Is "Consensus" shifting?

[jryan]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

 

Has anyone here read "Heaven and Hell"?

 

I know this is a very non-skeptical crowd hear but was wondering is any of the non-skeptics have lowered themselves to read this book?

 

Also, if consensus shifts to a more skeptic view, will you still support CO2 limiting policy? If so, why?

[iNow]

Sorry, jryan... but that has got to be one of the most nonsequitur and stupid articles on AGW I've read in very a long time.

 

Their ENTIRE argument is that "more people in the general populace are skeptical of human caused global warming, and therefore the science must somehow be faulty."

 

Big frakkin deal. Truth is not determined by popularity.

 

 

The science is the same. The fact that more people (non-scientists) choose to reject that science each day does NOTHING to negate the facts being put forth by that science... facts demonstrative of a cross research modality confluence and agreement.

 

 

Their other argument? That Al Gore and the IPCC were too mean to deniers? Again... who the frak cares? Their attitude has ZERO relevance to the science underlying this.

 

What a bunch of tripe. If you think that article is somehow relevant to the science, it's no wonder you are yourself a denier. The logic is specious, and illuminates only the flaws in the minds of those who think this type of article overturns the fact (and science) of human induced global climate change.

 

 

 

YES... I continue to support policies which seek to restrict CO2 contributions to our atmosphere, because those contributions are killing life on our planet and changing our climate in dangerous ways.

[CaptainPanic]

Big frakkin deal. Truth is not determined by popularity.

Shall we vote about the direction of gravity too?

I'd like it to point a bit more north, so that I can fall to work in the morning, and climb home in the evening.

 

People who studied the relation between CO2 and climate change seem to agree. There is a climate problem.

 

However, the worldwide blogosphere can generate so much noise that they start to believe themselves. They all link to each other's websites and anything can become "mainstream science" that way. I compare blogosphere science to 15th century people who thought that the earth was flat. Facts are irrelevant. Not only are the ones suggesting that there is a CO2 problem wrong, they are also evil and part of a conspiracy to get more money.

 

However, half the blogosphere also directly relates today's weather to climate change ("it's cold and rainy, how can there be global warming?").

[jryan]

That's two votes for "no".

 

So what would it take for your opinion to change? Do you hold out belief so long as a few climatologists believe as you do? Or a few politicians?

 

I also assume neither read the book mentioned in the article?

[CaptainPanic]

I'll change my opinion when a study of the same magnitude as the IPCC is conducted that suggests that the trend is changing. For your information, the writer of the book is a geologist with expertise in mining.

 

I'll change my opinion when the scientists who are the experts in this field (climate) change their opinion. We're talking about thousands of highly skilled scientists here (not: "a few climatologists").

 

Politicians are known to blow wherever the wind blows. If they need to adopt/promote a religion to keep their power, they will also do that. Their opinion about the climate is completely worthless. I might as well listen to the pope's ideas on birth control. They'll impress me about the same.

 

And you're safe to assume that we did not read the book. This thread is only about 8 hrs old... and the book is 504 pages.

 

May I suggest we move this thread to "General discussion" > "Book talk"?

[Sisyphus]

I'll change my mind about the likelihood of global warming when the scientific consensus changes. What other criterion is reasonable? As iNow points out, popular opinion, the votes of politicians, anything Al Gore does, or anecdotes about a few scientists aren't relevant. As for supporting policy, there would have to be a strong consensus against, if only because of risk vs. reward considerations.

[jryan]

Actually, if I read iNow correctly, he believes consensus isn't important.

 

The belief that there is no crossover in science is erroneous. By that standard, Phrenology would remain a respectable line of study so long as Phrenologists believed in their work.

[Sisyphus]

Actually, if I read iNow correctly, he believes consensus isn't important.

 

Then I don't think you're reading him correctly?

 

The belief that there is no crossover in science is erroneous. By that standard, Phrenology would remain a respectable line of study so long as Phrenologists believed in their work.

 

Ok, so your position is that climate science on the whole is fraudulent? Phrenology is falsified by biology, medicine, etc. Where is the analogy here?

[SH3RL0CK]

The article, to me, seemed to report more on how politicians and the public percieves global warming...or climate change...due to CO2 emissions than on the scientific merit of the theory. Its less of a debate on the existance of global warming than on what should be done about it.

 

It seems natural to me that politicians are much less likely to spend big money in an attempt to limit CO2 emissions in a harsh recession than they would be if the economic times were good. Why the criticism of the report?

 

My view is that we need a much, much better understanding of this issue than we have at the moment. I do support reduction in CO2 emissions, but my support is qualified in that I want actual progress and I do not want to do anything that would be self-defeating.

 

Exactly what are the consequences if we do nothing? What happens given a certain % reduction in CO2 emissions? How can we realistically do this? What happens to our economy and the world economy should we attain this % reduction? Would the proposed actions takens simply move the production of CO2 from the EU and USA to China and India therefore resulting in no improvement? Or worse emissions due to inefficient factories? Would the proposed actions not reduce CO2 emissions, but simply line the pockets of certain individuals? What if the CO2 emissions are only very slightly reduced, but at great cost; is it worth it then? These questions, and many others, have not been answered to my satisfaction.

 

The fact is, while nearly everyone agrees CO2 emissions aren't a good thing, no one really knows how bad it really is or what should be done about it.

[CaptainPanic]

Actually, if I read iNow correctly, he believes consensus isn't important.

Consensus among people who are clueless is not important.

Consensus among experts is vital.

 

The belief that there is no crossover in science is erroneous. By that standard, Phrenology would remain a respectable line of study so long as Phrenologists believed in their work.

Of course there is crossover. There are physicists, chemists, meteorologists, climatologists, biologists, and a whole lot more professions involved in climate research.

These people all add their share to either support or disprove the climate change studies. They ask tricky questions or add new measurements/experiments.

 

It's just that politicians, carpenters, doctors and some other professions have very little experience with all the factors and parameters involved in the climate. Therefore their opinion is valued (a lot) less than the opinion of the experts.

 

Would you allow a lawyer to build your house? I sure would not. I'd ask a construction worker.

[SH3RL0CK]

CaptainPanic, I tend to respectfully disagree. Consensus among the politicians IS important because they set policy. Unfortunately, they are often clueless...but I also do recognize the difficulties in setting a course given how little we know regarding the economics associated with any possible action. How much can/should be spent on this issue? And for how much (if any) improvement in CO2 emissions?

[CaptainPanic]

CaptainPanic, I tend to respectfully disagree. Consensus among the politicians IS important because they set policy. Unfortunately, they are often clueless...but I also do recognize the difficulties in setting a course given how little we know regarding the economics associated with any possible action. How much can/should be spent on this issue? And for how much (if any) improvement in CO2 emissions?

 

Ah, yes... if you put it like that, you're absolutely right.

 

Allow me to rephrase:

In the discussion about whether climate change is true or not, the opinion of a politician is not so relevant... and the opinion of a meteorologist or climatologist is more valuable.

 

Obviously, politicians have their own discussions where they are the experts.

 

So, in a perfect world, the politicians would have some expert climate advisors who have reached consensus on the question whether climate change is true or not, and who can advise them on the possible effects of a new policy. Then the politicians enter their debate, aiming to reach consensus about the kind of policy that is required.

[John Cuthber]

 

So what would it take for your opinion to change?

 

Evidence.

 

That's the difference between science and faith. If it were an article of my faith that CO2 was responsible for global warming then I'd probably never change my mind. Since it's my scientific opinion then, if there were some strong evidence suddenly found that contradicted all the stuff that has gone before (and it would need to be strong evidence) then I would change my opinion.

[iNow]

That's two votes for "no".

 

So what would it take for your opinion to change? Do you hold out belief so long as a few climatologists believe as you do? Or a few politicians?

 

I also assume neither read the book mentioned in the article?

 

It has ZERO to do with belief. I don't "believe in global warming" any more than I "believe in gravity." The facts are clear, and I accept them as valid. This isn't about people looking at the facts and coming to different interpretations. This about one group of people knowing what the facts imply, and another group of people COMPLETELY ignoring those facts.

 

 

Further, books are NOT subject to peer-review, so can say anything they want. You may as well be arguing against AGW based on something you read in Harry Potter.

[jryan]

Consensus among people who are clueless is not important.

Consensus among experts is vital.

 

 

Of course there is crossover. There are physicists, chemists, meteorologists, climatologists, biologists, and a whole lot more professions involved in climate research.

These people all add their share to either support or disprove the climate change studies. They ask tricky questions or add new measurements/experiments.

 

It's just that politicians, carpenters, doctors and some other professions have very little experience with all the factors and parameters involved in the climate. Therefore their opinion is valued (a lot) less than the opinion of the experts.

 

Would you allow a lawyer to build your house? I sure would not. I'd ask a construction worker.

 

Then why make the distinction that the writer of "Heaven and Hell" is a geologist? Certainly HE is part of the scientific community as well.

 

Also, the notion of "experts" is bandied about rather carelessly in these discussions of climatology as well, and the climatologists don't seem to mind acting in the role of statistician where it suits them, even in the areas where expert statisticians question their methodology.

 

Would you ask a climatologist to do your statistical analysis?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Evidence.

 

That's the difference between science and faith. If it were an article of my faith that CO2 was responsible for global warming then I'd probably never change my mind. Since it's my scientific opinion then, if there were some strong evidence suddenly found that contradicted all the stuff that has gone before (and it would need to be strong evidence) then I would change my opinion.

 

Well surely that is true. But then everyone claims the same thing while writing off opposing evidence as articles of faith or the product of a conspiracy whose existence is itself an article of faith.

[iNow]

Well surely that is true. But then everyone claims the same thing while writing off opposing evidence as articles of faith or the product of a conspiracy whose existence is itself an article of faith.

 

You do know, right... that you are using the exact same argument creationists use when dismissing evolution?

There quite simply is not "opposing evidence." There is only misinformation, half-truths, and slight of hand.

[swansont]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

 

Has anyone here read "Heaven and Hell"?

 

I know this is a very non-skeptical crowd hear but was wondering is any of the non-skeptics have lowered themselves to read this book?

 

Also, if consensus shifts to a more skeptic view, will you still support CO2 limiting policy? If so, why?

 

1. I don't think "skeptic" means what you think it means.

 

2. You have yet to distinguish between political consensus and scientific consensus. They are two very different things.

 

 

The belief that there is no crossover in science is erroneous. By that standard, Phrenology would remain a respectable line of study so long as Phrenologists believed in their work.

 

Why is phrenology now a discredited practice? Is it because of scientific consensus, or political consensus?

[Sisyphus]

I don't "write off" opposing evidence, I just note that it's much less abundant than supporting evidence. If that changes, so will my opinion. I ask again, is there any other reasonable approach for the layman?

[jryan]

1. I don't think "skeptic" means what you think it means.

 

2. You have yet to distinguish between political consensus and scientific consensus. They are two very different things.

 

1. I fully understand what "skeptic" and "skepticism" mean.

 

2. Of course they are two very different things. I never claimed otherwise. But when you are using a supposed scientific consensus to justify a political consensus it is important to know the two can and do intermingle.

 

Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen are very political.

 

 

 

Why is phrenology now a discredited practice? Is it because of scientific consensus, or political consensus?

 

Did opposition to phrenology begin as a consensus? Political consensus in the case of phrenology isn't all that prevalent in any event as there was not that much policy derived from it's erroneous conclusions.

 

Eugenics, on the other hand, may be a better topic if you want to talk about improper union of scientific and political consensus.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I don't "write off" opposing evidence, I just note that it's much less abundant than supporting evidence. If that changes, so will my opinion. I ask again, is there any other reasonable approach for the layman?

 

Yes there is. You can also judge by the level of "just trust us" that comes from both sides of the argument.

 

When you have one side of a debate that regularly fights FOI requests, and regularly fails to follow the open source nature of scientific investigation (ie. claiming IP rights to their code or data sets, failing to provide such with their submitted studies), you should be at least somewhat suspicious or their conclusions.

 

The are very simple aspects of all scientific study, such as the scientific method, that all people are taught in grade school. If you find that such basic methodology is not used by one side of a debate you should question their results.

 

And on and on. There is a multitude of reasons why the method of finding is more important than the finding itself.

 

So the layman that cares about the science has a more important role, even as an autodidact, in their own opinion than simply a show of hands.

[Sisyphus]

Did opposition to phrenology begin as a consensus?

 

Clearly this is a rhetorical question, but I have no idea what point it's trying to make.

[GutZ]

I think the whole debate has pushed people to the extremes. From what I gather it very hard to predict future events especially if you don't really have the data to do it. Climate change on a global stage doesn't occur over night. It does leave a bit of uncertainty.I do believe that there is a level of faith in many thing just as there is in every day life. I can't say for curtain that the sun will not explode for no reason, but I do have ample evidence that it is unlikely to happen and there for I have faith that it won't.

 

My faith is not unfounded though, it's based on what I know and what science has to say. Not all science is good science, but with climate change scientist have been studying it for years. There is evidence for global warning. Even though I or we can't say for certain that it will cause catastrophic events. The other hand I can say with a degree of confidence from what we learn that the potential is there.

 

This whole issue has come down to who is right and who is wrong. Does that really matter? If scientists are wrong even with all the evidence, than we continue to live a normal life, but if they are right we are setting up a life that will affect generations to come.

 

This debate should not be personal because the dire effects of the potential affects of global warming will not effect us as much as it will the future of species around the global. It's time to look at it objectively. CO2 is proven to trap heat, start there, man-made or not if CO2 is rising then we need to regulate or control that rate to the best of our ability.

 

It's not about us, it's about our kids and their kids. I don't want on my concsious that I had reason to believe something bad may happen and know that I ignored it because of my ideology. Personally I find that it slight pre-mature to say that something so catasphoic IS certianly going to happen without definite absolute proof, but at the same time if a guy with a knife is standing in front of me telling me he's going to stab me, I am not going to chance the fact that he MAY not do it. Objectivity will be the key to handling this situation.

 

edit::

 

I can't wait till I learn how to type proper sentences lol, I hope you all get the gist of what I am saying.

[jryan]

Clearly this is a rhetorical question, but I have no idea what point it's trying to make.

 

The point is that consensus, even scientific consensus, is not as rock solid an endorsement of theory as it is projected to be.

 

At one point, before the fall of phrenology, the consensus was in favor of phrenology and the minority was in disagreement.

 

In the case of AGW we are asking that the individual layman pay and pay dearly for a remedy to an illness that may not exist. In that frame there is really little difference between the scientific and political consensus. Especially when you have scientists such as James Hansen making numerous political comments and appearances.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

It's not about us, it's about our kids and their kids. I don't want on my concsious that I had reason to believe something bad may happen and know that I ignored it because of my ideology. Personally I find that it slight pre-mature to say that something so catasphoic IS certianly going to happen without definite absolute proof, but at the same time if a guy with a knife is standing in front of me telling me he's going to stab me, I am not going to chance the fact that he MAY not do it. Objectivity will be the key to handling this situation.

 

Well, now take that nobel belief and look at it this way: You are so worried about your kids furture planet that you take all your excess money and spend it on carbon credits, right down to their college funds.

 

You sleep well while they are young... but 10-15 years down the road, when you find out that anthropogenic C02 had little effect on climate, and your kid now has to take out a loan for school, how do you sleep?

 

We are giving our grandkids a future of astronomical debt assuming they won't be laughing at our stupidity in 70 years.

Edited July 8, 2009 by jryan
Consecutive posts merged.

[GutZ]

You got any evidence to back up that claim?

 

If we are going to argue hypothetical situations in the future, and you're not willing to accept other views in place of your own then there was no reason to actually make this thread.

 

Are you saying that you are 100% certain that GW is wrong? If so what do you base this on?

 

I accept that unneeded debt is bad, but first I have to see evidence to the fact that there is potential for that to happen.

 

If we are going to disregard evidence and purely look at both doomsday scenerios than yeah, I rather be stupid; then dead.

[Sisyphus]

The point is that consensus, even scientific consensus, is not as rock solid an endorsement of theory as it is projected to be.

 

Who's pretending? I'm acting as if what is probably true, is. I act on the best available information. I'd "wait and see" if that were possible, but if what the evidence indicates is probably true, then there's really no time for wait and see. If new facts come to light pointing in a different direction, I'll adjust my position accordingly. That's how it works. You're making almost the exact same argument as creationists attempting to discredit science as a whole because "they used to think they Earth was flat."

[jryan]

You got any evidence to back up that claim?

 

If we are going to argue hypothetical situations in the future, and you're not willing to accept other views in place of your own then there was no reason to actually make this thread.

 

Are you saying that you are 100% certain that GW is wrong? If so what do you base this on?

 

I accept that unneeded debt is bad, but first I have to see evidence to the fact that there is potential for that to happen.

 

If we are going to disregard evidence and purely look at both doomsday scenerios than yeah, I rather be stupid; then dead.

 

 

Who said I didn't accept your views? All I am saying is that your views of why you are worried about global warming would matter a hill of beans if the world spends trillions of dollars on preventing it only to find out their was little or nothing to prevent.

 

In a good faith effort to save your children from a perceived future you could condemn them to an unintentional one. It's all a matter of which side of the debate is actually correct, and what is done between now and your child's uncertain future.

 

Simple evidence to that claim would be global climate that is decreasing while CO2 is rising. Where does the trapped energy go on the Earth if CO2 is holding it in? Energy can not be destroyed, so unless we find some heat reservoir that is holding all the energy that we are not seeing in the troposphere, surface temps, ocean surface temps or deep ocean temps, then it is escaping the Earth through the increasingly CO2 rich atmosphere.

 

If that is happening, then how influential is CO2 really?

 

I'm not in the habit of handing over my wallet simply because someone claims they are an expert.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Who's pretending? I'm acting as if what is probably true, is. I act on the best available information. I'd "wait and see" if that were possible, but if what the evidence indicates is probably true, then there's really no time for wait and see. If new facts come to light pointing in a different direction, I'll adjust my position accordingly. That's how it works. You're making almost the exact same argument as creationists attempting to discredit science as a whole because "they used to think they Earth was flat."

 

No, I'm not. But you are indeed falling back on the same tired "you're like a creationist" argument that has no bearing on my questions. I am not the one calling for an end to the questioning, I am simply saying that it's not time to STOP questioning the theory of anthropogenic global warming.