Personal Development for Smart People Forums - View Single Post

cliffski · 12-11-2006, 08:22 PM

I find it bizzare that people who are not climate experts post on the global warming topic with a "I believe that..." It really is not a matter of 'belief', but a matter of hard science. Theres is not 100% consensus on the causes, there is not 100% scientific consensus on any topic, but there is an overwhelming majority suggesting man amde c02 emmissions are a major contributor. Those same scientists overwhelmingly recommend reducing our C02 emmissions drastically.

Now to compare the topic of the planets health with our personal health, take a situation where 99 doctors says this to you
"We have carried out tests, which are not 100% accurate, but we are pretty certain you will die within 6 months unless you quit smoking immediately."
and 1 doctor says this:
"We did some test, but to be honest we can't be 100% certain what they mean. We might know in a few years. Feel free to keep smoking"

What would you do?

I would LOVE all the climate experts to be wrong and us be able to take long haul holidays for the rest of my life. However, the possible negative outcome is so terrifying, and the evidence ammassed so far, so overwhelming, that I don't think it's prudent to just cross my fingers and hope they are all wrong.

When a science fiction author (regardless of credentials, he is not a climate expert, show me his published papers) is the hero of the contrary viewpoint, I think the argument is pretty much over.

Also I think any suggestion that the peer-review process leads to the paper being just the consensus position is very unfair. My wife is a scientist who takes part in these things. The peers are checking for technical innaccuracies and ensuring proper scientific method is followed, they are not there to edit the results.

12-11-2006, 08:22 PM	#37 (permalink)
cliffski Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8	I find it bizzare that people who are not climate experts post on the global warming topic with a "I believe that..." It really is not a matter of 'belief', but a matter of hard science. Theres is not 100% consensus on the causes, there is not 100% scientific consensus on any topic, but there is an overwhelming majority suggesting man amde c02 emmissions are a major contributor. Those same scientists overwhelmingly recommend reducing our C02 emmissions drastically. Now to compare the topic of the planets health with our personal health, take a situation where 99 doctors says this to you "We have carried out tests, which are not 100% accurate, but we are pretty certain you will die within 6 months unless you quit smoking immediately." and 1 doctor says this: "We did some test, but to be honest we can't be 100% certain what they mean. We might know in a few years. Feel free to keep smoking" What would you do? I would LOVE all the climate experts to be wrong and us be able to take long haul holidays for the rest of my life. However, the possible negative outcome is so terrifying, and the evidence ammassed so far, so overwhelming, that I don't think it's prudent to just cross my fingers and hope they are all wrong. When a science fiction author (regardless of credentials, he is not a climate expert, show me his published papers) is the hero of the contrary viewpoint, I think the argument is pretty much over. Also I think any suggestion that the peer-review process leads to the paper being just the consensus position is very unfair. My wife is a scientist who takes part in these things. The peers are checking for technical innaccuracies and ensuring proper scientific method is followed, they are not there to edit the results.