ForeignDude
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2006
- Messages
- 133
Ah, But There Is The Rub...
Agricola said:
"(1): as above, if you are wrong then it should be pointed out to you;"
Saying so doesn't make it so. No one here is shown conclusively that the doubts I've brought up are not valid. They have been dismissed, yes, but not shown to be incorrect in their substance. Can you say with certainty that the statistical models upon which climate change advocates rely are dead-on accurate as to their predictions 100-years hence, or are you taking the purported accuracy of these models on faith? (Be honest.)
(2): I dont think anyone here has said it;
No, not here. Note what I said: "It appears that three major responses arise when someone applies critical thinking skills to the IPCC-led orthodoxy on climate change..." At no point did I say that the responses to follow applied solely to this forum -- for an education on how to frame the debate against "deniers", try a read at the UK Guardian.
(3): Of all the links that have been provided for climate skeptics, all of them have been funded by Big Oil. Surely thats of some relevance.
True, but that does not mean that: (1) ALL so-called "deniers" are funded by Big Oil et al.; or (2) that their doubts/concerns/points are incorrect.
By the by, being a researcher myself, I should know a thing or two about funding. Let me tell you: orthodoxy plays a BIG role in who gets funding. Governments in the First World provide, for the most part, the biggest contribution to the scientific funding pot. (Even in the pharmaceutical game, the initial R&D costs are often shouldered by government agencies, with developmental costs shared by gov't and the private sector, and implementation costs taken up by private firms at the later stages of the production cycle.) At any rate, grants are evaluated by panels of scientists, who themselves may have a stake (financial or intellectual) in a particular theoretical or political ideology. If you present from a perspective they disdain, you ain't getting the money, period. If you don't believe that, then try applying for a federal grant on "Racial Differences in the Relationship Between Criminal Behaviour and IQ". See how far you get.
Don't be surprised, then, if individuals seek grants from institutions that may be more "open" to divergent points of view. The (flawed) presumption is that Big Oil pays for researchers to carry out certain lines of research. An alternative scenario, not often considered, is that researchers wishing to test certain unpopular hypotheses find themselves shut out from traditional sources of funding, and must apply to the only institutions willing to listen to their proposals. We already know there is a tendency within the climate change advocacy community to muffle dissenters. What makes you think that dissenters haven't been shut out of the funding cycle?
With that said, I find it interesting that the same critical thinking we apply to gun control research seems to vanish when the issue is the "scientific" consensus on climate change. Take, for example, the case of John Lott; I seem to recall that his findings regarding concealed carry and crime were dismissed because he received funding from the Olin Foundation. As soon as that became common knowledge, gun control advocates could comfortably assert that his findings were irrelevant because he was "motivated" to reach certain conclusions by his "paymasters". Lord, the fun we had! (For the record, I downloaded Lott's data from his on-line archive, and I re-ran his models, and, yes, I was able to replicate his findings. From a statistical standpoint, his findings were air-tight. His conclusions, therefore, were supportable by the models he tested.)
For the sake of argument, consider an alternative "scientific" consensus. It is almost axiomatic in the medical and psychological communities that guns are dangerous, and that guns in the home present a greater danger to the occupants than to any possible assailants. After all, "scientific" research supports this conclusion (see Kellerman's articles in the New England Journal of Medicine): a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill or injure a member of the family than to kill or injure a robber breaking into the home. Physicians and psychologists who believe otherwise are in the minority, and are often deemed "irresponsible" for dissenting.
Do you accept the medical/psychological consensus on gun ownership in the home? Why or why not?
It is interesting that we are rabid skeptics when it comes to studies purporting to show that gun control is effective, advisable as social policy, and to be implemented immediately. Yet, we take the climate change consensus on faith, with proposed changes (if applied as intended) that will effect the greatest transformation of everyday life since the First Agricultural Revolution of the pre-historic period.
Agricola said:
"(1): as above, if you are wrong then it should be pointed out to you;"
Saying so doesn't make it so. No one here is shown conclusively that the doubts I've brought up are not valid. They have been dismissed, yes, but not shown to be incorrect in their substance. Can you say with certainty that the statistical models upon which climate change advocates rely are dead-on accurate as to their predictions 100-years hence, or are you taking the purported accuracy of these models on faith? (Be honest.)
(2): I dont think anyone here has said it;
No, not here. Note what I said: "It appears that three major responses arise when someone applies critical thinking skills to the IPCC-led orthodoxy on climate change..." At no point did I say that the responses to follow applied solely to this forum -- for an education on how to frame the debate against "deniers", try a read at the UK Guardian.
(3): Of all the links that have been provided for climate skeptics, all of them have been funded by Big Oil. Surely thats of some relevance.
True, but that does not mean that: (1) ALL so-called "deniers" are funded by Big Oil et al.; or (2) that their doubts/concerns/points are incorrect.
By the by, being a researcher myself, I should know a thing or two about funding. Let me tell you: orthodoxy plays a BIG role in who gets funding. Governments in the First World provide, for the most part, the biggest contribution to the scientific funding pot. (Even in the pharmaceutical game, the initial R&D costs are often shouldered by government agencies, with developmental costs shared by gov't and the private sector, and implementation costs taken up by private firms at the later stages of the production cycle.) At any rate, grants are evaluated by panels of scientists, who themselves may have a stake (financial or intellectual) in a particular theoretical or political ideology. If you present from a perspective they disdain, you ain't getting the money, period. If you don't believe that, then try applying for a federal grant on "Racial Differences in the Relationship Between Criminal Behaviour and IQ". See how far you get.
Don't be surprised, then, if individuals seek grants from institutions that may be more "open" to divergent points of view. The (flawed) presumption is that Big Oil pays for researchers to carry out certain lines of research. An alternative scenario, not often considered, is that researchers wishing to test certain unpopular hypotheses find themselves shut out from traditional sources of funding, and must apply to the only institutions willing to listen to their proposals. We already know there is a tendency within the climate change advocacy community to muffle dissenters. What makes you think that dissenters haven't been shut out of the funding cycle?
With that said, I find it interesting that the same critical thinking we apply to gun control research seems to vanish when the issue is the "scientific" consensus on climate change. Take, for example, the case of John Lott; I seem to recall that his findings regarding concealed carry and crime were dismissed because he received funding from the Olin Foundation. As soon as that became common knowledge, gun control advocates could comfortably assert that his findings were irrelevant because he was "motivated" to reach certain conclusions by his "paymasters". Lord, the fun we had! (For the record, I downloaded Lott's data from his on-line archive, and I re-ran his models, and, yes, I was able to replicate his findings. From a statistical standpoint, his findings were air-tight. His conclusions, therefore, were supportable by the models he tested.)
For the sake of argument, consider an alternative "scientific" consensus. It is almost axiomatic in the medical and psychological communities that guns are dangerous, and that guns in the home present a greater danger to the occupants than to any possible assailants. After all, "scientific" research supports this conclusion (see Kellerman's articles in the New England Journal of Medicine): a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill or injure a member of the family than to kill or injure a robber breaking into the home. Physicians and psychologists who believe otherwise are in the minority, and are often deemed "irresponsible" for dissenting.
Do you accept the medical/psychological consensus on gun ownership in the home? Why or why not?
It is interesting that we are rabid skeptics when it comes to studies purporting to show that gun control is effective, advisable as social policy, and to be implemented immediately. Yet, we take the climate change consensus on faith, with proposed changes (if applied as intended) that will effect the greatest transformation of everyday life since the First Agricultural Revolution of the pre-historic period.
