Global Warming: Why is there such a huge gap between public opinion and scientific consensus?

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: JS80
Scientists can't even predict the weather accurately, how do you expect the general public to believe Al Gore?

one british man can predict the weather accurately. he uses the sun for his predictions. he was so sure of himself he went down the betting shop william hill and bet on the weather week in and week out

the met office continually got it wrong, he continued to win money. of course no one listens to him because from his methods of weather prediction comes an alternative explanation for GW that doesnt involve man made CO2, or CO2 at all.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: SampSon
Primarily because scientists are quick to jump to conclusions and publish their work (it's the chief source of revenue for research scientists, they have to publish X amount of papers in order to get funding). Science is politicized long before it ever hits the public, ask any true blue research scientist (I happen to have one at my disposal constantly... aka gf's sister).

Historically scientists have been about as accurate as a magic 8-ball when they take the first few swings at an issue. You can write an entire book about the things scientists have been wrong about throughout history, I'm sure there are some out there.

Another reality that many people can't grasp is that much of science is still a subjective art form. Scientists are not gods, they are humans, using human tools, with human understanding and all the shortcomings that go along with that. On top of that, the "scientific community" never agrees 100% on anything. There are many factors that account for this, two of which I believe are the most important; money and what exactly "they" (the scientific group) are out to prove.

Sure I believe humans may have an impact on the warming of the earth within it's natural cycles (something that most people want to forget), but I don't think it is as much of an influence as many want to think. I don't believe there is enough data to say for sure exactly what measureable impact humans are having on earths natural climate cycles. The debate is still out on the past ice ages and climate cycles, but you expect me to believe that in a few short decades the "scientific community" was about to say for certain the level of effect humans are having on the planet? We can't agree on what happened in the last ice age/warming period because imperical data supports two opposite conclusions.

People WANT to believe that "global warming" exists because of humans, and their job is to go out and try to prove it within a reasonable doubt. So why is it that we are not allowed to question this scientific body and its findings on "global warming"? I believe it's primarily because the issue is political at the core, not scientific. I worked as a scientist for the govt. at BNL (look it up), I know there is pressure to "find" answers.

good post

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer
the IPCC is unreliable. they are driven by the need to keep their jobs and funding.

GW is bigger than it needs to be IMO. there is an entire industry based soley on the premise that humans are responsible for GW. thousands and thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of funding rely soley on the same idea. for that idea to be debunked one day will spell disaster for that industry and i dont care what you say you do not want your job and lively hood to simply disappear you just dont.

GW is a political tool now, politicians realise they wont get anywhere by standing against the idea. its a powerful political tool, with powerful people and serious amounts of money involved, its not just about stopping GW and saving the planet at all. where there is vast sums of money and power there is a good chance of corruption.

ex-editor of New Scientist (respected weekly news/report/magazine thing) said that if he wanted to do a study on british squirrils and their nut collecting habits he would put on the end "with respect to global warming". he went on to say without that last line no one would bother to fund his research.

some other scientist have admited to reversing their claims/findings and dramatising effects simply to secure money. its all about the money.

a man regarded as the leading figure in mosquitos and insect born virus's actually threatened legal action to the IPCC to have his name removed from a report after he discovered his work had been changed and omitted. he siad he did not want his name associated with a report that he had not contributed to. IPCC said that he had contributed and he countered that he hadnt because they never listened to a word he said.

apparently many other scientific reports/finding that go into the IPCC reports are changed and manipulated to fit an agenda and most scientist end up never being able to get their names removed from the report hence they then fall into this list of 2500 of the worlds top dogs and appear to follow the general concensus that GW is man made.

also that 2500 person list isnt even made up solely of proper scientist....its got politicians who always have an agenda and people who are only merely associated with certain scientists...ie people who know little about which they speak.

also greenpeace and the like are just a face for extremist anti-development, anti-establishment types. their agendas are neatly wrapped in green words.

If the IPCC was 100% corrupt and wrong, as you are essentially saying, then doesn't it occur to you, just for a second, that the governments and industry who have FAR more to gain than anyone else by debunking human accelerated climate change, might have noticed this? The media would go absolutely crazy over something like that

The job losses that curbing greenhouse gas emissions would bring are wildly exaggerated and used as a tool to spread fear imho. You honestly think that curbing our greenhouse gas emissions will stop people demanding goods and services? Of course not, so we'll simply do have to make them while emitting less greenhouse gas, and i can't imagine that will employ less people

dug mate i like you so ill keep it civil

i didnt say the IPCC were 100% corrupt. where there is money and power this corruption in some form. obviously in a group that large there will be people with morals, the majority probably have morals and decency....its the ruthless few, usually the top lot, that dont and use any means necessary to expand the smile on the bank managers face.

politcians preach what ever makes them popular. they see that tackling GW is a good thing for them because of the following it has. here in the UK there are plans for lots of green taxation. this taxation i believe is the real draw for the politicians to push this climate change issue.

what i meant about the industry was, that there are people specificially employed to tackle GW. councils have their very own GW counsellors and what not, companies employ people to go round making sure your being environmental. if man made GW is debunked....they have no reason to exist.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer
the IPCC is unreliable. they are driven by the need to keep their jobs and funding.

GW is bigger than it needs to be IMO. there is an entire industry based soley on the premise that humans are responsible for GW. thousands and thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of funding rely soley on the same idea. for that idea to be debunked one day will spell disaster for that industry and i dont care what you say you do not want your job and lively hood to simply disappear you just dont.

GW is a political tool now, politicians realise they wont get anywhere by standing against the idea. its a powerful political tool, with powerful people and serious amounts of money involved, its not just about stopping GW and saving the planet at all. where there is vast sums of money and power there is a good chance of corruption.

ex-editor of New Scientist (respected weekly news/report/magazine thing) said that if he wanted to do a study on british squirrils and their nut collecting habits he would put on the end "with respect to global warming". he went on to say without that last line no one would bother to fund his research.

some other scientist have admited to reversing their claims/findings and dramatising effects simply to secure money. its all about the money.

a man regarded as the leading figure in mosquitos and insect born virus's actually threatened legal action to the IPCC to have his name removed from a report after he discovered his work had been changed and omitted. he siad he did not want his name associated with a report that he had not contributed to. IPCC said that he had contributed and he countered that he hadnt because they never listened to a word he said.

apparently many other scientific reports/finding that go into the IPCC reports are changed and manipulated to fit an agenda and most scientist end up never being able to get their names removed from the report hence they then fall into this list of 2500 of the worlds top dogs and appear to follow the general concensus that GW is man made.

also that 2500 person list isnt even made up solely of proper scientist....its got politicians who always have an agenda and people who are only merely associated with certain scientists...ie people who know little about which they speak.

also greenpeace and the like are just a face for extremist anti-development, anti-establishment types. their agendas are neatly wrapped in green words.

If the IPCC was 100% corrupt and wrong, as you are essentially saying, then doesn't it occur to you, just for a second, that the governments and industry who have FAR more to gain than anyone else by debunking human accelerated climate change, might have noticed this? The media would go absolutely crazy over something like that

The job losses that curbing greenhouse gas emissions would bring are wildly exaggerated and used as a tool to spread fear imho. You honestly think that curbing our greenhouse gas emissions will stop people demanding goods and services? Of course not, so we'll simply do have to make them while emitting less greenhouse gas, and i can't imagine that will employ less people

dug mate i like you so ill keep it civil

i didnt say the IPCC were 100% corrupt. where there is money and power there is corruption in some form. obviously in a group that large there will be people with morals, the majority probably have morals and decency....its the ruthless few, usually the top lot, that dont and use any means necessary to expand the smile on the bank managers face.

politcians preach what ever makes them popular. they see that tackling GW is a good thing for them because of the following it has. here in the UK there are plans for lots of green taxation. this taxation i believe is the real draw for the politicians to push this climate change issue.

what i meant about the industry was, that there are people specificially employed to tackle GW. councils have their very own GW counsellors and what not, companies employ people to go round making sure your being environmental. if man made GW is debunked....they have no reason to exist.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dug777

A consensus in this case is not meaningless, because it means you can stop squabbling about petty details and actually make an attempt to deal with it. Are you suggesting the most responsible course of action is it simply ignore it, because a minority (and a small minority at that) of those involved in research in the field disagree with it?

Another one who presumes to know my position. :roll:

Understand this, Dug: Consensus is NOT a valid argument. ESPECIALLY in science. All you do when you argue to consensus is do irreparable harm to your argument to anyone who knows anything about science, or even those who remember high school debate.

For 50 years after it was proposed, plate tectonics and the theory of continental shift was rejected by a scientific "consensus."

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777

A consensus in this case is not meaningless, because it means you can stop squabbling about petty details and actually make an attempt to deal with it. Are you suggesting the most responsible course of action is it simply ignore it, because a minority (and a small minority at that) of those involved in research in the field disagree with it?

Another one who presumes to know my position. :roll:

Understand this, Dug: Consensus is NOT a valid argument. ESPECIALLY in science. All you do when you argue to consensus is do irreparable harm to your argument to anyone who knows anything about science, or even those who remember high school debate.

For 50 years after it was proposed, plate tectonics and the theory of continental shift was rejected by a scientific "consensus."

correct, and its eve more invalid when you realise alot of the theory and modelling work done to predict climate change is based off of alot of assumptions.

infact, alot of complex science and engineering basically use assumptions. i know because im an mech eng undergrad and all the time calculations and theorys are worked out assuming certain conditions exist.

untill we can cut the assumptions from the work, its hard to believe anything 100%

concensus only proves that a majority of people all believe in the same thing. whether what they they believe is wrong or right makes no difference. majoritys are not exempt from being wrong.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777

A consensus in this case is not meaningless, because it means you can stop squabbling about petty details and actually make an attempt to deal with it. Are you suggesting the most responsible course of action is it simply ignore it, because a minority (and a small minority at that) of those involved in research in the field disagree with it?

Another one who presumes to know my position. :roll:

Understand this, Dug: Consensus is NOT a valid argument. ESPECIALLY in science. All you do when you argue to consensus is do irreparable harm to your argument to anyone who knows anything about science, or even those who remember high school debate.

For 50 years after it was proposed, plate tectonics and the theory of continental shift was rejected by a scientific "consensus."

I'm not sure that i ever presumed to know your position.

Are you saying that the vast scientific majority are wrong because they're the majority?

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer
the IPCC is unreliable. they are driven by the need to keep their jobs and funding.

GW is bigger than it needs to be IMO. there is an entire industry based soley on the premise that humans are responsible for GW. thousands and thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of funding rely soley on the same idea. for that idea to be debunked one day will spell disaster for that industry and i dont care what you say you do not want your job and lively hood to simply disappear you just dont.

GW is a political tool now, politicians realise they wont get anywhere by standing against the idea. its a powerful political tool, with powerful people and serious amounts of money involved, its not just about stopping GW and saving the planet at all. where there is vast sums of money and power there is a good chance of corruption.

ex-editor of New Scientist (respected weekly news/report/magazine thing) said that if he wanted to do a study on british squirrils and their nut collecting habits he would put on the end "with respect to global warming". he went on to say without that last line no one would bother to fund his research.

some other scientist have admited to reversing their claims/findings and dramatising effects simply to secure money. its all about the money.

a man regarded as the leading figure in mosquitos and insect born virus's actually threatened legal action to the IPCC to have his name removed from a report after he discovered his work had been changed and omitted. he siad he did not want his name associated with a report that he had not contributed to. IPCC said that he had contributed and he countered that he hadnt because they never listened to a word he said.

apparently many other scientific reports/finding that go into the IPCC reports are changed and manipulated to fit an agenda and most scientist end up never being able to get their names removed from the report hence they then fall into this list of 2500 of the worlds top dogs and appear to follow the general concensus that GW is man made.

also that 2500 person list isnt even made up solely of proper scientist....its got politicians who always have an agenda and people who are only merely associated with certain scientists...ie people who know little about which they speak.

also greenpeace and the like are just a face for extremist anti-development, anti-establishment types. their agendas are neatly wrapped in green words.

If the IPCC was 100% corrupt and wrong, as you are essentially saying, then doesn't it occur to you, just for a second, that the governments and industry who have FAR more to gain than anyone else by debunking human accelerated climate change, might have noticed this? The media would go absolutely crazy over something like that

The job losses that curbing greenhouse gas emissions would bring are wildly exaggerated and used as a tool to spread fear imho. You honestly think that curbing our greenhouse gas emissions will stop people demanding goods and services? Of course not, so we'll simply do have to make them while emitting less greenhouse gas, and i can't imagine that will employ less people

dug mate i like you so ill keep it civil

i didnt say the IPCC were 100% corrupt. where there is money and power there is corruption in some form. obviously in a group that large there will be people with morals, the majority probably have morals and decency....its the ruthless few, usually the top lot, that dont and use any means necessary to expand the smile on the bank managers face.

politcians preach what ever makes them popular. they see that tackling GW is a good thing for them because of the following it has. here in the UK there are plans for lots of green taxation. this taxation i believe is the real draw for the politicians to push this climate change issue.

what i meant about the industry was, that there are people specificially employed to tackle GW. councils have their very own GW counsellors and what not, companies employ people to go round making sure your being environmental. if man made GW is debunked....they have no reason to exist.

i don't know why you'd feel the need to be other than civil with me?

I'm sure there's the odd bad apple, but if you had a solid theory that knocked human accelerated climate change on the head, i can see the dollars stretching forever to fund your research, ever heard of Exxon Mobil? And they're just the high profile tip of the iceberg, just think of all the coal and oil firms out there

I'd be interested to hear your views on my comments about damage to the economy and jobs too

 

[otispunkmeyer]

dug have you watched the global warming swindle video from the other thread?

the lead author for the IPCC is in it, and he says that he thinks this "consensus" that humans are the cause is complete rubbish

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777

A consensus in this case is not meaningless, because it means you can stop squabbling about petty details and actually make an attempt to deal with it. Are you suggesting the most responsible course of action is it simply ignore it, because a minority (and a small minority at that) of those involved in research in the field disagree with it?

Another one who presumes to know my position. :roll:

Understand this, Dug: Consensus is NOT a valid argument. ESPECIALLY in science. All you do when you argue to consensus is do irreparable harm to your argument to anyone who knows anything about science, or even those who remember high school debate.

For 50 years after it was proposed, plate tectonics and the theory of continental shift was rejected by a scientific "consensus."

I'm not sure that i ever presumed to know your position.

Are you saying that the vast scientific majority are wrong because they're the majority?

No, Dug. I am saying a majority doesn't make a valid arguing position because a majority doesn't make an opinion correct. Arguing to consensus is a logical fallacy. Science is not determined by consensus. And any first year debate student will tell you that arguing to consensus is a big no-no.

I merely gave you one of countless examples of when the consensus was wrong to show you how it is a logical fallacy to argue to consensus.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777

A consensus in this case is not meaningless, because it means you can stop squabbling about petty details and actually make an attempt to deal with it. Are you suggesting the most responsible course of action is it simply ignore it, because a minority (and a small minority at that) of those involved in research in the field disagree with it?

Another one who presumes to know my position. :roll:

Understand this, Dug: Consensus is NOT a valid argument. ESPECIALLY in science. All you do when you argue to consensus is do irreparable harm to your argument to anyone who knows anything about science, or even those who remember high school debate.

For 50 years after it was proposed, plate tectonics and the theory of continental shift was rejected by a scientific "consensus."

I'm not sure that i ever presumed to know your position.

Are you saying that the vast scientific majority are wrong because they're the majority?

No, Dug. I am saying a majority doesn't make a valid arguing position because a majority doesn't make an opinion correct. Arguing to consensus is a logical fallacy. Science is not determined by consensus. And any first year debate student will tell you that arguing to consensus is a big no-no.

I merely gave you one of countless examples of when the consensus was wrong to show you how it is a logical fallacy to argue to consensus.

I can think of an area where a majority in an intensively peer-reviewed study has some value, and that is in medical science.

You 'treat' something the best you can given the consensus on its causes, and what treats it best, because any chance of saving someone's life or alleviating pain is worth taking. That doesn't mean you discount further research in the field, but it does mean you act on the best available information you have...

If that makes sense (and i'm sure you'll explain if otherwise)

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer
the IPCC is unreliable. they are driven by the need to keep their jobs and funding.

GW is bigger than it needs to be IMO. there is an entire industry based soley on the premise that humans are responsible for GW. thousands and thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of funding rely soley on the same idea. for that idea to be debunked one day will spell disaster for that industry and i dont care what you say you do not want your job and lively hood to simply disappear you just dont.

GW is a political tool now, politicians realise they wont get anywhere by standing against the idea. its a powerful political tool, with powerful people and serious amounts of money involved, its not just about stopping GW and saving the planet at all. where there is vast sums of money and power there is a good chance of corruption.

ex-editor of New Scientist (respected weekly news/report/magazine thing) said that if he wanted to do a study on british squirrils and their nut collecting habits he would put on the end "with respect to global warming". he went on to say without that last line no one would bother to fund his research.

some other scientist have admited to reversing their claims/findings and dramatising effects simply to secure money. its all about the money.

a man regarded as the leading figure in mosquitos and insect born virus's actually threatened legal action to the IPCC to have his name removed from a report after he discovered his work had been changed and omitted. he siad he did not want his name associated with a report that he had not contributed to. IPCC said that he had contributed and he countered that he hadnt because they never listened to a word he said.

apparently many other scientific reports/finding that go into the IPCC reports are changed and manipulated to fit an agenda and most scientist end up never being able to get their names removed from the report hence they then fall into this list of 2500 of the worlds top dogs and appear to follow the general concensus that GW is man made.

also that 2500 person list isnt even made up solely of proper scientist....its got politicians who always have an agenda and people who are only merely associated with certain scientists...ie people who know little about which they speak.

also greenpeace and the like are just a face for extremist anti-development, anti-establishment types. their agendas are neatly wrapped in green words.

If the IPCC was 100% corrupt and wrong, as you are essentially saying, then doesn't it occur to you, just for a second, that the governments and industry who have FAR more to gain than anyone else by debunking human accelerated climate change, might have noticed this? The media would go absolutely crazy over something like that

The job losses that curbing greenhouse gas emissions would bring are wildly exaggerated and used as a tool to spread fear imho. You honestly think that curbing our greenhouse gas emissions will stop people demanding goods and services? Of course not, so we'll simply do have to make them while emitting less greenhouse gas, and i can't imagine that will employ less people

dug mate i like you so ill keep it civil

i didnt say the IPCC were 100% corrupt. where there is money and power there is corruption in some form. obviously in a group that large there will be people with morals, the majority probably have morals and decency....its the ruthless few, usually the top lot, that dont and use any means necessary to expand the smile on the bank managers face.

politcians preach what ever makes them popular. they see that tackling GW is a good thing for them because of the following it has. here in the UK there are plans for lots of green taxation. this taxation i believe is the real draw for the politicians to push this climate change issue.

what i meant about the industry was, that there are people specificially employed to tackle GW. councils have their very own GW counsellors and what not, companies employ people to go round making sure your being environmental. if man made GW is debunked....they have no reason to exist.

i don't know why you'd feel the need to be other than civil with me?

I'm sure there's the odd bad apple, but if you had a solid theory that knocked human accelerated climate change on the head, i can see the dollars stretching forever to fund your research, ever heard of Exxon Mobil? And they're just the high profile tip of the iceberg, just think of all the coal and oil firms out there

I'd be interested to hear your views on my comments about damage to the economy and jobs too

i dont think the curbing of CO2 would cut jobs from the sectors you mention

air travel, frieght, travel in general etc etc wont be affected much. i believe the need to reduce CO2 emissions is a good idea, it will push soon to be engineers like myself, to design cleaner engines, cleaner power generators etc ... this reducing of CO2 will only lead to new innovations and progress.

its the way politicians are suggesting way curb the gases by imposing yet more taxes. i dont like the idea of more taxes, especially when its based on something that might not actually be true.

carbon credits, and green taxes wont affact the airlines or trains, or cruise liners....the extra cost will just be filtered down the end users. we're going to end up paying more, for the same service. airlines will continue as normal , producing the same amount of CO2 as normal, the only difference is now the Government are making 40 quid a ticket more money off the back of it.

if labour stopping wasting money, thered be more than enough to fund green schemes.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer
the IPCC is unreliable. they are driven by the need to keep their jobs and funding.

GW is bigger than it needs to be IMO. there is an entire industry based soley on the premise that humans are responsible for GW. thousands and thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of funding rely soley on the same idea. for that idea to be debunked one day will spell disaster for that industry and i dont care what you say you do not want your job and lively hood to simply disappear you just dont.

GW is a political tool now, politicians realise they wont get anywhere by standing against the idea. its a powerful political tool, with powerful people and serious amounts of money involved, its not just about stopping GW and saving the planet at all. where there is vast sums of money and power there is a good chance of corruption.

ex-editor of New Scientist (respected weekly news/report/magazine thing) said that if he wanted to do a study on british squirrils and their nut collecting habits he would put on the end "with respect to global warming". he went on to say without that last line no one would bother to fund his research.

some other scientist have admited to reversing their claims/findings and dramatising effects simply to secure money. its all about the money.

a man regarded as the leading figure in mosquitos and insect born virus's actually threatened legal action to the IPCC to have his name removed from a report after he discovered his work had been changed and omitted. he siad he did not want his name associated with a report that he had not contributed to. IPCC said that he had contributed and he countered that he hadnt because they never listened to a word he said.

apparently many other scientific reports/finding that go into the IPCC reports are changed and manipulated to fit an agenda and most scientist end up never being able to get their names removed from the report hence they then fall into this list of 2500 of the worlds top dogs and appear to follow the general concensus that GW is man made.

also that 2500 person list isnt even made up solely of proper scientist....its got politicians who always have an agenda and people who are only merely associated with certain scientists...ie people who know little about which they speak.

also greenpeace and the like are just a face for extremist anti-development, anti-establishment types. their agendas are neatly wrapped in green words.

If the IPCC was 100% corrupt and wrong, as you are essentially saying, then doesn't it occur to you, just for a second, that the governments and industry who have FAR more to gain than anyone else by debunking human accelerated climate change, might have noticed this? The media would go absolutely crazy over something like that

The job losses that curbing greenhouse gas emissions would bring are wildly exaggerated and used as a tool to spread fear imho. You honestly think that curbing our greenhouse gas emissions will stop people demanding goods and services? Of course not, so we'll simply do have to make them while emitting less greenhouse gas, and i can't imagine that will employ less people

dug mate i like you so ill keep it civil

i didnt say the IPCC were 100% corrupt. where there is money and power there is corruption in some form. obviously in a group that large there will be people with morals, the majority probably have morals and decency....its the ruthless few, usually the top lot, that dont and use any means necessary to expand the smile on the bank managers face.

politcians preach what ever makes them popular. they see that tackling GW is a good thing for them because of the following it has. here in the UK there are plans for lots of green taxation. this taxation i believe is the real draw for the politicians to push this climate change issue.

what i meant about the industry was, that there are people specificially employed to tackle GW. councils have their very own GW counsellors and what not, companies employ people to go round making sure your being environmental. if man made GW is debunked....they have no reason to exist.

i don't know why you'd feel the need to be other than civil with me?

I'm sure there's the odd bad apple, but if you had a solid theory that knocked human accelerated climate change on the head, i can see the dollars stretching forever to fund your research, ever heard of Exxon Mobil? And they're just the high profile tip of the iceberg, just think of all the coal and oil firms out there

I'd be interested to hear your views on my comments about damage to the economy and jobs too

i dont think the curbing of CO2 would cut jobs from the sectors you mention

air travel, frieght, travel in general etc etc wont be affected much. i believe the need to reduce CO2 emissions is a good idea, it will push soon to be engineers like myself, to design cleaner engines, cleaner power generators etc ... this reducing of CO2 will only lead to new innovations and progress.

its the way politicians are suggesting way curb the gases by imposing yet more taxes. i dont like the idea of more taxes, especially when its based on something that might not actually be true.

carbon credits, and green taxes wont affact the airlines or trains, or cruise liners....the extra cost will just be filtered down the end users. we're going to end up paying more, for the same service. airlines will continue as normal , producing the same amount of CO2 as normal, the only difference is now the Government are making 40 quid a ticket more money off the back of it.

if labour stopping wasting money, thered be more than enough to fund green schemes.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777

A consensus in this case is not meaningless, because it means you can stop squabbling about petty details and actually make an attempt to deal with it. Are you suggesting the most responsible course of action is it simply ignore it, because a minority (and a small minority at that) of those involved in research in the field disagree with it?

Another one who presumes to know my position. :roll:

Understand this, Dug: Consensus is NOT a valid argument. ESPECIALLY in science. All you do when you argue to consensus is do irreparable harm to your argument to anyone who knows anything about science, or even those who remember high school debate.

For 50 years after it was proposed, plate tectonics and the theory of continental shift was rejected by a scientific "consensus."

I'm not sure that i ever presumed to know your position.

Are you saying that the vast scientific majority are wrong because they're the majority?

No, Dug. I am saying a majority doesn't make a valid arguing position because a majority doesn't make an opinion correct. Arguing to consensus is a logical fallacy. Science is not determined by consensus. And any first year debate student will tell you that arguing to consensus is a big no-no.

I merely gave you one of countless examples of when the consensus was wrong to show you how it is a logical fallacy to argue to consensus.

I can think of an area where a majority in an intensively peer-reviewed study has some value, and that is in medical science.

You 'treat' something the best you can given the consensus on its causes, and what treats it best, because any chance of saving someone's life or alleviating pain is worth taking. That doesn't mean you discount further research in the field, but it does mean you act on the best available information you have...

If that makes sense (and i'm sure you'll explain if otherwise)

You treat something given the most valid peer reviewed and repeated studies available. Peer review alone is not enough. The results MUST be able to be reached independently. All peer review does is judge if the study was conducted properly. It alone cannot possibly know if the study is honest, or correct until it is duplicated by an independent party. In other words, you use the most valid evidence that is proven using the scientific process. Consensus has NOTHING to do with the scientific process and is often contradicted by it.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777

A consensus in this case is not meaningless, because it means you can stop squabbling about petty details and actually make an attempt to deal with it. Are you suggesting the most responsible course of action is it simply ignore it, because a minority (and a small minority at that) of those involved in research in the field disagree with it?

Another one who presumes to know my position. :roll:

Understand this, Dug: Consensus is NOT a valid argument. ESPECIALLY in science. All you do when you argue to consensus is do irreparable harm to your argument to anyone who knows anything about science, or even those who remember high school debate.

For 50 years after it was proposed, plate tectonics and the theory of continental shift was rejected by a scientific "consensus."

I'm not sure that i ever presumed to know your position.

Are you saying that the vast scientific majority are wrong because they're the majority?

No, Dug. I am saying a majority doesn't make a valid arguing position because a majority doesn't make an opinion correct. Arguing to consensus is a logical fallacy. Science is not determined by consensus. And any first year debate student will tell you that arguing to consensus is a big no-no.

I merely gave you one of countless examples of when the consensus was wrong to show you how it is a logical fallacy to argue to consensus.

I can think of an area where a majority in an intensively peer-reviewed study has some value, and that is in medical science.

You 'treat' something the best you can given the consensus on its causes, and what treats it best, because any chance of saving someone's life or alleviating pain is worth taking. That doesn't mean you discount further research in the field, but it does mean you act on the best available information you have...

If that makes sense (and i'm sure you'll explain if otherwise)

You treat something given the most valid peer reviewed and repeated studies available. Peer review alone is not enough. The results MUST be able to be reached independently. All peer review does is judge if the study was conducted properly. It alone cannot possibly know if the study is honest, or correct until it is duplicated by an independent party. In other words, you use the most valid evidence that is proven using the scientific process. Consensus has NOTHING to do with the scientific process and is often contradicted by it.

In this case, my understanding is that these results have been repeated (not precisely, but in the same range of water level and temperature predictions using several different climatic models developed by different institutions) have they not?

 

[dmcowen674]

According to this Video we must pollute more if an effort to kickstart cooling to overcome the sun melting us.

So all you SUV haters are wrong, we need more 8 mpg vehicles.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777

A consensus in this case is not meaningless, because it means you can stop squabbling about petty details and actually make an attempt to deal with it. Are you suggesting the most responsible course of action is it simply ignore it, because a minority (and a small minority at that) of those involved in research in the field disagree with it?

Another one who presumes to know my position. :roll:

Understand this, Dug: Consensus is NOT a valid argument. ESPECIALLY in science. All you do when you argue to consensus is do irreparable harm to your argument to anyone who knows anything about science, or even those who remember high school debate.

For 50 years after it was proposed, plate tectonics and the theory of continental shift was rejected by a scientific "consensus."

I'm not sure that i ever presumed to know your position.

Are you saying that the vast scientific majority are wrong because they're the majority?

No, Dug. I am saying a majority doesn't make a valid arguing position because a majority doesn't make an opinion correct. Arguing to consensus is a logical fallacy. Science is not determined by consensus. And any first year debate student will tell you that arguing to consensus is a big no-no.

I merely gave you one of countless examples of when the consensus was wrong to show you how it is a logical fallacy to argue to consensus.

I can think of an area where a majority in an intensively peer-reviewed study has some value, and that is in medical science.

You 'treat' something the best you can given the consensus on its causes, and what treats it best, because any chance of saving someone's life or alleviating pain is worth taking. That doesn't mean you discount further research in the field, but it does mean you act on the best available information you have...

If that makes sense (and i'm sure you'll explain if otherwise)

You treat something given the most valid peer reviewed and repeated studies available. Peer review alone is not enough. The results MUST be able to be reached independently. All peer review does is judge if the study was conducted properly. It alone cannot possibly know if the study is honest, or correct until it is duplicated by an independent party. In other words, you use the most valid evidence that is proven using the scientific process. Consensus has NOTHING to do with the scientific process and is often contradicted by it.

In this case, my understanding is that these results have been repeated (not precisely, but in the same range of water level and temperature predictions using several different climatic models developed by different institutions) have they not?

You're veering off track here, Dug. The topic at hand is consensus and is it a valid argument. (It is not) If you wish to argue to independent duplications then that would be a valid argument.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
According to this Video we must pollute more if an effort to kickstart cooling to overcome the sun melting us.

So all you SUV haters are wrong, we need more 8 mpg vehicles.

Not only is your post absurd, it's the wrong thread. :roll:

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777

A consensus in this case is not meaningless, because it means you can stop squabbling about petty details and actually make an attempt to deal with it. Are you suggesting the most responsible course of action is it simply ignore it, because a minority (and a small minority at that) of those involved in research in the field disagree with it?

Another one who presumes to know my position. :roll:

Understand this, Dug: Consensus is NOT a valid argument. ESPECIALLY in science. All you do when you argue to consensus is do irreparable harm to your argument to anyone who knows anything about science, or even those who remember high school debate.

For 50 years after it was proposed, plate tectonics and the theory of continental shift was rejected by a scientific "consensus."

I'm not sure that i ever presumed to know your position.

Are you saying that the vast scientific majority are wrong because they're the majority?

No, Dug. I am saying a majority doesn't make a valid arguing position because a majority doesn't make an opinion correct. Arguing to consensus is a logical fallacy. Science is not determined by consensus. And any first year debate student will tell you that arguing to consensus is a big no-no.

I merely gave you one of countless examples of when the consensus was wrong to show you how it is a logical fallacy to argue to consensus.

I can think of an area where a majority in an intensively peer-reviewed study has some value, and that is in medical science.

You 'treat' something the best you can given the consensus on its causes, and what treats it best, because any chance of saving someone's life or alleviating pain is worth taking. That doesn't mean you discount further research in the field, but it does mean you act on the best available information you have...

If that makes sense (and i'm sure you'll explain if otherwise)

You treat something given the most valid peer reviewed and repeated studies available. Peer review alone is not enough. The results MUST be able to be reached independently. All peer review does is judge if the study was conducted properly. It alone cannot possibly know if the study is honest, or correct until it is duplicated by an independent party. In other words, you use the most valid evidence that is proven using the scientific process. Consensus has NOTHING to do with the scientific process and is often contradicted by it.

In this case, my understanding is that these results have been repeated (not precisely, but in the same range of water level and temperature predictions using several different climatic models developed by different institutions) have they not?

You're veering off track here, Dug. The topic at hand is consensus and is it a valid argument. (It is not) If you wish to argue to independent duplications than that would be a valid argument.

:beer:

I'm off to bed now, but you have succeed in explaining to me the consensus fallacy :thumbsup:

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dug777


:beer:

I'm off to bed now, but you have succeed in explaining to me the consensus fallacy :thumbsup:

Good night. :moon:

 

[mercanucaribe]

A lot of you are missing something. Consensus matters when you're deciding policy. Is it smarter to follow the recommendations of the majority of climatologists and geologists, or go with the handful whose predictions are more convenient? Well, if you're a politician, you go with whatever gets you the most votes, and with the media presenting both "sides" equally, that could be the handful.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
A lot of you are missing something. Consensus matters when you're deciding policy. Is it smarter to follow the recommendations of the majority of climatologists and geologists, or go with the handful whose predictions are more convenient? Well, if you're a politician, you go with whatever gets you the most votes, and with the media presenting both "sides" equally, that could be the handful.

No one is arguing that politics is or is not a matter of consensus. Only that science is NOT. And scientific consensus has been wrong countless times, only proving the logical fallacy of it.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
A lot of you are missing something. Consensus matters when you're deciding policy. Is it smarter to follow the recommendations of the majority of climatologists and geologists, or go with the handful whose predictions are more convenient? Well, if you're a politician, you go with whatever gets you the most votes, and with the media presenting both "sides" equally, that could be the handful.

No one is arguing that politics is or is not a matter of consensus. Only that science is NOT. And scientific consensus has been wrong countless times, only proving the logical fallacy of it.

Many people say that we shouldn't do anything about CO2 emission because a few scientists believe that accelerated global warming isn't anthropogenic.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
A lot of you are missing something. Consensus matters when you're deciding policy. Is it smarter to follow the recommendations of the majority of climatologists and geologists, or go with the handful whose predictions are more convenient? Well, if you're a politician, you go with whatever gets you the most votes, and with the media presenting both "sides" equally, that could be the handful.

No one is arguing that politics is or is not a matter of consensus. Only that science is NOT. And scientific consensus has been wrong countless times, only proving the logical fallacy of it.

Many people say that we shouldn't do anything about CO2 emission because a few scientists believe that accelerated global warming isn't anthropogenic.

And that has to do with the logical fallacy of arguing to consensus... how?

 

[otispunkmeyer]

i think everyone should check out realclimate.org

seems like a good place to read on climate change.