Good question. Some quick thoughts: scientific credentials, degrees etc., having published in peer-reviewed journals. Some organizations are credible due to the large number of distinguished scientists associated with them and the history of the organization. For example, the Royal Society or the National Acadamy of Sciences. George W.Bush was skeptical on GW and so he asked the NAS to look into it. They did and he accepted their judgement, which is probably the best a layman can do in a complicated scientific field.
Bertrand Russell once said something to the effect that the layman should be guided by the consensus, and where this isn't one withhold judgement.
Not to say scientists or even amateurs cannot do good work outside of their field or that scientists can't get it wrong. The official scientific story on meteorites was that stones cannot fall for the sky because there are not stones in the sky. Wrong.It is important to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out. Accordingly I am skeptical of telepathy, the Bermuda Triangle, Bigfoot, etc., but I am willing to change my mind given new evidence. I a willing to do the same on AGW but so far I am not impressed by the evidence suggested here, and I have read the links, something I know the other side here at The Aurora doesn't do (because they KNOW they're right.)
On GW I note that The Aurora has stopped saying there is no consensus, as I suggested several years ago, and begun arguing the consensus is wrong. Actually they have begun arguing it's a hoax which is unsupported by any evidence.
Actually I'm not sure what the consensus here at the Aurora is even. One minute the Earth is warming (and Mars too!) but it's due to the sun, a week later the Earth is cooling.
Rhino and I have argued about evolution in the past. There are very few scientists on his side there, and the few there are obviously have religious motivations, or so it seems to me. My own scientific background regarding evolution amounts to a couple of highschool biology classes, and a little reading. So I suppose that I accept the theory of evolution on the basis of scientific authority and consensus, just as I accept the theory of relativity and plate tectonics.
So, although I have been accused of stupidity, close-mindedness and making AGW a religion, I actually have followed the subject fairly closely, have read most of Rhino and Donk's linked articles, and have formed an opinion.
The problem with the credibility you describe regarding GW is that it is now a politically and economically charged discussion. There's no money to made in evolution. There's no political party with a plate tectonic agenda. When talking about GW in such a politically charged atmosphere, the science is lost. So, from a credibility standpoint, all of it is lost even though the respected proponents have credibility.
I don't think most scientists are in it for the money, certainly there's more to be made in other fields. Also science is a process, imperfect but better than any other alternative, for getting to the truth. Scientists do actual research, which they publish in peer-reviewed journals to be picked apart by other scientists. The anti-AGW people do not seem to do this.
Yes politics have become involved, necessarily since public action is required. Most of the anti-AGW sentiment seems to come from the Right. Liberals accept the AGW consensus, as do some conservatives. The glaciers in the Himalayas ARE melting though, that isn't computer models or opinion, that can be measured and unfortunately a lot of people depend on that water. The arctic ice is also melting, again simply a fact. The kind of fact that usually gets a facetious "ooh, ice melts" response around here.
Hmmm......Does that include all scientists or just the ones that work for the royal society of bullshit that you always cite?
Liberals accept the "consensus" because it fits their agenda. If it didn't they wouldn't. Conservatives don't accept it because there is no consensus.
We KNOW that the peer review process has been tampered with, We KNOW that the east anglia guys are liars or at the very least do shoddy work.(don't argue.I linked to the "fudge" programming. this is fact) We got a look behind the curtain and that wizard is definitely not getting us back to kansas bitches.
That's the thing with credibility. There is no standard that can be trusted. Gary trusts the government or the U.N. when it suits him but if Sarah Palin was appointing the head of the EPA and that person said Co2 is NOT a pollutant he wouldn't.
Cite who you want. Then we'll hash it out.
Personally i go mostly with common sense and link to people who write better than me to make my point.
So you're back to "no consensus"? Do you even know what the word means, maybe you should consult a dictionary. Better to argue that the consensus is wrong or a "hoax" or plot as you have been doing. For the last time, consensus does not mean unanimity but it's over 90% by most reckoning and that's a consensus.
You think you're smarter than the scientists. Most stupid people do.
Why do I accept AGW? Two good reasons:
1) the overwhelming scientific evidence, all the peer-reviewed studies, scientific bodies, yes the fucking consensus
2) all the people on the other side seem to be rightwing nuts and rightwing nuts do not have a good track record on facts or science
Bonus reason 3) all the crap the rightwing nuts put out has been debunked and discredited and yet they keep trotting it out.
5 comments:
Good question. Some quick thoughts: scientific credentials, degrees etc., having published in peer-reviewed journals. Some organizations are credible due to the large number of distinguished scientists associated with them and the history of the organization. For example, the Royal Society or the National Acadamy of Sciences. George W.Bush was skeptical on GW and so he asked the NAS to look into it. They did and he accepted their judgement, which is probably the best a layman can do in a complicated scientific field.
Bertrand Russell once said something to the effect that the layman should be guided by the consensus, and where this isn't one withhold judgement.
Not to say scientists or even amateurs cannot do good work outside of their field or that scientists can't get it wrong. The official scientific story on meteorites was that stones cannot fall for the sky because there are not stones in the sky. Wrong.It is important to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out. Accordingly I am skeptical of telepathy, the Bermuda Triangle, Bigfoot, etc., but I am willing to change my mind given new evidence. I a willing to do the same on AGW but so far I am not impressed by the evidence suggested here, and I have read the links, something I know the other side here at The Aurora doesn't do (because they KNOW they're right.)
On GW I note that The Aurora has stopped saying there is no consensus, as I suggested several years ago, and begun arguing the consensus is wrong. Actually they have begun arguing it's a hoax which is unsupported by any evidence.
Actually I'm not sure what the consensus here at the Aurora is even. One minute the Earth is warming (and Mars too!) but it's due to the sun, a week later the Earth is cooling.
Rhino and I have argued about evolution in the past. There are very few scientists on his side there, and the few there are obviously have religious motivations, or so it seems to me. My own scientific background regarding evolution amounts to a couple of highschool biology classes, and a little reading. So I suppose that I accept the theory of evolution on the basis of scientific authority and consensus, just as I accept the theory of relativity and plate tectonics.
So, although I have been accused of stupidity, close-mindedness and making AGW a religion, I actually have followed the subject fairly closely, have read most of Rhino and Donk's linked articles, and have formed an opinion.
The problem with the credibility you describe regarding GW is that it is now a politically and economically charged discussion. There's no money to made in evolution. There's no political party with a plate tectonic agenda. When talking about GW in such a politically charged atmosphere, the science is lost. So, from a credibility standpoint, all of it is lost even though the respected proponents have credibility.
I don't think most scientists are in it for the money, certainly there's more to be made in other fields. Also science is a process, imperfect but better than any other alternative, for getting to the truth. Scientists do actual research, which they publish in peer-reviewed journals to be picked apart by other scientists. The anti-AGW people do not seem to do this.
Yes politics have become involved, necessarily since public action is required. Most of the anti-AGW sentiment seems to come from the Right. Liberals accept the AGW consensus, as do some conservatives. The glaciers in the Himalayas ARE melting though, that isn't computer models or opinion, that can be measured and unfortunately a lot of people depend on that water. The arctic ice is also melting, again simply a fact. The kind of fact that usually gets a facetious "ooh, ice melts" response around here.
scientists are not in it for the money?
Hmmm......Does that include all scientists or just the ones that work for the royal society of bullshit that you always cite?
Liberals accept the "consensus" because it fits their agenda. If it didn't they wouldn't. Conservatives don't accept it because there is no consensus.
We KNOW that the peer review process has been tampered with, We KNOW that the east anglia guys are liars or at the very least do shoddy work.(don't argue.I linked to the "fudge" programming. this is fact) We got a look behind the curtain and that wizard is definitely not getting us back to kansas bitches.
That's the thing with credibility. There is no standard that can be trusted. Gary trusts the government or the U.N. when it suits him but if Sarah Palin was appointing the head of the EPA and that person said Co2 is NOT a pollutant he wouldn't.
Cite who you want. Then we'll hash it out.
Personally i go mostly with common sense and link to people who write better than me to make my point.
So you're back to "no consensus"? Do you even know what the word means, maybe you should consult a dictionary. Better to argue that the consensus is wrong or a "hoax" or plot as you have been doing. For the last time, consensus does not mean unanimity but it's over 90% by most reckoning and that's a consensus.
You think you're smarter than the scientists. Most stupid people do.
Why do I accept AGW? Two good reasons:
1) the overwhelming scientific evidence, all the peer-reviewed studies, scientific bodies, yes the fucking consensus
2) all the people on the other side seem to be rightwing nuts and rightwing nuts do not have a good track record on facts or science
Bonus reason 3) all the crap the rightwing nuts put out has been debunked and discredited and yet they keep trotting it out.
Post a Comment