Is Global Warming a Hoax?

[OngBonga]

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.

Yup. However, my blind trust in mathematics is more well founded than any other blind trust.

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

What makes you think I think they're probably wrong?

No-one is saying it is.

Maybe not here, but in terms of the way it is presented through media, it's as good as fact. Anyone who argues otherwise is deemed a crank, or a conspiracy nut.

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.

What makes you think I feel insulted?

You have no evidence for these kinds motives, yet words like the bolded imply that these are your real reasons for doubting AGW.

You're actually right here. I mean, most of the stuff I say is me playing devil's advocate because I quite enjoy arguing about shit. But the reason I can sit here and take this position is because I lost faith in the integrity of the system with 9/11. Do I believe every conspiracy theory as a result? Of course not, but I certainly lend them more weight than the average person does.

It's interesting, because you point at my blind faith in maths, while you put your faith in the integrity of the system that educates our scientists. I refer you back to my point about my blind faith being more well founded than others.

Hey Dame Bonga, what are some alternative theories to the big bang? Torus sounds neat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-...f_the_universe

[Poopadoop]

...you put your faith in the integrity of the system that educates our scientists.

I've been through that education myself, and am part of that system myself.

If your argument is along the lines of 'all of these climate scientists may have been corrupted', I can't prove they haven't. But there is a great deal of emphasis placed on academic integrity in science and a lot of internal checks as well. For example, if you try to make a name for yourself by making data up you may become a star in your field for six months, but the truth will come out when no-one can replicate your made up data. When that happens, you'll be discredited. After that, no-one will take you seriously ever again. Goodbye reputation, goodbye funding, goodbye promotions.

This is why science tends to attract honest people.

If your argument is 'how do we know the experts are actually qualified to evaluate the evidence?', then I guess we don't. One reason to believe this is that the overall record of science has been pretty good. There have been errors made to be sure, but the matters in which there has been such a large consensus have usually ended up showing the consensus to be right.

All of that said, the climate is a very complex system and a difficult one to model, because 1) the number of variables and their interactions are huge and can probably never be fully understood; and 2) small changes in input parameters can lead to large changes in outputs (i.e., the butterfly effect). So I think we have to temper our expectations regarding how precise the predictions can be.