SAV
Now you’re just being deliberately obtuse. You’re not so dumb as not to know an analogy when you see it… I suspect that’s why you didn’t address my actual points.

SAV
That’s perfectly fair. But the information is out there. I find it hilarious that you’re concocting conspiracy theories regarding funding while swallowing the lies propogated by Tim Ball and the “Friends of Science,” whose funding is well-exposed. This information is available, but you seem to have no interest in actually checking it out. It’s one thing to want the info; it’s another thing to actually make the effort to find it.

DOG
my claim was that there is not a consensus among all of the members of a larger group in general.

SAV
And my entire point, which you somehow — amazingly — fail to grasp, is that a “general” group is not qualified to answer the question. Active physicists, while qualifying as “scientists” and “educated,” do not qualify as “climatologists” or “having a thorough knowledge base of climate observation.” Period.

DOG
The reality for me is that the science is not settled and that it needs to be looked at carefully by a variety of professionals

SAV
You also tell the auto mechanic that you would like a doctor, a burger flipper, and an economist to give their two cents about why your car isn’t working correctly before you’ll allow the mechanic to take any action at all, right? No? What a shock. You can’t even recognize that you have an asinine double standard.

DOG
There are no conspiracy theories with me (in regard to this).

SAV
Bullshit. You argued that people didn’t respond (or respond “no”) because they were afraid of losing their jobs and/or funding. Then you argued that the high percentage was evidence of that claim. That’s a conspiracy theory. Telling me that you don’t subscribe to any conspiracy theory makes you a bald-faced liar.

DOG
Those involved in research. What about the rest?

SAV
If you want to be an idiot, I clearly can’t stop you. I gave you a damn good set of reasons why those are the people who are best qualified to answer the question. There’s a reason you don’t ask a physicist to diagnose your abdominal pain. You haven’t rebutted those reasons or explained why unqualified people’s opinions should matter.

DOG
And, I am skeptical of having things rammed through without proper debate.

SAV
But your definition of “proper debate” includes asking burger flippers and dishwashers. That’s not “proper,” that’s just plain stupid. Within the scientific community, the “debate” has been settled, just like it has been with heliocentricity and evolution.

Some polls are pretty accurate but when a poll says that x percent of a group thinks this I want to know what the questions were, who was asked and what their associations are.

You see, if I quote some climatologist who is a denier you and Darrel say he is discredited or some other thing or you claim that he is associated with a group that disqualifies his opinion. I want to know who these people are associated with and what their motivations are.

I certainly believe there is a consensus among certain groups of people but my claim was that there is not a consensus among all of the members of a larger group in general.

Sure, there are groups of people who signed on and groups that have not. You discount one group in favor of the other by using methods that you will not accept for your own group.

The reality for me is that the science is not settled and that it needs to be looked at carefully by a variety of professionals before we commit to things that might have little effect but will cost a ton of money.

I don’t think that is too much to ask.

There are no conspiracy theories with me (in regard to this). I simply can read that a certain group of people from a larger group are in agreement. Those involved in research. What about the rest?

It is not too much to ask.

And, I am skeptical of having things rammed through without proper debate. Simply declaring that the science is settled is not effective when it is anything but.

Consensus alone never makes something right, and I didn’t argue that it did. But when 97% of polled people who study the climate using modern equipment and modern methodology — which, let’s face it, work great in all sorts of areas, even to the extent that you accept the findings — consider the verdict in, it’s asinine for you and the rest of the denialists to try to make the case that we just don’t have enough information to conclude anything.

First you deny that there’s a consensus, then you accuse me of cherry-picking data, then you float the idea of conspiracy with no evidence, then you lie about having evidence, then you deny having a double standard, then you appeal to false authorities, then you hand-wave away poll results merely because the results don’t serve your purpose, and now you’re comparing medieval problem-solving to modern science and misrepresenting my argument in one fell swoop. You’re scraping the bottom of the barrel.

I don’t have a problem with you “not seeing it as an absolute.” All science is tentative. But the poll tells you where qualified scientists stand on the issue, and it’s not even close. And you know as well as I do that they’re immeasurably more fit to make a determination than are you. or physicists. or the WSJ, whose writers apparently can’t read a simple chart and think straight. (“Flatlined since 2001?” Both factually wrong and irrelevant; see the George Brett analogy below.) Yeesh. How many times do we have to refute the same dumbass arguments in the same thread?

I bet at one time all the scientists believed the world was flat.

I bet at one time all the scientists believed that the sun rotated around the Earth.

Did that consensus make them right?

Pathetic, Dog. You got the number, it’s really high, and you don’t like it. Now you’re fabricating conspiracy theories and appealing to false authority. Get real.

The collapse of the “consensus” has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth’s temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

WSJ

SAV
Once again for the reading impaired, that’s precisely what I asked for. And there’s a reason for that. It’s one thing to call yourself a climatologist. It’s another thing to actually have an appropriate education in climatology. It’s still another thing to actually be active in researching climatology. These are people who pay attention to the latest information, ongoing research, etc., not people who got a degree and now flip burgers or have retired and distanced themselves from the topic.

DOG
And that is based on 3000 responses to 10,000 inquiries.

SAV
10000 inquiries to all in that database, which included people ill-equipped to answer the question (e.g. vulcanologists). No doubt many of them didn’t respond because they didn’t feel qualified to represent a climate authority.

DOG
Perhaps the other 7000 did not want to answer and have their careers ruined.

SAV
The 3% who went the other way had their careers ruined? Really? More conspiracy theory bullshit. How pathetic.

DOG
Obviously, if a drug is proven through use then I do not need to research.

SAV
That doesn’t address my point. Do you get “real proof” that the latest PPI works? Do you get “real proof” that the difference in effect between the latest and the last generation isn’t worth the price difference? Do you get “real proof” that the PPIs bind to proton pumps at all? Do you get “real proof” that the binding is irreversible? You don’t. You have different standards of acceptance; i.e., you’re employing a double standard.

DOG
You say that all contrary evidence has been debunked but that is not true. You say it is settled but there are a lot of dissenters so it is not settled.

SAV
I’ve heard the same exact thing when discussing an old earth, evolution, etc. You’ve been inundated with information from real climatologists but continue to cling to the fabrications of people who are completely unqualified. My trying to tackle your selective ignorance of the facts coupled with your double standards is futile. You’re not going to find a refutation in your transverse colon, so I don’t understand why you continue to push your head farther and farther up your rectum to get a closer look. I’ll take a small bit of refuge in the fact that you already acknowledge that our emissions should be controlled responsibly.

I have often discussed the doctors who are linked to the drug companies and how they work each other. I have also advocated for less expensive drugs of the same class rather than newer drugs that cost more for my patients. Why spend more on the latest and greatest proton pump inhibitor if the older PPIs will do the job? They should be tried first.

I decide whether to take the medication based on my knowledge of drugs and researching them as well as knowing what they do. Obviously, if a drug is proven through use then I do not need to research. Morphine has done exactly what it was supposed to do each time I gave it whether I was giving it for a heart attack or pain. I don’t need to look it up or be reassured that it works if it is being given for what it was designed.

You say that all contrary evidence has been debunked but that is not true. You say it is settled but there are a lot of dissenters so it is not settled.

We have evidence of an effect? Why is it that 450 million years ago the CO2 levels were 10 times what they are today and they were in an ice age? There are theories and there are many possible outcomes. You are assuming causation.