How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[egslim]

Call me a global warming sceptic, or more accurately an "anti-global warming measures" sceptic. What I want is a cost-benefit analysis of measures to reduce global warming: The economic and societal costs to implement such measures, and the expected benefits from them.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Now we're all sheep to you. That's hardly scientifiic.

It is also an ad hominem attack.

Pony-up : who was it, and what did they actually say? Please don't turn this into a demand that TrueSceptic give examples of every element in his list, just answer the damn' question. Tell us who, and what.

We all know that I could easily provide many examples of the claims in my list, and possibly from this forum alone.

 

[TrueSceptic]

You're not a loonie, you're a wanker. Two more-or-less disticnt flocks.

I don't know what history there might be behind this but I'd rather we didn't use this sort of language here. It is unlikely to get anyone anywhere.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Nope, not all are sheep. Just the ones that take a side, either side, of the AGW/GW discussion out of bias rather than reason. Unfortunately, there are too many of those types.

Why are "sceptics" so frequently dishonest? Why do real sceptics not attack those who damage their own case?

TrueSceptic's list is a meaningless thing, in concept and in execution. I'm not at all interested in him citing examples. That aside, though, why wouldn't the same standard for evidence apply to TrueSceptic's list?

Why is it meaningless to show what "sceptics" are up to?

You know perfectly well that I did not make up a single one of those claims. We have all seen them many times.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Call me a global warming sceptic, or more accurately an "anti-global warming measures" sceptic. What I want is a cost-benefit analysis of measures to reduce global warming: The economic and societal costs to implement such measures, and the expected benefits from them.

Thanks, I could've included something like the following near the bottom of my list:-

Even if GW is happening, wouldn't the costs of doing something about it outweigh any benefits?

 

[jsfisher]

Why are "sceptics" so frequently dishonest? Why do real sceptics not attack those who damage their own case?

Ah!! The no true skeptic argument. I'm convinced now.

Why is it meaningless to show what "sceptics" are up to?

Other than to infer a pejorative, why do you insist on presenting that word in quotation marks?

Be that as it may, the list is a straw man and therefore meaningless.

You know perfectly well that I did not make up a single one of those claims. We have all seen them many times.

You have no way of knowing that. You simply presume.

By the way, four argument fallacies in the space of one short post. Well done!

 

[TrueSceptic]

Ah!! The no true skeptic argument. I'm convinced now.

Please define scepticism and we'll take it from there.

Other than to infer a pejorative, why do you insist on presenting that word in quotation marks?

Because they are rarely sceptical. If they were, they would be equally sceptical of all claims relating to climate, but we don't see that: what we see is disbelief of mainstream climate science yet extreme credulity when it comes to any other claims, no matter how absurd or dishonest. I hate to see words abused and I hate to see science misrepresented.

Be that as it may, the list is a straw man and therefore meaningless.

It would be a straw man if I misrepresented GWS claims but I did not.

You have no way of knowing that. You simply presume.

I do not know but it is implausible beyond belief that anyone in this forum has not seen them many times. Are you claiming that you have not?

By the way, four argument fallacies in the space of one short post. Well done!

Simply wrong 4 times over. Well done!

 

[mhaze]

Call me a global warming sceptic, or more accurately an "anti-global warming measures" sceptic. What I want is a cost-benefit analysis of measures to reduce global warming: The economic and societal costs to implement such measures, and the expected benefits from them.

the full text of the paper "Global Warming: Scientific Forecasts or Forecasts by Scientists?".

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/11/sc...h/11tiern.html the best strategy, he (Lomberg) says, is to make the rest of the world as rich as New York

http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Norton/
Quoting from Simon's book "Scarcity or Abundance? A debate on the Environment"

http://www.climateaudit.org/ Should NASA climate accountants adhere to GAAP?

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/09/co...n-lomborg.html

Lomburg on the Cobert Report.

IPCC economic model assumptions. These are labeled B1, A1T, B2, A1B, A2, and A1F1.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/089.htm

Pielke, Roger Jr., 2007 Science Direct "Mistreatment of the economic impacts of extreme events in the Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change."

Nordhaus 2007 The Challenge of Global Warming: Economic Models and Environmental Policy

Nordhaus, 2007 - The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change

 

[jsfisher]

Please define scepticism and we'll take it from there.

I see the no true Scotsman reference escaped you.

Because they are rarely sceptical. If they were, they would be equally sceptical of all claims relating to climate, but we don't see that: what we see is disbelief of mainstream climate science yet extreme credulity when it comes to any other claims, no matter how absurd or dishonest. I hate to see words abused and I hate to see science misrepresented.

They? Who all are this they to which you refer? For that matter, who all are this we?

You are making if very clear, here, that you have only one very broad blanket to cover anyone that says anything not in support of your beliefs. How sad for you.

 

[TrueSceptic]

I see the no true Scotsman reference escaped you.

Not at all. I simply asked you to show that I used that fallacy.

They? Who all are this they to which you refer? For that matter, who all are this we?

This should be obvious from the context.

You are making if very clear, here, that you have only one very broad blanket to cover anyone that says anything not in support of your beliefs. How sad for you.

Typical ad hom. It is clear that you are unwilling to examine your own beliefs and automatically attack anything that questions them.

I have made it clear that there are genuine sceptics when it comes to climate science. The problem is that they are being drowned out by the many more who claim to be sceptics but are anything but.

 

[mhaze]

Please define scepticism and we'll take it from there. ....what we see is disbelief of mainstream climate science....

I'd like to ask if you can substantiate that. What we seem to have seen on the JREF forum is often Warmologists not understanding correctly what mainstream science actually said.

Quite often Warmologists attempt to hijack the middle ground of mainstream science and purport that one of several radical environmentalist positions is mainstream science, when in fact it isn't.

This has been discussed on hurricanes, sea level rise, islands supposedly going under water, and droughts (probably others but those come to mind).

So what do you think?

 

[Dr. Imago]

You're not a loonie, you're a wanker. Two more-or-less disticnt flocks.

Thanks for expertly proving my point.

-Dr. Imago

 

[jsfisher]

This should be obvious from the context.
...
Typical ad hom. It is clear that you are unwilling to examine your own beliefs and automatically attack anything that questions them.

Now, there's a basic problem. (I will ignore the monumental irony in your statement.) You hide behind this "obvious from the context", but then when someone comments on what seems obvious from your words, you rally behind the ad hominem standard. If I may paraphrase your own words, it is not an ad hominem if that's what you actually said.

That aside, if you have something to say, why not just say it straight up?

I have made it clear that there are genuine sceptics when it comes to climate science. The problem is that they are being drowned out by the many more who claim to be sceptics but are anything but.

Sure, sound and fury exists on both sides of many discussions. AGW is no exception.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Now, there's a basic problem. (I will ignore the monumental irony in your statement.) You hide behind this "obvious from the context", but then when someone comments on what seems obvious from your words, you rally behind the ad hominem standard. If I may paraphrase your own words, it is not an ad hominem if that's what you actually said.

Your interpretation was not an ad hom, more of a misrepresentation. "How sad for you" was an ad hom. Not too difficult to see the difference, surely?

That aside, if you have something to say, why not just say it straight up?

What, again?

Sure, sound and fury exists on both sides of many discussions. AGW is no exception.

Yes, and we know where it started.

 

[TrueSceptic]

I'd like to ask if you can substantiate that.

I can see what you are trying to do but let's go back to the OP. Do GWS make those claims? If so, which are to be found in mainstream climate science?

What we seem to have seen on the JREF forum is often Warmologists not understanding correctly what mainstream science actually said.

Quite often Warmologists attempt to hijack the middle ground of mainstream science and purport that one of several radical environmentalist positions is mainstream science, when in fact it isn't.

This has been discussed on hurricanes, sea level rise, islands supposedly going under water, and droughts (probably others but those come to mind).

So what do you think?

I think that this belongs in another thread.

 

[egslim]

Thanks, I could've included something like the following near the bottom of my list:-

Even if GW is happening, wouldn't the costs of doing something about it outweigh any benefits?

My compliments on your implied poisoning of the well.

Just curious, what is your personal opinion about some of the hydroelectric projects in China? They will obviously reduce the need for fossil fuels, but they also destroy large parts of the local environment and people's homes. Most ironic, since global warming is expected to cause floods that would destroy large parts of the local environment and people's homes.

 

[TrueSceptic]

My compliments on your implied poisoning of the well.

I'm sorry, but that was not my intention. Is my summary not a fair one? How would you put it?

Just curious, what is your personal opinion about some of the hydroelectric projects in China? They will obviously reduce the need for fossil fuels, but they also destroy large parts of the local environment and people's homes. Most ironic, since global warming is expected to cause floods that would destroy large parts of the local environment and people's homes.

This is the sort of tough choice that has to be made but not really relevant to this thread.

 

[Dr. Imago]

Do GWS make those claims?

Are "GWS" making claims? Or, are they just asking that the current pro-AGW claims be better substantiated?

Huge difference.

-Dr. Imago

 

[egslim]

I'm sorry, but that was not my intention. Is my summary not a fair one? How would you put it?

It is unfair because it implies I question all measures that would reduce CO2 output. In reality there are of course many measures that make both economic or societal sense as well as reduce CO2 output.

So to rephrase it: "What are the expected costs and benefits of specific measures proposed, and do the latter outweigh the former?"

Note that the question of how to reduce CO2 output is seperate from the one how to reduce climate change. For example, air traffic causes an Earth-cooling effect because those trails reflect sunlight. It would be a mistake to focus only on CO2 reduction, since climate change is what really matters.

 

[mhaze]

Are "GWS" making claims? Or, are they just asking that the current pro-AGW claims be better substantiated?

Huge difference.

-Dr. Imago

Well, it is of course reasonable that all aspects of the radiative forcing be critically examined, since these in the aggregate constitute the so called "man made effect". <double click to enlarge>



Considering that that is what should be done, since the science is not settled, I see a multiplicity of unverified or poorly verified hypotheses by the IPCC's own admission. See right hand column above. Further of those which they consider well understood, many disagree on quite reasonable grounds.