AGW extremists are dangerous

A.A.Alfie said:
Just to clear it up for you.

There are two sides to the story and hence there is a controversy. It is because there is contoversy that there is debate.
What you say is cut and dried, others disagree with.

Is that clear now?
Click to expand...

Just as their are two sides to the creationism debate, and two sides to the anti-vaccination debate.
 
a unique person,
Thats a very good point about the religion comparison not being a good one. As to scientific illiteracy I may have overstated my ignorance in the attempt to make clear that I am no expert. I have read the forums here on the subject and followed the links, but as my proffesion is totally unrelated I know only a small amount of the science in regards to AGW. Two points have me wondering though. One, My son is only in grade 4 so I do understand exactly the teaching he is recieving. You should be able to teach this subject in a science based way even at that age. Two, I would never even enter a debate on AGW in the science forum but here we are talking about general skepticism, yet you feel the need to be condescending and mildly insulting. It may be a case of you projecting motives that are not there but please don't assume anything about me. If you care to know just ask and I'll answer honestly.
 
Last edited:
Werdum said:
Two, I would never even enter a debate on AGW in the science forum but here we are talking about general skepticism, yet you feel the need to be condescending and mildly insulting.
Click to expand...
Because the original post is rather quite lacking in any sort of logic and actually can be used (As pointed out by me and a_unique_person) to justify any sort of crank opposition as legitimate controversy. Its actually a rather quite simple case of reductio ad absurdum.
 
Last edited:
technoextreme said:
Because the original post is rather quite lacking in any sort of logic and actually can be used (As pointed out by me and a_unique_person) to justify any sort of crank opposition as legitimate controversy. Its actually a rather quite simple case of reductio ad absurdum.
Click to expand...

Yep, pretty much. The only real conclusion to come to is that a lot of AGW deniers have agendas that are not disclosed, and we'll probably never know what they are. Fears of their own mortality? Deep-seated feelings of inferiority? A desperately uneasy sense that the world is changing around them and that they can't control it, but that they somehow should be able to? A never-ending attempt to be right about something, anything, because life is not turning out the way that everyone told them it would, and their jobs are unstable, everyone is getting laid off, the house is mortgaged up to their ears, how are we all going to pay the bills, God, we've got to grab onto something to obsess about! I know! A weird conspiracy theory!!

Anyway...Unfortunately, that is not the only occasion on which I've seen the exact same kind of logic being used around here. I finally just had to decide that I wasn't going to get involved in those discussions anymore. If an issue has 8,000 scientists, professional organizations, standard reference texts, basic reality, etc etc etc, on one side of it and a few self-appointed vested self-interests and lots of hysteria and name-calling on the other, then anyone with any common sense at all is going to know what's going on. At some point, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
A.A.Alfie said:
.... Those who think they kow better than I (and the population in general) and force their beliefs and ideologies onto others often violently and single mindedly.
Hitler was one - extreme right.
Stalin another - extreme left......
Click to expand...
Good OP, but I take exception:

Hitler

1. National Socialist Party
2. Philosophical roots in American Progressive Eugenics Movement
3. Spewed boatloads of greenie-environmental propaganda

Socialist, progressive liberal roots, greenie ==> LEFT.
 
Talking of abject liars... hello, hazey! Found out already how a shift in ak-index caused a warming 10 years earlier?
 
David Wong said:
It's like saying those who have never been to law school shouldn't give legal advice.
Click to expand...
While I am quite far from being a denier of AGW, A.A.Alfie, in my opinion, still makes a legitimate point in what he is saying. It is dangerous to blindly accept the opinions of anyone, "expert" or not. He's not purporting himself to be the lawyer in your analogy as he does not express the belief that he is an expert on AGW. He is rather the client who chooses to examine critically the recommendations with which his lawyer provides him and perhaps even get a second or third legal opinion to help him in reaching an ultimate conclusion on how best to proceed in his particular legal situation. That is not to say his personal conclusion will always be the most sensible one, but simply taking whatever the first lawyer says at face value can sometimes have bad, maybe even disastrous, consequences. A mistrust of experts can be an intellectually healthy thing.

However, I would argue in contrast to A.A.Alfie that those who believe in AGW do so not because of a special trust they place in experts or in experts who have a particular opinion but because they have evaluated the state of the scientific debate as being more favorable to the idea that AGW is real on the basis of there being a general agreement on the subject amongst those who most closely study it and of how opinions dismissive of AGW are marginal in the scientific community and often found to be intertwined with political and economic interests which compromise the objectivity of those opinions.
 
mhaze said:
Good OP, but I take exception:

Hitler

1. National Socialist Party
2. Philosophical roots in American Progressive Eugenics Movement
3. Spewed boatloads of greenie-environmental propaganda

Socialist, progressive liberal roots, greenie ==> LEFT.
Click to expand...


By using the word solialism in terms of of left I think you'd be correct; it seems something of a misnomer.
I think you will find that facism is located at the extreme right.
 
BabyHeadedMan said:
While I am quite far from being a denier of AGW, A.A.Alfie, in my opinion, still makes a legitimate point in what he is saying. It is dangerous to blindly accept the opinions of anyone, "expert" or not. He's not purporting himself to be the lawyer in your analogy as he does not express the belief that he is an expert on AGW. He is rather the client who chooses to examine critically the recommendations with which his lawyer provides him and perhaps even get a second or third legal opinion to help him in reaching an ultimate conclusion on how best to proceed in his particular legal situation. That is not to say his personal conclusion will always be the most sensible one, but simply taking whatever the first lawyer says at face value can sometimes have bad, maybe even disastrous, consequences. A mistrust of experts can be an intellectually healthy thing.

However, I would argue in contrast to A.A.Alfie that those who believe in AGW do so not because of a special trust they place in experts or in experts who have a particular opinion but because they have evaluated the state of the scientific debate as being more favorable to the idea that AGW is real on the basis of there being a general agreement on the subject amongst those who most closely study it and of how opinions dismissive of AGW are marginal in the scientific community and often found to be intertwined with political and economic interests which compromise the objectivity of those opinions.
Click to expand...

You definitely have a point in theory; the problem is that it doesn't hold up very well under the circumstances of this particular case. It would make sense if we were talking about someone who genuinely knew absolutely nothing at all about a subject that had no real controversy surrounding its basic nature (AGW, in this instance). But I'm sorry to say that I think the OP was very disingenuous, and that he's clearly had plenty of opportunities to educate himself and chose not to take them. As another poster noted, there's a real theme of "my uninformed opinion is just as likely to be true as that of any number of scientists who have devoted their lives to studying this subject."

That's why the idea of "critical examination" is not very applicable here, because nothing is being critically examined; the OP is just continuing to proclaim that his opinions are just as valid as anyone else's. This may be so, but there's a huge difference between truth and validity. An utterly false opinion can still be valid. Anyone has the right to believe that cavemen rode dinosaurs six thousand years ago, so it's a valid opinion. But it's not true.
 
Last edited:
a_unique_person said:
Evidence.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and...ort_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm

Read it first, then tell me what is blindly being accepted.
Click to expand...
As I said, I am not an AGW denier, and perhaps if you had bothered to read the second paragraph of the post of mine you quote, you would have realized you are preaching to the choir. The purpose of the first paragraph of the post with which you found fault was to highlight what I find wrong with David Wong's ridiculing people who "mistrust experts" and his comparing someone who questions the opinion of an expert or a group of experts to a person who didn't go to law school practicing law as if a person voicing an opinion contradictory to what "experts" say is somehow the same as that person falsely proclaiming themselves to be an expert. If I go to a doctor, or even a few doctors, and find that what they're advising me to do doesn't match up with the literature, does my declining their suggested courses of treatment make me into a person practicing medicine fraudulently? I should hope not. The difference in the case with AGW is that the consensus in the literature is that AGW is real, but that misses the point of my criticism, namely that one shouldn't be ridiculed simply because they "mistrust experts," or any authority figure or group of authority figures for that matter.
 
Extremists are dangerous.

This is why it is useful to label people who are very passionate as 'extremists' when you disagree with them.
 
Maia said:
You definitely have a point in theory; the problem is that it doesn't hold up very well under the circumstances of this particular case. It would make sense if we were talking about someone who genuinely knew absolutely nothing at all about a subject that had no real controversy surrounding its basic nature (AGW, in this instance). But I'm sorry to say that I think the OP was very disingenuous, and that he's clearly had plenty of opportunities to educate himself and chose not to take them. As another poster noted, there's a real theme of "my uninformed opinion is just as likely to be true as that of any number of scientists who have devoted their lives to studying this subject."

That's why the idea of "critical examination" is not very applicable here, because nothing is being critically examined; the OP is just continuing to proclaim that his opinions are just as valid as anyone else's. This may be so, but there's a huge difference between truth and validity. An utterly false opinion can still be valid. Anyone has the right to believe that cavemen rode dinosaurs six thousand years ago, so it's a valid opinion. But it's not true.
Click to expand...
The crux of A.A.Alfie's argument is that there are "plenty of experts that dispute [AGW] claims." He says "[he] will continue to listen to both sides until there is some sort of concurrence," meaning he would accept a scientific consensus but believes there currently isn't one. Of course, he is incorrect in saying there is no scientific consensus at the present time because there very obviously is, and that is fundamentally what is wrong with his position. His mistrust of experts, or at least certain of them, is not the problem. If anything, his problem is that he puts too much trust in the expertise of scientists skeptical of AGW in light of circumstances showing them not to be deserving of much trust and their challenges to the prevailing scientific views on AGW not to have much credibility.
 
Last edited:
BabyHeadedMan said:
The crux of A.A.Alfie's argument is that there are "plenty of experts that dispute [AGW] claims." He says "[he] will continue to listen to both sides until there is some sort of concurrence," meaning he would accept a scientific consensus but believes there currently isn't one. Of course, he is incorrect in saying there is no scientific consensus at the present time because there very obviously is, and that is fundamentally what is wrong with his position. His mistrust of experts, or at least certain of them, is not the problem. If anything, his problem is that he puts too much trust in the expertise of scientists skeptical of AGW in light of circumstances showing them not to be deserving of much trust and their challenges to the prevailing scientific views on AGW not to have much credibility.
Click to expand...

You're perfectly right that it's the crux of what he says his argument is. The only difference, I think, is that he is "arguing" with far too much wide-eyed innocence here, and that the "argument" he puts forth is not really a completely honest one. Not only do I not think he's going to continue to listen to both sides, I don't think he ever started. I think he'd be better off just admitting that he has no intention of ever believing in AGW no matter what but that he wanted to gloss this over by sounding "reasonable", because it certainly sounds like that's what is really going on here.
 
BabyHeadedMan said:
As I said, I am not an AGW denier, and perhaps if you had bothered to read the second paragraph of the post of mine you quote, you would have realized you are preaching to the choir. The purpose of the first paragraph of the post with which you found fault was to highlight what I find wrong with David Wong's ridiculing people who "mistrust experts" and his comparing someone who questions the opinion of an expert or a group of experts to a person who didn't go to law school practicing law as if a person voicing an opinion contradictory to what "experts" say is somehow the same as that person falsely proclaiming themselves to be an expert. If I go to a doctor, or even a few doctors, and find that what they're advising me to do doesn't match up with the literature, does my declining their suggested courses of treatment make me into a person practicing medicine fraudulently? I should hope not. The difference in the case with AGW is that the consensus in the literature is that AGW is real, but that misses the point of my criticism, namely that one shouldn't be ridiculed simply because they "mistrust experts," or any authority figure or group of authority figures for that matter.
Click to expand...

If one is not an expert in an area, the rational course of action is to defer to the experts. If you do not trust the experts, but have not a clue yourself, then you are not being logical.
 
Maia said:
You're perfectly right that it's the crux of what he says his argument is. The only difference, I think, is that he is "arguing" with far too much wide-eyed innocence here, and that the "argument" he puts forth is not really a completely honest one. Not only do I not think he's going to continue to listen to both sides, I don't think he ever started. I think he'd be better off just admitting that he has no intention of ever believing in AGW no matter what but that he wanted to gloss this over by sounding "reasonable", because it certainly sounds like that's what is really going on here.
Click to expand...




Thanks Maia, I respectfully suggest you are making one or two assumptions on my behalf here that are not correct. The whole crux of this has been recognised by some; I raised this as a philosophical argument not a scientific one. Frankly I dont think it would have made a bit of difference which side of the debate I sit; the vitriol would have come forth anyway. But I apologise if I did not make my actual concerns and topic clear enough to all.
The accusations of being disingenous I reject outright. The other analyses on my personality and motives I also reject outright - although I do find some of them rather amusing. Could it be what we think we see in others is what we actually recognise in ourselves, hmm??.

What has been proven to me is that when anyone raises the topic of AWG or they think there might be a modicum of doubt, or would like to question any aspect within the overall debate they are abused, bullied and shouted down. Similarly, those extremists in the 'deniers' camp act in the very same fashion (although from what I've seen I think there are some strategic differences). This was mentioned in my OT. I also suggested that when someone on their side isn't far enough towards the extreme they are also abused and ridiculed. These have been borne out time and again in this thread alone.

Let's forget about whether or not I (or anyone else for that matter) actually believe that there is AGW. Why would I want to trust the loudest, rudest, angriest zealots to make the decisions about what to do about it? Why would I trust the future of the globe to the extremist at either end of the spectrum?
 
a_unique_person said:
If one is not an expert in an area, the rational course of action is to defer to the experts. If you do not trust the experts, but have not a clue yourself, then you are not being logical.
Click to expand...
If you are not an expert in an area in which you are required to make important decisions, then you should educate yourself as much as possible about all the subjects relevant to that area and then, if that education is insufficient on its own, consult with individuals acknowledged as experts in pertinent fields. "Deferring" is a lazy way of going about the making of a significant decision and should only be seen as a last resort.
 
The OP does have some points, but whether or not one is angry, loud, rude and mean, doesn't affect the validity of the arguments he makes.

Saying "Sonny, go study the work of Max Planck, cause you are ignorant of the physics involved" may be rude, and not the best way to win friends or influence people, but may be spot on.

The claim that AGW meets definition 4 for religion is preposterous, as that would make tennis a religion for me among other pursuits.

Why trust the loudest, rudest and angriests zealots on an internet forum, when you could study the science.

Unfortunately the math neccessary to do that is beyond most people, as is a first course in Quantum Mechanics.

But that's all you need. Planck's blackbody radiation and the Quantum mechanical description of the carbon dioxide atom's vibrational states and their transitions is the bedrock of the AGW phenomenon.

And until someone debunks them and a whole bunch of Nobel Prize winning science is refuted, there are only two answers.

AGW is real or I don't understand.
 
Once again the argument about whether or not AWG is real or not is tossed up. It is not relevant to the thread and made abundantly clear in the OP. This is a question on extremists on any side of the fence (and we could extend it to any topic).
That said, I quite agree that the validity of an argument may not be affected by the attitude of the person giving it. However, do you truly expect anyone to pay serious attention to someone with a psycological disorder and/or inability to control themselves and/or provide considered thinking to all arguments and considerations and/or tolerance issues and/or and/or etc etc.

Would you hand the extremist the reins to your future and your life?


As an aside, I have heard football, tennis and a variety of other sports and pursuits being called a religion. The point is that it relates to a following i.e. in the sense that religion = following. There is more than one definition and not just a blind proofless belief (or similar) that someone else suggested and I am certain that is what meant when first used.
 
Last edited:
A.A.Alfie said:
Once again the argument about whether or not AWG is real or not is tossed up. It is not relevant to the thread and made abundantly clear in the OP. This is a question on extremists on any side of the fence (and we could extend it to any topic).
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom