How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[TrueSceptic]

Superficially reasonable, but the thrust of the arguments had to do with issues of predicting heat capacity and the time variations in transfers from oceans to atmosphere. But it looks as if the OP is more concerned with social issues or popular perceptions than the scientific arguments, so the points may be moot.

Not really social issues. This is about how GW "sceptics" operate, whether they claim to be scientists or are laymen posting in forums like this.

 

[Furcifer]

Global Warming is just a scare tactic thought up by governments to make us use less coal and oil.

Geesh, is this the same government that is run by BushCo, a bunch of rich oil tycoons, wishing to wage war on any country to get access to more oil?

I can never keep my Woo straight.

 

[Pipirr]

Thanks, but this thread is not about whether GW is happening. It is about the behaviour of GW "sceptics". If they have a case, why can't they agree what it is, why do they keep contradicting one another (or even themselves), and why are they so frequently dishonest?

There's a key question.

The AGW hypothesis is coherent and well supported by evidence, but the counter argument is often just nitpicking, or the invocation of a scientific conspiracy or incompetence. As the list in the OP demonstrates.

What is the coherent and well supported alternative hypothesis to AGW?

Come on, global warming sceptics. Give me something plausible. Sum it all up.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Geesh, is this the same government that is run by BushCo, a bunch of rich oil tycoons, wishing to wage war on any country to get access to more oil?

I can never keep my Woo straight.

This claim is often made about other governments, and especially ours in the UK. I imagine it is not often made about the current American one!

 

[TrueSceptic]

There's a key question.

The AGW hypothesis is coherent and well supported by evidence, but the counter argument is often just nitpicking, or the invocation of a scientific conspiracy or incompetence. As the list in the OP demonstrates.

What is the coherent and well supported alternative hypothesis to AGW?

Come on, global warming sceptics. Give me something plausible. Sum it all up.

They "know" only that it can't be CO2. Alternatives come and go but "not CO2" is the one constant.

 

[mhaze]

Not really social issues. This is about how GW "sceptics" operate, whether they claim to be scientists or are laymen posting in forums like this.

Okay, then if you want to talk science, go back to my (randomly picked) article of "skeptical science" and incorporate it into your polemical spin, if you want some credibility.

Or don't.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Okay, then if you want to talk science, go back to my (randomly picked) article of "skeptical science" and incorporate it into your polemical spin, if you want some credibility.

Or don't.

I don't need any credibility. I never claimed to list all "sceptical" claims. What I listed was enough to make my point.

If you want some credibility, prove that no "sceptics" make the claims I listed. Can you do that, or even attempt to?

 

[mhaze]

I don't need any credibility. I never claimed to list all "sceptical" claims. What I listed was enough to make my point.

If you want some credibility, prove that no "sceptics" make the claims I listed. Can you do that, or even attempt to?

Well, I do agree with the fact that you don't need any credibility. However in all fairness note that I suggested your "list" and the approach implicit within it to the problem was more properly lodged in "social issues" or some such place. You however, insist that it reasonably belongs in science.

So all I've done is post just a couple links to actual science on climate. The links are ones that could reasonably be said to support the skeptical point of view on global warming being man made.

So here were are in the science forum, I've given you some science to chew on, and just asked it if fit in your frame of reference.

Now, you've asked that I refute an "irrefutable hypothesis", that is quite laughable. Science works on the continued criticism and testing of hypotheses, not on the cheerleading of favored hypotheses.

Therefore I encourage you to revise your list such that it can encompass actual science, the subject you have chosen to debate within. (Hint: I've got 500 more articles to post so that they can be compared with your latest revision of the list so let's hurry it up a bit!)

 

[TrueSceptic]

Well, I do agree with the fact that you don't need any credibility. However in all fairness note that I suggested your "list" and the approach implicit within it to the problem was more properly lodged in "social issues" or some such place. You however, insist that it reasonably belongs in science.

I do not "insist". I'm just not sure whether claims about science belong elsewhere.

So all I've done is post just a couple links to actual science on climate. The links are ones that could reasonably be said to support the skeptical point of view on global warming being man made.

So here were are in the science forum, I've given you some science to chew on, and just asked it if fit in your frame of reference.

It doesn't matter. I could include many more claims, some well supported and some not. The point is to show the variety of claims and how they are often contradictory.

Now, you've asked that I refute an "irrefutable hypothesis", that is quite laughable. Science works on the continued criticism and testing of hypotheses, not on the cheerleading of favored hypotheses.

Never mind that. Are you claiming that these claims are not routinely made by "sceptics"?

Therefore I encourage you to revise your list such that it can encompass actual science, the subject you have chosen to debate within. (Hint: I've got 500 more articles to post so that they can be compared with your latest revision of the list so let's hurry it up a bit!)

Why are you being so obtuse? This is about the nature of GW "scepticism", not the science itself.

 

[CapelDodger]

I am indeed affronted by its misuse by the anti-GW crowd. Anyone who believes that the scientific method is the best way we have of acquiring and improving knowledge is a sceptic by definition; with very few exceptions, GW "sceptics" are not sceptical: they are variously dishonest, delusional, or technically incompetent. Not only do they refuse to accept the scientific evidence but they are also strangely credulous (unsceptical!) about any claims relating to climate that do not come from the mainstream climate science community; they will believe just about anything as long as it's not CO2!

I'm brought to the subject principally in defence of science, which is under assault. To my mind science is the greatest achievement of mankind because it transcends humanity itself.

I've noticed that GW "sceptics" are almost always right-wing and in the USA have a lot in common with Creationists/IDers. Here in the UK they tend to be anti-tax, anti-regulation types.

In the US it's associated with the neocon/market fundamentalist philosophy, exemplified by such bodies as the Heritage Foundation and George C Marshall Institute. (I'm pretty affronted by the way Marshall's name has been hijacked by men of no honour.) There's a necon element abroad in these parts as well, of course, but they're not prospering.

I think the association with Christian fundies comes from the Reagan Republican alliance of necons, Religious Right, and nationalists.

We have Monckton, of course. We Brits can recognise his blue-blood buffonery, but they seem to love him in the US.

 

[CapelDodger]

Why are you being so obtuse? This is about the nature of GW "scepticism", not the science itself.

That's the spirit! Stick to your guns.

As you'll have noticed, dealing with mhaze is like trying to nail down jelly.

 

[CapelDodger]

(this argument applies to the question of whether or not there are too many people on the planet.)

I think we can leave it to the planet to answer that for us.

On the up-side, in a few generations we'll collectively know one heck of a lot more about climate science, global carrying capacity, ecology, oceanology, and stuff like that. There's a major, closely-observed experiment going on. Hopefully we'll only make this kind of mistake once.

 

[mhaze]

I do not "insist". I'm just not sure whether claims about science belong elsewhere.

It doesn't matter. I could include many more claims, some well supported and some not. The point is to show the variety of claims and how they are often contradictory.

Never mind that. Are you claiming that these claims are not routinely made by "sceptics"?

Why are you being so obtuse? This is about the nature of GW "scepticism", not the science itself.

Okay, I get it, it's not about the actual science. I'm really not being obtuse, though. You want to exclude science that is skeptical of your pre existing bias. Well, here is a more comprehensive list for you. Of course it has faults, too. Now, what did you want exactly? Someone to assert that no one at least once in the history of mankind said any of the things on your list, then you could argue "Yes they did!". Where does that lead?

 

[CapelDodger]

Which is not true. There would be an economic slowdown only if we stick with old technologies and oil. Alternative energy sources would not only help the environment and make us feel better. It would also be an economic boon as big as the internet.

Or railways in the 19thCE.

As things stand we will have to buy our solar panels from China.

An important element of Britain's economic success in the 19thCE was being at the leading-edge of railway technology. One cause of its decline was that it stuck to what it knew, even as chemicals and electrical engineering became the new big thing.

I think the US establishment is suffering from the same sort of inertia. Built on oil, it can see no further than an oil-based world. That's why it's spending blood and treasure in Mesopotamia while the Chinese are snapping up African mineral resources.

To my mind the future's going to be about microbiology and materials-technology. Not about cars (or about steam-technology, for that matter).

But I'm digressing into how AGW denialists such as Inhoffe are sabotaging the US's economic future. Commie-loving moles, I calls 'em .

 

[TrueSceptic]

I'm brought to the subject principally in defence of science, which is under assault. To my mind science is the greatest achievement of mankind because it transcends humanity itself.

Agree on both counts.

In the US it's associated with the neocon/market fundamentalist philosophy, exemplified by such bodies as the Heritage Foundation and George C Marshall Institute. (I'm pretty affronted by the way Marshall's name has been hijacked by men of no honour.) There's a necon element abroad in these parts as well, of course, but they're not prospering.

Don't forget I've been in some other forums. I was just vaguely interested until TGGWS and after that I just couldn't ignore it any longer. I'm quite familiar with 'astroturf', for example.

I think the association with Christian fundies comes from the Reagan Republican alliance of necons, Religious Right, and nationalists.

No, I was thinking of the mindset of people who are taken in, not by any political or financial links to the Singers of this world.

We have Monckton, of course. We Brits can recognise his blue-blood buffonery, but they seem to love him in the US.

The 'Telegraph' seem to like him too. Not just a buffoon but mendacious too.

 

[CapelDodger]

How about:

It isn't the CO2, it's the heat-hiding oceans.

It's not as if it's a closed list. Or, put another way, the list isn't settled. After all the list would have been a mere fraction of its current length twenty years ago.

There seems to be a concensus on what already belongs in the list, though. Like bugs in Windows, we've all seen them. Even the "changes in the Earth's core" thing, which tracks back to the "imminent" magnetic pole-switch of genuine catastrophism. The way they tell it, anyway. Denialists leave out the catastrophe part, for obvious reasons.

 

[TrueSceptic]

It's not as if it's a closed list. Or, put another way, the list isn't settled. After all the list would have been a mere fraction of its current length twenty years ago.

There seems to be a concensus on what already belongs in the list, though. Like bugs in Windows, we've all seen them. Even the "changes in the Earth's core" thing, which tracks back to the "imminent" magnetic pole-switch of genuine catastrophism. The way they tell it, anyway. Denialists leave out the catastrophe part, for obvious reasons.

I started the list while I was in another forum. I kept adding claims as I thought of them but I had to stop somewhere. I thought of a couple more as I reread it to start this thread.

No, it's not closed, but I didn't want 100s of entries, just "top-level" claims that represent most of the "sceptic" claims I see.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Okay, I get it, it's not about the actual science. I'm really not being obtuse, though. You want to exclude science that is skeptical of your pre existing bias. Well, here is a more comprehensive list for you. Of course it has faults, too. Now, what did you want exactly? Someone to assert that no one at least once in the history of mankind said any of the things on your list, then you could argue "Yes they did!". Where does that lead?

Yes, you are being obtuse. I don't "want to exclude science..."; that is simply irrelevant.

What does my "bias" have to do with this? It's a list. Is it selective? Of course: it's claims made by GW "sceptics"! If you want to make your own list, go ahead.

I ask again: do "sceptics" say these things or not? (I'm not saying that you make these claims, although you might.)

 

[CapelDodger]

Don't forget I've been in some other forums. I was just vaguely interested until TGGWS and after that I just couldn't ignore it any longer. I'm quite familiar with 'astroturf', for example.

We're on the same wavelength . And we know our enemy.

The Swindle roused my red-mist reaction as well. It was so brazen, and its makers didn't give a toss that we knew it. The plebs didn't know. mhaze, for one, loved every second of it. C4 is pretty much in the gutter these days.

No, I was thinking of the mindset of people who are taken in, not by any political or financial links to the Singers of this world.

I think of that overlap as a cultic mindset. Singer's cult is ideological - market-fundamentalist, laissez-faire, small (if any) government, regulation is never justified. External costs are anathema to that ideology, and AGW is the Big One.

People can stumble into these things (especially during their teenage years) and invest so much of themselves, of their identities, that they can never get out. Their reactions become entirely defensive.

The 'Telegraph' seem to like him too. Not just a buffoon but mendacious too.

Well, the Torygraph would. Monckton is very much their sort of chap; right school, right clubs, right heritage, right opinions. He speaks well, and the absence of substance doesn't register in such circles. As to mendacity, that matters only between chap and another decent chap. Deceiving your wife or shareholders, or telling your tailor the cheque's in the post, is what a chap does to the lower orders.

Been there, watched that, took mental notes .

The amusing thing is that 'Murricans who refer to George III as a tyrant simply adore the likes of Monckton.

 

[mhaze]

Yes, you are being obtuse. I don't "want to exclude science..."; that is simply irrelevant.

What does my "bias" have to do with this? It's a list. Is it selective? Of course: it's claims made by GW "sceptics"! If you want to make your own list, go ahead.

I ask again: do "sceptics" say these things are not? (I'm not saying that you make these claims, although you might.)

Science is irrelevant.

Okay, have fun popping your bubbles.