>> To see if various denier criticisms were valid. So you accept the claims of climate change advocates as true by default and only read those papers which have criticisms leveled at them by deniers? That isn't very even handed.
>> I argued that most congressmen wouldn't be able to read them (since very few >> are scientists of any kind, much less climate scientists). If it is important to be a climate scientist to read a climate science paper then, again, why do you bother reading them? You are not a climate scientist. You do not, on your own account, possess the skills to understand them. In truth though, it doesn't follow from the fact that someone isn't a scientist that they can't read or understand a scientific paper. Thats just tawdry elitism. Since it is possible to teach children physics, biology, chemistry etc. it is also possible to explain the important aspects of climate science to congressmen. And thats what should happen rather than chucking around empty statements about consensuses or the lack of thereof. >> but you were arguing that the opinion of experts meant nothing Rubbish. My position has consistently been that the truth of a statement is not to be decided by who has said it, but by what has been said. Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 15:19:06 -0700 From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing On 4/8/2014 2:46 PM, chris peck wrote: >>Not at all. Have you read the peer reviewed papers that the IPCC cites? I've read a lot of them. Why have you felt the need to read them? To see if various denier criticisms were valid. You were just arguing that congressmen, people who unlike yourself are in a position to take or prevent action, did not need to. I argued that most congressmen wouldn't be able to read them (since very few are scientists of any kind, much less climate scientists). But you were arguing that the opinion of experts meant nothing (unless they disagree) - and so it would follow that...what? You admitted that reading their papers would be no different than just accepting their opinion about what the paper showed. So what does "mean something"? Are you going to repeat their analysis yourself? Do the observations yourself? Or are you content that 3% disagreeing proves there's no problem? Brent Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 10:13:44 -0700 From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing On 4/8/2014 4:44 AM, chris peck wrote: >> Oh, when it suits your prejudice it's OK to just count votes. You suddenly no longer need to read the papers and decide for yourself. Eh? Why the sour face? I thought you'ld be cracking open the champagne. There's no consensus. I give you perhaps the best news in history, ever, and you're just sour about it! You're not suggesting we ought to read about the science and think for ourselves are you?! What a drag! Not at all. Have you read the peer reviewed papers that the IPCC cites? I've read a lot of them. Seriously though, how come this 97% figure is presented by climate change acceptors as a consensus about the catastrophic effect global warming will have when it isn't one? Show me a quote where is it presented that way. The actual statement is 97% of climate scientists believe that the Earth is getting hotter and it's due to burning fossil fuel. Do they even know that the figure represents just those scientist who agree climate change is happening? Do they know it doesn't reflect the amount of scientists who think the change is caused by humans? They certainly don't know that less than 50% of scientists think the effect of warming would be catastrophic otherwise that figure would enter into their discourse, or would it? I suspect the temptation to keep a bit silent about what a shocking figure like 97% really represents is overwhelming. A little white lie and so on, an economy with the truth etc. No one has said it would be catastrophic, as in threaten extinction of humans. They have said it will be very economically and socially disruptive and produce major changes in agriculture and in natural food and water sources. In actual fact I think all these figures are bullshit. Listening to what the scientists actually have to say is exactly what people should do, even congressmen, rather than close ones ears to everything except easily digestible and neatly misrepresentable figures. So why don't you listen? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
