Seriously, though, it's the appeal to authority that I think 5haz is rejecting. An education is a benefit, but education and intelligence are not linked causally. That they are is the circular argument from Shotglass, and is of course a logical fallacy. He's good at those.
For the record, I don't claim any knowledge of the ultimate veracity of AGW.
My gut instinct is to believe those who have sunk the majority of their lives into being educated on and researching it with little reward for their efforts, and the batshit conspiracy elements of the anti-AGW brigade send up huge red flags in my mind. I've seen very little to sway me from my boilerplate belief that the academic/scientific process is being correctly borne out in the research being conducted.
Education is not useless or indoctrination, the problem is that there are those who are using their formal education and qualifications as a barrier to stop those who do not agree with their dubious views from opposing them, a formal education is not the only way to achieve increased understanding of a subject and it is not acceptable to think that having a degree or equivalent should make you completely immune from opposition of any kind, even if those who oppose you have sufficient evidence and understanding.
There seems to be an attitude within some groups of pro AGW scientists that their views are gospel simply becuase they are scientists, regardless of the real evidence (which for some reason they seem to want to hide, and what does emerge seems to be somewhat disputed). essentially they may be abusing their position to further their own personal beliefs and agendas (or worse the beliefs and agendas of the government that happens to fund them).
In truth, the vast majority of my issue with the whole global warming/climate change "thing" is specifically relating to post normalism.
Additionally, I'm naturally resistant to the precautionary principle (can provide more info if needed) and I'm resistant to CO2 mitigation. The principle reason I'm against CO2 mitigation is because it's simply not feasible, because in order for it to be effective requires literally a global policy of mitigation. It will always be impossible to enforce mitigation policy on developing nations like China or India, short of nuking them (which I concede remains an option) and so CO2 mitigation as a policy will never achieve real-world CO2 mitigation. But it would by design result in severe hardship through energy taxes in the West, with the poorest most severely affected.
On top of that, there are still the problems of understated uncertainties with the science and there are convincing arguments regarding natural variability, albedo effect, iris effect and much more.
None of my issues with climate science in any way can be described as conspiracy theories - except through the usual ad hominem abusive attacks by Shotglass - and my issues are all founded in scientific uncertainties, impossible-to-achieve policy and so on. Now, if you want to talk about what I AM in favour of exploring, the word is "Adaptation".
So I'm supposed to blindly place my complete faith and trust in the findings of Scientists who have used disputed data and questionable methods of research, despite evidence to suggest hidden agendas and doctoring as well as evidence which disproves their claim.
...Oh too late, looks like my government has already, at least thery're always a trustworthy bunch. :rolleyes:
I'd love to believe that the climatologists and governments with the influence are shinning beacons of integrity and truth as much as you do, but there is too much evidence that they really aren't and I can't do what many seem to do and stick my head in the sand when its presented.
I mean "Unfortunately" in a time-constraint sense, not because I'm on a hiding to nowhere. I've always enjoyed learning. It's better than sex. But enough about my problems...
Sorry, I live in a state where recently outgoing government ministers pretty much admitted they they'd already decided on a war well before they went about lying the rest of the country into it. I can't go on deluding myself that the powers that be are saints when they're just fallable cheating, dishonest and corrupt human beings like the rest of us.
I hear ya, but I think it's broadly accepted now that science has deserved the credibility beating that it's received. I started warning about this back in December - that if science didn't come out fighting, and rejecting post normalism, it would suffer a credibility hit.
So far, the Institute of Physics is actually the only scientific institution that has rejected the activities of the climate scientists implicated in Climategate. The Royal Society has since become even more deeply implicated because of its conduct in relation to the Muir Russell enquiry. The MPs are furious about the UEA's sleight of hand (the Science Appraisal Panel which it was promised would appraise the science, but after publishing its 5 page report claimed that appraising the science was not within its remit) and sadly the whole thing is still not dead, but is instead just getting worse and worse.
I totally agree. There's a ton of **** out there. But it's on both sides. I think your sensibilities are getting in the way of an objective view here. I understand, I wouldn't want to be lining up with Glenn Beck, Rush Limb or any of those loonies. But I was horrified to find out that the right wing commentator in our Herald Sun newspaper was actually making more informed points on very specific issues related to GW than the more progressive ones which I usually trusted. I'd written a lot of angry letters to that guy. A LOT of angry letters. I've had to deal with that, and it doesn't mean I accept everything this guy says- I still think he's 99% batshit, but every now and again he has a point and it's usually a point that is not being articulated by those I've generally trusted in media.
This is not a right/left thing, but still people are uncomfortable stepping outside of their own communities of opinion to look at the other side of things. Before I left for Turkey, my friends group was basically 100% green/hippy/activist. There was no space there to develop an objective opinion on GW. I just accepted it as given. I shared the concerns of everybody I was hanging out with. When I moved to Turkey, I was free to really develop my own opinion on GW and I actually started doing research. Before I was convinced (and hadn't done any research), and now you would label me as a sceptic (and I've done a ton of research). That's how it's gone.
The last thing I want to say, and I've already said it- is, put the newspapers down. You are better off at visiting the pro warmist blogs if you're looking for consensus opinion on climate. The newspapers are HOPELESS. I would also recommend very strongly streching out a bit and visiting some sceptic blogs as well. Climate Audit is the most technical and What's Up with That is a good site with a lot of content and some diverse views. It's a 'warmist' friendly site if people go there in good faith and ask sensible questions. If you're going there only to attack or mouth off in the way Shotglass has been doing you won't get far.
I agree with Electrik Kar, this isn't a left/right thing. I fully appreciate that it's very polarised in the US, courtesy of talk radio etc, but the nitty gritty of it is really science versus post-normalism.
I'm going to recommend a blog that I follow: Roger Pielke Jr.
Roger isn't a climate scientist, he's an environmental policy scientist. In essence, he takes the science and develops policy recommendations based on it. But he's insightful, articulate and he's almost infuriatingly reasonable. I don't agree with him on everything, but he's incisive and his arguments are compelling.
edit: PS, DWB- here's a recent snippet from Judy Curry on her thoughts on the development and growing impact of sceptical sites. It's o.k. - she's a scientist. You can read it.
it wasnt appeal to authority
his whole post was resting on the fallacy that research thats being funded by the state makes the results of that research dubious
which is obviously bull
so im guessing thats a no then and theres no reason why i should believe any of that
also your standpoint on this is beyond idiotic since you claim to have authority on the subject yet when i ask you for any proof of that authority somehow im the one arguing falsely
which was what you did in this case by somehow arricing at the result that my definition of consesus is wrong
worse even you did so by argumenting from a imagined authority that you yourself carry
rightfully so considering your track record of believing any bs the internet feeds you
in conclusion... fu
theres a reason why you have to spend several years at university and then another few years doing research before youll be taken seriously in the scientific community and that reason is that it simply takes that long to build the knowledge and experience to understand the highly specialised and complex fields scientists work in these days
unlike quite a few others that ive been discussing against i never claimed to have enough knowledge in the field to discuss the finer details beyond the scientific facts i mentioned a few posts above which no one in their right mind would ever try to dismiss
and theres the problem
not only do you not understand the processes youre also so far away from the proper necessary education that you think you can pass judgement on how long it takes
for the record im an electrical engineer who specialised in information technology and rf
a large part of information tech is signal analysis (signal being just another word for data over time) and one of the last courses i took was an in depth course on signal analysis
and how pray tell do you suggest we run experiments on global climate development?
just because you claim you understand a lot of pretty heavy stuff without ever having had any education on the subject is hard to believe to begin with
knowing you after the years ive spent here makes it even harder
yes they are and ive never met or seen anyone argue against it who didnt posess neither
am i really the only one who does think its a bad thing scientists have to spend time following this blog nonsense instead of devoting their time to doing actual science?
if youre gonna complain about grant money being wasted complain about all the time they recently have had to spend not doing their jobs
Perfect argument. You should take this up with Gavin Schmidt over at Real Climate right away. People have been wanting him to get back to work for years.
Whether or not you believe it is immaterial, grants are difficult to garner and there is pressure from university seniors for non-tenured researchers not to rock the boat, competition for grant money centres around capacity to deliver. Climate science has been directly affected by this situation and the Penn State enquiry's conclusions regarding Mann implicitly confirm it. You were the one, I recall, who borked at my suggestion that climate science was big business. It is, rightly OR wrongly, and I don't really much care if you delude yourself into thinking that it isn't.
I don't claim to have authority on the subject, I'm simply rejecting your unsupportable assertion that I know nothing of the subject.
No, I simply applied a test of reason and your position failed. If you actually knew what the "consensus" related to, I'd never have taken issue, but you don't.
Ohhh, that's right, I remember now. You're the one that saw my name in the 9/11 thread, where I argued for weeks or months against the conspiracy theories being banded about. You wrongly gathered, because you either didn't pay attention or because there's a disconnect between your eyes and your brain, that my presence in the thread was because I was PERPETUATING the conspiracy theories. And despite repeatedly correcting you on this, you remain singularly ineducable and irrational. And so it continues.
I don't disagree with your assertion, I disagree with your protracted conclusion that, therefore, I can't possibly know anything at all about anything relating to climate science. Do you have a post-graduate degree in politics? Do you think you have any right to form a political opinion or levy it at the next election? You fight so badly with logical fallacies.
See above.
Logical fallacy derived from irrational protraction.
I care. Promise.
You run general circulation models. You don't pretend they're experiments because they're not, they're model runs. They don't produce dependable evidence, they produce predictions with significant uncertainties. The best general circulation models break down beyond a couple of months and are incapable of projecting 100 years into the future - for example no GCMs calculate the effect of phytoplankton on hurricanes (a known effect). And don't pretend they can because you'll be arguing with the climate modellers themselves, and that would make you sound stupid.
Meh. Childish insults from you don't count for diddly, no matter how much you wish they would.
clearly ou havent got the faintest idea what youre talking about resulting from never having been at a university or being even remotely aware of the salaries scientists settle for when they decide against pursiting an industry career
yeah you do:
assertions of nonexistance are always supportable
especially when theres no evidence to suggest the opposite is true
how exactly do you think you know what (i think it was) phil meant by consesus? telepathy?
the conclusion is that none of us knows enough to argue the finer points
the conclusion that you in particular dont know diddly squat results from your bahaviour on this forum over the last couple of years
and now youre showing that you lack any reasing comprehension whatsoever
the question was since you dont think simulations are at all viable (they are btw) how exactly do you suggest we run experiments? pump co2 into the atmosphere as much as we can so we can expermient what the result of that will be?
no the truth
plus you perfectly prove my point
have to
add enough noise and any progress becomes impossible until you get rid of the noise
WTF? Since when did I NOT go to university?? Do you even GIVE a damn about making bullshit up?
Oh... my.. GOD!! LOL!!! You actually DON'T know what the "consensus" is, do you?
LMFAO!
Okay, proof positive, you're just a troll. What a sad descent into total irrelevance. You know precisely NOTHING about this subject and you're not worth the effort.
Last comment I'm making, based on anything that Shotglass utters: The reason we know that climate models aren't accurate is because a) they don't hindcast effectively, and b) their projections don't match observed climate behaviour beyond a few weeks - six or seven at the most, before they completely depart from the observational data.
I've no more interest in feeding this troll. DWB, you were right. Shotglass, you're an idiot.
I can't help but be a little mean here, but you basically held up a giant neon placard signifying 'stupefyingly ignorant!!!' all the way back on page 4 of this thread when you admitted that you had no idea who James Hansen is. That is classic! I didn't want to say anything about that, but you've been so rude in this thread that I don't care. Saying 'who is James Hansen?' is basically like saying 'what is global warming?'. I couldn't believe that one. I was dumbfounded! Yet you continually profess to tell us how it all is. This is all extremely rich, and I can't help finding this highly entertaining. Laughing at your expense, that is.
You should just go away for awhile, and come back when you know something. You've talked a tough talk, but there is nothing behind it. Go get educated. I bet you've never read a climate paper in your life.
Small point, but actually this is just about the only thing that has been affirmed by the two rather dubious Climategate reviews. Both indicated that scientists have been obstructive and even deliberately obfuscatory, preventing the truth (the data behind the claims) from reaching the public.
It's still continuing even now. I know of several outstanding requests for data which are either being ignored or the UEA are trying to exploit a caveat in the EIR to prevent release. The caveat won't work, since it simply doesn't apply, and even if it did the release would still be mandatory under FOI law, but the protracted efforts of the UEA will successfully delay the release. Stupid thing is, it should be available for download without having to go through FOI/EIR.. and it isn't.
well you either didnt or you didnt spend a single second paying attention to university life
funny how you can bring that up and yet side with someone who claims that authority is completely unimportant
besides unlike you two im not interested in the history of climatology just the results so why should i care about names?
1) i wasnt the one who claimed to be able to understand those papers in fine detail and youd be aware of that if youd ****ing read what i write
2) know something? like you who seems to only be interested in the infighting and who said what against whom instead of the results?
of course i havent im not a ****ing climatologist you idiot so there is nothing of any value i could derive from reading climatology papers that i dont have the education to understand the content of those papers for
and neither do you but instead of you two fools i dont act like i do
Firstly, I have seen the inside of a university. Secondly, yes, it is a well known fact that a lot of research comes from institutions which have an agenda. That does not change the fact that this is dangerous if you wish to get a genuine, objective analysis of an issue. If you solely read press releases (which is the maximum extent of most people's knowledge on the subject, delivered through the news) you would be convinced the science behind AGW was bullet-proof with a strong consensus between the majority of scientists in the field. If you dig a little deeper that's called into question. Now that those countries have established a history of strongly backing AGW it would not be easy for them to reverse their position on the issue, even if new research dictates that is the correct approach.
Seriously, though, it's the appeal to authority that I think 5haz is rejecting. An education is a benefit, but education and intelligence are not linked causally. That they are is the circular argument from Shotglass, and is of course a logical fallacy. He's good at those.
