Are Climate Skeptics always Anti-Science?

[Timmmy]

These are the MMM forums.  You don't know the rules:

1.  Religion bad
2.  Abortion good
3.  Climate change skepticism is bad.
4.  Republicans  bad
5.  Democrats good

Get with the program or get on the back of the bus.  No room for opposing views here.  Nice and homogenous is the way we like it.

I disagree with all 5 of those.  I guess I'm in the wrong forum...

I can't say I disagree with all of them, but they certainly are not tenet's of mustachianism. I support anyone's right to speak freely here, and welcome any opposing viewpoints as long as they're respectfully argued. I don't think I'm alone in that sentiment either.

Obviously there are some hard and true beliefs among the majority here, but I think this list is pretty out of line with reality. I think the biggest "offense" you can commit around here is being closed minded to the other side of the argument, whatever it's about.

Interesting words Cheddar. Apply this to the people that are being "open-minded" about the viewpoint of climate skeptics. 

[steveo]

My take it that to be a global warming skeptic you have to have some or all of the following traits:-

1. Pro-science.
2. A rational thinker.
3. Some education on the subject.
4. An understanding of the concepts behind statistical models.

My take if you are a global warming proponent you have to have some or all of the following traits:-

1. Cult follower. Maybe this could be amended slightly to not be so harsh however it does require a lack of critical thinking.
2. No idea regarding statistical models.
3. A fact avoider.
4. Anti-science.

The issue is that GW has been proven via facts to be incorrect. If I produce a statistical model and it states that there will be 25 ducks outside my window every day in October and then we get to October and this doesn't occur a rational thinker would state - I will go and reassess my model as maybe I have it wrong. This is what has happened with regards to GW. There also are so many holes within the statistical models that are used as science to back-up the GW hypothesis its not funny. Its pretty easy to see that climate scientists have an incomplete knowledge of the climate with regards to temperature as well as suffering from insufficient data.

On top of that if you read the comments that some people make you can see the holes all through the GW proponents arguments. The argument that 97% of scientists believe in GW is simply bad science. Firstly its a made-up statistic and secondly even if it was true its meaningless. They could all be wrong and the 3% could be right. Its not the way to have a scientific argument.

At the end of the day MMM got this wrong. Science, human ingenuity and progress is fantastic but poor-science is really dumb. GW fits perfectly into the poor science category. The discussion should firstly be about what constitutes good science and compare that to bad science and this is a nuanced discussion.

[AccidentalMiser]

Hoo Boy!  This is the most fun topic I've seen in a while.

Certainly didn't take long for it to degenerate into a "uh huh" "nuh uh" match.

I'm just an idiot climate skeptic.  I remember the "Next Ice Age" covers on Time magazine in the 1970s.  And the "Population Bomb" and the "Bankruptcy 1995".  All of these featured a nice "hockey stick" graph, much like today's climate debate.

I'm not a scientist but I have seen faked records and cooked books.  I drive a hybrid car, work in nuclear power, think it might be a good idea to tax carbon a little more to wean us off of the fossil fuels.  Under no circumstances am I in favor of the government taking over everything because the ocean has risen an inch over the past twenty years.

I have been on these forums for a relatively long time.  I disagree with most of the people here about one or more views.  I have found most of the long-term folks to be thoughtful and wise. 

This issue has reached religious proportions over the past twenty years or so, with each side entrenching and retrenching with fingers in their ears.  That's my view.  I don't know and I'm not afraid to say it and if that's equivalent to racing along in the dark getting ready to plunge off a cliff, then so be it.

I should note that I have a real college degree, am a member of Mensa, extensively study science, and write licensing exams for reactor operators at nuclear power stations.  So, call me "a million pounds of idiot" all you like and I'll respect you as much as I do Jon Stewart.

[MDM]

"It's interesting to see people who disbelieve in God, thus betting against Pascal's Wager, but make an analogous argument that "we must do something about global warming just in case it is true".  Haven't checked any individual posters here so this may not apply to anyone here.  Did think of this while looking at some of the posts on the currently-popular "Religion" thread."


Can you elaborate more on what you are saying?

Disbelief in god is INCREDIBLY different than arguing on global warming's effects.


" It posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or not. Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming an infinite gain or loss associated with belief or unbelief in said God (as represented by an eternity in heaven or hell), a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.)."

This is one of the most pitiful beliefs I have ever heard and it is one reason why I believe Christianity will die out as time passes. I think this also assumes people can "choose" to believe. To think of it as a "wager" doesn't make much sense to me.

On a side note, to believe absolutely that god doesn't exist can almost be as bad as claiming on religion is correct while all others are wrong.

Sure, I can elaborate, but I'm not sure what you'd like me to elaborate on.

I think we agree that the use of the word "wager" is a semantic/historical issue: that is simply what Pascal's writings on the topic have been called.

I do see similarities between the "precautionary principle" (as applied to global warming/climate change) and "Pascal's wager" (as applied to God/religion) from the perspective of decision theory.  Paraphrasing, both say "something really bad could happen if we behave in this way: ______, so we shouldn't behave that way."  At least that's how I see it - others may disagree.

[Cheddar Stacker]

I can't say I disagree with all of them, but they certainly are not tenet's of mustachianism. I support anyone's right to speak freely here, and welcome any opposing viewpoints as long as they're respectfully argued. I don't think I'm alone in that sentiment either.

Obviously there are some hard and true beliefs among the majority here, but I think this list is pretty out of line with reality. I think the biggest "offense" you can commit around here is being closed minded to the other side of the argument, whatever it's about.

Interesting words Cheddar. Apply this to the people that are being "open-minded" about the viewpoint of climate skeptics.

I'm listening to their arguments, and the opposing ones. I'm learning. Not necessarily about the validity of climate change, but I'm learning about the members. I learn a lot from listening to what people write. When I read extreme views, I'm mostly turned off and I make mental notes about the writer for future reference. I don't have the best memory, but there are certain members I hold in higher (or lower) regard than others based on what I read from them.

But in regards to the actual topic, there's no point in even discussing it if you're not listening the what the other side has to say. How could you possibly learn anything that way? And if the other side isn't listening either, then it's just a pissing match so what's the purpose?

[HappyRock]

"It's interesting to see people who disbelieve in God, thus betting against Pascal's Wager, but make an analogous argument that "we must do something about global warming just in case it is true".  Haven't checked any individual posters here so this may not apply to anyone here.  Did think of this while looking at some of the posts on the currently-popular "Religion" thread."


Can you elaborate more on what you are saying?

Disbelief in god is INCREDIBLY different than arguing on global warming's effects.


" It posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or not. Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming an infinite gain or loss associated with belief or unbelief in said God (as represented by an eternity in heaven or hell), a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.)."

This is one of the most pitiful beliefs I have ever heard and it is one reason why I believe Christianity will die out as time passes. I think this also assumes people can "choose" to believe. To think of it as a "wager" doesn't make much sense to me.

On a side note, to believe absolutely that god doesn't exist can almost be as bad as claiming on religion is correct while all others are wrong.

Sure, I can elaborate, but I'm not sure what you'd like me to elaborate on.

I think we agree that the use of the word "wager" is a semantic/historical issue: that is simply what Pascal's writings on the topic have been called.

I do see similarities between the "precautionary principle" (as applied to global warming/climate change) and "Pascal's wager" (as applied to God/religion) from the perspective of decision theory.  Paraphrasing, both say "something really bad could happen if we behave in this way: ______, so we shouldn't behave that way."  At least that's how I see it - others may disagree.

Yes, both paraphrase similar messages, but they are completely different in context. I basically wanted you to elaborate more on how it is "interesting" that non-believers can be activists of Global Warming. I think it makes perfect sense for someone to disbelieve in god, but also believe in preventing human's impact on global warming. I also wanted to get a better understanding of your religious beliefs.

For me, Pascal's Wager is useless as an idea or comparison because it follows strict Christian belief that #1 conflicts with 90% + other religions, and #2  was created before scientific ideas were public knowledge

[steveo]

basically wanted you to elaborate more on how it is "interesting" that non-believers can be activists of Global Warming. I think it makes perfect sense for someone to disbelieve in god, but also believe in preventing human's impact on global warming. I also wanted to get a better understanding of your religious beliefs.

I understand this analogy. A typical Atheist is described as a rational thinker. Its sort of part and parcel of being an Atheist. GW currently has lots of holes in the arguments supporting it and it definitely hasn't been proven. So ergo if you are an Atheist you should be a skeptic of GW.

Now this is definitely not the case and it is interesting.

For instance I am an Atheist and a GW skeptic. To me there is a lot of symmetry within these 2 beliefs.

Lots of people though are Atheists and yet believe in GW. There is no proof for either argument but in one case (religion) they are stating that they demand proof of God whereas in the other case they don't have proof but somehow can rationalize that away.

At the same time I have no problems whatsoever with people being religious and I believe that many religious people would be GW skeptics. I think religion works for lots of people lives.

[MDM]

Yes, both paraphrase similar messages, but they are completely different in context. I basically wanted you to elaborate more on how it is "interesting" that non-believers can be activists of Global Warming. I think it makes perfect sense for someone to disbelieve in god, but also believe in preventing human's impact on global warming.

What I find interesting is that many people seem to have a need to believe in something "higher" than themselves.  For some, that is God and/or Traditional Religion: sacrificing something now in the hopes of eternal reward later.  For others it is Saving the Planet: sacrificing something in one's own lifestyle in the hopes of overall improvement in the human condition.  Side note: many practitioners would say it is not "sacrifice", but simply a good way to live.

Personally I think this is mostly "a good thing".  Basing one's life on fundamental principles is at the heart of Covey's "7 Habits..." as well, so that's at least one other person who had a similar opinion.

It becomes "too much of a good thing" when people claim their beliefs are the only true beliefs, and denigrate (or worse) anyone with different beliefs.

Make sense?

[VirginiaBob]

There are literally only two questions that need answering:

1) Will it adversely affect (human) life on earth?
2) Can we do anything about it?

Nothing else matters.

And the most important question:
3)  How much money can I save by using less energy?

[rocksinmyhead]

Late to this conversation and I haven't had time to read every post.  However, I think climate change, in the way it's currently debated, is one of the silliest hot (heh) topics of our day.  In my experience, the vast majority of people agree that climate change is happening.  The hangup comes from a large chunk of people who say it isn't man-made.  Again, this is extremely silly.

There are literally only two questions that need answering:

1) Will it adversely affect (human) life on earth?
2) Can we do anything about it?

Nothing else matters.

but I think the question "is it man-made or not?" is extremely relevant to #2.

[steveo]

Late to this conversation and I haven't had time to read every post.  However, I think climate change, in the way it's currently debated, is one of the silliest hot (heh) topics of our day.  In my experience, the vast majority of people agree that climate change is happening.  The hangup comes from a large chunk of people who say it isn't man-made.  Again, this is extremely silly.

There are literally only two questions that need answering:

1) Will it adversely affect (human) life on earth?
2) Can we do anything about it?

Nothing else matters.

but I think the question "is it man-made or not?" is extremely relevant to #2.

Question 1 is important too. We don't even know if this is going to result in adverse effects. More CO2 (natural or man-made) might be beneficial.

I also think that there is another question which is really important and that is getting to the crux of the matter and asking - is this even real ? Its no point getting worked up about something that isn't even happening. Its like worrying about the sun falling. Its not happening so forget about it.

[arebelspy]

MOD NOTE: It's unfortunate that there are certain individuals who can't express viewpoints without being overly political, filled with hyperbole, and nonstop straw men.  We have apparently found a topic upon which MMM members cannot be civil, or at least certain members.  Please note that continued behavior like this from the same members will result in temporary, and then permanent, bans.

Please contribute positively to our forums. 

My apologies to those of you that were attempting to do so.

Thanks!

Locking thread.