Tories new attack ads on carbon tax

[Bryan]

Lets extend the logic to the summer warming hypothesis that we see on the weather channel.

It is a lot cooler today than yesterday. In fact, weeks of "summer warming" have been wiped out it a single day!

Good to know that this summer warming crap has been debunked, cause now I can sell my airconditioner!

What you are relying on is a statistical lie. Everyone says about "10 years ago" because that was one of the hottest years on record. The fact is that the last ten years have been very hot by historical standards.

I could pick the coldest year of the 80's and point to you a dramatic increase in temperatures.

Given the right set of dates, you can show anything. To put it another way, is Nortel as successful company as measured by share price ? I can give you any answer you want. If you say it is a disaster, I will show you the stock price at its lowest and the stock price today, and wow, dramatic growth!.

On the other hand, if you say it is doing really well, then I would show you the peak value and the value today and it would be a disaster. I can make the stock "hot" or "cold" by choosing the dates.

What you are doing by using the 10 year figure is to pick the two dates that best suit your hypothesis. In doing so, you are misunderstanding the theory. Global warming theory does not claim to be able to predict what the termperature will be next year. Other events (volcanoes/ El Nino's/ forest fires/butterflys fapping their wings on a beach in Brazil and other random events) have a much greater impact of climate in the short term.

Please. What you are stating is exactly what the AGW hysterians are doing: cherry-picking short periods of time in attempt to show that their theory is correct.

The truth is, climate changes all the time, and always has. Taken in the longest period of history possible, there is nothing remarkable about what little warming there had been in the 80s and 90s, just as there was nothing remarkable about the 30 plus years of cooling that preceeded it. The fact is that it only takes a very short period of time to erase the previous trends.

The value in picking the last 10 years, is that is how long we have had a sustained directly observable period where there is no warming happening. What makes this relevant, and not just a cherry-pick, is the AGW hysterians have been particularly vocal about how much the earth is warming RIGHT NOW, how much more rapidly it's going to rise in the near future, and how it is a crisis.

Call me picky, but for it to be taken credibly as a crisis, shouldn't it be --oh I don't know-- actually happening?

[myata]

No one can prove that the theory of gravity is true (that is why they call it a 'theory'). However, it is possible to make very detailed predictions on what will happen given a set of initial conditions. The ability to predict future outcomes based on a hypothesis is what makes science useful and it allows us to separate the crackpots from the geniuses.

Sorry, you may have misunderstood it, but: there's no separate independent "global warming" "hypothesis". The same laws of dynamics that power the rocket (and your car), are used to create models of weather and climate change; the same math that is used in your typing on the computer is used to formulate the equations of these models; the same computers that calculate stability of your neighbourhood bridge (only much more powerful) are used to calculate these models; the same scientists who invented and developed the principles which are used in our everyday life, have analyzed, reviewed and, in their majority, accepted the fundamentals on which the models are based; as the outcomes of the models.

See, there's no miracle, and no place for that "gotcha" (like perpetuum mobile); you follow the model, and either find a fault in it, and report it, and have it accepted by other scientists, like you; or accept the conclusions derived from the model. This why what we see in our everyday life is very predictable; e.g you jump off the roof, you'll drop down, and in all likelihood, won't soar like a bird; no matter how much luck; or belief in the AGS - anti gravitation "science", you may have.

That's my last contribution to the layman discussions of science. The references to US academy of science, and UN internation panel (in the earlier discussion) were provided. The only way to dispute these would be to reference equally qualified and rated contentions from the opposite side. Please note the point about "equally qualified and rated". There's little point in digging out bs and throwing it around, as the resources of it on the Net are infinite (unlike our planet's oil deposits), and it'll take our combined lifetimes and more to get to the end of it.

[noahbody]

Sorry, you may have misunderstood it, but: there's no separate independent "global warming" "hypothesis". The same laws of dynamics that power the rocket (and your car), are used to create models of weather and climate change; the same math that is used in your typing on the computer is used to formulate the equations of these models; the same computers that calculate stability of your neighbourhood bridge (only much more powerful) are used to calculate these models; the same scientists who invented and developed the principles which are used in our everyday life, have analyzed, reviewed and, in their majority, accepted the fundamentals on which the models are based; as the outcomes of the models.

See, there's no miracle, and no place for that "gotcha" (like perpetuum mobile); you follow the model, and either find a fault in it, and report it, and have it accepted by other scientists, like you; or accept the conclusions derived from the model. This why what we see in our everyday life is very predictable; e.g you jump off the roof, you'll drop down, and in all likelihood, won't soar like a bird; no matter how much luck; or belief in the AGS - anti gravitation "science", you may have.

The problem with your thinking is that you don't seem to realize that climate in not a constant. There are many variables that affect climate so even before you add the unknown variable of CO2 into the equation, it is difficult to predict with accuracy.

Edited June 11, 2008 by noahbody

[Riverwind]

Sorry, you may have misunderstood it, but: there's no separate independent "global warming" "hypothesis". The same laws of dynamics that power the rocket (and your car), are used to create models of weather and climate change; the same math that is used in your typing on the computer is used to formulate the equations of these models; the same computers that calculate stability of your neighbourhood bridge (only much more powerful) are used to calculate these models; the same scientists who invented and developed the principles which are used in our everyday life, have analyzed, reviewed and, in their majority, accepted the fundamentals on which the models are based; as the outcomes of the models.

You are completely wrong here. For two reasons:

1) The climate system is too complex to model with the computers that we have today which means the climate models are not really solving basic physical equations. The models must rely on numerous approximations called 'parametrizations' which are tuned to ensure that the model produces the expected output. In some cases the ad hoc adjustments added to keep the models stable are as large as to alleged CO2 effect. This means there is no reason to believe that the output of the models has any connection to reality unless these models can be used to make predictions about the future. So far the track record of the models is as good as the average astrologer (i.e. they get some things right but get many more things wrong).

2) Models used for engineering purposes are always validated by conducting real experiments before their results are ever used to build real things. I would have no problem trusting the climate models if they went through the same validation process as engineering models. Unfortunately, that kind of validation is not possible which means it is irresponsible to claim that climate models tell us anything useful about what might happen in the future. They are nothing more than unproven hypotheses until they have been validated against reality.

The references to US academy of science, and UN international panel (in the earlier discussion) were provided. The only way to dispute these would be to reference equally qualified and rated contentions from the opposite side.

Appeals to authority are not helpful or useful. I have studied this topic extensively and have read the opinions of experts on both sides of the debate. I have read the arguments and the counter arguments and the counter-counter arguments. In some cases I end up agreeing that the alarmists have the better argument. However, in most cases the skeptics make the better arguments.

It would take several pages to provide a proper rebuttal of each point in that document you linked. I picked on the CO2 attribution claims because most lay people can understand that using a computer model to verify the assumptions built into the computer model is an exercise in circular logic that tells us nothing about what is happening in the climate. If you disagree then you should be able to come up with a counter argument that is better than 'go read this document'.

Edited June 11, 2008 by Riverwind

[Bryan]

Appeals to authority are not helpful or useful. I have studied this topic extensively and have read the opinions of experts on both sides of the debate. I have read the arguments and the counter arguments and the counter-counter arguments. It would take several pages to provide a proper rebuttal of each point in that document. I pick on the CO2 attribution claims because most lay people can understand that using a computer model to verify the assumptions built into the computer model is an exercise in circular logic that tells us nothing about what is happening in the climate.

Not only that, but some of the most outspoken opponents of the AGW dogma are climate scientists who were actually lead authors and reviewers on the IPCC panel itself.

[myata]

1) The climate system is too complex to model with the computers that we have today which means the climate models are not really solving basic physical equations. The models must rely on numerous approximations called 'parametrizations' which are tuned to ensure that the model produces the expected output. In some cases the ad hoc adjustments added to keep the models stable are as large as to alleged CO2 effect. This means there is no reason to believe that the output of the models has any connection to reality unless these models can be used to make predictions about the future. So far the track record of the models is as good as the average astrologer (i.e. they get some things right but get many more things wrong).

Sure, just because you say so; what if you cared to publish your findings though? Enjoy the idea, my complements.

2) Models used for engineering purposes are always validated by conducting real experiments before their results are ever used to build real things. I would have no problem trusting the climate models if they went through the same validation process as engineering models. Unfortunately, that kind of validation is not possible which means it is irresponsible to claim that climate models tell us anything useful about what might happen in the future. They are nothing more than unproven hypotheses until they have been validated against reality.

Then, all of our knowledge of astronomy is a throw away too, no more than "unproven hypothesis", correct? I mean, you'd have to conduct a real experiment, fly to that galaxy to prove that it actually exists, and not some fairies painting picitures on your telescope, right?

Appeals to authority are not helpful or useful. I have studied this topic extensively and have read the opinions of experts on both sides of the debate. I have read the arguments and the counter arguments and the counter-counter arguments. In some cases I end up agreeing that the alarmists have the better argument. However, in most cases the skeptics make the better arguments.

Of course not. Everybody here (on this board) is just as good an authority. E.g. last time I took home a couple of Nobel prizes...

And again, why should we just stop with that climate change? What's there to stop us from throwing scientific authority everywhere we come across it, right? No limits to our imagination.

[HisSelf]

I agree. The Muloney program on the environment was far superior.

So does Mulroney. The day before the Conservative Party attack add campaign began, the Headlines in the Toronto Sun screamed "Dion's Tax on Everything." As we all know, the Chairman of the Board at the Toronto Sun is none other than the one and only Brian Mulroney.

[Riverwind]

Sure, just because you say so; what if you cared to publish your findings though? Enjoy the idea, my complements.

The criticisms I have mentioned are covered by peer reviewed literature. Here is one of many possible starting points if you wish to verify my claims: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3086

However, you will find that the volume of material is huge and it will take some time to get through. The link I provided has exchanges between climate modellers and numerical modelling experts. It will allow you see both the criticisms and the climate modeller's response. Even if you choose to believe the climate modeller's counter argument that the approximations have no effect on the outcome you will be forced to agree that these models are approximations and do not really solve the basic physical equations. This means that your argument that we should simply trust the models because they are 'based on physics' is meaningless.

Then, all of our knowledge of astronomy is a throw away too, no more than "unproven hypothesis", correct? I mean, you'd have to conduct a real experiment, fly to that galaxy to prove that it actually exists, and not some fairies painting pictures on your telescope, right?

Exactly. However, astrophysicists are not using their hypotheses to demand radical and expensive changes to the economic foundations of society so no one will get hurt if they are wrong. We have long had a division between science and engineering. Scientists worked in ivory towers debating ideas between themselves and engineers took the most reliable ideas and used them to build things that affect people's lives. However, people get hurt if engineers are wrong so engineers have to meet standards of evidence and proof that most scientists could never hope to attain. This division worked fine until the climate scientists decided that they could use their ridiculously low standards of proof to justify radical changes to society. I am saying that is an unreasonable demand and that we need to apply the same standards to climate science that we would apply to the construction of a bridge or a nuclear plant.

What's there to stop us from throwing scientific authority everywhere we come across it, right? No limits to our imagination.

You are missing the point. There is a huge difference between doing research, evaluating opinions and coming to the conclusion that some authorities are making claims that cannot be justified given the evidence available and blindly accept or rejecting their opinion. Blindly trusting a scientific authority is as stupid as blinding rejecting them. Edited June 12, 2008 by Riverwind

[myata]

There is a huge difference between doing research, evaluating opinions and coming to the conclusion that some authorities are making claims that cannot be justified given the evidence available and blindly accept or rejecting their opinion. Blindly trusting a scientific authority is as stupid as blinding rejecting them.

Should it (evaluating, etc) be done by experts in the field? Or laymen from the coach? Pick one.

For the former, experts in the field (as cited) overwhelmingly accepted the science leading to climate change models, so their opinion should be taken into account, given the huge benefits society has obtained through the same science;

For the latter, if laymen should be allowed to weigh in (i.e evaluate, make conclusions) on the matters of science and technology, do you really want to live in a society where your essential treatment will be prescribed by a woodoo shaman (or somebody who's been reading a lot of specialized medicine in their pastime and deems themselves expert in it).

[Bryan]

Should it (evaluating, etc) be done by experts in the field? Or laymen from the coach? Pick one.

For the former, experts in the field (as cited) overwhelmingly accepted the science leading to climate change models, so their opinion should be taken into account, given the huge benefits society has obtained through the same science;

For the latter, if laymen should be allowed to weigh in (i.e evaluate, make conclusions) on the matters of science and technology, do you really want to live in a society where your essential treatment will be prescribed by a woodoo shaman (or somebody who's been reading a lot of specialized medicine in their pastime and deems themselves expert in it).

Why is it then, that the AGW opponents are primarily actual climate scientists, while the AGW proponents are largely political activists?

[madmax]

Why is it then, that the AGW opponents are primarily actual climate scientists, while the AGW proponents are largely political activists?

Are the Majority of AGW climate scientists?

How many "scientists" on either side believe a gas tax on Canadians is going to cool the planet?

Or is this just a Dion thing?

[Riverwind]

Should it (evaluating, etc) be done by experts in the field? Or laymen from the coach? Pick one.

Skeptics of AGW are just as qualified as the proponents. The only difference is their views are not endorsed by official bodies. That does not make them wrong.

The opinion of experts is important but one must remember that virtually every 'expert' has conflicts of interest which means their opinions cannot not necessarily be trusted. For example, every climate scientist who has hitched their professional credibility to the AGW bandwagon and could not change their opinion without losing a lot of face. This means that these climate experts will deny all contrary evidence until it is so overwhleming that it cannot be denied. The same can be said of skeptics who have made a career out of opposing the concept of AGW (That said, most of the skeptics do not reject the possibility that the alarmists are right - they simply argue that the science is not settled).

A layman must understand these biases and must recognize that science progresses gradually where it takes a lot of time for contrary evidence builds up to the point where scientists are forced to change their minds. A layman should inform themselves of the contrary evidence and take that into account before supporting policies advocated by people with a vested interested in promoting one view or another.

In some cases, the contrary evidence will be so weak that the consensus position will be the only plausible viewpoint. When it comes to climate science the contrary evidence is quite compelling even if it does not absolutely disprove the alarmist position at this point in time. It is strong enough to justify caution before we adopt policies which could have serious negative economic consequences.

Edited June 12, 2008 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

In some cases, the contrary evidence will be so weak that the consensus position will be the only plausible viewpoint. When it comes to climate science the contrary evidence is quite compelling even if it does not absolutely disprove the alarmist position at this point in time. It is strong enough to justify caution before we adopt policies which could have serious negative economic consequences.

In this case, given the possible serious negative ecological consequences the weight of contrary evidence is not enough to prevent precautionary CO2 emission policies. Ecosystems trump the economy. You can have the former without the latter but not the other way around.

That's how I'm voting.

[Wild Bill]

Being an old hippy I've been around long enough that the support given to computer models by some in this thread strikes me as remarkably similar to the "population explosion/depletion of resources" panic generated by the "Club of Rome" way back in the 70's.

This organization was made up of scientists and world political leaders to address the problems of too many people on the planet using up finite resources. Vast sums of money were committed and a LOT of time and attention was wasted. Our own Trudeau was a member of this club.

The media treated their reports as gospel, just as they treat the GW crowd today. Of course, the Club's predictions proved totally WRONG! Think about how our world would be different today if we had of used that money and those resources to more positive purposes.

The problem was in the computer model. The people who had developed the model were horrified at how others seized on it and ran with it. They were well aware of the flaws in the programming. It treated resources as if all that were known at the time were all there were, with no more ever to be discovered. Similar to promoting the "Peak Oil" theory without considering deep water deposits or methane hydrate fields near Bermuda.

They had developed the computer model as a programming exercise to show what could be done with computer modeling. After all, such modeling had never been done before. no one had even invented the IBM PC/XT! They never intended their model to be a reliable tool of prediction. Still, it didn't matter. One meeting in Rome and it was gospel.

This is the age old problem of extrapolation. The scifi author Robert Heinlein loved to collect data and plot curves. One curve showing the rate of increase in the speed of human transportation showed we'd be travelling faster than light before the year 2000! Ol' Bob was perfectly aware that his curves were only loosely accurate. They used "what had been" to predict what was going to happen. The real world of course was full of factors that would destroy an extended curve. In the aforementioned example, the speed of light appears to be a finite number that cannot be exceeded. Also, new concepts of physics and the associated technologies cannot be scheduled to be discovered. Inspiration is a flighty thing that cares not a whit for any curve or flow chart.

We had a similar issue with the hole in the ozone layer over the South Pole which was taken as proof that man and his hair spray chemicals were destroying the planet. The "evidence" was based on brand new NASA satellite photos. NASA herself flatly denied any complicity with those who claimed the ozone hole was anything new or different as a result of modern man. After all, these were the first such photos we had been able to take! How could anyone know what things were like over the pole 50, 100 or centuries before?

All I know is that here we've had a long, wet and cool spring. Someone is sure to tell me that a year or two is too short an interval to make the claim that the planet is not getting warmer. Yet many of these same folks will use similar short intervals to claim that it is!

Thank heaven for beer!

Edited June 12, 2008 by Wild Bill

[noahbody]

All I know is that here we've had a long, wet and cool spring. Someone is sure to tell me that a year or two is too short an interval to make the claim that the planet is not getting warmer. Yet many of these same folks will use similar short intervals to claim that it is!

I wonder if anyone peed "F U IPCC" in the snow in Waterton yesterday.

[eyeball]

Being an old hippy I've been around long enough that the support given to computer models by some in this thread strikes me as remarkably similar to the "population explosion/depletion of resources" panic generated by the "Club of Rome" way back in the 70's.

I feel the same way about the models that are used to generate optimism about the economy. It doesn't surprise me in the least that the most vocal ACC (anthropogenic climate change) skeptics are the biggest boosters of "mainstream" economic theories and policies.

Thank heaven for beer!

No kidding.

[eyeball]

All I know is that here we've had a long, wet and cool spring.

All I know is that the global economy looks like a wheezy old steam engine that's barely held together with bailing wire and duct-tape.

Its been a great year for skepticism alright.

[Riverwind]

In this case, given the possible serious negative ecological consequences the weight of contrary evidence is not enough to prevent precautionary CO2 emission policies. Ecosystems trump the economy. You can have the former without the latter but not the other way around.

CO2 induced warming is *NOT* an ecological problem. It is a only a human economic problem. Virtually all of the species on this planet are adapted to much higher levels of CO2 and will have no problems with a warmer world. There will be some species in certain niches that disappear but that is no different than what has been happening since the dawn of time. Life on the planet will carry on merrily as it always has no matter what happens.

The only possible issue with AGW is that adapting to a new climate could be quite disruptive economically to human society. This means that we cannot justify any measures to stop CO2 unless we are reasonably certain that the economic disruptions caused by the preventive measures are going to be less than the eventual disruptions caused by climate change. At this point it time it looks like the preventive measures pushed by the alarmists (i.e. artificially increasing the cost of energy) will hurt more than the likely effect of any climate change.

That said, we don't have to do nothing. We could start a massive roll out of nuclear power plants and we can invest heavily in various forms of renewable energy. However, we must be realistic and accept that fossil fuel use will be a big part of the picture for the foreseeable future. Trying to legislate coal burning electrical plants out of existence before technically feasible alternatives exist is a recipe for economic suicide.

[myata]

Skeptics of AGW are just as qualified as the proponents. The only difference is their views are not endorsed by official bodies. That does not make them wrong.

Would it signify that while multiple quoted expert bodies (such as the National Academy of Science; UN expert panel on climate change; etc), support these models, any layman can decide otherwise, i.e in favour of some oddball fringe theory?

Let's try to follow this strategy consistently, shall we? Say, someone's ill, and is looking for an advice on treatment on a complex condition; should they ask (and follow the advice) of the panel of doctors in the hospital, or a mechanic neighbour who just happened to interest themselves in medicine? The "experiment" can be quite uncertain at this point, the only way to be 100% will be to live through the experience. Your call?

Now, let's try to understand: at which time should I (as a layman; or politician) listen to the advice of experts; only when they say what I want to hear; or whenever there's a reasonable agreement of the expersts in the field, even if it may be against my liking? And which strategy is more likely to be benefitial for our survival?

[Riverwind]

Let's try to follow this strategy consistently, shall we? Say, someone's ill, and is looking for an advice on treatment on a complex condition; should they ask (and follow the advice) of the panel of doctors in the hospital, or a mechanic neighbour who just happened to interest themselves in medicine?

You should listen to both and use the grey matter between your ears. Your mechanic freind may have references to other experts with different opinions and doctors are sometimes wrong. Blind trust is a mistake. More importantly, using the 'experts said something different so I am going to ignore what you have to say' tactic is a recipe for ignorance and bad decision making.

Now, let's try to understand: at which time should I (as a layman; or politician) listen to the advice of experts; only when they say what I want to hear; or whenever there's a reasonable agreement of the expersts in the field, even if it may be against my liking? And which strategy is more likely to be benefitial for our survival?

One important thing that I forget to mention about climate science: the experts have been caught red handed in a deliberate attempt to misrepresent science (I am talking about the discredited hockey stick). The fact that they were willing to defend junk science because it supported their objectives means that the experts in this case are inherently untrustworthy. This means politicians have an obligation to give weight to the opinions of experts who do not agree with the consensus. Edited June 12, 2008 by Riverwind

[myata]

You should listen to both and use the grey matter between your ears

Now, lets's stay away from generalities; you went to a hospital and they recommended a treatment that you don't like; you tried another, and they came up with the same thing.

Now you mechanic friend throws in a name of somebody who's successfully practiced woodoo medicine with excellent results; how exactly are you going to use your grey matter here? Short of going through some 10 years of medical school and internship, not to mention practical experience in the field?

One important thing that I forget to mention about climate science: the experts have been caught red handed in a deliberate attempt to misrepresent science (I am talking about the discredited hockey stick).

Some experts may have .. (any specific reference from a reputable source, to at least have an idea what you're talking about) ..

The fact that they were willing to defend junk science because it supported their objectives means that the experts in this case are inherently untrustworthy.

Right. Now because that guy screwed up some test results you're going to declare all medical tests untrustworthy and do it yourself. Good luck.

This means politicians have an obligation to give weight to the opinions of experts who do not agree with the consensus.

They sure do. But when most experts through their expert bodies have come to a certain conclusion, it's irresponcible and plain dumb to ignore their opinion because that politician doesn't happen to like it. For the simple reason, that in their field, experts are much less likely to go terribly wrong, than a layman.

[Riverwind]

Now, lets's stay away from generalities; you went to a hospital and they recommended a treatment that you don't like; you tried another, and they came up with the same thing. Now you mechanic friend throws in a name of somebody who's successfully practiced woodoo medicine with excellent results; how exactly are you going to use your grey matter here?

Ask your friend whether this voodoo medicine has been subjected any studies that demonstrate that it is more effective than the placebo effect. Chances are there are none or there may be a single study by a group that sells voodoo services. You are really wasting your time looking for a hard and fast rule. I am only arguing that experts should never be trusted blindly. I am not arguing that they are always wrong or that ideas that go against the consensus always have merit.

Some experts may have .. (any specific reference from a reputable source, to at least have an idea what you're talking about) ..

http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=166

The hockey stick debate is about two things. At a technical level it concerns a well-known study that characterized the state of the Earth’s climate over the past thousand years and seemed to prove a recent and unprecedented global warming. I will explain how the study got the results it did, examine some key flaws in the methodology and explain why the conclusions are unsupported by the data. At the political level the emerging debate is about whether the enormous international trust that has been placed in the IPCC was betrayed. The hockey stick story reveals that the IPCC allowed a deeply flawed study to dominate the Third Assessment Report, which suggests the possibility of bias in the Report-writing process. In view of the massive global influence of IPCC Reports, there is an urgent need to bias-proof future assessments in order to put climate policy onto a new foundation that will better serve the public interest.

Right. Now because that guy screwed up some test results you're going to declare all medical tests untrustworthy and do it yourself. Good luck.

Actually, if it really was a case of one person screwing up a single study then you would have a point. The problem in this case is the entire climate science community lined up to defend this guy and still refuses to admit that he was not only wrong but that he was also likely guilty of deliberate fraud.

There are many parallels to a situation where one cop makes a mistake and kills someone but the other cops and management work to minimize and/or deny that the screw up occurred. When this happens the trustworthiness of the entire police force is called into question even though it it was really only one cop who made a mistake.

Edited June 12, 2008 by Riverwind

[myata]

I am only arguing that experts should never be trusted blindly. I am not arguing that they are always wrong or that ideas that go against the consensus always have merit.

What's not blindly? What if you have no competence to understand the difference between a valid, meaningful argument in the field and a bs, nonsense, gibberish? If it takes years and then, to get that competence? The choice you have is to rely on the advice of experts, or strike it your own way... with obvious outcome.

What you don't understand is that there's no separate, standalone "climate change" science. Science is interconnected, and each piece is verified in trials to the extent that it can be trusted. You can trust that pictures from Mars are real, and not a creation of fairies because radio technology that carries them has been verified gazzilion times here on Earth; technology that carries rocket to Mars has been tested in billions of jet trips right here. Yet, you'll find no shortage of people who'd distrust pictures Mars, while chatting on their cellphones. Because they have no clue that the two are actually interconnected. The same.

That's the problem. Until one's qualified to at least grasp the problem, and make a meaningful argument, all they're likely to produce is useless meaningless trash. And only selected few want to spend their time digging through junk.

http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=166

You surely understand the meaning of "reputable"? I can put out a "hypothesis" that for every statement, no matter how outrageous, there's a site somewhere on the Net that will claim it to be true.

[jdobbin]

That's the problem. Until one's qualified to at least grasp the problem, and make a meaningful argument, all they're likely to produce is useless meaningless trash. And only selected few want to spend their time digging through junk.

You surely understand the meaning of "reputable"? I can put out a "hypothesis" that for every statement, no matter how outrageous, there's a site somewhere on the Net that will claim it to be true.

I think this link explains it best what we see in most forums in regards to climate science.

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/06/how-to-...ave-always.html

Edited June 13, 2008 by jdobbin

[Wild Bill]

What's not blindly? What if you have no competence to understand the difference between a valid, meaningful argument in the field and a bs, nonsense, gibberish? If it takes years and then, to get that competence? The choice you have is to rely on the advice of experts, or strike it your own way... with obvious outcome.

Would there not be a third choice? If a question lies outside your own experience or education why not withhold an opinion?

I agree that many things are over my head. I also find that you don't have to be an electrical engineer to understand how a radio works. Sometimes all you need is a working knowledge to make informed or appropriate decisions.

I think "blind faith" is referring to accepting the words of others based on personal impressions of their competency. One lab coat is whiter than another man's, if you like. Or deferring to the man with the most initials after his name. Those who've worked in the "initial" world know that a degree is often no guarantee of accuracy or even competency. I worked with civil engineers who used to joke that if you were incompetent you could always get a job with the government!

If you don't know enough to decide for yourself how can you be confident in choosing to side with any particular expert? How could you recognize a quack? Or someone who simply isn't looking at all the facts?

Especially with something like climate change! We're talking vast sums of money and effort! What if we're wrong? And we find ourselves too broke to try again in a proper fashion? What do we tell our hungry children? "OOPS! Sorry, but the experts sure looked good!"

No, before we can support giving not just our own but all of our neighbours' tax monies toward any approach we owe it to ourselves and our children to have an INFORMED opinion! If we are not qualified to make one then we are also not qualified to pick a "champion" either.