How many people take Global Warming totally on faith?

[Miller]

[QUOTE=brazil84]
I’m not sure, but I am reminded of something Max Plank allegedly said:
[/QUOTE]

That’s a good quote. You should hang on to it. Someday, you might find yourself in a debate where it’s relevant.

[GIGObuster]

[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=brazil84]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Looking at history, this position is really weak, for it was demonstrated that in the last century science did not see evidence of a mechanism or a valid theory of why CO2 would be a cause to worry, when the mechanism and a valid theory appeared it was the evidence from many sources that convinced most scientists now.

If climate research was a religion they would have ignored the evidence and continue telling the world to have faith and ignore the new information.

[brazil84]

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
Wrong:

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

RealClimate: Peer Review: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition Evaluation...

[/QUOTE]

So what? Let’s assume for the sake of argument the graph I posted was wrong wrong wrong. (Since the authors themselves stated it was not statistically significant, it doesn’t matter.)

Here’s what Sage Rat said:

When corrections were made, everyone still got a hockey puck even the people who were the most vociferously against AGW..

Clearly Sage Rat’s claim was false.

[brazil84]

[QUOTE=Miller]
That’s a good quote. You should hang on to it. Someday, you might find yourself in a debate where it’s relevant.
[/QUOTE]

My personal feeling is that AGW will have been thoroughly debunked and discredited in 20 or 30 years. But that there will be a decent number of bitter enders floating around. Time will tell.

[brazil84]

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
Looking at history, this position is really weak, for it was demonstrated that in the last century science did not see evidence of a mechanism or a valid theory of why CO2 would be a cause to worry, when the mechanism and a valid theory appeared it was the evidence from many sources that convinced most scientists now.

If climate research was a religion they would have ignored the evidence and continue telling the world to have faith and ignore the new information.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think anyone is claiming that climate research in general is analogous to religion. Certainly I’m not.

[AmalgramFour]

[QUOTE=brazil84]
My personal feeling is that AGW will have been thoroughly debunked and discredited in 20 or 30 years. But that there will be a decent number of bitter enders floating around. Time will tell.
[/QUOTE]

Why do you believe that the scientific concensus is so wrong? What physical mechanisms will either reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, or otherwise counteract the warming caused by their presence?

[netsplit]

[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]
How can you make generalizations this gross with a straight face? Because GWB acted on bad information (I’ve still not seen it proven that Bush knew the WMDs were gone from Iraq–it’s pretty clear he wanted to believe they were still there, but you have to knowingly state an untruth for it to be a lie), you conclude that Republicans are willing to lie for self-interest and cause thousands of deaths, but Democrats aren’t? The actions of one man (or even one administration) apply to tens of millions of other Republicans, including the ones that don’t support that man?
[/QUOTE]

Not wanting to hijack lets step outside

[brazil84]

[QUOTE=AmalgramFour]
Why do you believe that the scientific concensus is so wrong?
[/quote]

I’m skeptical that there is a “scientific concensus.” Like I said earlier in the thread, AGW is essentially untested. Further, it is not the only explanation for recent warming trends.

At the same time, there is a lot of social and economic pressure to exaggerate the amount of certainty over AGW and its potential effects.

Like it or not, some kinds of claims step up to the plate with two strikes against them. If I get an e-mail from Nigeria asking for help moving 30 million dollars out of the country, I’m immediately skeptical. If a drunk prostitute is about to get thrown in the drunk tank and suddenly claims that 3 Duke Lacrosse players gang-raped her, I’m immediately skeptical. AGW is not as bad as a 419 letter from Nigeria, but the same prinicple applies.

What physical mechanisms will either reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, or otherwise counteract the warming caused by their presence?

I doubt that the first order effects of a 25% increase in carbon dioxide levels will be significant enough to worry about.

[AmalgramFour]

[QUOTE=brazil84]
I doubt that the first order effects of a 25% increase in carbon dioxide levels will be significant enough to worry about.
[/QUOTE]

Why do you doubt that? Have you done the maths?

[Miller]

[QUOTE=brazil84]
My personal feeling is that AGW will have been thoroughly debunked and discredited in 20 or 30 years. But that there will be a decent number of bitter enders floating around. Time will tell.
[/QUOTE]

It’s nice to have faith, I suppose, but the purpose of this thread is to discusss how support for AGW is equivalent to religion, not opposition.

[Contrapuntal]

[QUOTE=brazil84]
Like it or not, some kinds of claims step up to the plate with two strikes against them. If I get an e-mail from Nigeria asking for help moving 30 million dollars out of the country, I’m immediately skeptical. If a drunk prostitute is about to get thrown in the drunk tank and suddenly claims that 3 Duke Lacrosse players gang-raped her, I’m immediately skeptical. AGW is not as bad as a 419 letter from Nigeria, but the same prinicple applies.
[/QUOTE]
How so? Both of those examples reference events that are demonstrably false; that have been proven so in actual fact, and have not survived public scrutiny. No Nigerian 419 letter has ever resulted in a boon for the victim; the Duke LAX players were declared innocent by the NC Attorney General. Is it your contention that AGW is demonstrably false?

[brazil84]

[QUOTE=AmalgramFour]
Why do you doubt that? Have you done the maths?
[/QUOTE]

As a matter of fact, I have done the math. Although it was a number of years ago and I don’t remember the details. In any event, I think it’s pretty uncontroversial that AGW-proponents rely on simulations and secondary and tertiary effects to predict significant AGW.

[brazil84]

[QUOTE=Miller]
It’s nice to have faith, I suppose,
[/quote]

For me, it’s not a matter of faith. I have already described experiments that would put my beliefs at risk.

[brazil84]

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Is it your contention that AGW is demonstrably false?
[/QUOTE]

No, it’s a claim that requires a lot of caution and skepticism.

The Duke Lacrosse case is an interesting example. At the time the accusation was made, it was not generally known that it was false. I myself had an open mind. If the DNA tests had matched the defendants, my conclusions about the case would have been very different.

It took a year before the accusations had been thoroughly discredited.

My guess with AGW is that it will take 20 or 30 years. But as with the Duke Lacrosse case, I have an open mind.

[GIGObuster]

[QUOTE=brazil84]

So what? Let’s assume for the sake of argument the graph I posted was wrong wrong wrong. (Since the authors themselves stated it was not statistically significant, it doesn’t matter.)

Here’s what Sage Rat said:

Clearly Sage Rat’s claim was false.
[/QUOTE]

So what? in context it means that the people who were the most vociferously against AGW got it wrong in the example you brought there. Sage Rat can still be corrent then if all the ones that did the proper calculations still got the Hokey Stick.

[brazil84]

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
So what?
[/quote]

I think it’s relevant to a debate if a person makes a false statement.

Don’t you?

in context it means that the people who were the most vociferously against AGW got it wrong in the example you brought there.

Maybe they did, and maybe they didn’t. But Sage rat claimed that everyone got a hockey stick. (Actually he or she claimed that everyone got a hockey “puck,” but I assumed he meant “stick” not “puck.” )

Anyway, the claim was false. It’s that simple.

[GIGObuster]

[QUOTE=brazil84]
I’m skeptical that there is a “scientific concensus.”
[/quote]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26065-2004Dec25.html

Many people have the impression that there is significant scientific disagreement about global climate change. It’s time to lay that misapprehension to rest. There is a scientific consensus on the fact that Earth’s climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason. We need to stop repeating nonsense about the uncertainty of global warming and start talking seriously about the right approach to address it.

…

The IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. A National Academy of Sciences report begins unequivocally: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.” The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and it answers yes. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all issued statements concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.

Despite recent allegations to the contrary, these statements from the leadership of scientific societies and the IPCC accurately reflect the state of the art in climate science research. The Institute for Scientific Information keeps a database on published scientific articles, which my research assistants and I used to answer that question with respect to global climate change. We read 928 abstracts published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the database with the keywords “global climate change.” Seventy-five percent of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view. The remaining 25 percent dealt with other facets of the subject, taking no position on whether current climate change is caused by human activity. None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. There have been arguments to the contrary, but they are not to be found in scientific literature, which is where scientific debates are properly adjudicated. There, the message is clear and unambiguous.

[QUOTE=brazil84]
Like I said earlier in the thread, AGW is essentially untested. Further, it is not the only explanation for recent warming trends.
[/QUOTE]

Not correct, and there are already reports posted here that the main alternative explanation that the sun was responsible is not correct.

[QUOTE=brazil84]
At the same time, there is a lot of social and economic pressure to exaggerate the amount of certainty over AGW and its potential effects.
[/QUOTE]

The pressure I see is in not doing much change. And there are reports that the pressure was there, but to minimize the problem:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16886008/?GT1=8921

WASHINGTON - The Democratic-controlled Congress on Tuesday stepped up its pressure on President Bush’s global warming strategy, hearing allegations of new political pressure on government scientists to downplay the threat of global warming.

Lawmakers received survey results of federal scientists that showed 46 percent felt pressure to eliminate the words “climate change,” “global warming” or similar terms from communications about their work.

The scientists also reported 435 instances of political interference in their work over the past five years.

[QUOTE=brazil84]
Like it or not, some kinds of claims step up to the plate with two strikes against them. If I get an e-mail from Nigeria asking for help moving 30 million dollars out of the country, I’m immediately skeptical. If a drunk prostitute is about to get thrown in the drunk tank and suddenly claims that 3 Duke Lacrosse players gang-raped her, I’m immediately skeptical. AGW is not as bad as a 419 letter from Nigeria, but the same principle applies.
[/quote]

Good to be skeptical but strangely I still do not see any effort to be skeptical about what deniers are bringing forth.

I still continue to encounter evidence that deniers are bringing as good examples on why we should be skeptical of GW to look more like the example of the prostitute.

[GIGObuster]

[QUOTE=brazil84]
I think it’s relevant to a debate if a person makes a false statement.

Don’t you?
[/quote]

In the context of the thread it was very important to clarify that example was not correct.

Maybe they did, and maybe they didn’t. But Sage rat claimed that everyone got a hockey stick. (Actually he or she claimed that everyone got a hockey “puck,” but I assumed he meant “stick” not “puck.” )

Anyway, the claim was false. It’s that simple.

What is simple is that you could not produce a valid example to what in context is clear, the hockey stick did not disappear. And you are only showing that semantics can give you silly victories, (only against Sage Rat, and that is not clear in the light that you did not produce a valid example) but not much on the overall point.

[brazil84]

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26065-2004Dec25.html
[/quote]

Did you notice that was an editorial? Anyway, if you do a web search you can find a list of many scientists who don’t go along with the “consensus”

Not correct, and there are already reports posted here that the main alternative explanation that the sun was responsible is not correct.

We’ve been through this already so there’s no need to rehash it. Anyway, do you dispute that the Earth regularly goes through warming and cooling trends? Or that the recent observed changes in temperature are well within the range of natural fluctuation?

The pressure I see is in not doing much change. And there are reports that the pressure was there, but to minimize the problem:

Do you dispute that there has been a big increase in funding for climate research? Do you agree that concerns about AGW are part of the reason for this increase?

Good to be skeptical but strangely I still do not see any effort to be skeptical about what deniers are bringing forth.

I can’t speak for others, but I’m not wedded to any position. Just this afternoon I was reading a critique of the “Great Global Warming Swindle” video. Some decent points were made and I’m open to the possibility that the video has lies in it.

[brazil84]

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
In the context of the thread it was very important to clarify that example was not correct.
[/quote]

Does that mean yes or no?

What is simple is that you could not produce a valid example to what in context is clear, the hockey stick did not disappear.

That was beside the point. As I mentioned earlier, at a minimum, the “hockey stick” depends on accepting Mann’s tree ring data.

And you are only showing that semantics can give you silly victories, (only against Sage Rat, and that is not clear in the light that you did not produce a valid example) but not much on the overall point.

But my victories are not just “semantic.”

For example, I made the following point to you and Sage Rat, and unless I missed something, neither of you came up with a coherent response:

If they are asking the world to spend billions of dollars as a result of their research, there should be 100% disclosure. Everything, including source code, failed models – everything.