The Coming Paradigm Shift on Climate

[Cow Poke]

Perhaps what you mean to decry are problems with the models, but those issues are both known and accounted for (and seldom if ever as damning as implied).

This is the kind of statement that makes me skeptical -- it's like "trust me, I'm a doctor".

[Carrikature]

This is the kind of statement that makes me skeptical -- it's like "trust me, I'm a doctor".

Yes, doctors are fallible. When I'm sick enough, I still go to one. So do you and your wife. I'm not going to just wring my hands and declare how we can't trust them. When I need a lawyer, I go to one. I don't tell jokes about how untrustworthy they are. When I'm looking for information about the physical aspects of our world, I go to scientists.

That's how it works. Grains of salt are free to all in large doses yet insufficient to keep you alive. People generally don't have a problem trusting the experts unless there's a specific point they don't agree with or don't like. If only that meant something...

[Catholicity]

Have you read Rainbow Six, by chance?

Actually never heard of it.

Perhaps what you mean to decry are problems with the models, but those issues are both known and accounted for

In theory, yes. But when most of what one here's of comes from politically biased sources that are really good at harboring monetary biases, realistically no.

[Zymologist]

Yes, doctors are fallible. When I'm sick enough, I still go to one. So do you and your wife. I'm not going to just wring my hands and declare how we can't trust them. When I need a lawyer, I go to one. I don't tell jokes about how untrustworthy they are. When I'm looking for information about the physical aspects of our world, I go to scientists.

That's how it works. Grains of salt are free to all in large doses yet insufficient to keep you alive. People generally don't have a problem trusting the experts unless there's a specific point they don't agree with or don't like. If only that meant something...

...or at least not in front of the one defending you.

[Zymologist]

Actually never heard of it.

It's a novel by Tom Clancy (his best IMO, of the ones I've read), and it involves environmentalist extremists. Not really important; I was just curious. It's a good read though, albeit a pretty long one.

[Teallaura]

Amazing what can be claimed by changing definitions of 'we'. I'm pretty sure the U.S. can be included in 'we', even if China and India are not. Therefore, 'we' can help prevent exacerbating the issue, even if the full impact is not something 'we' have control over. 'We', as the human population, can still take steps to prevent exacerbation even if every member does not.

Achieving 'sufficient' compliance is separate from some compliance. The latter can be achieved even if the first is not.

Not really - refraining from putting a cup in the bucket really doesn't matter when others are pouring in gallons. Incidentally, 'we' here referred to 'humans'. Since the level of necessary cooperation doesn't exist and is extremely unlikely to in the foreseeable future, humans lack the capacity to 'stop exacerbating' the problem in any significant way.

[Teallaura]

...or at least not in front of the one defending you.

The people I know who tell lawyer jokes the most are lawyers.

[Carrikature]

...or at least not in front of the one defending you.

Quick disclaimer that I understand this is meant in jest, but...

Once upon a time, that might have been the case. These days my attitude is pretty similar across disciplines. I think you need to understand the principles involved to disparage the results, and I find dishonesty to be a people thing not a profession thing. All the lawyers I know are Christians (just an example). I've known clueless doctors and well-meaning doctors, and I've seen people self-medicate/diagnose. Being married to a dietitian, I've heard plenty of stories about people who aren't convinced some dietary regimen (mind, not a diet) won't work but who won't follow it.

Suffice to say that the attitude towards lawyers, doctors, et.al. permeates through all areas. The teacher is stupid when she disagrees with you, the scientist has an ulterior motive, and the boss is clueless. In the current paradigm, everyone and anyone is permitted to think themselves an expert. It's moronic. Case in point, my boss is on blood pressure medication. He decided one time to stop taking it because "he felt fine". Stupid. Luckily, nothing went wrong, and his doctor managed to chastise him in a way that still sticks in his mind years later. Her statement? "I don't come to your office and try to do your job for you. Don't come to mine and do the same. Quit doctoring." I think that lesson is sorely needed in the U.S. (naturally I can't speak for other countries).

/soapbox

[Carrikature]

In theory, yes. But when most of what one here's of comes from politically biased sources that are really good at harboring monetary biases, realistically no.

Usually you can follow those trails with a little effort. It's hard to tell from this if you're claiming the AGW advocates have dirty money in their pockets or not.

[Carrikature]

Not really - refraining from putting a cup in the bucket really doesn't matter when others are pouring in gallons. Incidentally, 'we' here referred to 'humans'. Since the level of necessary cooperation doesn't exist and is extremely unlikely to in the foreseeable future, humans lack the capacity to 'stop exacerbating' the problem in any significant way.

It does matter, and the attitude itself matters. Again, any human that stops exacerbating the problem has met conditions for satisfaction as stated, even if ultimately insufficient. Swim down, get the others to do the same, and see what happens. I already addressed sufficient, and significant is the same thing here.

[Zymologist]

Quick disclaimer that I understand this is meant in jest, but...

Once upon a time, that might have been the case. These days my attitude is pretty similar across disciplines. I think you need to understand the principles involved to disparage the results, and I find dishonesty to be a people thing not a profession thing. All the lawyers I know are Christians (just an example). I've known clueless doctors and well-meaning doctors, and I've seen people self-medicate/diagnose. Being married to a dietitian, I've heard plenty of stories about people who aren't convinced some dietary regimen (mind, not a diet) won't work but who won't follow it.

Suffice to say that the attitude towards lawyers, doctors, et.al. permeates through all areas. The teacher is stupid when she disagrees with you, the scientist has an ulterior motive, and the boss is clueless. In the current paradigm, everyone and anyone is permitted to think themselves an expert. It's moronic. Case in point, my boss is on blood pressure medication. He decided one time to stop taking it because "he felt fine". Stupid. Luckily, nothing went wrong, and his doctor managed to chastise him in a way that still sticks in his mind years later. Her statement? "I don't come to your office and try to do your job for you. Don't come to mine and do the same. Quit doctoring." I think that lesson is sorely needed in the U.S. (naturally I can't speak for other countries).

/soapbox

Well I certainly agree with you that dishonesty is a people thing rather than a profession thing. I'll try to be more careful with my responses in the future.

[Carrikature]

Well I certainly agree with you that dishonesty is a people thing rather than a profession thing. I'll try to be more careful with my responses in the future.

It wasn't intended as a criticism. I was just expounding. I need to use more disclaimers, I think.

[Zymologist]

It wasn't intended as a criticism. I was just expounding. I need to use more disclaimers, I think.

Oh, ok.

[Cow Poke]

Yes, doctors are fallible. When I'm sick enough, I still go to one. So do you and your wife.

She does. I don't.

I'm not going to just wring my hands and declare how we can't trust them.

And I'm not going to buy everything they say just because they're a doctor.

When I need a lawyer, I go to one. I don't tell jokes about how untrustworthy they are.

Some lawyers are good, others not so much. Telling jokes, though, doesn't make them any more or less untrustworthy.

When I'm looking for information about the physical aspects of our world, I go to scientists.

I'll be glad to listen to what they say, but I think it's healthy to be skeptical, especially when somebody wants to tax the world and spend zillions of dollars without even knowing what the cost/benefit analysis looks like.

That's how it works. Grains of salt are free to all in large doses yet insufficient to keep you alive. People generally don't have a problem trusting the experts unless there's a specific point they don't agree with or don't like. If only that meant something...

The sky is not falling, C, and I'm not interested in spending zillions of dollars to hold it up.

[Darth Executor]

Yes, doctors are fallible. When I'm sick enough, I still go to one. So do you and your wife. I'm not going to just wring my hands and declare how we can't trust them. When I need a lawyer, I go to one. I don't tell jokes about how untrustworthy they are. When I'm looking for information about the physical aspects of our world, I go to scientists.

That's how it works. Grains of salt are free to all in large doses yet insufficient to keep you alive. People generally don't have a problem trusting the experts unless there's a specific point they don't agree with or don't like. If only that meant something...

People generally don't have a problem trusting the experts in things that can be easily verified. I can verify that the people who made my computer monitor know what they're doing quite easily. I can't do the same with global wa... err, "climate change". It should be quite obvious why claiming that trusting one is the same as trusting the other is fallacious (and that's about as polite as I can put it).