Feeds

back to article US trounces UK in climate scepticism jibber-jabber

A pair of UK researchers have surveyed international coverage of climate scepticism, both during the months following the IPCC's 2007 Fourth Assessment Report and during the late-2009 "Climategate" contretemps, and have discovered that among the six countries' publications they examined, the UK and US had by far the most " …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

They are only less balanced

If you are on the side of the warming people. In other news, skeptics find climate reports by mainstream media biased. I'm firmly in the "not convinced yet, but willing to listen" camp. I'd probably go with the "humans are bad" group if 54 years on this planet hadn't made me cynical. Young people have too much respect for "scientists" who are all too willing to get their name in the paper. These "scientists" aren't any smarter than me, just have different disciplines. Politicians have actually gone to the well one time too many for me and I absolutely won't support any "carbon" plan that costs me more money - I don't have any more I can spare.

27
23

Re: They are only less balanced

Carbon plans are overall neutral, by design.

Would you be willing to accept the demise of Homo Sapiens, your own species, simply because in your particular case the carbon balance was slighty against you?

13
25
Anonymous Coward

Climate change a ruse to introduce new taxes

Is a ruse by Governments to take what occurs naturally in nature and the way the earth evolves and changes to introduce new taxes.

23
21
Bronze badge
FAIL

Re: They are only less balanced

Carbon plans may or may not be neutral. That is not the point of most informed sceptics concern. Instead it is that completely unjustified, contrary to geological history, faith in catastrophism. It is as if Lyell never published "Principles of Geology" or delineated the principle of Uniformitarianism.

The catastrophic outcomes of climate modelling are contrary to empirical facts. The planet has at times had many times the present atmospheric CO2 level. No run-away greenhouse effect has ensued. Current atmospheric levels in fact are either the lowest or tied with the lowest levels in over 600,000,000 years. The fact is that for most of the course of time that life has been on earth, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been at levels that current climate models have forecast as triggering run away green house effects. We ought to be far more concerned about halving atmospheric CO2 than doubling. The latter we can survive, possibly even prosper from, The former might well lead to a biological productivity collapse.

No sane person "denies" climate change. Change is self evident and only an urbanite would doubt it. Nor do any of the better known sceptics doubts that the planet has warmed over the last two centuries. We were after all in a small ice age. There are three main issues that are challenged: 1) data reliability, 2) data adjustment methods and methodology, 3) actual rates of warming.

No. 1 is not even a true dispute. Both the "warmist" and sceptic camps assumne that at least some data sets are no as accurate as they might be. In fact BOTH camps accept that urban heat island effects need correction. The disputes lies in the degree of warming bias UHI has on land surface data.

No. 2 There might be no dispute at all _if_ the methods used to make adjustments to raw land surface data and the methodology behind those adjusments was public. While there are discussions, no actual methodolgy is available and little of the actual code, which implements the methods rationalized by the methodology is public. We ALL no how absolutely trustworthy computers and computer programs are.

No. 3 is simple. None of the better known sceptics (e.g. John Christie, Roy Spencer, Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, the Pielskes, Jeff Condon, etc.) questions warming over the last 200 years. What is questioned is the rate. If the data are "over adjusted" the data are just as misleading as unadjusted data. The public evidence of adjustments is that adjustments are strongly biased to make the data read warmer after 1950 and cooler before, and each iteration seems to do the same thing only more so. Despite this adjustment, which may very well be reasonable, IF the methodlogy were available, no climate model comes close to estimating a rate as low as that which has been measured, regardless of adjustments to the data, and the ensemble estimates are even farther off.

The short of it is that there is no threat to Homo sapiens from CO2. There ARE very serious threats from using anitbiotics in animal feed lots, from various kinds of truly toxic industrial pollution, politicians with agendas, plastic in the oceans. Why not worry about something real, if you want to feel virtuous worrying.

33
12
FAIL

Re: They are only less balanced

"Carbon plans are overall neutral, by design."

No, they aren't.

The Renewables Obligation (aka The Climate Change Levy) increases the fuel bills of every consumer in the UK. It is not matched by any reduction in prices or taxes anywhere.

18
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: They are only less balanced

> The Renewables Obligation (aka The Climate Change Levy) increases the fuel bills of every consumer in the UK.

At the present moment it is adding 14% to your electricity bill.

8
1
Silver badge

Re: They are only less balanced

The calculations as to how much CO2 reduction Renewable Obligation policy leads to and what it costs are neither simple nor actually is the real data available. No study has ever been done to *measure* renewable energies efficacy at all. Although many studies have been done to *predict* it, but how many are flawed? Neither have real costs been measured. What price the loss of a habitat or the destruction of a landscape?

For a discussion of the problem see:

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/Renewable%20Energy%20Limitations.pdf

1
0
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: They are only less balanced

"Would you be willing to accept the demise of Homo Sapiens..."

I know of no assertion from any credible climate scientist that the species is at risk. The only people who make such assertions are activists trying to encourage adherence amongst followers. Making such an exaggeration loses you any credibility you might have had.

I suppose that there is a slight chance that you might actually believe this. If so, you have my sympathy. You must lead an awfully frightening life...

13
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: They are only less balanced

It's easy to be ignorant and just refuse to be convinced.

Lets not forget that the people producing the science are vastly more educated and intelligent than your average climate sceptic.

If you really want to disprove what they are saying then you need to review their work and point out their failings. If you can't do that then you need to STFU.

Funny how science has brought us so many things and yet people are so willing to accept things that benefit their lives and rebuke things that mean they have to be more responsible and less wasteful. That my friend is called bias!

16
18
Silver badge

Re: Climate change a ruse to introduce new taxes

>Climate change a ruse to introduce new taxes

Is a ruse by Governments to take what occurs naturally in nature and the way the earth evolves and changes to introduce new taxes.

So, the oil in the Earth is ours, not our governments, and their desire tax it is inherently unfair? Okay, how does that apply to the generations that come after ours? Won't they deserve a go with the petrochemical goodness to do with as they see fit? Or are you saying that it is our right to use these resources as we want, without thought for efficiency or for anyone else, on a first come first served basis?

How would you feel if you were born next century and didn't have the luxuries that abundant oil has afforded us? Would your argument remain the same?

6
9
Silver badge

Re: They are only less balanced

"There might be no dispute at all _if_ the methods used to make adjustments to raw land surface data and the methodology behind those adjusments was public. While there are discussions, no actual methodolgy is available and little of the actual code, which implements the methods rationalized by the methodology is public. We ALL no how absolutely trustworthy computers and computer programs are."

That's completely wrong. The methodology (algorithms) are published and public. The source code is available. In fact plenty of people have implemented the public algorithms themselves. One individual has even ported the NASA algorithm to python. See

http://clearclimatecode.org/gistemp/

It is always frustrating to see people perpetuating the myth that the scientists are hiding all the methods and code for the adjustments they make to the surface temperature data.

You also say: "The catastrophic outcomes of climate modelling are contrary to empirical facts. The planet has at times had many times the present atmospheric CO2 level. No run-away greenhouse effect has ensued."

A run-away greenhouse effect is not predicted.

"Current atmospheric levels in fact are either the lowest or tied with the lowest levels in over 600,000,000 years. The fact is that for most of the course of time that life has been on earth, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been at levels that current climate models have forecast as triggering run away green house effects."

Climate models DO NOT forecast triggering run away greenhouse effect. They forecast significant warming from the CO2 rise, not a runway warming. It is again frustrating to see you perpetuating a myth.

As for the "lowest levels in over 600,000,000 years. It's not the level that matters, it's the amount of increase and how fast that increase is. So I'll leave you with a graph of CO2 over the past 800,000 years with projections for the next 100:

http://ieet.org/images/CO2.png

12
6
Silver badge

Re: They are only less balanced

> Would you be willing to accept the demise of Homo Sapiens, your own species, simply because in your particular case the carbon balance was slighty against you?

If it adds 14% to your electricity bill, you have to work harder/longer to stay in the same place; using more resources; and fucking up the planet incrementally faster. How is this helping exactly?

5
4
Bronze badge
Boffin

Re: They are only less balanced

I have been on the planet longer than you, and am, possibly, more cynical even than you. You wrote:-

"These "scientists" aren't any smarter than me, just have different disciplines"

Many scientists are aware of the motto of The Royal Society: "Nullius in verba " (Latin for "Take nobody's word for it"). The Royal Society chose this as its motto as this signified that they would establish facts via experiments and only disseminate  objective science ignoring the influence of politics or religion.

One thing that us science types (who are trained to try and be always questioning) are made aware of is the Dunning-Kruger effect -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

(The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes....

Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. As Kruger and Dunning conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others")

21
2
Silver badge

Re: They are only less balanced

"scientists"

okay, got you figured.

back under your rock please.

4
2
Silver badge

Re: They are only less balanced

"If it adds 14% to your electricity bill, you have to work harder/longer to stay in the same place; using more resources; and fucking up the planet incrementally faster. How is this helping exactly?"

i would have thought so, yet only yesterday i found out that petrol consumption in the uk dropped by 15% due to high prices.

This suggests that 15% less traveling is happening, which in turn suggests the 15% of the journeys that used to take place were in fact unnecessary. This, to me sounds enormously counter-intuitive - it's not like motoring has been a pleasant experience in the UK for many many years, but there it is.

making things more expensive _does_ encourage people not to use them so much.

maybe my logic is somewhat wonky, but the fact is, petrol got more expensive, and less of it was used.

3
1
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Re: They are only less balanced

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes....

so dumb people are too stupid to understand how stupid they in fact are!

i love it!

and;

you use your tongue prettier than a 20 dollar whore :D

4
1
Silver badge

Re: They are only less balanced

> i would have thought so, yet only yesterday i found out that petrol

> consumption in the uk dropped by 15% due to high prices.

>

> This suggests that 15% less traveling is happening, which in turn

> suggests the 15% of the journeys that used to take place were in

> fact unnecessary. This, to me sounds enormously counter-intuitive -

> it's not like motoring has been a pleasant experience in the UK for

> many many years, but there it is.

You do have a point; but hasn't petrol gone up a good deal more than 15% of late? If it has, then it's still a net loss in a sense. I was talking about electricity anyway...anyone who gives a shit already turns off unnecessary lights etc. I think it would be fairly difficult (certainly in my case) to use 14% less electricity without spending the money on other things, like insulation and new, more efficient, white goods. Pretty well all of the power-monsters in my house are essentials...fridge, washing machine etc.

0
0
Bronze badge
Trollface

Re: They are only less balanced

Yes, those scientists aren't any smarter than you, and just want their names in the papers. It's a sorry world in which our youngsters allow scientists to influence their views on science.

Far better we take guidance from right-wing radio show hosts instead, who are both smarter and definitely not attention seekers.

10
4
Silver badge

Re: They are only less balanced

oh hell yes it's gone up way more than 15%, and i hear your point re putting lights off (and not leaving the telly on standby lol) but last week i would have made the same point about travel and petrol prices. no one burns petrol or electricity for fun. Not too sure what to make of it. still thinking about it really

0
1
FAIL

Re: They are only less balanced

"None of the better known sceptics (e.g. John Christie, Roy Spencer, Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, the Pielskes, Jeff Condon, etc.) questions warming over the last 200 years."

I call Orwellian bullshit on this. Even the top-tier skeptics regularly argue simultaneously that:

A) There's been no climate change whatsoever since the Industrial Revolution

B) Even if there is, there's nothing we can do about it

C) Even if there is something we can do about it, we can't afford it

Obviously they're putting more emphasis on C nowadays, since nobody takes flat denialism (A) seriously anymore, but that doesn't mean you get to toss it down the memory hole.

2
3
WTF?

Re: They are only less balanced

>Lets not forget that the people producing the science are vastly more educated and intelligent than your average climate sceptic.

Who the hell do you think you are? I am a climate sceptic and I'm just as intelligent and educated as your average climate "scientists" and more in fact as I studied REAL science that follows proper scientific principles and doesn't use unreliable computer models and falsified data!

4
5
FAIL

scarshapedsta Posted Sunday 7th October 2012 13:24 GMT

A) none of the skeptics mentioned deny climate changes. - Even Phil Jones denies any meaningful climate change in the last 15 years. oops. Will you lot stop telling us skeptics what we think - WE KNOW there is climate change; always has been and always will be. However we also know something that most warmistas fail to understand - the CURRENT climate changes (over the 20th century/start of the 21st) are NOT abnormal and all fall within NORMAL PLANETARY CLIMATE CHANGES. That is the main arguments the skeptics have with the doom merchants of CAGW.

B) Given the climate changes it is True that we can do nothing about it - its natural.

C) Even truer - the cost of trying to change something as chaotic and massive as the earth's climate is staggering. And definitely it will be cheaper (provided you lot don't trash the economy of the world so we all become feudal peasants again) to adapt - just like nature normally does to out of range changes.

Now please repeat after me - most (if not all) skeptics KNOW the climate changes; it matters not how many CAGW advocates tell us that we 'believe' otherwise; this remains a fact. Belief has nothing to do with the argument. And your lot telling us what we believe is also ridiculous - and just demonstrates you are not listening to what most skeptics say : Climate change is NATURAL and NORMAL (in both senses of the word Normal).

5
1
Anonymous Coward

@Dave126 Re: Climate change a ruse to introduce new taxes

Dave126,

The UK is about to start facing power cuts. The United Kingdom- home of the Industrial Revolution, home of commercial nuclear power and supersonic flight, home of a good number of the key bits of modern computing- and former conquerors of quarter of the globe. *waves flag* Our homespun technology base alone should be keeping us up-and-running for the next hundred years.

Unfortunately we have been prevented from this- hence the impending powercuts. The Environmentalists and Nimbys ("The Great Uninformed") prevented us from erecting wind turbines because it may kill birds or spoil the landscape. They prevented us from creating Nuclear power stations because the Soviets pretty much deliberately blew up a poorly designed reactor.

And so we face power cuts. And our Children face worse still; if they get their way there won't be imported foods to bolster (or at least vary) food supplies or pesticides (to help us keep our crops). There will be petrol to fuel our cars, but only because the Oil Industry is very, very good at lobbying and because they follow a sensible system of constant R&D to push themselves forwards so can get at more and more of their reserves.

This is the world that the Environmentalists want for your kids- one with insufficient food and energy to sustain even Modern Britain. And, given the leftist stance a lot of them take, most of the food and energy will be spent on the poor and unproductive, worsening the problem. So your kids will starve and they'll starve in the same small village that they've always starved in because it's not worth the cost to go anywhere else. This isn't an extreme scenario where a brutal hippy dictator takes over, it's a series of very small, very sensible- at the time and with the 'econut' mentality- changes for the Greater Good.

Compare that with the so-called 'Denier' camp. At least the non-extremist-nutter end of that. We want to push ahead with nuclear because that gives us cheap, clean energy. We have no problems with renewables- they're good in their place- but acknowledge that they're not a solution to the mass-energy needs of a country. The same lot generally don't care about Organic foods either, mainly due to the lack of any evidence showing it's any better for you (in most cases), so by the 'Denier' mentality your kids would have plentiful food.

The non-extremist 'Denier' camp has faith that Humanity has the qualities that we have demonstrated again and again- resourcefulness, inventiveness, the ability to overcome problems.

Already we have demonstrated the ability to make synthetic carbon-neutral jet fuel- which diesels (so vans, lorries, trains, etc) can run on- basically obsoleting Hydrogen overnight (it's a pain to store and use- petroleum products are a lot nicer and already have a userbase of over 1bn cars). And algae-grown hydrocarbons are in development as we speak.

Recently we saw a nuclear power plant hit by a Tsunami and no significant damage was done (the damage that occurred came from diesel backup generators being flooded and not turning on the coolant; this can be engineered out of newbuilds and retro-fitted to existing reactors). That counts as Safe in my book.

The Denier camp has been responsible for more innovation, more creation and more useful developments than the Climate 'Believer' camp will ever achieve. Ask yourself, who would you trust with your kids future? Someone who pushed for betterment (even if it is mostly just for profit) or someone who told your kids "you can't have that, a kid in Africa might need it someday".

6
3
Silver badge
Joke

May I still enjoy my popcorn?

Carbon neutral, organic, corn, heated with a little bit of polyunsaturated (organic!) oil, of course!!

0
0
Happy

@ AC 21:22 Re: @Dave126 Climate change a ruse to introduce new taxes

Whilst I agree with quite a lot of what you say, there are a couple of minor problems.

Where Chernobyl was concerned, the act of moving the fuel rods into a pattern that the scientists thought would create the highest yield from the fuel (which it did), they were unaware that this pattern was also in the running book for the reactor, pretty much saying "don't do this, it'll blow up the reactor". However, it was deemed as classified by some internal bureacracy in the then USSR, so the scientists had never read that part of the safety manual.

It's a wonderful display of the dangers of compartmentalising information.

Where Fukushima is concerned, that was a 30 year old design, hit by a ~8 richter earthquake and a few hours later a tsunami - even the biggest doom-sayer would suggest that such happening wouldn't happen outside Hollywood. However it was shut down in < 72 hours with little collateral damage. A modern version of the same reactor would actually have been shut down before the tsunami hit, due to the changes in the shut-down process and fail-safes.

Basically, using both as examples, it shows that : don't hide important information from people running an explosive device and look at how safe nuclear power actually is.

Now, if you want to talk about Three Mile Island or Windscale, then we'd be having a different conversation . . .

0
0
Thumb Up

Who needs balance when you've already fallen over?

"That's completely wrong. The methodology (algorithms) are published and public. The source code is available."

Nah. Surely "peer review" is done by assumptions and vague guesswork, rather than considering the merit of the paper based on the facts -- just like the sceptics' critical reviewing techniques. Facts are just an annoying distraction from the predetermined message.

http://ieet.org/images/CO2.png

Ah well, those are only teeny tiny concentrations anyway, so what could possibly go wrong?

Besides, we need to use up all of the available oil in order to fuel our military-industrial complex to ensure that we are able to secure the oil that we need to fuel our military-industrial complex... Then when there is a severe water shortage in India and China we can sell them beer and fizzy drinks and get out of debt. See?

Everything is fine and all going to plan, do not question your beloved leaders (and definitely don't take a peek behind the curtain at the string-pullers as that makes them very cross...)

1
1

Re: They are only less balanced

Dorko-U need to STFU URself... Climate Change,no sh*t Sherlock ,climit changes here about every 3 months & right now I'm freezing my ass off...

0
0

Re: Climate change a ruse to introduce new taxes

Main cause of Climate change is being censored...3rd world planet eaters breeding out of control...

0
0

Taxes!=science. It's helpful to keep them separate in your mind.

15
0
Bronze badge

True, but science can be used as an excuse to justify almost anything, such as increasing taxation to levels far beyond reason - case in point being the tax escalator on UK fuel prices.

4
2
Anonymous Coward

It is the only control mechanism that works.

If you're a cabinet minister what do you do?

1. Ban high CO2 emitting vehicles.

2. Or Tax fuel and have high VED for high CO2 emitting vehicles.

Option 1 stops choice but solves the problem. Option 2 allows for choice but you get taxed to hell.

5
3
Silver badge

>True, but science can be used as an excuse to justify almost anything, such as increasing taxation to levels far beyond reason - case in point being the tax escalator on UK fuel prices

Used to justify anything, but not by scientists... the people doing the justifying are politicians and corporations, whose motives are usually pretty clear: Achieve/hold on to power, make money, respectively.

Like Disraeli's 'Lies, damned lies and statistics'. But the issue isn't science, but the understanding of science by politicians (mostly arts, humanities and classics educated) and the general population. Every day we have public bodies spouting statistics which might influence the general population but wouldn't fool trained statisticians.

Statistics and the image of science are abused everywhere... pet hate is advertisements for women's cosmetics, (with psuedo-scientists in white coats in "our Swiss laboratories", and pseudo-scientific animations of the product in action, and claims of "87% of women agree that it makes them visibly younger*...... *[small print] of a study of 28 women") which only devalues science, and also gives the impression that women are easily swayed, irrational and scientifically illiterate.

Disclaimer: Statistics was my least favourite subject in school. I'm sure many others felt the same!

7
1
Meh

@Dave126

>Used to justify anything, but not by scientists...

Oh yeah? How about Dr Stephen Schnieder - IPCC lead author who said the following:

"we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

Or IPCC head Pachurai who has repeatedly advocated new taxes, and lifestyle curbs despite the IPCC's role as a supposedly unbiased, policy-neutral scientific organisation.

The climate 'scientists' have their snouts buried just as deep in the climate scaremongering trough as most corrupt politicians.

9
5
Silver badge

Option 3: Ban the sale of high CO2 emitting vehicles. The current crop will gradually phase themselves out as they reach their end-of-life.

Solves the problem of highly polluting vehicles. Stops people wasting more resources by buying new vehicles when their current one still has years of use left in it. Doesn't involve any new taxes.

2
1
Silver badge

pet hate is advertisements for women's cosmetics, (with psuedo-scientists in white coats in "our Swiss laboratories", and pseudo-scientific animations of the product in action, and claims of "87% of women agree that it makes them visibly younger*...... *[small print] of a study of 28 women") which only devalues science

It's always interesting to read the small print on those adverts. The sample size is not only always small but usually an odd looking number ("87% of 103 women agreed," etc). I'm no statistician, perhaps their is a good reason for this. Personally though I've always suspect that they conduct the survey using a sample of 50 or 100 women, then repeatedly increment the sample size by 1 until they get a percentage of agreeing women that would look good on an advert.

0
0
Silver badge

^perhaps there is

^I've always suspected

A pox on the reg's web designer for the lack of an edit button!

3
0

you have posted a logical fallacy, in that you put forward only two solutions. There's a lot more than that.

0
0
Thumb Down

That would be lovely, except they back-dated the legislation for 2 to cover some 6 years before they introduced the legislation. Given a multi-thousand pound item isn't bought by most people unless they absolutely need to, there was no choice.

0
0

Another way to put it

Left-leaning types believe in truth; unfortunately being human their bias creeps in anyway (like some neurotransmitter equilibrium shifting to permit them to say what in their hearts they want to). Right-leaning types don't believe in truth.

4
17
Silver badge

Re: Another way to put it

Political beliefs may shape the form of batshittery people believe in but the left has its fair share of it too. For example the Huffington Post is filled with all kinds alt health drivel, especially anti vax pieces.

Climate change denial probably sits on the right because it pushes buttons with "big government" / libertarian types.

9
0
FAIL

Left-Leaning types believe in truth?

Bollox - left-leaning types believe in anything that allows them to justify taking money from people that have more of it than them.

They believe they know better than me what to do with my money.

Climate change is a perfect excuse.

16
13
Anonymous Coward

Re: Another way to put it

What about bend-over leaning types who just take whatever higher fuel bills and taxes that Big Gov & Big Green want to impose on them. What do they believe?

3
1
Silver badge
WTF?

Re: Another way to put it

"What about bend-over leaning types who just take whatever higher fuel bills and taxes that Big Gov & Big Green want to impose on them. What do they believe?"

They believe that they should do whatever someone in authority tells them to do.

I had this discussion with my local Liberal councillor. I asked him why he maintained that dangerous warming was occurring when the data clearly showed that there had been no substantial rise for 14 years.

His answer was that his Liberal briefing document said that there was, and he would prefer to believe that rather than me.

7
4
Silver badge

Re: Left-Leaning types believe in truth?

Actually, the right leaning masses (at least in the U.S.) are the poorest and have less overall resources than lefties.

If you're so proud of your financial contribution to your country (which I doubt is very much) you should run for public office. I'm sure you'd do a great job.

1
1
Silver badge

Re: Left-Leaning types believe in truth?

>They [left-leaning types] believe they know better than me what to do with my money.

And that adventure in the Middle-East cost how much per year?

9
0

"Left-leaning types believe in truth"

If it's true, why do you need to believe in it?

1
2
Silver badge

Re: "Left-leaning types believe in truth"

"If it's true, why do you need to believe in it?"

Because it's not reasonably possible for a human being to scientifically test (and then re-test, etc.) every 'fact' that he is presented with. In the end it comes down to reading the opinions of people who are experts in their field, looking at the data they supply, and making a personal judgement as to whom makes the most convincing case.

'Nullius in verba' is a noble sentiment but not a practical way to live.

0
1

Re: "Left-leaning types believe in truth"

'Who' there, not 'whom'. In general, if you're not certain which to use, it's best to stick with 'who' throughout; while this will make you look as though, like nearly everyone, you lack the fluency to understand the distinction between subjective and objective cases, better that than to look pretentious and foolish.

To return to the subject at hand: For what reason is it necessary that you have an opinion of any sort on the question of climate change? What difference does it make? Further: were you pressed to construct in defense of said opinion an argument which could not be reduced to a naked appeal to authority, could you do so? Given that you acknowledge outright that you cannot, two questions follow: first, how then do you call it your opinion, and second, how then do you call yourself in any sense "objective"? You've simply chosen which set of priests you prefer, and, as with any religion, accepted their revealed wisdom to the extent that you're willing to promulgate it as your own.

This is true of any question of fact on which one holds an opinion despite being incompetent to evaluate the evidence in favor of each side of the question. In such cases, the one in question is almost never responsible for deciding the question, and the maintenance of any opinion is therefore an exercise in unnecessary cognitive overhead; moreover, in the rare case where one incompetent to decide the question is expected to do so, the only course available which is consistent with honorable behavior (to say nothing of simple common sense) is to recuse oneself; anything else is foolishness at best.

Thus we see that, far from the noble impossibility you imagine it to be, nullius in verba is the only sensible way to live, and not difficult in the slightest for someone who has a solid sense of his own limitations.

0
1
Silver badge

I'd love to see these loons Venn diagram ...

... of their three cherry-picked "types". Should be good for a laugh :-)

One category of "Deniers[1]" and several varieties of "or", "but", "or", "but", "or", "but", "or", "but" separated into all of two categories ... These idiots have no idea what the scientific process is.

My advice? Ignore them. They have no useful scientific input.

[1] Isn't denier a measure that my Wife uses to evaluate stockings?

8
5
Bronze badge

Wahhhhhh

I think that "left leaning types believe in truth" in an oxymoron.

Left-leaning "types" believe in control.

Right-leaning "types" believe in freedom and truth.

Climate "scientist" is another term for "public money prostitute".

12
30

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.