PDA

View Full Version : John Coleman Debunks the Myth of Global Warming - Wilbur still in denial . . . .



PoliCon
06-12-2010, 10:00 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8FhmuWWcGw

wilbur
06-13-2010, 10:06 AM
Title of the thread should really be "John Coleman trots out the same ol' classic denier fallacies".

"C02 is plant food", "warming will be a good thing", "its actually cooling" - all either misleading, or just plain fallacious to begin with. And seriously - anyone who has spent time learning about AGW has heard all of them before, a hundred times over, there's nothing new here.

Most of them have been dealt with pretty well right here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

djones520
06-13-2010, 10:16 AM
Denial is more then just a river in Egypt...

wilbur
06-13-2010, 10:37 AM
Denial is more then just a river in Egypt...

Its John Coleman

warpig
06-13-2010, 11:14 AM
It is widely alleged that the science of global warming is “settled”. This implies that all the major scientific aspects of climate change are well understood and uncontroversial, and that scientists are now just mopping up unimportant details. The allegation is profoundly untrue: for example the US alone is said to be spending more than $4 billion annually on climate research, which is a lot to pay for detailing; and great uncertainty and argument surround many of the principles of climate change, and especially the magnitude of any human causation for warming. Worse still, not only is the science not “settled”, but its discussion in the public domain is contaminated by many fallacies, which leads directly to the great public confusion that is observed.

This paper explains the eight most common fallacies that underpin public discussion of the hypothesis that dangerous global warming is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/fallacies.html

someone besides John Colman...........

wilbur
06-13-2010, 12:23 PM
I wasnt rejecting what Coleman was saying because of any personal dislike or because of my opinion of him. His arguments were bad - they were typical - they were fallacious - and they have been long ago debunked. The stuff at the SPPI there doesnt seem much better. These points are especially ill-conceived:


4 - The consensus among scientists is decisive (or even important)

Scientific consensus is extremely important for us, especially when it comes to using science to guide public policy. Sure, we all know that consensus *can be* wrong, but you better have your ducks in a row to dispute it.


5 - The dominance of scientific papers on a certain subject establishes a truth

I don't know of anyone who claims that the dominance of scientific papers expressing a certain conclusion actually establishes a truth. It establishes a scientific consensus.


6 - Peer-reviewed papers are true and accurate

I don't know of anyone who says this either - we know that in peer review is where we will find the most rigorous, well supported conclusions of relevant experts on a topic. Even though we know the stuff in peer review might not necessarily be true, we know its what has the best shot of actually *being* true.

Yes, all these things are fallible - but we know they are less fallible than any means of information gathering on a scientific topic, period. So we have every reason to feel more confident in the methodology and the rigour of the work and opinions expressed by actual scientists.

And we all live our lives as if this is true, for the most part. If your favourite media personality came out tomorrow and suggested that cigarettes can't actually cause cancer, you would be sceptical, right? Why?

Probably because:

1) You perceive that there is a consensus among relevant medical experts
2) An preponderance of research establishes that this consensus does exist
3) And out of all information on a topic, the research (aka peer review) is our best, most rigorous information to be found, bar none.

Sonnabend
06-13-2010, 08:50 PM
4 - The consensus among scientists is decisive (or even important)If all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you jump too?


Scientific consensus is extremely important for us, especially when it comes to using science to guide public policy. Sure, we all know that consensus *can be* wrong, but you better have your ducks in a row to dispute it. Despite the fact there is no "consensus", especially when it has been proven that the ones who started this manufactured evidence to suit their own agendas. Plenty of scientists dispute AGW...oh that's right I forgot, they are all being paid by oil companies :rolleyes:

One of the biggest alarmists, Flannery, has massive financial interest in "alternative energy"...that wouldn't slant his perspective now, would it...? :rolleyes:


I don't know of anyone who says this either - we know that in peer review is where we will find the most rigorous, well supported conclusions of relevant experts on a topic.Wasn't it Jones who said they wanted to redefine "Peer reviewed?" Isn't Flannery the one who also said "It could be THOUSANDS of years?:

I believe it was.


Yes, all these things are fallible - but we know they are less fallible than any means of information gathering on a scientific topic, period. So we have every reason to feel more confident in the methodology and the rigour of the work and opinions expressed by actual scientists. ..and your qualifications in science to make these conclusions are....?


If your favourite media personality came out tomorrow and suggested that cigarettes can't actually cause cancer, you would be sceptical, right? Why?...because it is medical fact, as opposed to AGW which is wild assed guesses based on "models" using data which, of course, is no longer available, destroyed by CRU. And we are just supposed to "take their word for it", not to mention that you'd need a time machine to prove any of it....

Paging H.G Wells....