What is your approach to reaching a conclusion on a complex matter?

Question

AGW being the subject in question. To what extent are you biased by wanting a convenient answer? Are you a pessimist who somehow is attracted to gloom and doom scenarios? Are you someone who places great store in reputable sources? Or do you regard placing credence on any sources as not thinking for yourself? Is the time you have to study the subject limited and you feel you have reached a position and will stick to it?

Answer 1

The reputation of a source is very important. So is enough scientific education to be able to tell the difference between plausible statements and total lunacy.

I find it implausible that all or even the vast majority of the effects of the warming would be negative. It is just unlikely that we have been lucky enough to live at a time when the climate is as perfect as it gets. The climate has gotten much warmer and much cooler in the millions of years before now and we are just not lucky enough to have randomly gotten the most perfect climate. That is one of the big scientific ideas, that we are not special and that our place and time are not special. The implication that our present climate is special goes against that thinking.

Answer 2

I wait until I hear what Pat Roberson and Newt Gingrich say about global warming.

If they tell me it's real, then I believe, as these people always tell the truth and are very knowledgeable scientists.

If corporate CEO's like the CEO of Wal-Mart or the CEO of Ford say it's true, well who could argue with them?

Answer 3

My first approach is to see what the experts have to say.

My next step is to look at their data and analysis to see if I agree with it.

I also look to see if there are any viable alternative theories.

In the case of global warming, virtually all experts are saying humans are the primary cause and it will have overwhelmingly negative consequences.  I've found that their data support their conclusions.  I've examined every alternative theory and found none to be remotely viable.

Answer 4

- What is your approach to reaching a conclusion on a complex matter?

Well, probably just like you I ask, I research, I read and then I decide. Sometimes the process takes longer than others, the more important the issue the more sincere the investigative process needs to be. Not necessarily more time - just more involving. Some issues have no concrete best answer - discover that and then form an opinion and move on.

- Global Warming

Well...in a video with Jay Leno in his garage that he recently took off the grid using solar panels and etc. he was asked by a reporter if he believed all of the global warming hype. His response was essentially "Hey, my deal is even if you don't believe in this global warming stuff - don't you want to s***w the oil, gas and electric companies anyways?" Link to the video - http://sattlerclothing.com/blog/?s=leno

Answer 5

My main criteria: "Nature never lies."  That is, observations rule. If theory cannot predict the outcome of experiment, then the theory is wrong. Period.

Case in point is the inability of the current AGW theory to reproduce the 450,000 year Vostok ice core data-set. This data shows, without exception, that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration changes lag temperature changes. Some proponents, like Bob, try to brush this off with a statement like "CO2 is a cause and an effect". However, that view is completely unsupportable in light of the fact that the data record shows temperature falling dramatically in the presence of the highest concentrations of CO2.

Another case in point is the “greenhouse effect” theory itself. There is absolutely no experimental evidence that it exists. That is, no laboratory experiment has ever been done that confirms that two gasses with different absorption lines will reach different equilibrium temperatures under broad-spectrum illumination. In fact, the Vostok data, in always showing temperature changes preceding atmospheric CO2 concentration changes, gives evidence that the greenhouse effect is fantasy.

Again, some people, like Dana1981, will try to sell you the critically flawed experiment where school children take two soda bottles and fill one with air and the other with CO2 and measure their temperatures over time as they sit in the sun. The answer you get doing that experiment is easily shown to be due to the mean mass difference between the two gasses. They’ll also point to Venus and say that there is no other explanation of Venus’ temperature—but they don’t want you to look too closely at competing theories which propose Venus is still cooling from a violent event. After all, does Venus rotate in the opposite direction of the other planets in the solar system due to the high levels of CO2?

Nature says that AGW is fantasy. AGW proponents say that nature lies.

----

CO2 lags temperature in both directions. It is clearest if you look at approximately the 120,000 year mark on the Vostok reference below. Note that the temperature falls dramatically while the CO2 level remains high and essentially constant.

There is no historical evidence to your "inevitability" statement. Rising CO2 has never preceded a temperature increase. Never. How, then, do you say it is inevitable? The increase in CO2, according to 450,000 years of data, is simply a response to the increase in temperature. The oceans are outgassing. Temperatures could fall precipitously in the presence of current levels of CO2 or higher, as evidenced by the historical record. Nature never lies.

I am "twisted" in the way I look at the problem because the models are contrary to the observations, the errors swamp the projected effects, and the monetary, social, and reputational costs will be staggering.