Must Free-Marketers Reject Global Warming?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

When you said "The point isn't to ignore them, merely to say that experts today are as fallible as at any other point in history."

A field which does not decrease the number of its errors is not making progress. Perhaps you actually meant to say something else.

Well, Thomas Edison would disagree with you. "Results! Why man, I have gotten a lot of results. I know several thousand things that won't work." Regardless, I said exactly what I meant to say. Whether scientists today are objectively making more or less errors today in their search for knowledge than they ever have is unknowable and beside the point. They know more today than they have in the past, but the point remains that they can be wrong, so it makes no sense, and is unscientific, to take what they say as the gospel truth just because they're experts in their field.

 

[Crick]

I don't take the consensus of their opinions as "gospel truth". I take it as the consensus opinion of the experts in the field. Such a consensus - particularly one as close to unanimous as is AGW among active climate scientists - is more likely to be correct than any viewpoint that is NOT the consensus opinion of the experts in the field and far, far more likely to be correct than those contentions for which a consensus of falsehood exists among the experts in the field.

And I disagree with your statement regarding experts. You have made several conflicting statements. Experts today in any scientific field you can name, have greater and more accurate knowledge concerning their fields than did their predecessors. To say you can trust today's experts no more than those of the past is complete and utter nonsense.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't take the consensus of their opinions as "gospel truth". I take it as the consensus opinion of the experts in the field. Such a consensus - particularly one as close to unanimous as is AGW among active climate scientists - is more likely to be correct than any viewpoint that is NOT the consensus opinion of the experts in the field and far, far more likely to be correct than those contentions for which a consensus of falsehood exists among the experts in the field.

And I disagree with your statement regarding experts. You have made several conflicting statements. Experts today in any scientific field you can name, have greater and more accurate knowledge concerning their fields than did their predecessors. To say you can trust today's experts no more than those of the past is complete and utter nonsense.

The only conflicting statements I've made have been in your misinterpretations of my statements.

 

[Crick]

Try responding this this bit:

"Experts today in any scientific field you can name, have greater and more accurate knowledge concerning their fields than did their predecessors. To say you can trust today's experts no more than those of the past is complete and utter nonsense."

 

[jc456]

I don't take the consensus of their opinions as "gospel truth". I take it as the consensus opinion of the experts in the field. Such a consensus - particularly one as close to unanimous as is AGW among active climate scientists - is more likely to be correct than any viewpoint that is NOT the consensus opinion of the experts in the field and far, far more likely to be correct than those contentions for which a consensus of falsehood exists among the experts in the field.

And I disagree with your statement regarding experts. You have made several conflicting statements. Experts today in any scientific field you can name, have greater and more accurate knowledge concerning their fields than did their predecessors. To say you can trust today's experts no more than those of the past is complete and utter nonsense.

NoNseNse

 

[jc456]

Try responding this this bit:

"Experts today in any scientific field you can name, have greater and more accurate knowledge concerning their fields than did their predecessors. To say you can trust today's experts no more than those of the past is complete and utter nonsense."

And more NoNseNse

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Try responding this this bit:

"Experts today in any scientific field you can name, have greater and more accurate knowledge concerning their fields than did their predecessors. To say you can trust today's experts no more than those of the past is complete and utter nonsense."

I've already responded to that.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

At any rate, the purpose of the article I linked to, and this thread, is to point out that the market is capable of dealing with climate change, assuming that it is a problem and that it can be dealt with.

 

[Crick]

Try responding this this bit:

"Experts today in any scientific field you can name, have greater and more accurate knowledge concerning their fields than did their predecessors. To say you can trust today's experts no more than those of the past is complete and utter nonsense."

I've already responded to that.

I don't believe you have, but the point has been sufficiently worried.

The market will be forced to "deal" with climate change. They will not be able to stop it (unless they can force radical carbon emission reductions and perhaps finance sequestration programs) and they will be beggared in their efforts to pay the cost.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Try responding this this bit:

"Experts today in any scientific field you can name, have greater and more accurate knowledge concerning their fields than did their predecessors. To say you can trust today's experts no more than those of the past is complete and utter nonsense."

I've already responded to that.

I don't believe you have, but the point has been sufficiently worried.

The market will be forced to "deal" with climate change. They will not be able to stop it (unless they can force radical carbon emission reductions and perhaps finance sequestration programs) and they will be beggared in their efforts to pay the cost.

Did you bother reading the article that was the basis for this thread?

 

[Crick]

I have not. I had no interest in the original thread though I was impressed by the relative level of the discussion. I'm not a business type. But then folks started spouting denier nonsense and I felt obliged to put in my two cents.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I have not. I had no interest in the original thread though I was impressed by the relative level of the discussion. I'm not a business type. But then folks started spouting denier nonsense and I felt obliged to put in my two cents.

Then it's hard to take your last post seriously, and your use of the term "denier" shows a remarkable ignorance of the scientific method. You wouldn't call somebody who doesn't agree with string theory a "denier" as an epithet.

 

[Crick]

Didn't you say that you'd been here longer than have I and that you only post to this forum? Your choice of topics doesn't support that claim.

I might very well call someone who denies string theory "denier". It has nothing to do with the scientific method. It is simply a description of their position. It's more than applicable when used in this AGW context because they have never established grounds for their position. Denying AGW is irrational and scientifically unsupportable. The scientific method TELLS me to reject their viewpoint. They lack data and the data we do have refutes everything they say.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Didn't you say that you'd been here longer than have I and that you only post to this forum? Your choice of topics doesn't support that claim.

I might very well call someone who denies string theory "denier". It has nothing to do with the scientific method. It is simply a description of their position. It's more than applicable when used in this AGW context because they have never established grounds for their position. Denying AGW is irrational and scientifically unsupportable. The scientific method TELLS me to reject their viewpoint. They lack data and the data we do have refutes everything they say.

I'm going to say no to your question, as I have no idea what you're referring to. I can't recall ever having discussed anything with you before this thread.

Except that saying that all the data points one way is obvious nonsense. There's a reason there are other experts on the other side of the argument.

 

[Crick]

I'm going to say no to your question, as I have no idea what you're referring to. I can't recall ever having discussed anything with you before this thread.

I've probably got you mixed up with someone else. There were several new faces in the beginning of this thread.

Except that saying that all the data points one way is obvious nonsense. There's a reason there are other experts on the other side of the argument.

Enough of it points in the same direction to convince 97% or more of the world's active climate scientists.

 

[jc456]

I'm going to say no to your question, as I have no idea what you're referring to. I can't recall ever having discussed anything with you before this thread.

I've probably got you mixed up with someone else. There were several new faces in the beginning of this thread.

Except that saying that all the data points one way is obvious nonsense. There's a reason there are other experts on the other side of the argument.

Enough of it points in the same direction to convince 97% or more of the world's active climate scientists.

 

[Crick]

... saying that all the data points one way is obvious nonsense. There's a reason there are other experts on the other side of the argument.

Enough of it points in the same direction to convince 97% or more of the world's active climate scientists.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

... saying that all the data points one way is obvious nonsense. There's a reason there are other experts on the other side of the argument.

Enough of it points in the same direction to convince 97% or more of the world's active climate scientists.

Assuming that that's true, a big assumption, that's not exactly the same thing as what you said before, is it?

 

[Crick]

The vast majority of climate scientists accept AGW as valid. That point is really indisputable.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The vast majority of climate scientists accept AGW as valid. That point is really indisputable.

And yet there are those who disagree.