Earlier today, my fiancees mom was driving around Salt Lake City with her window rolled down. Suddenly a man riding a long board slammed into her, and yelled in her face “You’re killing MY planet with your laziness!” He would not leave her alone, and she couldn’t drive away because she was afraid to run him over. The light turned green, and people behind her had to go drag this man off of her car so that traffic could proceed.

Clearly the open-minded side of society. I’m sure it’s horribly practical to long board to salt lake city from utah county.

I apologize for my sarcasm, It’s how I put things into perspective for my own sake. Plus it’s so easy with Al Gore. Anyway, I think both sides of this debate are doing a great job. It’s nice to see some constructive debate, where the main intent of the conversation is not malicious, or meant to discredit the other, but rather to come to a better understanding. I can only wish that that was how Washington was run.

This is something that has been on my mind for a while, and I would like to think I’m wrong. I know that this is a fallacious comment, and therefore not useful in debate, but I’m under the impression that alot of people will believe just about anything that T.V. tells them. Just to get this straight, I am in no way implying that any of the opinions posted here are subject of such ignorance, however my point goes more towards general lazyness in the population of young adults. Rather than go out and actually read the facts on both sides of the debate, it’s easier to believe the consensus. I think my generation, my self included, has this need to be entertained constantly… and looking up facts for both sides of a debate is just too dang boring for any of us to do. It’s so much easier to just believe who has the louder voice. So I think this is where, as Ben pointed out, the “consenus findings” can be a very powerful tool to grip people from my generation into supporting pretty much whatever you want them to. After all who wants to be the only un-cool kid in school. You know the one with an oppinion? In the case of global warming it doesn’t help when the very forms of entertainment we seek out to help us not think have underlying political agendas in them thanks to hollywoods undying liberalist views. A good example of this would be film The Day After Tomorrow. Anyway sorry this post is kind of tangential, and for my unpracticed basic english skills, but to sum it all up, I think that Jacob is absolutely right when he says that everyone needs to do a bit more research before soaking in all things media as fact. Or if you are a multiculturalist, subjects of personal opinion.

You are absolutely correct on the nature of scientific consensuses. Anyone who has read Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” would be thoroughly convinced of the socially constructed nature of such consensus. However, limiting this discussion to the extent to which there is a scientific consensus is but a small part of the larger question.

I find myself often in the very position of arguing against a massive majority for points that are so obviously valid to me, and yet fall so far outside of the closely held assumptions of the majority that it is hard to make oneself heard (speaking here as both a qualitative psychologists and a psychological anthropologist – I am a stark intellectual minority in both fields to which I identify). However, I have also noticed that people who are open to analyzing their own assumptions are willing to be convinced, if the evidence and reasoning is sufficient to the task. Others are simply beyond convincing because they don’t consider their own assumptions a valid topic of debate. I like to consider myself one of the former, and I consider any methodologically sound evidence without too obvious of a preconceived bias fair game.

I take your point that the scientific consensus is anything but certain, and that even the very consideration of the weight of such a consensus is questionable, since the majority of scientists do not do research on climate change. However, I would dispute the point that such a consensus (to the extent that it is meaningful among experts on the topic) is purely illusory – although it is surely not absolute – considering the weight of support for the IPCC’s findings as well as recent surveys, including that cited by Viscount Monckton (his citation indicates that 75% do not question the anthropogenic causes of global warming, although he emphasizes the 25% who do), as well as the study summarized here: http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html (I hate to do this, but you could also Wikipedia “Scientific opinion on climate change,” although I wouldn’t put all of my eggs in that basket).

I think it is also essential to point out that the case is by no means closed, and any honest scientist has to admit that there is an overwhelming lack of knowledge and research on these issues, and that the future data may well indicate that anthropogenic sources are minimal or non-existent. However, when it comes to political action, given the current state of knowledge and “best guesses” given the current research, I don’t see a compelling reason not to be concerned and to work toward limiting greenhouse gas emissions. If nothing else, then the very knowledge (albeit falsifiable knowledge) of the nature of heat-trapping gasses and the extent of increased emissions of said gasses into the atmosphere, in my book, creates a due cause for concern, even though I don’t think we are burning up tomorrow. Further, one thing we can be certain of is that fossil fuels are indeed limited (the scope of which is also uncertain), and if nothing else this global concern and the ensuing political action can incentivize development of alternative energy industries, which would help with that future problem.

So, in sum, I guess I disagree with your statement that ” I believe that warming trends are at best irrelevant” and that the system is too utterly complex to consider the weight of any single factor. When the weight of that factor is understood to be such a substantial portion of what maintains heat in the atmosphere, I think that it can’t be ignored, regardless of how complex the system may be.

Ask for Oreskes and Monckton, I think that Orseskes methodology appears sketchy, as I saw nothing about inter-rater reliability (the methodological standard for such practices), and the report seemed unsatisfying brief. Monckton’s article appears not to be interested in science but in nitpicking points for his aims. I must say I am still not sure what you find so impressive about it, save itsferver for dissent on the issue. I am sure the same could be said for Al Gore, although I must say I don’t listen to him much – is that too disrespectful for the guy who invented the internet?!? As far as a debate is concerned, I honestly don’t think these two guys matter, beyond the effect they may have on public opinion. Maybe Gore is a wuss (sp?), but neither of them would do much to sway my opinion.

As far as open-ness to debate, I think it would certainly be healthy that people read commentaries on both sides. In fact I think doing some of the research for this posting has perhaps tempered my view a bit. I think people outside of the disciplines where the research is being conducted are too quick to essentialize the findings, and I think this has certainly happened with global warming activism and media coverage. At the same time, when I read the research and given my admittedly limited understanding, I can’t accept the notion that the whole thing is a liberal conspiracy and contrived out of thin air. I think there is evidence to suggest we should be concerned, but I also think there is a lot yet to know, and I hope that people will be open to what future findings may bring. It is certainly not encouraging for people of your view, however, that Thomas Kuhn suggests that a new scientific paradigm can’t thoroughly take hold until the last scientist is dead. Even if the tide of evidence shifts, things don’t look promising for ebbing the tide of global warming activism.

-Jacob

Harrison’s last blog post..Giving Nancy Pelosi Her Rope