Global Warming & Climate Change Policy

[DanP]

You are misunderstanding what "appeal to expert" means. Unless you personally have actually gone to the Arctic and measured glacial retreat, or at the very least, have, in your hands the raw data and are an expert in the science - then you have no choice but to appeal to experts.

You can say you examine the evidence and draw your own conclusions, sure, but if asked to back up your claims, you will ultimately refer to some expert's work, even if indirectly.

To pretend to not appeal to an expert is tantamount to saying your opinion is completely unfounded.

Sure, this is a very good point of view. You are right.

 

[ZapperZ]

It doesn't falsify anything, you said it with your own mouth. You continue on the same tone as me, no news here, and turn a blind side at possible solutions.

Which part of this:

Honestly, at this point, and as I've mentioned earlier, I really don't care about the Earth forum anymore. .

equate to my not caring about the subject? What I said 'with my own mouth' was the "earth forum". You must be reading someone else's mouth.

This is getting sillier by the minute.

Zz.

 

[DanP]

This is getting sillier by the minute.

Zz.

I agree. Congratulations for perpetuating it.

 

[sylas]

I think we are mostly understanding each other better now. I don't mind if we disagree on how best to proceed, so I'm mostly content to just leave what I have said for as my own input, and leave the floor to others for a bit.

But I'll just clarify one thing, and endorse another...

Contrary to what people think, I don't consider an "amateur" as someone who cannot be an expert in this particular area. This is because I've seen enough examples of people from different backgrounds going into climate issues and learning things on their own. At no point in this discussion did I equate someone having a relevant degree in climate science as being the only possible "experts".

Quite right. The rather inappropriate focus on credentials, as opposed to ability, was not from you, and I did not mean to suggest it. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.

I just finished reading last week's issue of Nature that contained the article "The Real Holes in Climate Science", and I find the scope of coverage of the issues involved to be extremely daunting!

A very good article, as is the associated editorial in the same issue. It also gets to some of the reasons this topic does need particular care... and why it is worth taking that care to help people towards a less cartoonish view and a better appreciation of what is known and what isn't. The selection of those four issues as the holes is a bit subjective; a kind of sampling by the editor from a much larger pool of other issues that could equally have been used as "real holes".

Cheers -- sylas

 

[chemisttree]

12 pages now and we have the same handful of protests echoed over and over... drawing in more and more mentors, spending more time answering the same arguments... sound familiar?

If we keep picking at it, it will never heal. Lockey, lockey?

 

[Redbelly98]

Locked (for now anyway.)