How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science

[Alan Klein]

Russ,

You are a smart man, why do you decide at this point to use such an obviously irrelevant argument?

If you are right, why not stick to sound logic to try to convince us instead?

To spell things out clearly, here is why the example you are using isn’t logically relevant.

Af the time of Copernicus, the dominent opinion on the mechanics of the world was ruled by a small group of religious people with vested interest in keeping the masses in the dark. They used a myth to do so.

Copernicus, on the other hand, used science to bring to the table a new explanation that still isn’t 100% proven today. The earth may in fact still be at the center of the universe and the sun may be rotating around it. But... Harvard scientists have ample data to proof us that this is most probably not the case.

And the press gives very little coverage to the few religious fanatics still thinking today that the earth is at the center of the universe. But they get some.

Similarly, nobody is saying that the people not agreeing with the dominant scientifical theory about global warming should’t be heard. Only that their voice should be given an amount of airtime proportional to the degree of credibility of their originators as assessed in terms of scientific value. Not to repeat today what happened to Copernicus

Today’s Copernicus is the majority of the scientific community thinking that man is most probably responsible for global warming. Not the opposite.

The essence of your story isn’t that opposite opinions are often right, the essence of your story is that science should prevail over myths.

So, with all due respect, your example was a very poor one.

Cheers,
Bernard

Sounds like current thinking, except instead of religious zealots, we have scientific zealots, captains of industry,  and politicians who want to keep the public in the dark.

[Alan Klein]

My apologies Alan. My example was hypothetical. However I appreciate your kind words even if they were not needed (knock on wood) and it underlines that even if there are harsh words, we have more here that connects us than divides us. 

I'm sure if we all got together personally, and off this damn internet, our conversations would be more civil.  We might be actually be sharing a beer or two.    Glad the disease was just a point you were making. 

[LesPalenik]

There are no (polite) words to describe my disdain for the climate alarmists for their general religious attitude and the utter lack of logic. Must be some sort of intellectual disability?

All religions, including Scientology and flawed pseudo-science theoreticians inflict a lot of damage.
On the other hand, comprehensive scientific research combined with hard evidence, such as tree rings, ice drill samples, air and soil analysis, measuring thickness of bird egg shells deliver hard facts and beneficial warnings. 

[Alan Klein]

Even if the temperature is going up, and part or all is caused by man, the positives will outway the negatives.  Warm is better.

[BernardLanguillier]

Really? In light of what we know now the whole argument is ridiculous, but the example tells us two things: (1) There's no such thing as a "scientific consensus," and if there is it's probably wrong. (2) The term "expert" often can be defined as "a drip under pressure." When it comes to climate, any guess is as likely to be wrong as to be right because (1) we simply don't have the data we need and (2) even if we had the data we need, we don't know how to process it.

Russ,

Could you please explain how you go from the Copernicus story to your two derived statements?

I apologize but I don’t understand the logical flow here.

They come across as beliefs on your part, as doubts about the relevance of the scientific approach in general and its applicability to global warming. Not to mention that they are not related to the press coverage centric subject of this thread.

The reality being that:

1. Scientific consensus will never reach 100% agreement from all parties. It’s never the case and this is very good news since it prooves the open nature of the system. There are only probabilities to base policies on. And a large majority of recognized experts investigating the topic think that there is a very high probability today that man is responsible for global warming. I agree with you we are not 100% sure. Only 97%.

But I am sure you have taken most of your life decisions with much lower odds of being right.

But look at the opposite theory “man is not responsible for global warming”. How sure are we that that one is true?

2 we have a lot of data. A huge amount of data. But I agree with you we don’t have enough data to be 100% sure. And we will never have it. Does that mean we sit and wait.

As far as I recall you are a war veteran and a pilot. Would you mind explaining to us the degree of statistical certainty you were basing your operational decisions on? When shooting a missile at another plane, were you always 100% sure it was not a friendly fire? Has the identified Friend or Foe system planes are equipped with always been 100% reliable? The answer is no, but you did trust the statistics that it’s mostly right.

Was the intelligence used to identify a target always 100% accurate? The answer is no but you took life or deaths decisions nonetheless based on probabilities.

So why do you think we must we 100% sure about global warming. Why is 97% not good enough in this case?

Cheers,
Bernard

[LesPalenik]

Even if the temperature is going up, and part or all is caused by man, the positives will outway the negatives.  Warm is better.

Warmer is better in the winter but not so hot in the summer.

[BernardLanguillier]

Sounds like current thinking, except instead of religious zealots, we have scientific zealots, captains of industry,  and politicians who want to keep the public in the dark.

If anything captains of industry overal have a clear agenda against recognizing the impact of man against global warming.

If you mean by scientific zealots people who insist about following a scientific approach to support decision making, then I am very happy they are around.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Why is 97% not good enough in this case?

Because there is not such thing. It's a myth. Or to be less charitable, a lie. Exactly the type of religious fervor you et al display all the time.

[RSL]

So why do you think we must we 100% sure about global warming. Why is 97% not good enough in this case?

Cheers,
Bernard

We never will be, Bernard, though in the sixties my Aunt, who was a geology PhD and head of the geology department at University of Houston, was convinced we were about to experience catastrophic global cooling. I remember sitting in the living room with my aunt and a group of top-flighters from the university and a couple government agencies, all of whom were equally convinced we were on the verge of a new ice age. They were as sure as the global warmists now are that we're about to burn up. At this point the whole thing is a laughable political campaign.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... What is happening here Slobodan is that you are trying to have this thread closed by resorting to personnel attacks...

There was no personal attack.

[BernardLanguillier]

Because there is not such thing. It's a myth. Or to be less charitable, a lie. Exactly the type of religious fervor you et al display all the time.

Not, it is not a myth.

It is a measure of the current level of agreement in the community of scientific experts.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... It is a measure of the current level of agreement in the community of scientific experts.

Already debunked as a political lie. As Ray (and I) in the past demonstrated by citing relevant sources.

[BernardLanguillier]

We never will be, Bernard, though in the sixties my Aunt, who was a geology PhD and head of the geology department at University of Houston, was convinced we were about to experience catastrophic global cooling. I remember sitting in the living room with my aunt and a group of top-flighters from the university and a couple government agencies, all of whom were equally convinced we were on the verge of a new ice age. They were as sure as the global warmists now are that we're about to burn up. At this point the whole thing is a laughable political campaign.

Was there at the time a 97% level of agreement in the global scientific community about a global cooling?

How is the example of your aunt relevant to the current story?

How to you derive from there that the current views of the scientific community is a laughable political campaign?

Why are scientific data seen by you as being political when they don’t support your views? Is the political thing not precisely the cherry picking of a very minor opinion as being the “oppressed truth”?

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

Already debunked as a political lie. As Ray (and I) in the past demonstrated by citing relevant sources.

No, he has absolutely not demonstrated that.

He has at best cited some sources belonging to the 3% who are not aligned with the mainstream views.

Again, sources that get more air time than they deserve.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

There was no personal attack.

Fortunately I am not taking offense of “Must be some sort of intellectual disability?”

And I am glad we can continue this conversation, although you are Russ appear to be running short of logical arguments.

Fortunately as a smart and free person you have the opportunity every second to decide to change your mind on this topic.

I am sure you are not likely to be influenced by the pressure of your peers around you. As an immigrant to the US you can certainly bring with you a freedom of opinion.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Fortunately I am not taking offense of “Must be some sort of intellectual disability?”

I was referring to a whole group of climate alarmists. We had this discussion before and I believe the conclusion was (with 97% certainty) that attacking a group can not be considered a personal attack just because someone self-identifies with the group. If you say conservatives are idiots and I identify as a conservative, I do not feel personally offended.

And I am glad we can continue this conversation, although you are Russ appear to be running short of logical arguments.

Sure, but mostly because we are running out of patience. As I said, both Ray and I provided sources debunking the "97% consensus." And no, these were not the 3% sources.

[BernardLanguillier]

You may still want to think about the relevance of characterizing a group of people that way.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Alan Klein]

Warmer is better in the winter but not so hot in the summer.

Why do we think that 2 degrees hotter is not the norm?  Or better?  Just because man in his infinitesimally brief existence where there was history and memory might not remember the higher or lower mean temperatures, doesn't mean that the extra degrees were not the norm in earth's history nor were a negative to man and other species' existences.  It's just that we're not use to it so we assume what was is better than what is or might be. 


Reminds me of old folk who always tell the young folk how much better it was back then.  Well, maybe it was.  Or wasn't.  But if you examine how things have gone since the last Ice Age 12000 years ago, man has done better the warmer it got.  So an extra couple of degrees should be better for us based on our history.  The discussion seems stuck on whether it's warming and who's responsible.  We should be examining the pros and cons of climate change to figure out what if anything we should do when it happens.  Even those who agree there's warming are pretty much in agreement that we're not going to stop it.  Even if everyone followed Paris Accord, which they aren't, it's not going to make much of a dent in CO2 or warming whatever the cause.  So let's honestly examine the pros and cons so we can appropriately allocate funding as required rather than throwing money at it willy nilly with little overall effect.  That's just wasting precious financial resources.

[faberryman]

So let's honestly examine the pros and cons so we can appropriately allocate funding as required rather than throwing money at it willy nilly with little overall effect.  That's just wasting precious financial resources.

Are you suggesting that the scientific community has not honestly examined the pros and cons, and are making remedial recommendations willy-nilly?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

What “remedial recommendations”?