He thought his beliefs about global warming were based on science. Science proved him wrong |310|

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's interesting, Enrique. How do the costs of running the device stack up against using gas or electricity for heating?

It litrally costs pennies a day, we buy 100 tealight boxes, which cost about 2 bucks, and we use 8 lights at a time in one room, 8 in another. They last about 3 - 4 hours. So, without doing a lot of calculations, I can say it's pennies a day, and it sure beats heating costs. Before this device, I literally had music students who would stop practicing in the winter because their hands would be too cold. Now, at least, they can keep their hands sufficiently warm to be able to play. (Amazing, right? We are talking XXI Century Europe).
 
Interesting. You've amended this. Originally, you wrote:

You probably realised that your use of the term "AGW deniers" revealed too much of your true feelings, hence the amendment, so that you could come across as more reasonable.

Jumping Josephat. First, many abstracts were miscategorised as supporting the consensus. Second, even if they hadn't been, the chances of getting an anti-AGW paper published are low on account of the bias of scientific journals, so one can't read anything into the alleged endorsement. Third, who gives a toss whether it's about climate scientists or about putative abstracts? The intention is plain: give the impression that AGW skepticism isn't supported by the literature. In any case, the 97% figure simply isn't true because of the miscategorisation.

Next, much of your post is more-or-less copied and pasted from the Web: "Denial of a consensus can be identified by five telltale characteristics: fake experts, cherry picking, logical fallacies, impossible expectations and conspiracy theories." is actually based on this article:

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/22/opinions/cook-techniques-climate-change-denial/

--which is written by John Cook himself!

Amongst all this seemingly thoughtful and penetrating analysis, how much is your own, and how much copy and paste? Are you simply someone who holds an opinion and then goes off to find information that supports it, but wants to give the impression he knows more than he does?

Fact is, my friend, neither of us is a climate scientist (and let us not forget, many of the abstracts that Cook "categorised" weren't by climate scientists either). I at least have admitted in an earlier post that my extreme scepticism about AGW is based on known cases where pro-AGW scientists have been caught out in lies. Not mistakes, but actual lies. It's also based on the many absurd claims of AGW proponents about the putative effects of AGW, not to mention that people on both sides of the argument say there has been a hiatus that needs to be explained. Even Nature admits it, whilst of course trying to give the impression that long-term AGW is ongoing:

http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414

Please stop carpet-bombing us with borrowed opinions that you've adopted because they bolster your case. I think your driving motive isn't acceptance of the science, but how the AGW narrative fits in with a certain world view. That was the whole point of Alex's podcast, after all.

How about you stop treating people who think differently then you on AGW as if they can't think for themselves or have some other secret reason for their belief and just discuss the issue itself.

Cheers!

Roberta
 
You probably realised that your use of the term "AGW deniers" revealed too much of your true feelings .... so that you could come across as more reasonable.
Nope. That would be wrong. Did I come across as "more reasonable" to you? :-)
First, many abstracts were miscategorised as supporting the consensus.
How many abstracts and who gets to decide that number? And how does it matter anyway when the paper by Cook is utterly irrelevant to the known climate science anyway or if the numbers of abstracts were 97%, 92%, 81% or 66%? Personally I would never have wasted my time doing such an "academic paper" (a hyperbolic survey with numbers) in the first place.
the chances of getting an anti-AGW paper published are low on account of the bias of scientific journals
That's a belief of yours. I'm not buying it absent an overwhelming consensus based on robust credible evidence. :-)

Third, who gives a toss whether it's about climate scientists or about putative abstracts?
I give a toss. To me it is about accuracy versus mythology in the public domain. It's about irrationality, cherry picking and false strawman arguments being used to unfairly and uncritically dispute the valid science of climate change and it's causes. Showing that both Alex and Rich Archer, plus Barack Obama and his entire administration had this wrong from the get go can be useful to know. Every single person who bought into the MYTH should know it is critical for them to understand how easily it is to be misled and/or not actually know what is written in the literature. I give a toss because rather than read what journos, blog sites, the TV news, or shock jock radio announcers have to say about "climate science" I actually read the Papers and commentaries by real scientists speaking what they know for myself and do not usually make such fundamental mistakes of what they actually say and do. It's important to me. It stuns me how unimportant it seems to be to get things correct and accurate to so many others who claim AGW/CC is an important issue to them, be it pro or con.
In any case, the 97% figure simply isn't true because of the miscategorisation.
That's not correct. The 97% figure is true and correct in the context of the papers written and the parameters set and the analysis done. What's of far greater importance is the the 97% is meaningless and takes away from the core science itself. Still the 97% is much more meaningful and true and accurate than the distortions that there was no consensus and the published papers Cook et al were specifically addressing eg
" presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '...on the point of collapse' (Oddie 2012) while '...the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year' (Allègre et al 2012). "

Next, much of your post is more-or-less copied and pasted from the Web: "Denial of a consensus can be identified by five telltale characteristics: fake experts, cherry picking, logical fallacies, impossible expectations and conspiracy theories." is actually based on this article: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/22/opinions/cook-techniques-climate-change-denial/
Nope, never seen it. So that would make your theory 100% wrong. :-) I wrote it all myself free-hand and with a free-mind. Your opinion isn't relevant, but thanks for sharing anyway. The parts that were copied and pasted in my comment were all quoted and referenced with urls. eg http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-5757-8_23 found in my PS section which actually quotes your quote above. :-)

Are you simply someone who holds an opinion and then goes off to find information that supports it, but wants to give the impression he knows more than he does?
Nope.

Please stop carpet-bombing us with borrowed opinions that you've adopted because they bolster your case.
Please stop your presumptuous misrepresentations of myself, and the uninformed/faulty opinionated bs that you believe bolsters your case?
I think your driving motive isn't acceptance of the science, but how the AGW narrative fits in with a certain world view.
Then your thinking is seriously flawed. Your opinions about your grandiose talents, accuracy, judgment and rightness are misplaced and extreme, imo and observations. But that's ok by me because it's not my problem. Just sayin' :-)
 
Ah well, Enrique: you see, higher energy prices are a good way to kill off lots of people, which is in line with the frequent accompaniment of AGW support: a belief in the necessity for euthanasia. World population is too high, after all; and we can't have the great unwashed eating too much meat, can we? The moneyed classes think AGW is a fine thing, because they can afford the energy costs and the poor can just go and eat cake.
 
This is exactly where I stand, but I am now going to heed Michael's advice from a few pages back, and bow out of this debate (at least for now).
I also agree that the 'Climate Change' idea looks so plausible because people (myself included) have become very wary of big corporations. The awful truth, however, is that big business is making a killing out of CAGW, and the Green movement has become utterly distracted by this bogus idea - at least someone is laughing! David
The simple truth is that if one wishes to know what AGW/CC is all about, then they have no other rational choice than to listen to the experts in this multi-disciplinary field who have done the work and know what they are talking about. This means investing the time to educate oneself by first seeking out those individuals most qualified and knowledgeable. It means that one must stop listening to pseudo experts in the media, politics, think tanks, blogs and internet discussion forums. It also helps to have a really good grounding in recognizing logical fallacies, the difference between evidence and opinion and mythology, plus seeing reason and valid science when placed in front of one's eyes. eg http://esgs.free.fr/uk/logic.htm
 
And yes, it's about population control. Just read the quotes from these sociopaths:
My reply whilst also including a total dislike for "cherry-picking" and taking things said totally out of context as a result, goes like this:
People often commit Hasty Generalizations because of bias or prejudice. For example, someone who is a sexist might conclude that all women are unfit to fly jet fighters because one woman crashed one. People also commonly commit Hasty Generalizations because of laziness or sloppiness. It is very easy to simply leap to a conclusion and much harder to gather an adequate sample and draw a justified conclusion. Thus, avoiding this fallacy requires minimizing the influence of bias and taking care to select a sample that is large enough.

One final point: a Hasty Generalization, like any fallacy, might have a true conclusion. However, as long as the reasoning is fallacious there is no reason to accept the conclusion based on that reasoning. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html
For example, it's a gross fallacy to Misuse examples of Irony to represent people's true beliefs and actions about a particular subject. Rhetoric does not in itself define a person as a "sociopath". Their actions and behaviour does.

Those who better understand the many misrepresentations in public that occurred over Cook et al paper on "abstracts about AGW/CC" might also recognize how that fits the errors so many people made about it: (see nizkor url)
Description of Hasty Generalization: Also Known as: Fallacy of Insufficient Statistics, Fallacy of Insufficient Sample, Leaping to A Conclusion, Hasty Induction. This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough.
Remembering that "a Hasty Generalization, like any fallacy, might have a true conclusion. However, as long as the reasoning is fallacious there is no reason to accept the conclusion based on that reasoning."

There are numerous ways that an analysis of the "literature" could have been reviewed more accurately to answer the question: "What % of climate scientists / scientists / relevant academics believe man-made global warming is a major concern?" For a start, the actual number of "scientists/authors" of papers being counted versus only the number of "abstracts" would have made a difference. I suspect making the figure closer to 99.9% than 97%. But that's only my opinion. I still think that such Papers are waste of time and resources far better spent on doing more scientific research of real value regarding our global climate system. Because I still believe that knowledge is power and ignorance is merely a temporary bliss. :-)
 
Last edited:
Regardless of our views, I think we can all agree with the following quotations:

I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.

-- Aaron Wildavsky

Most of the greatest evils that man has inflicted upon man have come through people feeling quite certain about something which, in fact, is false.
-- Bertrand Russell

It is better to know nothing than to know what ain't so.
-- Henry Wheeler Shaw (aka Josh Billings)

Doug
 
Last edited:
Meat (production) being the main cause of global warming.
Hi Roberta. I don't agree, and I do not believe the science suggests that is correct either. I do agree that meat production is a significant driver of AGW, yet there are many others that all add up. For example our industrial age of "CO2 emissions" account for less than ~50% of all GHG emissions and the associated impacts of land use changes etc. (from memory ok). So I wouldn't even label CO2 as "the main cause of GW" either, even though CO2 is the most significant driver overall and the one measurement more easily monitored than all the others at present.
I am interested though in knowing what your basis is for suggesting meat production is the main cause? Are there some recent Papers you could refer me to? I stopped looking at or discussing AGW info a couple of years ago. I needed a long break from it. :-) Thanks.
 
For every one out there with a Netflix account:

Cowspiracy (the Documentary).

https://www.netflix.com/title/80033772

I've found the evidence brought forward to be revealing, compelling and it had the immediate effect of reinforcing my already formed opinion of the meat industry.

I stopped cold turkey to eat meat 8 months ago, even though, I always loved it.

I could have had eaten a bloody porterhouse in 15 minutes tops.

Now when I go to the supermarket I have to turn my head at the meat section... I cannot stand the sight of butchered bodies.
It is admittedly very strange what's happening to me.

My stamina has not diminished and my sport practice hasn't suffered any kinds of setbacks because of my "radical" :) decision.

Our society has imposed on us lots of things ... it is time for us to pause and reassess everything in life.

Take care guys.

Matteo

So... Where I live, the cows outnumber humans 50 to 1. Going for a walk today, I said hi to all the cute young calves frolicking in the flowery green fields. It was an absolutely beautiful spring day. It made me wonder... Let's say hypothetically speaking, the vegans have their way... What becomes of all our bovine buddies? They can't live in the wild. I guess someone here and there might keep one for a pet. Maybe a zoo would take some in. Would going vegan really be the best thing for these cute little guys?

I don't have Netflix anymore otherwise I'd watch the documentary. I know there's some serious things wrong with our food supply these days including the corn fed cows. But if cows are raised ethically and happily on lush green pastures and have a painless death, I don't really see the harm in it.

The sight of butchered meat doesn't bother me. Every year my father and I would bring home 5 or 6 deer and process them all ourselves. As a kid I kinda hated it (I hated all work), but now I'm glad to have the experience. Nature is full of predator prey relationships. Are the predators morally reprehensible? At least we don't rip our prey apart and crunch it alive. I'd say on the whole we're rather humane predators.
 
Last edited:
Would going vegan really be the best thing for these cute little guys?
As opposed to non-vegans continuing to eat those cute little guys. Was that a trick question? Though I do wonder what the calves might say about the vegan's philosophy of life. <smile>
 
My reply whilst also including a total dislike for "cherry-picking" and taking things said totally out of context as a result, goes like this:

For example, it's a gross fallacy to Misuse examples of Irony to represent people's true beliefs and actions about a particular subject. Rhetoric does not in itself define a person as a "sociopath". Their actions and behaviour does.

Those who better understand the many misrepresentations in public that occurred over Cook et al paper on "abstracts about AGW/CC" might also recognize how that fits the errors so many people made about it: (see nizkor url)

Remembering that "a Hasty Generalization, like any fallacy, might have a true conclusion. However, as long as the reasoning is fallacious there is no reason to accept the conclusion based on that reasoning."

There are numerous ways that an analysis of the "literature" could have been reviewed more accurately to answer the question: "What % of climate scientists / scientists / relevant academics believe man-made global warming is a major concern?" For a start, the actual number of "scientists/authors" of papers being counted versus only the number of "abstracts" would have made a difference. I suspect making the figure closer to 99.9% than 97%. But that's only my opinion. I still think that such Papers are waste of time and resources far better spent on doing more scientific research of real value regarding our global climate system. Because I still believe that knowledge is power and ignorance is merely a temporary bliss. :)

Naaaa.... Won't fly.... The quotes speak for themlelves. Rethoric leads and induces to actions. All genocides start with rethoric., Lenin and Hitler started with rethoric. Then, they slaughtered millions. And the quotes I cite are on par with the most hateful rethoric excreted by Lenin or Hitler.
 
Last edited:
The simple truth is that if one wishes to know what AGW/CC is all about, then they have no other rational choice than to listen to the experts in this multi-disciplinary field who have done the work and know what they are talking about. This means investing the time to educate oneself by first seeking out those individuals most qualified and knowledgeable. It means that one must stop listening to pseudo experts in the media, politics, think tanks, blogs and internet discussion forums. It also helps to have a really good grounding in recognizing logical fallacies, the difference between evidence and opinion and mythology, plus seeing reason and valid science when placed in front of one's eyes. eg http://esgs.free.fr/uk/logic.htm
Well if you start from a science background (as Martin and I do - I don't know whether you do) you do have a bit of a head start. For example, even back in school days you learn that measurements have a certain error level, and that making deductions about anything that rely on the value of meaningless digits representing minute changes that are inside the error of the measurements, is wrong.

Now consider this. Those global temperature measurements are put together out of observations from ordinary weather stations. The temperature measurements are good to at best 0.5 degrees. They are being averaged and used to provide data that is scrutinised down to 0.01C or even less, which is madness. Moreover, the absolute value of the number obtained is actually arbitrary, because we are looking at an arbitrary set of measuring stations - not a rectangular grid. Also certain parts of the world are under-represented, some over-represented. Thus it is absolutely crucial that data from all those stations continues to flow - otherwise comparisons from year to year become meaningless. In fact a substantial number of those measuring stations have become defunct, and the values they would have produced are now estimated by software.

Note that when Satellite measurements are used, a considerably lower value for global warming is obtained:

http://www.cfact.org/2016/01/26/measuring-global-temperatures-satellites-or-thermometers/

Weather stations don't just go out of business, they get encroached by cities, or the airport (some are cited on airports) expands. This increases temperatures in their vicinity, and is a well known phenomenon, known as the Urban Heat Island Effect. This means that the data that is read off those thermometers is further adjusted to allow for this effect.

Now the finite accuracy of the original observations, plus all the software manipulation of the data means that it is very hard to believe in the value of this data.

The observed temperature changes are so small (something like 1 Deg C since 1850) that is is super hard to explain any actual climate problems on the basis of these levels of warming, so the idea of 'Climate Change' was born. This relies on the idea that somehow the extra warming produces a more variable climate. In more technical terms, that the change in the mean temperature also induces an increase in its standard deviation. I once saw a website boasted a totally spurious explanation for this concept, so I emailed Judith Curry, to ask if she knew of such a mechanism (I included a link to the website that I considered bogus):

http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/

She replied that she knew of no mechanism to justify the assertion that slight rises intemperature would translate into a greater standard deviation in the data..

Now I agree that she is a scientific sceptic of CAGW, but she seems devoted to an even handed assessment of the evidence, and given her assessment and the completely bogus nature of the website I mentioned (which had links to it from several pro CAGW sites) I feel pretty confident in what I claim.

In fact, if you talk to people with a physical science background, it is my impression that some express no interest, others are fairly sceptical of the claims - provided you talk to them off the record. The institution of science has evolved into a structure where researchers need to avoid stepping out of line if they want to receive their next research grant:( Whole institutions owe their existence to the CAGW scam - so enormous pressure is put on individual researchers to tow the line.

David
 
Last edited:
Nope, never seen it. So that would make your theory 100% wrong. :) I wrote it all myself free-hand and with a free-mind. Your opinion isn't relevant, but thanks for sharing anyway. The parts that were copied and pasted in my comment were all quoted and referenced with urls. eg http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-5757-8_23 found in my PS section which actually quotes your quote above. :)

OK. I concede the point, on re-reading your post, that the quote was referenced.

You said originally that:

Cook's papers and Tol's and others (be they right or wrong or dubious) does NOT change the self-evident fact that there is still an absolute overwhelming consensus among climate scientists and scientists in general that AGW/CC it's causes and persistence and the science of it are overall fundamentally correct, rigorous, scientifically sound, valid and generally speaking ROBUST and (sorry) UNDENIABLE.​

"Self-evident". You may deem it so, and on the basis of that, jump to the conclusion of consummate correctness, rigour, scientific soundness, validity, robustness and undeniability. I can't seem to find the justification for that assertion: if it were indeed self-evident that there's an overwhelming consensus, then all of us who disagree with you wouldn't be disagreeing and we wouldn't be having this argument, would we?

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it, saying that the Cook et al. paper is irrelevant on the one hand, and yet on the other (through mere assertion) endorsing the conclusion often drawn from it--be that justifiable or no--that the AGW viewpoint is rock solid. So much so that there's an "overwhelming" consensus amongst climate scientists and scientists in general.

Let's look at a different paper than the Cook one. One that actually surveyed the opinions of working scientists:

http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full

This paper, according to Forbes magazine (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...ptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#61968c65171b) indicates that "Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis".

The article begins:

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

Who were these scientists? They were working in the oil industry. Aha! I hear you say, 'nuff said. But in the paper itself, the author has this to say:

Given the dependence on the petroleum industry and relative homogeneity in licensure requirements, we might expect a consensus of opinion. Yet, perhaps surprisingly, the debate of the causes of climate change is particularly virulent among them.

Empirical design and methods


Since 1999, climate change had been debated among professionals in APEGA in over 150 articles and letters to the editor that had appeared in the association’s monthly publication The PEGG. The discussion was becoming increasingly heated among a vocal few and, for the association, it was unclear whether these few were representing the majority of members. Given this debate, APEGA initiated a broad survey of its 40,000 members (as of 2007) concerning their beliefs about climate change, sources of knowledge, and opinions about the appropriate roles for individuals, industry, APEGA, and government. The first author was engaged by APEGA to develop the survey and analyze the results. The survey questionnaire contained closed- and open-ended questions and was published in The PEGG and on the website in October 2007.2 A total of 1077 completed surveys were received and 12 respondents emailed or mailed in additional comments. While this is, effectively, a convenience (nonprobability) sample of self-selected respondents, the respondents are similar to the general APEGA membership when compared on professional designation, age, and gender as of October 2007 (see Table 1).3 In their responses to the open-ended questions, respondents provided rich justifications. By considering these statements and claims, we are given a window to ‘eavesdrop’ into how they draw from broader narratives to make sense of climate change and legitimize themselves as experts while de-legitimizing others.

The last sentence about legitimising their own views whilst de-legitimising those of others--as the paper explains--isn't unique to sceptics; it's something that applies equally to AGW supporters, in fact to any group of experts in any discipline where there are strongly held, opposing viewpoints.

The paper actually makes for fascinating reading: amongst other things, it gives the academic take on acrimonious debates like the one about AGW: how each side adopts strategies to support their own case and denigrate that of the other. Moreover, these strategies go well outside the realm of science and into the political and moral sphere.

Now: you may disagree with the paper, or with the conclusions drawn from it in Forbes. But you can't deny that it's peer-reviewed, and I take note of Forbes' opinion that:

One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’

The fact is, my friend, that we both draw on the narratives of our respective beliefs. What we can say on our own account, that we have personally thought ourselves based on incontrovertible evidence, is limited. I've already said why I'm firmly in the sceptic camp:

...my extreme scepticism about AGW is based on known cases where pro-AGW scientists have been caught out in lies. Not mistakes, but actual lies. It's also based on the many absurd claims of AGW proponents about the putative effects of AGW, not to mention that people on both sides of the argument say there has been a hiatus that needs to be explained. Even Nature admits it, whilst of course trying to give the impression that long-term AGW is ongoing...

This naturally predisposes me to interpret evidence that I'm not so sure of in a particular way, just as you're predisposed to interpret evidence in your way. However, though I'll admit it, will you?

The real argument between us doesn't depend wholly on science. It depends more on each of our world views, or our respective moral compasses if you like. Which, again, was what Alex's podcast sought to point out.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top