Anthropogenic Global Warming

[jdshock]

We are in agreement that money is not a good indicator of the correctness of science.

What do you believe to be a good indicator of the correctness of science? Is it the amount of scientists that are in agreement? Is it the science that "makes sense" to you? Is it something else?

[wufan]

What do you believe to be a good indicator of the correctness of science? Is it the amount of scientists that are in agreement? Is it the science that "makes sense" to you? Is it something else?

It's science built on foundation that tests all hypotheses and rules out alternatives. It's not politically motivated.

[jdshock]

It's science built on foundation that tests all hypotheses and rules out alternatives. It's not politically motivated.

Right, obviously. Let's say I don't have the means to test all of the hypotheses and do all of that myself. I guess my point is why can't I just believe what the vast majority of scientists say? Why should I believe the pair of scientists that are climate deniers even though a much larger group has responded to their paper and refuted it? Who am I supposed to believe when I don't have a PhD in any scientific field?

[SB Shock]

Right, obviously. Let's say I don't have the means to test all of the hypotheses and do all of that myself. I guess my point is why can't I just believe what the vast majority of scientists say? Why should I believe the pair of scientists that are climate deniers even though a much larger group has responded to their paper and refuted it? Who am I supposed to believe when I don't have a PhD in any scientific field?

If a topic is important to your self, u educate yourself on it. You then go and review the data and start developing your own own conclusion, or least start developing a feel for what on the up and up and what being manipulated. In this day age the data is readily available for almost anything - whether it the climate, policitcal polling, weather, or Economics (the STL FED has made it very easy to look economic indicators).

[jdshock]

If a topic is important to your self, u educate yourself on it. You then go and review the data and start developing your own own conclusion, or least start developing a feel for what on the up and up and what being manipulated. In this day age the data is readily available for almost anything - whether it the climate, policitcal polling, weather, or Economics (the STL FED has made it very easy to look economic indicators).

We'll have to agree to disagree. I am never going to understand all of the intricacies of microwave technology, but I'm still willing to use one everyday since scientists have told me it's okay.

Since you have educated yourself, why do you disagree with the dozens of scientific papers that have refuted the one source you shared with me?

[wsushox1]

Temperatures in the lower troposphere are getting warmer. I don't know how people can continue to refute it.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513

[Cdizzle]

Temperatures in the lower troposphere are getting warmer. I don't know how people can continue to refute it.

You're a relative expert on the issue. But this sort of statement is made very often, and is why I think a lot of people are withholding judgment. I know that you have scientific expertise in the field, but that statement couldn't be much less convincing of anything.

It's like saying the water in my glass is getting colder. With no context, people are left to assume whatever they want about the glass of water. Worse, people are left to use their respective positions to try to convince other people whatever they want to about the glass of water.

[WstateU]

[wsushox1]

You're a relative expert on the issue. But this sort of statement is made very often, and is why I think a lot of people are withholding judgment. I know that you have scientific expertise in the field, but that statement couldn't be much less convincing of anything.

It's like saying the water in my glass is getting colder. With no context, people are left to assume whatever they want about the glass of water. Worse, people are left to use their respective positions to try to convince other people whatever they want to about the glass of water.

I'll post something more later. At work right now.

[wufan]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I am never going to understand all of the intricacies of microwave technology, but I'm still willing to use one everyday since scientists have told me it's okay.

Since you have educated yourself, why do you disagree with the dozens of scientific papers that have refuted the one source you shared with me?

That's a social science response, and not a scientific response. It's used on advertising all the time. Michael Jordan drinks Gatorade so you should too. It's also used in politics. Bottom line, it's not scientifically valid as it is a logical fallacy. Furthermore, some of the claims associated with this are misleading. That said, there is still a majority of qualified scientists that believe anthropogenic global warming is real, and if you use that information as "good enough", then there really isn't much to discuss scientifically.

I personally take offense to policy makers that manipulate science and then call it a consensus by which all decisions are made regarding policy.

[wufan]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I am never going to understand all of the intricacies of microwave technology, but I'm still willing to use one everyday since scientists have told me it's okay.

Since you have educated yourself, why do you disagree with the dozens of scientific papers that have refuted the one source you shared with me?

There's actually maybe a dozen scientific papers written that align with the hockey stick graph, and they are written by five to seven lead authors. Only about 8 papers that haven't been PROVEN to be statistically unsound. They are all either inaccurate at predicting future trends, or they use error bars and scenarios so widespread so as to be of little value. Still, the worst case scenarios are politicized as "consensus" by the IPCC.

[jdshock]

That's a social science response, and not a scientific response. It's used on advertising all the time. Michael Jordan drinks Gatorade so you should too. It's also used in politics. Bottom line, it's not scientifically valid as it is a logical fallacy. Furthermore, some of the claims associated with this are misleading. That said, there is still a majority of qualified scientists that believe anthropogenic global warming is real, and if you use that information as "good enough", then there really isn't much to discuss scientifically.

I personally take offense to policy makers that manipulate science and then call it a consensus by which all decisions are made regarding policy.

You never answered my previous question. I just don't have the intelligence, time, or resources to test every scientific theory that I must rely on daily. I can't read every journal out there to teach myself how a certain prescription medication might resolve a medical condition I have. I can't teach myself the physics necessary to send a spaceship to the moon, but I trust that it happened. I am too far gone to understand molecular biology, theoretical physics, aerospace engineering, and any number of other complicated systems. So, I rely on minds much smarter than mine, and I go with the consensus. Your Michael Jordan analogy is just dishonest, and you should know it. If anything, it's like saying the vast majority of athletes drink gatorade, so I should too.

So, I ask you the same thing I said before: if I don't have the resources to read every paper on environmental science, why should I believe the minority? Why do you believe the minority and not the majority? Why aren't you persuaded by the heaps and heaps of academic papers that refute the contrarians?

[wufan]

You never answered my previous question. I just don't have the intelligence, time, or resources to test every scientific theory that I must rely on daily. I can't read every journal out there to teach myself how a certain prescription medication might resolve a medical condition I have. I can't teach myself the physics necessary to send a spaceship to the moon, but I trust that it happened. I am too far gone to understand molecular biology, theoretical physics, aerospace engineering, and any number of other complicated systems. So, I rely on minds much smarter than mine, and I go with the consensus. Your Michael Jordan analogy is just dishonest, and you should know it. If anything, it's like saying the vast majority of athletes drink gatorade, so I should too.

The Michael Jordan example and the scientific consensus are both "appeals to authority".

[Cdizzle]

Doug Elgin is a relative expert in his field. He said this would be another year of great basketball in the storied history of the league.

Yet I would bet several might think he is full of ****.

[wufan]

So, I ask you the same thing I said before: if I don't have the resources to read every paper on environmental science, why should I believe the minority? Why do you believe the minority and not the majority? Why aren't you persuaded by the heaps and heaps of academic papers that refute the contrarians?

I would not ask you to believe the minority, I would ask that if you are not informed, you should stay out of the discussion. If by "why do you believe the minority" you mean that I don't believe there is enough evidence to create public policy to combat global warming, the reason I believe this is because data prior to 1880 requires a leap of faith that is beyond my scientific willingness. BTW, my opinion agrees with 30-50% of the scientific community.