The Climate Change Debate Thread

[joel]

There is no rigorous proof of the alarmist hypothesis. It is predicated on models using exactly the way you put it.

"Our extremely deficient models of the climate work best when we tweak and fine tune them according to our priors."

NOte that a genuine scientist would advance his thinking thus:


That leads me to at least two possiblities:

• My hypothesis is correct or,
• My models are incorrect

It is increasingly obvious that the latter is more likely.

How is it possible to persuade stupid people? People who listen to scientists in every other area, but know best in this case.

Someone said to me, why don't people LISTEN to what they are being told about Climate Change? I said, basically, that we're just too stupid.

[X-ray]

How is it possible to persuade stupid people? People who listen to scientists in every other area, but know best in this case.

Someone said to me, why don't people LISTEN to what they are being told about Climate Change? I said, basically, that we're just too stupid.

I am a scientist, just not a "climate change" one.

I am not saving I believe it is not happening, but it is very strange that the biggest and most accurate model of them all looks pretty much the same as it has since I arrived on it.

[joel]

I am a scientist, just not a "climate change" one.

I am not saving I believe it is not happening, but it is very strange that the biggest and most accurate model of them all looks pretty much the same as it has since I arrived on it.

Your model? - you're not in the field, so why should we take any notice of "your" model?

[ibis]

How is it possible to persuade stupid people? People who listen to scientists in every other area, but know best in this case.

Someone said to me, why don't people LISTEN to what they are being told about Climate Change? I said, basically, that we're just too stupid.

What's worse is that modelling is used in every area of science all the time. However, when it comes to something that has an impact on people's lives they do often choose to reject the science - or at least a particular subset of the population does. It's often the result of rejecting what is felt to be an imputation of guilt, which then leads to rejection of the science in order to back up the rejection of guilt. Alternatively, it can be a rejection of social responsibility - which is why libertarians almost invariably reject the science, and many conservatives as well.

Still, if it's any comfort, the policy debate is largely over. The opposition being mounted by "skeptics" is a rearguard action, and dwindling as places like the Maldives are actually abandoned as a result of rising sea levels. The pity is that it's already too late to prevent most of the consequences.

[Geckko]

How is it possible to persuade stupid people? People who listen to scientists in every other area, but know best in this case.

Someone said to me, why don't people LISTEN to what they are being told about Climate Change? I said, basically, that we're just too stupid.

A scientist would probably apply Occam's razor here, as follows:
We observe that in 99% of cases the large majority of people people appear to accept statements made by "scientists"
In the case of dangerous climate change people don't listen.

• Hypothesis #1: "People are stupid"
• Hypothesis #2: "The case is not yet made sufficiently to convince intelligent people"

One of the frequently glossed-over facts is that the study of this hypothesis spans many disciplines. Witness the utterly atrocious statistics applied in the area of climate reconstruction.

Another problem is the overstepping of some "scientists" who claim authority on subjects way outtside their competence. Look at James Hansen. He hasn't the most basic qualifications or experience to be making normative policy statements, but he does and he insults people who don't agree with him.

The simple fact is that there is a cohort of people who work in various fields connected to climate science who bleieve in dangerous anthropogenic climate change.

But there are others who work in such fields and others who are experts in some of the fields, but don't work in climate change, who think it a poorly established hypothesis.

I know who I think is stupid.

[Geckko]

Still, if it's any comfort, the policy debate is largely over. The opposition being mounted by "skeptics" is a rearguard action, and dwindling as places like the Maldives are actually abandoned as a result of rising sea levels. The pity is that it's already too late to prevent most of the consequences.

Excellent, you finally bring a falsifiable statement. That is science.

Can you bring me mean sea level data for the Maldives and any well supported research showing attributino of various potential causal factors, including tectonic movement, land degredation etc.

[Geckko]

Your model? - you're not in the field, so why should we take any notice of "your" model?

His model is the earth, reality... He is saying that observations of that don't fit the hypothesis of dangerous climate change.

And he is right.

[joel]

His model is the earth, reality... He is saying that observations of that don't fit the hypothesis of dangerous climate change.

And he is right.

And 95% plus of scientists say he is wrong. I know who I believe.

And his "models" are so much waste, if he is not involved in the field.

[Geckko]

And 95% plus of scientists say he is wrong. I know who I believe.

And his "models" are so much waste, if he is not involved in the field.

More testible claims. Can you provide me with the emperical evidence in support of that statement.

[joel]

More testible claims. Can you provide me with the emperical evidence in support of that statement.

Don't try to be scientific - I'm trained in it - when you're anti-scientific.