Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[truman]

I can't see why.

 

His comments in and of themselves seem fair enough. .

 

Yep,especially this one..

"...There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed...."

 

and here's me thinking the "science is settled"....

[Lockjaw]

Look at it this way, report after report has shown that it is much cheaper to act on the issue and it turn out to be a duff, than to not act on the issue and it turn out to be real.

 

Of course, the same could be said by some haggard old person attempting to sell you a lucky piece of heather and threatening to curse you if you don't buy one.

[convert]

I amended my response as you were replying. See above for response.

 

 

 

That is absurd, especially given the example earlier of a sceptical paper that tried to measure something he had removed from the data and not finding anything gave his conclusions of no trend...

 

So you're saying that you support AGW, with the quoted figure of it being 90% certain, but you wouldn't get on a plane with only a 90% chance of arriving at your destination ?

[Wildcat]

So you're saying that you support AGW, with the quoted figure of it being 90% certain, but you wouldn't get on a plane with only a 90% chance of arriving at your destination ?

 

No I support acting on the science of global warming because it is more than 90% certain and the consequences of not acting on it even on most conservative estimates would increase the amount of suffering experienced by people on the planet considerably.

 

I wouldn't get on a plane that only had a just a 90% chance of reaching is destination safely. I certainly wouldn't if it was less than 10%.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Wildcat

[Wildcat]

Of course, the same could be said by some haggard old person attempting to sell you a lucky piece of heather and threatening to curse you if you don't buy one.

 

The same could be said by a green spotted alien in scuba gear with a snorkel... so what?

 

The fact something potentially could be said by a heather salesman says nothing of interest about what is said.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Wildcat

[Lockjaw]

The same could be said by a green spotted alien in scuba gear with a snorkel... so what?

 

 

Umm ... if you can't see so what then you're more blinkered than I previously assumed.

 

Your complete refusal to engage with any of the opposing opinions voiced on here ... preferring to dismiss, discredit or in this case just divert is not doing your cause any good.

 

When I started observing this thread I was a fully paid up member of the AGW club ... I teach it to my students FCOL. Having followed the thread with interest and, particularly, observed your responses throughout, I have to admit, I'm not quite so convinced any more.

 

Returning to my point, I'm sure that you are able to understand that to somebody who simply does not believe the basic premise, the threat of a the consequences of AGW is about as disturbing as the threat of a curse from a lucky heather salesman. If you were able to empathise with the POVs you have made it your crusade to discredit you would surely see that. Your response to my post shows you are not and, therefore, as shown by your effect of my position, you are actually damaging your cause.

 

Your laughable changing of your signature quotation when you realised it actually criticised your own actions pretty much sums up the level you're operating at here.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Lockjaw

[Wildcat]

Yep,especially this one..

"...There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed...."

 

and here's me thinking the "science is settled"....

 

No one apart from you has ever claimed the science is settled.

 

What people have said are things like the person you quoted also says:

 

“It’s unchallengeable that CO2 traps heat and warms the Earth and that burning fossil fuels shoves billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere."

 

If you think it acceptable to await 100% certainty before acting to save lives, then your actions are by anyone's standards immoral.

[Omar Khatib]

No one apart from you has ever claimed the science is settled.

 

Not even Al Gore?

[Wildcat]

Umm ... if you can't see so what then you're more blinkered than I previously assumed.

 

Your complete refusal to engage with any of the opposing opinions voiced on here ... preferring to dismiss, discredit or in this case just divert is not doing your cause any good.

 

If you disagree with a point then refuting it is the only rational way to engage with it. Your objection to that is nothing more than a plea to prevent further criticisms because you have no other response.

 

When I started observing this thread I was a fully paid up member of the AGW club ... I teach it to my students FCOL. Having followed the thread with interest and, particularly, observed your responses throughout, I have to admit, I'm not quite so convinced any more.

 

Returning to my point, I'm sure that you are able to understand that to somebody who simply does not believe the basic premise, the threat of a the consequences of AGW is about as disturbing as the threat of a curse from a lucky heather salesman. If you were able to empathise with the POVs you have made it your crusade to discredit you would surely see that. Your response to my post shows you are not and, therefore, as shown by your effect of my position, you are actually damaging your cause.

 

Your laughable changing of your signature quotation when you realised it actually criticised your own actions pretty much sums up the level you're operating at here.

 

If people are so gullible as to be taken in by heather salesmen then that might explain why they prefer to get their opinions from right wing propoganda websites and cranks rather than experts. What else am I supposed to take from your bizarre comment about what a heather salesman might say?

 

I changed my signature several times over the last week. I sometimes do when I feel like a change. The quotation I think you are referring to was by Bertrand Russell was it this one:

 

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."

 

The greater standard of proof or evidence is on the individual that rejects an expert opinion. Accepting an expert opinion in and of itself is evidenced.

 

It is not on the person agreeing with the consensus but the person that sets themselves up to know better than the experts, that is the one that is obligated to certainty of opinion.

 

The Fools and Fanatics are the ones convinced they know better than the experts, despite the overwhelming evidence, the failure of sceptics to agree amongst themselves or even put forward an alternative theory that explains the evidence.

 

The wise person has enough doubt to accept the consensus opinion with an open mind.

 

Another quote from Bertrand Russell that seems pertinant:

 

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.

 

So rather than lay on the patronising advice and put on moral superiority, whilst engaging in an ad hominem. Why don't you engage with the topic of the thread yourself?

Edited January 27, 2010 by Wildcat

[Wildcat]

Not even Al Gore?

 

No, not even Al Gore.

 

What he may have said is that human influence on recent global warming is incontrovertable.

 

He may even have said the science is settled in terms of the above. But he has never claimed it is settled in the sense that we have a perfect model for predicting long term future weather trends. Although the models we do have do give increasingly impressive results.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Wildcat