Is Carl Sagans 'Baloney Detection Kit' Acceptable Among AGW Proponents Today?

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Sep 25, 2011
63,590
16,752
2,220
I ask this because he seems to have nailed the way Climate Change advocates work in several ways.

The Baloney Detection Kit - Brain Pickings - Pocket

Sagan shares nine of these tools:
  1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
  2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
  3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
  4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
  5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.
  6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.
  7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
  8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.
  9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.
Lets see, all of them except number 4 are fails for the AGW community whoi repeatedly:
1) refuse to share their raw data and methods of 'adjustment' and when they do they refuse to justify the nature of the adjustment.
2) AGW proponents try to squelch all debate, even fantasize about blowing up their critics, lol.
3) They use 'consensus of scientist' ad nauseum.
4) no problemo.
5) They act as if all doubt of their AGW hypothesis is sacred and handed down from Gaea herself, lol.
6) Their data is not only vague they use it in a completely self serving way, for example they use tree ring data when it suits them then ignore when it doesnt.
7) They have a chain of argument like no other that goes from the irrelevance of changes in proximity to the Sun, to how the oceans are hiding the temperature increase.
8) The simplest explanation is that we vary in our distance to the sun in cycles and the warming of the last century and a half is completely consistent with these cycles.

I guess it is better that Carl not be burned at the AGW stake, but were he saying such things today, he would be.
 
I ask this because he seems to have nailed the way Climate Change advocates work in several ways.

The Baloney Detection Kit - Brain Pickings - Pocket

Sagan shares nine of these tools:
  1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
  2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
  3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
  4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
  5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.
  6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.
  7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
  8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.
  9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.
Lets see, all of them except number 4 are fails for the AGW community whoi repeatedly:
1) refuse to share their raw data and methods of 'adjustment' and when they do they refuse to justify the nature of the adjustment.
2) AGW proponents try to squelch all debate, even fantasize about blowing up their critics, lol.
3) They use 'consensus of scientist' ad nauseum.
4) no problemo.
5) They act as if all doubt of their AGW hypothesis is sacred and handed down from Gaea herself, lol.
6) Their data is not only vague they use it in a completely self serving way, for example they use tree ring data when it suits them then ignore when it doesnt.
7) They have a chain of argument like no other that goes from the irrelevance of changes in proximity to the Sun, to how the oceans are hiding the temperature increase.
8) The simplest explanation is that we vary in our distance to the sun in cycles and the warming of the last century and a half is completely consistent with these cycles.

I guess it is better that Carl not be burned at the AGW stake, but were he saying such things today, he would be.
I use the Baloney Detection Kit in social studies when we talk about analyzing sources. It's good stuff.
 
All due respect to the late, great Mr Sagan, but he died in 1996, before a lot of new information has since continued to arise.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/04/planting-billions-trees-best-tackle-climate-crisis-scientists-canopy-emissions

Green-Jobs.jpg
 
I'd love to hear Carl Sagan ream you guys a new one for taking his general ways to verify the truth of an argument and twist them around to disprove global warming.
 
I remember Sagan "proving" his beliefs by multiplying low probability events by "billions and billions" (i.e., infinity). Not very convincing, then or now.
 
I'd love to hear Carl Sagan ream you guys a new one for taking his general ways to verify the truth of an argument and twist them around to disprove global warming.

You get your hands slapped for that one. The Democrats sent a memo at least three years ago changing the name to "climate change" since "global warming" was becoming embarrassing
 
All due respect to the late, great Mr Sagan, but he died in 1996, before a lot of new information has since continued to arise.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/04/planting-billions-trees-best-tackle-climate-crisis-scientists-canopy-emissions

Green-Jobs.jpg





If what you claim is not supported by observable facts, it is not credible.

Do yourself a favor and review 100 AGW supporting studies. Find a single one that doesn't use the term "we used a simple model" in the Abstract.

Go ahead, I dare you.
 
I'd love to hear Carl Sagan ream you guys a new one for taking his general ways to verify the truth of an argument and twist them around to disprove global warming.




We are twisting nothing. That's the point.
 
All due respect to the late, great Mr Sagan, but he died in 1996, before a lot of new information has since continued to arise.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/04/planting-billions-trees-best-tackle-climate-crisis-scientists-canopy-emissions

Green-Jobs.jpg





If what you claim is not supported by observable facts, it is not credible.

Do yourself a favor and review 100 AGW supporting studies. Find a single one that doesn't use the term "we used a simple model" in the Abstract.

Go ahead, I dare you.
:yapyapyapf::icon_rolleyes:
You're putting words in my mouth.

All I'm saying is build wind farms, open solar panel factories and install them on homes to reduce the need for coal plants, and plant a bunch of trees and so on....Stop polluting the water, and end the wars for oil in the ME.
 
All due respect to the late, great Mr Sagan, but he died in 1996, before a lot of new information has since continued to arise.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/04/planting-billions-trees-best-tackle-climate-crisis-scientists-canopy-emissions

Green-Jobs.jpg





If what you claim is not supported by observable facts, it is not credible.

Do yourself a favor and review 100 AGW supporting studies. Find a single one that doesn't use the term "we used a simple model" in the Abstract.

Go ahead, I dare you.
:yapyapyapf::icon_rolleyes:
You're putting words in my mouth.

All I'm saying is build wind farms, open solar panel factories and install them on homes to reduce the need for coal plants, and plant a bunch of trees and so on....Stop polluting the water, and end the wars for oil in the ME.





I have no problem with solar systems. I have one myself. Windmills are a complete waste of resources and they massacre rare birds at a prodigious rate.

I'm with you on the tree planting, and I want to go even further and place strict controls on how much rain forest can be cut in a year.

Green energy jobs are transitory, and of short duration except for a very small crew.
 
Last edited:
I ask this because he seems to have nailed the way Climate Change advocates work in several ways.

The Baloney Detection Kit - Brain Pickings - Pocket

Sagan shares nine of these tools:
  1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
  2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
  3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
  4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
  5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.
  6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.
  7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
  8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.
  9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.
Lets see, all of them except number 4 are fails for the AGW community whoi repeatedly:
1) refuse to share their raw data and methods of 'adjustment' and when they do they refuse to justify the nature of the adjustment.
2) AGW proponents try to squelch all debate, even fantasize about blowing up their critics, lol.
3) They use 'consensus of scientist' ad nauseum.
4) no problemo.
5) They act as if all doubt of their AGW hypothesis is sacred and handed down from Gaea herself, lol.
6) Their data is not only vague they use it in a completely self serving way, for example they use tree ring data when it suits them then ignore when it doesnt.
7) They have a chain of argument like no other that goes from the irrelevance of changes in proximity to the Sun, to how the oceans are hiding the temperature increase.
8) The simplest explanation is that we vary in our distance to the sun in cycles and the warming of the last century and a half is completely consistent with these cycles.

I guess it is better that Carl not be burned at the AGW stake, but were he saying such things today, he would be.
Your post is hot garbage, full of embarrasing lies. You know less than nothing about any of this.
 

Forum List

Back
Top