Is Global Warming a Hoax?

[Poopadoop]

If they're going to put a climate change denier up against someone like Cox, they really should find an articulate one.

They should, but they're hard to find. Usually they just cherry pick elements of the story like guy in OP and say 'ha! if you just look at this and ignore/discount everything else, it's not convincing.'

This guy is right about one thing... consensus isn't fact. Even universal consensus.

Consensus at least is a sensible guide to what is going on, as compared to believing the opposite of whatever the consensus is.

Every sceientist in the world worth his salt will say humans are the most intelligent species on the planet. Elephants, dolphins, maybe these are and just can't manipulate like we can.

Depends on how you define intelligence then. It takes a lot of brain power to control the 40 sets of muscles in your hands and wrists in a sophisticated way, which no other animal is able to do (notwithstanding differences in anatomy which disqualifies most animals from even trying).

But ignoring that, there's no evidence other animals have language on any level similar to humans. Even if they try to train great apes, they learn words but not syntax.

Ignoring language, a grown up chimp has the same cognitive skills as a six year old child.

Ignoring that, brain to size ratio is way higher in humans than in any other animal, including elephants and whales.

Science can make assumptions based on probability, but it has to be honest about it and say it is not proven fact, that it can't stand the test of experiment because the experiment is ongoing. I think if climate change is really happening, the wake up call will be when Tuvalu gets claimed by the ocean. When that happens, the theory is making accurate predictions.

The theory is already making accurate predictions about changes in sea level and extreme weather. If you wait until catastrophe happens before you accept the theory, then you've lost your chance. If science said an asteroid was going to hit the planet in five years and wipe out life, you wouldn't wait to see if it happened to confirm their theory.

Until then, people will continue to bicker about this because science continues to say this is fact without actual proof. Those of us who are naturally suspicious of the official narrative will tend to question what we're being told about climate. The proper tin hatters out there will make a fuss about it, and we'll have plebs like this guy they put against Cox struggling to articulate why the fuck he is doubtful.

It's not a difficult proposition: either you trust science or you don't. That's why we have experts so we don't have to sift through all the evidence ourselves and draw conclusions. If an engineer says this bridge will hold 20t, I don't go 'wait this guy can't prove that, he's never tested it, so I'm going to drive my 25t truck over it cause he might be wrong.' I just take his word and act accordingly.

The only reason there's any debate out AGW at all is because the naysayers have ties to economic interests in fossil fuel production imo. If it weren't for that, everyone would just go 'fuck yeah, let's deal with this shit'.

[wufwugy]

The only reason there's any debate out AGW at all is because the naysayers have ties to economic interests in fossil fuel production imo. If it weren't for that, everyone would just go 'fuck yeah, let's deal with this shit'.

We could flip that around. Like this:

The reason naysayers are galvanized is because of doomsayers who want everybody to live in huts because of an idea for which they have little evidence. Also it's a tool used by pro-authoritarian-government elites to get their way.

[Poopadoop]

We could flip that around. Like this:

The reason naysayers are galvanized is because of doomsayers who want everybody to live in huts because of an idea for which they have little evidence. Also it's a tool used by pro-authoritarian-government elites to get their way.

IOW, there's no plausible reason for scientists to collectively lie about this so they come up with nonsense ones, and hope that if they repeat them enough times people will start to believe it.

So they come up with shit like the scientists are lying because they want to ruin the economy (why?) and it's the establishment that benefits from doing so (how?) and thus it's all a giant suspend-your-disbelief conspiracy-theory with no basis in reality.

But I guess if you believe a pepperoni pizza is code for a blowjob from a minor then I guess it isn't much of a stretch to buy any of that.

[wufwugy]

IOW, there's no plausible reason for scientists to collectively lie about this so they come up with nonsense ones, and hope that if they repeat them enough times people will start to believe it.

So they come up with shit like the scientists are lying because they want to ruin the economy (why?) and it's the establishment that benefits from doing so (how?) and thus it's all a giant suspend-your-disbelief conspiracy-theory with no basis in reality.

But I guess if you believe a pepperoni pizza is code for a blowjob from a minor then I guess it isn't much of a stretch to buy any of that.

Let's blame the doomsayers. I used to be one.

[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.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's not a difficult proposition: either you trust science or you don't.

What? That's not what science is. It's not a thing you can trust or not. It's a process of Q&A supported by experimentation.
Ultimately, everyone is a scientist if they harbor a curiosity, then they do something to elucidate the confusion.
That's science.
Curiosity -> experiment -> new understanding (sometimes often not about the original curiosity)

Well...
:/
I guess you can distrust science, but if your distrust stems from personal experiences which have brought you observations, then you are using science to say why you distrust science, and that's crazy-talk.

The only real argument for why someone would distrust science would have to be solely based on feelings and not evidence-based at all, because once you are using explanations based on evidence, you're doing science.