Slashdot Mirror
Engaging With Climate Skeptics
In the wake of the CRU "climategate" leak, reader Geoffrey.landis sends along a New York Times blog profile of Judith Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Tech. "Curry — unlike many climate scientists — does not simply dismiss the arguments of 'climate skeptics,' but attempts to engage them in dialogue. She can, as well, be rather pointed in criticizing her colleagues, as in a post on the skeptic site climateaudit where she argues for greater transparency for climate data and calculations (mirrored here). In this post she makes a point that tribalism in science is the main culprit here —- that when scientists 'circle the wagons' to defend against what they perceive to be unfair (and unscientific) attacks, the result can be damaging to the actual science being defended. Is it still possible to conduct a dialogue, or is there no possible common ground?"
And reality will indeed decide which side is correct; unfortunately, if we wait for that, we'll be pretty fucked if it shows that the "deniers" really were just conservative puppets and oil company shills.
We'll be pretty fucked too, if we regulate, cap, retard, and tax energy, technology and our economy due to a threat that may not turn out to be true, fueled by puppets of the socialist left.
See how silly it sounds? I'm not saying that will happen; I'm saying that bastards are manipulating BOTH SIDES, clearly... and framing your argument against the 'deniers' in terms of politics, which you did, does harm to everybody. Whether global warming is happening or not SHOULDN'T be a political issue, and politicians and activists shouldn't be involved, either way. If global warming hadn't been immediately seized upon by politicians to push a political agenda, there wouldn't ever have been an organized political push AGAINST global warming.
Now, after we find out that much of the experimental and observational basis for Global Warmology is actually a scam...
This line of argument, I think, is one reason why climate scientists find it hard to engage with skeptics. "It's a scam" is an argument that can't be debated scientifically, since it presents no specific data or reasoned argument. Specific scientific claims can be debated scientifically; conspiracy theories are immortal, because any evidence against the conspiracy is clearly evidence of a cover-up.
I note you don't provide any references for "it's actually a scam". Oh, of course there are no references, because every scientific journal is controlled by the conspiracy.
Isn't it just amazing how human mind can simultaneously consider its owner rational and others irrational, despite both engaging in the exact same activity? You even included a cute little list about your favourite anecdotes; just replace "tree rings" with "carbon dating" and you have a typical Young Earth Creationist argument. It's all there, down to a vast conspiracy amongst scientists.
No dataset is large enough to prove something you don't want to believe, and not even the empty set is too small to prove what you want to. Oh, and the scientists are meanies who keep data from you, a random Slashdot poster who are undoubtedly more qualified to interpret it than them. Never mind that where I live the climate has changed quite dramatically in my very lifetime, it's all a conspiracy, a CONSPIRACY I say!
It would be funny if it wasn't so damn scary.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Kiss the fattest part of my ass.
Ad homenims aside, you're absolutely unequivocally offensively wrong. AGW proponents believe, as a whole, that the earth is changing in drastic and human-caused ways. This also usually combines with the belief that we don't have the right to shit all over the earth because it's so damn easy.
Look. Done properly, we can significantly cut back emissions without killing people's quality of life. Turbines are effective, far more sunlight falls on the earth than we can ever use, etc. But why spend that little bit of time and money when we can just take another dump and hope it doesn't smell until we're dead?
You also forget that rising sea levels will flat-out destroy many people. Forget about 'objectively poorer', try needing to move, well, somewhere - but there's nowhere to go because you didn't have any money in the first place.
"Many of them have wanted this since before Global Warming was even theorized."
Now you're just wrong and a douchebag at the same time.
I can talk to people who have some legitimate (but imagined) problem with the science and try to explain what's going on. But you're a jackass, through and through. "Oh no, human economics and my bank account and Climategate" while forgetting that the world doesn't give two shits about this so-called debate that's festering across its surface.
Look. The world is warming. There is 35% more CO2 in the atmosphere than there was in 1832. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas - this is not open for discussion. Unless you have some compelling way of explaining where a fuckload of CO2 got into the air, it was caused by humans burning fossil fuels - which incidentally started around 1832. Hint: the earth doesn't work that fast.
Yeah, this will probably be modded troll and I don't care. And I'm well aware that this sounds like some "religion" that people have been going on about. But people like you make me physically sick to my stomach. Let's screw around with a real problem on our hands. Do you stop and jack off in a burning building?
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Throughout much of the 60s and 70s there were multiple and competing theories about climate change, including ones that project new ice ages.
It was the empirical evidence that led to the theory of AGW and not the other way round.
Come back when you have a clue.
"What is up for debate is WHY the climate is changing."
No, the why isn't really in question, what is in question is the extent to which we are to blame, we know CO2 has an effect, and we know that we are responsible for the massive increases in CO2. The question is whether there are other events, possibly natural, alongside CO2 that are also contributing. What is also in question is what the extent of the effects will be.
the scientists are meanies who keep data from you, a random Slashdot poster who are undoubtedly more qualified to interpret it than them.
Fuck you.
While I, or the next guy, may not be qualified in climatology, or anything, hoarding raw data is never reasonable (when trying to prove something.)
Maybe I couldn't prove anything, but maybe I could. Every time I hear some specialist talking about not releasing data or being transparent they use this "the public are freaking dumb" excuse, as if 1) the public are all identical clones and 2) uneducated people can't help in unexpected ways.
For instance, someone might recognize incorrect numbers (too much/little rain, etc), incorrect math, incorrect assumptions, incorrect practices, the names of biased parties, etc.
If there was an attempt to hide data here, even if minor, I hope these guys fry (in a career sense) because it's not only the mark of a jackass, but also a poor scientist - someone afraid of having their mistakes pointed out to them.
We don't hide data or make up propaganda to convince Creationists, so why does it need to be done here? Why are people even considering standing up for such horrible practices? (I don't know what happened, but you're prepared to condone it all with a - "don't bug your betters" message.)
Never mind that where I live the climate has changed quite dramatically in my very lifetime,
You're such a retard. Few "deniers" deny that the climate changes - ice ages are proof otherwise - merely that the change is human caused and dangerous. You pulling stuff like that out of your ass is actually part of:
it's all a conspiracy, a CONSPIRACY I say!
Well, it could be. Millions of idiots like you with no more proof or idea than the next guy all jumping on the "is so" platform with no visible motive and using more fallacies to argue than a preacher, are the conspiracy.
When you see two things together 1) questioning AGW and 2) decrying bad methods you for some reason have to lump them together and strike out at anyone who merely wants to see what's going on. I read my own economics, politics, medical lit, comp sci, physics, engineering, etc, why should I sit back here and be content to be spoonfed rather than trying to examine it?
You've become the creationist.