reality). The problem with a direct comparison in this case, that we ought to accept the consensus and be as dismissive about anthropogenic climate change skeptics as we are about someone who still claims that the Sun revolves around the Earth, is that in the case of stomach ulcers, the result is easily testable and reproducible. Much harder for something as complex as the climate. Additionally, this issue is laden with political consequences on both sides so it's hard to accept objectivity on either side (very difficult for someone to obtain a grant inside the academic mainstream to study something that is contrary to accepted opinion, and very difficult for someone to obtain a grant from industry to study something that is in line with accepted opinion. not to mention the potential effects for fossil fuel and alternative energy companies)
      - acqq 13y ago
        Your insinuations aren't true at all. The scientist do the science, nobody can claim that politics had any influence of any relevant scientific results: all of them were independently rechecked many times over.
- crazy1van 13y ago
  > It would be a clear science argument if there weren't groups that are very motivated (money, power) to misdirect the public by making "doubts" for their own gains, as the article clearly illustrates. Definitely. There are groups willing to spend a lot of money to spread doubt about global warming. And, there are groups willing spend a lot of money to spread fear about global warming. > There is a practical scientific consensus that the current global warming is real and caused by the human activity. Consensus suggests correctness, but it isn't a guarantee. Once there was a consensus the sun rotated around the earth and that was dis-proven by a guy with a telescope and good record keeping. Granted we've come a long way in science, but we're also analyzing far more complex systems.
  - tbrownaw 13y ago
    Once there was a consensus the sun rotated around the earth and that was dis-proven by a guy with a telescope and good record keeping. There was a recent article in Scientific American about this (unfortunately, subscription required). Given the size of the image of a star seen thru a telescope, either the size or the distance can be calculated from the other by elementary geometry. Because of diffraction from the wave nature of light -- which wasn't understood back then -- these calculations said that if the stars were the same size as the sun they couldn't be much farther away than the farthest planets. Which would be close enough to see annual parallax if the earth really did move around the sun. And so because of this and a couple other reasons, Copernicus had to resort to proof-by-theology since the available evidence appeared to disagree with his position.
    - fr0sty 13y ago
      I read through this a while back and it is an interesting exploration of the whole Geocentric/Heliocentric dust-up (or smackdown as they call it): http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-table-of.html http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-great-ptolemaic-smac...
  - acqq 13y ago
    Have you actually read the article? It looks you haven't. It's about the deniers who obviously trolled everybody at the expense of the taxpayer's money not bringing any scientific improvement at all.
onetwofiveten 13y ago
That's a pretty strange assertion to make. This is a scientific issue. It will be resolved one way or another by observations of reality. Most people care about it. It's not really a religious argument at all.
ilitirit 13y ago
To an extent, I agree. I'm past the point of caring about who or what is to blame. I'm more interested in whether or not we are sufficiently prepared for a drastic change in climate (whether it be hot or cold). And more than that, I'm far more concerned about the state of our oceans. Particularly because of a lack of knowledge about it's current state, where it's headed, and what it means for us.

MaysonL 13y ago

The rest of the people don't care. Except that they will, as the consequences become evident.

acqq 13y ago

It would be a clear science argument if there weren't groups that are very motivated (money, power) to misdirect the public by making "doubts" for their own gains, as the article clearly illustrates. There is a practical scientific consensus that the current global warming is real and caused by the human activity. The illusion of "maybe yes maybe no" (quasi-religious doubts) can come only from the media who give the equal attention to the one doubter and to the group of almost all world's scientist. In the internet speak, the deniers are successfully trolling the public.

seehafer 13y ago
I'm not unsympathetic to the exasperation of scientists concerning that their work is being dismissed by people who don't have the expertise to evaluate it, but all this talk about a "consensus" is where they shoot themselves in the foot. Science doesn't advance by "consensus". And using that as the defense is just a different type of faith (faith in the omniscience of the group). Prior to the 80's the 'consensus' was that stomach ulcers are caused by stress and spicy foods. Two lone Australian medical researchers thought a bacterium was the causal agent, and so one of them actually swallowed a petri dish to prove his point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall
- acqq 13y ago
  The problem is that deniers don't advance the science. They are just trolling, effectively obstructing the possible improvements. Please read the article for an example of a huge trolling action. The consensus just means that the different scientists can independently reproduce the similar results. You can do the calculations yourself too.
  - seehafer 13y ago
    > The consensus just means that the different scientists can independently reproduce the similar results. You can do the calculations yourself too. But that's not how the 'consensus' is being used in argument. The way that advocates use it as a bludgeon: that because 99% of all climate scientists agree with anthropocentric climate change that any argument to the contrary is ludicrous and ought to be dismissed outright. Now, I don't think (I guess I hope) that the actual scientists think in those terms. But that's how their advocates (Al Gore and the like) frame the issue. And that both hurts their cause and provides fuel for the opposition. I'd bet that if Al Gore had never entered the cultural debate over climate change it would be much, much healthier.
    - acqq 13y ago
      I hope you understand that trillions of dollars of capital have a major interest in finding errors in the science and still all they have't found anything significant all they effectively do is trolling, just like in the article?
- onetwofiveten 13y ago
  The talk of "consensus" emerged because previously there was a concerted effort from vested interests to make the public believe that climate change was a controversial issue amongst the scientific community. This severely muddied the waters of public opinion. So it's important to continue the message of scientific consensus. The scientific consensus is our best model for reality. That isn't about having faith in any group, it's about having faith in the scientific process. Your example of stomach ulcers only supports that point. Once new evidence was found, the new explanation was quickly adopted into the scientific consensus (so it remained the best model for reality).
  - seehafer 13y ago
    > Once new evidence was found, the new explanation was quickly adopted into the scientific consensus (so it remained the best model for reality). The problem with a direct comparison in this case, that we ought to accept the consensus and be as dismissive about anthropogenic climate change skeptics as we are about someone who still claims that the Sun revolves around the Earth, is that in the case of stomach ulcers, the result is easily testable and reproducible. Much harder for something as complex as the climate. Additionally, this issue is laden with political consequences on both sides so it's hard to accept objectivity on either side (very difficult for someone to obtain a grant inside the academic mainstream to study something that is contrary to accepted opinion, and very difficult for someone to obtain a grant from industry to study something that is in line with accepted opinion. not to mention the potential effects for fossil fuel and alternative energy companies)
    - acqq 13y ago
      Your insinuations aren't true at all. The scientist do the science, nobody can claim that politics had any influence of any relevant scientific results: all of them were independently rechecked many times over.
crazy1van 13y ago
> It would be a clear science argument if there weren't groups that are very motivated (money, power) to misdirect the public by making "doubts" for their own gains, as the article clearly illustrates. Definitely. There are groups willing to spend a lot of money to spread doubt about global warming. And, there are groups willing spend a lot of money to spread fear about global warming. > There is a practical scientific consensus that the current global warming is real and caused by the human activity. Consensus suggests correctness, but it isn't a guarantee. Once there was a consensus the sun rotated around the earth and that was dis-proven by a guy with a telescope and good record keeping. Granted we've come a long way in science, but we're also analyzing far more complex systems.
- tbrownaw 13y ago
  Once there was a consensus the sun rotated around the earth and that was dis-proven by a guy with a telescope and good record keeping. There was a recent article in Scientific American about this (unfortunately, subscription required). Given the size of the image of a star seen thru a telescope, either the size or the distance can be calculated from the other by elementary geometry. Because of diffraction from the wave nature of light -- which wasn't understood back then -- these calculations said that if the stars were the same size as the sun they couldn't be much farther away than the farthest planets. Which would be close enough to see annual parallax if the earth really did move around the sun. And so because of this and a couple other reasons, Copernicus had to resort to proof-by-theology since the available evidence appeared to disagree with his position.
  - fr0sty 13y ago
    I read through this a while back and it is an interesting exploration of the whole Geocentric/Heliocentric dust-up (or smackdown as they call it): http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-table-of.html http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-great-ptolemaic-smac...
- acqq 13y ago
  Have you actually read the article? It looks you haven't. It's about the deniers who obviously trolled everybody at the expense of the taxpayer's money not bringing any scientific improvement at all.

onetwofiveten 13y ago

That's a pretty strange assertion to make. This is a scientific issue. It will be resolved one way or another by observations of reality. Most people care about it. It's not really a religious argument at all.

ilitirit 13y ago

To an extent, I agree. I'm past the point of caring about who or what is to blame. I'm more interested in whether or not we are sufficiently prepared for a drastic change in climate (whether it be hot or cold). And more than that, I'm far more concerned about the state of our oceans. Particularly because of a lack of knowledge about it's current state, where it's headed, and what it means for us.