Is "not without presenting arguments that I consider legitimate" the same as "depending exclusively on arguments I consider legitimate"? hmmm...

Ah, but do you win debates in the sense that you can genuinely change someone's mind over the issue, or in the sense that the other person concludes that they have no hope of beating you and retires from the argument to nurse their own belief in peace?

"There is the further point that the unqualified are not able to make a judgement about the matter. "

That's simply not true. The unqualified may not have the ability to form a conclusion without depending on experts in the field, but that's true for pretty much *any* field.

I *could* take the time to learn the theoretical basis behind Carbon-14 dating, validate that the theory is sound through experimentation, then check some fossils, or I can assume that there is no reason for the vast number of people with expertise in this field to consistently lie in unison when it would be trivial to unmask the deceit.

For the same reason I didn't get a degree in metallurgy to validate what all the structural engineers were saying regarding the way the Twin Towers fell.

Similarly, I *could* take the time to study the climate to the point where I can draw conclusions without having to rely on the expertise of others, but there is no compelling evidence of deceit among the leading scientists - so I am comfortable making the *judgement* that it is far more likely they are *not* lying to me, and that those that have a vested interest in climate change not being real are, perhaps, not exactly being vigorous in their research. Why bother doing actual science when FUD serve so well?

""not without presenting arguments that I consider legitimate" the same as "depending exclusively on arguments I consider legitimate""

Yes

"Ah, but do you win debates in the sense that you can genuinely change someone's mind over the issue, or in the sense that the other person concludes that they have no hope of beating you and retires from the argument to nurse their own belief in peace?"

In the sense that the audience voted in my majority (voting on who they thought presented the best arguments)


@stratagos, I claim that the science has been too politicised, certainly in the case of the IPCC.

and I don't disagree with that statement; but that says very little about the underlying science itself. It is my understanding that very few critics have chosen to make the investment in time necessary to gain the educational and experimental background necessary to be considered experts on the subject matter; do you feel that is inaccurate?

I'm not thrilled by blind belief in anything, including science, but the preponderance of the evidence appears to reflect 1) climate change that has 2) a decent influence by manmade sources. The 'wiggly parts' are around the degree of change, and the likely consequences. That is unsurprising, given complexity of the models involved.

That's the science. 'Why should I give a shit' and 'what should be done' are the opolitics ;)

In my opinion, the science is not being disproved (probably because it is fairly accurate), but political figures are saying that it's not real to protect corporations. I believe that climate change is a very real problem, and could cause serious problems for our world in years/decades to come. Since you can't build a political platform on saying something to the effect of "Well, I know that pollution is causing climate change and this could be a disaster to the world and the human race, I still think that we shouldn't do anything to stop it" because that would be an obvious load of crap. Instead, they choose to deny the truth of the science behind it, because if it's not even happening, why should we take any (expensive!) steps to stop it?

"There is the further point that the unqualified are not able to make a judgement about the matter."

Really? So everyone must rely solely on "experts" to determine reality? Isn't that just an appeal to authority logical fallacy?

What if those who are qualified decide to lie? What then?

"I believe that climate change is a very real problem"

They said the same thing about Global Cooling in the 70's. All backed with "science" too.

Also, "I can win debates arguing both ways on this topic, and not without presenting arguments that I consider legitimate. "

That just means you are good debater. It means nothing else.

@stratagos, I claim that the science has been too politicised, certainly in the case of the IPCC.

Absolutely. The number of academic papers written about the Three Mile Island accident go well into the thousands, yet I wonder how many scientists, let alone lay people, have heard of this -

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/107/955/Churchrock_Uranium_Tailings_Spill_Remembered.html

It actually occured in the same year and is thought to have released more radioactivity, however, those affected were Navajo, so that's alright then -

The Sequoyah Corporation fuels release and the Church Rock spill: unpublicized nuclear releases in American Indian communities (2007)

I maintain that there is no such thing as a neutral paradigm in science and that all we can strive to do is be aware of our own (and society's at large) prejudices.

Don't get me started on absolutism and science!

Strat +several

Part of the issue is media reporting, which is that there are only 2 positions - 'It's not happening' or 'We're all doomed!!!', whereas the reality is likely to be somewhere in between. Likewise the lack of acknowledgement that it's a complex system with multiple inputs, so that MMCC is going to be one element, not all or nothing. And of course, getting people to understand the local weather (or even climate) does not equal global climate would be useful. (I swear I'll smack the next berk who scoffs at Climate Change because of the current cold snap in the UK)

@Ghost- I'd contend that if the IPCC has become politicise, it's only in response to the counterview, which has been politicised from the start. I'm quite frankly amazed that the apparent slowdown in GW this decade hasn't been linked to solar activity being low (IIRC - I could be wrong). The relentless focs on AGW as the only cause does damage the argument, but it doesn't negate the data. As strat says, the real disucssion is about what we should do, and (sadly) that's all politics and economics

@Darwyn - the beauty of science is it makes testable predictions based on data. And if it's wrong it changes. Some climate scientist were wrong in the 70s.

So how does this effect the argument now that scientists are once again predicting a "cooling" of the earth as reported by the news outlets last week? I say once again because that was the argument 40 years ago.

"the beauty of science is it makes testable predictions based on data. And if it's wrong it changes"

I'm glad you mentioned this because the CRU, in response to Freedom of Information Requests for the raw data on which they based their dire predictions of doom, first stalled, then admitted they had destroyed the raw data! And just like the climate scientists of the 70's, we mere mortals are expected to simply take their word their conclusions are accurate.

I have to wonder with all the tens of millions of dollars in funding CRU enjoyed, why they could not purchase an extra hard drive to save that raw data!

Global Warming was touted in 1817, 1922 and 1958. Then it switched to a global ice age in 1977. All of them were wrong. So with the lack of raw data, who in their right mind is going to believe AGW now?

Further, Al Gore and his investors have created a crisis called human caused global warming. They have created a product, literally out of thin air, called the carbon credit. This is essentially a license to pollute. And as experience in Europe has already shown, polluters will simply buy the license, and pass the cost on to consumers. The pollution will continue, has continued; the only real change is that goods and services cost more than they did before.

These so-called carbon credits will be bought from those who have too many, and resold to those who need more. This will require a brokerage, of which the only one currently in existence is owned by Al Gore and his investors, who stand to make billions of dollars from the trading of carbon credits. This is not unlike the manner in which Enron made billions of dollars off of the people of California by trading imbalances in electricity. It is not a coincidence that Enron's Ken Lay assisted Al Gore in setting up the structure for the trading of carbon credits. Al Gore is doing with carbon dioxide to the world what Ken lay did to California with electricity.

There is a huge amount of money at stake on convincing the people of the world that the Earth is getting warmer, that it is all their fault, and atonement lies with submitting to new taxation.

It's about money. Nothing more.

@ Ghost - As I understand things, (and I could be wrong about this, so don't hesitate to correct me if I am) the IPCC isn't actually doing research on climate change. It's main goal is to compile research done by others on climate change. So really, if you find the IPCC too political, one does not need to rely on them. You can check their sources, see if they did their homework properly. Or better yet, bypass them completely and just look at the research directly. But as I see it, the IPCC tends to use exclusively peer reviewed scientific literature on climate science. So naturally the question becomes "how much faith do you have in the peer review process?" Some would answer that it's perfect, I disagree, naturally. It's not perfect, but I still think it is more reliable than most ways of validating information. Which brings me to my second reply.

@ Darwyn - There's a difference between an appeal to authority (which is in fact a logical fallacy), taking the form, you should trust experts, because they're experts, and saying "the conclusions of peer reviewed, scientific literature on climate science are more likely to be true than most other statements regarding climate change, due to the rigour introduced by the peer review process." One of these things is a fallacious statement that is poorly supported. The other is a probabilistic statement and provides a justification for why the "experts" are more likely to be right than others. That's what makes appeal to authority a fallacy, because it doesn't provide a good reason why you should trust the authority in question. If I can give you a good reason why you should believe the experts (a reason like, "because the experts have to provide data to back up their statements and that data and their conclusions are being critically examined by a number of their peers") it's not a logical fallacy.

Arrr, OK Darwyn, I didn't see your second post on the issue when I wrote my first one, so now I'm responding to your second post. You're attempting to confuse the issue. You can't hang all of climate science on the mistakes of one research unit and the fact that Al Gore is attempting to make money off the issue. If that were allowed then the climate denial argument would have been buried years ago. I'm sure I could find tons of examples of faulty or dishonest research practices by people interested in disproving climate change, without breaking a sweat. And there's a ton of money in helping promote the fossil fuels industry. Hell it's one of the largest industries in the world. The carbon credit trade is a drop in the ocean compared with the amount of oil money in the world.

Also Darwyn, you've been slightly misinformed. Having done some research, the data you're talking about with the CRU is slightly more complicated than simply "they destroyed the data". It hasn't been destroyed, they aren't allowed to release it, because of agreements made with the organizations who collected the data and intended it for academic use only. Unfortunately some of those agreements were only verbal agreements and other of those agreements which were on paper were lost, when the CRU moved offices. As far as I can tell, no data has been destroyed. So once again, the situation is really not at all like you make it seem. Good try though.

@Mafia - the point about Al Gore is that politicians and their scientist enablers have motive to lie.

"because the experts have to provide data to back up their statements"

Where is the raw data? It was dumped. So don't go on about "providing data to back up statements" because the data no longer exists. And that means that no one can verify their conclusions. That is NOT science no matter how hard you squint.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

Mafia - you are full of shit. Quit making excuses! The data is gone. Period. End of story.

"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. "

http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm

Greenpeace leader admits arctic ice exaggeration...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC7bE9jopXE

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

* Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
* There has been no global warming since 1995
* Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

"Where is the raw data? It was dumped." All of it? Every last data point about the climate, ever collected in history was dumped? I don't only find that unlikely. I find that damn near impossible to believe. I'd say that's unbelievably unlikely. Also, I'd like to know where you heard that all that data was destroyed, at the moment you're making quite an extraordinary claim (that all the climate data in history has been deleted) and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I can tell you all my data about what happened to the CRU climate change data comes from the wikipedia article on the organization. (A less than perfect source, I know, but I also read a number of the articles they've cited.)

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/climate-reports/7491-official-satellite-failure-means-decade-of-global-warming-data-doubtful

US Government admits satellite temperature readings “degraded.” All data taken offline in shock move. Global warming temperatures may be 10 to 15 degrees too high.

"Also, I'd like to know where you heard that all that data was destroyed"

see above...

OK. I'm done arguing with you. You're just a conspiracy minded idiot. Don't forget your tin foil hat or the government will be able to control your mind with fluoridated water released when they demolished the twin towers.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/

The New Zealand Government’s chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn’t there.

Mafia - good arguing with you then. ;)