Tactics and Motivation of Global Warming Denial

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But is it safe to say that a large majority of climate scientists agree that the evidence supports this statement (defining them as the mainstream position), while a small minority reject it (establishing themselves as the fringe group)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably, but I couldn't care less. For one thing, I would expect that most climate scientists became climate scientists in the first place because they were worried about Global Warming! This makes for a rather biased group. More importantly though, I'm an intelligent adult that can think for myself, so I don't really give a damn about their opinions, I just want the hard facts so I can make my own decision. Believing in something just because someone else believes in it is silly, no matter how qualified you think they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I take it that if you need brain surgery, you'll be performing it on yourself? But only if you decide that you need it, after being presented with the hard facts, of course.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
So I take it that if you need brain surgery, you'll be performing it on yourself? But only if you decide that you need it, after being presented with the hard facts, of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

The first sentence is idiotic; the second sentence, whic I think you were trying to make sarcastic, seems self-evident to me.

When I get sick, I like to obtain information the issue. I am likely to do this (as I have in recent months) by consulting a variety of sources - experts, families, friends and the interweb. This would seem to me to be a very good way of making a decision.

I then use this information to make a judgement about what to do. It is not inconceivable, for example, for my family to recommend one thing (such as, my grand mother saying to gargle hot lemon water) and a doctor to recommend another (such as, take this drug). Then, I use my brain to consider the reasoning behind each recommended situation, and act on it. The same process can, (and should be, in my opinion) be used to form a decision on global warming or just about anything else.

However, simply because an expert recommends something, does not make it right. There are many things that I disagree with "experts" about. Most obviously in my own personal history, I strongly disagreed with the academics at my university who believed (and repeatedly claimed in class) that privatisation was a bad thing for a government to do with large utilities (such as electricity or phone companies).

I don't think there's anything unusual in this train of thought.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
You know my old college had some really old books in the basement. One was titled the Dynamics of Ether or something to that effect from the turn of the century. An entire book about how ether was everywhere and filled all of space. People really believed that back then, it was "consensus" for awhile.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and I saw Michael Jordan miss a shot once too. Yawn.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You know my old college had some really old books in the basement. One was titled the Dynamics of Ether or something to that effect from the turn of the century. An entire book about how ether was everywhere and filled all of space. People really believed that back then, it was "consensus" for awhile.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and I saw Michael Jordan miss a shot once too. Yawn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Scientific opinion has been wrong many times, and Michael Jordan has missed shots many times. Are you trying to suggest that those things almost never happen?

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So I take it that if you need brain surgery, you'll be performing it on yourself? But only if you decide that you need it, after being presented with the hard facts, of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

The first sentence is idiotic; the second sentence, whic I think you were trying to make sarcastic, seems self-evident to me.

When I get sick, I like to obtain information the issue. I am likely to do this (as I have in recent months) by consulting a variety of sources - experts, families, friends and the interweb. This would seem to me to be a very good way of making a decision.

I then use this information to make a judgement about what to do. It is not inconceivable, for example, for my family to recommend one thing (such as, my grand mother saying to gargle hot lemon water) and a doctor to recommend another (such as, take this drug). Then, I use my brain to consider the reasoning behind each recommended situation, and act on it. The same process can, (and should be, in my opinion) be used to form a decision on global warming or just about anything else.

However, simply because an expert recommends something, does not make it right. There are many things that I disagree with "experts" about. Most obviously in my own personal history, I strongly disagreed with the academics at my university who believed (and repeatedly claimed in class) that privatisation was a bad thing for a government to do with large utilities (such as electricity or phone companies).

I don't think there's anything unusual in this train of thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes even getting the "hard facts" requires expertise. Otherwise you could order your own x-ray and interpret it.

Yes, sometimes experts are wrong and we do have a right to reject their opinions, but don't think you know more than they do. You don't.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, sometimes experts are wrong and we do have a right to reject their opinions, but don't think you know more than they do. You don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

appeal to authority, fwiw.

all this talk of global warming, let me ask one question. What explanation do the manmade global warming crew give for the polar icecaps melting? -- on mars.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
So I take it that if you need brain surgery, you'll be performing it on yourself? But only if you decide that you need it, after being presented with the hard facts, of course.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your analogy make no sense. A brain surgeon could show hard proof to his patient in the form of x-rays. After seeing the x-rays and getting a 2nd opinion, the patient can consent to the surgery. The MCGW cult can not do this.... I have been asking for evidence in vain on another post and everyone has failed....

A better analogy reflecting MCGW 'scientists' would be:
A pre-med student tells a patient he needs brain surgery but he does not x-rays or other hard proof. The patient points to others who say there is no evidence that brain surgery is needed but the pre-med student dismisses these 2nd opinions saying these people are deniers and brain surgery should take place immediately... The patient says shouldn't we have x-rays taken? The pre-med student says ,"No....there is a consensus that you need it by my friends and myself".

The End...

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So I take it that if you need brain surgery, you'll be performing it on yourself? But only if you decide that you need it, after being presented with the hard facts, of course.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your analogy make no sense. A brain surgeon could show hard proof to his patient in the form of x-rays. After seeing the x-rays and getting a 2nd opinion, the patient can consent to the surgery. The MCGW cult can not do this.... I have been asking for evidence in vain on another post and everyone has failed....

A better analogy reflecting MCGW 'scientists' would be:
A pre-med student tells a patient he needs brain surgery but he does not x-rays or other hard proof. The patient points to others who say there is no evidence that brain surgery is needed but the pre-med student dismisses these 2nd opinions saying these people are deniers and brain surgery should take place immediately... The patient says shouldn't we have x-rays taken? The pre-med student says ,"No....there is a consensus that you need it by my friends and myself".

The End...

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand where you're coming from, but I was addressing his general disdain for experts rather than MCGW experts in particular. There are experts and there are "experts". The MCGW situation is like a bunch a brain surgeons, who are much more knowledgable than you, sitting around telling you they think you're sick, but they're not quite sure with what, and they won't be able to tell you with what until they finish building the X-ray machine. In the mean time, some think you just have a headache, some think you have a benign tumor, some think you have an aneurism, some think brain cancer, etc. One is bound to be right, but their diagnostic tools aren't good enough to make a definitive diagnosis yet. Suffice it to say, even in their ignorance, they have a much better chance at getting the right answer than you do.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
Suffice it to say, even in their ignorance, they have a much better chance at getting the right answer than you do.

[/ QUOTE ]
No.....I don't think so. You give them to much credit and blind support they don't deserve.

These people do NOT have the evidence to support their ridiculous claims. They can NOT rule out variable-solar output for warming and they can NOT rule out natural climate factors such as what caused the Medieval Warming Period which lasting for hundreds of years. The 'science' they use is smoke-and-mirrors which may be good enough to fool dumb-ass law school graduates in Congress but is pathetically lacking in evidence.

These people can NOT even tell you the temperature of past periods with any certainty. It is all guestimates... I think these people are largely full-of-crap. Consider the Medieval Warming Period 1000 years ago. Greenland was green. Vikings could grow crops and their animals could graze there. THIS IS WAY WARMER than Greenland is today. This weather phenon extended into North American, Europe, and perhaps beyond....but these 'scientists' claim the earth is warmer today than it was a 1000 years ago. Should I believe my eyes or their claims that the earth was warmer today than 1000 years ago? I say to these 'scientists': PROVE IT or shut the hell up.

The short answer is they can't prove it. There were no thermometers back then and therefore no temperature records... If you want to fear something then fear global cooling.....mass starvation and probably world war over resources. As for me, I will take another warming period over an ice age anyday... As for the claims that CO2 causes warming and man is responsible, they have no proof that can hold up to scutiny...

[clowntable]

Who cares?
If global warming realy is a problem there's money to be made from solving it. Call me naive but I belive in science and greed.