« Friday Night is Music Night (5-0 Edition) | Main | 10:10 - The Quacks are on board - No Pressure! »

Climate change skeptics often ask for evidence and proof, - The Bastards

How fear of bias frames climate change debate | Simon Lewis | Environment | guardian.co.uk
Comment : KnowThankYou
We must be careful to not let the suspicions and emotions surrounding climate skeptics impact ourselves or our work. Doing so plays into their hands, distracting us from our work and potentially delaying life-saving research.
Climate change skeptics often ask for evidence and proof, and point to conflicting modeling as a means of discounting theories. This may be a valid argument in other sciences, but perhaps not when attempting to determine future climate changes. It is hard to imagine where stock markets might be today if investors required such evidence and proof of the future. We have ourselves created conditions of greater risk, and in future even the more risk-averse among us will need to embrace change. Hopefully before not too many tipping points have been passed the human race shall have to take a variety of actions based on a spectrum of theories rather than evidence and proof.

Comments

"It is hard to imagine where stock markets might be today if investors required such evidence and proof of the future"

A great many people do invest without requiring evidence or proof. There is a name for such people - the poor! Those who wish to retain their money do require some evidence that their investment will be profitable, and the rules of the stock market exist to ensure equal access to this information.

To suggest that evidence is unimportant in regard to Climate change is bizarre. If you will take outrageously costly action of the basis of an untested hypothesis like CAGW, how many other speculative future risks can we find to spend all our money on. Surely the prospect of a new ice age, or maybe a comet impact or supervolcano, is far scarier than a bit of warm weather. What are we doing about those risks?

Because we can only spend our money once, we had better be sure we aren't wasting it. And being sure involves evidence, not guesswork, computer models and wishful thinking.

If I needed "proof" that climate "science" was not science, the repeated assertion that it is the ONLY science in which no evidence need be provided would be it.

This blog post is a wonderful demonstration of the desperation of the deniers. It cherry picks a poorly-worded *comment* from some unknown person in response to a comment piece.

Why not include a response to that comment a few below it? http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/8000575

You have no response to the *science*, so you scour the internet for nonsense like this....

"Climate change skeptics often ask for evidence and proof". Erm.... aren't evidence and proof required in climastrology any more? As for 'desperation' DavidC, your own post reeks of it. The "it's CO2" arguments never stacked up and you know it.

DavidC: "This blog post is a wonderful demonstration of the desperation of the deniers."

The mere fact that you felt compelled to employ the term "deniers" tells us everything we need to know about your scientific credibility.

I think it is important to distinguish between a "sKeptic" and a "sCeptic" when referring to climate change doubters.

SKEPTIC = Essential to the scientific process -- an experienced or trained individual who has SPECIFIC questions over SPECIFIC issues contained within the research or literature and who USUALLY provides their own research in counterpoint thereby adding to the knowledge base. All part of the process which propels science along to an ever more refined point.

SCEPTIC = "So Called Experts Perpetually Talking In Circles". These individuals make broad sweeping pronouncements and often believe in Machiavellian conspiracies involving climate scientists, the UN, Al Gore and university investigation panels. They have a propensity to elevate non-scientists (i.e. Monkton, Horner, Inhofe, et. all) to the level of climate expert and they RARELY cite proper evidence in support of their arguments.

Drewski,

Never mind the definitions and cheap labels; evidence please, otherwise you're just as bad (and possibly much, much worse) as the people you seek to demonise.

As for Monckton and Inhofe, they are advocates, not proper researchers. P.S. It's important to know the difference.

"Hopefully before not too many tipping points have been passed the human race shall have to take a variety of actions based on a spectrum of theories rather than evidence and proof."

OK. But how come when George W. and Tony invaded Iraq (took a "variety of actions") based on the threat of WMDs ("a spectrum of theories rather than evidence and proof"), they were so reviled?

"I think it is important to distinguish between a "sKeptic" and a "sCeptic" when referring to climate change doubters."

Indeed, Drewski. The words have identical meaning, but the Yanks spell it with a K and the Brits spell it with a C. Sorry if that spoils your super little acronym.

Post a comment