Is Global Warming a Hoax?

[wufwugy]

It's more than the doomsaying too.

Here's a personal example: Washington State had a ballot initiative to add a carbon/gas tax. The initiative included a reduction in the rates of several other taxes, so as to get anti-tax people on board. I didn't vote for it in part because I know that the tax reductions are just temporary and that adding a carbon tax would just make the taxes in the state higher long term.

It is in part because of this that I am more open to the idea that scientists are getting things wrong on AGW. A world in which we all believe AGW is an important issue we need to tackle is a world in which liberties will be markedly reduced. I, and many like me, do not want that kind of a world, so it opens us up to any possible counter to it.

If, instead, the ballot initiative that would add a carbon tax did something like eliminate a different tax altogether, the issue might not be so big since it would signal that the path those who want to tackle AGW is taking does not involve marching more quickly towards totalitarianism.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It is in part because of this that I am more open to the idea that scientists are getting things wrong on AGW.

This is good science. However, this is not your actual position (or I've misunderstood your position).

You're not "open to the idea" that scientists are getting things wrong. You're openly asserting that scientists are getting things wrong.

Which is also a great position to take if you can support it with data. You're not, though. You're looking at the scientists proposals as to how to respond to their data with disfavor, and using that disfavor to say the data must be bad. This does not follow. If you disagree with their responses to the data, then that's totally different than disagreeing with the data, and an altogether more productive discussion can take place if A) I am correct about it and B) you redirect your disfavor from the data to the responses to the data.

The whole story is that whatever our responses to AGW are, they better be economically advantageous in the long term and not widespread economic disruptions in the short term. We need the confluence of climate scientists and economics to resolve this. Of course the scientists are not going to be as well-versed in the economic ramifications of their proposals as an economist. Of course, they're going to make bone-headed suggestions as to how to respond to their data. This is exactly why we need you (wuf) to avoid calling their data into question when it's really their bad economic advice that is your gripe.

(Do still call question to the data, just try to accept that you're probably under-informed about their work, just as they are under-informed about your work.)

A world in which we all believe AGW is an important issue we need to tackle is a world in which liberties will be markedly reduced. I, and many like me, do not want that kind of a world, so it opens us up to any possible counter to it.

A world in which we believe things which are poor descriptions of reality is a problem. If AGW is an accurate description of reality, then ignoring that because you have certain feelings is folly.

If you choose to live in a world where AGW exists and goes unchecked, that's a totally different stance than denying AGW.

If AGW is accurate, then doing nothing about it will also lead to a world with markedly reduced liberties. It's just that in this case, the liberties are reduced by the cost of "business as usual" in a less hospitable world.

The notion that it opens you up to "any possible counter" is plain hypocrisy. You say that the scientists are taking the approach of saying whatever to convince you to believe them, and your response is to say anything to argue with them. If what you crave is an accurate description, then you're really screwing up by blindly countering their assertions without doing your own fact-checking first.

[wufwugy]

This is good science. However, this is not your actual position (or I've misunderstood your position).

You're not "open to the idea" that scientists are getting things wrong. You're openly asserting that scientists are getting things wrong.

Which is also a great position to take if you can support it with data. You're not, though. You're looking at the scientists proposals as to how to respond to their data with disfavor, and using that disfavor to say the data must be bad. This does not follow. If you disagree with their responses to the data, then that's totally different than disagreeing with the data, and an altogether more productive discussion can take place if A) I am correct about it and B) you redirect your disfavor from the data to the responses to the data.

The whole story is that whatever our responses to AGW are, they better be economically advantageous in the long term and not widespread economic disruptions in the short term. We need the confluence of climate scientists and economics to resolve this. Of course the scientists are not going to be as well-versed in the economic ramifications of their proposals as an economist. Of course, they're going to make bone-headed suggestions as to how to respond to their data. This is exactly why we need you (wuf) to avoid calling their data into question when it's really their bad economic advice that is your gripe.

(Do still call question to the data, just try to accept that you're probably under-informed about their work, just as they are under-informed about your work.)


A world in which we believe things which are poor descriptions of reality is a problem. If AGW is an accurate description of reality, then ignoring that because you have certain feelings is folly.

If you choose to live in a world where AGW exists and goes unchecked, that's a totally different stance than denying AGW.

If AGW is accurate, then doing nothing about it will also lead to a world with markedly reduced liberties. It's just that in this case, the liberties are reduced by the cost of "business as usual" in a less hospitable world.

The notion that it opens you up to "any possible counter" is plain hypocrisy. You say that the scientists are taking the approach of saying whatever to convince you to believe them, and your response is to say anything to argue with them. If what you crave is an accurate description, then you're really screwing up by blindly countering their assertions without doing your own fact-checking first.

My perception has been that there is a lower standard of rigor in climate science. AGW has not been demonstrated, yet a near total majority of climate scientists who make statements on the subject do so as if it has. I think AGW is real and I understand why climate scientists would think it's real, but that's different than their scientific opinion. My argument is that if global warming was not such a hot political topic, they would have a much more robust opinion, which would be along the lines of "AGW could be real but we need more research". Instead what we get is "98% of climate scientists think AGW is real." This is political talk, not science talk.