Clive Hamilton speaking on climate denialism

[L.I.T]

Certainly though, some theories have been proven correct to the point where the science has been settled. The theory that the Earth is the center of the universe, flat earth theory, the theory that rotting meat produces maggots/flies, etc etc

I don't agree that the science behind GW is 'settled' but the science of other theories can certainly be 'settled'. That's why scientists perform tests in the first place, to try to find answers.

Not exactly...

The Flat Earth Society

[DarrinS]

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

Should have just posted a youtube instead.

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

-Albert Einstein

[MannyIsGod]

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

-Albert Einstein

2+2 really does equal 3. No really. It does. Anyone who wouldn't account for that possibility simply isn't a scientist but a person of the religion of four.

[Winehole23]

Are climate trends and dynamics, to say nothing of such esoterica as AGW, really as clear as 2+2=4?

[LnGrrrR]

Are climate trends and dynamics, to say nothing of such esoterica as AGW, really as clear as 2+2=4?

I certainly wouldn't say there are. But to imply that the science on a subject is never settled, or that "true Scotsmen, er scientists" would never say that is silly. In many cases, the science IS settled, being proven out by experiments.

[DarrinS]

Are climate trends and dynamics, to say nothing of such esoterica as AGW, really as clear as 2+2=4?

Absolutely not. Climate is a chaotic dynamical system that we don't fully understand.


AGW stands on two pillars that are very flimsy:

1) The warming of the 20th century is unprecedented

2) The 3% that humans contribute to a trace gas CO2 (that makes up only 3% of our atmosphere) has caused this unprecedented warming

[DarrinS]

I certainly wouldn't say there are. But to imply that the science on a subject is never settled, or that "true Scotsmen, er scientists" would never say that is silly. In many cases, the science IS settled, being proven out by experiments.

Newtonian physics was a "settled" science until Einstein came along and blew it up.

[LnGrrrR]

Newtonian physics was a "settled" science until Einstein came along and blew it up.

Thanks for proving my point, except you don't need scare quotes.

Being "correct" and being "settled upon" are two different things.

I'm pretty sure we can say that science has "settled" on the flat earth theory being incorrect.

Newtonian physics, which was "settled" upon, isn't complete. It's not incorrect, mind you; it just doesn't tell the whole story.

Will scientists continue to do tests, which may change their opinion? Certainly. But to imply that scientists never "settle" on an answer is just wrong, because frankly they do. I mean, sure there might be some scientist out there desperately trying to prove the Flat Earth theory, and who knows, there may be some strange reality where it IS correct, and scientists will then change their mind.

That doesn't dispute the fact that the science is settled on that theory being wrong today.

[DarrinS]

Thanks for proving my point, except you don't need scare quotes.

Being "correct" and being "settled upon" are two different things.

I'm pretty sure we can say that science has "settled" on the flat earth theory being incorrect.

Newtonian physics, which was "settled" upon, isn't complete. It's not incorrect, mind you; it just doesn't tell the whole story.

Will scientists continue to do tests, which may change their opinion? Certainly. But to imply that scientists never "settle" on an answer is just wrong, because frankly they do. I mean, sure there might be some scientist out there desperately trying to prove the Flat Earth theory, and who knows, there may be some strange reality where it IS correct, and scientists will then change their mind.

That doesn't dispute the fact that the science is settled on that theory being wrong today.

Well, perhaps a better quote would be:

All models are wrong, but some are useful. -George Box


But, to compare people that are sceptical of AGW with "flat Earthers" is just ridiculous.

I think time and empirical data will disprove AGW and many current AGW advocates will leave the "movement" like rats abandoning a sinking ship. Gore has to keep towing the line because he has skin in the game.

[Phenomanul]

All these tangential arguments are drawing away from the obvious "thorn on the side" of AGW supporters that was posited earlier...

Are humans responsible for the glacial recession observed on Mars over the past decade? Or maybe... just maybe... the sun has been the culprit all along.

[LnGrrrR]

Well, perhaps a better quote would be:

All models are wrong, but some are useful. -George Box

Eh... slightly better.

But, to compare people that are sceptical of AGW with "flat Earthers" is just ridiculous.

If you read my other posts, you'd note that I don't think the science of AGW is settled. I was merely using the Flat Earth as a separate issue to discuss your notion that science doesn't "settle".

[DarrinS]

If you read my other posts, you'd note that I don't think the science of AGW is settled. I was merely using the Flat Earth as a separate issue to discuss your notion that science doesn't "settle".

Fair enough.

[MannyIsGod]

Are climate trends and dynamics, to say nothing of such esoterica as AGW, really as clear as 2+2=4?

I don't remember saying a single thing about AGW. I just pointed out how stupid Darrin's statement was.

[DarrinS]

I have nothing intelligent to add to this discussion. I just wanted to insult another poster.

fify

[MannyIsGod]

In this case you're actually right. The only thing I wanted to do in this thread was insult you. I found it quite satisfying too.

[RandomGuy]

The moment any scientist says "The science is settled.", he ceases to be a scientist and becomes an evangelist.

So when Wild Cobra says that the science is settled because "there is almost no possibility that I am wrong" about the sun causing all of the warming/cooling trends noted in the last 200 years....

that makes HIM an evangelist, right?

[admiralsnackbar]

So when Wild Cobra says that the science is settled because "there is almost no possibility that I am wrong" about the sun causing all of the warming/cooling trends noted in the last 200 years....

that makes HIM an evangelist, right?

I guess it would have to. Pity more posters (myself among them) aren't really clear on this issue.

[Phenomanul]

So when Wild Cobra says that the science is settled because "there is almost no possibility that I am wrong" about the sun causing all of the warming/cooling trends noted in the last 200 years....

that makes HIM an evangelist, right?

Semantical juxtaposition... he might be forced into that 'perceived' position only because most anthropomorphic climate change supporters can't accept the possibility that they've been lied to, that they've been duped and misled. By politicians maybe... but they just can't fathom the possibility that the scientific community, of all 'at large en ies,' can in fact operate outside of the scientific method when agendas are involved. It boils down to human stubborness vs. human stubborness. Lines are drawn. Insults are hurled. Reasoning goes by the wayside. Interpretation of the data becomes wholly subjective. No one can win that type of argument.

And yes, our sun continues to be the 'elephant in the living room.'

All these tangential arguments are drawing away from the obvious "thorn on the side" of AGW supporters that was posited earlier...

Are humans responsible for the glacial recession observed on Mars over the past decade? Or maybe... just maybe... the sun has been the culprit all along.

P.S. I find it funny that you all would devote an entire page-and-a-half attacking DarrinS's comment, while not actually providing any further support for your own positions (whether it exists or not). I don't actually fully agree with his comment either, but hammering him about it doesn't make the AGW argument any more convincing.

[RandomGuy]

Semantical juxtaposition... he might be forced into that 'perceived' position only because most anthropomorphic climate change supporters can't accept the possibility that they've been lied to, that they've been duped and misled. By politicians maybe... but they just can't fathom the possibility that the scientific community, of all 'at large en ies,' can in fact operate outside of the scientific method when agendas are involved. It boils down to human stubborness vs. human stubborness. Lines are drawn. Insults are hurled. Reasoning goes by the wayside. Interpretation of the data becomes wholly subjective. No one can win that type of argument.

And yes, our sun continues to be the 'elephant in the living room.'

P.S. I find it funny that you all would devote an entire page-and-a-half attacking DarrinS's comment, while not actually providing any further support for your own positions (whether it exists or not). I don't actually fully agree with his comment either, but hammering him about it doesn't make the AGW argument any more convincing.

Actually, I think it cuts to the heart of the matter, i.e. who to believe?

This is, by all accounts, a very complex system/issue.

When one side tends to, as WC and Darrin do, use absolutes when talking about this, without allowing for the possibility that they are wrong, that speaks volumes about intellectual honesty and credibility.

Reading a lot of the IPCC reports that are summaries of data, they couch their phrasing with "more likely than not" or "highly likely" or "unlikely" depending on overall levels of uncertainty.

The real problem I have with your post, and much of what is said, is that I can allow for the possibility that some scientists might fudge data to further their own selfish ends, but I figure as highly improbable that ALL of them would do so in a concerted fashion.

You, and they, are ascribing motives to a rather large number of people without proof, and using that in a logical ad hominem fallacy to discount a lot of scientific evidence.

That hardly strikes *me* has helping the "denier" case at all.

[RandomGuy]

P.S. I find it funny that you all would devote an entire page-and-a-half attacking DarrinS's comment, while not actually providing any further support for your own positions (whether it exists or not). I don't actually fully agree with his comment either, but hammering him about it doesn't make the AGW argument any more convincing.

My thoughts on the matter:

[Phenomanul]

Actually, I think it cuts to the heart of the matter, i.e. who to believe?

This is, by all accounts, a very complex system/issue.

When one side tends to, as WC and Darrin do, use absolutes when talking about this, without allowing for the possibility that they are wrong, that speaks volumes about intellectual honesty and credibility.

Reading a lot of the IPCC reports that are summaries of data, they couch their phrasing with "more likely than not" or "highly likely" or "unlikely" depending on overall levels of uncertainty.

The real problem I have with your post, and much of what is said, is that I can allow for the possibility that some scientists might fudge data to further their own selfish ends, but I figure as highly improbable that ALL of them would do so in a concerted fashion.

You, and they, are ascribing motives to a rather large number of people without proof, and using that in a logical ad hominem fallacy to discount a lot of scientific evidence.

That hardly strikes *me* has helping the "denier" case at all.

IMO there is no concerted, organized conspiracy by the scientific community to push government pseudo-scientific agendas. It doesn't originate with them. A detrimental domino effect however does exist, simply because the two en ies are intertwined with each other all over the world. In other words, the detriment is perpetuated by the fact that that several world goverments do in fact fund such scientific endeavors. Scientists either have to *find* what that money was meant to unearth, or else they fudge it - if not they lose their government grants. The agenda exists on the political side... and unfortunately it permeates into our scientific world view.

It's not like it's the first time this has happened either:
-- Ethanol based fuel additives?
-- The "Global freezing" scare of the 1970's?
-- Downplaying the hazardous effects of cell phone use?

So while scientist A in Germany and scientist B in Australia, don't necessarily know each other and aren't associated with the other... they may reach equally unfounded conclusions only because the driving factor in their grants was pushed by similar political machines (obviously not the same one since they operate in two different countries).

Also there are thousands of reputable scientists that don't buy the AGW message. Could it be because sufficient data exists to blow the basic premise of anthropomorphic climate change out of the water?

Mars is a pretty freaking big one we can all see.

[admiralsnackbar]

So while scientist A in Germany and scientist B in Australia, don't know each other and aren't associated with the other... they may reach equally unfounded conclusions only because the driving factor in their grants was pushed by similar political machines (obviously not the same one since they operate in two different countries).

I don't dispute the rest of your post, but isn't it at least noteworthy that scientists on opposite sides of the globe would fudge the same things to result in the same findings to supported the same specific conclusion? So many studies with convergent results in so many disparate scientific disciplines seems to at least make claims of AGW credible even if their ultimate veracity proves contestable.

[Phenomanul]

I don't dispute the rest of your post, but isn't it at least noteworthy that scientists on opposite sides of the globe would fudge the same things to result in the same findings to supported the same specific conclusion? So many studies with convergent results in so many disparate scientific disciplines seems to at least make claims of AGW credible even if their ultimate veracity proves contestable.

Blame the internets... the illusion of "convergence" would have been more difficult to construct even a mere 20 years ago. hmm... I guess Al Gore is to blame on both counts. I can cookie cut the missing piece to a puzzle if I know what the hole looks like... that task is far more difficult to execute however, if I'm not privy to that context. The fact that the IPCC had emails that suggested they tried to normalize the data pools is telling enough.

Everyone here, of course, is speaking in generalizations...