Comments on: Interesting, but Surprising only Because it is Being Admitted

By: Colin D

Colin D — Sun, 11 May 2008 04:09:20 +0000

Unfortunately, the doomsday extrapolations have fettered the non-skeptics’ attempts at reasonable debate. To be sure, most scientific non-skeptics are moderate believers in climate change, but this is and always will be a position least persuadable, given most circumstances. Consider religion, fundamentalists and atheists alike offer more rational and well-founded arguments than the moderates can conjure, simply because of their position and disciplines available to them (scriptural literalism and science/rational approach)). The truth is, is that science is extremely tricky, and the most frustating part is that NOTHING in science is verifiable. Presently, traditional physics that are widely believed are coming under question as we explore that nano-sciences. Science as a discipline is based upon the falsifiability, not verification, of premises. So when skeptics quote that research and the IPCC analysis saying that there is significant uncertainty about climate change, it is a constrain of science itself. To be of scientific significance there must be a p value lower than .05, so when research states that a premise is uncertain, it could have a p value of .06, which is 94% certaintity. As a free thinking individual, I would take my bets with certainty at a level significantly below 95%, but as a scientist I can not. So, I find it personally frustrating to participate in dialouge with skeptics because I know that the science of climate change will never be verifiable nor is it currently of accepted certaintity standards. Yet, these hindrances do not exclude the possiblity of anthropogenic climate change especially considering that immensely complex subject of climate change. I am not yet “convinced” of anthropogenic climate change, but I am certaintly not ready to rule it out. I think that the German philosopher Schopenheimer provides insight into the my weariness to count out climate change, “All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident.” Systematically it is more feasible to defend the status quo (i.e. climate cycles) than to proport a variant. As a self-proclaimed moderate, I am not easily wooed by the climate alarmists, yet not restricted by skeptics. Certainly environmental efforts should focus on what are known to be problems with effective solutions but not risk becoming blind to the possibility or larger man-made problems.

By: John Nicklin

John Nicklin — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:37:49 +0000

From what Scientist has displayed here, I can fully understand why TalkClimateChange has been a dissapointment to its creator(s). It has been my observation that instead of a discussion of the possible factors, such people simply dismiss the need to have a discussion with skeptics as a waste of time since they (the skeptics) wouldn't understand anyway, being of such low IQ and all.

I have met very few people on the pro-AGW side who can and do debate based on the science and the issues. Most simply reiterate that Al Gore says this or that or that a study of 928 papers shows 100% agreement or some such. When pressed, they usually fold up their tents and walk away. I have encountered many people who got everything they know as gospel truth about Global Warming/Climate Change from Al Gore's movie about Al Gore, staring Al Gore.

On the other hand, most of the people I have encountered on the skeptical side have read the papers and have considered sources other than Al Gore or David Suzuki. Indeed most of the skeptics I know agree/accept that there has been an increase in global temperature and that, all else being equal, CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Too be sure, there are a good number of pro-AGW people who have a sound understanding of the science, they are the ones who don't stoop to inferring that skeptics believe the earth was made flat 6,000 years ago.

By: Scientologist

Scientologist — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:14:37 +0000

You got me, boys. I’m really Al Gore in drag. I likes to troll around the more rational blogs like yours and pretend to be an idiot. It’s fun to watch people get mad when I say stupid things. See ya!

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:47:17 +0000

BTW, not trying to ignite a fight with you over who is right or wrong. But if you really think you are right and everyone here is wrong-I think I did not make this point-if you want everyone to agree with you, rather than insulting them, politely tell the people you see as so ignorant why they are wrong. Who knows? They might listen, and perhaps even believe. But at the moment, you are not doing that.

By: Andew

Andew — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:29:20 +0000

Wait, everyone, I think I’ve got it, how you can make “scientist” either cough up an argument or leave-I’m not sure which one is peferable. Let’s all sit around acting like cavemen unsure whether there even is any climate change, and pretend to see the glorious light when he shows us his magical powerpoint presentation with hypnotic special effects, and plenty of melodrama. Throw in a touching scene with a drwoning polar bear, and we can all pretend like he’s won us over, and get on with our lives!

Well, what are you waiting for, scientist, put a Powerpoint together! You can always ask Gore for help if you don’t understand the software.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:22:00 +0000

Pseudoscientist complains about people qouting endlessly from "sham scientists" and goes on to name a handful of people he doesn't like. But why do that here? Why not go to Shaviv or McIntyre on ~their~ websites and tell them what bad scientists they are? Or are you only going to be extremely rude to them in their absence? Maybe you are afraid that they can make you look bad becuase they have the power to moderate away your incredible wit and insight?

Well, this discussion has no content anyway, but you know, that's actually largely your fault for never offering any. I really don't care what points you make or who you qoute or what papers you've read or whatever, or what "side" you argue for. But you seem more intent on being an angry pissy whiner than actually offering a cool, rational argument. So, yeah, I think you proved the host's point.

As an outside observer, I must say, you don't impress me much.

By: Falco

Falco — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:32:48 +0000

“Scientist”, why not try argument rather than Canadian duck emblemy assertion and random abuse?

By: Scientist

Scientist — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:05:44 +0000

What a lot of scientific understanding you’re displaying.

By: Tony Edwards

Tony Edwards — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:53:44 +0000

papertiger, I think that he actually has a balanced personality.
A chip on both shoulders!

By: papertiger

papertiger — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 03:56:40 +0000

Adrien told me that "Science" is an astronomer.
I'm sort of itching to get his opinion on a few of the goings on in our solar neighborhood.

Provided, he ever gets the chip off his shoulder.