The New Science - What's wrong with AGW skeptics?

[seedload]

I think it is really funny that there is a whole new science emerging based on trying to figure out what is wrong with skeptics of catastrophic AGW.

Are we too conservative?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... e-skeptics

Or too radically into conspiracy theory?

http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/le ... onse1.html

Or just stupid?

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic ... illiteracy

The new science - figuring out any possible reason for skepticism other than there being reasons for skepticism.

[djolds1]

I think it is really funny that there is a whole new science emerging based on trying to figure out what is wrong with skeptics of catastrophic AGW.

Are we too conservative?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... e-skeptics

Or too radically into conspiracy theory?

http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/le ... onse1.html

Or just stupid?

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic ... illiteracy

The new science - figuring out any possible reason for skepticism other than there being reasons for skepticism.

Do Believe in the Coming Apocalypse = Sane.

Don't Believe in the Coming Apocalypse = Insane.

Got it.

[tomclarke]

It is in principle no different from other mass fringe-science phenomena.

Take, for example, (alien) UFOs, paranormal phenomena. All had in their heyday serious support from a few maverick scientists, mass popular support. All key into things that people want to believe. All have a common theme that here is something important that the establishment does not want us to know about.

The difference with AGW is that the science informs a highly politically charge debate with ramifications for us all (both sides would agree).

Another difference (related to this) is the way that the AGW debate has become aligned with "scientists are incompetent/immoral and conspiring to hide the truth". The conspiracy theory is par for the course, but the way that so much science is examined and pulled apart, with the nonscientific actions of authors questioned, is unprecedented as far as I know.

Scientists like having mistakes pointed out. I mean, all scientists are human and make mistakes. And correcting mistakes is what science is all about.

Am I so whiter than white that selective quotation cannot make up a conspiracy story around my innocent actions? I doubt it...

I would not want to be a serious climate scientist at the moment. Too much flak, stolen e-mails, no doubt bugged offices will be next...

I think it is really funny that there is a whole new science emerging based on trying to figure out what is wrong with skeptics of catastrophic AGW.

Are we too conservative?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... e-skeptics

Or too radically into conspiracy theory?

http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/le ... onse1.html

Or just stupid?

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic ... illiteracy

The new science - figuring out any possible reason for skepticism other than there being reasons for skepticism.

[palladin9479]

Gotta love how tom immediately assumes that if you disagree with AGW you must therefor have something wrong with you. Talk about faulty premises.

I find it interesting that AGW believers, while being completely rational on other issues, have a completely inability to think critically about the issue. They automatically assume their correct and that there could be no fault with their theory that could otherwise prove them wrong.

Reminds me of that research that demonstrated that people make decisions emotionally then have their rational conscious perceive facts to support their decision. Make the facts fit the theory and all that. Very interesting to see it actually play out.

[tomclarke]

Gotta love how tom immediately assumes that if you disagree with AGW you must therefor have something wrong with you. Talk about faulty premises.

Where did I say that?

I find it interesting that AGW believers, while being completely rational on other issues, have a completely inability to think critically about the issue. They automatically assume their correct and that there could be no fault with their theory that could otherwise prove them wrong.

So am I an AGW believer? Your comments certainly don't apply to me, and I can prove it from previous posts.

Reminds me of that research that demonstrated that people make decisions emotionally then have their rational conscious perceive facts to support their decision. Make the facts fit the theory and all that. Very interesting to see it actually play out.

Yes, there is a lot of emotion in the debate. The only thing that cures it is a sustained interest & curiosity in the science - not as a way to prove something, but because you want to understand what is going on.

[seedload]

Gotta love how tom immediately assumes that if you disagree with AGW you must therefor have something wrong with you. Talk about faulty premises.

Where did I say that?

Tom, you did say that skepticism of AGW theory is the equivalent of being a ghost hunter or a believer in men in black. When you liken skeptics to maverick fringe alien conspiracy followers, you forgo the right to feign innocence when someone points out that you are clearly suggesting that there is something wrong with skeptics.

I can hear it now, "Skeptics are conspiracy nuts, not that there's anything wrong with that."

I find it interesting that AGW believers, while being completely rational on other issues, have a completely inability to think critically about the issue. They automatically assume their correct and that there could be no fault with their theory that could otherwise prove them wrong.

So am I an AGW believer? Your comments certainly don't apply to me, and I can prove it from previous posts.

Reminds me of that research that demonstrated that people make decisions emotionally then have their rational conscious perceive facts to support their decision. Make the facts fit the theory and all that. Very interesting to see it actually play out.

Yes, there is a lot of emotion in the debate. The only thing that cures it is a sustained interest & curiosity in the science - not as a way to prove something, but because you want to understand what is going on.

I really don't understand how you rebound from your previous post that straight out says that skeptics are the equivalent of believers in faith healing to claim that a curiosity in the science will fix things. Apparently, only those who are in agreement with the science, as incomplete as it may be, are allowed to have curiosity about it. Those that don't completely agree with the science are relegated off to the fences surrounding area 51 to hang out with the people that you feel they most resemble.

[MSimon]

The "science" is shoddy because the measurements are shoddy. How good was thermometer calibration 50 years ago? 100? 150? How accurately were the numbers recorded? Did the methods change? What was the global coverage? Did the stations move? etc. etc. etc. And from this mess we can discern a few tenths of a degree change and extrapolate that to the end is nigh?

Right.

I do have faith in global warming. And the end of the little ice age. Beyond that (magnitudes) my faith is lacking. But so is my measurement data and its quality assurance metrics.

If the STD Deviation is of the same order as the measurement the measurement is in doubt.

[choff]

One thing that comes up is in the literature is that both the lia and mwp were global and not local occurances. A lot of money is riding on forcing the acceptance of global warming and the introduction of carbon credits and currency, they can't have it ruined by some meddlesome contrary data.

http://motls.blogspot.ca/2012/03/paper- ... -both.html