DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - If you think global warming is a hoax, are you an idiot?

**StoyaFanst** · 01-28-2012, 12:36 AM

Not necessarily. Climate change/GW isn't like the evolution controversy, where the choices are between "teach an unpalatable scientific theory" and "teach something more palatable, but which manifestly isn't even science."

More importantly, it's a lot less straightforward. There may well be a scientific consensus on GW, but that consensus rests on an expert interpretation of a massive data set making several assumptions about the effects of this variable and that. Even the experts disagree to some extent on how much change we're facing, or how fast, or what its effects will be. Do I trust that the expert interpretation is, on the whole, more right than wrong, and we are doing something ill-advised which screws up the climate? Yes.
Er, this is in response to the OP, in case it isn't clear.

Broadly in agreement except for this statement:
Do I trust that the expert interpretation is, on the whole, more right than wrong, and we are doing something ill-advised which screws up the climate? Yes.
Well, I don't think trusting the expert interpretation is at all necessary, at any rate, for the purpose of public policy. I don't think spending hundreds of billions of dollars on it is necessary until the case has actually been debated before the public. Not every scientist agrees with global warming. It does not do to deride those unsure or unconvinced of being "deniers" or "skeptics", shutting our eyes and ears and ignoring them. This is a scientific debate, not a religious disputation. "Deniers" are not disputing the existence of God; they are arguing that some of the data, or assumptions, or modelling, is in some way incorrect. The unconvinced may be wrong or right but their arguments must be addressed by those who accept the validity of the lgobal warming theorem. Sweeping them aside with the "denier" ad hominem does nothing to assist us in a consideration of the debate; it merely turns it into a religious disputation. If and when this occurs then can the public even begin to understand the issues, or non-issues, in the debate. Only then would I be prepared to make my judgement. (Either that or I will have to pore through the material myself, which should be a challenge--but with so much money on the line, why not?)

01-28-2012, 12:36 AM	#10
StoyaFanst Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 341 Senior Member	Not necessarily. Climate change/GW isn't like the evolution controversy, where the choices are between "teach an unpalatable scientific theory" and "teach something more palatable, but which manifestly isn't even science." More importantly, it's a lot less straightforward. There may well be a scientific consensus on GW, but that consensus rests on an expert interpretation of a massive data set making several assumptions about the effects of this variable and that. Even the experts disagree to some extent on how much change we're facing, or how fast, or what its effects will be. Do I trust that the expert interpretation is, on the whole, more right than wrong, and we are doing something ill-advised which screws up the climate? Yes. Er, this is in response to the OP, in case it isn't clear. Broadly in agreement except for this statement: Do I trust that the expert interpretation is, on the whole, more right than wrong, and we are doing something ill-advised which screws up the climate? Yes. Well, I don't think trusting the expert interpretation is at all necessary, at any rate, for the purpose of public policy. I don't think spending hundreds of billions of dollars on it is necessary until the case has actually been debated before the public. Not every scientist agrees with global warming. It does not do to deride those unsure or unconvinced of being "deniers" or "skeptics", shutting our eyes and ears and ignoring them. This is a scientific debate, not a religious disputation. "Deniers" are not disputing the existence of God; they are arguing that some of the data, or assumptions, or modelling, is in some way incorrect. The unconvinced may be wrong or right but their arguments must be addressed by those who accept the validity of the lgobal warming theorem. Sweeping them aside with the "denier" ad hominem does nothing to assist us in a consideration of the debate; it merely turns it into a religious disputation. If and when this occurs then can the public even begin to understand the issues, or non-issues, in the debate. Only then would I be prepared to make my judgement. (Either that or I will have to pore through the material myself, which should be a challenge--but with so much money on the line, why not?)
	Quote