Believe it or not, climate scientists have figured out, even before you have, that the Earth and its climate is dynamic. And therefore, they construct, wait for it...., dynamic models.

The goal is not to somehow stop the dynamic Earth in its tracks. It is to stop introducing a human factor that is driving an unusually rapid temperature change, one that would so quickly change the environment that the natural processes of adaptation would not be able to keep up with - indeed our own very rapid human technological adaptation might not be able to keep up with. Leading to enormous economic dislocation for humans, and devastation to many other species.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding here. There is not some natural change that we are trying to control or stop. The natural changes that you refer to when you speak of a dynamic earth, are changes that happen gradually - on a scale that dwarfs a human lifetime. The change we are seeing now is man-made, and extremely rapid relative to natural dynamics.

Suppose we do everything we can to stop global warming and actually succeed. Do you really think that such a condition will last for any appreciable period of time? Do you really believe that stopping global warming will actually have a positive effect on nature? Will nature even allow us to interfere? Can anyone reasonable answer these questions? Anyone? Anyone?

It seems to me that every time we try to artificially stabilize a dynamic system we end up actually speeding up change and causing more damage then if we just left that system alone or adapted our response to include that dynamic change. People, we can't stop entropy, nature will not allow that. It would be more prudent to adapt to a changing environment than to force a changing environment to adapt to us. That what evolution is all about, isn't it?

Ad hominem is Latin for "toward the person", which means that a characterization of a statement (in this case, an insult) as ad hominem has nothing to do with whether it is true or not.
It simply refers to the target - a person (jackass, prick), rather than the idea they are presenting.

I have Climate Audit in my bookmarks, along with about a dozen other sites that focus on the issue. I don't find their arguments persuasive, nor does, apparently, very many other scientists.

I wonder what it means to consider oneself a "bayesian" - if by that you mean anything more than that you find the theorem, and the statistical tools based on it, to be useful sometimes. Perhaps you mean that you are, by nature, someone who is uninterested in questioning your own prior assumptions, and only interested in how they evolve?

You certainly have the ad hominem-insult part of rational discourse down cold.

It isn't an ad hominem when it is true Tano, you're a prick.

And yes, since my training was in evolutionary biology, I have been very involved in the ID wars. I don’t see the relevance of your allusion though. I have never found climate scientists to be reluctant to engage on any aspect of the evidence base from which the consensus was built.

Try reading Climate Audit. One of the problems is getting data from the scientists on this issue. Turns out they are very reluctant to hand it over. Of course, they try to hide behind, "They are energy industry shills," but I find that completely unsatisfying in that that is a type of ad hominem. Letting people look at the data with a different perspective isn't something bad, in fact, as a Bayesian I'd say it is a requirement. Also, this problem isn't specific to just climate science, but to quite a few areas of academic inquiry. Making data and models available to those who want to look at them should be pretty easy in the digital age. Oddly enough, it seems to be really hard to get data.

Then you launch into an over-the-top, ridiculously distorted account of the arguments that Al Gore is making. Which makes me think that maybe I did in fact peg you wrong. MAybe I should have said: “you don’t know what you are talking about and you don’t really care about the issue itself at all, but are simply a pure partisan scrounging around for any excuse to rant about a political opponent”. Is that a little closer?

No, and now I know you are an ignorant prick as well. Several years ago, whe Gore was still VP and pushing Kyoto he was running around the country pointing to various things like wild fires, hurricanes and so forth and then launching into his song and dance about global warming. Frankly, the similarity between Gore's antics then and some of Dembski's antics is pretty sad.

What, pray tell, do you think the consensus is based on, if not evidence?

Please go back and read previous comments.

And finally, I recommend that you read Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” before you take up any more critiques of the scientific method. The Luddite/empiricism challenged community continues to attack science in ways that anyone with a passing familiarity with Kuhn’s arguments should be embarrassed to repeat. Assuming, of course, that embarrassment is part of your repertoire…

You know, reading some of my past posts on how scientists evaluate data might disabuse of this false belief of yours.

By the way my big beef with GW/CC isn’t so much that it is/isn’t happening, but that many seem to use the scientific consensus that it is happening to arrive at conclusions about what we should do. That is, while it might be happening (or not), what to do about it a rather different question entirely…one in which the consensus isn’t nearly as settled, IMO.

I think that's a fair statement. Climate (and global industrial society)are very complex, and I don't know of any climate scientists who pretend to have any kind of scientific based certainty on what the best solution is. Science is about understanding and describing nature, not deciding upon the best way of modifying it. You can know a lot about quantum mechanics, for instance, and still have no idea on how to design and make an integrated circuit. The same is true for global warming, and the climate scientists I've talked to don't pretend to know what the solutions is (they're really not simplistic enough to believe everyone is going to stop polluting). Only politicians have that kind of certainty.

My complaints are with those who argue that the scientific consensus isn't complete and thus is meaningless. Even among climate experts there's as good a consensus on global warming as you'll find on any scientific issue ... try reading a journal on particle physics if you want to see real disagreement between different theories. Since the same could be said for every theory in physics (even the most basic theories have conflicting views ... and in most cases a range of views), I can only imagine they mean we might as well stop doing physics, since the certainty they desire will never come from any science.

If you're not interested in betting, you're applying the precautionary principle - you're basing your behavior on the assumption that global warming is right. Good for you, and now we should make the same type of decision for national policy.

No, my view is that simply pointing to the consensus isn’t very persuasive and that pointing to some of the evidence is also a good idea.

What, pray tell, do you think the consensus is based on, if not evidence? Since you're so worked up about evidence, is there any evidence that scientists have been ignoring relevant contradictory data? Have they formed an anti-capitalist cabal dedicated to hoodwinking the masses?

Also, why do you insist that Tano or any other poster have a detailed understanding of the evidence in question? I don't hold the fact that you don't seem to know all the details of climate science against you. Isn't that what experts are for? They look into things so that we don't have to.

And finally, I recommend that you read Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" before you take up any more critiques of the scientific method. The Luddite/empiricism challenged community continues to attack science in ways that anyone with a passing familiarity with Kuhn's arguments should be embarrassed to repeat. Assuming, of course, that embarrassment is part of your repertoire...

You certainly have the ad hominem-insult part of rational discourse down cold.

Its good to see that you are open to be convinced of the scientific basis of GW. But it is rather odd to blame me for missing the point that your real concern is with the interface with politics. That was not the issue you raised in your original post. Rather, you focused on attacking the notion that a scientific consensus should lead anyone to conclude that GW is likely true.

And yes, since my training was in evolutionary biology, I have been very involved in the ID wars. I don't see the relevance of your allusion though. I have never found climate scientists to be reluctant to engage on any aspect of the evidence base from which the consensus was built.

Then you launch into an over-the-top, ridiculously distorted account of the arguments that Al Gore is making. Which makes me think that maybe I did in fact peg you wrong. MAybe I should have said: "you don't know what you are talking about and you don't really care about the issue itself at all, but are simply a pure partisan scrounging around for any excuse to rant about a political opponent". Is that a little closer?

"Are all you biology guys such jackasses or is it just you and PZ Myers who ruin it for the rest in the bio field?"

No, its all of us. Thats what grad school was all about - turning little sheep into raging jackasses.

If you have responsibility for a problematical situation, and the consensus of the relevant scientific field points in one direction, then you either base your decision on that consensus, or find some other justification (non-scientific) for your decision. You cannot decide against the consensus and then declare that your decision is based on science.

You know for somebody who claims to be in a scientific field Tano you sure can't reason very well. I haven't indicated that I'm hostile to the GW/CC hypothesis. While I was more skeptical in the past, I'm becoming much less so. Still, my problems with the GW/CC issue aren't so much whether its happening, but the proposed solutions. So the entire paragraph above is irrelevant since it doesn't apply here. I haven't decided on the issue of GW/CC on non-scientific reasons and then claimed it is science, especially in this post.

I know. In a world in which rational argument has at least some compelling sway, this is not a very persuasive argument. So y’all try to construct an argument that a scientific consensus does not offer a rational basis for action.

No, my view is that simply pointing to the consensus isn't very persuasive and that pointing to some of the evidence is also a good idea. Have you followed the ID/Creationism debate? My guess is no since that is precisely what most of the anti-IDers do. Not only do they invoke the consensus, they also point to the evidence in the debate. Just about any post over at the Panda's Thumb will verify this.

With GW/CC debate the problem is you got a lot of hucksters and politicians out there saying stupid crap. Al Gore runs around the country saying that just about any unusual weather phenomenon is due to GW/CC. Its too cold? Global Warming! Scientific Consensus! It is too hot? Global Warming! Scientific Consensus! More hurricanes? Global Warming! Scientific Consensus! Fewer hurricanes? Global Warming! Scientific Consensus! Wild fires, flooding, tornados, and earthquakes? Global Warming! Scientific Consensus! But that is just crap.

I know pointing to the data/evidence can be boring, but it sure beats the heck out of "blame every bit of bad weather on global warming."

As for me, I make my living in the world of science (biology, not climate), so I dont find your charges, that I am naive or simplistic about how science works, to be very compelling.

What a suprise. Are all you biology guys such jackasses or is it just you and PZ Myers who ruin it for the rest in the bio field?

Oh, and since you didn't get my points in my last comment it wasn't that you are naive and simplistic about how science works, but about the interplay of science, public opinion, and politics. I'd think that as a biologist you'd get this, what with all the ID/Creationist stuff, but I guess not.

I don’t think you know what you are talking about, and are just doing PR work for a political agenda. In case it isn’t clear to you.

And I think you're an idiot.

George,

In practice, at a certain point we have to trust in a consensus of science or we’d get nothing done … reinventing every theory gets you nowhere.

Whoa, who said we have to reinvent every theory. Using consensus with evidence is one thing. As I noted above, the ID/Creationism debate mixes both the evidence and appeals to consensus/overwhelming evidence pretty well. It doesn't cover everything and doesn't get into all the really hardcore stuff, but it gets the point across in many instances.

By the way my big beef with GW/CC isn't so much that it is/isn't happening, but that many seem to use the scientific consensus that it is happening to arrive at conclusions about what we should do. That is, while it might be happening (or not), what to do about it a rather different question entirely...one in which the consensus isn't nearly as settled, IMO.

Just to give you some food for thought on that last one, Enron was a big backer of doing something about GW/CC. They probably thought there was a way to make tons off of whatever scheme was going to be slapped together. If that doesn't give you at least a momentary pause, then I don't know what to say.

There are journals of fundamental physics (often a mix of physics and applied math but there you go) which examine the proofs for much of what we take for granted (atoms and other subatomic particles for instance) ... most of them are very heavy reading indeed, and very few people have the background to make any headway in them. Even most practicing chemists and physicists (in fact probably all but specialists) "believe" in subatomic particles because we were taught in university that some people did some experiments and came up with certain conclusions.

In practice, at a certain point we have to trust in a consensus of science or we'd get nothing done ... reinventing every theory gets you nowhere. That's not to say no one should challenge those consensuses (consensei? should have taken more English classes I guess), but it's hard to avoid the feeling that people are cherry picking when they believe in the consensus and when they don't.

Both the left and the right applaud scientific consensus when it backs their view, condemn it when it doesn't. Fine, except very few of the people making the condemnations have more than a superficial knowledge of the science involved, and then get upset when the science community doesn't take them seriously.

I sometimes wonder if this ever happens in other fields ... if I demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of finance, would accountants feel obligated to take my views into consideration?

If you have responsibility for a problematical situation, and the consensus of the relevant scientific field points in one direction, then you either base your decision on that consensus, or find some other justification (non-scientific) for your decision. You cannot decide against the consensus and then declare that your decision is based on science.

You seem to have a non-science-based preferance for a decision on GW issues that is at odds with the scientific consensus. Why not be straightforward about it? "I don't care what the science says, this is what I want us to do".

I know. In a world in which rational argument has at least some compelling sway, this is not a very persuasive argument. So y'all try to construct an argument that a scientific consensus does not offer a rational basis for action.

It comes down to an argument for ideology over reason.

As for me, I make my living in the world of science (biology, not climate), so I dont find your charges, that I am naive or simplistic about how science works, to be very compelling.

I don't think you know what you are talking about, and are just doing PR work for a political agenda. In case it isn't clear to you.

You continue to miss just about all the points. You dont need to pepper us with examples of how scientific consensus can be wrong. Most everyone in the world who has spent as much as a semester in a science course understands that.

I think you are far too optimistic here.

Nontheless, at any given point in time, the scientific consensus (if there is one) on any given subject, represents the most widely held interpretation OF THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE, by those who make their living studying that evidence.

Again, I think this is overly optimistic and simplistic.

So your dichotomy between evidence and consensus is an absurd one. Consensus forms around evidence.

Ideally, yes. However, the ideal isn't always the case.

The GW skeptics need to go out and find some of that new evidence if they have any hope of advancing their arguement.

I agree.

In the meantime, some of them seem to be trying to make the case that we should reject the consensus because it is a consensus, and consensuses can be wrong. How mindless is that?

To some extent I agree, however, the consensus isn't always representative of the available evidence. Take for example the atom and the ulcer forming stomach virus. In both cases there was damn little evidence in support of the hypotheses, but at the same time that lack of evidence does not imply that those hypotheses are wrong. However, the scientific community took a rather dim view of these two hypotheses and needless to say there was a consensus (based on no evidence I might add). So, while it is true that simply rejecting the consensus because it is consensus isn't a valid complaint, but the idea that because there is a consensus we must act in dramatic fashion isn't very persuasive either.

You continue to miss just about all the points. You dont need to pepper us with examples of how scientific consensus can be wrong. Most everyone in the world who has spent as much as a semester in a science course understands that.

Nontheless, at any given point in time, the scientific consensus (if there is one) on any given subject, represents the most widely held interpretation OF THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE, by those who make their living studying that evidence.

So your dichotomy between evidence and consensus is an absurd one. Consensus forms around evidence.

We all know that new evidence can undermine, or further reinforce the existing consensus. Duh.

In the global warming world, there is a consensus BASED ON THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE. To say that new evidence might overturn that is really to say nothing remarkable. The GW skeptics need to go out and find some of that new evidence if they have any hope of advancing their arguement.

In the meantime, some of them seem to be trying to make the case that we should reject the consensus because it is a consensus, and consensuses can be wrong. How mindless is that?

Why not just reject the skeptics, since skeptics can be wrong? Plus of course, they dont have the evidence on their side either!