April 15, 2012 at 3:27 pm
Yeah Brooksey — if you are a scientific illiterate, I guess the lack of unaniminity would impress you. You are also impressed by consensus for the same reason.
You would probably have tried to keep the deck chairs on the Titanic in neat rows, as that would have seemed to you to be the biggest problem.
But, you’re not even competent at sociological observation — the one thing (most) skeptics have in common (those who have some understanding of science, that is) is that the AGW case rests on unsupported (in fact, by now largely falsified) hypotheses. You talking about science and politics is both a hoot and psychological projection, since it is the warmists who have rejected science and empirical fact and elevated a political agenda over any actual knowledge of the world.
Anyone with a working knowledge of science (who is not bought-and-paid-for by the Green Agenda) knows we really don’t know very much about the climate — certainly not enough to be able to predict it (which the warmists have amply demonstrated by their inability to do so). It may even be that the climate is, in principle, unpredictable over more than a short time scale — certainly the real scientists who began the numerical studies of the Earth’s weather systems thought that was a real possibility, and nothing that has been accomplished in the field since has determined otherwise.
In a field this embryonic, it is consensus that signals junk science (there not being enough real information to generate a scientific consensus), not divergence of opinion.
For instance, how do you reconcile the fact that the warmists are pushing for society to severely limit anthropogenic CO2 emissions (while similarly limiting Human liberty), when it is easy to show, using their own models, that emission restrictions are far and away the least cost effective method of dealing with climatic change. (And that’s assuming that their models are right, which they most certainly are not.) It is a simple step to realize that the reason for trying to limit energy use is not climate, since it won’t have a measurable effect for any possible reduction. Also, the “Tipping Points” arguments are not based on any data or even current GCM models, but are the intellectual equivalent of the crazed guy on the street corner holding a sign saying “The World is Ending!” (Try to find a model that predicts one.)
But really, this is just one more attempt by you to avoid actually engaging anyone about the actual science — not a particularly effective tactic, but what else can you do if the facts are all against you? Perhaps someday you will let us know (if you even know yourself) what drives you to support this irrational crusade.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.
–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952