Is Global Warming a Hoax?

[OngBonga]

Been away for xmas but would like to resume my discussion with poop...

They should, but they're hard to find. Usually they just cherry pick elements of the story like guy in OP and say 'ha! if you just look at this and ignore/discount everything else, it's not convincing.'

It's tempting to assume that because clever people say it's happening and dumb people say it's not, that the clever people are right. But that isn't a guarantee. I reckon the average IQ of a religious person is lower than that of an atheist. The atheist might still be wrong.

Consensus at least is a sensible guide to what is going on, as compared to believing the opposite of whatever the consensus is.

Yes, but consensus should not be presented as fact.

Depends on how you define intelligence then.

Of course. The problem we have here is that any measure of intelligence we try to use is naturally biased towards humans. You use language as an example. Dolphins have very sophisticated language. It might not be as sophisticated as ours, but perhaps dolphins haven't evolved comparable language because they don't need to. We have words for so many things, dolphins don't need a sound to describe cup, plate, computer, car etc. The list of things we have words for that dolphins have no concept of is enormous. I feel this is a poor measure of intelligence, especially when you consider that perhaps dolphins are better at communicating via body language than we are.

Brain/body ratio is another poor method imo. We see the results correlate with our biased assumptions.

Intelligence for me is the ability to understand one's environment. Manipulation of environment is a physical ability, understanding is mental. We probably are the most intelligent species on the planet. But it's not a given.

The point is, of course, is that scientists should say the same about climate change. The evidence supports the theory, but we haven't got the answers because our methods of measurement are limited.

If you wait until catastrophe happens before you accept the theory, then you've lost your chance.

Well I don't think the residents of Tuvalau are waiting around for it to happen. They already have permission to evacuate to New Zealand if and when the time comes. There isn't really anything we can do to save Tuvalu, if the theory is correct. But it would at least serve as a wake up call, and the next vulnerable islands can prepare knowing that it's inevitable, rather than debatable. The deniers would have to acknowledge that they are wrong and there are fewer obstacles standing in the way of environmental reform.

...either you trust science or you don't.

I trust science when it makes predictions based on facts that hold up to experiment. I don't trust science when it's mere theory. Do you trust string theory? How about M-theory? There was a time people trusted Newton's gravity.

If an engineer says this bridge will hold 20t, I don't go 'wait this guy can't prove that, he's never tested it, so I'm going to drive my 25t truck over it cause he might be wrong.' I just take his word and act accordingly.

They test bridges before you can drive over them. The engineer who designed the bridge might not test it, he might rely on maths alone, but someone will test it, assuming you live in a country like USA, or UK. And besides, even if it wasn't tested, the limit is based on maths and engineering knowledge that stands the test of experiment. This is a poor analogy.

[Poopadoop]

It's tempting to assume that because clever people say it's happening and dumb people say it's not, that the clever people are right.

Any argument should be evaluated on its own merits, independent of who is making it. The collection of arguments put forth in favour of AGW are stronger than the arguments against it imo (and also in the opinion of the experts who are more qualified to evaluate the evidence than I am).

The fact that the deniers aren't experts is irrelevant (though perhaps telling) - what's relevant is that their arguments are incomplete - to use the guy in OP as an example, he focuses on one bit of evidence and says 'it's not determinant' while ignoring all the other evidence.

Intelligence for me is the ability to understand one's environment.

Ok, well when a dolphin can show us it understands more about any part of the world (aside from other dolphins where I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt) than we do, then I'll take back what I said.

Manipulation of environment is a physical ability

On the contrary, it's almost entirely mental. The body is just the machine that does the moving; the real work goes on in the brain. The neural computations needed to coordinate the timing and force of the muscle contractions required to properly use (e.g.,) a screwdriver are enormous. When these neurons are destroyed, humans develop a condition known as apraxia, which is (grossly put) the inability to manipulate objects. There is no animal equivalent for this condition.

The fact that many actions strike us as effortless belies the sheer complexity of the task in terms of neural resources required. Consider that we have had a computer that can beat the world chess champion for over 20 years now but we haven't yet built a robot that can match the sophisticated movements of the human hand. And that's because of our advanced brain, not because our hand has some physical advantage over a robot hand (if anything the robot hand has all they physical advantages - certainly in terms of strength and endurance).

We probably are the most intelligent species on the planet. But it's not a given.

It is by any definition of intelligence you or anyone else has offered so far.

But if you want to be philosophical about it, then yes it's possible that dolphins are smarter than us and we just don't know it. In any case this is all interesting but really irrelevant to the discussion on AGW...

Well I don't think the residents of Tuvalau are waiting around for it to happen. They already have permission to evacuate to New Zealand if and when the time comes. There isn't really anything we can do to save Tuvalu, if the theory is correct. But it would at least serve as a wake up call, and the next vulnerable islands can prepare knowing that it's inevitable, rather than debatable. The deniers would have to acknowledge that they are wrong

The bolded would be true if the deniers were using logic and reasoning and looking at the big picture but they've already shown they're not. So my guess is the whole world could go under and they'd still try to argue it wasn't AGW that caused it and that we should keep using oil.

I trust science when it makes predictions based on facts that hold up to experiment.

If this is your criterion, then you will never trust science to answer the question of AGW and can only throw up your hands; scientists cannot do an empirical study of AGW because there is no way to control all the variables. The best they can do is make observations and model the systems involved. That may make the science less rigorous than experimental science, but it's the best we can do under the circumstances.

[CoccoBill]

It's tempting to assume that because clever people say it's happening and dumb people say it's not, that the clever people are right. But that isn't a guarantee. I reckon the average IQ of a religious person is lower than that of an atheist. The atheist might still be wrong.

The atheist might be wrong indeed, but we're talking about probabilities here. Someone claiming kings might beat aces isn't wrong.

Yes, but consensus should not be presented as fact.

The consensus is a relevant point because the opposition claims there's controversy among experts, which there isn't.

[OngBonga]

The consensus is a relevant point because the opposition claims there's controversy among experts, which there isn't.

Depends how you define "expert". If simply being a climate change denier excludes one from being an "expert", then of course there will be universal consensus amongst "experts".

[Poopadoop]

Depends how you define "expert". If simply being a climate change denier excludes one from being an "expert", then of course there will be universal consensus amongst "experts".

Never heard of a denier being stripped of his PhD for his stance. Will have to start watching Breitbart more closely.

[CoccoBill]

Depends how you define "expert". If simply being a climate change denier excludes one from being an "expert", then of course there will be universal consensus amongst "experts".

Luckily that's not the case. The 2% sceptics have consisted mainly of petroleum geologists and meteorologists. Climate researchers have always been in pretty much total agreement.

This denialist stuff about these exact same questions was trendy like 10 years ago, wonder why it's back in fashion now.