Culture Wars And Climate Science As Ideology - No Dawg In The Fight

[Procrustes Stretched]

Culture Wars And Climate Science As Ideology - No Dawg In The Fight

Dante has no dawg in the fight on global warming, just as he has no dawg in the fight over if there is water on Mars. He only follows the scientific consensus. If tomorrow the scientific consensus became the globe has not warmed, it would matter little to Dante. It would only be more interesting.

I ran across an article a while ago and stumbled across the link to it...

The meeting began at 7 a.m., and while I was still nursing my first cup of coffee, the potential donor began the conversation with “I think the scientific review process is corrupt.” I asked what he thought of a university based on that system, and he said that he thought that the university was then corrupt, too. He went on to describe the science of climate change as a hoax, using all the familiar lines of attack—sunspots and solar flares, the unscientific and politically flawed consensus model, and the environmental benefits of carbon dioxide.


As we debated each point, he turned his attack on me, asking why I hated capitalism and why I wanted to destroy the economy by teaching environmental issues in a business school. Eventually, he asked if I knew why Earth Day was on April 22. I sighed as he explained, “Because it is Karl Marx’s birthday.” (I suspect he meant to say Vladimir Lenin, whose birthday is April 22, also Earth Day. This linkage has been made by some on the far right who believe that Earth Day is a communist plot, even though Lenin never promoted environmentalism and communism does not have a strong environmental legacy.)

Climate Science as Culture War (SSIR)
​

Contrast the above with an article I stumbled upon last night:

Ideology in the Service of Global Warming is No Vice
Both the right and left are biased in their reading of the science, and that's OK.
Ideology in the Service of Global Warming is No Vice

This is a massive conservative blind spot. But it is, in many ways, matched by liberals' tunnel vision.​

I couldn't disagree more. Many times the libertarian types at Reason are just plain wrong.
Framing it as purely a conservative versus liberal battle -- some nonsense reason involving so-called free market principles versus humanitarian concerns, blah, blah, blah...

The battle is ideological because the right has taken over the Republican party and they are easily manipulated into viewing most anything labelled deservedly or not as liberal as being evil and somehow anti-American

But as I said upfront:

Dante has no dawg in the fight on global warming, just as he has no dawg in the fight over if there is water on Mars. He only follows the scientific consensus. If tomorrow the scientific consensus became the globe has not warmed, it would matter little to Dante. It would only be more interesting.

 

[Compost]

Dawg isn't kidding anybody. He is simply calling his ideology consensus.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dante would follow the scientific consensus. That is only rational and non ideological

 

[Compost]

Dante would follow the scientific consensus. That is only rational and non ideological

Thank you. That explains quite clearly that Dante follows the crowd and adopts their ideology. Consensus is not scientific proof. A rational person would know that.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Dante would follow the scientific consensus. That is only rational and non ideological

Why does the data collected not fit any of the theoretical models projected by the 'expert' climatologists?

The only logical conclusion is their models and conclusions are wrong which therefore means their consensus is based on fallacy.

*****CHCUKLE*****

 

[SwimExpert]

Dante would follow the scientific consensus. That is only rational and non ideological

Rational? Not necessarily. Following the consensus is not inherently rational. It is only rational when there exists a positive reason to seek appeal to consensus. Without such positive reason, following the consensus is an ad populum fallacy. That being said, in your case you do identify a particular reason for doing so (disinterest/apathy). But that reason does not speak to the truth of the conclusion. It merely justifies an assumption that the conclusion is true, which is an important distinction.

The first appeal should always be for a person to make a determination of their own on the merits of a claim. If one is able to draw a decisive conclusion to the merits, then the question is answered. If a person cannot draw a decisive conclusion, then one must determine what limitations are preventing a decisive conclusion. A positive reason to seek appeal to consensus can be reached in the course of the investigation. But before that point, seeking appeal to the consensus is of no more merit than appealing to force.

Reasons for relying on consensus can include:
1 - Inability to comprehend the complexity of concepts involved in reaching one's own conclusion.
2 - Inability to obtain the necessary raw information necessary to make a reasoned conclusion.
3 - Disinterest/apathy/prioritization that either prevents you from pursuing increased understanding and/or information, or fails to motivate you from seeking out the same.

 

[bripat9643]

Dante would follow the scientific consensus. That is only rational and non ideological

"Consensus" isn't science. There's nothing rational about it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"Consensus" isn't science. There's nothing rational about it.

bripat9643

One of the most daunting issues to scale for most people in dealing with folks like you in conversation or debate, is the level of your reading and comprehension skills. The challenge is how to dumb things down enough, but only so much, before it becomes unintelligible babble resembling your types mutterings and ramblings.

To begin...
The post you commented on did not claim consensus is science. That may be what your overtaxed brain may be telling you, but we have it in black and white. Try and take your time struggling with this once again "Dante would follow the scientific consensus. That is only rational and non ideological."

The above is a two-part statement. The first part clearly uses the phrase scientific consensus. It does not state or imply a consensus in the scientific community equals or substitutes for scientific experiment, or scientific method or whatever red herring your simple mind will insert into the statements of others. It simply states there exists a consensus within the scientific community on what the actual science means, or is leading scientists to believe.

Scientific data by itself says nothing. It is simply data. One must interpret and then use or not use the data.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dante would follow the scientific consensus. That is only rational and non ideological

Thank you. That explains quite clearly that Dante follows the crowd and adopts their ideology. Consensus is not scientific proof. A rational person would know that.

idiot alert as no one claims a consensus is proof of anything

red herrings in abundance here, but Dante has a few more tricks up his sleeve to help expose the lunacy here

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Rational? Not necessarily. Following the consensus is not inherently rational. It is only rational when there exists a positive reason to seek appeal to consensus. Without such positive reason, following the consensus is an ad populum fallacy. That being said, in your case you do identify a particular reason for doing so (disinterest/apathy). But that reason does not speak to the truth of the conclusion. It merely justifies an assumption that the conclusion is true, which is an important distinction.

The first appeal should always be for a person to make a determination of their own on the merits of a claim. If one is able to draw a decisive conclusion to the merits, then the question is answered. If a person cannot draw a decisive conclusion, then one must determine what limitations are preventing a decisive conclusion. A positive reason to seek appeal to consensus can be reached in the course of the investigation. But before that point, seeking appeal to the consensus is of no more merit than appealing to force.

Reasons for relying on consensus can include:
1 - Inability to comprehend the complexity of concepts involved in reaching one's own conclusion.
2 - Inability to obtain the necessary raw information necessary to make a reasoned conclusion.
3 - Disinterest/apathy/prioritization that either prevents you from pursuing increased understanding and/or information, or fails to motivate you from seeking out the same.

good gawd, a rambling essay worthy of an English 101 class, but not a Logic 101 class

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

American companies in the Arctic -- do they believe the scientific consensus on global warming?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

"Consensus" isn't science. There's nothing rational about it.

bripat9643

One of the most daunting issues to scale for most people in dealing with folks like you in conversation or debate, is the level of your reading and comprehension skills. The challenge is how to dumb things down enough, but only so much, before it becomes unintelligible babble resembling your types mutterings and ramblings.

To begin...
The post you commented on did not claim consensus is science. That may be what your overtaxed brain may be telling you, but we have it in black and white. Try and take your time struggling with this once again "Dante would follow the scientific consensus. That is only rational and non ideological."

The above is a two-part statement. The first part clearly uses the phrase scientific consensus. It does not state or imply a consensus in the scientific community equals or substitutes for scientific experiment, or scientific method or whatever red herring your simple mind will insert into the statements of others. It simply states there exists a consensus within the scientific community on what the actual science means, or is leading scientists to believe.

Scientific data by itself says nothing. It is simply data. One must interpret and then use or not use the data.

I have a consensus going on with my New Extinction Thread which incorporates elements of global warming that must have occurred 10,000 years ago...

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I'd like some big government grants for this also.

Don't worry I'll spend it wisely even if the theoretical models don't match the data collected because I have consensus.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Compost]

Dante would follow the scientific consensus. That is only rational and non ideological

Thank you. That explains quite clearly that Dante follows the crowd and adopts their ideology. Consensus is not scientific proof. A rational person would know that.

idiot alert as no one claims a consensus is proof of anything

red herrings in abundance here, but Dante has a few more tricks up his sleeve to help expose the lunacy here

It's not proof of anything, yet you announce that you follow it because you are non ideological and rational. You're tripping over your own red herrings.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dante would follow the scientific consensus. That is only rational and non ideological

Thank you. That explains quite clearly that Dante follows the crowd and adopts their ideology. Consensus is not scientific proof. A rational person would know that.

idiot alert as no one claims a consensus is proof of anything

red herrings in abundance here, but Dante has a few more tricks up his sleeve to help expose the lunacy here

It's not proof of anything, yet you announce that you follow it because you are non ideological and rational. You're tripping over your own red herrings.

Somebody goes to 5 medical doctors. All agree this person has cancer. There is a consensus of 4 agreeing on a certain type of treatment. The lone holdout has views on alternative cures that if accepted ...

go with the quack because you believe there is a conspiracy to hide real cures for cancer

 

[Kosh]

Dante would follow the scientific consensus. That is only rational and non ideological

Dante claims to have no dawg in the fight, yet shows that they do right here:

However let us have the empirical evidence speak for itself:

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What is it with these amateur climate scientists and their graphs and images as if they actually know what they are talking about and funnier -- as if they are actually qualified to debate the science?

 

[Kosh]

What is it with these amateur climate scientists and their graphs and images as if they actually know what they are talking about and funnier -- as if they are actually qualified to debate the science?

AGW is not science, never has been. Yet so many want it to be science..

But leave it to far left drones like you to think it is science..

The graph debunks the entire AGW religion..

That is why the AGW cult does not like it..

In 500 million years the sun will be so bright in the sky that life will start to die off on this planet. In 1.2 Billion years the sun will be so bright that no life can exist on this planet..

I bet you would still blame it on AGW..

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What is it with these amateur climate scientists and their graphs and images as if they actually know what they are talking about and funnier -- as if they are actually qualified to debate the science?

AGW is not science, never has been. Yet so many want it to be science..

But leave it to far left drones like you to think it is science..

The graph debunks the entire AGW religion..

That is why the AGW cult does not like it..

In 500 million years the sun will be so bright in the sky that life will start to die off on this planet. In 1.2 Billion years the sun will be so bright that no life can exist on this planet..

I bet you would still blame it on AGW..

So now NASA is part of a cult?

Why does your mind turn off when you post that kind of craziness? A Cult? Following a scientific consensus now puts people into a cult?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

and wow! The World Bank is a member of the leftist cult

The World Bank has pledged to boost by up to $29bn the financial assistance pledged to poorer nations to cope with climate change, bringing closer the possibility of reaching a target of $100bn a year by 2020.

World Bank pledges extra $29bn to poorer nations for climate change fight​

Somebody needs to tell the real leftists who attack the World Bank as greedy capitalist pigs

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

and that damn National Science Foundation!!!

NCSE | National Center for Science Education - Defending the Teaching of Evolution in Public Schools.