Why should we believe the science communmity's consensus on climate change?

[Kaon]

We should believe it because there is evidence for it and we don't have time to critically examine everything out there.

NO!

THAT IS ABSOLUTELY THE WRONG IDEA TO HAVE AS A SOVEREIGN INDIVIDUAL!


I am a mathematician; there is no difference between you and me except I went to school a bit longer than you for mathematics - assuming you are not a mathematician also. Can you see why the need to occupy your entire life with ridiculous minutia makes your statement a self-fulfilling prophecy?

No one is stupid; we have been taught we are stupid. No one is the lord over you except yourself, and if you are a Christian then it is Christ by your choice. Notice it is literally all about you!

So, don't let "me" or someone else tell you what you can do, what you should know, and what you are allowed to know within the conditions afforded to you. Prove everything yourself, and if you aren't a physicist learn it. If you aren't an autodidact, hire a tutor. Seriously, knowledge is the weapon of today and tomorrow.


Your comment makes an excellent point on the bigger issue I am trying to get at overall. It is a social and academic issue, as well as possibly psychological. I hope didn't offend you.

 

[Nithavela]

So, don't let "me" or someone else tell you what you can do, what you should know, and what you are allowed to know within the conditions afforded to you. Prove everything yourself, and if you aren't a physicist learn it. If you aren't an autodidact, hire a tutor. Seriously, knowledge is the weapon of today and tomorrow.

Did you build your own computer? Could you?

I mean from scratch by using crude oil and silicium ore.

 

[Kaon]

Did you build your own computer? Could you?

I mean from scratch by using crude oil and silicium ore.

heh...

I did NOT build my own computer, but funny thing is I AM going to build my own computer, because I can.

I get your point, I really do. And, I get @Rubiks point. But, this is what has made the chasm between philosophers and laypersons even wider.

Maybe I exhibited idealism of humanity, but I consider myself a philosophical and colloquial cynic, so me appealing to the individual potential of humanity is a bit foreign to me. However, @Rubiks brought up a point to extrapolate for me, and it was related a point I often try to make.

 

[Root of Jesse]

There are incongruities in the world, sure. Some US Christians feel persecuted when someone disagrees with them or thinks civil law shouldn't be based on their personal beliefs. And some Christians elsewhere are martyred by being beheaded or shot.

But why do you say there is a pseudo-scientific field? What is pseudo- about it?

Because it's not science. They take measured data, certainly, but then they try to interpret it. Science is not really interpretive.

 

[archer75]

Because it's not science. They take measured data, certainly, but then they try to interpret it. Science is not really interpretive.

I'm not sure what you mean. Science, as far as I understand, is never just a list of observations. What would be an example of non-interpretive science?

 

[JackRT]

Do you mean the improvements that have destroyed two thirds of the usable soil?

I am completely unaware that this has happened on a global scale although I am sure that poor farming practices have done so on a local scale. I was referring to the development of new crop varieties that are drought resistant, disease and pest resistant and produce larger yields.

 

[JackRT]

Because it's not science. They take measured data, certainly, but then they try to interpret it. Science is not really interpretive.

That is EXACTLY what science is about --- it is the interpretation of data in the form of "model building" and the testing of that model against the measured data. Without the interpretation you don't have science.

 

[Nithavela]

I am completely unaware that this has happened on a global scale although I am sure that poor farming practices have done so on a local scale.

Third of Earth's soil is acutely degraded due to agriculture

My bad, just a third, not 2 thirds.

 

[Tanj]

Because it's not science. They take measured data, certainly, but then they try to interpret it. Science is not really interpretive.

That's exactly what science is.

Back to your OP

Certain governments around the world may or may not have behaved badly "power grab" etc. in response to global warming.

The correct response to these acts is to criticise the governments in question.

Denying the underlying science makes no sense whatsoever.

Science gave us the atomic bomb. The correct response to governments building nuclear stockpiles is NOT to say the atomic bomb doesn't work.

Same issue with over population. All of your examples come from non-scientists. If by any small chance you actually care what science has to say about world population:

Gapminder: Unveiling the beauty of statistics for a fact based world view.

 

[essentialsaltes]

That's my other point. Why should we believe 'experts'?

Because expert actually means something. It means experts have more information than non-experts. So a consensus of experts is a very powerful authority that cannot lightly be ignored by non-experts.

 

[JackRT]

Because expert actually means something. It means experts have more information than non-experts. So a consensus of experts is a very powerful authority that cannot lightly be ignored by non-experts.

"expert" --- pronounced 'ex' - 'spurt'
ex = out of
spurt = a drip under pressure
Draw your own conclusion.

 

[Nithavela]

"expert" --- pronounced 'ex' - 'spurt'
ex = out of
spurt = a drip under pressure
Draw your own conclusion.

My conclusion: You're no expert of etymology.

 

[durangodawood]

There was evidence for overpopulation, too, but it didn't materialize, in fact, it is the reverse.

My main objection is that the powers that be only want to become more powerful, and are constantly looking for a reason to grab more power.

Actually, my objection is that we over react to perceived crises. The sky is not falling. It never was.

Well dont forget that enormous efforts went into averting overpopulation, including measures like birth control availability.

Also, the specifics laid out in the book were not part of any sort of scientific consensus. The only real consensus was the general notion that population growth presents a problem. And that was and remains correct.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I'm not sure what you mean. Science, as far as I understand, is never just a list of observations. What would be an example of non-interpretive science?

The problem is letting your bias, such as where your funding comes from, dictate how the data is interpreted. As my examples show, there is a ton of that.

For example, there is no evidence that global warming can be mitigated by the Paris or Kyoto climate agreements. Basically what those are is a power/money grab.

Another example is how we push inefficient, intermittent, expensive power sources, like solar and wind, which by and large would harm the poor, while trying to lay aside efficient, constant and cheap sources like coal and petroleum, which are accessible to the poor. The powerful want to control the unpowerful.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That is EXACTLY what science is about --- it is the interpretation of data in the form of "model building" and the testing of that model against the measured data. Without the interpretation you don't have science.

OK, but it matters what lens you look through. And there is no evidence that mankind causes climate change.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That's exactly what science is.

Again, you have to look at the lens being used to examine the data. I was in a hurry when I posted that. Of course scientists take data and interpret it. But what is the agenda? That's the question.

Back to your OP

Certain governments around the world may or may not have behaved badly "power grab" etc. in response to global warming.

They still are. Paris and Kyoto are nothing more than power grabs. I'm glad to know we're trying to get out of them. China signed the Paris agreement, which doesn't demand anything of them. But of course, China wants us to meet our commitments, because it puts us at a disadvantage.

The correct response to these acts is to criticise the governments in question.

Criticism doesn't work. Or works slowly at best.

Denying the underlying science makes no sense whatsoever.

Nobody is denying the data. Many are denying the interpretation of the data, because those who interpreted it had an agenda

Science gave us the atomic bomb. The correct response to governments building nuclear stockpiles is NOT to say the atomic bomb doesn't work.

Not a very good analogy. The atom bomb worked to end the war. But the correct response to what we call climate change is to be good stewards of the earth and her resources. You know, I watch a show about gold mining in Alaska, and often wondered how they could get away with stripping all the vegetation away and mining the gold the way they do. Turns out that, after they finish with mining an area, they have to replace the dirt and level it so that vegetation grows again.

Same issue with over population. All of your examples come from non-scientists. If by any small chance you actually care what science has to say about world population:

Gapminder: Unveiling the beauty of statistics for a fact based world view.

Actually, I've studied this pretty closely, and what we got from the 'population explosion' was eugenics and Planned Parenthood. We've killed more children than the entire population of some countries. Europe's population is growing only because of the Muslim invasion, er, migration. Europeans aren't having enough children to replace the aging population. That's the fact. Another fact, the entire population of the world can fit into the state of Texas, giving each person 1000 sq. ft. It's not a problem of overpopulation, it's a problem of food distribution, and, once again, the powerful lording it over the weak. People starve because governments allow them to starve.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Because expert actually means something. It means experts have more information than non-experts. So a consensus of experts is a very powerful authority that cannot lightly be ignored by non-experts.

Problem is, there is no consensus of experts on climate change. Most experts have an agenda. I listen to them, and study them to see where their funding comes from.
For example, I'm an expert in my field. I use it to help my company out. If someone from another company wants my expertise, I have to examine whether providing it would benefit my company. Another example, we sell military hardware to other countries. We often leave out the most advanced of our technical equipment. Why? In case the other country wants to turn it on us.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well dont forget that enormous efforts went into averting overpopulation, including measures like birth control availability.

Also, the specifics laid out in the book were not part of any sort of scientific consensus. The only real consensus was the general notion that population growth presents a problem. And that was and remains correct.

The fact is that birth control availability actually increases the likelihood of procreating. Also, the fact is the population of the world grew by 1 billion since. That is to say that overpopulation, again, isn't really a problem. And the same is true for climate change.

 

[Goonie]

The fact is that birth control availability actually increases the likelihood of procreating. Also, the fact is the population of the world grew by 1 billion since. That is to say that overpopulation, again, isn't really a problem. And the same is true for climate change.

Overpopulation is irrefutably a major problem. The earth has finite resources, less than 40 years worth of fertile soil on which crops can be grown for example, to argue that population is not an issue is truly absurd.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Overpopulation is irrefutably a major problem. The earth has finite resources, less than 40 years worth of fertile soil on which crops can be grown for example, to argue that population is not an issue is truly absurd.

Prove it. We invented rotation of crops to give soil a chance to rejuvenate, and it quickly does. Manure and weeds help. It's called recycling. Same thing with fossil fuels-they rejuvenate, though not as quickly as fallow fields. Then again, we're learning to create bio-fuels.
But when you can fit the entire population of the world in one US State, and have the rest of the world to grow crops, build hospitals, etc., you're not overpopulated.