3 ms·

I don't think Ben Goldacre is saying that valid criticism of climate change is bad. What he is saying is the vast majority of people who are criticizing climate

by russss 17y ago

I don't think Ben Goldacre is saying that valid criticism of climate change is bad. What he is saying is the vast majority of people who are criticizing climate change are doing so based on incorrect premises. This is why I personally have problems with people who are anti-AGW. Any valid points they have are drowned out by hundreds of non-scientific people frothing at the mouth and spouting exaggerated, incorrect crap. He believes climate change is occurring because of the expert consensus. Claiming that all several thousand experts are involved in a cover up is pretty classic conspiracy theory thinking...

nazgulnarsil 17y ago
agreed, but can you blame them? isn't the rational position to place the burden of proof on those who demand others change their behavior?
lionhearted 17y ago
> He believes climate change is occurring because of the expert consensus. Claiming that all several thousand experts are involved in a cover up is pretty classic conspiracy theory thinking... This is exactly what I'm talking about. I said, precisely, "...and many of the experts have very recently been shown to do some serious scientific misconduct." Is this conspiracy theorizing? No. A lot of them just participated in some actions that are almost universally regarded as scientific misconduct, such as destroying data rather than providing it for attempts at falsifying. This was many of the formerly respected and important climate change scientists. I gave a number of my concerns with the current research and views on global warming, saying that people are acting like the matter is no longer open to debate and discussion. And you responded that there's "hundreds of non-scientific people frothing at the mouth and spouting exaggerated, incorrect crap." And saying I claimed there's a massive cover up conspiracy, when I said no such thing. This is acting like the matter is no longer open to debate and discussion. There are valid concerns with the state of the science. I am not frothing at the mouth spouting exaggerated, incorrect crap. I am not conspiracy theorizing. The matter is by no means concluded. This does not make me or others who are not convinced into deniers, or pseudo-scientists, or "non-scientific people frothing at the mouth". Immediately writing off anyone who isn't convinced in climate change does not help its cause - it sets off red flags in people who are not convinced and wish to look closer at the science.
- ugh 17y ago
  You are not an expert, yet you disagree with the expert consensus, and because of that you are most likely wrong. It has always been that way. Mainstream views are correct more often than not.
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    It is proven by now that the consensus is partially manufactured. The CRU emails reveal attempting to control the debate via illegitimate means: trying to shut down journals which publish skeptics, hiding data to prevent skeptics from finding flaws, and ousting skeptics from professional societies, removing editors who allow opposing views to be published. A consensus of rational people is informative. A consensus of politics is not. There is considerable evidence that we have the latter rather than the former.
    - ugh 17y ago
      Sigh. No, the emails don’t reveal any of what you just claimed. Reading material: http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/east-anglia-cru-hacked-emails-12-07-09.pdf http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/east-anglia-cru-hacked-... [pdf] Sorry to go all pdf on you, but I don’t have the time for anything else.
  - lionhearted 17y ago
    > You are not an expert, yet you disagree with the expert consensus, and because of that you are most likely wrong. It has always been that way. 1. When you say consensus, there's not a consensus in climate change the way there's a consensus about the composition of water in chemistry. The are competing theories and holes in the current theories. Asserting that there is a consensus does not create a consensus. 2. You do not need to be an expert to analyze and look at published primary source papers, secondary source papers, and popular writing. I've done so, a little bit. By no means is the current worldview proven. I gave a number of my concerns in the original post. Most of them have come from talking to other scientists who also do not agree with the general views and policy recommendations of the prominent climate change group. 3. I'm not even disagreeing with the general, mainstream view completely - I don't know what's happening, to what extent, how dangerous it is, and why it's happening. There haven't been falsifiable claims about what's going to happen in the short term that can be tested. I would like to see more research and debate. > Mainstream views are correct more often than not. This is both not true and extremely dangerous. Here are a few examples off the top of my head, from a variety of fields: Mercantalism, geocentric/heliocentric universe, price controls, Newtonian Mechanics, war on drugs, absolute monarchy, papal infaliability, fascism, racism, slavery, human sacrifices, animal sacrifices, wifebeating, blood feuds, honor feuds, dueling, spoils system, aggressive warfare, appeasement, reparations... all mainstream views at one point. Some are relatively harmless, like people insisting that Earth was the center of the universe. Some have resulted in very poor social engineering, like mercantalism and price controls. And some of them have been downright horrible. The policy recommendations by climate change scientists probably have the potential to be as damaging as mercantalism was, if implemented improperly. Mercantalism made the citizens in mercantalist countries live worse, poorer lives, with more control, and no benefits. It led to a reduction in prosperty and quality of life in mercantalist countries, and a rise of prosperity and quality of life in non-mercantalist countries. And this was the dominant mainstream view of economics for a very long time in Europe. Much longer than the current views on climate change have been around. You need to question authority more in scientific fields. Actually, one thing that stands out very strongly to me is from Richard Feynman's "What Do You Care What Other People Think?" When his first wife got very sick, he looked up her symptoms in a medical book. She matched a particular disease exactly, and there were recommendations on what to do. The doctors diagnosed her with everything except this particular disease, and Feynman thought to himself, "Well, it seems so obvious that it's this, but if it's obvious to me, it'd be obvious to them, right? So it must be something else." Two years and four doctors later, his original diagnosis by matching her symptoms to a book were right, and the doctors were wrong. He was furious. He said he promised to question experts much more for the rest of his life after that.
yummyfajitas 17y ago
This is why I personally have problems with people who are anti-AGW. Any valid points they have are drowned out by hundreds of non-scientific people frothing at the mouth and spouting exaggerated, incorrect crap. This is true of both sides of any issue. Most proponents of AGW are also frothing at the mouth and spouting exaggerated, incorrect crap. Al Gore, for example: "Look at this graph, which historically shows CO2 lagging climate change! This proves CO2 causes climate change!" Or a girl I know who works for Greenpeace: "Look at all the wacky weather events we've been having, glaciers breaking off, the north pole melting, the [2004] tsunami! This proves global warming is real!" (Since she knows I'm a conservative, she refused to believed me when I tried to explain how Tsunami's work.) Yeah, if you want, you can focus on the weakest arguments of the opposing side and say "many idiots agree with my opponents" while ignoring the idiots who agree with you. You'll never need to rethink your views this way. Or you can actually try to understand the issue and think carefully about it...But that's both difficult and threatening.
- sailormoon 17y ago
  The funny thing is, in general I have no common cause with conservatives at all. Honestly, I can't stand them. But on the issue of global warming, I'm right with you. I have serious doubts about the whole thing. Climate change - bringing people together! Who would have thought?
- russss 17y ago
  All I meant with that point is that it's hard to get to the meat of the argument with so many clearly false statements flying around. I have yet to find any non-climatologists doing decent, unbiased, independent analysis of the climate change debate. As a scientist myself, this annoys me.
  - electromagnetic 17y ago
    I've yet to see any decent, unbiased, independent analysis' of climate change from any side. I've yet to see a single climatologist tackle the Milankovitch cycles and argue that it won't be the greater cause of global warming. I've yet to hear any evidence to disprove the theory, but I've heard lots of evidence to prove it and more just keeps on coming out. So please, prey tell, why isn't insolation variations of over 20% causing global warming? Why is it the human emission of CO2 that is being attributed as the sole/major cause of global warming when it has been conclusively shown to have less than 1/10th the forcing effect of variations in the Milankovitch cycles? Please where is this magical heating coming from that CO2 is providing? Why is the hundreds of years of work on the Milankovitch cycles being wholly ignored by climate scientists? Perhaps because it clearly states that there's likely to be a short-term ~5C raise in global temperatures regardless of what we do. When climatologists actually acknowledge these facts, I'll then believe what they have to say. Until then everything I do to save energy, to recycle, everything is to help our physical environment and to prevent the export of our waste to third world countries that we're using as waste dumps for our hazardous materials. When climatologists acknowledge that regardless of what we do the planet will warm, and that it's in our best interest to prepare for these changes and not ignorantly claim we can defeat them, then I'll believe they're truly trying to help people and not make a cheap billion dollars at our expense.

by russss 17y ago

nazgulnarsil 17y ago

agreed, but can you blame them? isn't the rational position to place the burden of proof on those who demand others change their behavior?

lionhearted 17y ago

> He believes climate change is occurring because of the expert consensus. Claiming that all several thousand experts are involved in a cover up is pretty classic conspiracy theory thinking... This is exactly what I'm talking about. I said, precisely, "...and many of the experts have very recently been shown to do some serious scientific misconduct." Is this conspiracy theorizing? No. A lot of them just participated in some actions that are almost universally regarded as scientific misconduct, such as destroying data rather than providing it for attempts at falsifying. This was many of the formerly respected and important climate change scientists. I gave a number of my concerns with the current research and views on global warming, saying that people are acting like the matter is no longer open to debate and discussion. And you responded that there's "hundreds of non-scientific people frothing at the mouth and spouting exaggerated, incorrect crap." And saying I claimed there's a massive cover up conspiracy, when I said no such thing. This is acting like the matter is no longer open to debate and discussion. There are valid concerns with the state of the science. I am not frothing at the mouth spouting exaggerated, incorrect crap. I am not conspiracy theorizing. The matter is by no means concluded. This does not make me or others who are not convinced into deniers, or pseudo-scientists, or "non-scientific people frothing at the mouth". Immediately writing off anyone who isn't convinced in climate change does not help its cause - it sets off red flags in people who are not convinced and wish to look closer at the science.

ugh 17y ago
You are not an expert, yet you disagree with the expert consensus, and because of that you are most likely wrong. It has always been that way. Mainstream views are correct more often than not.
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  It is proven by now that the consensus is partially manufactured. The CRU emails reveal attempting to control the debate via illegitimate means: trying to shut down journals which publish skeptics, hiding data to prevent skeptics from finding flaws, and ousting skeptics from professional societies, removing editors who allow opposing views to be published. A consensus of rational people is informative. A consensus of politics is not. There is considerable evidence that we have the latter rather than the former.
  - ugh 17y ago
    Sigh. No, the emails don’t reveal any of what you just claimed. Reading material: http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/east-anglia-cru-hacked-emails-12-07-09.pdf http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/east-anglia-cru-hacked-... [pdf] Sorry to go all pdf on you, but I don’t have the time for anything else.
- lionhearted 17y ago
  > You are not an expert, yet you disagree with the expert consensus, and because of that you are most likely wrong. It has always been that way. 1. When you say consensus, there's not a consensus in climate change the way there's a consensus about the composition of water in chemistry. The are competing theories and holes in the current theories. Asserting that there is a consensus does not create a consensus. 2. You do not need to be an expert to analyze and look at published primary source papers, secondary source papers, and popular writing. I've done so, a little bit. By no means is the current worldview proven. I gave a number of my concerns in the original post. Most of them have come from talking to other scientists who also do not agree with the general views and policy recommendations of the prominent climate change group. 3. I'm not even disagreeing with the general, mainstream view completely - I don't know what's happening, to what extent, how dangerous it is, and why it's happening. There haven't been falsifiable claims about what's going to happen in the short term that can be tested. I would like to see more research and debate. > Mainstream views are correct more often than not. This is both not true and extremely dangerous. Here are a few examples off the top of my head, from a variety of fields: Mercantalism, geocentric/heliocentric universe, price controls, Newtonian Mechanics, war on drugs, absolute monarchy, papal infaliability, fascism, racism, slavery, human sacrifices, animal sacrifices, wifebeating, blood feuds, honor feuds, dueling, spoils system, aggressive warfare, appeasement, reparations... all mainstream views at one point. Some are relatively harmless, like people insisting that Earth was the center of the universe. Some have resulted in very poor social engineering, like mercantalism and price controls. And some of them have been downright horrible. The policy recommendations by climate change scientists probably have the potential to be as damaging as mercantalism was, if implemented improperly. Mercantalism made the citizens in mercantalist countries live worse, poorer lives, with more control, and no benefits. It led to a reduction in prosperty and quality of life in mercantalist countries, and a rise of prosperity and quality of life in non-mercantalist countries. And this was the dominant mainstream view of economics for a very long time in Europe. Much longer than the current views on climate change have been around. You need to question authority more in scientific fields. Actually, one thing that stands out very strongly to me is from Richard Feynman's "What Do You Care What Other People Think?" When his first wife got very sick, he looked up her symptoms in a medical book. She matched a particular disease exactly, and there were recommendations on what to do. The doctors diagnosed her with everything except this particular disease, and Feynman thought to himself, "Well, it seems so obvious that it's this, but if it's obvious to me, it'd be obvious to them, right? So it must be something else." Two years and four doctors later, his original diagnosis by matching her symptoms to a book were right, and the doctors were wrong. He was furious. He said he promised to question experts much more for the rest of his life after that.

yummyfajitas 17y ago

This is why I personally have problems with people who are anti-AGW. Any valid points they have are drowned out by hundreds of non-scientific people frothing at the mouth and spouting exaggerated, incorrect crap. This is true of both sides of any issue. Most proponents of AGW are also frothing at the mouth and spouting exaggerated, incorrect crap. Al Gore, for example: "Look at this graph, which historically shows CO2 lagging climate change! This proves CO2 causes climate change!" Or a girl I know who works for Greenpeace: "Look at all the wacky weather events we've been having, glaciers breaking off, the north pole melting, the [2004] tsunami! This proves global warming is real!" (Since she knows I'm a conservative, she refused to believed me when I tried to explain how Tsunami's work.) Yeah, if you want, you can focus on the weakest arguments of the opposing side and say "many idiots agree with my opponents" while ignoring the idiots who agree with you. You'll never need to rethink your views this way. Or you can actually try to understand the issue and think carefully about it...But that's both difficult and threatening.

sailormoon 17y ago
The funny thing is, in general I have no common cause with conservatives at all. Honestly, I can't stand them. But on the issue of global warming, I'm right with you. I have serious doubts about the whole thing. Climate change - bringing people together! Who would have thought?
russss 17y ago
All I meant with that point is that it's hard to get to the meat of the argument with so many clearly false statements flying around. I have yet to find any non-climatologists doing decent, unbiased, independent analysis of the climate change debate. As a scientist myself, this annoys me.
- electromagnetic 17y ago
  I've yet to see any decent, unbiased, independent analysis' of climate change from any side. I've yet to see a single climatologist tackle the Milankovitch cycles and argue that it won't be the greater cause of global warming. I've yet to hear any evidence to disprove the theory, but I've heard lots of evidence to prove it and more just keeps on coming out. So please, prey tell, why isn't insolation variations of over 20% causing global warming? Why is it the human emission of CO2 that is being attributed as the sole/major cause of global warming when it has been conclusively shown to have less than 1/10th the forcing effect of variations in the Milankovitch cycles? Please where is this magical heating coming from that CO2 is providing? Why is the hundreds of years of work on the Milankovitch cycles being wholly ignored by climate scientists? Perhaps because it clearly states that there's likely to be a short-term ~5C raise in global temperatures regardless of what we do. When climatologists actually acknowledge these facts, I'll then believe what they have to say. Until then everything I do to save energy, to recycle, everything is to help our physical environment and to prevent the export of our waste to third world countries that we're using as waste dumps for our hazardous materials. When climatologists acknowledge that regardless of what we do the planet will warm, and that it's in our best interest to prepare for these changes and not ignorantly claim we can defeat them, then I'll believe they're truly trying to help people and not make a cheap billion dollars at our expense.