Science! Science? Science...

[Dad_Scaper]

Originally Posted by Phaethon

Exactly what ad-hominem attack have I made? Please let me know so I can either retract it or show reasons why I made it.

My mistake. No doubt you do not think that there is a conspiracy of climate scientists, nor do you think that the community of climate scientists suffers from some form of corrupt motivations. Any posts you have shared that appeared to present some form of conspiracy of silence or incompetence or foolishness by the scientific community were misunderstood by your audience.

[dok]

Originally Posted by Phaethon

Well, Nobel Prizes do amount to money and prestige...

Who are these scientists that have won the Nobel for their work on climate science? Do tell.

Compare that list with, say, a list of people who have made more than 10 million dollars in fossil fuels. Cui bono?

[Phaethon]

Originally Posted by dok

Who are these scientists that have won the Nobel for their work on climate science? Do tell.

Compare that list with, say, a list of people who have made more than 10 million dollars in fossil fuels. Cui bono?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Nobel_Peace_Prize


Notice, this was a peace prize, not a scientific prize. still, there's a lot of prestige to even be part of this.

why do you have this obsession against companies that have made money by selling fossil fuels? Do you have as much animosity toward Bill Gates, who has made an obscene amount of money from Windows, or Warren Buffett, who has made an even more obscene amount from stock trading and company buy-outs?

[dok]

Originally Posted by Phaethon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Nobel_Peace_Prize

Notice, this was a peace prize, not a scientific prize. still, there's a lot of prestige to even be part of this.

Again, no scientists won. Gore and an intergovernmental panel won. No scientist was listed as receiving the prize. No climate scientist can call himself a Nobel Laureate. That was my point. The idea that scientists are chasing the glory is absurd.

Originally Posted by Phaethon

why do you have this obsession against companies that have made money by selling fossil fuels?

I don't. It's incredible that you could read what I wrote as an issue with the profit-making, itself. I'm tempted to read your attack here as an intentional misinterpretation of my point.

--

The question has always been, as I explicitly said, who benefits? This idea that climate scientists are lying because they have some overwhelming incentive to do so is just silly.

On the other side of the ledger, we have the fossil fuel industry, which obviously does benefit to an incredible degree, in terms of profit, from inaction on climate change. We saw this story play out with Big Tobacco, and now we have fairly explicit evidence that the fossil fuel industry is following the same playbook.

If you want to bring up profit motive and natural human tendencies, it's very, very clear that those who deny climate change have a lot more skin in the game than those who support the scientific consensus.

[Dad_Scaper]

I've been challenged privately to "put up or shut up" with my accusation that Phaethon uses ad hominem attacks.

You see them come up when he attempts to explain why the community of climate scientists is all on one side of this issue, and why would-be critics make little headway. This is so because, otherwise, he's sort of stuck with the problem that the community of well-meaning experts disagrees.

Heck, this latest exchange with dok, proclaiming that scientists pursue the glory of agreeing with each other rather than the money, and fame, and, yes, glory of revolutionizing the field by disagreeing, is another ad hominem attack, chopping away at their motives rather than engaging in a debate about ideas.

So be it. Rather than just repeat the most recent exchange with dok, I went back and found a few from earlier in the thread.

Originally Posted by Phaethon

This is the problem with discussing science. Somehow we came to believe science to be infallible. And now when someone brings up something that inherently isn't settled, people crawl out of the woodwork to bash them.

Originally Posted by Phaethon

Getting back to the topic - Science isn't exact. Science is messy. Science is often wrong and we should never expect it not to be! Anyone telling you otherwise is selling something. It's up to you to decide if you like what they're selling!

Originally Posted by Phaethon

What I have a problem with is the religious "infallibility" of AGW, the apocalyptic selling of the damages it will cause and the resorting to heretical name-calling to anyone who questions it. You tell me which one is acting like a religion?

These are all pretty subtle, but that's his game. It's subtle. A very long troll. The "experts," his opponents, are hasty in their judgments. Their work is messy. If you're persuaded by the climate scientists it's because you are gullible, and they proclaim a religion.

Implicit, or, in this recent exchange with dok, more explicit, is this notion that climate scientists are deliberately misleading the world. When asked for a reason, we learn that they are apparently glory-hounds, as if a glory hound - just one! - wouldn't find it more tempting to publish something defensible, challenging the current norms, and in defense of the side with money.

So, yeah. It's not a "climate scientists are jerks" sort of ad hominem attack. It's more like a "climate scientists are motivated by something other than the search for truth" attack. Quieter, but just as unkind.

[Phaethon]

Originally Posted by dok

I don't. It's incredible that you could read what I wrote as an issue with the profit-making, itself. I'm tempted to read your attack here as an intentional misinterpretation of my point.

My apologies - I read your bringing making a living in the fossil fuel industry as being a shot at the morality of the industry (some have made just such claims).

--

Originally Posted by dok

The question has always been, as I explicitly said, who benefits? This idea that climate scientists are lying because they have some overwhelming incentive to do so is just silly.

On the other side of the ledger, we have the fossil fuel industry, which obviously does benefit to an incredible degree, in terms of profit, from inaction on climate change. We saw this story play out with Big Tobacco, and now we have fairly explicit evidence that the fossil fuel industry is following the same playbook.

If you want to bring up profit motive and natural human tendencies, it's very, very clear that those who deny climate change have a lot more skin in the game than those who support the scientific consensus.

You raise a good point to discuss: what is the motivation of a scientist? I feel that the primary motivation is prestige. It's not money - clearly. It's also not fame - just how many scientists do you know by name? That seems only to leave prestige, especially among one's peers.

Agree? Disagree?

[Dad_Scaper]

Originally Posted by Phaethon

You raise a good point to discuss: what is the motivation of a scientist? I feel that the primary motivation is prestige. It's not money - clearly. It's also not fame - just how many scientists do you know by name? That seems only to leave prestige, especially among one's peers.

Agree? Disagree?

Pre-@#$%ing-cisely.

This is your ad hominem attack.

You want to know what the goal of most scientists is? To do science. Most teachers want to teach, most engineers want to engineer, most car mechanics want to fix cars. Governors want to govern. People normally want to do their jobs.*

How can you say that you have not been guilty of ad hominem attacks and then, several posts later, pronounce that scientists are in it for the prestige? Maybe I was wrong all along, maybe you are not deliberately trolling us. Maybe you are just buying your own line of nonsense.

[Phaethon]

Originally Posted by Rich10

I'm not trying to cherry pick data and choose groups that support a particular position. I'm trying to determine qualifications. As an aerospace engineer, I assume that you have NO working experience in the data collection methods that are used. Instead, doesn't your knowledge in this field come from websites that advocate a particular position?

You are right, I do not have experience gathering climatic data. I have never said I do. What i do have is experience analyzing data, and analyzing any data is independent of the science. It's mathematical. Statistics does not care about the scientific laws that led to the data, it's only looking at the data itself.

Originally Posted by Rich10

You say that for you to be convinced, "these methods have to stand up to the inspection not only by AGW advocates, but also and more importantly AGW critics." What methods would convince the coal and oil industries that their product causes problems? I know that one could always claim that there is a government led conspiracy (a vast left wing conspiracy?) to trump up global warming arguments. That might even have made a good movie plot before the US became reasonably close to being energy self sufficient.

I could be convinced quite easily. Show me that in reputable peer reviewed journals, there are an equal (or near equal) number of studies that say that global warming is not happening or is not harmful, than that show the opposite.

Rich, you don't need equal numbers - science doesn't give a flip about how many papers say things. it only cares about which ones are right! As an example, look at how Einstein's one paper changed modern physics, or how Edwin Hubble's studies changed our understanding of the universe.

[Phaethon]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

Pre-@#$%ing-cisely.

This is your ad hominem attack.

You want to know what the goal of most scientists is? To do science. Most teachers want to teach, most engineers want to engineer, most car mechanics want to fix cars. Governors want to govern. People normally want to do their jobs.

How can you say that you have not been guilty of ad hominem attacks and then, several posts later, pronounce that scientists are in it for the prestige? Maybe I was wrong all along, maybe you are not deliberately trolling us. Maybe you are just buying your own line of nonsense.

Then you tell me - how do scientists know that they're doing science? What measure do they use to know that they're doing it and doing it right?

Motivation for teachers is often when they see a child "get it", and when 20 years later, they come back as someone who's successful. Motivation for engineers is when things get built and do the job expected of them. The same for mechanics - they fix things. there's satisfaction in getting things back on the road.

-------

and I am truly baffled by your labeling my discussion of motivations as an ad-hominem attack... I'm not "attacking" anyone. I'm trying to understand and discuss why people do what they do. That's NOT an ad-hominem attack! I feel like pointing out your attacks on me are much more ad-hominem than my discussions about motivations.

[Dad_Scaper]

Bah. You are changing the subject.

I'm done here. Thanks for playing.

[Dysole]

To put it in your terms, (and this might be a mistake to step back in), the financial motivation for the oil companies to have definitive proof that climate change is not an issue is greater than any of the motivations put forward here that scientists would have to accept the scientific status quo. Your discussion of motivations is not entirely irrelevant but is directed at the wrong people. The tobacco industry is a great example of a similar situation where at the time people were saying the jury was out, but because the consequences were so far down the road, people didn't realize for a long time. We're in that stage right now regarding climate change. But again, like I stated earlier, you have an inherent mistrust of those in a position to make those qualifications.

~Dysole, who despite having a statistical background wouldn't even know where to start looking for what is relevant to a study on climatology

[Aldin]

Just a funny thought based on @Dysole 's comment. I wonder how everyone here would answer if asked whether they trust corporations more or governments more. I suspect the divide there would mirror the climate change divide pretty closely.

~Aldin, everyone's a skeptic sometimes