3 ms·

>I'm not denying anthropogenic global warming, I'm just saying that correlation does not necessarily equal causation. Sounds a whole lot like you're trying to

>I'm not denying anthropogenic global warming, I'm just saying that correlation does not necessarily equal causation. Sounds a whole lot like you're trying to cast doubt on it. There's as close to a scientific consensus as you're likely to ever get that the Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate, and we're the cause of it.

gavanwoolery 13y ago
Doubt is very good. Doubt is the foundation of science (the consensus used to be that the earth was flat). Not doubting is when something becomes faith or religion. I don't care what side the coin lands on, I only care that the methods used to predict the coin toss are sound.
- anodari 13y ago
  Excelent point, but unless I were a scientist studying the subject, I would not dare try to refute the opinion of most of the researchers in the field. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_c...
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
brc 13y ago
Consensus means nothing. If anything it encourages groupthink and makes doubt and scepticism unfashionable - which is the exact opposite to what you need for doing good science. What matters is predictions, hypotheses and observations. These are the essence of science. You should be making arguments based on how a hypothesis has been tested against real world observations, not how many people agree with a particular position. The parent quite rightfully points out that correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, and you want to ping them for casting doubt. What you should be doing, in the spirit of scientific enquiry, is trying to find out how, in this case, causation can be disproven, to better advance knowledge. Trying to throw someone from the temple for casting doubt belongs to religion, not science.
- redthrowaway 13y ago
  Trying to imply that a particular theory is less well supported than it is (intelligent design, climate denial) is the realm of pseudoscience, not science.
  - brc 13y ago
    I understand what you mean by intelligent design, I've read that theory, and it's that certain characteristics observed in nature are irreducible complexity, which supports the hypothesis of a supreme being. It's certainly a colorful theory, but isn't supported by real world observations and changes in the fossil record. Can you clarify what you mean by 'climate denial'. I don't know what that is supposed to describe.
    - redthrowaway 13y ago
      Just as ID is a pseudoscientific attempt to cast doubt on evolution, motivated by ideology but dressed up as science, so too is denial of AGW an attempt to discredit climate science, motivated by ideology (or profit) and dressed up as science. Climate models are tough and it's very difficult for us to forecast what the results of global warming will be, especially at local scales. That doesn't change the fact, well supported by science and not seriously doubted by any meaningful number of climate scientists, that the Earth is getting warmer and it's almost certainly due to our burning of fossil fuels. There are two groups who try to make AGW seem less certain than it is: energy companies who have a financial interest in not seeing government action against carbon emissions, and libertarians who feel threatened by the reality of AGW as it would seem to mandate large-scale, international government regulations. That would call into question deeply held libertarian beliefs about the ability of the free market to achieve societal goods and avoid evils. Just as religious people (rightly) view evolution as a threat to their beliefs and respond by attacking evolution, so too do libertarians view AGW as a threat to theirs and respond in the same fashion.
      - brc 13y ago
        Perhaps my question wasn't clear, I'll rephrase. ID is a specific theory which you either support or you don't. When does a person specifically support 'climate denial'? If I say that the observed sensitivity is less than the forecast sensitivity from models, am I in denial? If I note that the warming period from around 1979-2000 has paused, am I in denial? If I state that the regulatory frameworks suggested and implemented have failed, am I in denial? If I make statements that project historical climate change shows large variations, am I in denial? The reason I ask this is there seems to be a drive to lump people into a category called 'denier', and I'm uncertain was to what that boundary is, as defined by the people who use it.

gavanwoolery 13y ago

Doubt is very good. Doubt is the foundation of science (the consensus used to be that the earth was flat). Not doubting is when something becomes faith or religion. I don't care what side the coin lands on, I only care that the methods used to predict the coin toss are sound.

anodari 13y ago
Excelent point, but unless I were a scientist studying the subject, I would not dare try to refute the opinion of most of the researchers in the field. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_c...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

brc 13y ago

Consensus means nothing. If anything it encourages groupthink and makes doubt and scepticism unfashionable - which is the exact opposite to what you need for doing good science. What matters is predictions, hypotheses and observations. These are the essence of science. You should be making arguments based on how a hypothesis has been tested against real world observations, not how many people agree with a particular position. The parent quite rightfully points out that correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, and you want to ping them for casting doubt. What you should be doing, in the spirit of scientific enquiry, is trying to find out how, in this case, causation can be disproven, to better advance knowledge. Trying to throw someone from the temple for casting doubt belongs to religion, not science.

redthrowaway 13y ago
Trying to imply that a particular theory is less well supported than it is (intelligent design, climate denial) is the realm of pseudoscience, not science.
- brc 13y ago
  I understand what you mean by intelligent design, I've read that theory, and it's that certain characteristics observed in nature are irreducible complexity, which supports the hypothesis of a supreme being. It's certainly a colorful theory, but isn't supported by real world observations and changes in the fossil record. Can you clarify what you mean by 'climate denial'. I don't know what that is supposed to describe.
  - redthrowaway 13y ago
    Just as ID is a pseudoscientific attempt to cast doubt on evolution, motivated by ideology but dressed up as science, so too is denial of AGW an attempt to discredit climate science, motivated by ideology (or profit) and dressed up as science. Climate models are tough and it's very difficult for us to forecast what the results of global warming will be, especially at local scales. That doesn't change the fact, well supported by science and not seriously doubted by any meaningful number of climate scientists, that the Earth is getting warmer and it's almost certainly due to our burning of fossil fuels. There are two groups who try to make AGW seem less certain than it is: energy companies who have a financial interest in not seeing government action against carbon emissions, and libertarians who feel threatened by the reality of AGW as it would seem to mandate large-scale, international government regulations. That would call into question deeply held libertarian beliefs about the ability of the free market to achieve societal goods and avoid evils. Just as religious people (rightly) view evolution as a threat to their beliefs and respond by attacking evolution, so too do libertarians view AGW as a threat to theirs and respond in the same fashion.
    - brc 13y ago
      Perhaps my question wasn't clear, I'll rephrase. ID is a specific theory which you either support or you don't. When does a person specifically support 'climate denial'? If I say that the observed sensitivity is less than the forecast sensitivity from models, am I in denial? If I note that the warming period from around 1979-2000 has paused, am I in denial? If I state that the regulatory frameworks suggested and implemented have failed, am I in denial? If I make statements that project historical climate change shows large variations, am I in denial? The reason I ask this is there seems to be a drive to lump people into a category called 'denier', and I'm uncertain was to what that boundary is, as defined by the people who use it.