How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[CapelDodger]

IMO the list is a fair, although (or therefore?) provocative, view of GWS claims and beliefs. Note that the claims gets more reasonable as you near the bottom.

The point is to show the many contradictions in the GWS mindset more than the validity of individual claims.

There's no coherence within the claims, and many's the GWS who'll argue whatever incompatible claims they've heard about recently. Why it's warming this, why it's not warming anyway that, and what about this, eh? - no wonder they thread-hop so much.

 

[CapelDodger]

And he has made the contrary very clear in other posts. He has also claimed he is a GWS himself.

So, which is it? Or do the meanings of his words shift with each post?

Where did TrueSceptic claim that the list was "balanced"? That was the question. You said he did. I very much doubt that. So pony-up. Or ramble on, whatever. What I'm interested in is where you started thinking that balance applied, and that TrueSceptic broke and admitted it to you. I think it's a fantasy of your own, but you could prove me wrong. It's not that long a thread yet, after all.

 

[jsfisher]

Where did TrueSceptic claim that the list was "balanced"? That was the question. You said he did. I very much doubt that. So pony-up. Or ramble on, whatever. What I'm interested in is where you started thinking that balance applied, and that TrueSceptic broke and admitted it to you. I think it's a fantasy of your own, but you could prove me wrong. It's not that long a thread yet, after all.

You are right in that the thread isn't very long. Read up.

 

[TrueSceptic]

You still wander in circles.

There is nothing inherent in the word, skeptic, that puts it on the con side of any debate, yet all your examples are from that side.

The OP is a sceptical (true meaning) look at the claims and beliefs of people who call themselves Global Warming Sceptics. That's it.

You can wish it was something else as much as you like.

 

[TrueSceptic]

There's no coherence within the claims, and many's the GWS who'll argue whatever incompatible claims they've heard about recently. Why it's warming this, why it's not warming anyway that, and what about this, eh? - no wonder they thread-hop so much.

Before TGGWS I was only vaguely aware of the whole GWS industry/blogosphere. That programme spurred me to look at this stuff much more deeply and it then became clear that there were a few basic contradictory claims that were endlessly recycled. My list is an extension of those.

Essentially, GWS "know" that GW can't be due to us and especially not CO2. To support this we get the whole edifice of CTs along with accusations of fraud and incompetence. Or perhaps the CTs come first? It's sometimes hard to figure it out! CTs seem to be highly addictive to some.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Where did TrueSceptic claim that the list was "balanced"? That was the question. You said he did. I very much doubt that. So pony-up. Or ramble on, whatever. What I'm interested in is where you started thinking that balance applied, and that TrueSceptic broke and admitted it to you. I think it's a fantasy of your own, but you could prove me wrong. It's not that long a thread yet, after all.

This should be obvious but I'll say it anyway for clarity.

The OP was never intended to be a balanced look at claims from both sides of the GW debate. It is intended to be a fair and balanced look at what GWS, and only GWS, claim and believe. I have tried to cover the range, from CTs at the top to quite reasonable at the bottom. Individual GWS may object that they only say one or two in my list but that is not the issue. The point is to show the range of GWS claims and beliefs. I contend that I have done that quite fairly.

 

[Drysdale]

This should be obvious but I'll say it anyway for clarity.

The OP was never intended to be a balanced look at claims from both sides of the GW debate. It is intended to be a fair and balanced look at what GWS, and only GWS, claim and believe. I have tried to cover the range, from CTs at the top to quite reasonable at the bottom. Individual GWS may object that they only say one or two in my list but that is not the issue. The point is to show the range of GWS claims and beliefs. I contend that I have done that quite fairly.

And the point of doing that is???

You obviously dont want to discuss the science or even a contrary opinion apparently so I'm curious just what was the point of posting this thread?

 

[TrueSceptic]

And the point of doing that is???

You obviously dont want to discuss the science or even a contrary opinion apparently so I'm curious just what was the point of posting this thread?

I'll discuss the science elsewhere, but this thread is about GWS behaviour. Perhaps this should be under Psychology?

 

[mhaze]

I'll discuss the science elsewhere, but this thread is about GWS behaviour. Perhaps this should be under Psychology?

Likely. Is what you are trying to get the behavior of "True Believers"?

Of course they come in many flavors.

 

[CapelDodger]

In this gem http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3416735#post3416735 from Slimething we have :

It's a fact that warming is occurring. However, it was not predicted by basic science. It fits a historic trend, as best as we can establish.

Tick one off the list ("It has got warmer but it's nothing to do with us. It's all to do with natural cycles."). And a couple of "climate model" elements are in there.

To be a GWS, one has to be part of the we, who can collectively establish why whatever happens won't ever have been caused by AGW.

 

[CapelDodger]

And the point of doing that is???

You obviously dont want to discuss the science or even a contrary opinion apparently so I'm curious just what was the point of posting this thread?

As I see it, it's where we can discuss GWS behaviour and so not have that distraction in science-based AGW threads. And there are plenty of those.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Absolutely nothing.

I first came across CO2-induced AGW in the late sixties, as a teenager, and was highly sceptical. I next came across it in the mid-70's as a student, and was still highly sceptical. I'm firmly grounded in the anti-catastrophist and "humans should get over themselves" scientific culture established in the 19thCE (bless 'em).

I have been persuaded by events. I'm still sceptical of presented evidence and predictions, of course. I'm not going to nail my flag to a dubious ship. I hate to be wrong.

Most people hate to be wrong. Which is why it pays to have an open mind.

(I've just had DanishDynamite questioning my scepticism; this from someone who goes gooey-eyed over a Torygraph article that mentions CERN and "60 scientists". Sad, or what? )

Yes, I was questioning your skepticism. But I was questioning it, not because you were being dismissive of an alternative explanation but because you were doing so based on a wrong assumption which you didn't even bother to check.

Always check your assumptions.

Our kind of sceptic hasn't had to keep jumping ship to keep convictions alive. It's been a pretty smooth path, all in all. I never denied the possibility, I just belittled it. Subsequent events have changed my opinion.

A hair-fine difference. Still, I admit to having done the same on occassion.

The only problem is when you get called on it.

 

[TrueSceptic]

In this gem http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3416735#post3416735 from Slimething we have :

Tick one off the list ("It has got warmer but it's nothing to do with us. It's all to do with natural cycles."). And a couple of "climate model" elements are in there.

To be a GWS, one has to be part of the we, who can collectively establish why whatever happens won't ever have been caused by AGW.

If only we had some sort of scoreboard! It would comprise my list, with 3 'count' columns: one for claims being made by prominent GWS, another for those being made by JREF forum members, and a third for everyone else. There would be a database of URLs of course, linking to the counts, so anyone could check the data.

Now, where can I find the hundreds of volunteers I'd need to scour the literature and the 'net 24x7 logging all those hits?

 

[TrueSceptic]

Most people hate to be wrong. Which is why it pays to have an open mind.

Yes, I was questioning your skepticism. But I was questioning it, not because you were being dismissive of an alternative explanation but because you were doing so based on a wrong assumption which you didn't even bother to check.

What was that wrong assumption?

Always check your assumptions.

Something a real sceptic does all the time.

A hair-fine difference. Still, I admit to having done the same on occassion.

The only problem is when you get called on it.

And how you react. How many admit to a mistake or apologise when they are shown to be wrong?

 

[TrueSceptic]

As I see it, it's where we can discuss GWS behaviour and so not have that distraction in science-based AGW threads. And there are plenty of those.

Yes, pretty much. Mind you, most of the science-based ones have little actual science in them.

 

[CapelDodger]

Most people hate to be wrong. Which is why it pays to have an open mind.

Which doesn't mean letting your brains fall out. I hate to be wrong, but I also like to say "told you so". There's a point at which a conclusion can be reached. Beyond that, scepticism is intellectual cowardice or (dare I say it?) Philosophy.

Yes, I was questioning your skepticism. But I was questioning it, not because you were being dismissive of an alternative explanation but because you were doing so based on a wrong assumption which you didn't even bother to check.

I made no assumptions. The trends in solar activity and cosmic rays over the last fifty years are essentially flat. You seem to think otherwise. I don't argue from positions I'm not sure of - the subject is hardly new, I've looked up the evidence, I'm comfortable with my understanding of it.

Always check your assumptions.

Sound advice. When someone mentions "CERN", or "60 scientists", don't assume that they've got any great involvement in the matter at hand. Think about it, look into it, ask some questions. Is CERN really going to dedicate an experiment to this question? How many of these sixty scientists will simply be passing along data gathered from experiments they're more directly engaged in? Maybe you've checked this out, and simply aren't sharing it.

My natural reaction is to associate CERN with "vacuum" rather than atmosphere, but that's just me.

A hair-fine difference. Still, I admit to having done the same on occassion.

Do what now ?

The only problem is when you get called on it.

No problem.

 

[CapelDodger]

I do hope people are following the Moderated Thread.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3443600#post3443600


mhaze may have gone off-list with

"AGW theory does not do very well in courts of law, due obvious reasons."

I doubt that the most devious minds could have invented a better mhaze than what we get for free. Assuming, of course, that they didn't in the first place.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3443319#post3443319

 

[TrueSceptic]

Someone tell me I'm wrong with this.

Surely it would be easy to find something, somewhere?

 

[CapelDodger]

Someone tell me I'm wrong with this.

Surely it would be easy to find something, somewhere?

That's one sad effort by what passes for a stalwart of the opposition around here. This will be another of his short-lived sorties from the comfort-zone.

Let's milk it to the last drop .

 

[TrueSceptic]

That's one sad effort by what passes for a stalwart of the opposition around here. This will be another of his short-lived sorties from the comfort-zone.

Let's milk it to the last drop .

Some of his list I would not object to all. I am just trying to show how lazy and untrustworthy he is.