Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe's Garage
A perfectly predictable response Tim, I'm sure you have all the "denial techniques" committed to memory but we only need to bring up the first two.
The 5 telltale techniques of climate change denial -
1. Fake experts
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. This has been found independently in a number of studies, including surveys of Earth scientists, analysis of public statements about climate change and analysis of peer-reviewed scientific papers. How might one cast doubt on the overwhelming scientific consensus? One technique is the use of fake experts.
We see this in online petitions such as the Global Warming Petition Project, which features more than 31,000 scientists claiming humans aren't disrupting our climate. How can there be 97% consensus when 31,000 scientists disagree? It turns out 99.9% of the petition's signatories aren't climate scientists. They include computer scientists, mechanical engineers and medical scientists but few climate scientists. The Global Warming Petition Project is fake experts in bulk.
2. Logical fallacies
The reason why there's a 97% consensus is because of the many lines of evidence that humans are causing global warming. Human fingerprints are being observed in heat escaping out to space, in the structure of the atmosphere and even in the changing seasons. Another denialist technique used to counter the weight of evidence is the logical fallacy.
The most common fallacious argument is that current climate change must be natural because climate has changed naturally in the past. This myth commits the logical fallacy of jumping to conclusions. It's like finding a dead body with a knife sticking out of its back, and arguing that the person must have died of natural causes because humans have died of natural causes in the past. The premise does not lead to the conclusion.
|
And yet with all the greenhouse gases at record levels we have the implausable reality of not much going on for 18 plus years. Ah the perils of modeling, which, none predicted this.
One absolute fact everyone agrees on, when you use model based forcasts, imperceptibly small errors on the front end have monumental compounding impacts and grossly flawed results. Closed loop thinking, Joe, closed loop thinking.
By the way, great article today in the WSJ, on how the hole in the ozone layer has been healing nicely now for quite some years.......oh the horror.
