How many people take Global Warming totally on faith?

[brazil84]

@AmalgramFour

However, that doesn’t make it a good analogy if you agree that ultimately science is not dogmatic.

It depends on what the analogy is supposed to illustrate.

[AmalgramFour]

What do you think it is illustrating, and how is it a worthwhile analogy?

[brazil84]

@AmalgramFour

What do you think it is illustrating, and how is it a worthwhile analogy?

I think it helps to show why AGW has caught on so widely. Suppose you tell people that some Unpleasant Future is coming; that they are sinners; that they should accept some kind of personal sacrifice; that they should support you and your crusade; that if they join you, they can feel smug and superior.

It’s a classic formula.

It also helps to show why AGW is so worthy of skepticism. Whenever you hear some sort of pitch like the above, you need to be very cautious and skeptical because there’s a good chance you are being scammed.

[AmalgramFour]

@brazil84

I think it helps to show why AGW has caught on so widely. Suppose you tell people that some Unpleasant Future is coming; that they are sinners; that they should accept some kind of personal sacrifice; that they should support you and your crusade; that if they join you, they can feel smug and superior.

It’s a classic formula.

It also helps to show why AGW is so worthy of skepticism. Whenever you hear some sort of pitch like the above, you need to be very cautious and skeptical because there’s a good chance you are being scammed.

I think it’s a very weak argument. People don’t derive much benefit from believing in global warming, certainly compared to, say, the promise of eternal life. You really think the opportunity to feel “smug and superior” is that much of a draw? Most people I know who believe it feel concerned and guilty (because they aren’t actually prepared to sacrifice their quality of life to do much about it).

Personally, I don’t feel smug. I don’t have a gas-guzzling car, and do a few things to save energy. Am I helping to ‘save the planet’? Bollocks I am. If climate change is a serious risk I’m simply doing slightly less damage than I might. I’d be delighted if it turns out that the dangers have been exaggerated, I just see little grounds for optimism on that point.

[brazil84]

@AmalgramFour

I think it’s a very weak argument. People don’t derive much benefit from believing in global warming, certainly compared to, say, the promise of eternal life. You really think the opportunity to feel “smug and superior” is that much of a draw?

Sure, and the opportunity to feel that they are helping to save the world.

Most people I know who believe it feel concerned and guilty (because they aren’t actually prepared to sacrifice their quality of life to do much about it).

Sure, and a classic tactic of scammers is to make people feel concerned and guilty.

[AmalgramFour]

@brazil84

Sure, and a classic tactic of scammers is to make people feel concerned and guilty.

So who exactly are the scammers?

[brazil84]

@AmalgramFour

So who exactly are the scammers?

You can start here:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html

[AmalgramFour]

The carbon trading shambles really has nothing to do with whether the theory of human induced climate change is correct or not. Of course, some people have will make a personal gain (financial or political) from promoting global warming, but the theory itself comes from the scientific community.

[brazil84]

@AmalgramFour

The carbon trading shambles really has nothing to do with whether the theory of human induced climate change is correct or not.

So what? Your claim was that AGW is not analogous to religion. One striking similarity is scammers who take your money in exchange for absolving you of sin.

Do a web search for “carbon indulgences”

[AmalgramFour]

[QUOTE=brazil84]
So what? Your claim was that AGW is not analogous to religion. One striking similarity is scammers who take your money in exchange for absolving you of sin.

[QUOTE]

AGW started life as a scientific theory, it wasn’t devised by people in the financial sector so they could make a profit from it.

Also, ‘scam’ and ‘shambles’ do not mean the same thing. A scam is a planned deception, carbon trading is a half-assed attempt to reduce emissions. It went wrong when the EU flooded the market with carbon credits and the market collapsed, at the moment it’s cheaper for companies to buy more carbon credits than it is for them to spend money reducing emissions.

[brazil84]

AGW started life as a scientific theory, it wasn’t devised by people in the financial sector so they could make a profit from it.

Again, so what? Do you think that Christianity was started with indulgences in mind?

Also, ‘scam’ and ‘shambles’ do not mean the same thing.

Do you claim that nobody is selling carbon offsets that don’t live up to the seller’s representations?

[AmalgramFour]

The theory of AGW itself is a different subject from it’s political consequences. If I sell you snake oil as a cure for cancer, it doesn’t change the fact that cancer is real.

@brazil84

Sure, and a classic tactic of scammers is to make people feel concerned and guilty.

This is a syllogism. You are saying that because AGW makes people feel concerened and guilty, and because scammers make people feel concerned and guilty AGW, then AGW might be a scam? No, it may make people feel concerned and guilty for other reasons.

[Miller]

@brazil84

And it’s possible that aspects of science can become more religion-like.

Ideally, a scientist should be like a prosecutor. He or she should be equally open to evidence that will undermine or support his or her position. Just as a prosecutor must turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense attorney, a scientist should disclose all aspects of his or her research to the public.

However, as the example of Mike Nifong shows, some prosecutors fall short of the ideal. They fall into the all too human trap of looking only for evidence that will confirm their position while ignoring and supressing evidence that undermines their position.

And sometimes scientists fall short of the ideal too.

So, in this context, “some” equals “about 90%”?

[brazil84]

@Miller

So, in this context, “some” equals “about 90%”?

I’m not sure, but I am reminded of something Max Plank allegedly said:

It is not that old theories are disproved, it is just that their supporters die out

[brazil84]

@AmalgramFour

The theory of AGW itself is a different subject from it’s political consequences. If I sell you snake oil as a cure for cancer, it doesn’t change the fact that cancer is real.

Perhaps, but so what? The question is whether AGW is analogous to religion.

You are saying that because AGW makes people feel concerened and guilty, and because scammers make people feel concerned and guilty AGW, then AGW might be a scam?

Essentially, yes. Anytime somebody tries to make me feel concerned and guilty, I pat the pocket that holds my wallet.

No, it may make people feel concerned and guilty for other reasons.

That’s possible. But yet again, so what?

The question is whether AGW is analogous to religion.

[AmalgramFour]

@brazil84

The question is whether AGW is analogous to religion.

The answer is no because AGW is based on evidence while religion is based on personal revelation. That’s a pretty fundamental difference.

[brazil84]

@AmalgramFour

The answer is no because AGW is based on evidence while religion is based on personal revelation. That’s a pretty fundamental difference.

I’m sure you could find religious people who will tell you that their beliefs are based on authority and documentary evidence (e.g. the Bible).

[AmalgramFour]

@brazil84

I’m sure you could find religious people who will tell you that their beliefs are based on authority and documentary evidence (e.g. the Bible).

Yes, but I’m certain you won’t find a scientist who relies on personal revelation in their work. Faith is the cornerstone of religion and evidence underpins science.

[brazil84]

@AmalgramFour

Yes, but I’m certain you won’t find a scientist who relies on personal revelation in their work. Faith is the cornerstone of religion and evidence underpins science.

That may be so. I won’t deny that there are differences between AGW and religion. But there still are many similarities.

A few posts back, I explained why I thought religion was a worthwhile analogy to AGW and I stand by that post.

[GIGObuster]

@brazil84

False.

Cite: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/MM2005.gif

Wrong:

That is the graphic from the 2004 McKitrick and Michaels paper:

RealClimate: Peer Review: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition

Next, we discuss the first of three so-called “bombshell” papers that supposedly “knock the stuffing out of” the findings of the IPCC. Patrick Michaels and associates billed his own paper (McKitrick and Michaels, 2004) (co-authored by Ross McKitrick ), this way:

After four years of one of the most rigorous peer reviews ever, Canadian Ross McKitrick and another of us (Michaels) published a paper searching for “economic” signals in the temperature record. …The research showed that somewhere around one-half of the warming in the U.N. surface record was explained by economic factors, which can be changes in land use, quality of instrumentation, or upkeep of records.

It strikes us as odd, to say the least, that, after one of the “most rigorous peer reviews ever”, nobody involved (neither editor, nor reviewers, nor authors) seems to have caught the egregious basic error that the authors mistakenly used degrees rather than the required radians in calculating the cosine functions used to spatially weight their estimates**. This mistake rendered every calculation in the paper incorrect, and the conclusions invalid — to our knowledge, however, the paper has not yet been retracted. Remarkably, there were still other independent and equally fundamental errors in the paper that would have rendered it entirely invalid anyway. To the journals credit, they published a criticism of the paper by Benestad (2004) to this effect. It may come as no surprise that McKitrick and Michaels (2004) was published in Climate Research and was handled by none other than Chris de Frietas.