Originally posted by addabox
Complete gibberish. You're simply pretending that all things that cannot be predicted with 100% certainty are equally unlikely. Thus, saying that cigarettes cause cancer is of a piece with speculating that power lines do as well, and both theories must be dismissed out of hand.
Using hyped and sensationalized fear (aka Gore's movie) is not gibberish, its just fear mongering based on speculation and over-active imagination. His overlaying of invasive species, picts of ebola viruses, 20ft water levels, etc. is pure nonsense. While I consider the IPCC statements to be political, even by their "consensus" standards Gore is way out on the looney limb.
You haven't been reading the literature at all, have you?
As I said, I have. But if you have peer-reviewed literature that says it is likey we will have a major disaster and unlikey to see benefits with global warming, why don't you reference it? Till, then, its just an empty assertion.
Right out of the industry backed disinformation campaign, which it sounds like is your primary source (as disseminated through various right wing blogs, editorials, think tanks, foundation and articles).
Really, and here I thought I was original. So, I gather you don't think it important to answer these questions before major and costly efforts are made to "prevent" a problem that may not be a problem, or may not be preventable, or may not be worth preventing. Ya, that really makes a lot of sense...
Unless science can do what it cannot-- nail down the future with 100% certainty-- we are restrained from action until "more research is done", i.e., forever.
How about 80% certainty, quite different from we know little SO LETS ACT NOW!
This is such a grotesquely wrong-headed gloss on the state of the science and the "controversy" surrounding Mann's research it scarcely deserves response, but suffice to say ...Mann's interpolation of the data is born out by dozens of independent researchers.
This kind of seizing on irrelevant squabbling as evidence that the whole edifice of scientific research is some kind of con game backed up by heavy handed censorship is very typical of the right's new game plan...predictable canard that such research is simply an unseemly scramble for funding...
Mann's "interpolation" is a modern Piltdown hoax, defended not in its substance (methods, calculations, or data) but in "his conclusion" (the blade of global warming). One could (but not without embarrasment) defend Piltdown as having errored in approach, not being cross-validated, hiding results, and refusing to release data "but the apelike features of early man is borne out in dozens of other studies - his conclusions were correct".
Fortunitly, science had (then) enough integrity to re-examine it and, finding it a hoax, not let Darwinism become a political mantra that buried objective truth.
BTW it is mainly "borne out" - not by independent studies but by Mann himself (he was co-author in three others) and his associates. Moreover, they used the same flawed data, and/or methods as he did. Moreover, the most independent (Moberg) rightly shows most of history as far more accurate; yes, there was a MWP and a LIA.
Eventually, I suppose, they'll conceive everybody that science is merely a partisan trick designed to make regular people feel stupid, and we can be done with all that tiresome "progress" in so called "disciplines" such as medicine, cosmology and physics.
If, like those sciences, climate researchers provided all data, methods, calculations, and source/script code for review (hopefully prior to publication) then it would be far more trustworthy. As it is, its a cult of researchers who use the Bush approach "Trust me, I know what I'm doing".
What, they're having a contest for "most pompous internet martinet know-nothing"? You very clearly have spent time pouring over the usual right wing distortions, a model familiar from the "debate" on evolution.
No, I've spent a lot of time reading papers. Among the know nothings are von Storch, Zoritch, Burger, Chubash, and others...quite aside from McIntyre and McKitrich.
You can rattle on all you want with your content free dismissal of these dreadful frauds, but it doesn't change the fact that there is remarkable consensus, within the climatology community, that human driven climate change is real.
So orthodoxy becomes a defense - so this is what science is about? We appeal to "the remarkable consensus" when probably less than 20 people in the world have actually teamed up to build these models and understand them? This consensus is not based on a wide knowledge and application of climate models in the field (as it is with evolution), rather its an esoteric 'science of models' by the few.
The dissent of a few, no matter how broadly trumpeted by economically interested parties (and how is it that research scientists are never to be trusted because they'll say anything to get a grant but we can accept the machinations of an ExxonMobile at face value?)
Is it not the Greens (e.g. Al Gore) that impugn the motives of scientists who do not agree? Did he not make the point that when one's paycheck is dependent on producing certain results, that these people can't be trusted? Climate science has been very well funded since the global warming hysteria started, and UCAR's couple of hundred million dollar budget comes from the government. Anyone who threatens these funds (like M&M) get savaged.
... does not lay to ruin the consensus of the many, nor does it make of the many any species of charlatan.
No what makes them charlatan's is their practice of partial or no disclosure.