Is Global Warming a Hoax?

[OngBonga]

In fact, I'm surprised an empiricist and deep skeptic line Ong is so willing to accept mathematics as a proven theory, given the paucity of the evidence.

I was excellent at Maths at school, way ahead of my peers. Maths is beautifully simple and complex at the same time. Mojo nails the issues at stake here... 2+2=4 will always be the case, because 2 is well defined, so is plus, and so is equals. For 2+2 to = 5, we must redefine either the numbers or the functions.

To say that maybe tomorrow 2+2=5, therefore maths is unproven, is absurd, more so than anything I've typed in this thread.

I didn't define it myself, I learned the proper definition through study. That gives me more credibility as an authority on the topic than someone who hasn't done that. Do you disagree?

No, I don't disagree with this. If you insist that googling something to define it is insufficient, and mojo doesn't argue with you, I'll have to accept that you're not just typing words to argue with me.

Not at all. But my argument isn't that you should believe me. My argument is that we have specialists who've already done the hard work on it, and they overwhelmingly agree AGW is real.

And experts once overhwlemingly agreed that the atom was the building block of all matter.

Overwhelming consensus is NOT FACT, this is the entire basis of my argument.

You're asking science for 'proof' but you're not qualified to judge what qualifies as evidence. They say they have sufficient evidence already. But you want to argue you're better positioned to judge what counts as sufficient evidence than they are. And it ain't so.

Very few people are qualified to judge, by this measure. And so, skeptics like me become concerned that the masses are being duped by those who are "qualified", and then beaten down for being too stupid to understand the intricate details at hand.

Meanwhile you're making feeble arguments...

Hey, I'm just saying climate change theory might be wrong. You're arguing there's no way we can be certain maths isn't wrong. I'd say your argument is more feeble than mine, because at least I'm arguing about a complex theory that is contentious, rather than an established and well defined system. You're trying to muddy the waters when it comes to "proof". By your measure, nothing is provable. And in this realm, we might as well question our very existence. If I can't be certain that 2+2 will = 5 tomorrow, how can I be certain that that I even exist? How can I be certain that drinking water will stop me from dehydrating? How can I be certain that breathing will provide the oxygen I need to survive? How can I be certain of anything at all?

Maths is the most basic of certainties that we have. I am more certain that tomorrow 2+2 will = 4 than anything else I can think of. Mathematics sets the bar, from my point of view at least it's how we can even begin to define "certain".

[Poopadoop]

To say that maybe tomorrow 2+2=5, therefore maths is unproven, is absurd, more so than anything I've typed in this thread.

You only say this because of your blind trust in mathematicians and their so-called facts. You have no way of knowing what might happen tomorrow.

And experts once overhwlemingly agreed that the atom was the building block of all matter.

If your point is that 'experts are sometimes wrong, therefore the experts can be wrong on AGW', then there's no argument here.

However, if your point is that experts being fallible is a good reason to think they are probably wrong about AGW, then I disagree.

If you add up all the points of science on which there's a 98% consensus among the experts, I'd bet that the overwhelmingly number of them have never been disproved.

Overwhelming consensus is NOT FACT, this is the entire basis of my argument.

No-one is saying it is.

Very few people are qualified to judge, by this measure. And so, skeptics like me become concerned that the masses are being duped by those who are "qualified", and then beaten down for being too stupid to understand the intricate details at hand.

This is another way you lose ground, by suggesting that there's some 'duping' going on, and that you're somehow being insulted by being called a non-expert in the field. It's as if you think that you're somehow able to discern the truth on your own just by dint of having a better-than-average IQ, notwithstanding that you haven't looked carefully at the evidence, haven't been trained to understand the evidence, and don't seem interested in changing either one of these things. Otherwise, you wouldn't be offended when someone calls you a non-expert.

If you had just stuck with 'they could be wrong', I'd go along. When you start adding in these paranoid theories about the scientists having ulterior motives about tricking you into a false conclusion about AGW, and calling you a dummy, it sounds like you think they're being paid off by the people who build windmills or just screwing with your head 'cause they have nothing better to do. You have no evidence for these kinds motives, yet words like the bolded imply that these are your real reasons for doubting AGW.

Hey, I'm just saying climate change theory might be wrong. You're arguing there's no way we can be certain maths isn't wrong. I'd say your argument is more feeble than mine, because at least I'm arguing about a complex theory that is contentious, rather than an established and well defined system. You're trying to muddy the waters when it comes to "proof". By your measure, nothing is provable. And in this realm, we might as well question our very existence. If I can't be certain that 2+2 will = 5 tomorrow, how can I be certain that that I even exist? How can I be certain that drinking water will stop me from dehydrating? How can I be certain that breathing will provide the oxygen I need to survive? How can I be certain of anything at all?

Maths is the most basic of certainties that we have. I am more certain that tomorrow 2+2 will = 4 than anything else I can think of. Mathematics sets the bar, from my point of view at least it's how we can even begin to define "certain".

This part of the argument was about yours and/or google's definition of science. It had nothing to do with AGW, except inasmuch as you applied your arguments to say that climate science was really climate philosophy.

[MadMojoMonkey]

No, I don't disagree with this. If you insist that googling something to define it is insufficient, and mojo doesn't argue with you, I'll have to accept that you're not just typing words to argue with me.

And in this realm, we might as well question our very existence. If I can't be certain that 2+2 will = 5 tomorrow, how can I be certain that that I even exist? How can I be certain that drinking water will stop me from dehydrating? How can I be certain that breathing will provide the oxygen I need to survive? How can I be certain of anything at all?