Comments on: Masters on Climate vs. Weather http://www.lies.com/wp/2012/02/06/masters-on-climate-vs-weather/ believe nothing... Thu, 25 Apr 2013 14:34:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: enkidu http://www.lies.com/wp/2012/02/06/masters-on-climate-vs-weather/#comment-288405 enkidu Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:22:47 +0000 http://www.lies.com/?p=5429#comment-288405 As with so many wwnj comments, I'm not sure how Mr Smith's post elicits wwnj's response. Similarly, how is asking Mr Grey to stick to the science instead of personal attacks trying to shut him up? Is it now considered legitimate 'debate' to just scream <I>socialism!</I> whenever you have nothing substantial to say? I sure hope you voted for Newt yesterday wwnj: MOONBASE! As with so many wwnj comments, I’m not sure how Mr Smith’s post elicits wwnj’s response. Similarly, how is asking Mr Grey to stick to the science instead of personal attacks trying to shut him up? Is it now considered legitimate ‘debate’ to just scream socialism! whenever you have nothing substantial to say?

I sure hope you voted for Newt yesterday wwnj: MOONBASE!

]]> By: jbc http://www.lies.com/wp/2012/02/06/masters-on-climate-vs-weather/#comment-287866 jbc Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:53:08 +0000 http://www.lies.com/?p=5429#comment-287866 Again, your arguments are fallacies all the way down. I never said, nor implied, that being a meteorologist automatically makes someone wrong about climate change. A meteorologist (especially an actual scientist with a PhD, as opposed to the TV-weatherman-style meteorologists with BS degrees who figure prominently in many denialist PR campaigns) can be non-ridiculous in his or her views about climate, just like anyone else. All it requires (as with Masters) is that he or she be reasonably well-informed about the state of climate science, and not think (as Gray apparently does, or at least as you apparently do) that several-decades-old expertise in a related field like hurricane forecasting automatically confers authority to publicly push opinions that are rejected by the large majority of current researchers working in the area of climate science. This gets into the realm of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". It's not <i>impossible</i> that the large majority of the world's climate scientists are wrong in their shared belief that the climate is warming, it's the result of human activity, and the consequences will be dire if we don't act. It's not <i>impossible</i> that the dissenters are wrong, despite the fact that when you plot dissent vs. expertise, it quickly emerges that nearly all the dissenters lack expertise, while nearly all those with expertise endorse the consensus view, and the likelihood of endorsement gets higher with expertise. It's not <i>impossible</i> that almost all the experts are wrong, and the non-experts with their ideological agenda and their fossil-fuel-industry funding and their demonstrably silly right-wing media network are right. It's just really, really unlikely. Someone making really, really unlikely claims on a scientific question should be willing to offer evidence -- strong evidence -- if they wish to be taken seriously. You're unwilling (or unable) to offer such evidence. Therefore, you shouldn't be taken seriously. Again, your arguments are fallacies all the way down. I never said, nor implied, that being a meteorologist automatically makes someone wrong about climate change. A meteorologist (especially an actual scientist with a PhD, as opposed to the TV-weatherman-style meteorologists with BS degrees who figure prominently in many denialist PR campaigns) can be non-ridiculous in his or her views about climate, just like anyone else. All it requires (as with Masters) is that he or she be reasonably well-informed about the state of climate science, and not think (as Gray apparently does, or at least as you apparently do) that several-decades-old expertise in a related field like hurricane forecasting automatically confers authority to publicly push opinions that are rejected by the large majority of current researchers working in the area of climate science.

This gets into the realm of “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. It’s not impossible that the large majority of the world’s climate scientists are wrong in their shared belief that the climate is warming, it’s the result of human activity, and the consequences will be dire if we don’t act. It’s not impossible that the dissenters are wrong, despite the fact that when you plot dissent vs. expertise, it quickly emerges that nearly all the dissenters lack expertise, while nearly all those with expertise endorse the consensus view, and the likelihood of endorsement gets higher with expertise. It’s not impossible that almost all the experts are wrong, and the non-experts with their ideological agenda and their fossil-fuel-industry funding and their demonstrably silly right-wing media network are right. It’s just really, really unlikely.

Someone making really, really unlikely claims on a scientific question should be willing to offer evidence — strong evidence — if they wish to be taken seriously. You’re unwilling (or unable) to offer such evidence. Therefore, you shouldn’t be taken seriously.

]]>