Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Global Warming and other "controversies": how to make up your mind as a layman?
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4578 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 1 of 15 (494840)
01-19-2009 6:22 AM


new title? "Global Warming and other "controversies": how to make up your mind as a layman?"
Ok, so my initial intention for this thread was to "pose" as a Man Made Global Warming (MMGW) denier and learn from some of the reactions before "coming out". Since that isn't in the spirit of this forum, we'll do it the proper way, even though it means I can now no longer escape looking somewhat like a fool, and things are a lot longer.
Since more than a week I have been involved in a debate on the comments section of a technology site. The topic was Man Made Global Warming, and I got involved because of the poor argumentation used by so many commenters (the comments are, IMO, totally infested with Al Gore-hating outright deniers). It is really really really hard to stand some of the stupidity (oversimplification and ad hominems) on display there.
Now I bumped into this one guy who is this strange mixture between outright denier, displaying some of the same troll-like language, and (presumably) practicing scientist. Since I myself am neither a scientist or even closely following up the status of MMGW(I was actually concentrating on HOW most of the deniers come to their opinions), I thought it might be interesting to also look into some of the aspects here. One of the side reasons for this is, that "layman" criticism of MMGW has a lot of the signatures of creationist layman criticism of evolution. Mainly the constant regurgitation of counter-arguments that have been addressed long ago, and can be found all over the Net via a simple Google search.
The subject that interconnects everything is: what is the most sensible approach for laymen, or even scientists in unrelated fields, to make up their mind about certain supposedly controversial (scientific) subjects?.
Here are some of the arguments (some related to each other) used in our conversation for and against accepting MMGW. (In the first reply I'll post the responses that I myself used.)
- "I have a BS in biochemistry (what are YOUR credentials? Please take a couple of science classes (not engineering, but science).). I look at everything critically and scientifically, and I have yet to see the first study which convincingly links warming to CO2 levels and/or human activity. The CO2 levels lag by 200 years instead of lead. Furthermore not one model used by the MMGW fanboys matches reality.
- "there is not a consensus in the scientific community for or against MMGW. Show me the consensus. There are plenty of climatologists, geologist, ecologists, atmospheric chemists, etc. who have openly come out against the political consensus.
- "Consensus is merely the fallacy of argumentum ad populum, anyway. Consensus is political. Scientific Method is, well, scientific. Your examples of our trust in food additive safety, cell phone radiation safety and vaccine safety are not examples of relying on authority and consensus."
- "Those who preach the MMGW doctrine are very effective. Their arguments are convincing. They have people in high places (and well respected) on their side. They even have scientific minds echoing their words. But when it comes right down to it, the actual scientific evidence is just not there. They do not publish their truths for all to read, but keep them close so that only a few may interpret their meanings.
All this was juiced up with strawmen emo-arguments like "Give me $100 Billion dollars right now or the Earth will turn into a giant fireball in 50 years. I need it quick so send it right away.", "If you would like Mainstream Media to make your policy for you, go right ahead.", "Just because AL Gore wrote a book about it, does not make it a consensus." and finally a nice one where ONE, heavily critized, experiment to study the effects of dumping iron in the ocean in an attempt to increase plankton CO2-absorption was equalled with the default position of "the MMGW crowd".
But maybe the best line was "And, I'm surprised that an engineer doesn't know enough math to read the language of cosmologists." in response to my argument that we routinely trust science in other issues where we lack a lot of knowledge. I'm curious what Cavediver thinks about the chances that a biochemist and amateur astronomer can check the validity of the latest cosmological theories in his spare time!
Bonus: an often recommended "skeptical" treatment of the MMGW scam: http://joannenova.com.au/...lwarming/skepticshandbook1-5.pdf
Edited by Annafan, : rework attempt 1 as requested by admin

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 01-19-2009 7:04 AM Annafan has replied
 Message 13 by Blue Jay, posted 01-21-2009 2:30 PM Annafan has not replied

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4578 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 3 of 15 (494844)
01-19-2009 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
01-19-2009 7:04 AM


mail
Hi Percy,
could you check your mail (admin@) ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 01-19-2009 7:04 AM Admin has not replied

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4578 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 4 of 15 (494959)
01-20-2009 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
01-19-2009 7:04 AM


Bump... edited

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 01-19-2009 7:04 AM Admin has not replied

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4578 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 6 of 15 (495148)
01-21-2009 9:20 AM


My personal reactions to the arguments presented
Ok, so here is how I countered the arguments. I'd love to hear what others have to say about this.
- "I have a BS in biochemistry (what are YOUR credentials? Please take a couple of science classes (not engineering, but science).). I look at everything critically and scientifically, and I have yet to see the first study which convincingly links warming to CO2 levels and/or human activity. The CO2 levels lag by 200 years instead of lead. Furthermore not one model used by the MMGW fanboys matches reality.
Response: without going into the evidence itself (I'm not knowledgable enough, or up to speed), this kind of argument implies not only that a majority of climate scientists are completely incompetent, but also that a biochemist can figure it out better in his free time. It would mean that quite obviously sloppy research routinely passes peer review in the field of climatology.
- "there is not a consensus in the scientific community for or against MMGW. Show me the consensus. There are plenty of climatologists, geologist, ecologists, atmospheric chemists, etc. who have openly come out against the political consensus.
Response: the wikipedia article on scientific consensus around MMGW shows a very long list of position statements by scientific organizations (including many very reputable) who support the MMGW idea. Unless you can show evidence that they have recently watered down or retracted their position statement, this for all purposes seems to be the most sensible and reliable way to establish whether there is or isn't something resembling a "consensus" in the scientific community. We can dig up dissident opinions about just about every scientific theory.
- "Consensus is merely the fallacy of argumentum ad populum, anyway. Consensus is political. Scientific Method is, well, scientific. Your examples of our trust in food additive safety, cell phone radiation safety and vaccine safety are not examples of relying on authority and consensus."
Response: a meaningful "scientific consensus" (SC) is a different animal than other types of consensus. Your dismissal of the importance/reliability of the SC in one particular field is highly selective, and disregards the fact that on the most basic level, the science is always a product of consensus. We do not have somekind of magical "Sound Scientific Method Assessment Supercomputer" which we can feed research into and which gives us a "good science" or "bad science" response. Peer reviewed journals (or more precisely the reviewers of the papers), fullfil this task. When most of the reviewers think it is bunk, then it will be considered just that: bunk. Enough scientists (you know, human beings) have to agree that the research is reliable, for it to be considered reliable. We call this: *consensus*. And when we distrust this consensus in one particular issue, we should have good reasons for it, first.
- "Those who preach the MMGW doctrine are very effective. Their arguments are convincing. They have people in high places (and well respected) on their side. They even have scientific minds echoing their words. But when it comes right down to it, the actual scientific evidence is just not there. They do not publish their truths for all to read, but keep them close so that only a few may interpret their meanings.
Response: this reeks like conspiracy mongering. The arguments equally fit the opposition (maybe even more so, with more at stake for some of them). Nice example is the Bush administration, which denied and denied and denied until no other option was left.

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Blue Jay, posted 01-21-2009 10:11 AM Annafan has replied

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4578 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 15 of 15 (495384)
01-22-2009 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Blue Jay
01-21-2009 10:11 AM


Re: My personal reactions to the arguments presented
Mantis writes:
A BS in biochemistry doesn't make somebody a biochemist, anyway
That went completely under my (not-native-English) radar. Not that it is relevant anyway.
Mantis writes:
But, of course, most laypeople don't realize that they are laypeople, or that it's a lot more difficult to make the transition to "expert" than they think.
I think the first step to dealing with controversies as a layperson is to recognize when you are a layperson. Too many laypeople leave this step out.
Cavediver writes:
Exactly - anyone who just has a (science) degree has never had the honour of that post-graduation kick-in-the-balls when you realise that despite your three or more years of hard study, you know virtually NOTHING about the subject Those who do not progress to graduate study live in ignorant bliss of this bombshell, and tend to make hilarious comments like that above.
The comments section of this technology site (RickHodgin actually writes tech articles there, interspersed with newsitems that aren't hard to interprete as disguised attacks on MMGW ) is a copybook example of people being too incompetent to realise their incompetence. Taken to breathtaking levels at times (and more often than not I'm tricked into responding because it's just too much to take, lol).
That's what I found so mindboggling about this particular poster. Assuming that he doesn't lie about his education, interests and job, one would think he would be aware of above principle(and would also subscribe to the arguments that I brought forward as posted above). The only possibility I see, is that he's just a very arrogant guy who thinks very much of himself.
Mantis writes:
To tie this marginally back into the topic, I think laypeople often like to hold on to the minority view, citing 18% as a "big" number of dissenters while somehow managing to simultaneously downplay the magnitude of the 82% figure. Strange.
That's the other thing that puzzles me... It seems they don't stop to think about why they subscribe to some (minority) position, and not the other one. Do they just not care enough to think about it? Or are they aware it doesn't make sense, but is it pride and a matter of taking the upper hand in the discussion against all cost? Or is it just an illustration of the general principle that most of our argumentation is (subconsciously) concentrated on justification of already held notions, instead of open and unrestricted inquiry?
Mantis writes:
I know this topic isn't really about global warming, but I just found an article online today, and thought it would be useful in answering some of your skeptics on the other site, such as this one:
Oh, that's not going to make a difference. The Wikipedia page is even more comprehensive, but it is all easily dismissed with some vague conspiracy arguments and "environmental Al-Gore nutcase cheerleaders" ad hominems.
Anyway: did anyone read the PDF I linked to with a supposed "skeptical" treatment of MMGW? I'm really curious what others think.
And is anyone at least somewhat up-to-date with MMGW discussion? Is there actually anything resembling a shift in the consensus visible? What is the general feeling about the denialist camp? Does it resemble anti-evolution critique to such degree (like overstating the number and importance of dissidents, overstating peer-pressure and "silencing" of opposing ideas, etc.) that it becomes suspect even because of THAT alone? Or is there indeed a significant scientific component which, while being a minority view, should be taken quite seriously adn could still come out on top?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Blue Jay, posted 01-21-2009 10:11 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024