west.logan
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 608
Registered: 03-09-2011
IP: Logged
|
Re: Look! Links! (0)
Going out on a limb here, though I'm not looking to open any debate.
One thing that annoys me about global warming advocates is when the argument is couched in terms that essentially says "everyone but a few idiots agree"---you're already begging the question (not that you're doing that Rheb). Also, this link is written not to convince skeptics, more to ridicule them and preach to the choir, so it's of little use in my mind.
I'm remaining a skeptic. I'm in the 95th percentile of "green" Americans anyway (mainly because I'm cheap and ride my bike to work).
It's also a bit disconcerting when this type of research is touted as being "science" and "scientists agree", as though there were no human factors involved. For example, following the source listed for "97% of climatologist agree" shows that the study was actually done on abstracts containing the words "climate change" and of those abstracts, 97% argued that humans were causing climate change. There's a lot of room for bias right there, as it depends on whether opponents used terms other than "climate change" whether these were PUBLISHED papers, and more importantly, what journals were used.
Journals are not unbiased sources of information as I'm sure many of you know better than me. It depends on who controls the journal, especially in something that is about as unexact a science as we have (similar to economics). Sure, if those in charge of the editing have an axe to grind, then I expect the papers published in the journals to conform to that view. Right now, you can't get a job as a climatologist unless you conform to the mainstream view, that's not an unbiased field, even if the bias is the correct one. Think about Copernicus or Galileo.
The position seems to be unfalsifiable, which bothers me. If there is a warmer year, that's global warming. If there is a cooler year, that's swings, or out of equilibrium, or whatever. I'd like to know what a global warming advocate thinks would be convincing evidence disproving the theory before I start evaluating the evidence proving it.
Lastly, models. I also have this problem with economic models. We try to simplify very, very, complex systems to make predictions. But when you have to tweak and tweak and still not be able to account for all the variables that could happen, that makes the model useful only so far. To think we can model what will happen in a few centuries when we can't really predict what will happen next month seems a bit silly (and yes I realize those are different models).
So basically, I'm skeptical and perhaps agnostic about this and my personal opinion (without any "science" to back it up) is that earth is a lot more robust than we think, and we have a lot less impact than we think. Regardless, I don't enjoy being treated in consequence as a "denier" and having my head buried in the sand, and that's my soap box talk for the day.
____________________________
-Logan
[Last edited by west.logan at 06-24-2013 02:20 PM]
|
