For TokenConservative - Where should we get our information on climate from?

[volatile]

A previous thread was closed due to a derail from its original intention, but a number of questions remained unanswered.

Tokenconservative does not accept peer reviewed papers as evidence for anthropogenic global warming. He also ascertains that global warming, anthropogenic or otherwise, is a myth.

I have repeatedly asked him to answer the following two questions. Aside from a vague unsupported reference to someone called Professor Gray, these have not been answered.

I'd ask you again to answer these Token. Answer then concisely, clearly, and simply. I'm obviously a bit thick, so I'd appreciate if you put your case on a plate for me:

1) If we shouldn't get our information about climate from climatologists, who should we get it from?

2) Where did you learn that global warming wasn't happening and / or wasn't anthropogenic?

 

[PrincessIneffabelle]

Bumped because I really want to hear TC's answers.

That being said, I'm not exactly holding my breath on this one.

 

[volatile]

Bumped because I really want to hear TC's answers.

That being said, I'm not exactly holding my breath on this one.

I PM'd him, cordially, to point him here. He's been on the forums since. I take it he's evading the questions, which is a shame, really, although not entirely surprising.

 

[varwoche]

Exercising my M.O. degree (Master of the Obvious), clearly we should assign a lot more weight to peer-reviewed science than to opinion pieces from free marketeers and other non-expert blow hards.

Yet even here on a skeptical forum, the dubious citations constantly posted by a/gw pseudo-skeptics -- accepted uncritically as fact while the peer-reviewed science is considered suspect at every turn -- never ceases to astound me. Dubious sources such as...

A bumbling associate economics professor. A marketing professor. Lyndon Larouche. Malloy/junkscience. CO2 "Science". Heartland Institute ("our mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems" and countless other bags of free market hot air. The Marshall Institute. Michael Crichton ad nauseum. An oil industry businessman. A coal mining engineer. An economist. Right-wing lobbyist DCI (and their TechCentral arm). Anonymous bloggers and even anonymous blog commenters. "Here". Paid Exxon shills. Some guy who conducted a study concerning professional basketball. A small businessman from Arizona with a blog. The Czech president who freely admits to ignoring scientific evidence. And last but certainly not least, a construction worker.

And it doesn't even make a dent when a lying propagandist is proven to be a lying propagandist -- the citations just keep on coming.

 

[volatile]

Another addendum to this: I'd like to make it clear that I know effectively nothing about the nuts and bolts of climate science, and thus have to trust the research of others to form my opinions on the matter.

Knowledge acquisition is what's really at the heart of my two questions - if one is individually unable, through lack of training, resources or anything else, to find out the truth of any particular matter, how should one approach the issue?

I know nothing about climate science, so I trust climate scientists on matters concerning global warming. I have to, in some respects, as I haven't the time or the inclination to spend a decade of my life re-training to learn the requisite skills.

Tokenconservative has decried these same scientists, and I'm assuming that he, as a former school-teacher turned entrepreneur, is as incapable as I am of making an objective judgement as to the implications of the raw data. That's why I'm asking those two questions - if he is personally incapable of parsing the numbers, why does he not trust the findings of the overwhelming majority of those perfectly positioned to be able to? Even if he doesn't want to post links to papers that support his opinion (though that would be useful), I'd be interested in a straight answer on this particular subjective question, as he hasn't given one as far as I can tell.

 

[lenny]

Knowledge acquisition is what's really at the heart of my two questions - if one is individually unable, through lack of training, resources or anything else, to find out the truth of any particular matter, how should one approach the issue?

Doesn't this question have nontrivial implications regarding how a skeptic "should" function in a democracy? the particular issue, be it global warming or anti-missile missile shields, is irrelevant: does the JREF forum really have nothing to say regarding how one should approach such issues?

 

[Tokenconservative]

Interestingly enough, it's the "Global Warmingists" who primarily believe that global warming can be stopped. Only those who believe that global warming is not caused by human action believe it to be totally unstoppable.

Yes, the GWists do believe that. They believe the One True Way can be stopped only by destroying Western and especially US economies.

By destroying the world in this way (oddly...they never mention China) they believe, they can in their most holy way, stop the destruction of Mother Gaia.

What non-believers believe is that climate changes. Naturally. It has, so far as our best science can determine ,done so pretty much since the planet developed a climate. Sometimes this happens fast, sometimes slow, but it always happens and is always happening, and the geologic, dendrochronologic (sp?) and even historical record supports this (to you, irrational) "belief."

These rational folks, reading the "tea leaves" of ice cores, tree rings, the clues written in the stone, so to speak, and the historical record of those who grew wine grapes in England and raised dairy cows in Greenland, "believe" that since a changing climate is, clearly, something that just happens, regardless of my SUV, mucking about in this process seems a tad well, risky.

We (believers) like to look to things like the Aswan Dam, the Aral sea, rabbits and cats in Australia, kudzu and nutria in the American south, the lower Colorado River in the American Southwest, the missing cedar forests in Central Mexico, the missing well...everything on Easter Island, etc., etc., scratch our long white, prophets' beards, go "hmmmm...." and wonder whether, with humans' very poor record when it comes to mucking about with LOCAL ECOLOGIES, should we undertake a misguided attempt to "stop!!!" the natural (25 yr-cycles) warming that appeared to have peaked in 1998.

Many on the rational, non-religioius side of the argument would, quite rationally argue that rushing headlong into such a decision just in order to destroy the US economy (and make the GW priesthood rich) MAY be a poorly thought-out approach that at least deserves further study on OUR side, not just on yours.

Others, believe that no price (destruction of local and maybe global ecology, say) is too high a price to pay to put paid to the US.

I assume you are one of these.

Tokie

 

[volatile]

As usual TC, you're acting as if no-one's researched whether GW is cyclical or not! Hey - guess what? You're not the first person to point out that the earth has heating and cooling periods; every climate scientist in the world already knows and accepts that!

Of course the climate warms and cools cyclically, and so rigorous investigations have been done by people who have studied climate science their whole lives to see if the current levels and rates are consistent with cyclical patterns. Fact is - they aren't.


You're asking a question that people who know what the hell they're talking about have spent a long time objectively finding out the answer to. Why you are content to pose the question but ignore the answer is utterly beyond me, frankly. Why you, with no knowledge of climatology beyond a base tabloid overview, act like you know better than the people who've spent decades of their lives studying climate science, is unfathomable. And why you continue to act like this despite having been called on it times too numerous to mention is just absurd.

But that's way off topic. May I cordially re-direct you to the thread you ignored - there's a perfect forum for you to make your case that GW isn't anthropogenic. - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96420

 

[Tokenconservative]

As usual TC, you're acting as if no-one's researched whether GW is cyclical or not! Hey - guess what? You're not the first person to point out that the earth has heating and cooling periods; every climate scientist in the world already knows and accepts that!

Of course the climate warms and cools cyclically, and so rigorous investigations have been done by people who have studied climate science their whole lives to see if the current levels and rates are consistent with cyclical patterns. Fact is - they aren't.


You're asking a question that people who know what the hell they're talking about have spent a long time objectively finding out the answer to. Why you are content to pose the question but ignore the answer is utterly beyond me, frankly. Why you, with no knowledge of climatology beyond a base tabloid overview, act like you know better than the people who've spent decades of their lives studying climate science, is unfathomable. And why you continue to act like this despite having been called on it times too numerous to mention is just absurd.

But that's way off topic. May I cordially re-direct you to the thread you ignored - there's a perfect forum for you to make your case that GW isn't anthropogenic. - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96420

You are absolutely right!

I have NO knowledge of climatology, and therefore should be barred from having, or certainly voicing an opinion...

That's a very sound argument, by the way! I will use it the next time some doofus tells me how terrible the Nazi death camps were...I'll scream into their face: "how do you know!!!?? Were you THERE!!!?"

Or, I can use that when somebody tells me that men and dinosaurs did not walk the earth at the same time. I'll scream into their face, "how do you know!!?? Were you there!!??"

Tokie

 

[volatile]

Take it to the appropriate thread, Tokie. Why do you, who knows nothing of climate science, not trust the opinions of every single climatologist on the planet? It's a pertinent question, and one you've steadfastly refused to answer.

As for your holocaust analogy - of course I wasn't there. That's why I trust the diligent, informed and expert work of the historians who have studied it. I need to rely on second hand sources - and so I pick those who might perhaps know what they're talking about. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can pull an opinion on any subject under the sun out of their ass, and so it behoves each individual to work out how to discern the facts from the fictions. If you don't believe climate scientists on climatology, who the hell do you go to for information on it?

Extend the same courtesy to climate science that you do to history - as you know nothing directly yourself, trust the opinions of those that do. That you persist in arguing that your personal, uninformed, ignorant opinion of climate cycles is correct whilst every single person on the planet qualified to judge these things disagrees with you is pretty shocking.

Take it to the thread set up for this very discussion, TC, or never mention global warming on these forums again. Are you man enough to stand behind your stance?

 

[volatile]

Thanks to the Mods for moving some stuff in from other threads. Let's get this discussion rolling, TC.

Who should one get information regarding the climate from, if not climatologists?

 

[DRBUZZ0]

Interestingly enough, it's the "Global Warmingists" who primarily believe that global warming can be stopped. Only those who believe that global warming is not caused by human action believe it to be totally unstoppable.

Global warming cannot be stopped. Short of a few major volcanic eruptions we are committed to accelerated human-created global warming for at least a 30-40 years. We probably will experience about another .5 C even if we take all reasonable actions to stabilize and begin to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

But, that amount is not disiasterous. At least not compared to what it could be if we stay with the trends we're at now. If the developed nations of the world continue to increase their annual production of CO2 at a relatively linear rate, as they have for some time, and China. India and others continue to increase CO2 at the rates predicted based on their energy expansion, then it could be much much worse.

Right now, if CO2 levels in the developed world start being reduced by a signifficant amount, and expanding countries can be kept within reasonable limits, then we have a good shot at keeping it within tolerable margins.

But it can't be "stopped." It's too late for that.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Yes, the GWists do believe that. They believe the One True Way can be stopped only by destroying Western and especially US economies.

What a silly lie.

No-one believes that, which is why you can't quote a single person saying so.

 

[Dr Adequate]

That's a very sound argument, by the way! I will use it the next time some doofus tells me how terrible the Nazi death camps were...I'll scream into their face: "how do you know!!!?? Were you THERE!!!?"

Or, I can use that when somebody tells me that men and dinosaurs did not walk the earth at the same time. I'll scream into their face, "how do you know!!?? Were you there!!??"

Yes, holocaust denial and creationism seem right up your street. You'd enjoy creationism especially. All the screaming of stupid lies about your opponents, the science denial, your perfect self-confidence that you know more than the experts without being one, the halfwitted pretence that your opponents' view is a "religion", and the shrieking, twitching, hysterical paranoia. You'd fit right in.

Whether it's Holocaust denial or creationism that you take up as a hobby, the person you're screaming at would refer you to the diligent research of experts into the evidence. Like with global warming.

 

[Dr Adequate]

These rational folks, reading the "tea leaves" of ice cores, tree rings, the clues written in the stone, so to speak, and the historical record of those who grew wine grapes in England and raised dairy cows in Greenland ...

Perhaps I should explain to you that everything that you know about the climate is known to climatologists.

... "believe" that since a changing climate is, clearly, something that just happens, regardless of my SUV, mucking about in this process seems a tad well, risky.

Quite so. We have this delicate natural balance ... and we pump greenhouse gasses into it.

Crazy, huh?

Maybe we should stop mucking about with this process.

Many on the rational, non-religioius side of the argument would, quite rationally argue that rushing headlong into such a decision just in order to destroy the US economy ...

... is a halfwitted lie that you've made up in lieu of a proper argument.

 

[JoeEllison]

Yes, holocaust denial and creationism seem right up your street. You'd enjoy creationism especially. All the screaming of stupid lies about your opponents, the science denial, your perfect self-confidence that you know more than the experts without being one, the halfwitted pretence that your opponents' view is a "religion", and the shrieking, twitching, hysterical paranoia. You'd fit right in.

Whether it's Holocaust denial or creationism that you take up as a hobby, the person you're screaming at would refer you to the diligent research of experts into the evidence. Like with global warming.

You know... that "creationist" comparison is a very important one. The similarities are unmistakable, and more telling than any single bit of information that the cultists in either group might present.

For instance, the GW denialists will say "the scientists want to destroy our oil-based economy and our way of life" as though that claim as any bearing on the accuracy of the science. The creationists will say "the scientists want to destroy our religious-based morality and our way of life" as though that claim as any bearing on the accuracy of the science.

The GW denialists will quote economists, lawyers, oil-company executives, scientists in unrelated fields, and political operatives as more reliable scientific sources than actual climate scientists. The creationists will quote economists, lawyers, religious leaders, scientists in unrelated fields, and political operatives as more reliable scientific sources than actual biologists.

The GW denialists will point to a handful of (often discredited)climate scientists, and claim that there is a large and growing movement against the mainstream scientific consensus. The creationists will point to a handful of (often discredited)biologists, and claim that there is a large and growing movement against the mainstream scientific consensus.

The GW denialists will lie, misquote, and twist evidence to fit their viewpoint, while falsely accusing real scientists of doing the same. The creationists will lie, misquote, and twist evidence to fit their viewpoint, while falsely accusing real scientists of doing the same.

The GW denialists will say that the climate scientists know for a fact that there is no basis for their claims, implying that there is a giant worldwide conspiracy supporting Global Warming and working against them, often for sinister purposes. The creationists will say that the biologists know for a fact that there is no basis for their claims, implying that there is a giant worldwide conspiracy supporting "Darwinism" and working against them, often for sinister purposes.

So, really, because the pattern is identical, because the basis in both cases is about something other than science... in a way, you can ignore any specific claims that either group makes. Not because they might not be right about one detail or another, but because they are engaged in a fundamentally dishonest enterprise, that doesn't actually value facts at all. So, it may actually be fundamentally impossible to discuss facts with them at all. When they are occasionally correct on some minor detail, they count it as a major victory. When they are wrong on just about everything else, they STILL count it as a victory, because clearly they have stood up bravely to the evil conspiracy.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

What non-believers believe is that climate changes. Naturally. It has, so far as our best science can determine ,done so pretty much since the planet developed a climate. Sometimes this happens fast, sometimes slow, but it always happens and is always happening, and the geologic, dendrochronologic (sp?) and even historical record supports this (to you, irrational) "belief."

I don't think there's a single climatologist who would disagree with this.

These rational folks, reading the "tea leaves" of ice cores, tree rings, the clues written in the stone, so to speak, and the historical record of those who grew wine grapes in England and raised dairy cows in Greenland, "believe" that since a changing climate is, clearly, something that just happens, regardless of my SUV, mucking about in this process seems a tad well, risky.

We (believers) like to look to things like the Aswan Dam, the Aral sea, rabbits and cats in Australia, kudzu and nutria in the American south, the lower Colorado River in the American Southwest, the missing cedar forests in Central Mexico, the missing well...everything on Easter Island, etc., etc., scratch our long white, prophets' beards, go "hmmmm...." and wonder whether, with humans' very poor record when it comes to mucking about with LOCAL ECOLOGIES, should we undertake a misguided attempt to "stop!!!" the natural (25 yr-cycles) warming that appeared to have peaked in 1998.

But isn't this the point of the climatologists?? We've been mucking about so much, what with burning coal and stripping forests and dumping mercury, that we have actually had an effect on the natural cycle of climate change.

You agree we've been mucking things up. You agree that the climate is changing. Why do you not see that there is quite probably a relationship between the two? Not that the climate wouldn't change anyway, but that we are helping it along at an accelerated rate, and should probably change our habits.

It's like a car rolling down a hill. It's gonna roll, naturally. Step on the gas, however, and it'll hit that tree at the bottom a lot sooner. That's what we're doing.

What climatologists are proposing is that, rather than stomping on the gas as we've been doing all these decades, maybe we should try pumping the brakes. That way, by the time the car hits the tree (which it probably will...it's unlikely just the brakes will stop it), perhaps we'll have had time to figure out a way around it.

Maybe we'll have to get out of the car entirely.

Many on the rational, non-religioius side of the argument would, quite rationally argue that rushing headlong into such a decision just in order to destroy the US economy (and make the GW priesthood rich) MAY be a poorly thought-out approach that at least deserves further study on OUR side, not just on yours.

Others, believe that no price (destruction of local and maybe global ecology, say) is too high a price to pay to put paid to the US.

I assume you are one of these.

Tokie

What good is a well-balanced US economy if I'm going to have to spend my money on cans of fresh air, rebreathers, and SPF 1000?

 

[JoeEllison]

Ack... I fell for the other delialist/creationist trick: I was sidetracked by one of their diversionary points.

This thread is about which sources we should trust... therefore, TC wants to talk about economic impact. Changing the subject is another time-honored tactic.

 

[volatile]

To be fair on TC, his posts here were moved in from elsewhere. He has yet to make a deliberate post in this thread, despite waxing lyrical about GW in nearly every thread he participates in, no matter what the topic (see - Education, R&P etc).

 

[JoeEllison]

To be fair on TC, his posts here were moved in from elsewhere. He has yet to make a deliberate post in this thread, despite waxing lyrical about GW in nearly every thread he participates in, no matter what the topic (see - Education, R&P etc).

Ahhh... well, then, I reserve judgment, at least as per my last post.