Sure, I have no problem using character as a judge of politicians, but the OP didn't even mention any character traits beyond "Cuccinelli is a conservative Republican."
Once you're at that point, and freely admit that you're not even getting into the meat of the argument, I don't see the point.
This particular ad hominem is particularly puzzling as Cuccinelli is but one of 20+ states that have filed suits. The only reason he is being singled out here is because the VA suit is the first one that had traction.
Either we have a Constitution, and it applies, or it does not. Can you tell me, exactly where in the Constitution, Congress has the authority to require people to spend any money on anything, save for taxes?
That would be (amongst others), Article I, Section:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
But that is besides the point, you want universally bad health care for everyone, so Constitution be damned.
My problem with this -- what in the health care bill actually improve things? At the small business where I work, our health insurance costs look to be increasing by 20-30% for our next contract. That's even worse than the increases a few years ago! With regards to affordability, doctor supply, availability, quality -- I don't see how anything is improved. I tend towards the libertarian in general, but I would have rather had a full on single payer plan over what we got...seems to be the absolute worst of both worlds.
It's the exact same thing that happens every time a judge overrules anti-gay marriage legislation (or finds gay marriage legal) and the social conservatives start bleating about "Clinton appointees" and judicial activists. Do you really want to be arguing the same way they do?
Much like pretty much every Western country -- indeed almost all countries worldwide -- there are limitations on what laws can be passed. Would you really like it if under Bush, when the Republicans had a President, and the House and Senate, they had passed a law declaring GWB President for Life? Sure it could have been passed by congress (both houses, not just the Senate) and signed by the President, but is it consitutional? Is it legal? Constitutions exist to protect citizens from the excesses of their governments as well!
What country are you from that does not have an analagous form?
I think the only part of the story that is flamebait is the editorial statement "In a surprise move."
This is NOT a surprise move. The individual mandate has been widely debated by academics and lawyers with many dissenting viewpoints. It was pretty much inevitable that at some point a portion of the bill (and most likely the individual mandate) would end up in front of a judge who didn't find it licit, and that it would end up in front of the supreme court.
I would bet anything that President Obama and and most of the people behind the health care bill were certain that it would at some point be reviewed by SCOTUS.
I'm not saying he's right or wrong in this matter (the judge seemed to agree with him) but he's one of those guys and he's a state Attorney General for Virginia pushing his conservative agenda to a national level.
Wrong! You are doing some selective quoting. I responded to "So the deniers are always wrong? Even when the proponents change their models to reveal that they were right?". The part that you conveniently omitted was where it is implied that this paper changes things so that it now proves what the deniers were saying all along. It is that assertion that prompted me to respond as I did.
I don't think that additional clause adds anything, which is why I omitted it.
Bzzzt. As you just established, we are talking about deniers, not skeptics. We are not talking about people who rationally look at the studies and find them wanting. The deniers are the ones who have the gut feeling that global warming is a bunk. The ones who say that don't know science, but they know when they are being conned. The ones who don't really understand the concepts, so they just cut and paste ready made arguments from denialist websites - and I now I think about it, in doing so they do end up guessing at a thousand different outcomes as they go through their repertoire of pre-fabbed postings.
However, that was not really to what I had referred in my original post. I didn't actually mean that all deniers just guessed wildly. The original quote that started this thread lumped together all deniers, whereas I claimed that since they each had different ideas as to what was wrong with global warming, you can't just take one of those ideas to prove all the different people correct. It was the original poster's "denier" as a gestalt entity that I was referencing in my line about guessing. I can see how this may have caused confusion.
Wow, now that you explain how you read the origins of the thread, I think your posts make a bit more sense. I think that you are WILDLY misreading the original comment that you replied to though. Specifically in regards to what you just said ("you can't just take one of those ideas to prove all the different people correct") I don't think that was implied anywhere! I think that your reading of that greatly overstretches what is there.
Nowhere in my quote did I EVER label all non-believers as deniers. In fact, the part that you omitted said that "But skeptics don't have to be scientists, nor do they have to be in favor of global warming". In other words, a skeptic can be someone for OR against global warming (or completely undecided), and they are different than the denier/true believer. Amazing! Let me spell it out for you again. I actually said that there is a category of people who don't believe in global warming, but who are not the kind of people that I would label as a denier. It appears that your assertion is complete bunk.
Ok, very good! I agree with you--everyone should be skeptical! The problem is, you keep talking about deniers? If your definition of skeptic here excludes people like Watts and McIntyie (the only skeptics I have referenced by name, and I think far and away the two most popular blogs) and then you keep talking about some elusive "denier" community, it's utterly irrelevant to the conversation at hand...nothing but another strawman. If any scientists who does decent science--global warming researcher, skeptic, statistician, whatever--cannot be a denier (adj. _decent_ science) then what's the point of talking about the scum of Internet comment messageboards? Nobody gives a crap about what those people believe, "denier"/skeptic or "apocalyptic"/global warming believer. I thought we were talking about scientists and models from post 1 given that the post to which you replied referenced models! Most crap commenters on either sides don't develop their own models...
In a single message you have complained that I am doing the logical impossibility of treating people who disagree with scientists in both a black and white way (they are all deniers) and shades of gray (I used semantics to call people skeptics).
I did as you suggested. The 2nd link, near the top of the post mentions the "weather is not climate department," however I do think you're ultimately more correct on this than I am. A better thing for me to say would have been that "most skeptics don't deny that over the past century [or greater timeframe] the Earth has warmed. There is skepticism over what is happening right now." Do you think that's more accurate?
I can't believe you just did that! Here we have a great example of someone just repeatedly asking the same question after it has been explained. But wait! Look at what you say further on:
Argh! That is what I have been saying. This paper doesn't prove that all the deniers are correct, as was originally stated in the post to which I replied initially. I have never, ever, EVER stated that everyone should think the same thing. Neither have I made the claim that:
I don't get why you're getting upset here. I think there's some confusion going on because what you actually replied to, the very first post you replied to, was "So the deniers are always wrong?"
To which you replied:
You can't keep guessing at a thousand different outcomes and then claim success when one of those guesses comes true. It is just not scientific. It is the same as trying to claim you have ESP because you can accurately predict the outcome of a coin toss 50% of the time
Nothing more complicated than that...your very first statement is what I (still) have a problem with. Most of the skeptics do NOT "just keep guessing at a thousand different outcomes" -- that you say this is just showing your biases and you setting up a strawman argument. The problem is that you immediately bring out a whole range of disparate opinions and act as if somebody is a "denier" then they must believe them all. If you make up lots of bad things about the skeptics (those you chose to call deniers) of course it's easy to shoot them down. "You can't keep guessing at a thousand different outcomes" == Strawman
You completely made that up.
Here is EXACTLY what you said: "What they do need to do to separate themselves from the deniers/true believers is to be willing to change their minds. Too many deniers call themselves skeptics when they have no intention of ever conceding a point in an argument."
Do you not realize what you're saying? When you call everybody who doesn't believe in global warming a denier, and say this because they are not "willing to change their minds" nor "conced[e] a point in an argument" you have basically called them dishonest liars.
Since you have used a lot of labels to categorize people, there could of course be some differences in how you and I would describe something. You seem to toss the denier label around an awful lot for my taste.
You are really trying to have it both ways, aren't you? It is time for you to make a choice here. Either I am lumping all the people who disagree with scientists into a "monolithic entity" or I am using semantics to differentiate between those same people.
As far as I can tell you are lumping everybody who doesn't believe in your vision of what global warming is (or what climate scientists SHOULD believe) into a group of mendacious twits you call deniers? But if my interpretation of what you're saying is wrong, spit it out--is Anthony Watts a denier? Steven McIntyre? Who is an example of a denier, and are they intellectually dishonest? If you disagree with some of the published papers -- perhaps have problems with some of Mann's work, or the infamous "hockey stick" -- are you a denier? It's a tough road to travel when you attribute motives and ill intent to people who you maybe don't agree with.
Then you're either not paying attention, or you're lying. Anthony Watts is one of the major pushers saying the climate is actually cooling, especially using the 1998-2008 trend as 'proof'
Is this true? I've definitely read Watts saying that over the past decade (since that 1998 reference) he thought global temperatures were either flat or slightly down, but I don't recall Watt specifically making claims that the global temperature is on a longterm downward trend.
It's possible you're right, I stopped reading most of these blogs a couple months after climategate (I got tired of the hysteria on all sides), but that's my memory.
The original poster said that this new paper proved the deniers were correct, and I maintained that this isn't the case because deniers believe a multitude different ideas and that none of them were the same as what the NASA scientists postulated.
Still not quite sure this argument makes sense. Just because there are a diversity of ideas on the "denier" side, I don't think that invalidates their positions. The AC to which you responded I think alludes to this... If we come to understand that models about CO2 and plant growth models are wildly wrong, then maybe some of the skeptics HAVE been vindicated.
(And incidentally, fwiw, there are a huge number of studies about this, and ongoing ones too.)
that is why one of the answers that is being investigated is too increase nature's absorbtion or decrease its production. If nothing else finding a solution like this would at least buy us some time.
Are you saying that we would be able to increase plant CO2 absorption?
I'm going to stop you there. The opposite of science is not skepticism.
Of course not. I put scare quotes around both groups, and am obviously not happy with either term. I far prefer the term global warming skeptic to your term "denier" though, as denier makes it sound like they are heretics blaspheming the church. That kind of rigid "you're either with us or a denier" ideology is one I find damaging (and something that DOES bother me about climate science discussions)
Perhaps if you read scientific papers instead you would become a better judge on that.
When papers are available online to non-academics (which they often are not, btw) I have taken a look at some. I've even downloaded some datasets and run R scripts and such.
That doesn't change the fact that -- as I said in my post -- the actual statistics and what not are beyond me (and I would suspect beyond most people even at a place like Slashdot). Even reading papers, they could be making some pretty egregious errors, omissions, logical flaws what have you, and I could easily not have a clue.
Just like most people when it comes to constructions, or the operation of their cars or refrigerators or computers... most of us have to rely on experts to dumb things down to some degree. Sites like Real Climate and Climate Audit both have real statisticians and climate scientists discussing real papers...it's about as good as I can find.
Speaking for myself, not the GP, but my main complaint is that most of the deniers I've interacted with aren't even in lockstep with themselves. They vacillate between arguing that the planet is cooling, that the planet is warming naturally due to solar cycles, and that the rising temperatures are causing rising CO2. If you point out the flaws in their argument, many will go on to claim that it's all a socialist conspiracy to redistribute wealth, restrict freedom, and get more research money.
I don't know about this. When you say "deniers I've interacted with" that's a kind of hard set to define. There are crackpots of every variety out there, from people who believe that NYC is going to be underwater in the next decade or equally apocalyptic things, to people who believe the earth is actually cooling and it's an evil socialist conspiracy. Having said that, I can't think of any prominent skeptic bloggers who have ever argued that the earth is cooling. The main ones I've read have been Climate Audit and Watts up. About the most extreme statements I've seen argued have been that since 1998 the temperature has been flat.
For what it's worth, I think with just about EVERYTHING "follow the money" is a pretty safe bet, and when there's as much money flowing into this field -- on both sides! -- it's good to be skeptical of all involved. Grants and paid research have a way of getting the results they are looking for.
My main concern is that the majority of deniers DON'T seem to have a cohesive, intellectually honest argument. Their most outspoken leaders frequently misrepresent both science and politics (ala "Climate Gate").
I downloaded the Climate Gate email log the first day it was out. Can't say I've read it all, or probably even a large fraction but I read a lot. I think a lot of the media reports have misrepresented what's there, and I do think some of the emails are quite problematic... "Smoking gun" like some have claimed? no...
All available evidence shows that they are wrong. We have multiple lines of evidence, and all signs point towards the preponderance of CO2 and GHG level increases being caused by human activities.
I would agree with this from what I've read.
Even ignoring a consensus, the conservative approach is to limit emissions until you know with high confidence that emissions are safe. People are trying to establish a 1% confidence level for AGW when they should really be establishing a 1% confidence level for emissions being safe.
This is where it really becomes problematic for me. In essence, I agree with you. Better safe than sorry (though I personally do think that there are way too many alarmists out there, and that we really don't know how bad it will be -- if bad at all). But what's the solution? Unfortunately the same global warming activists all too often seem to fight against things like nuclear energy. Many alternatives are very expensive and not very practical for many areas. But the real rub is -- China. Not just China, but China, Brazil, India, etc. IMHO, these countries are going to dwarf US+EU emissions very shortly. China already emits more than the US. As China's qol improves, this is going to continue to go up (and this completely ignores other really nasty things like SO2)...even if China's eventual per capita emissions is only 1/2 of the typical EU/North American country, that's huge. Same -- even more so -- for India and others. Kyoto Protocol exempts all the countries in the world that are going to experience the greatest improvements in quality of life and emissions over the next century. Every single one.
I don't even have a problem with this. Europe and the US profited from the industrial revolution and not caring about the environment for ~200 years, what right do we have to demand that everybody else make up for our accidents? We should do what we can, do what makes sense, and do what's practical. What's practical
You can't keep guessing at a thousand different outcomes and then claim success when one of those guesses comes true.
I guess my question for you is, why is it so important to you that the factions be in lockstep and monolithic thinkers? The science is not settled, and I don't think ANYBODY would argue that we have an even remotely complete understanding of environment/climate. Not all the "deniers" as you choose to call them believe the same thing. This is pretty standard for any academic field...and what's wrong with that? Furthermore, of your propositions, are any of them mutually exclusive?
For instance, nobody at all argues that human industry has not emitted CO2 over the last 200 years... but how much compared to natural sources? Some people argue that point. Is that mutually exclusive with CO2 not impacting temperature as a causal factor? Are either of those in opposition to CO2 levels responding to global temperature changes? Obviously if those are your arguments, they're not inconsistent with each other.
I read "skeptic" blogs and "established science" blogs on climate change, and frankly I don't know enough to judge much of any of the science, math, or methodology on the merits. I do see a lot of behavior that makes me skeptical about members on both sides. Climate Audit I think has jumped the shark, but the blog's purpose--to get scientists to open up their data, code, and methodology seems perfectly reasonable, and objections (or, the way SOME scientists have responded) to those things do make me question motivations, etc.
Well, I didn't think I personally could silence you--you've shown more than enough willingness to keep talking! I did think that others might moderate you down (and I guess they did).
you cower behind a chosen pseudonym. what are you afraid of?
Oh, could be any number of things...better safe than sorry! On the other hands, pseudonyms have a long and respectable history! You wouldn't criticize Publius, would you?
no, actually the norm is tongue in retarded cheek backhanded rhetorical implications like "Perhaps you've heard the term "Wintel" before?".
Yes, one can easily get into a pissing match over rhetorical techniques, like your "Funded by the NSF!!!" call to authority. Big whoop. My point was perfectly valid, and your inability to respond to anything I said lends credence to the AC who claimed you were a sockpuppeter.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, I have no problem using character as a judge of politicians, but the OP didn't even mention any character traits beyond "Cuccinelli is a conservative Republican."
Once you're at that point, and freely admit that you're not even getting into the meat of the argument, I don't see the point.
This particular ad hominem is particularly puzzling as Cuccinelli is but one of 20+ states that have filed suits. The only reason he is being singled out here is because the VA suit is the first one that had traction.
Either we have a Constitution, and it applies, or it does not. Can you tell me, exactly where in the Constitution, Congress has the authority to require people to spend any money on anything, save for taxes?
That would be (amongst others), Article I, Section:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
But that is besides the point, you want universally bad health care for everyone, so Constitution be damned.
My problem with this -- what in the health care bill actually improve things? At the small business where I work, our health insurance costs look to be increasing by 20-30% for our next contract. That's even worse than the increases a few years ago! With regards to affordability, doctor supply, availability, quality -- I don't see how anything is improved. I tend towards the libertarian in general, but I would have rather had a full on single payer plan over what we got...seems to be the absolute worst of both worlds.
Isn't that the definition of ad hominem?
It's the exact same thing that happens every time a judge overrules anti-gay marriage legislation (or finds gay marriage legal) and the social conservatives start bleating about "Clinton appointees" and judicial activists. Do you really want to be arguing the same way they do?
Here's an interesting article that discusses exactly the issue you're raising:
White House Concedes Individual Mandate is not Severable
The long and short of it -- President Obama's people see the portions of the bill as linked inextricably.
Much like pretty much every Western country -- indeed almost all countries worldwide -- there are limitations on what laws can be passed. Would you really like it if under Bush, when the Republicans had a President, and the House and Senate, they had passed a law declaring GWB President for Life? Sure it could have been passed by congress (both houses, not just the Senate) and signed by the President, but is it consitutional? Is it legal? Constitutions exist to protect citizens from the excesses of their governments as well!
What country are you from that does not have an analagous form?
I think the only part of the story that is flamebait is the editorial statement "In a surprise move."
This is NOT a surprise move. The individual mandate has been widely debated by academics and lawyers with many dissenting viewpoints. It was pretty much inevitable that at some point a portion of the bill (and most likely the individual mandate) would end up in front of a judge who didn't find it licit, and that it would end up in front of the supreme court.
I would bet anything that President Obama and and most of the people behind the health care bill were certain that it would at some point be reviewed by SCOTUS.
I'm not saying he's right or wrong in this matter (the judge seemed to agree with him) but he's one of those guys and he's a state Attorney General for Virginia pushing his conservative agenda to a national level.
Isn't that the exact definition of ad hominem?
Wrong! You are doing some selective quoting. I responded to "So the deniers are always wrong? Even when the proponents change their models to reveal that they were right?". The part that you conveniently omitted was where it is implied that this paper changes things so that it now proves what the deniers were saying all along. It is that assertion that prompted me to respond as I did.
I don't think that additional clause adds anything, which is why I omitted it.
Bzzzt. As you just established, we are talking about deniers, not skeptics. We are not talking about people who rationally look at the studies and find them wanting. The deniers are the ones who have the gut feeling that global warming is a bunk. The ones who say that don't know science, but they know when they are being conned. The ones who don't really understand the concepts, so they just cut and paste ready made arguments from denialist websites - and I now I think about it, in doing so they do end up guessing at a thousand different outcomes as they go through their repertoire of pre-fabbed postings.
However, that was not really to what I had referred in my original post. I didn't actually mean that all deniers just guessed wildly. The original quote that started this thread lumped together all deniers, whereas I claimed that since they each had different ideas as to what was wrong with global warming, you can't just take one of those ideas to prove all the different people correct. It was the original poster's "denier" as a gestalt entity that I was referencing in my line about guessing. I can see how this may have caused confusion.
Wow, now that you explain how you read the origins of the thread, I think your posts make a bit more sense. I think that you are WILDLY misreading the original comment that you replied to though. Specifically in regards to what you just said ("you can't just take one of those ideas to prove all the different people correct") I don't think that was implied anywhere! I think that your reading of that greatly overstretches what is there.
Nowhere in my quote did I EVER label all non-believers as deniers. In fact, the part that you omitted said that "But skeptics don't have to be scientists, nor do they have to be in favor of global warming". In other words, a skeptic can be someone for OR against global warming (or completely undecided), and they are different than the denier/true believer. Amazing! Let me spell it out for you again. I actually said that there is a category of people who don't believe in global warming, but who are not the kind of people that I would label as a denier. It appears that your assertion is complete bunk.
Ok, very good! I agree with you--everyone should be skeptical! The problem is, you keep talking about deniers? If your definition of skeptic here excludes people like Watts and McIntyie (the only skeptics I have referenced by name, and I think far and away the two most popular blogs) and then you keep talking about some elusive "denier" community, it's utterly irrelevant to the conversation at hand...nothing but another strawman. If any scientists who does decent science--global warming researcher, skeptic, statistician, whatever--cannot be a denier (adj. _decent_ science) then what's the point of talking about the scum of Internet comment messageboards? Nobody gives a crap about what those people believe, "denier"/skeptic or "apocalyptic"/global warming believer. I thought we were talking about scientists and models from post 1 given that the post to which you replied referenced models! Most crap commenters on either sides don't develop their own models...
In a single message you have complained that I am doing the logical impossibility of treating people who disagree with scientists in both a black and white way (they are all deniers) and shades of gray (I used semantics to call people skeptics).
I think you're confused by something
I did as you suggested. The 2nd link, near the top of the post mentions the "weather is not climate department," however I do think you're ultimately more correct on this than I am. A better thing for me to say would have been that "most skeptics don't deny that over the past century [or greater timeframe] the Earth has warmed. There is skepticism over what is happening right now." Do you think that's more accurate?
I can't believe you just did that! Here we have a great example of someone just repeatedly asking the same question after it has been explained. But wait! Look at what you say further on:
Argh! That is what I have been saying. This paper doesn't prove that all the deniers are correct, as was originally stated in the post to which I replied initially. I have never, ever, EVER stated that everyone should think the same thing. Neither have I made the claim that:
I don't get why you're getting upset here. I think there's some confusion going on because what you actually replied to, the very first post you replied to, was "So the deniers are always wrong?"
To which you replied:
You can't keep guessing at a thousand different outcomes and then claim success when one of those guesses comes true. It is just not scientific. It is the same as trying to claim you have ESP because you can accurately predict the outcome of a coin toss 50% of the time
Nothing more complicated than that...your very first statement is what I (still) have a problem with. Most of the skeptics do NOT "just keep guessing at a thousand different outcomes" -- that you say this is just showing your biases and you setting up a strawman argument. The problem is that you immediately bring out a whole range of disparate opinions and act as if somebody is a "denier" then they must believe them all. If you make up lots of bad things about the skeptics (those you chose to call deniers) of course it's easy to shoot them down. "You can't keep guessing at a thousand different outcomes" == Strawman
You completely made that up.
Here is EXACTLY what you said: "What they do need to do to separate themselves from the deniers/true believers is to be willing to change their minds. Too many deniers call themselves skeptics when they have no intention of ever conceding a point in an argument."
Do you not realize what you're saying? When you call everybody who doesn't believe in global warming a denier, and say this because they are not "willing to change their minds" nor "conced[e] a point in an argument" you have basically called them dishonest liars.
Since you have used a lot of labels to categorize people, there could of course be some differences in how you and I would describe something. You seem to toss the denier label around an awful lot for my taste.
You are really trying to have it both ways, aren't you? It is time for you to make a choice here. Either I am lumping all the people who disagree with scientists into a "monolithic entity" or I am using semantics to differentiate between those same people.
As far as I can tell you are lumping everybody who doesn't believe in your vision of what global warming is (or what climate scientists SHOULD believe) into a group of mendacious twits you call deniers? But if my interpretation of what you're saying is wrong, spit it out--is Anthony Watts a denier? Steven McIntyre? Who is an example of a denier, and are they intellectually dishonest? If you disagree with some of the published papers -- perhaps have problems with some of Mann's work, or the infamous "hockey stick" -- are you a denier? It's a tough road to travel when you attribute motives and ill intent to people who you maybe don't agree with.
For another take on your biased use of the term "denier" I think it was said well here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1902426&cid=34502368
Oops, not sure why my previous post went through as an AC, but it was me.
Then you're either not paying attention, or you're lying. Anthony Watts is one of the major pushers saying the climate is actually cooling, especially using the 1998-2008 trend as 'proof'
Is this true? I've definitely read Watts saying that over the past decade (since that 1998 reference) he thought global temperatures were either flat or slightly down, but I don't recall Watt specifically making claims that the global temperature is on a longterm downward trend.
It's possible you're right, I stopped reading most of these blogs a couple months after climategate (I got tired of the hysteria on all sides), but that's my memory.
The original poster said that this new paper proved the deniers were correct, and I maintained that this isn't the case because deniers believe a multitude different ideas and that none of them were the same as what the NASA scientists postulated.
Still not quite sure this argument makes sense. Just because there are a diversity of ideas on the "denier" side, I don't think that invalidates their positions. The AC to which you responded I think alludes to this... If we come to understand that models about CO2 and plant growth models are wildly wrong, then maybe some of the skeptics HAVE been vindicated.
(And incidentally, fwiw, there are a huge number of studies about this, and ongoing ones too.)
that is why one of the answers that is being investigated is too increase nature's absorbtion or decrease its production. If nothing else finding a solution like this would at least buy us some time.
Are you saying that we would be able to increase plant CO2 absorption?
I'm going to stop you there. The opposite of science is not skepticism.
Of course not. I put scare quotes around both groups, and am obviously not happy with either term. I far prefer the term global warming skeptic to your term "denier" though, as denier makes it sound like they are heretics blaspheming the church. That kind of rigid "you're either with us or a denier" ideology is one I find damaging (and something that DOES bother me about climate science discussions)
Perhaps if you read scientific papers instead you would become a better judge on that.
When papers are available online to non-academics (which they often are not, btw) I have taken a look at some. I've even downloaded some datasets and run R scripts and such.
That doesn't change the fact that -- as I said in my post -- the actual statistics and what not are beyond me (and I would suspect beyond most people even at a place like Slashdot). Even reading papers, they could be making some pretty egregious errors, omissions, logical flaws what have you, and I could easily not have a clue.
Just like most people when it comes to constructions, or the operation of their cars or refrigerators or computers... most of us have to rely on experts to dumb things down to some degree. Sites like Real Climate and Climate Audit both have real statisticians and climate scientists discussing real papers...it's about as good as I can find.
Speaking for myself, not the GP, but my main complaint is that most of the deniers I've interacted with aren't even in lockstep with themselves. They vacillate between arguing that the planet is cooling, that the planet is warming naturally due to solar cycles, and that the rising temperatures are causing rising CO2. If you point out the flaws in their argument, many will go on to claim that it's all a socialist conspiracy to redistribute wealth, restrict freedom, and get more research money.
I don't know about this. When you say "deniers I've interacted with" that's a kind of hard set to define. There are crackpots of every variety out there, from people who believe that NYC is going to be underwater in the next decade or equally apocalyptic things, to people who believe the earth is actually cooling and it's an evil socialist conspiracy. Having said that, I can't think of any prominent skeptic bloggers who have ever argued that the earth is cooling. The main ones I've read have been Climate Audit and Watts up. About the most extreme statements I've seen argued have been that since 1998 the temperature has been flat.
For what it's worth, I think with just about EVERYTHING "follow the money" is a pretty safe bet, and when there's as much money flowing into this field -- on both sides! -- it's good to be skeptical of all involved. Grants and paid research have a way of getting the results they are looking for.
My main concern is that the majority of deniers DON'T seem to have a cohesive, intellectually honest argument. Their most outspoken leaders frequently misrepresent both science and politics (ala "Climate Gate").
I downloaded the Climate Gate email log the first day it was out. Can't say I've read it all, or probably even a large fraction but I read a lot. I think a lot of the media reports have misrepresented what's there, and I do think some of the emails are quite problematic... "Smoking gun" like some have claimed? no...
All available evidence shows that they are wrong. We have multiple lines of evidence, and all signs point towards the preponderance of CO2 and GHG level increases being caused by human activities.
I would agree with this from what I've read.
Even ignoring a consensus, the conservative approach is to limit emissions until you know with high confidence that emissions are safe. People are trying to establish a 1% confidence level for AGW when they should really be establishing a 1% confidence level for emissions being safe.
This is where it really becomes problematic for me. In essence, I agree with you. Better safe than sorry (though I personally do think that there are way too many alarmists out there, and that we really don't know how bad it will be -- if bad at all). But what's the solution? Unfortunately the same global warming activists all too often seem to fight against things like nuclear energy. Many alternatives are very expensive and not very practical for many areas. But the real rub is -- China. Not just China, but China, Brazil, India, etc. IMHO, these countries are going to dwarf US+EU emissions very shortly. China already emits more than the US. As China's qol improves, this is going to continue to go up (and this completely ignores other really nasty things like SO2)...even if China's eventual per capita emissions is only 1/2 of the typical EU/North American country, that's huge. Same -- even more so -- for India and others. Kyoto Protocol exempts all the countries in the world that are going to experience the greatest improvements in quality of life and emissions over the next century. Every single one.
I don't even have a problem with this. Europe and the US profited from the industrial revolution and not caring about the environment for ~200 years, what right do we have to demand that everybody else make up for our accidents? We should do what we can, do what makes sense, and do what's practical. What's practical
You can't keep guessing at a thousand different outcomes and then claim success when one of those guesses comes true.
I guess my question for you is, why is it so important to you that the factions be in lockstep and monolithic thinkers? The science is not settled, and I don't think ANYBODY would argue that we have an even remotely complete understanding of environment/climate. Not all the "deniers" as you choose to call them believe the same thing. This is pretty standard for any academic field...and what's wrong with that? Furthermore, of your propositions, are any of them mutually exclusive?
For instance, nobody at all argues that human industry has not emitted CO2 over the last 200 years... but how much compared to natural sources? Some people argue that point. Is that mutually exclusive with CO2 not impacting temperature as a causal factor? Are either of those in opposition to CO2 levels responding to global temperature changes? Obviously if those are your arguments, they're not inconsistent with each other.
I read "skeptic" blogs and "established science" blogs on climate change, and frankly I don't know enough to judge much of any of the science, math, or methodology on the merits. I do see a lot of behavior that makes me skeptical about members on both sides. Climate Audit I think has jumped the shark, but the blog's purpose--to get scientists to open up their data, code, and methodology seems perfectly reasonable, and objections (or, the way SOME scientists have responded) to those things do make me question motivations, etc.
Oh ok, sorry I couldn't help!
Since you're new to slashdot, here's the moderation FAQ, FYI: http://slashdot.org/faq/com-mod.shtml
Well, I didn't think I personally could silence you--you've shown more than enough willingness to keep talking! I did think that others might moderate you down (and I guess they did).
Publius!
Cheers
Ah well, I was hoping you would get down-modded some more to save people in the future having to read your comments. Maybe next time! Cheers
you cower behind a chosen pseudonym. what are you afraid of?
Oh, could be any number of things...better safe than sorry! On the other hands, pseudonyms have a long and respectable history! You wouldn't criticize Publius, would you?
did your mother name you "Moridineas".
Interesting question, but no, she didn't. It's actually kind of an amalgamation of a couple different things.
I was really hoping you would post with your 5-digit number :-(
would you rather i post with my 5 digit UUACCOUNTUSERID?
Yes, I would like that, please.
no, actually the norm is tongue in retarded cheek backhanded rhetorical implications like "Perhaps you've heard the term "Wintel" before?".
Yes, one can easily get into a pissing match over rhetorical techniques, like your "Funded by the NSF!!!" call to authority. Big whoop. My point was perfectly valid, and your inability to respond to anything I said lends credence to the AC who claimed you were a sockpuppeter.
slashdot = stagnated
Says the guy with the high 7-digit UID?