3 ms·

If you think it's an important issue, read up on it. Read arguments from people on as many different sides of the issue as you can, and be sure to read up on th

If you think it's an important issue, read up on it. Read arguments from people on as many different sides of the issue as you can, and be sure to read up on the responses to those arguments from different sides of the issue. Pay attention to peer-reviewed studies and meta-studies - look for data that you can study and verify. Pay attention as well to the manner in which arguments are made. If an argument resorts to informal fallacies like ad hominem attacks, cherry picking data, bait-and-switch and so on, be even more highly skeptical. It's also important to understand whether the person making the argument has any conflicts of interest (e.g. their own paycheck depends on a particular point of view taking precedence over policy). However, it doesn't automatically follow that such a person is being dishonest just because they stand to benefit from the adoption of their particular stance.

Tichy 17y ago
I tried reading up on global warming, but it seems surprisingly hard to find any information. The only "big" web sites on the topic were run by anti-global-warmists, naturally they were full of charts and stuff. How does one even find peer-reviewed information - by looking into "certified" journals? And don't the revisionists have peers as well? "If an argument resorts to informal fallacies like ad hominem attacks, cherry picking data, bait-and-switch and so on, be even more highly skeptical." Agreed, these tend to be fairly clear signs. My favorite is the inevitable claim that "faction x can only resort to personal attacks", which is of course also a personal attack ;-)
- RyanMcGreal 17y ago
  http://www.realclimate.org/ http://www.realclimate.org/
- mixmax 17y ago
  There's a subreddit called hardscience dedicated to only scientific papers. I've seen a few on global warming there. So that might be a good place to start. http://www.reddit.com/r/hardscience/ http://www.reddit.com/r/hardscience/
- Retric 17y ago
  The problem with looking for scientific support is it comes in tiny pieces. Going back 30 years you find the early stuff is looking at the general trends but people don't republish the same report looking at the same data. So if you want to get a solid understanding of what scientists think you really need to read a few hundred technical reports each of which is a tiny slice of the pie. You also need to verify that each of those reports is based on solid science and created by people without significant bias; luckily if you go far enough back the issue is not all that controversial so the age of the publication is a good indicator of quality. It would be nice to have a reliable way to avoid that much work, but if you try to shortcut this you are going to be faced with summery information that's of questionable quality.

Tichy 17y ago

I tried reading up on global warming, but it seems surprisingly hard to find any information. The only "big" web sites on the topic were run by anti-global-warmists, naturally they were full of charts and stuff. How does one even find peer-reviewed information - by looking into "certified" journals? And don't the revisionists have peers as well? "If an argument resorts to informal fallacies like ad hominem attacks, cherry picking data, bait-and-switch and so on, be even more highly skeptical." Agreed, these tend to be fairly clear signs. My favorite is the inevitable claim that "faction x can only resort to personal attacks", which is of course also a personal attack ;-)

RyanMcGreal 17y ago
http://www.realclimate.org/ http://www.realclimate.org/
mixmax 17y ago
There's a subreddit called hardscience dedicated to only scientific papers. I've seen a few on global warming there. So that might be a good place to start. http://www.reddit.com/r/hardscience/ http://www.reddit.com/r/hardscience/
Retric 17y ago
The problem with looking for scientific support is it comes in tiny pieces. Going back 30 years you find the early stuff is looking at the general trends but people don't republish the same report looking at the same data. So if you want to get a solid understanding of what scientists think you really need to read a few hundred technical reports each of which is a tiny slice of the pie. You also need to verify that each of those reports is based on solid science and created by people without significant bias; luckily if you go far enough back the issue is not all that controversial so the age of the publication is a good indicator of quality. It would be nice to have a reliable way to avoid that much work, but if you try to shortcut this you are going to be faced with summery information that's of questionable quality.