Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

97 percent of climate scientists agree...

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 5:15:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There's an often-quoted statistic that 97 percent of climate scientists think global warming is mostly man-made. Many see this as a solid reason to side with the scientific consensus and consider the issue closed, but I think it's far less conclusive than many people give it credit for. When one considers the situation carefully and objectively, a few things become clear. First, that academia is not immune to the dangers of self-reinforcing mass delusion. And second, that few scientific issues have become so intertwined with politics as global warming.

Indeed, the importance of climatology as a science heavily depends on whether man-made global warming is considered a real threat. We should therefore be especially skeptical of claims made by climate scientists on global warming, since their ability to think objectively on the issue could be compromised. To put it bluntly, global warming researchers have much to gain if man-made global warming is thought to be real, and much to lose if it isn't. While a conscious effort to fabricate data is unlikely in this case, bias certainly is not.

Moreover, the field of climatology is extremely hostile to those whose views stray from the mainstream. Research not in agreement with the consensus is often rejected as pseudoscience by the ones in charge. People whose views differ from the mainstream would likely find it hard to find funding and a place to publish their findings. Given this environment, it's not hard to see why so few climate scientists would want to risk their careers by challenging what they've been taught, or enter the field to begin with when they're not already partial to its conclusions.

Out of all the scientific consensuses, the consensus on man-made global warming is the least convincing. When politics get involved, objectivity always suffers.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 5:50:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is one of those issues that I just really don't care about whatsoever. I will trust the dudes telling me the planet is near blowing up and that we should cop the f*ck on.

Science can definitely be a retarded boys club though.
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 6:37:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Let's put it this way:
1) We treat it like it is real, turns out it is, we solved an issue.
2) We treat it like it is real, turns out it isn't, oops, we just made the world a better place on accident
3) We treat it like it is not real, turns out it is, oops, we are screwed
4) We treat it like it is not real, turns out it is not, we are right and no improvements made to the world.

Ya, do we treat it like its real or no?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 8:15:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 6:37:29 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Let's put it this way:
1) We treat it like it is real, turns out it is, we solved an issue.
2) We treat it like it is real, turns out it isn't, oops, we just made the world a better place on accident
3) We treat it like it is not real, turns out it is, oops, we are screwed
4) We treat it like it is not real, turns out it is not, we are right and no improvements made to the world.

Ya, do we treat it like its real or no?

How would it be beneficial to allocate resources to solve a problem which doesn't exist?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 8:27:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 5:15:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
First, that academia is not immune to the dangers of self-reinforcing mass delusion. And second, that few scientific issues have become so intertwined with politics as global warming.

To put it bluntly, global warming researchers have much to gain if man-made global warming is thought to be real, and much to lose if it isn't. While a conscious effort to fabricate data is unlikely in this case, bias certainly is not.

Moreover, the field of climatology is extremely hostile to those whose views stray from the mainstream.

Typical. When the vast majority of experts hold a different position then your political party it's either mass conspiracy or mass conformity.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 8:30:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 8:27:23 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/4/2015 5:15:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
First, that academia is not immune to the dangers of self-reinforcing mass delusion. And second, that few scientific issues have become so intertwined with politics as global warming.

To put it bluntly, global warming researchers have much to gain if man-made global warming is thought to be real, and much to lose if it isn't. While a conscious effort to fabricate data is unlikely in this case, bias certainly is not.

Moreover, the field of climatology is extremely hostile to those whose views stray from the mainstream.

Typical. When the vast majority of experts hold a different position then your political party it's either mass conspiracy or mass conformity.

I never said it was mass conformity. I'm simply pointing out that there are ways the consensus could be unjustified which don't require any sort of conspiracy. Many people consider this issue definitely answered, when I think common sense (and history) say not really.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 8:33:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The methodologies used to obtain the 97 percent figure are also somewhat questionable. One study surveyed only 77 scientists, and another looked at 10,000 published scientific papers. Obviously, these samples are not necessarily representative.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 11:32:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 6:37:29 PM, SNP1 wrote:
2) We treat it like it is real, turns out it isn't, oops, we just made the world a better place on accident
If global warming isn't manmade, then how will the world be a better place as a result of us combating it?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 11:35:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 11:32:31 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 1/4/2015 6:37:29 PM, SNP1 wrote:
2) We treat it like it is real, turns out it isn't, oops, we just made the world a better place on accident
If global warming isn't manmade, then how will the world be a better place as a result of us combating it?

Exactly! You guys completely gloss over the implications that 97% of these scientists assume we can "fix" the climate.....
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 11:35:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Consensus means nothing. Facts do. And, when facts are reported by humans open to bias (see: http://en.wikipedia.org...), you either have to gather the data yourself, show that the methodology others used to get their data is correct/faulty, or admit that you're not qualified to comment.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 8:21:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 5:15:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
There's an often-quoted statistic that 97 percent of climate scientists think global warming is mostly man-made. Many see this as a solid reason to side with the scientific consensus and consider the issue closed, but I think it's far less conclusive than many people give it credit for. When one considers the situation carefully and objectively, a few things become clear. First, that academia is not immune to the dangers of self-reinforcing mass delusion. And second, that few scientific issues have become so intertwined with politics as global warming.

Indeed, the importance of climatology as a science heavily depends on whether man-made global warming is considered a real threat. We should therefore be especially skeptical of claims made by climate scientists on global warming, since their ability to think objectively on the issue could be compromised. To put it bluntly, global warming researchers have much to gain if man-made global warming is thought to be real, and much to lose if it isn't. While a conscious effort to fabricate data is unlikely in this case, bias certainly is not.

Moreover, the field of climatology is extremely hostile to those whose views stray from the mainstream. Research not in agreement with the consensus is often rejected as pseudoscience by the ones in charge. People whose views differ from the mainstream would likely find it hard to find funding and a place to publish their findings. Given this environment, it's not hard to see why so few climate scientists would want to risk their careers by challenging what they've been taught, or enter the field to begin with when they're not already partial to its conclusions.

Out of all the scientific consensuses, the consensus on man-made global warming is the least convincing. When politics get involved, objectivity always suffers.

I think you highlight some pitfalls of scientific consensus of theory, but what evidence do you have that indicated global warming is indeed in a false consensus. If one sticks to basic scientific fact:

1. Carbon dioxide, methane, & water vapor is scientifically known to trap heat in an atmosphere. While not the only factor that needs to be considered in global warming, that fact is indisputable.

2. Via the burning of fossil fuels, which has increased since the industrial revolution we introduce carbon into the atmosphere prematurely by burning it versus if we left it in the ground and allowed to go through the carbon cycle. While this amount of CO2 we release prematurely is small compared to the natural cycle of carbon over the land and water, it is enough to increase total carbon in the atmosphere over time.

3. In my life time we have gone from about 320 ppm CO2 to 400 ppm of CO2 a 25% increase. (since 1970).

4. There are many other factors than CO2 which have to be considered in global warming, such as ocean currents and other carbon cycle effects and space driven events such as sun activity.

Now, what happens when a reasonable person sees the above facts and knows nothing else about the political argument?

What if they know that 39% or 123 million Americans live in coastal counties which is about 10% of the land?

Knowing all of this, should a reasonable person dispute all claims of global warming as a fraud at all costs?

I submit the answer is no. One of the issues with complete deniability is that one can not participate in the "what we going to do about it" discussion, which is even more contentious than whether man made global warming exists or not.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 11:13:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 5:15:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
There's an often-quoted statistic that 97 percent of climate scientists think global warming is mostly man-made. Many see this as a solid reason to side with the scientific consensus and consider the issue closed, but I think it's far less conclusive than many people give it credit for. When one considers the situation carefully and objectively, a few things become clear. First, that academia is not immune to the dangers of self-reinforcing mass delusion. And second, that few scientific issues have become so intertwined with politics as global warming.

Indeed, the importance of climatology as a science heavily depends on whether man-made global warming is considered a real threat. We should therefore be especially skeptical of claims made by climate scientists on global warming, since their ability to think objectively on the issue could be compromised. To put it bluntly, global warming researchers have much to gain if man-made global warming is thought to be real, and much to lose if it isn't. While a conscious effort to fabricate data is unlikely in this case, bias certainly is not.

Moreover, the field of climatology is extremely hostile to those whose views stray from the mainstream. Research not in agreement with the consensus is often rejected as pseudoscience by the ones in charge. People whose views differ from the mainstream would likely find it hard to find funding and a place to publish their findings. Given this environment, it's not hard to see why so few climate scientists would want to risk their careers by challenging what they've been taught, or enter the field to begin with when they're not already partial to its conclusions.

Out of all the scientific consensuses, the consensus on man-made global warming is the least convincing. When politics get involved, objectivity always suffers.

This is rather ironic, especially the last sentence. Notice that it is not 97% of politicians, but SCIENTISTS. They also don't just make stuff up, but the findings of 97% were found based off of research papers written about this issue.

My opinion on the matter is that if you disagree with the consensus, present your argument to the community of climate scientists to address it. If not, then you have no real place in the conversation. The fact of the matter is that the science has been well established, and the consequences for doing nothing are dire.

It's no coincidence that most conservatives don't agree with anthropogenic climate change, anti-intellectualism and no respect for academia abounds within this camp. Though it is not universal.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 11:25:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 11:13:37 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/4/2015 5:15:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
There's an often-quoted statistic that 97 percent of climate scientists think global warming is mostly man-made. Many see this as a solid reason to side with the scientific consensus and consider the issue closed, but I think it's far less conclusive than many people give it credit for. When one considers the situation carefully and objectively, a few things become clear. First, that academia is not immune to the dangers of self-reinforcing mass delusion. And second, that few scientific issues have become so intertwined with politics as global warming.

Indeed, the importance of climatology as a science heavily depends on whether man-made global warming is considered a real threat. We should therefore be especially skeptical of claims made by climate scientists on global warming, since their ability to think objectively on the issue could be compromised. To put it bluntly, global warming researchers have much to gain if man-made global warming is thought to be real, and much to lose if it isn't. While a conscious effort to fabricate data is unlikely in this case, bias certainly is not.

Moreover, the field of climatology is extremely hostile to those whose views stray from the mainstream. Research not in agreement with the consensus is often rejected as pseudoscience by the ones in charge. People whose views differ from the mainstream would likely find it hard to find funding and a place to publish their findings. Given this environment, it's not hard to see why so few climate scientists would want to risk their careers by challenging what they've been taught, or enter the field to begin with when they're not already partial to its conclusions.

Out of all the scientific consensuses, the consensus on man-made global warming is the least convincing. When politics get involved, objectivity always suffers.

This is rather ironic, especially the last sentence. Notice that it is not 97% of politicians, but SCIENTISTS. They also don't just make stuff up, but the findings of 97% were found based off of research papers written about this issue.

My opinion on the matter is that if you disagree with the consensus, present your argument to the community of climate scientists to address it. If not, then you have no real place in the conversation. The fact of the matter is that the science has been well established, and the consequences for doing nothing are dire.

It's no coincidence that most conservatives don't agree with anthropogenic climate change, anti-intellectualism and no respect for academia abounds within this camp. Though it is not universal.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the consensus, nor am I claiming they just "make stuff up" (in fact, I explicitly said that was unlikely). I'm just saying that there are many reasons to be suspicious. In other words, it's not just "science as usual". There are obviously many political factors involved which don't normally apply.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 11:33:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 11:25:06 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/5/2015 11:13:37 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/4/2015 5:15:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
There's an often-quoted statistic that 97 percent of climate scientists think global warming is mostly man-made. Many see this as a solid reason to side with the scientific consensus and consider the issue closed, but I think it's far less conclusive than many people give it credit for. When one considers the situation carefully and objectively, a few things become clear. First, that academia is not immune to the dangers of self-reinforcing mass delusion. And second, that few scientific issues have become so intertwined with politics as global warming.

Indeed, the importance of climatology as a science heavily depends on whether man-made global warming is considered a real threat. We should therefore be especially skeptical of claims made by climate scientists on global warming, since their ability to think objectively on the issue could be compromised. To put it bluntly, global warming researchers have much to gain if man-made global warming is thought to be real, and much to lose if it isn't. While a conscious effort to fabricate data is unlikely in this case, bias certainly is not.

Moreover, the field of climatology is extremely hostile to those whose views stray from the mainstream. Research not in agreement with the consensus is often rejected as pseudoscience by the ones in charge. People whose views differ from the mainstream would likely find it hard to find funding and a place to publish their findings. Given this environment, it's not hard to see why so few climate scientists would want to risk their careers by challenging what they've been taught, or enter the field to begin with when they're not already partial to its conclusions.

Out of all the scientific consensuses, the consensus on man-made global warming is the least convincing. When politics get involved, objectivity always suffers.

This is rather ironic, especially the last sentence. Notice that it is not 97% of politicians, but SCIENTISTS. They also don't just make stuff up, but the findings of 97% were found based off of research papers written about this issue.

My opinion on the matter is that if you disagree with the consensus, present your argument to the community of climate scientists to address it. If not, then you have no real place in the conversation. The fact of the matter is that the science has been well established, and the consequences for doing nothing are dire.

It's no coincidence that most conservatives don't agree with anthropogenic climate change, anti-intellectualism and no respect for academia abounds within this camp. Though it is not universal.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the consensus, nor am I claiming they just "make stuff up" (in fact, I explicitly said that was unlikely). I'm just saying that there are many reasons to be suspicious. In other words, it's not just "science as usual". There are obviously many political factors involved which don't normally apply.

There are politics surrounding most scientific issues. Can you point out any specific instances where a scientist seems to be swayed by their political ideologies and not science?

You're basically just arguing, "hey this is plausible," but you have no evidence for such a thing happening. In my experience, it seems that detractors of anthropogenic climate change are motivated by politics or religious ideologies and then use bad science to prop this up.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 11:42:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 11:33:48 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/5/2015 11:25:06 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/5/2015 11:13:37 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/4/2015 5:15:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
There's an often-quoted statistic that 97 percent of climate scientists think global warming is mostly man-made. Many see this as a solid reason to side with the scientific consensus and consider the issue closed, but I think it's far less conclusive than many people give it credit for. When one considers the situation carefully and objectively, a few things become clear. First, that academia is not immune to the dangers of self-reinforcing mass delusion. And second, that few scientific issues have become so intertwined with politics as global warming.

Indeed, the importance of climatology as a science heavily depends on whether man-made global warming is considered a real threat. We should therefore be especially skeptical of claims made by climate scientists on global warming, since their ability to think objectively on the issue could be compromised. To put it bluntly, global warming researchers have much to gain if man-made global warming is thought to be real, and much to lose if it isn't. While a conscious effort to fabricate data is unlikely in this case, bias certainly is not.

Moreover, the field of climatology is extremely hostile to those whose views stray from the mainstream. Research not in agreement with the consensus is often rejected as pseudoscience by the ones in charge. People whose views differ from the mainstream would likely find it hard to find funding and a place to publish their findings. Given this environment, it's not hard to see why so few climate scientists would want to risk their careers by challenging what they've been taught, or enter the field to begin with when they're not already partial to its conclusions.

Out of all the scientific consensuses, the consensus on man-made global warming is the least convincing. When politics get involved, objectivity always suffers.

This is rather ironic, especially the last sentence. Notice that it is not 97% of politicians, but SCIENTISTS. They also don't just make stuff up, but the findings of 97% were found based off of research papers written about this issue.

My opinion on the matter is that if you disagree with the consensus, present your argument to the community of climate scientists to address it. If not, then you have no real place in the conversation. The fact of the matter is that the science has been well established, and the consequences for doing nothing are dire.

It's no coincidence that most conservatives don't agree with anthropogenic climate change, anti-intellectualism and no respect for academia abounds within this camp. Though it is not universal.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the consensus, nor am I claiming they just "make stuff up" (in fact, I explicitly said that was unlikely). I'm just saying that there are many reasons to be suspicious. In other words, it's not just "science as usual". There are obviously many political factors involved which don't normally apply.

There are politics surrounding most scientific issues. Can you point out any specific instances where a scientist seems to be swayed by their political ideologies and not science?

Not in the sense I'm talking about. There's an entire industry at stake, and it all depends on the answer we give to a certain scientific question. It's quite simple, really. If man-made global warming was somehow refuted, many global warming researchers would lose their jobs. It's obviously not an ideal situation.


You're basically just arguing, "hey this is plausible," but you have no evidence for such a thing happening. In my experience, it seems that detractors of anthropogenic climate change are motivated by politics or religious ideologies and then use bad science to prop this up.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 12:13:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 11:42:34 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/5/2015 11:33:48 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/5/2015 11:25:06 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/5/2015 11:13:37 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/4/2015 5:15:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
There's an often-quoted statistic that 97 percent of climate scientists think global warming is mostly man-made. Many see this as a solid reason to side with the scientific consensus and consider the issue closed, but I think it's far less conclusive than many people give it credit for. When one considers the situation carefully and objectively, a few things become clear. First, that academia is not immune to the dangers of self-reinforcing mass delusion. And second, that few scientific issues have become so intertwined with politics as global warming.

Indeed, the importance of climatology as a science heavily depends on whether man-made global warming is considered a real threat. We should therefore be especially skeptical of claims made by climate scientists on global warming, since their ability to think objectively on the issue could be compromised. To put it bluntly, global warming researchers have much to gain if man-made global warming is thought to be real, and much to lose if it isn't. While a conscious effort to fabricate data is unlikely in this case, bias certainly is not.

Moreover, the field of climatology is extremely hostile to those whose views stray from the mainstream. Research not in agreement with the consensus is often rejected as pseudoscience by the ones in charge. People whose views differ from the mainstream would likely find it hard to find funding and a place to publish their findings. Given this environment, it's not hard to see why so few climate scientists would want to risk their careers by challenging what they've been taught, or enter the field to begin with when they're not already partial to its conclusions.

Out of all the scientific consensuses, the consensus on man-made global warming is the least convincing. When politics get involved, objectivity always suffers.

This is rather ironic, especially the last sentence. Notice that it is not 97% of politicians, but SCIENTISTS. They also don't just make stuff up, but the findings of 97% were found based off of research papers written about this issue.

My opinion on the matter is that if you disagree with the consensus, present your argument to the community of climate scientists to address it. If not, then you have no real place in the conversation. The fact of the matter is that the science has been well established, and the consequences for doing nothing are dire.

It's no coincidence that most conservatives don't agree with anthropogenic climate change, anti-intellectualism and no respect for academia abounds within this camp. Though it is not universal.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the consensus, nor am I claiming they just "make stuff up" (in fact, I explicitly said that was unlikely). I'm just saying that there are many reasons to be suspicious. In other words, it's not just "science as usual". There are obviously many political factors involved which don't normally apply.

There are politics surrounding most scientific issues. Can you point out any specific instances where a scientist seems to be swayed by their political ideologies and not science?

Not in the sense I'm talking about. There's an entire industry at stake, and it all depends on the answer we give to a certain scientific question. It's quite simple, really. If man-made global warming was somehow refuted, many global warming researchers would lose their jobs. It's obviously not an ideal situation.


You're basically just arguing, "hey this is plausible," but you have no evidence for such a thing happening. In my experience, it seems that detractors of anthropogenic climate change are motivated by politics or religious ideologies and then use bad science to prop this up.

And if many conservative politicians supported anthopogenic climate change they would lose some of their funding...

Again, you've only established hypothetical, which at this point hasn't really been demonstrated how this should be an issue. If a Climate Scientist didn't support anthropogenic climate change they could write an article for peer review, that's how science works. If it was wrong, or really bad science then they could lose their job for that reason I suppose.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 12:46:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 5:15:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
To put it bluntly, global warming researchers have much to gain if man-made global warming is thought to be real, and much to lose if it isn't. While a conscious effort to fabricate data is unlikely in this case, bias certainly is not.

So you're telling us that we should be skeptical of climatologists because it's their job to study the climate? That this produces a bias? Global warming researchers have much to lose if there is no global warming, but there clearly is global warming. It's more a question of if it is man-made.

That's akin to not trusting a doctor because they have a bias due to the fact that they must perform their job. "He told me I needed treatment because I have broken bones, but I'm not going to trust him, because he just wants all my money."

Out of all the scientific consensuses, the consensus on man-made global warming is the least convincing. When politics get involved, objectivity always suffers.

It's clear global warming is occurring. I'll agree that it's at least somewhat debatable on man-made global warming, but imo the results of human activity have led to significant increases in climate change.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 12:47:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 12:46:02 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 1/4/2015 5:15:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
To put it bluntly, global warming researchers have much to gain if man-made global warming is thought to be real, and much to lose if it isn't. While a conscious effort to fabricate data is unlikely in this case, bias certainly is not.

So you're telling us that we should be skeptical of climatologists because it's their job to study the climate? That this produces a bias? Global warming researchers have much to lose if there is no global warming, but there clearly is global warming. It's more a question of if it is man-made.

That's akin to not trusting a doctor because they have a bias due to the fact that they must perform their job. "He told me I needed treatment because I have broken bones, but I'm not going to trust him, because he just wants all my money."


https://www.youtube.com...

Out of all the scientific consensuses, the consensus on man-made global warming is the least convincing. When politics get involved, objectivity always suffers.

It's clear global warming is occurring. I'll agree that it's at least somewhat debatable on man-made global warming, but imo the results of human activity have led to significant increases in climate change.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 12:55:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 12:46:02 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 1/4/2015 5:15:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
To put it bluntly, global warming researchers have much to gain if man-made global warming is thought to be real, and much to lose if it isn't. While a conscious effort to fabricate data is unlikely in this case, bias certainly is not.

So you're telling us that we should be skeptical of climatologists because it's their job to study the climate? That this produces a bias? Global warming researchers have much to lose if there is no global warming, but there clearly is global warming. It's more a question of if it is man-made.

That's akin to not trusting a doctor because they have a bias due to the fact that they must perform their job. "He told me I needed treatment because I have broken bones, but I'm not going to trust him, because he just wants all my money."

Out of all the scientific consensuses, the consensus on man-made global warming is the least convincing. When politics get involved, objectivity always suffers.

It's clear global warming is occurring. I'll agree that it's at least somewhat debatable on man-made global warming, but imo the results of human activity have led to significant increases in climate change.

Bingo!
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 12:59:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 12:47:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

I'm assuming you posted that video in an attempt to show that professionals in certain fields will lie to get more money, but the sample size presented is far too small (there is only one shop interviewed) and the field of study is completely different than climatology.

Furthermore, climatologists have publicly presented their work to be reviewed and critiqued. It is possible to see if they are fabricating data or not.

This is why we have experts in fields of study.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 1:50:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 12:59:37 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 1/5/2015 12:47:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

I'm assuming you posted that video in an attempt to show that professionals in certain fields will lie to get more money, but the sample size presented is far too small (there is only one shop interviewed) and the field of study is completely different than climatology.

Furthermore, climatologists have publicly presented their work to be reviewed and critiqued. It is possible to see if they are fabricating data or not.

This is why we have experts in fields of study.

I don't feel like finding the relevant studies, but it's definitely not uncommon.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 8:35:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 8:30:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I never said it was mass conformity. I'm simply pointing out that there are ways the consensus could be unjustified which don't require any sort of conspiracy. Many people consider this issue definitely answered, when I think common sense (and history) say not really.

Yes, there are ways. That doesn't mean it's actually happening. But fine, let's look at why "common sense" suggests that the questions have not been answered...

First, that academia is not immune to the dangers of self-reinforcing mass delusion. And second, that few scientific issues have become so intertwined with politics as global warming.

Which do you think is more likely; that global warming became valid science because it is political, or that global warming became political because it is valid science?

Also, do you not think that there would be equal political push back from all of the industries that stand to lose from global warming? Industries that have way more money then the upcoming starters who grew as public consensus grew? Where are all of their scientists pushing back? Even cigarettes had biologists telling everyone they were good for us.

Moreover, the field of climatology is extremely hostile to those whose views stray from the mainstream.

Yes, and the engineering community is extremely hostile to those who say that the Twin Towers must have been blown up with thermite bombs. And the field of biology is hostile to those who claim that our species have only walked this earth for no more than 10,000 years. When you have no valid science to back up your claims this is what happens. The alternative is either A) that the entire industry (essentially human kind) is too inept to understand the science behind it or B) it's mass conspiracy. I prefer C) The industry is full of professionals who mostly all understand what they are doing.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 10:53:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 11:32:31 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 1/4/2015 6:37:29 PM, SNP1 wrote:
2) We treat it like it is real, turns out it isn't, oops, we just made the world a better place on accident
If global warming isn't manmade, then how will the world be a better place as a result of us combating it?

Resultant technologies. Longer life batteries, more efficient light bulbs, higher MPG cars, more use for recycled materials, more inovative ways of harnessing energy...
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 10:55:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 8:15:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/4/2015 6:37:29 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Let's put it this way:
1) We treat it like it is real, turns out it is, we solved an issue.
2) We treat it like it is real, turns out it isn't, oops, we just made the world a better place on accident
3) We treat it like it is not real, turns out it is, oops, we are screwed
4) We treat it like it is not real, turns out it is not, we are right and no improvements made to the world.

Ya, do we treat it like its real or no?

How would it be beneficial to allocate resources to solve a problem which doesn't exist?

Isn't that like stating why one shouldn't take vitamins if you aren't sick?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 11:50:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 10:53:23 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/4/2015 11:32:31 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 1/4/2015 6:37:29 PM, SNP1 wrote:
2) We treat it like it is real, turns out it isn't, oops, we just made the world a better place on accident
If global warming isn't manmade, then how will the world be a better place as a result of us combating it?

Resultant technologies. Longer life batteries, more efficient light bulbs, higher MPG cars, more use for recycled materials, more inovative ways of harnessing energy...

Which are all good in themselves, regardless of whether they were invented because of a belief in global warming or not. In fact, by focusing on these technologies directly as ends in themselves and by ignoring restrictions based on emissions and such, then they would be even more efficient.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 11:50:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 10:55:54 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/4/2015 8:15:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/4/2015 6:37:29 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Let's put it this way:
1) We treat it like it is real, turns out it is, we solved an issue.
2) We treat it like it is real, turns out it isn't, oops, we just made the world a better place on accident
3) We treat it like it is not real, turns out it is, oops, we are screwed
4) We treat it like it is not real, turns out it is not, we are right and no improvements made to the world.

Ya, do we treat it like its real or no?

How would it be beneficial to allocate resources to solve a problem which doesn't exist?

Isn't that like stating why one shouldn't take vitamins if you aren't sick?

If you aren't sick, then vitamins would be useless. A vitamin deficiency is a sickness.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 11:55:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 11:50:34 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 1/5/2015 10:55:54 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/4/2015 8:15:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/4/2015 6:37:29 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Let's put it this way:
1) We treat it like it is real, turns out it is, we solved an issue.
2) We treat it like it is real, turns out it isn't, oops, we just made the world a better place on accident
3) We treat it like it is not real, turns out it is, oops, we are screwed
4) We treat it like it is not real, turns out it is not, we are right and no improvements made to the world.

Ya, do we treat it like its real or no?

How would it be beneficial to allocate resources to solve a problem which doesn't exist?

Isn't that like stating why one shouldn't take vitamins if you aren't sick?

If you aren't sick, then vitamins would be useless. A vitamin deficiency is a sickness.

Or brush your teeth if you have no cavities, stretch before running, change your oil every 5K miles, check the fuse box before doing electrical work...
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...