Maybe you know, but here’s what you said:
Clearly you were setting up a straw man.
The ability to read carefully, reason analytically, and think critically.
I have no idea who reads the summary, but it would appear to be intended for people who are not climate scientists. Do you agree?
I don’t think the petition proves much of anything at all.
It says "assessed right there in that quote
And you think that this is taught to people in school nowadays? Again, refreshing. I realise your perspective might be skewed from hanging out mostly in GD, but have you looked at MySpace or Facebook or Livejournal lately? Those are the people universities mostly turn out nowadays. People who match your listed criteria are not the norm, or even close to it. Never have been.
What does that have to do with anything? Just because the IPCC puts out a summary of its findings doesn’t mean that people are expected to understand the IPCC’s science. They’re expected to buy what the IPCC is selling because they trust the process that went into it, and the setup of the Panel. They’re not really expected to digest the Exec Summary like a science text - the full report is the science text. It’s there to show their backers that they weren’t just living it up in Majorca on world governments’ money.
I’ve worked on scores of exec summaries in the last few years - they’re PR documents, not science papers. You pointing fingers at the IPCC for producing one shows a lack of understanding of how big projects like that work.
I know that, and you essentially stated that assessing “GCC” (whatever that means) was “doing science,” analagous to operating on a dog or flying a plane.
It just ain’t so. Let me give you a better analogy: I’m not a surgeon and I’m not qualified to perform surgery. However, if a surgeon told me that an immediate family member needed to have surgery done, you can bet I would research things carefully, ask the surgeon a lot of probing questions, make an independent assessment of the surgeon’s advice.
Sure. As I said, it doesn’t take in every case.
Agreed.
Then why explain that science at all?
And it’s aimed at whom? People who aren’t climate scientists, right?
Me, if I had doubts, I’d just ask another qualified doctor for a second opinion. I don’t try and second-guess qualified professionals, unless I have good reason to mistrust them. If I doubted a doctor, I’d check his record for malpractice, not try and research the disease myself. There’s no way I’d be qualified to decide, especially with all the nutjob opinions out there. It’s the same with climate science.
Some people hate being talked down to, even when it fits. Like I said, PR.
The whole report(s)? No, I’d say it’s aimed more at scientists who work for governments and NGOs - since it’s essentially a literature review, it’s most useful to people who actually read the literature and can follow up on interesting bits. It’s not aimed at the policymakers as much as the staff of said policymakers. So, in our case, not the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning as much as the *Head of the Department *of EA&DP , and his staff. So, functionaries not policymakers - or why do you think there’s a separate summary for them (which I doubt most even read)?
Well, 31,000 climate skeptics isn’t a lot considering all you need to sign is a BS.
But still, I’m disturbed by the sigs of Professors or Directors of Departments, even though the vast majority are in unrelated fields.
It’s like they’ve misunderstood the basic principles of science and decided to support an opinion that’s not only unproven but actually goes against the weight of evidence, just because of what their intuition is telling them.
If scientists can’t get science, I despair for the general population 
You are entitled to your preferences, of course, but let me make sure I understand what you are saying:
If the doctor told you that your child needed surgery, you wouldn’t ask the doctor to explain the underlying condition and why surgery was appropriate?
Just so we are clear, are you saying that the full IPCC reports are aimed at climate scientists who are employed by governments and NGO’s?
Of course I would - but I wouldn’t evaluate his diagnosis based on my own “intuition”, or stuff I read on the internet. For anything like major surgery (so not tonsils or appendix) I’d get that second opinion anyway.
But I trust my kid’s doctor already, based on past performance. I’d not try and second-guess him. If it was a completely unknown doctor, I’d definitely ask for that second opinion, even for the small stuff.
I’m saying that’s who’s likely reading them.
Any scienticians on the list?
Brazil, at what level do you start trusting people? I get that you don’t trust the scientists to reach scientific conclusions for you. Do you trust them to reach results of their experiments/data gathering for you? Do you trust them to gather data and perform experiments for you? Do you trust them to build accurate instruments for you? Do you distrust them entirely, building your own climate instruments and going out in the field to collect your own data?
I suspect that you trust them to do everything except to understand the results of their experiments. If so, why? Why do you believe that, in general, you would be more qualified to interpret the results of their experiments than the people that actually performed the experiments?
You mention reading carefully as one of the requirements for interpreting the results in the field. How carefully? How much must one read before one is as qualified to interpret results as a person who has spent years immersing themselves full-time in this same careful reading? Two hours? Ten? A hundred? A thousand? At what point do you become equally qualified? I don’t need a precise number of hours; within an order of magnitute would be sufficient.
Daniel
My wife, who is a biologist, writes and edits medical encyclopedia articles based on current research. She has found that she can tell when the writer of an article she is editing didn’t have the right background, since there are mistakes and basic misunderstandings.
For your example, how long do you think it would take for you to track down the research, read it, read the references so you understand the context of results, and make sure you haven’t missed contradictory results? Sure, ask probing questions, and try to find uncertainty. Definitely understand the risks and benefits, and have a basic idea of what is going on. But you’re saying that starting from square zero you can know more about the condition than someone who has had years of education and experience, and who has seen it many, many times before.
We have had our kids operated on, and for minor things my wife, with her training, was much better at asking questions than I was. Not all opinions are created equal.
I’d find the Dope AGCC skeptics more believable (if not more convincing) if they were arguing with their own interpretations (as brazil84 claims to do) rather than just parroting all the other climate skeptics out there in the blogosphere. If someone came and said “I was reading this paper, and I noticed this disparity…” rather than “this article on climate-skeptic says”, I’d take them a lot more seriously. Because otherwise it breaks down to battling authorities, in which case, I’m afraid, the ayes have it - in spades.
Sure, because you would want to evaluate the doctor’s recommendation rather than simply accept it without question.
Me neither. Nice strawman though.
I asked about who the reports are aimed at.
I don’t trust anyone 100% except certain very close friends and immediate family members. What I do trust is the adversarial process. i.e. A process where a scientist makes a certain claim, and allows other scientists (and members of the public) who are hostile to that claim to review his data and methods and to publicly criticize the claim, the data, and everything else.
No. See above.
For CAGW, 50 hours is plenty in my opinion (to be able to reject the CAGW hypothesis with reasonable confidence).
Equally qualified to do what?
In 50 hours of study - just over one week of full time work - you can learn enough about a complex and technical field of study for your opinion to be the equal of a working scientist who’s devoted years of classwork and education to the same field?
That’s an absolutely ridiculous claim. You can’t really believe that, can you?
Basically yes, but it would depend on the scientist in question.
Let me ask you a question: Whose opinion about CAGW is superior: Yours or Richard Lindzen’s?
But what I’m evaluating is the layman’s explanation the doctor gives me, not the technical stuff. I don’t know how to read an X-ray, or a path lab report. I do know that if I go in with my kid’s head hurting, she’s not likely to need an appendectomy. That’s hardly “evaluating the science”, is it? It’s evaluating the “for dummies” version the doctor gives me. That’s analogous to reading the summary reports, not the science papers behind it all.
You left off the “or stuff I read on the internet” bit. Telling, that.
And I’m telling you how it would work in the real world.
So what? Any way you slice it, you are evaluating his claim. And if the doctor’s “layman’s explanation” does not satisfy you, you may very well fire him. If he evades your questions, or dismisses reasonable questions on the ground that you are not a doctor, you may very well fire him.
Let’s suppose that it is . . . so what? The question on the table is whether laymen are potentially qualified to evaluate a scientific claim.
Lol. Because it wasn’t part of your strawman. Anyway, in my country it is very common for people who are confronted with a serious illness to research that illness on the internet to help them make treatment decisions; to check their doctor’s claims; and to figure out questions to ask their doctor. I think this is completely reasonable behavior.
i.e. you are evading my question.
Earlier, you said this:
I’m simply trying to figure out if you were referring climate scientists or scientists in general.
Why do you keep evading the question?
But I’m not evaluating the medical science of the claim.
That’s evaluating the person, not the science, though.
Not the claim, the science.
.
You do know how the “or” conditional works, right?
I think it’s certifiable behaviour, that makes you easy prey for any wacko with a “alternative” theory and a godaddy account, myself. In my country, if I want a second opinion, I ask another doctor.
Climate scientists and related specialists who can understand the science.
No evasion - I didn’t understand what the hey you were asking for.
That’s an interesting distinction you draw. :dubious:
Anyway, non-climate scientists are potentially qualified to evaluate the CAGW claim. Or the CAGW science. Or the people who are pushing the CAGW claim. Take your pick.
Absolutely.
You’re entitled to your opinion, of course.
How do I know if somebody is a “related specialist who can understand the science”? What is a related specialty? What qualifications (if any) are required? Can you give me some examples?