Exactly. Ultimately we believe that you are not riding a pink unicorn on the moon, but as far a the pink unicorn being analagous for a deity, this is as far as the analogy can be stretched. The pink unicorn is really a derivative of an argument know as Russells Teapot - and suffers from the same weaknesses as the teapot analogy. Which, in part, is this:
(a) Everybody believes there is no teapot, and therefore to use the teapot as analogous to a deity is to invoke a strawman.
(b) The teapot works by placing an everyday object in an absurd context. As does the unicorn (itself a derivative of a horse). Thus, the teapot looks like a good analogy to an atheist (like Russell), because atheists believe that humanity has created God in their own image, and thus conceptualise God as a kind of man set in an absurd context (old man in the sky and the like). Theists don't believe that humanity created God in their own image, and don't conceptualise the deity as being like, or derived from, a man or woman. Thus, it is a form of petitio principii - assuming the conclusion as a premise.
Note that there are other issues with this line of argument as well - not that this applies to you, since you didn't explicitly draw the analogy in question. Neither did Russell, at least not entirely, he was arguing against the notion that Atheists need to provide proof or it can be assumed that a deity exists (whether or not anybody made that argument is besides the point). Which in a limited way is true - Atheism, like Theism, is a belief and neither is proved empirically, and neither proves the other by lack of proof, that would be fallacy.
So just so we are clear, you think it is okay to assert something you personally believe is incorrect and a fallacy
No, I don't think that, and I am not sure where you got the idea.
From your remarks.
I asked:
Previously you said [slashdot.org] that genuine skeptics never resort to the fallacy that the science says there is only one driver for climate. It was a bold thing for you to say - I've never heard a self styled skeptic be so open about one of the central arguments presented by their compatriots before. This, as I have previously noted [slashdot.org] means that arguments alleging that the medieval warm period poses some problem for the prevailing theory are also fallacious, having, at their heart, the same allegation.
This, as this poster [slashdot.org] helpfully points out, is precisely the argument our worthy congressman puts forward. You have previously said, unequivocally, that this argument is fallacious and not part of counter argument to the established hypothesis. Now, you label the argument "good". Are you confused by what he said? Did his remarks befuddle you? Or have you changed your mind?
In your response, you explained this contradiction by saying:
[It] isn't about promoting a grand unified theory, it's about questioning somebody else's.
The only rational way to interpret this response is that you think it is okay for the congressman (and by extensions, yourself) to hold and assert 2 or more contradictory beliefs at the same time.
what are the demonstrable facts that underpin your argument?
There wouldn't be facts.
No. There is just allegation and slander. Not specific allegations mind you, in case the allegation could be made falsifiable.
For example:
Most of us don't attack the facts, we attack the process and the certainty of the conclusions.
Make vague, generalised references to a process being careful not to be specific in case it comes to light that you have no idea how models are built.
We question the use of very large error bars and grand conclusions from weak supporting data on complex chaotic systems
Make vague, unattributed and non-specific references to a few sciencey sounding things which you don't understand. Be sure not to mention which model, journal or paper you are referring in case someone bothers to test the '100% error bar!' assertion.
We question the field in general as being akin to economics in size and complexity, with end results being just as hit-or-miss.
Draw spurious parallels without demonstrating, at any level, how the two things are the same.
We question the utmost certainty with which believers stake their faith in, based on models that are continually missing the mark or failing to account for one factor or another.
Make broad brush generalisations, vague references to models that have "failed" without defining failure at all, or naming the models in question.
One guy here on Slashdot (forget the name) has continually asked for a falsifiable hypothesis for global warming. And I've yet to hear someone give a reasonable response.
This is a perfect example on why you should avoid specifics! I happen to know the person you are referring to. In fact, several people, including myself, exposed the fallacy of the 'falsifiable hypothesis' argument. I have citations of a few of those occasions, if you are interested. Of course, after his fallacy was exposed, he liked to come back and post the fallacy again, as if we might have forgotten his egregious hypocrisy, hoping to stymie someone with sciency sounding terminology. But then on another occasion he claimed that Anthony Watts had falsified a model (the NOAA 2008 model). I spent some time asking how he could think that the model could both be falsifiable and not falsifiable, he was unable to provide an answer. After that conversation he went away.
So just so we are clear, you think it is okay to assert something you personally believe is incorrect and a fallacy, for the sake of... what? Ego? Being on the right side?
I'm tempted to pursue a line of questioning as to what would motivate you (and presumably other denialists) to do that. But that would be useless, because I have no more reason to believe your assertions about your motivation than I have to believe your assertions about climate. Which is none.
I'd be interested to know though, whether it is a small number, or indeed a majority of denialists who, like you, are knowingly spruiking fallacy.
Good grief. How does asking (good) questions of a scientist equate to ignoring science?
Previously you said that genuine skeptics never resort to the fallacy that the science says there is only one driver for climate. It was a bold thing for you to say - I've never heard a self styled skeptic be so open about one of the central arguments presented by their compatriots before. This, as I have previously noted means that arguments alleging that the medieval warm period poses some problem for the prevailing theory are also fallacious, having, at their heart, the same allegation.
This, as this poster helpfully points out, is precisely the argument our worthy congressman puts forward. You have previously said, unequivocally, that this argument is fallacious and not part of counter argument to the established hypothesis. Now, you label the argument "good". Are you confused by what he said? Did his remarks befuddle you? Or have you changed your mind?
I would suggest that not inviting scientists to testify to congressional committees would be an easier way to ignore science.
But that would be moronic. You ignore science at your peril. In the case of the congressman, ignoring the science would also imperil his fellow countrymen. It's a pretty low baseline to merely hope, rather than expect elected officials to be somewhat more than morons.
This fellow is doing the opposite -- he's very much paying attention to and engaging with the scientific community.
Sounds more likely he is trolling - if we accept your previous remarks to be accurate.
Do you think Richard Lindzen is ignorant on the subject?
I fail to see how you could have leapt to that conclusion.
I think you just want the congressman to submit to the [science demonstrated by evidence], and not push back. You don't want to admit that there are two views here (well, of course there are more than two).
More apparent blind speculation on your part. Like everybody else, our worthy congressman needs to take the rough with the smooth. Science is something of an all or nothing proposition. He cannot embrace the good things delivered by science - electricity, structural engineering, modern medicine, global communications, and ignore science on the occasions when the news is not so good: unfavourable medical diagnoses, climate change due to anthropogenic emissions and the like. Science is not fairy wishing, and no amount of fairy wishing will make reality turn away. If the good congressman wants to abandon reliance on the scientific method he is quite welcome to - and go into the woods and live in a cabin without electricity or communications, and die a short time later of an easily preventable disease.
Given that the temperature will continue to rise even without positive feedback, you would need feedback to be negative to counteract the increased warming due to CO2.
Asking why they think that, is actually OK, even if you don't prefer the way the question was worded.
Sure - in some circumstances, being merely ignorant on a subject (in this case AGW) is a fairly neutral stance. if you are a 5 year old, or illiterate, then being ignorant is probably understandable. Ignorance is not really what we are looking for from policy makers, when it concerns subjects we need them to make policy on.
But don't you think it is odd, if he is genuinely interested in a subject that he did not read up on the basics before discussing it at the policy level? This just seems a bit irresponsible, to be wasting the scientists, not to mention the committees, time asking for a introductory run through on climate science.
Just wanted to mention Alfred Wegener, [berkeley.edu] the man who proposed continental drift, only to be dismissed for nearly 50 years before being accepted.
Yes, excellent contrast - Wegener proposed continental drift to explain some observations that could not otherwise be explained. His theory was eventually accepted. Just like the theory of greenhouse gases, which Tyndall/Fourier proposed to explain observations that were otherwise unexplained - a theory that was at first controversial, but later accepted. In contrast, the standard denialist diatribe does not (a) explain any observations, but is actually contradicted by observation (b) does not provide a better explanation to observed phenomena compared to the default (null) hypothesis.
Or, you can read about Barry Marshal [discovermagazine.com] who discovered that the bacterium H. pylori caused peptic ulcer disease, leading him to win a Nobel Prize in 2005. he published it in the 80's and if wasn't widely accepted until some 10 years later.
Yes, excellent contrast. Marshal performed various experiments and published his data which was independently verifiable and therefore his theory, which subsumed various other proposals as to the causes of stomach ulcers, was eventually accepted - following a fairly standard scientific methodology. In contrast, climate denialists refuse to show any data, or even, fully elaborate on an alternative theory as to the causes of the current warming, have no data or methodology that can be independently verified. There is no obvious reason to take them seriously.
Maybe it makes you feel good to think that, but the AGW skeptical material I've read certainly doesn't match that characterization. Maybe the fluff posted in the comments section on YouTube or Fox News or MSNBC etc.
And of course, on Slashdot, where this argument and it's derivatives (e.g. referencing the medieval warm period or little ice age as evidence against CO2 induced warming) , is made multiple times in any discussion about climate here. Funny thing is, these remarks are never corrected by the more enlightened denialists. Why is it that you, recognising this fallacy for what it is (and more power to you for seeing that), don't step in and correct these erroneous arguments when they occur? Don't you see the damage this does to the credibility of the argument you think is true? Or do you think that fallacy can coexist comfortably with fact and help promote fact?
And also: If these arguments are not the true doctrine of denialism, what are the demonstrable facts that underpin your argument?
Am I wrong? Why don't you link to a post in one of the major climate skeptic websites that shows this "can be only one cause for anything" attitude you describe.
You ought to be aware that people in general are not going to know who or where these websites are, since it is not a matter of who but what -
(a) What (according to denialists) is the cause of the recent warming
(b) What are the independently verifiable observations that underpin this hypothesis?
Nevertheless: Here are 3 articles by denialist supremo Anthony Watts, who claims his site www.wattsupwithat.com is "the world's most read site on climate".
The statement "Nothing in natural law (i.e. physics) forbids the existence of something that does not follow natural law." is entirely nonsense.
You need to make allowance for the fact that you might have misinterpreted what the poster was saying. The poster was replying to this statement:
"God"=="supernatural"=="not allowed by physical (natural) law." . and his/her remarks ought to be taken as a rebuttal of that (clearly incorrect) statement, not as a generalised invalidation of the scientific method in the empirical domain.
To be clear, the scientific method only applies to questions that can be tested empirically. There are many questions that cannot be empirically tested - e.g. is Hamlet a good play? These questions have answers, but they cannot be derived scientifically. The question "Is there a deity/or deities?" is one of those.
Physics does not allow for the supernatural. Forbidding (for lack of a better term) belief in things that have no scientific backing and every scientific reason not to exist is pretty much the primary purpose of the sciences. The whole damn point is that something "super"natural cannot exist so trying to claim that physics does not forbid the supernatural is a flat out lie.
You don't understand science, or it's purpose, nor do you seem to have even a basic grasp of epistemology. Your remarks smack of blind dogma.
Stop trying to bring credibility to your beliefs with science where none exists.
The only person making statements of belief as a priori established fact is you.
Multiverse theory and deity dogma are in no way comparable. One has math and physics to complement the theory and the other has a math and physics showing it to be impossible. That science cannot disprove something cannot be used as evidence of its existence or acceptance of its possibility.
So which is it? Is there maths and physics showing that a deity is impossible, or is science unable to disprove the presence of a deity?
Physics and other other empirical sciences tell us about things within their sphere, they do not speak of things outside of those domains. They are based entirely on observation - something that is, by definition unobservable such as a deity, or other universes, for that matter, can't be proven OR disproven by science, which relies on observation.
You appear to be operating under the delusion that warming was observed and then an explanation was sought to explain that warming. That is not what happened. What happened is that the spectral properties of various atmospheric gases were observed and recorded. Temperatures of other planetary bodies were observed. A theory was postulated that some gases in the atmosphere led to the atmosphere and indeed the whole climate being warmer than it would have been in their absence. This was experimentally tested and proved to everybodies satisfaction. A subsequent theory suggested that in fact, our own additions to the atmosphere could lead to changes in the climate, this was calculated but no changes were observed because at the time, our own input was insignificant by volume for the instruments to detect a change.
Later on, this theory was confirmed by an observed increase in temperature aligned to the predicted changes and the increased concentration of the aforementioned gases. Then this was observed directly by measuring a delta change in the temperature differential between the top of the atmosphere and the bottom, an observation only explainable as an overall change in the nature of the atmosphere itself.
These are the observed facts. Any theory that is proposed therefore has to align to these observations. Therefore, postulated theories need, at a minimum, to explain:
1. What happen to the warming we expected to see as greenhouse gas concentrations increased
2. What the alternate source of the warming actually is
3. Why the atmosphere behaves as observed
Until such a better explanation is proposed, the current explanation will remain.
It is insufficient to observe that some people are not convinced. That is a rhetorical issue, unrelated to observation or fact.
Very hard to get studies that go against the dominant paradigm published.
Yes - the dominant paradigm of requiring evidence must really put a kibosh on this and other similiar theories, such as the moon being made of green cheese. The only surprise is that you are suprised that nobody takes this guff seriously.
We submitted these findings sequentially to Science Magazine, Nature, and Nature Climate Change. The editor of Science Magazine replied that the results were not of sufficient general interest, suggested we submit the work to a specialty journal, and declined to proceed with external scientific review. Nature also rejected the paper without external scientific review, for reasons that we considered spurious. Nature Climate Change initially rejected the paper, but after some discussion the paper was assigned to a senior editor and reviewed by two anonymous reviewers. Given the context of their comments, both reviewers appeared to be climate modelers.
With reference to analysis of Vostok series. [wattsupwiththat.com]
This is the same Anthony Watts who gets a salary from the Heartland Institute to tell lies about climate, who once claimed that he had personally falsified the HADCM3 model (a claim quickly proven to be utterly wrong), and then later claimed the IPCC AR5 would halve the estimate of climate sensitivity (only to be proven wrong several days later) - and then did not bother to publicly correct his remarks? That guy?
Do you by chance take financial advice from scammers as well?
Still, here's the Vostok temperature graph [rocketscie...ournal.com] and here's the Greenland temperature graph [drtimball.com].
Except that isn't Taylor's or Jacksons graph. It's Easterbrook's graph. It's the infamous graph by Easterbrook that caused a scandal and embarrassed the denialist movement and threw egg in the face of it's oil industry backers.
Read the whole sorry saga here
Who told you it was Taylor's graph? If Taylor submitted that graph as his work, he is lucky his paper was just rejected. He could well have been accused of fraud, given the circumstances.
Do you see unprecedented present day warming, or do you see current temperatures being well within the range of natural variation?
In the actual greenland ice core data, rather than a set of data explicitly defined to exclude the last 120 years of climate data? Yes.
With respect to the laws of Thermodynamics, climate sensitivity is low, as the IPCC are slowly admitting.
It's convenient you choose to use the IPCC (AR5) as the source of truth on sensitivity. Since AR5 says that sensitivity is holding steady at 2.1, whereas the uncertainty has decreased. Which makes all your previous statements on the subject a nonsense. Congratulations.
Because all the kerfuffle here in the Rocky Mountain West the last decade has been hot summers and drought -- AS PROOF -- of global warming. It's in the papers here as soon as the temperature goes over 90F.
Perhaps the problem lies in your comprehension of what is said. I have never once heard a scientist offering weather phenomena as PROOF of global warming - as if the fact that the climate is warming required further proof. I have heard it said that these weather events are to be expected as a consequence of warming and that we can expect more as the warming progresses. this is perfectly valid - weather extremes will become more extreme and more frequent as the climate warms.
Warming, warming, warming, we're all gonna die.
Again, this would appear to be a problem with your comprehension. You are going to die, that is true, and you don't need a scientist to tell you that. You probably won't be killed by climate change, although many people will be, especially because of secondary effects (economic difficulties, disease, food and water supply issues, etc). If you interpret a message that says that extreme weather events will be more frequent due to climate change as a direct threat to your life, then most likely you are exaggerating that message in your own head due to some personal tendency toward anxiety, or lack of perspective on your own part.
It's getting warmer. The warming is well within the range of natural variation.
Really? Please cite a study indicating
(a) That the present warming is within natural variation and
(b) Demonstrating a theory as to what happened to the warming we were expecting would happen due to increased levels of greenhouse gases. Were the laws of thermodynamics broken?
By the same token, the way that bic pens work has been called 'miraculous', an answer to prayer for those who struggle with fountain pens, and come in sky blue, which [make logical leap] means they come from heaven, after all, I saw it on an ad or something, so my bizarre and ignorant interpretation must be the correct one.
This means that people who believe in BIC pens must believe in sky fairies. What's that? BIC Pens aren't like sky fairies?
People who rely on bad analogies to make an argument (like the 'sky fairy' argument, or calling climate science a 'religion' as a derogative) are making those statements because framing something complex that they don't fully understand as a caricature saves them the trouble of making a reasoned argument in support of their position. It's like saying "Jews are money grubbers" or "rag heads hate our freedoms", a blatant attempt to dehumanise, to classify their beliefs as something "other" - when in fact, their beliefs are just as justified by objective proof as your own. They have none, and neither do you.
If frustrates you that others don't rush to join your religion? It makes you angry that their beliefs contradict your own? Well whoop de do. Get over it. People have believed conflicting things for thousands of years, and by all accounts, will continue do so until the Sun swells up and we are boiled alive.
Yes it's vaccine - a vaccination against the disease of democracy.
You are blind to what is obvious to everybody else. You have the right to carry a gun. You don't have the right to rebel against the government. If you rebel, you have broken the social contract between yourself and the government and the notions of which 'freedoms' the government respects and upholds are gone. Shoot at the US Military, break the contract with the US government, they will shoot you dead and go out for a bacon and egg breakfast after. You think your situation is different because you are permitted to carry a gun? You've been fooled - you've been indoctrinated to keep you compliant, to make you think you are special. You aren't special. You don't have more freedoms. Once the bullets start leaving the guns with deadly intent, do you think it matters to anyone whether both parties agree the guns were obtained legally in the past? Don't be so naive. Pull the trigger, and your rights are the same as a Pashtun, a Uiger, a Tibetan or a Tamil. The bit where you can carry a gun a fantasise about how it makes you powerful is just for pretend. You think rebellions are put down because the rebels can't get their hands on legal hand held weapons? Don't be stupid.
Instead this fantasy is encouraged by the US government and it's powerful backers. It keeps the US populace from protesting grave indignities using any means that would be effective. Consider two responses to the Snowden revelations.
City A, hearing the revelations, is outraged. They exercise the lesser options - taking to the streets in protest, striking, threatening to vote in ways that disrupt the status quo and then following through on those threats. The government and its backers are forced to take a conciliatory approach. No more spying.
City B, hearing the revelations, is outraged. But discussion at the public meeting takes a different tact. Someone yells "Revolution!" and immediately the outrage is dissipated. Some families have children in the military. Others, recognise that attempted revolution is useless, that there are no visionary leaders of the movement, and no-one they can see who they would trust to be in charge, that they would never sway popular opinion toward revolution on this issue alone. Still others, quite validly, see revolution as an overreaction. Still, having contemplated such a radical action, the wind is out of the sails. After all, they could revolt, but the situation is not that serious. Maybe we'll just hold fire. City B goes back to their homes, satisfied that they have exercised a freedom, living quietly with tyranny. The government and its backers are sitting pretty.
American faux revolutionaries are effectively quislings for the government they think they are protecting us from.
You mean we. 'We' is the inclusive pronoun. It doesn't matter what we believe. And it does matter. You likely believe there are many differences (real or imagined) between your own beliefs and the beliefs of others.
It was very interesting in high school to see the religious zealots making fun of the beliefs of the Greeks and Romans (and other ancient religions).
Curious. By 'zealots' I guess you mean atheists, since we seem these same erroneous patterns on Slashdot, perhaps when they grew older they started posting their irrational rants here?
They had no clue that in a couple of thousand years (assuming humans are still around), kids in school will be making fun of their stupid beliefs. It was totally lost on them that ancient cultures beliefs were just as valid (as in not at all) as any current religions. How they could come away with "those Greek dudes were sure dummies believing in those things" without questioning themselves was fucking hilarious.
You are right, religious hatred is on the rise in the West, or those launching diatribes against people based on religion use this as an excuse for some darker intent - who knows. There is a section, an element of society that wants to hate the other - doesn't matter on what grounds the notion of 'other' is made, as long as there is someone to hate: the indigenous, the chinese, the irish, the jew, the german, the hippy, the homosexual, the muslim, the vietnamese, the christian, the persian. Pick one and hate them.
This rising wave of hatred reflects in some ways the rising wave of persecution in other parts of the world. In many parts of the world, the middle east, north africa, bhutan, burma, china - believing the wrong thing is a crime punishable up to death.
Slashdot Mirror
(a) Everybody believes there is no teapot, and therefore to use the teapot as analogous to a deity is to invoke a strawman.
(b) The teapot works by placing an everyday object in an absurd context. As does the unicorn (itself a derivative of a horse). Thus, the teapot looks like a good analogy to an atheist (like Russell), because atheists believe that humanity has created God in their own image, and thus conceptualise God as a kind of man set in an absurd context (old man in the sky and the like). Theists don't believe that humanity created God in their own image, and don't conceptualise the deity as being like, or derived from, a man or woman. Thus, it is a form of petitio principii - assuming the conclusion as a premise.
Note that there are other issues with this line of argument as well - not that this applies to you, since you didn't explicitly draw the analogy in question. Neither did Russell, at least not entirely, he was arguing against the notion that Atheists need to provide proof or it can be assumed that a deity exists (whether or not anybody made that argument is besides the point). Which in a limited way is true - Atheism, like Theism, is a belief and neither is proved empirically, and neither proves the other by lack of proof, that would be fallacy.
So just so we are clear, you think it is okay to assert something you personally believe is incorrect and a fallacy
No, I don't think that, and I am not sure where you got the idea.
From your remarks.
I asked: Previously you said [slashdot.org] that genuine skeptics never resort to the fallacy that the science says there is only one driver for climate. It was a bold thing for you to say - I've never heard a self styled skeptic be so open about one of the central arguments presented by their compatriots before. This, as I have previously noted [slashdot.org] means that arguments alleging that the medieval warm period poses some problem for the prevailing theory are also fallacious, having, at their heart, the same allegation.
This, as this poster [slashdot.org] helpfully points out, is precisely the argument our worthy congressman puts forward. You have previously said, unequivocally, that this argument is fallacious and not part of counter argument to the established hypothesis. Now, you label the argument "good". Are you confused by what he said? Did his remarks befuddle you? Or have you changed your mind?
In your response, you explained this contradiction by saying: [It] isn't about promoting a grand unified theory, it's about questioning somebody else's. The only rational way to interpret this response is that you think it is okay for the congressman (and by extensions, yourself) to hold and assert 2 or more contradictory beliefs at the same time.
what are the demonstrable facts that underpin your argument?
There wouldn't be facts.
No. There is just allegation and slander. Not specific allegations mind you, in case the allegation could be made falsifiable.
For example:
Most of us don't attack the facts, we attack the process and the certainty of the conclusions.
Make vague, generalised references to a process being careful not to be specific in case it comes to light that you have no idea how models are built.
We question the use of very large error bars and grand conclusions from weak supporting data on complex chaotic systems
Make vague, unattributed and non-specific references to a few sciencey sounding things which you don't understand. Be sure not to mention which model, journal or paper you are referring in case someone bothers to test the '100% error bar!' assertion.
We question the field in general as being akin to economics in size and complexity, with end results being just as hit-or-miss.
Draw spurious parallels without demonstrating, at any level, how the two things are the same.
We question the utmost certainty with which believers stake their faith in, based on models that are continually missing the mark or failing to account for one factor or another.
Make broad brush generalisations, vague references to models that have "failed" without defining failure at all, or naming the models in question.
One guy here on Slashdot (forget the name) has continually asked for a falsifiable hypothesis for global warming. And I've yet to hear someone give a reasonable response.
This is a perfect example on why you should avoid specifics! I happen to know the person you are referring to. In fact, several people, including myself, exposed the fallacy of the 'falsifiable hypothesis' argument. I have citations of a few of those occasions, if you are interested. Of course, after his fallacy was exposed, he liked to come back and post the fallacy again, as if we might have forgotten his egregious hypocrisy, hoping to stymie someone with sciency sounding terminology. But then on another occasion he claimed that Anthony Watts had falsified a model (the NOAA 2008 model). I spent some time asking how he could think that the model could both be falsifiable and not falsifiable, he was unable to provide an answer. After that conversation he went away.
He made the mistake of delving into specifics.
I'm tempted to pursue a line of questioning as to what would motivate you (and presumably other denialists) to do that. But that would be useless, because I have no more reason to believe your assertions about your motivation than I have to believe your assertions about climate. Which is none.
I'd be interested to know though, whether it is a small number, or indeed a majority of denialists who, like you, are knowingly spruiking fallacy.
Good grief. How does asking (good) questions of a scientist equate to ignoring science?
Previously you said that genuine skeptics never resort to the fallacy that the science says there is only one driver for climate. It was a bold thing for you to say - I've never heard a self styled skeptic be so open about one of the central arguments presented by their compatriots before. This, as I have previously noted means that arguments alleging that the medieval warm period poses some problem for the prevailing theory are also fallacious, having, at their heart, the same allegation.
This, as this poster helpfully points out, is precisely the argument our worthy congressman puts forward. You have previously said, unequivocally, that this argument is fallacious and not part of counter argument to the established hypothesis. Now, you label the argument "good". Are you confused by what he said? Did his remarks befuddle you? Or have you changed your mind?
I would suggest that not inviting scientists to testify to congressional committees would be an easier way to ignore science.
But that would be moronic. You ignore science at your peril. In the case of the congressman, ignoring the science would also imperil his fellow countrymen. It's a pretty low baseline to merely hope, rather than expect elected officials to be somewhat more than morons.
This fellow is doing the opposite -- he's very much paying attention to and engaging with the scientific community.
Sounds more likely he is trolling - if we accept your previous remarks to be accurate.
Do you think Richard Lindzen is ignorant on the subject?
I fail to see how you could have leapt to that conclusion.
I think you just want the congressman to submit to the [science demonstrated by evidence], and not push back. You don't want to admit that there are two views here (well, of course there are more than two).
More apparent blind speculation on your part. Like everybody else, our worthy congressman needs to take the rough with the smooth. Science is something of an all or nothing proposition. He cannot embrace the good things delivered by science - electricity, structural engineering, modern medicine, global communications, and ignore science on the occasions when the news is not so good: unfavourable medical diagnoses, climate change due to anthropogenic emissions and the like. Science is not fairy wishing, and no amount of fairy wishing will make reality turn away. If the good congressman wants to abandon reliance on the scientific method he is quite welcome to - and go into the woods and live in a cabin without electricity or communications, and die a short time later of an easily preventable disease.
In short, you are a fucking moron..
On the contrary. I would have thought it clear from my post that I am not, in fact, a denialist.
Where is the evidence of this negative feedback?
Asking why they think that, is actually OK, even if you don't prefer the way the question was worded.
Sure - in some circumstances, being merely ignorant on a subject (in this case AGW) is a fairly neutral stance. if you are a 5 year old, or illiterate, then being ignorant is probably understandable. Ignorance is not really what we are looking for from policy makers, when it concerns subjects we need them to make policy on.
But don't you think it is odd, if he is genuinely interested in a subject that he did not read up on the basics before discussing it at the policy level? This just seems a bit irresponsible, to be wasting the scientists, not to mention the committees, time asking for a introductory run through on climate science.
Just wanted to mention Alfred Wegener, [berkeley.edu] the man who proposed continental drift, only to be dismissed for nearly 50 years before being accepted.
Yes, excellent contrast - Wegener proposed continental drift to explain some observations that could not otherwise be explained. His theory was eventually accepted. Just like the theory of greenhouse gases, which Tyndall/Fourier proposed to explain observations that were otherwise unexplained - a theory that was at first controversial, but later accepted. In contrast, the standard denialist diatribe does not (a) explain any observations, but is actually contradicted by observation (b) does not provide a better explanation to observed phenomena compared to the default (null) hypothesis.
Or, you can read about Barry Marshal [discovermagazine.com] who discovered that the bacterium H. pylori caused peptic ulcer disease, leading him to win a Nobel Prize in 2005. he published it in the 80's and if wasn't widely accepted until some 10 years later.
Yes, excellent contrast. Marshal performed various experiments and published his data which was independently verifiable and therefore his theory, which subsumed various other proposals as to the causes of stomach ulcers, was eventually accepted - following a fairly standard scientific methodology. In contrast, climate denialists refuse to show any data, or even, fully elaborate on an alternative theory as to the causes of the current warming, have no data or methodology that can be independently verified. There is no obvious reason to take them seriously.
So which is it? Is he wrong? Or is your argument actually "fluff"?
Maybe it makes you feel good to think that, but the AGW skeptical material I've read certainly doesn't match that characterization. Maybe the fluff posted in the comments section on YouTube or Fox News or MSNBC etc.
And of course, on Slashdot, where this argument and it's derivatives (e.g. referencing the medieval warm period or little ice age as evidence against CO2 induced warming) , is made multiple times in any discussion about climate here. Funny thing is, these remarks are never corrected by the more enlightened denialists. Why is it that you, recognising this fallacy for what it is (and more power to you for seeing that), don't step in and correct these erroneous arguments when they occur? Don't you see the damage this does to the credibility of the argument you think is true? Or do you think that fallacy can coexist comfortably with fact and help promote fact?
And also: If these arguments are not the true doctrine of denialism, what are the demonstrable facts that underpin your argument?
Am I wrong? Why don't you link to a post in one of the major climate skeptic websites that shows this "can be only one cause for anything" attitude you describe.
You ought to be aware that people in general are not going to know who or where these websites are, since it is not a matter of who but what -
(a) What (according to denialists) is the cause of the recent warming
(b) What are the independently verifiable observations that underpin this hypothesis?
Nevertheless: Here are 3 articles by denialist supremo Anthony Watts, who claims his site www.wattsupwithat.com is "the world's most read site on climate".
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/08/the-truth-about-we-have-to-get-rid-of-the-medieval-warm-period/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/new-paper-shows-medieval-warm-period-was-global-in-scope/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/18/remarkable-correlation-of-arctic-sea-ice-to-solar-cycle-length/
All 3 articles rely on the fallacy you say is not mainstream denialism.
Or maybe you're just making stuff up in an attempt to portray your opponents in debate as fools.
Is there actually debate?
The statement "Nothing in natural law (i.e. physics) forbids the existence of something that does not follow natural law." is entirely nonsense.
You need to make allowance for the fact that you might have misinterpreted what the poster was saying. The poster was replying to this statement: "God"=="supernatural"=="not allowed by physical (natural) law." . and his/her remarks ought to be taken as a rebuttal of that (clearly incorrect) statement, not as a generalised invalidation of the scientific method in the empirical domain.
To be clear, the scientific method only applies to questions that can be tested empirically. There are many questions that cannot be empirically tested - e.g. is Hamlet a good play? These questions have answers, but they cannot be derived scientifically. The question "Is there a deity/or deities?" is one of those.
Physics does not allow for the supernatural. Forbidding (for lack of a better term) belief in things that have no scientific backing and every scientific reason not to exist is pretty much the primary purpose of the sciences. The whole damn point is that something "super"natural cannot exist so trying to claim that physics does not forbid the supernatural is a flat out lie.
You don't understand science, or it's purpose, nor do you seem to have even a basic grasp of epistemology. Your remarks smack of blind dogma.
Stop trying to bring credibility to your beliefs with science where none exists.
The only person making statements of belief as a priori established fact is you.
Multiverse theory and deity dogma are in no way comparable. One has math and physics to complement the theory and the other has a math and physics showing it to be impossible. That science cannot disprove something cannot be used as evidence of its existence or acceptance of its possibility.
So which is it? Is there maths and physics showing that a deity is impossible, or is science unable to disprove the presence of a deity?
Physics and other other empirical sciences tell us about things within their sphere, they do not speak of things outside of those domains. They are based entirely on observation - something that is, by definition unobservable such as a deity, or other universes, for that matter, can't be proven OR disproven by science, which relies on observation.
These are the observed facts. Any theory that is proposed therefore has to align to these observations. Therefore, postulated theories need, at a minimum, to explain:
1. What happen to the warming we expected to see as greenhouse gas concentrations increased
2. What the alternate source of the warming actually is
3. Why the atmosphere behaves as observed
Until such a better explanation is proposed, the current explanation will remain.
It is insufficient to observe that some people are not convinced. That is a rhetorical issue, unrelated to observation or fact.
Very hard to get studies that go against the dominant paradigm published.
Yes - the dominant paradigm of requiring evidence must really put a kibosh on this and other similiar theories, such as the moon being made of green cheese. The only surprise is that you are suprised that nobody takes this guff seriously.
We submitted these findings sequentially to Science Magazine, Nature, and Nature Climate Change. The editor of Science Magazine replied that the results were not of sufficient general interest, suggested we submit the work to a specialty journal, and declined to proceed with external scientific review. Nature also rejected the paper without external scientific review, for reasons that we considered spurious. Nature Climate Change initially rejected the paper, but after some discussion the paper was assigned to a senior editor and reviewed by two anonymous reviewers. Given the context of their comments, both reviewers appeared to be climate modelers. With reference to analysis of Vostok series. [wattsupwiththat.com]
This is the same Anthony Watts who gets a salary from the Heartland Institute to tell lies about climate, who once claimed that he had personally falsified the HADCM3 model (a claim quickly proven to be utterly wrong), and then later claimed the IPCC AR5 would halve the estimate of climate sensitivity (only to be proven wrong several days later) - and then did not bother to publicly correct his remarks? That guy?
Do you by chance take financial advice from scammers as well?
Still, here's the Vostok temperature graph [rocketscie...ournal.com] and here's the Greenland temperature graph [drtimball.com].
Except that isn't Taylor's or Jacksons graph. It's Easterbrook's graph. It's the infamous graph by Easterbrook that caused a scandal and embarrassed the denialist movement and threw egg in the face of it's oil industry backers.
Read the whole sorry saga here Who told you it was Taylor's graph? If Taylor submitted that graph as his work, he is lucky his paper was just rejected. He could well have been accused of fraud, given the circumstances.
Do you see unprecedented present day warming, or do you see current temperatures being well within the range of natural variation?
In the actual greenland ice core data, rather than a set of data explicitly defined to exclude the last 120 years of climate data? Yes.
With respect to the laws of Thermodynamics, climate sensitivity is low, as the IPCC are slowly admitting.
It's convenient you choose to use the IPCC (AR5) as the source of truth on sensitivity. Since AR5 says that sensitivity is holding steady at 2.1, whereas the uncertainty has decreased. Which makes all your previous statements on the subject a nonsense. Congratulations.
Because all the kerfuffle here in the Rocky Mountain West the last decade has been hot summers and drought -- AS PROOF -- of global warming. It's in the papers here as soon as the temperature goes over 90F.
Perhaps the problem lies in your comprehension of what is said. I have never once heard a scientist offering weather phenomena as PROOF of global warming - as if the fact that the climate is warming required further proof. I have heard it said that these weather events are to be expected as a consequence of warming and that we can expect more as the warming progresses. this is perfectly valid - weather extremes will become more extreme and more frequent as the climate warms.
Warming, warming, warming, we're all gonna die.
Again, this would appear to be a problem with your comprehension. You are going to die, that is true, and you don't need a scientist to tell you that. You probably won't be killed by climate change, although many people will be, especially because of secondary effects (economic difficulties, disease, food and water supply issues, etc). If you interpret a message that says that extreme weather events will be more frequent due to climate change as a direct threat to your life, then most likely you are exaggerating that message in your own head due to some personal tendency toward anxiety, or lack of perspective on your own part.
It's getting warmer. The warming is well within the range of natural variation.
Really? Please cite a study indicating
(a) That the present warming is within natural variation and
(b) Demonstrating a theory as to what happened to the warming we were expecting would happen due to increased levels of greenhouse gases. Were the laws of thermodynamics broken?
This means that people who believe in BIC pens must believe in sky fairies. What's that? BIC Pens aren't like sky fairies?
People who rely on bad analogies to make an argument (like the 'sky fairy' argument, or calling climate science a 'religion' as a derogative) are making those statements because framing something complex that they don't fully understand as a caricature saves them the trouble of making a reasoned argument in support of their position. It's like saying "Jews are money grubbers" or "rag heads hate our freedoms", a blatant attempt to dehumanise, to classify their beliefs as something "other" - when in fact, their beliefs are just as justified by objective proof as your own. They have none, and neither do you.
If frustrates you that others don't rush to join your religion? It makes you angry that their beliefs contradict your own? Well whoop de do. Get over it. People have believed conflicting things for thousands of years, and by all accounts, will continue do so until the Sun swells up and we are boiled alive.
i thought for a second you said "it has been screed" which is also true.
You do realize that TFA is about the british police?
You do realise that it isn't? The City of London is a coorporation. It has nothing to do with the "british police", whatever that is supposed to be.
You are blind to what is obvious to everybody else. You have the right to carry a gun. You don't have the right to rebel against the government. If you rebel, you have broken the social contract between yourself and the government and the notions of which 'freedoms' the government respects and upholds are gone. Shoot at the US Military, break the contract with the US government, they will shoot you dead and go out for a bacon and egg breakfast after. You think your situation is different because you are permitted to carry a gun? You've been fooled - you've been indoctrinated to keep you compliant, to make you think you are special. You aren't special. You don't have more freedoms. Once the bullets start leaving the guns with deadly intent, do you think it matters to anyone whether both parties agree the guns were obtained legally in the past? Don't be so naive. Pull the trigger, and your rights are the same as a Pashtun, a Uiger, a Tibetan or a Tamil. The bit where you can carry a gun a fantasise about how it makes you powerful is just for pretend. You think rebellions are put down because the rebels can't get their hands on legal hand held weapons? Don't be stupid.
Instead this fantasy is encouraged by the US government and it's powerful backers. It keeps the US populace from protesting grave indignities using any means that would be effective. Consider two responses to the Snowden revelations.
City A, hearing the revelations, is outraged. They exercise the lesser options - taking to the streets in protest, striking, threatening to vote in ways that disrupt the status quo and then following through on those threats. The government and its backers are forced to take a conciliatory approach. No more spying.
City B, hearing the revelations, is outraged. But discussion at the public meeting takes a different tact. Someone yells "Revolution!" and immediately the outrage is dissipated. Some families have children in the military. Others, recognise that attempted revolution is useless, that there are no visionary leaders of the movement, and no-one they can see who they would trust to be in charge, that they would never sway popular opinion toward revolution on this issue alone. Still others, quite validly, see revolution as an overreaction. Still, having contemplated such a radical action, the wind is out of the sails. After all, they could revolt, but the situation is not that serious. Maybe we'll just hold fire. City B goes back to their homes, satisfied that they have exercised a freedom, living quietly with tyranny. The government and its backers are sitting pretty.
American faux revolutionaries are effectively quislings for the government they think they are protecting us from.
It doesn't matter what they believe.
You mean we. 'We' is the inclusive pronoun. It doesn't matter what we believe. And it does matter. You likely believe there are many differences (real or imagined) between your own beliefs and the beliefs of others.
It was very interesting in high school to see the religious zealots making fun of the beliefs of the Greeks and Romans (and other ancient religions).
Curious. By 'zealots' I guess you mean atheists, since we seem these same erroneous patterns on Slashdot, perhaps when they grew older they started posting their irrational rants here?
They had no clue that in a couple of thousand years (assuming humans are still around), kids in school will be making fun of their stupid beliefs. It was totally lost on them that ancient cultures beliefs were just as valid (as in not at all) as any current religions. How they could come away with "those Greek dudes were sure dummies believing in those things" without questioning themselves was fucking hilarious.
You are right, religious hatred is on the rise in the West, or those launching diatribes against people based on religion use this as an excuse for some darker intent - who knows. There is a section, an element of society that wants to hate the other - doesn't matter on what grounds the notion of 'other' is made, as long as there is someone to hate: the indigenous, the chinese, the irish, the jew, the german, the hippy, the homosexual, the muslim, the vietnamese, the christian, the persian. Pick one and hate them.
This rising wave of hatred reflects in some ways the rising wave of persecution in other parts of the world. In many parts of the world, the middle east, north africa, bhutan, burma, china - believing the wrong thing is a crime punishable up to death.
Curious anecdote. Do you know many people who believe in Poseidon or Zeus?
As a matter of fact, I met some fishermen in Greece who pray and even leave offerings at a Poseidon shrine.
So - a vanishingly small number of people
But I do know that either one billion of Christians are right and one billion of Muslims are wrong about Jesus's divinity, or vice versa.
And if either of them are right, you are wrong (see below), which puts you in the same category as them.
In light of the above, I have, personally, decided that I cannot respect, let alone worship a deity that's OK with the situation.
Well, you are entitled to your beliefs, without being subject to snide remarks about your relative intelligence, or lack thereof.
So, at the end of the day, I make no difference between people who believe in Poseidon, and people who believe in the deity in the Bible/Torah/Qur'an.
A quell surprise! Those that don't share your beliefs don't distinguish YOUR beliefs from other beliefs they consider incorrect.
Welcome to the village.
Curious anecdote. Do you know many people who believe in Poseidon or Zeus?