AGW extremists are dangerous

[Hallo Alfie]

That isn't at all in agreement with what I said.

You CAN'T explain things in simple terms after a while. I mean, there is only a limited amount you can explain without referring to data points and technical arguments otherwise it's all rubbish. You can't make it simple after a while, because ANYONE can do that.

"AGW is real because CO2 is bad and we're making a lot. This makes the Earth Wwarm up progressively but there's a small amount of variation during this, as normal"

"No, AGW is false because this isn't true at all!"

How, exactly, does one pick who is telling the truth without referring to the technical discussion? How do you judge who is right without mentioning the science? Going back to the results and checking the core data?

It simply can't be done, which is why you cannot make an argument about AGW, Creationism or hell, even Heliocentric models of the solar system without being technical. I can't agree with abusing an opponent unless they have shown absolutely no desire to learn and are totally ignoring any point you bring up, but to ask for a science discussion without the science is....worthless.

Para #1
You might be right and that is part of the point. How do we get the really technical stuff delivered to the 'ignorant masses'. They want to know but get mixed messages.

Para #2 and #3
Exactly my point. How do we know what is and what isn't?

Para #4
Again, exactly what I'm saying: "how do we know?"

Para #5
My point here has been (in other threads too), that when questions are asked by individuals such as myself (and there are millions, billions? more) we are abused and ridiculed. Told "the science is settled".
To us, clearly it's not - there is mass debate going on.

Now, as to the science. This is not a science thread. I just wanted some answers that I couldn't get in a science thread.

I threw this up in another thread, hopefully it will give you an idea on where I am coming from.

"Again Yoink, you and yours miss the point.

I threw up those two examples, not because I necessary believe what's in them, or the validity of the sorces, or who wrote them. But simply because there are two virtually opposite stories about effectively the same subject. I have not suggested that Wintry Knight is a reputable site/source at all - and until after I posted I had never even heard of them. What I am saying is that it is being fed to Joe sixpack (I think that's the term some have used) who himself is a bit confused by the contradictions.


Let me tell you a story about Joe...
Poor old Joe, not overly bright, an average education, but a decent hardworking slob. A swinging voter, loves his wife and adores his kids. He has a mortgage, a car loan, a small boat and two dogs. He gambles rarely, drinks alcohol moderately and enjoys friends and family. He reads a paper or two and watches the news most evenings.

On the news last night he is told that Global warming is melting the ice caps and that the polar bears are in danger. "Poor buggers" says Joe, but knows there isn't much he can do about it. He switches off lights, conserves water where he can and composts the vegie peelings etc - he's making his token efforts right?

Now, Joe Sixpack reads the newspaper the next day (and maybe Wintry Knight is used as a source) - he doesn't really care about who the source of the information is and to him it really doesn't matter; after all "it's in the paper".
Climate Change wont start to bother him too much until political policies threaten or start to impact on the amount of beer he can afford and he says: "Yeah, that's what my mate Freddy Coldcans told me at the pub last week. This bloody AGW is a crock and the government want to tax me more for the energy I use and it wont make a lick of difference to any supposed global warming anway. Well they can get stuffed, I aint voting for any politician that's going to take food off my table. I like my life just the way it is".

Now, Joe is not one to get too steamed about anything usually and he certainly isn't going to spend time looking into it. Someone said "it aint true" and he's comfortable with that for the time being. He's isnt going to spend any time or money advocating/lobbying one way or the other. Except - he might vote.

Now.
My whole point has been about the message that is getting to the masses (let's ignore any personal beliefs or motives you think I might or might not have have).

Joe Sixpack and Freddy Coldcans don't want to get into the science, they don't get most of it and sure as hell aint going to start studying it. But they see the debate raging in the political and scientific arenas via their news sources. Whether a scientist, you, I, or anyone else see it differently matters not - they couldn't give a crap. You're all fools in their eyes - there are the important things in life to worry about, like mortgage payments and educating the kids.
Joe doesnt want to scare his kids with this stuff - he doesnt want it taught in schools either until it's all decided. Hell, he goes to church (no he's not a creationist) and they're not allowed to teach that! He likes to go fishing, he watches his sports teams and runs the kids around on the weekend; he's just your 'average Joe' and a pretty good bloke when all's said and done.


But! There is debate in the eyes of Joe and all the other people like Joe. These masses see it often one way or the other depending on any number of factors: eg. where they heard it first, how it fits with their political leanings, how any 'solution' might disaffect him etc.

Joe sees the debate and until something happens that will change his mind, his mind is made.

This has been my point all along.

Now before you say "That isn't you Alfie, you're on a science forum saying you don't understand the science". You are absolutely correct and I make no apologies for that. And I am on here because I find myself being drawn more and more towards the debate - I want to learn more and I'm just starting out. I might even be representative of another part of the masses who just aren't sure - we have a healthy scepticism of a lot of stuff and are sceptical of both sides: We don't trust politicians or a two party system, but see them as a necessary evil. The news media is tainted depending on ownership and political leanings and there are scientists thrown up by both sides as experts. Like Joe, we too have been 'guilty' of being a little lazy (perhaps) or complacent and not looking too hard. But, perhaps we are beginning to see some things - bit by bit.

However, we too are confused by the debate that rages.

I then come on here, throw up some questions and statements (niaive perhaps, but hones and genuine) and find myself 'fighting' with warmists only because I am niaive and asking questions.

Funny way to get converts - closer to terrorism - "believe what we say or else!"
And all along, that has been my second point.

I really hope you get where I'm coming from a bit better now - some others seem to."

 

[Pixel42]

Para #5
My point here has been (in other threads too), that when questions are asked by individuals such as myself (and there are millions, billions? more) we are abused and ridiculed. Told "the science is settled".
To us, clearly it's not - there is mass debate going on.

That is a false impression. Mass debate about the reality of AGW is not going on, not among scientists or policy makers. There is debate about the extent of the threat posed and what should be done to mitigate it, but not about whether it's happening and what the principle cause is.

Unfortunately the only way to discover that is to look into it, and learn how to tell the science from the propaganda. As long as you are unable or unwilling to do that you are easy prey for the propagandists.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

That is a false impression. Mass debate about the reality of AGW is not going on, not among scientists or policy makers. There is debate about the extent of the threat posed and what should be done to mitigate it, but not about whether it's happening and what the principle cause is.

Unfortunately the only way to discover that is to look into it, and learn how to tell the science from the propaganda. As long as you are unable or unwilling to do that you are easy prey for the propagandists.

I'm not sure where I've given a false impression. It is your opinion (and many is certainly others naturally), that AGW is a real and present danger and I might agree. There are others who say that the "alarmists" are over exaggerating the problem and the amount of AGW is miniscule. The argument is being hijacked by extremists from both sides. Correct?

Now, you might be right that the only way to make an informed judgement is to learn the science. Well... 99% of the population isn't going to do that.

You say "there is no debate" as do many warmers.
The sceptics say "there is".

We see plenty.
We ask questions and we are lambasted for the questions.

 

[Pixel42]

I'm not sure where I've given a false impression

You got a false impression - that there was mass debate about the reality of AGW - because you listened to the propagandists instead of the experts.

The argument is being hijacked by extremists from both sides. Correct?

Incorrect. The genuine experts are giving their expert opinions and providing copious evidence to support them, the propagandists are cherry picking evidence and lying.

Now, you might be right that the only way to make an informed judgement is to learn the science. Well... 99% of the population isn't going to do that.

Then they'll just have to defer to expert opinion. But even that requires them to be able to tell the genuine experts from the propagandists. That's not as difficult as understanding the science, but it does need some effort.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You got a false impression - that there was mass debate about the reality of AGW - because you listened to the propagandists instead of the experts.



Incorrect. The genuine experts are giving their expert opinions and providing copious evidence to support them, the propagandists are cherry picking evidence and lying.



Then they'll just have to defer to expert opinion. But even that requires them to be able to tell the genuine experts from the propagandists. That's not as difficult as understanding the science, but it does need some effort.

And that's what I hear over and over.
So, how do I determine who is a valid expert? The question seemingly remains unanswerable sadly: your side says your guys, theirs says theirs. So many experts - from both sides - make sense to Joe Sixpack and his mates.

I must say here with absolute sincerity that I find myself believing less and less of what the warmers here in this forum and the media are saying. They yell and scream, rant and rave, abuse and ridicule. It's not pretty, it's antisocial and an extraordinarily poor way in which to try and educate those who have genuine questions.
Before we start along that line again however, a lot of it has already been discussed in this thread

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156988


AAA

 

[Pixel42]

So, how do I determine who is a valid expert? The question seemingly remains unanswerable sadly

On the contrary, the answer is easy: you look at their qualifications, what they have published and where, the extent to which the findings they have published have been independantly verified, who funds them and the company they keep.

ETA: As has been explained to you on the thread you link, which I have followed and to which I have contributed.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

On the contrary, the answer is easy: you look at their qualifications, what they have published and where, the extent to which the findings they have published have been independantly verified, who funds them and the company they keep.

ETA: As has been explained to you on the thread you link, which I have followed and to which I have contributed.

And around and around and around we go.

So many look real. So much confusion, they all look credible etc etc.

I am getting something of a handle on some of this now (very slowly) but I still look at Joe and wonder how he can weave his way through it. For me that is the unanswerable question.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

And around and around and around we go.

So many look real. So much confusion, they all look credible etc etc.

I am getting something of a handle on some of this now (very slowly) but I still look at Joe and wonder how he can weave his way through it. For me that is the unanswerable question.

You cannot blame the fact you are incapable of understanding what is good science and what isn't on the scientists, which you seem to want to do.

If scientist A Says it's real, publishes in a respected journal and gets positive feedback from other scientists who check the data, but scientist B says it's false and publishes in "Dr. Quacky's real sciency science journal for science" and gets support only from people who take small samples of scientist A's work and ridicule it with no further research, who is more likely to be correct?

Or to put it another way, medical researchers or Jenny McCarthy?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You cannot blame the fact you are incapable of understanding what is good science and what isn't on the scientists, which you seem to want to do.

If scientist A Says it's real, publishes in a respected journal and gets positive feedback from other scientists who check the data, but scientist B says it's false and publishes in "Dr. Quacky's real sciency science journal for science" and gets support only from people who take small samples of scientist A's work and ridicule it with no further research, who is more likely to be correct?

Or to put it another way, medical researchers or Jenny McCarthy?

In hear you.

But in the 'Global warming debunked' thread there has been an interesting conversation regarding just that fact.
It still seems that there is plenty of scientists of a reputable nature who are sceptible or at least doubtful of the impact mankind is making towards climate change.

The debate continies everywhere - scientifically, politically and among the masses.

 

[HarryHenderson]

I have to give Alfie my respects and kudos for really 'hangin in there'. Your detractors could learn a thing or two from you, but who am I kidding, they won't. As for the JREF Status Quo'rs in general...and you know who you are...I say WHATEVER. You all 'know' so much more than the rest of us mere mortals that it should be legally declared obscene, or obtuse, or ob something.

To wit...

You got to this gem from using "my logic"? Really? It seems more like you just dug deep in your bag of stupid....

You wouldn't know a bag of stupid if you were sitting on it, which there's evidence you are.

<whistling>

Megalodon
Why am I not amazed, here you are proving my very point made in my OP.

Now, how about explaining things to me in a calm rational way. If you have something apart from scorn, ridicule and insults I would love to hear them.

Pwned!

Extremists are dangerous.
This is why it is useful to label people who are very passionate as 'extremists' when you disagree with them.

Do you honestly believe he used the term 'extremists' as a slight against the simply 'very passionate' sorts? And/or do you honestly believe there is no such thing as 'extremists'? Or just not in the GW 'debate'?

You are addressing a topic that doesn't exist. There is no such thing as scientific extremism or scientific fundamentalism. There is no middle ground between science and non-science. It's just science.

I actually believe you believe that too. WOW!

Yes because the amount of studying that you will never compare to the ten years of education that every single scientist has. That is so moronically stupid because the education will never be sufficient. What is it with people like you? What in your head makes you think that you have the abilities to quickly learn about extremely complicated topics? This is part of the problem with the so called skeptical movement.

Ahhhh yes, the only 'smart' thing us 'stupid' people could do is listen to the 'smart' people tell us how 'stupid' we are, and then be simply thankful such 'smart' people exist so as to direct us to a righteous exit from our own 'stupidity'. Or something like that.

Michaels has a degree related to climatology, he comes from a background in biology rather then physics, chemistry any anything particularly related to atmospheric science. Most of his work has been for far right, politically motivate “think tanks” like the Cato Institute and the Marshall institute. He has published a handful of papers in the last decade, but most of the citations they have received have either come from non-peer reviewed sources. Where he is cited in peer reviewed sources it seems mostly to debunk rather then support or build on his work.

Overall I suppose you could legitimately call him a scientist, albeit one who is mostly significant for his politics rather then his publications.

Oh is that a crack in the armor of 'science' I see? Which is it, is he right or wrong? He is a 'scientist', you say, but since he's politically active, and partial to the 'right', you say, he must be wrong, right? Wrong?

...Seriously, what the hell WOULD you use as evidence of Global Warming other than the science? What else COULD you use?

Apparently only 'scientists' have the ability to go outside and objectively critique the weather. It seems if I go outside and say "what a nice day" without benefit of some scientist's blessing I'm just talking out of my ass because I'm just 'stupid' (see above). Right?

Seriously, the "evidence of global warming" will have to become self-evidence (or is that self evident) before us billions of 'stupid folk' take concerned notice. Mostly because 'we' have actual lives just trying to survive the day-to-day. Contrary to seeming popular belief here, the vast majority of earth's humanity don't have the luxury of sitting around a discussion forum all day deriding George Bush or the Cato Institute as the reasons for 'global warming'. Here's an idea - since it's now just a given that there's GW - why don't all the know-it-alls actually do something constructive about it like...<crickets>...well, petition the National Science Foundation™ to lower the boiling point of water (so as to use less wood, Coal® and Fossil Fuel™), for instance. Stuff like that.

And sorry to all you status-quo'rs, the salvation of the world is not in science. Where's my evidence? This thread for starters. Science isn't the be-all-end-all so many here think it is. When I actually do get some benefit from 'science' in my everyday life, it's not because I asked for it 1/1000 as often as it was just thrust upon me (so-to-speak). Believe it or not, I was fine without cell phones, or microwave ovens or Botox™...or the internet.

What's so funny to me is the often-denied-but-ever-present duplicitous nature of present-day 'science'. Despite all our fantastical hopes and dreams to the contrary, all those things I mention (and so many more) are given to us NOT out of the goodness of one's heart, or as a poster above might characterize it - a no strings attached gift to humanity from the 'very passionate' - but as a potential (and actual) entity for monetary PROFIT. I don't recall the last time, or if there ever was a time, that I was given the benefits of 'science' without somehow someway having to PAY FOR IT. And that's independent of however minuscule that payment from me might be. A billion cents is still millions of dollars. Which kinda blows the JREF Status Quo'rs 'science is pure and capitalism sucks' mantra out of the water huh!

Okay I'm done, back to the regularly scheduled intelli-fest for 'smart' people.

 

[Ysidro]

I read the first page of this thread. Are the next three the same old "science is religion" BS too?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I have to give Alfie my respects and kudos for really 'hangin in there'. Your detractors could learn a thing or two from you, but who am I kidding, they won't. As for the JREF Status Quo'rs in general...and you know who you are...I say WHATEVER. You all 'know' so much more than the rest of us mere mortals that it should be legally declared obscene, or obtuse, or ob something.

To wit...


You wouldn't know a bag of stupid if you were sitting on it, which there's evidence you are.

<whistling>


Pwned!


Do you honestly believe he used the term 'extremists' as a slight against the simply 'very passionate' sorts? And/or do you honestly believe there is no such thing as 'extremists'? Or just not in the GW 'debate'?


I actually believe you believe that too. WOW!


Ahhhh yes, the only 'smart' thing us 'stupid' people could do is listen to the 'smart' people tell us how 'stupid' we are, and then be simply thankful such 'smart' people exist so as to direct us to a righteous exit from our own 'stupidity'. Or something like that.


Oh is that a crack in the armor of 'science' I see? Which is it, is he right or wrong? He is a 'scientist', you say, but since he's politically active, and partial to the 'right', you say, he must be wrong, right? Wrong?


Apparently only 'scientists' have the ability to go outside and objectively critique the weather. It seems if I go outside and say "what a nice day" without benefit of some scientist's blessing I'm just talking out of my ass because I'm just 'stupid' (see above). Right?

Seriously, the "evidence of global warming" will have to become self-evidence (or is that self evident) before us billions of 'stupid folk' take concerned notice. Mostly because 'we' have actual lives just trying to survive the day-to-day. Contrary to seeming popular belief here, the vast majority of earth's humanity don't have the luxury of sitting around a discussion forum all day deriding George Bush or the Cato Institute as the reasons for 'global warming'. Here's an idea - since it's now just a given that there's GW - why don't all the know-it-alls actually do something constructive about it like...<crickets>...well, petition the National Science Foundation™ to lower the boiling point of water (so as to use less wood, Coal® and Fossil Fuel™), for instance. Stuff like that.

And sorry to all you status-quo'rs, the salvation of the world is not in science. Where's my evidence? This thread for starters. Science isn't the be-all-end-all so many here think it is. When I actually do get some benefit from 'science' in my everyday life, it's not because I asked for it 1/1000 as often as it was just thrust upon me (so-to-speak). Believe it or not, I was fine without cell phones, or microwave ovens or Botox™...or the internet.

What's so funny to me is the often-denied-but-ever-present duplicitous nature of present-day 'science'. Despite all our fantastical hopes and dreams to the contrary, all those things I mention (and so many more) are given to us NOT out of the goodness of one's heart, or as a poster above might characterize it - a no strings attached gift to humanity from the 'very passionate' - but as a potential (and actual) entity for monetary PROFIT. I don't recall the last time, or if there ever was a time, that I was given the benefits of 'science' without somehow someway having to PAY FOR IT. And that's independent of however minuscule that payment from me might be. A billion cents is still millions of dollars. Which kinda blows the JREF Status Quo'rs 'science is pure and capitalism sucks' mantra out of the water huh!

Okay I'm done, back to the regularly scheduled intelli-fest for 'smart' people.

I (we) appreciate the support.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I read the first page of this thread. Are the next three the same old "science is religion" BS too?

No, but it is the usual ridicule and abuse from the warmers towards anyone hwo has an alternate view or a question.

 

[Eyeron]

Funny, everytime I ask deniers a question they usually end up insulting me and call me a cultist. They are the ones who are hostile to scientists. Their code word for them is "Cultist" and theyh call anybody who believes in AGW a cultists. Other criticisms I've come across is that they believe that the purpose of the AGW "cult" is to attack capitalism in order to put it under socialist control and they point to the Kyoto treaty as their proof.

One of the big problems of these particular extremists is that theyh don't see climatologists who are backing AGW, they see enviromentalist extremists that use it to try to stilfe businesses and economical growth by demanding the reduction of pollutant output. So for some reason that is all they see and refuse to see anything else.

It's also been my personal experience that the real reason for AGW deniers though is that they have a strong mistrust of authority and just don't want to believe what this "authority shoves down their throat.

I also find it incredibly frustrating when they turn to scientists who are skeptical of AGW who aren't climatologists and who are in the vast minority and make it out to be the only truth that speaks for the entire body of science when nothing can be further from the truth.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Funny, everytime I ask deniers a question they usually end up insulting me and call me a cultist. They are the ones who are hostile to scientists. Their code word for them is "Cultist" and theyh call anybody who believes in AGW a cultists. Other criticisms I've come across is that they believe that the purpose of the AGW "cult" is to attack capitalism in order to put it under socialist control and they point to the Kyoto treaty as their proof.

One of the big problems of these particular extremists is that theyh don't see climatologists who are backing AGW, they see enviromentalist extremists that use it to try to stilfe businesses and economical growth by demanding the reduction of pollutant output. So for some reason that is all they see and refuse to see anything else.

It's also been my personal experience that the real reason for AGW deniers though is that they have a strong mistrust of authority and just don't want to believe what this "authority shoves down their throat.

I also find it incredibly frustrating when they turn to scientists who are skeptical of AGW who aren't climatologists and who are in the vast minority and make it out to be the only truth that speaks for the entire body of science when nothing can be further from the truth.

And you may well be right.
The original OP is not about warmers or deniers; but the zealots at both ends. That said, my experience with abuse is that it usually commences with the warmers (not that the deniers are without sin). I'm not perfect either and been drawn in and behaved poorly too. It seems a tactic of theirs and it doesn't just happen in forums. Some of the displays in politics and the press support what I'm saying too.

 

[Pixel42]

But in the 'Global warming debunked' thread there has been an interesting conversation regarding just that fact.

There has indeed.

It still seems that there is plenty of scientists of a reputable nature who are sceptible or at least doubtful of the impact mankind is making towards climate change.

This claim is made all the time but is easily refuted, and has been in that thread. I honestly don't understand how you can have read that thread and still be under that impression. I know those who made the claim are still, Black Knight like, claiming victory, but surely you can see they are squatting there with their arms and legs cut off insisting "it's just a flesh wound!".

Tell you what: name six. If there are plenty, as you say, you should easily be able to name six, right? If those who made the claim in that thread have successfully defended it, you should be able to get six names which stand up to scrutiny straight from their posts.

We'll define "reputable scientist" as someone who has had a relevant paper published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal such as Science or Nature, and "doubtful of the impact mankind is making towards climate change" as expressing the opinion that either there is no significant climate change currently occuring or that the majority of the climate change that is currently occuring is due to causes other than human activity. Does that seem reasonable?

 

[Ysidro]

No, but it is the usual ridicule and abuse from the warmers towards anyone hwo has an alternate view or a question.

Lie often?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

There has indeed.


This claim is made all the time but is easily refuted, and has been in that thread. I honestly don't understand how you can have read that thread and still be under that impression. I know those who made the claim are still, Black Knight like, claiming victory, but surely you can see they are squatting there with their arms and legs cut off insisting "it's just a flesh wound!".

Tell you what: name six. If there are plenty, as you say, you should easily be able to name six, right? If those who made the claim in that thread have successfully defended it, you should be able to get six names which stand up to scrutiny straight from their posts.

We'll define "reputable scientist" as someone who has had a relevant paper published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal such as Science or Nature, and "doubtful of the impact mankind is making towards climate change" as expressing the opinion that either there is no significant climate change currently occuring or that the majority of the climate change that is currently occuring is due to causes other than human activity. Does that seem reasonable?

And this is where I have the problem and is one of the underlying points I'm making. How would I know, how would Joe Sixpack know? Please read my story about Joe (you probably already have). Remember this is not a science thread - I am asking how do we get Joe to understand who and what to listen to (not me necessarily - I am learning bit by bit).

 

[Pixel42]

How would I know, how would Joe Sixpack know?

By taking the time and effort to look into it and find out, as I already said. Those who do not do so are easy prey for the propagandists and will continue to believe them, probably right up until the reality of AGW starts to affect them personally.

Fortunately it's not necessary to convince every Joe Sixpack, just the policy makers, and they are already convinced.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Lie often?

Every night when I get into bed. And you?

It is this sort of attempt at provocation that just proves the point - again.

Thanks.