If you deny man-made global warming...

[Herskerstad]

If it is occuring, how can we help? We just broke the record for cold weather here in the northen part of Norway. And now, they are saying it's in danger of being broken yet again. Going around minus 50 cel.

We want some of that global warm-ness. XD

[Vitaphone Racing]

[if you don't know shit about structural engineering, you aren't allowed to have opinions about how strong the beams in this building need to be.

As a mechanical engineer, I can tell you that you're wrong and I am well qualified to have an opinion about how strong the beams in this building need to be.

You don't need to be a climatologist to understand the science behind the climate, nor have an opinion about it. Just like you don't need to have a law degree to call the police if you witness a murder.

[Distruzio]

The majority of scientists believe the earth was the center of the universe. Should we admit they were right?

My point is that science ain't democracy. A majority opinion holds no weight of itself. Consensus means nothing in the light of scientific discourse.

You\forget the part where Religion was also guiding that belief and people tended to get punished if they said otherwise.......

Relevance to OP?

[Wikkiwallana]

If it is occuring, how can we help? We just broke the record for cold weather here in the northen part of Norway. And now, they are saying it's in danger of being broken yet again. Going around minus 50 cel.

We want some of that global warm-ness. XD

Then cool the planet back off so that the Gulf Stream shifts back into its old position and goes back to warming northern Europe.

[Trotskylvania]

If it is occuring, how can we help? We just broke the record for cold weather here in the northen part of Norway. And now, they are saying it's in danger of being broken yet again. Going around minus 50 cel.

We want some of that global warm-ness. XD

Weather doesn't equal climate the same way a single page doesn't equal the Library of Congress.

I live at 45 degrees north latitude, at the foot of a mountain range in the middle of a continent. This entire winter has basically been one long spring of above freezing weather, with some intermittent snow showers. This is not normal.

[Distruzio]

The majority of scientists believe the earth was the center of the universe. Should we admit they were right?

My point is that science ain't democracy. A majority opinion holds no weight of itself. Consensus means nothing in the light of scientific discourse.

It does tell you something about the science through, as it is unlikely in these times where science so much more rigorous and knowledgeable about how the world works that the vast majority of individuals are wrong.

AIDS was thought to be a homosexual virus 20 years ago. Scientific consensus was once more very vocal and very wrong.

Oil was supposed to run out in the mid 80s, the mid 90s, and the mid 2000s. Scientific consensus... and yet...

[Costa Fiero]

We do welcome criticism, but this is a deeply technical subject, and only people with a lot of training are qualified to give criticism. Suppose you came across an airplane being built, and decided to tell the factory foreman it would never work because metal is heavy and won't stay in the air. He then showed you the pages and pages of math proving that not only will it stay in the air, it will get there under it's own power. You insist he must be wrong, because you know metal weighs "a lot" and aren't sure why you should trust his advanced mathematics since you can't understand any of the formulas.. Why the fuck should he continue to listen to you when he has better things to do with his time?

Oh please. This is a forum. By invoking a topic, you automatically ask for opinions of people, no matter if they are "qualified" or not. Politics is a "technical" subject. It doesn't stop average joes like you and me from discussing it, despite we may not be qualified to do so. Hell, I do it all the time and funnily enough, no one's told me that I shouldn't have an opinion because I don't have a degree in political science. Yet I say something along the lines of "I'm sitting on the fence" and here we are. Discussing whether or not people should be qualified to be in these sorts of discussions.

If this translates into some sort of government legislation, we are indeed screwed.

[Wikkiwallana]

We do welcome criticism, but this is a deeply technical subject, and only people with a lot of training are qualified to give criticism. Suppose you came across an airplane being built, and decided to tell the factory foreman it would never work because metal is heavy and won't stay in the air. He then showed you the pages and pages of math proving that not only will it stay in the air, it will get there under it's own power. You insist he must be wrong, because you know metal weighs "a lot" and aren't sure why you should trust his advanced mathematics since you can't understand any of the formulas.. Why the fuck should he continue to listen to you when he has better things to do with his time?

Oh please. This is a forum. By invoking a topic, you automatically ask for opinions of people, no matter if they are "qualified" or not. Politics is a "technical" subject. It doesn't stop average joes like you and me from discussing it, despite we may not be qualified to do so. Hell, I do it all the time and funnily enough, no one's told me that I shouldn't have an opinion because I don't have a degree in political science. Yet I say something along the lines of "I'm sitting on the fence" and here we are. Discussing whether or not people should be qualified to be in these sorts of discussions.

If this translates into some sort of government legislation, we are indeed screwed.

We didn't invoke this topic. Some drive-by poster with 4 posts to his name, who has not shown up since, did. And I groaned to myself when I saw it, because I knew it was going to end up going into this loop all over again.

[Pyravar]

If you deny man-made global warming, then you are simply doing it for idiocy, or greed. There is no other options, as even if it wasn't true, then there is no harm in trying to prevent it.

Greed? No I think the opposite. Promoting the notion of man made global warming is the proponent of greed. The greed of power of expanding governments who use the left wing notions to try to grab for more power over their citizens, a way to raise taxes even higher and drive up material costs. The earth will always change no matter what we do. Look at the time of the dinosaurs it was far hotter back then. Will you blame that heat on dinosaur made global warming?

[Distruzio]

If specific knowledge on the subject is the requirement for comment, how many climatologists are on NSG? Very few I imagine. If I'm to be marginalized as FS and the others insist b/c of my ignorance of specific climatological methodology, from where do they derive their spurious claims of authority?

Further appeals to consensus? A bunch of ignorant sycophants discredit the bunch of ignorant naysayers b/c they agree with the consensus?

/chuckles

Whatevs.

[Costa Fiero]

We didn't invoke this topic. Some drive-by poster with 4 posts to his name, who has not shown up since, did. And I groaned to myself when I saw it, because I knew it was going to end up going into this loop all over again.

No, but the idea that people should be qualified to argue in a forum topic is obviously as stupid as it sounds.

[Pyravar]

I have a feeling people who deny man-made global warming (including scientists) are doing so because people don't like to believe in bad news. If there's a way out, a way to deny the bad news and believe it's all right and we can't do anything about what's happening, people are going to jump on it.

Wrong. People believe the bad news first. It's why we have so many bad reports on the news programs, because it brings ratings. If people say the world is dying people leap on the bandwagon no matter the evidence, if they say things will be alright, they distrust.

[Wikkiwallana]

If specific knowledge on the subject is the requirement for comment, how many climatologists are on NSG? Very few I imagine. If I'm to be marginalized as FS and the others insist b/c of my ignorance of specific climatological methodology, from where do they derive their spurious claims of authority?

Further appeals to consensus? A bunch of ignorant sycophants discredit the bunch of ignorant naysayers b/c they agree with the consensus?

/chuckles

Whatevs.

What about burying you in a mountain of data? because we can do that, all you have to do is ask.
Here's a nice start:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... e-1.969870

[Distruzio]

If specific knowledge on the subject is the requirement for comment, how many climatologists are on NSG? Very few I imagine. If I'm to be marginalized as FS and the others insist b/c of my ignorance of specific climatological methodology, from where do they derive their spurious claims of authority?

Further appeals to consensus? A bunch of ignorant sycophants discredit the bunch of ignorant naysayers b/c they agree with the consensus?

/chuckles

Whatevs.

What about burying you in a mountain of data? because we can do that, all you have to do is ask.
Here's a nice start:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... e-1.969870

Sorry... but are you a climatologist? No? Then according to FS, your opinion, and whatever facts you use to substantiate that fact, is worthless.

[Raw Nation]

If you deny man-made global warming, then you are simply doing it for idiocy, or greed. There is no other options, as even if it wasn't true, then there is no harm in trying to prevent it.

Greed? No I think the opposite. Promoting the notion of man made global warming is the proponent of greed. The greed of power of expanding governments who use the left wing notions to try to grab for more power over their citizens, a way to raise taxes even higher and drive up material costs. The earth will always change no matter what we do. Look at the time of the dinosaurs it was far hotter back then. Will you blame that heat on dinosaur made global warming?

THere is no evidence that dinos did not have an industrial civilization - in fact with the amount of time they ruled the Earth it is unlikely they didn't.

It is difficult to prove my hypothesis since any cars, etc, would have rusted away after 65 million years.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Greed? No I think the opposite. Promoting the notion of man made global warming is the proponent of greed. The greed of power of expanding governments who use the left wing notions to try to grab for more power over their citizens, a way to raise taxes even higher and drive up material costs. The earth will always change no matter what we do. Look at the time of the dinosaurs it was far hotter back then. Will you blame that heat on dinosaur made global warming?

THere is no evidence that dinos did not have an industrial civilization - in fact with the amount of time they ruled the Earth it is unlikely they didn't.

It is difficult to prove my hypothesis since any cars, etc, would have rusted away after 65 million years.

I have to say this post has made my night

[Free Soviets]

If specific knowledge on the subject is the requirement for comment, how many climatologists are on NSG? Very few I imagine. If I'm to be marginalized as FS and the others insist b/c of my ignorance of specific climatological methodology, from where do they derive their spurious claims of authority?

Further appeals to consensus? A bunch of ignorant sycophants discredit the bunch of ignorant naysayers b/c they agree with the consensus?

/chuckles

Whatevs.

you don't need to be a climatologist to know enough about climate change to have relevant things to say. you do have to have read the relevant literature by actual climatologists - or popularizations signed off on by them, if you merely want to talk about policy implications. its not impossible, but it is a lot of work. some of us have put in that work.

here's a general epistemological principle:

on any topic - particularly empirical topics, but others as well - you should accept the consensus opinion of experts, unless you have studied the issue to the point of actually becoming one of those experts yourself

and it's important corollary:

if you think you have spotted some obvious flaw that the experts have missed without putting in the work to become one of those experts yourself, you didn't

[Free Soviets]

AIDS was thought to be a homosexual virus 20 years ago. Scientific consensus was once more very vocal and very wrong.

Oil was supposed to run out in the mid 80s, the mid 90s, and the mid 2000s. Scientific consensus... and yet...

sources. go.

[Free Soviets]

Andrew Gavin Marshall, Geologist, Geochemist.

...geologists and geochemists have nothing to do with climate science.

I gave you two simple conditions, and you failed both of them.

its even worse than that. there are probably a few geochemists that actually have done relevant work. andrew marshall isn't one of them. because, "Andrew Marshall is a 19 year old political science student at Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia (BC)."

[Luna Amore]

If specific knowledge on the subject is the requirement for comment, how many climatologists are on NSG? Very few I imagine. If I'm to be marginalized as FS and the others insist b/c of my ignorance of specific climatological methodology, from where do they derive their spurious claims of authority?

Further appeals to consensus? A bunch of ignorant sycophants discredit the bunch of ignorant naysayers b/c they agree with the consensus?

/chuckles

Whatevs.

you don't need to be a climatologist to know enough about climate change to have relevant things to say. you do have to have read the relevant literature by actual climatologists - or popularizations signed off on by them, if you merely want to talk about policy implications. its not impossible, but it is a lot of work. some of us have put in that work.

here's a general epistemological principle:

on any topic - particularly empirical topics, but others as well - you should accept the consensus opinion of experts, unless you have studied the issue to the point of actually becoming one of those experts yourself

and it's important corollary:

if you think you have spotted some obvious flaw that the experts have missed without putting in the work to become one of those experts yourself, you didn't

By that rational, (nearly) every topic on this board would either end or be consumed by people agreeing for the sake of consensus. That is, until a couple of disagreeing experts stop by.

[Free Soviets]

here's a general epistemological principle:

on any topic - particularly empirical topics, but others as well - you should accept the consensus opinion of experts, unless you have studied the issue to the point of actually becoming one of those experts yourself

and it's important corollary:

if you think you have spotted some obvious flaw that the experts have missed without putting in the work to become one of those experts yourself, you didn't

By that rational, (nearly) every topic on this board would either end or be consumed by people agreeing for the sake of consensus. That is, until a couple of disagreeing experts stop by.

nah.
one, because there are vast areas where there is no expert consensus. though even there, having studied the issue is important as far as having opinions on it goes.
two, the major things we actually talk about are issues of ethics, policy, commentary on current events, life issues, personal tastes in stuff, and snark. these again require some knowledge, but mainly can be engaged with by anyone with a certain baseline level of thoughtfulness. they aren't nearly as subject to either part of this epistemic rule.

also, nothing should be done 'for the sake of consensus'. in some cases expert consensus exists. fact of the world. and of course people should all pile on somebody who stumbles in asking why, if evolution is true, there are still monkeys. not because we want to achieve consensus. but because that person is wrong. expert consensus is an indicator of truth - or at least a better one than anything else that non-experts have access to. and since the goal is truth, it follows that we should go with the experts unless we have very very good reason to believe otherwise.

[Distruzio]

AIDS was thought to be a homosexual virus 20 years ago. Scientific consensus was once more very vocal and very wrong.

Oil was supposed to run out in the mid 80s, the mid 90s, and the mid 2000s. Scientific consensus... and yet...

sources. go.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay-rela ... deficiency

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-15415218

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperie ... er-energy/

[Grave_n_idle]

It does tell you something about the science through, as it is unlikely in these times where science so much more rigorous and knowledgeable about how the world works that the vast majority of individuals are wrong.

AIDS was thought to be a homosexual virus 20 years ago. Scientific consensus was once more very vocal and very wrong.

Not really.

First, I think you mean 30 years ago, not 20. The term 'AIDS' was popular currency by 1982.

GRIDS was a media name, not a scientific one. The scientific establishment tended to refer to the specific problems (like Kaposi's Sarcoma).

The CDC often acts as a kind of clearinghouse between the scientific establishment and the popular consciousness - and they did term it "4H", referring to the four risk groups in which the problem seemed to be concentrated (Haitians, Haemophiliacs, Homosexuals, Heroin addicts) - for about a year (between mid-1981 and late 1982).

Sorry to nitpick, but this 'science thought AIDS was gay' myth is just as prevalent, and just as misleading, as the constant assertion that 'everyone knew the world was flat 600 years ago', etc.

[Free Soviets]

sources. go.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay-rela ... deficiency

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-15415218

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperie ... er-energy/

none of those actually point to any sort of scientific consensus at all. the closest you've got is the early observation of something happening that was concentrated among homosexuals. but nobody thought it was a homosexual virus. mainly because the idea of such a thing is fucking stupid.

[MaziChino]

My personal opinion on climate change is that it is a natural process enhanced by humans.

I saw a show on (I believe?) the Discovery Channel where a team of scientists went to the arctic and did a core sample. The core sample went back - supposedly - about 100,000 years. Every 10,000 years there was a change in the global climate and we should be about due for a change now.

Do I believe that humans are helping the situation? Not a bit.

Do I believe that humans are harming the situation? You better believe it.