Danny Deflation Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Rational scepticism has already been cornered by scientists. Is that man-made climate change or just climate change per se? Few rational thinkers would argue with the latter; as for the former, even die-hard proponents still use the word "probably". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Is that man-made climate change or just climate change per se? Few rational thinkers would argue with the latter; as for the former, even die-hard proponents still use the word "probably". Which sort of proves my point, does it not? Rational scepticism has already been cornered by scientists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Which sort of proves my point, does it not? Most of the talking heads who foam at the mouth and confuse denial and scepticism are not scientists, I've observed, and instead are impassioned vocal activists (often paid) for Greenpeace and similar organisations Global warming scientists, largely (but not completely) user much more measured terms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Most of the talking heads who foam at the mouth and confuse denial and scepticism are not scientists, I've observed, and instead are impassioned vocal activists (often paid) for Greenpeace and similar organisations Global warming scientists, largely (but not completely) user much more measured terms Totally agree, I wouldn't assume that any information reported by a political body or mainstream media outlet was correct on the face of it. Peer reviewed papers in scientific journals (peer review not being perfect but being a lot better than anything else we have going at the moment) are another matter, although these should also be read critically. Taken en masse they do tend to iron out any particular bias of individual authors and their standards of evidence are immeasurably higher than that of activists or journalists. Personally I would consider myself a sceptic, I could easily be swayed to another position entirely if the overall evidence led in that direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Deflation Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Which sort of proves my point, does it not? Does it? Climate change is probably man made. Hardly concrete scientific consensus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Does it? Climate change is probably man made. Hardly concrete scientific consensus. On that basis general relativity may also be wrong, I understand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 On that basis general relativity may also be wrong, I understand I thought part of that was proved correct, the missing part being the Universal Constant?....Its been a while which conveniently makes it all work... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 I thought part of that was proved correct, the missing part being the Universal Constant?....Its been a while which conveniently makes it all work... That's my point, it is largely accepted but there are still uncertainties which mean that it may be missing stuff out That is the nature of science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuggets Mahoney Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 On that basis general relativity may also be wrong, I understand Climate change is also not man made. What is contested, or 'denied', appears to be is whether the man made component is going to prove catastrophic or not. Reducing that to 'climate change denier' strikes me as advocacy, not an accurate description of an opponent's position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Climate change is also not man made. I think it's reasonable to limit our argument just to the man made element, which appears to clearly dominate the last century or so of climate data What is contested, or 'denied', appears to be is whether the man made component is going to prove catastrophic or not. Agreed Reducing that to 'climate change denier' strikes me as advocacy, not an accurate description of an opponent's position. Excuse my legal ignorance, I'm sure I want to agree with you, but can you rephrase that in layman's terms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Does it? Climate change is probably man made. Hardly concrete scientific consensus. It proves my point that scientists have cornered rational scepticism. Rational scepticism has already been cornered by scientists. The idea of a concrete and immutable scientific consensus is not scientific in and of itself, although I agree with Sil that the general perception that it should be is largely a fault of the current education system: In part defence of bloo loo, of not of his opinion, the way science is taught pre university suggests it really is some kind of pure truth, I suspect it garners more enthusiasm from pupils in that way Whereas at degree level and above, it is more and more emphasised how it is often about dealing with uncertainty and ambiguous evidence and opinions, which renders it much harder (and also much more interesting) In reality science is naturally sceptical, which is one of the reasons that the majority scientific consensus is likely to be the most accurate prism through which to understand the universe as observed to date: if any scientist can possibly overturn it they will do so (and make their own reputation and career at the same time) thus the consensus is robustly tested and refined over time in line with any new evidence. Sometimes this takes a while, and the system is imperfect, but it's the most reliable means of analysis we have. This general attitude of scientific scepticism is in line with the language I've used throughout: A black swan climate event is hopefully still a long way off but seems fairly inevitable given current trends, both meteorologically and politically. The balance of probabilities does seem to strongly suggest that overall global temperature increases are likely to be behind increased flooding frequency. Any empirical evidence against that you're aware of? I'd be interested to read any if you have links? As to reasons behind this particular pause recorded evidence suggests it is increasingly likely that this is a consequence of a reduction in ocean heat loss as a caused by other climatic events (such as El Niño, volcanic eruptions, etc) that was previously adding to global surface temperature above the long term trend (as can be seen in the late 90s / early 00s in the graph above) by moving some of the ocean temperature increases from atmospheric CO2 and adding it to the surface temperature increases. A subsequent reduction in climatic events that cause ocean heat loss thereby causes surface temperatures to temporarily pause (or even decrease slightly, as has been seen in the past) as they normalise the previous rise above the long term trend, before then continuing the upward progression in line with atmospheric CO2. As to the argument of being near a point of CO2 greenhouse effect saturation (i.e. reaching a maximum greenhouse effect whereby additional atmospheric CO2 no longer has an impact on global temperatures), longwave radiation absorbed by CO2 is then re-radiated not perpetually stored, and shortwave radiation coming in from the sun is absorbed by the Earth and then re-radiated as a continual source of new longwave radiation. Given there is no perpetual storage and no shortage of new longwave radiation for saturation to be possible it would be necessary for us to reach a saturation point throughout the system as a whole. I'm not sure that this is even hypothetically possible but it's certainly highly unlikely, and not supported by satellite data collected on outgoing radiation in relation to atmospheric CO2 levels: It's also why I keep asking people to post opposing data, I would genuinely be interested in reading it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuggets Mahoney Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Excuse my legal ignorance, I'm sure I want to agree with you but can you rephrase that in layman's terms? Who's denying that climate changes? I'm sure there are maybe a couple of cranks out there who believe that climate is immutable but it's not a position I've encountered. Use of the expression 'climate change denier' is a device a lawyer would use, putting a 'straw man' argument in the mouth of an opponent. What's being 'denied' is catastrophic man-made climate change, not climate change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Climate change is also not man made. Sorry, do you mean that climate change as an over-arching concept is not man made (in which case, agreed) or that contemporary changes to the climate (which is what is normally referred to as climate change in the colloquial sense) are definitively nothing to do with human activity? Essentially are you questioning a point of semantics or making a broad sweeping statement of fact? If the latter empirical evidence please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Who's denying that climate changes? I'm sure there are maybe a couple of cranks out there who believe that climate is immutable but it's not a position I've encountered. Use of the expression 'climate change denier' is a device a lawyer would use, putting a 'straw man' argument in the mouth of an opponent. What's being 'denied' is catastrophic man-made climate change, not climate change. This is a very good point. If the full description of "Man-made Climate Change Denier" was used by those using the insult, it would more correct. Of course, the argument would soon be lost, because then they would have justify it. Easier to call people names - remember where the term 'denier' has come from. All very managed (spun). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Who's denying that climate changes? I'm sure there are maybe a couple of cranks out there who believe that climate is immutable but it's not a position I've encountered. Use of the expression 'climate change denier' is a device a lawyer would use, putting a 'straw man' argument in the mouth of an opponent. What's being 'denied' is catastrophic man-made climate change, not climate change. So it's a point of semantics then, you'd rather people who feel the need to use such labels stuck to "catastrophic anthropogenic climate change deniers" rather than "climate change deniers"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 This is a very good point. If the full description of "Man-made Climate Change Denier" was used by those using the insult, it would more correct. Of course, the argument would soon be lost, because then they would have justify it. Easier to call people names - remember where the term 'denier' has come from. All very managed. Well, I don't think the rational arguments are done any favours by the irrational hyperbole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 This is a very good point. If the full description of "Man-made Climate Change Denier" was used by those using the insult, it would more correct. Of course, the argument would soon be lost, because then they would have justify it. Easier to call people names - remember where the term 'denier' has come from. All very managed (spun). Moving the discussion on to sociological labels instead of addressing the data isn't exactly a strong argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuggets Mahoney Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Well, I don't think the rational arguments are done any favours by the irrational hyperbole My own angle is that fair, accurate description is worthwhile in principle, not because I expect any killer blows to be landed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eight Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Moving the discussion on to sociological labels instead of addressing the data isn't exactly a strong argument. Lo-fi, can I ask you to clarify one thing. Have you been brought in because Fluffy just wasn't cutting it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Lo-fi, can I ask you to clarify one thing. Have you been brought in because Fluffy just wasn't cutting it? I have to say that I find lofi much more balanced and sober than fluffy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 My own angle is that fair, accurate description is worthwhile in principle, not because I expect any killer blows to be landed. Well yes And it's violation of that principle that raises people's suspicions; just a mental shortcut that people take when they don't have the spare mental time to dissect the arguments more rationally (which is the position most people in a full time job will find themselves in) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowflux Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 My own angle is that fair, accurate description is worthwhile in principle, not because I expect any killer blows to be landed. I think most of the scientific community are not comfortable with the preferred self-description of those opposed to the theory of anthropogenic global warming as "sceptics" simply because many of those who describe themselves as such are not what one would call sceptics in the scientific sense, that is, people who question belief on the basis of scientific understanding. Their opposition is more commonly based on personal conviction or feelings of suspicion or antipathy towards proponents of the theory. While I feel that "denier" would be a more accurate label on these grounds, I do acknowledge that offence may be taken by use of the term due to its negative connotations, and I generally try to avoid using it in discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Lo-fi, can I ask you to clarify one thing. Have you been brought in because Fluffy just wasn't cutting it? That's quite funny I actually had quite an argument with Fluffy over a flawed analysis of cancer rate increases on US Navy ships in the Fukushima area: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=160920&st=6570 I have to say that I find lofi much more balanced and sober than fluffy Thanks, definitely what I was going for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StainlessSteelCat Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 In part defence of bloo loo, of not of his opinion, the way science is taught pre university suggests it really is some kind of pure truth, I suspect it garners more enthusiasm from pupils in that way Whereas at degree level and above, it is more and more emphasised how it is often about dealing with uncertainty and ambiguous evidence and opinions, which renders it much harder (and also much more interesting) I completely agree with this. I doubt there will ever be a full description of the natural world - and try to create one would distort it, so there are limits to scientific observation. Some theories have more evidence to support than others - and things do change over time too. Evolution by natural selection,for example, now looks pretty strong as a whole - but it's also a hell of a lot more nuanced than in Darwin's day. There are even notable exceptions. But by the time things end up in the papers or pre-graduate text books it's presented as fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eight Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I actually had quite an argument with Fluffy over a flawed analysis of cancer rate increases on US Navy ships in the Fukushima area Quite an argument? Pah! Back in the days when I could be bothered to discuss global warming I could reduce Fluffy to a gibbering wreck within three posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.