AWG conspiracy, why?

[fourtoe]

Like the science itself, there are so many variables within the field and its discussions as to negate the certainties that we are constantly given.

Here we go, how did you come to this conclusion? What is it based on? Basically, are you able to provide sources that back this up? If you are able to do so, those sources are where I should go to learn more about AGW, correct?

Because frankly, it is a little cheap to make a statement like this and then just say that people are corrupted by money and their ideology.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Here we go, how did you come to this conclusion? What is it based on? Basically, are you able to provide sources that back this up? If you are able to do so, those sources are where I should go to learn more about AGW, correct?

Because frankly, it is a little cheap to make a statement like this and then just say that people are corrupted by money and their ideology.

Nice try but, frankly, what is cheap is to take a small portion of the whole response I gave, isolate it and try and use it as my only standpoint.
You asked me a question and I answered it honestly - I doubt you received it honestly.

What is my conclusion based on? The very discussions that occur here and elsewhere. I constantly hear from AGW advocates that the science is so difficult to understand that I couldn't possibly begin to understand it - only a scientist can.
I have eyes, and ears, and a brain - and guess what - when experts dispute findings, I recognise a little thing called a disagreement or debate. Who am I to say what's right or not? I can't understand the science remember? Others (not you) have told me so many times.
So why would I accept one point of view over another?

So instead, I look and listen. I hear the objections and the debate. I don't understand much of the science, why would I? How could I?
So like you, I have to defer to the experts, and when they don't agree how do I decide? Simple, I don't.

But something I do understand is human beings and their nature: The things that drives them; how ego's, money, ideology etc play a part.

Why am I skeptical. Because nothing is settled here.
The science is complex, there are no absolutes.
Scientists disagree, politicians disagree and the world doesn't understand it.

So, in the meantime, I remain skeptical of the A in AGW.

 

[fourtoe]

Nice try but, frankly, what is cheap is to take a small portion of the whole response I gave, isolate it and try and use it as my only standpoint.
You asked me a question and I answered it honestly - I doubt you received it honestly.

What is my conclusion based on? The very discussions that occur here and elsewhere. I constantly hear from AGW advocates that the science is so difficult to understand that I couldn't possibly begin to understand it - only a scientist can.
I have eyes, and ears, and a brain - and guess what - when experts dispute findings, I recognise a little thing called a disagreement or debate. Who am I to say what's right or not? I can't understand the science remember? Others (not you) have told me so many times.
So why would I accept one point of view over another?

So instead, I look and listen. I hear the objections and the debate. I don't understand much of the science, why would I? How could I?
So like you, I have to defer to the experts, and when they don't agree how do I decide? Simple, I don't.

But something I do understand is human beings and their nature: The things that drives them; how ego's, money, ideology etc play a part.

Why am I skeptical. Because nothing is settled here.
The science is complex, there are no absolutes.
Scientists disagree, politicians disagree and the world doesn't understand it.

So, in the meantime, I remain skeptical of the A in AGW.

Just to make this clear, this was your answer?

There is too much debate between scientists, politicians and the wider population - us included.
Models miss, ongoing scandals (some justified, some not), liars on both sides, alternate or ulterior agenda's, human beings and their ego's are heavily involved, as is money and ideologies.

Like the science itself, there are so many variables within the field and its discussions as to negate the certainties that we are constantly given.

Moreover, the more vociferous and abusive the AGW proponents get, the more skeptical I (and others) become.

If so then I feel I did receive it honestly because it seemed to me pretty vague.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Just to make this clear, this was your answer?

If so then I feel I did receive it honestly because it seemed to me pretty vague.

If you did receive it honestly I apologise.

Let me ask you this.
If one has a basic understanding (even misunderstanding) of something, and these beliefs are based on a certian premise or premises. Why would one change that belief if nothing further is presented?

This is the issue I have at the moment on this topic.

I have followed the AGW discussion for some years now (perhaps a decade or more), it was because I saw no consensus anywhere that I was (had to be in fact) skeptical of the 'A'.
I researched a little; read and listened to both sides and determined what was and wasn't disputed among reasonable people.

I join JREF and see and hear nothing new except some really ugly name calling, ridicule, character abuse etc etc (btw, please don't think I'm complaining - I could care less what others say and do - it's just an observation). They yell and scream and carry on, it can be quite amusing to watch, other times it's just annoying and other times a bit sad.

Anyway much fun is had exchanging views and occasionally things can get a bit heated - no problem, we are all entitled to an opinion. That is of course you are a skeptic of AGW.

Back to my 'issue'..
So after seeing much sciency stuff chucked about by a lot of people just as untrained as me; I am supposed to change my mind?
Why would I? And how could I? Because these other untrained people yell at me and say the "science is settled", etc? Because the weight of numbers is on their side? Because they say so?

Nothing new has been furnished (quite the opposite in fact); I have basically the same information as I previously did.
I say quite the opposite because the more the arm wavers argue and abuse, the more I think something smells. Additionally, I have learned more about potentially why AGW might not be real here as to why it might be real.

So I ask. What would you do if you had a belief and nothing new was provided? Would you change your mind? Could you?

 

[Upchurch]

There is too much debate between scientists, politicians and the wider population - us included.
Models miss, ongoing scandals (some justified, some not), liars on both sides, alternate or ulterior agenda's, human beings and their ego's are heavily involved, as is money and ideologies.

Like the science itself, there are so many variables within the field and its discussions as to negate the certainties that we are constantly given.

Moreover, the more vociferous and abusive the AGW proponents get, the more skeptical I (and others) become.

One could easily swap out "Evolution" for "AGW" in the post above. Are you skeptical of that, as well? If not, why not?

In either case, it doesn't matter what politicians or the wider population choose to believe. In both cases, there are only a small minority of scientists who disagree with either evolution or AGW, and usually from unrelated fields. What matters is the science.

Science is a self-correcting system. I can guarantee you there isn't a physicist out there who wouldn't love to be the one to disprove Einstein's Relativity or that quantum mechanics is completely bogus and here is what the real theory is. The motivation of every scientist is to challenge existing knowledge with a better hypothesis. It is that same motivation that causes other scientists to verify that each proposed hypothesis is better and not just different.

The idea that nearly every scientist would work together (through design or by happenstance) to protect a failed hypothesis in the scientific journals shows both a fundamental misunderstanding of both science and scientists.

Ignore the politicians. Ignore the pro/anti-AGW advocates. AGW has scientific consensus. That's what really matters.

(Consensus doesn't necessarily mean that 100% scientists agree, nor should it. As I said above, it is the motivation of scientists to challenge the current consensus that makes science work. What consensus does mean is that none of those challenges have been more successful than the current hypothesis.)

 

[tsig]

Not quite.
Sure there is, in abundance.

But can you - hand on heart - tell me they are all without character flaws?

Now they all have to be saints?

 

[tsig]

For the reasons stated time and again. In short:

There is too much debate between scientists, politicians and the wider population - us included.
Models miss, ongoing scandals (some justified, some not), liars on both sides, alternate or ulterior agenda's, human beings and their ego's are heavily involved, as is money and ideologies.

Like the science itself, there are so many variables within the field and its discussions as to negate the certainties that we are constantly given.

Moreover, the more vociferous and abusive the AGW proponents get, the more skeptical I (and others) become.

So it's catch 22. If scientists defend themselves they are "vociferous and abusive" and if they keep silent then they have something to hide.

 

[tsig]

If you did receive it honestly I apologise.

Let me ask you this.
If one has a basic understanding (even misunderstanding) of something, and these beliefs are based on a certian premise or premises. Why would one change that belief if nothing further is presented?

This is the issue I have at the moment on this topic.

I have followed the AGW discussion for some years now (perhaps a decade or more), it was because I saw no consensus anywhere that I was (had to be in fact) skeptical of the 'A'.
I researched a little; read and listened to both sides and determined what was and wasn't disputed among reasonable people.

I join JREF and see and hear nothing new except some really ugly name calling, ridicule, character abuse etc etc (btw, please don't think I'm complaining - I could care less what others say and do - it's just an observation). They yell and scream and carry on, it can be quite amusing to watch, other times it's just annoying and other times a bit sad.

Anyway much fun is had exchanging views and occasionally things can get a bit heated - no problem, we are all entitled to an opinion. That is of course you are a skeptic of AGW.

Back to my 'issue'..
So after seeing much sciency stuff chucked about by a lot of people just as untrained as me; I am supposed to change my mind?
Why would I? And how could I? Because these other untrained people yell at me and say the "science is settled", etc? Because the weight of numbers is on their side? Because they say so?

Nothing new has been furnished (quite the opposite in fact); I have basically the same information as I previously did.
I say quite the opposite because the more the arm wavers argue and abuse, the more I think something smells. Additionally, I have learned more about potentially why AGW might not be real here as to why it might be real.

So I ask. What would you do if you had a belief and nothing new was provided? Would you change your mind? Could you?

I would get some education in the basic science rather than cast stones at those who have.

 

[DavidJames]

So after seeing much sciency stuff chucked about by a lot of people just as untrained as me; I am supposed to change my mind?
Why would I? And how could I? Because these other untrained people yell at me and say the "science is settled", etc? Because the weight of numbers is on their side? Because they say so?

First, it's good you recognize your own limitations and others like you. But earlier in this thread you hand waved away information from those that are experts, and not to my surprise, went back to believing your own ignorance.

Assuming you honestly are interested in what's really going on, I'm afraid you're going to have to put aside your ego and do some research.

 

[fourtoe]

If you did receive it honestly I apologise.

Let me ask you this.
If one has a basic understanding (even misunderstanding) of something, and these beliefs are based on a certian premise or premises. Why would one change that belief if nothing further is presented?

This is the issue I have at the moment on this topic.

I have followed the AGW discussion for some years now (perhaps a decade or more), it was because I saw no consensus anywhere that I was (had to be in fact) skeptical of the 'A'.
I researched a little; read and listened to both sides and determined what was and wasn't disputed among reasonable people.

I join JREF and see and hear nothing new except some really ugly name calling, ridicule, character abuse etc etc (btw, please don't think I'm complaining - I could care less what others say and do - it's just an observation). They yell and scream and carry on, it can be quite amusing to watch, other times it's just annoying and other times a bit sad.

Anyway much fun is had exchanging views and occasionally things can get a bit heated - no problem, we are all entitled to an opinion. That is of course you are a skeptic of AGW.

Back to my 'issue'..
So after seeing much sciency stuff chucked about by a lot of people just as untrained as me; I am supposed to change my mind?
Why would I? And how could I? Because these other untrained people yell at me and say the "science is settled", etc? Because the weight of numbers is on their side? Because they say so?

Nothing new has been furnished (quite the opposite in fact); I have basically the same information as I previously did.
I say quite the opposite because the more the arm wavers argue and abuse, the more I think something smells. Additionally, I have learned more about potentially why AGW might not be real here as to why it might be real.

So I ask. What would you do if you had a belief and nothing new was provided? Would you change your mind? Could you?

All this tells me is that you haven't really deferred to the experts and that you haven't really tried to look into the science or read something that is catered towards the layman.

Either this or you refuse to answer my question. You have already said these things multiple times. I asked about experts and you respond by complaining about non-experts.

If you really have learned more about why AGW might not be real and we know that you don't like the idea of getting your information from non-experts in the field due to their having ideologies or what have you, then where did you go to learn more about why AGW may not be real?

 

[varwoche]

Perhaps, but I am not and never have advocated a CT on AGW.

Nonsense, as your prior post makes clear:

I think we should note that until recently, opposing points of view, dissenting papers, etc never saw the light of day. The reason is simple, why would these other publications run the risk of being discredited by those running the game and making the rules?

Spell it out for us. Who exactly is in this far reaching cabal that has suppressed dissenting papers for all these years?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Nonsense, as your prior post makes clear:

Really, please show me where.

All this tells me is that you haven't really deferred to the experts and that you haven't really tried to look into the science or read something that is catered towards the layman.

Either this or you refuse to answer my question. You have already said these things multiple times. I asked about experts and you respond by complaining about non-experts.

If you really have learned more about why AGW might not be real and we know that you don't like the idea of getting your information from non-experts in the field due to their having ideologies or what have you, then where did you go to learn more about why AGW may not be real?

I'm sorry about that.
Once again, I have stated my case as honestly as I can - you choose to interpret it the way you want - there is nothing more I will (or care) to do about it.

 

[BenBurch]

CTers almost NEVER want to admit that is what they are. So they dance around the issue and think they are clever and are fooling somebody.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

CTers almost NEVER want to admit that is what they are. So they dance around the issue and think they are clever and are fooling somebody.

Heh heh.
The voice of experience?

 

[elbe]

Heh heh.
The voice of experience?

You have noticed what subforum this is in, right? The stundie threads alone are a wealth of CTer self denial.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

And many gullibles too I imagine, as well as ideologists, religious fanatics and general nut jobs.
How your comment relates to me in real terms is beyond me.

 

[elbe]

And many gullibles too I imagine, as well as ideologists, religious fanatics and general nut jobs.
How your comment relates to me in real terms is beyond me.

So, just curious, is anyone who looks at the evidence and is convinced it is sound either gullible or an ideologue? Is being "skeptical" the only proper way to act?

 

[fourtoe]

I'm sorry about that.
Once again, I have stated my case as honestly as I can - you choose to interpret it the way you want - there is nothing more I will (or care) to do about it.

This is pretty CTish. You make claims based on vague and sweeping generalizations about human nature and don't even care to make sure you got legitimate sources to back it up?

This is always so frustrating when I talk to Truthers. I have looked at both sides of the argument. I have found and read creditable resources that hold up of other counter-arguments. But when I go and talk to a Truther about the NIST report they tell me they've never heard of it and to just look at the video of the WTC7 collapse.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

This is pretty CTish. You make claims based on vague and sweeping generalizations about human nature and don't even care to make sure you got legitimate sources to back it up?

This is always so frustrating when I talk to Truthers. I have looked at both sides of the argument. I have found and read creditable resources that hold up of other counter-arguments. But when I go and talk to a Truther about the NIST report they tell me they've never heard of it and to just look at the video of the WTC7 collapse.

I wouldn't know. I don't frequent the truther sites.

All I can do is repeat - I have honestly explained my case. You choose to reject it - your choice

 

[tsig]

I wouldn't know. I don't frequent the truther sites.

All I can do is repeat - I have honestly explained my case. You choose to reject it - your choice

Your case seems to be that it's too complicated to understand but all the scientists are in on it for the money.

You have no understanding of the science involved yet feel qualified to expound on it.