[POLL] Is bitcointalk (still) very skeptical towards global warming science?

[Cnut237]

I kind of think c programming is logic, though. Don't you?

Yes... although you should see some of my early code, it really stretches the definition


_{https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/pointers.png}

Or perhaps you didn't understand the parallel in my argument and refutation of yours?

Maybe I didn't. I thought your argument was: It's not true that 97% of climate scientists believe that humans cause climate change... because bitcoin.
I still don't think that a non sequitur is a powerful argument. You are suggesting that, if humans cause climate change, then bitcoin is a part of that human-caused climate change. Yes, agreed. I'm not disputing that. Humans cause climate change. Bitcoin contributes to that.

[Spendulus]

I kind of think c programming is logic, though. Don't you?

Yes... although you should see some of my early code, it really stretches the definition


_{https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/pointers.png}

Or perhaps you didn't understand the parallel in my argument and refutation of yours?

Maybe I didn't. I thought your argument was: It's not true that 97% of climate scientists believe that humans cause climate change... because bitcoin.
I still don't think that a non sequitur is a powerful argument. You are suggesting that, if humans cause climate change, then bitcoin is a part of that human-caused climate change. Yes, agreed. I'm not disputing that. Humans cause climate change. Bitcoin contributes to that.

No, that's not it at all. This is a simple logical refutation of the "consensus argument." Which, by the way, is the very antithesis of scientific method.

It is not an argument for or against the premise of the OP, but simply against the "Argument by Consensus" logical fallacy.

Here it is.

Many people have heard of Bitcoin, and asked their financial advisers about it. The advisors replied, "Almost all in the financial services and banking industries will advise you not to put money into Bitcoin. There is a consensus of opinion on this."

But you are here, so you went against the trend and the supposedly conclusive consensus.

[Mauser]

But have things changed? Have people that were previously in denial perhaps reconsidered their sources? Any minds changed? I'd love to hear these stories.

First of all feel free to answer to the poll. I know that there's no reason to consider a bitcointalk poll representative of anything, but it'd be interesting to see the results nevertheless.

I don't think many people here on the forum are skeptical towards global warming. Most people here seem very realistic, so far the poll shows that. There are some trolls on this forum too who just like to take the opposite site in an argument, even though they don't believe it themself. I mean it's the internet, we will always find people who are against something.

[Cnut237]

No, that's not it at all. This is a simple logical refutation of the "consensus argument." Which, by the way, is the very antithesis of scientific method.

Ah. In that case, yes, I misunderstood. I thought it was a bit of a strange argument. Thanks for clarifying.

I'm still not convinced by your argument, though. We're not saying "97% of the general population believe it, so it must be true". Also we're not really saying "97% of qualified experts believe it, so it must be true"... the part that's missing, the part that's implied, is the belief that the experts have evidence to support their claims. We are not qualified to challenge experts in a field. But other experts are qualified, and fail to produce their own evidence.  So it's not really an ad populum or an appeal to authority, and relying on the evidence-based consensus of scientists is hardly antithetical to the scientific method.

I italicised 'belief' because it does of course rely on belief, as does anything. We trust experts all the time, in everyday life. Doctors, teachers, dentists, plumbers, lawyers, etc. We believe in their expertise. Whilst it is important to challenge received wisdom, the challenge should be for them to provide supporting evidence. With human-caused climate change, the whole thing is based on evidence. The belief is in the evidence.

[Spendulus]

No, that's not it at all. This is a simple logical refutation of the "consensus argument." Which, by the way, is the very antithesis of scientific method.

Ah. In that case, yes, I misunderstood. I thought it was a bit of a strange argument. Thanks for clarifying.

I'm still not convinced by your argument, though. We're not saying "97% of the general population believe it, so it must be true". Also we're not really saying "97% of qualified experts believe it, so it must be true"... the part that's missing, the part that's implied, is the belief that the experts have evidence to support their claims. We are not qualified to challenge experts in a field. But other experts are qualified, and fail to produce their own evidence.  So it's not really an ad populum or an appeal to authority, and relying on the evidence-based consensus of scientists is hardly antithetical to the scientific method....

Umm, yes it is. It is EXACTLY opposed to the scientific method, which is a method of critical inquiry.

But that doesn't stop you from BELIEVING in global warming, or global cooling or whatever.

I am only focused here on the reality that "Argument from authority" is a basic logical fallacy, recognized since Ancient Greece. "Consensus" really is an example of that. Summary, argue for man's destroying the earth all you want, but the "97% consensus" is a really bad way to make that argument.

[c_atlas]

No, that's not it at all. This is a simple logical refutation of the "consensus argument." Which, by the way, is the very antithesis of scientific method.

Ah. In that case, yes, I misunderstood. I thought it was a bit of a strange argument. Thanks for clarifying.

I'm still not convinced by your argument, though. We're not saying "97% of the general population believe it, so it must be true". Also we're not really saying "97% of qualified experts believe it, so it must be true"... the part that's missing, the part that's implied, is the belief that the experts have evidence to support their claims. We are not qualified to challenge experts in a field. But other experts are qualified, and fail to produce their own evidence.  So it's not really an ad populum or an appeal to authority, and relying on the evidence-based consensus of scientists is hardly antithetical to the scientific method....

Umm, yes it is. It is EXACTLY opposed to the scientific method, which is a method of critical inquiry.

But that doesn't stop you from BELIEVING in global warming, or global cooling or whatever.

I am only focused here on the reality that "Argument from authority" is a basic logical fallacy, recognized since Ancient Greece. "Consensus" really is an example of that. Summary, argue for man's destroying the earth all you want, but the "97% consensus" is a really bad way to make that argument.

This is essentially what I was trying to get at earlier in my post:

I just have an issue with using the fact that "97% of climate scientists agree" as an argument because it gives people a reason to not look at the facts. Why should they put any effort into understanding the problem when there's such overwhelming consensus?

If you want to prove to me that something is happening then put in the effort to find the science that backs up that narrative. Don't throw figures around about consensus among experts.

Lets say I ask if bitcoin miners will still be incentivized to validate transactions and add them to blocks once the block reward goes to 0 after 2140. If you respond to my question with a figure like "93% of miners agree there will be incentives to continue mining", you may be right, but I'm not really any more knowledgable on the subject. If I haven't learned anything of any substance, I don't have a real reason to believe you. You haven't helped me gain confidence or develop an opinion. On the other hand, you could explain how there are pricing mechanisms that incentivize miners through transaction fees, and as long as miners and users can agree to a fair fee, the network will continue to operate. This answer would give me something to work with, I would be able to think about the reasoning and maybe we could actually debate that argument.

[tvbcof]

The 'trick' of the '97%' scam (Cook et-al) is to say the 'ninety seven percent' part, but leave the 97% believe XXX blank and allow the reader to assume one thing or another.  'humans cause' is deliberately vague,  And sometimes they even leave that out and say scientists 'believe in ' climate change.  Well, everyone 'believes in' climate change including 'deniers'.

I read somewhere that if the question is:

  "Do you [competent scientist with domain experience] believe that the human contribution of carbon dioxide
     to the atmosphere accounts for more than 50% of the warming which the earth has experienced over the last 100 years."

it is far fewer than 3% of the scientist who report to believe that this hypothesis is true.  In my study of the science and mathematics behind the subject that is what I would expect.  I cannot imagine (and have not seen) a competent scientist arguing that human contribution to atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution is a major factor in global warming.  The science simply isn't there.  A much more sustainable argument is that pollution and land use changes which humans are responsible for have induced a strong enough signal to be seen.  It just doesn't work for CO2 as a greenhouse gas is all.

[Cnut237]

We're not saying "97% of the general population believe it, so it must be true". Also we're not really saying "97% of qualified experts believe it, so it must be true"... the part that's missing, the part that's implied, is the belief that the experts have evidence to support their claims. We are not qualified to challenge experts in a field. But other experts are qualified, and fail to produce their own evidence.  So it's not really an ad populum or an appeal to authority, and relying on the evidence-based consensus of scientists is hardly antithetical to the scientific method....

Umm, yes it is. It is EXACTLY opposed to the scientific method, which is a method of critical inquiry.

Okay, your argument is basically that we cannot trust any evidence that we haven't gathered ourselves. In order to determine whether humans are causing climate change, I need to become an expert, and then gather and interpret my own evidence. But of course no-one will ever be able to trust my evidence... everyone needs to become an expert and gather their own evidence. This is clearly absurd. Society and the economy grind to a halt. No-one visits doctors, dentists, lawyers, plumbers etc, and instead tries to learn the relevant skills themselves. People are injured through trying to perform surgery on themselves (because you would never trust anyone else). You are typing on a phone or a keyboard, which presumably you have not built yourself from raw materials. You trusted the experts, and bought that device... why?

I cannot imagine (and have not seen) a competent scientist arguing that human contribution to atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution is a major factor in global warming.  The science simply isn't there.

From earlier in this thread:

For those who don't want to look at the data, or prefer extremely selective evidence that confirms their own viewpoint, then the EDF has a simple nine point summary of how we know that humans are the cause:

- Simple chemistry – When we burn carbon-based materials, carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted (research beginning in the 1900s).
- Basic accounting of what we burn, and therefore how much CO2 we emit (data collection beginning in the 1970s).
- Measuring CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and trapped in ice to find they are increasing, with levels higher than anything we've seen in nearly a million years (measurements beginning in the 1950s).
- Chemical analysis of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning fossil fuels (research beginning in the 1950s).
- Basic physics that shows us that CO2 absorbs heat (research beginning in the 1820s).
- Monitoring climate conditions to find that the air, sea and land is warming, as we would expect with rising greenhouse gas emissions; as a response, ice is melting and sea level is rising (research beginning in the 1930s).
- Ruling out natural factors that can influence climate like the sun and ocean cycles (research beginning in the 1830s).
- Employing computer models to run experiments of natural versus human-influenced simulations of Earth (research beginning in the 1960s).
- Consensus among scientists who consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in the 1990s).

[POLL] Is bitcointalk (still) very skeptical towards global warming science?

The poll suggests that most people here believe the science, but the contents of the thread suggest that they are reluctant to argue the point. In retrospect I should have followed their example.

[tvbcof]

I cannot imagine (and have not seen) a competent scientist arguing that human contribution to atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution is a major factor in global warming.  The science simply isn't there.

From earlier in this thread:

For those who don't want to look at the data, or prefer extremely selective evidence that confirms their own viewpoint, then the EDF has a simple nine point summary of how we know that humans are the cause:

- Simple chemistry – When we burn carbon-based materials, carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted (research beginning in the 1900s).

Meaningless factoid.

-

Basic accounting of what we burn, and therefore how much CO2 we emit (data collection beginning in the 1970s).

A tiny percent of the CO2 released into the atmosphere (and absorbed out of the atmosphere) annually is from human activity.

- Measuring CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and trapped in ice to find they are increasing, with levels higher than anything we've seen in nearly a million years (measurements beginning in the 1950s).

Various scientists have challenged the results of other scientists over this finding and the magnitude of it.

- Chemical analysis of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning fossil fuels (research beginning in the 1950s).

CO2 is CO2.  It is not possible to distinguish one 'variety' as fossil fuel derived and another as the result of a biological process.  Nor does CO2 from one source act any differently than that from another in terms of being re-absorbed.

- Basic physics that shows us that CO2 absorbs heat (research beginning in the 1820s).

Every atom or molecule 'absorbs heat'.  Every atom or molecule also 'releases heat'.  Meaningless statement.

- Monitoring climate conditions to find that the air, sea and land is warming, as we would expect with rising greenhouse gas emissions; as a response, ice is melting and sea level is rising (research beginning in the 1930s).

It's an observation which could be explained by a great many hypotheses.  Some mutually exclusive and some not.

- Ruling out natural factors that can influence climate like the sun and ocean cycles (research beginning in the 1830s).

The sun (which is responsible for something like 99.999% of the energy in the atmosphere (aka, heat)) has not been ruled out as a factor in so-called 'climate change.'

- Employing computer models to run experiments of natural versus human-influenced simulations of Earth (research beginning in the 1960s).

Computer models have nowhere near the power to simulate such tiny factors as human contribution.  They inevitably err on the alarmist side as has been proven by observations made.  Not surprising since money is allocated to people and programs which achieve this result and withdrawn or withheld from programs which tend to try to achieve accuracy.

- Consensus among scientists who consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in the 1990s).

Again, consensus about what exactly?  This is the trick I described.

No scientist wants to stand behind your list of ridiculous 'points' because they are not sustainable.  That's why, yet again, we see a vague assertion that 'scientists say something' but what the names of the scientists are and what, exactly, they say is left to the imagination of the (usually highly indoctrinated and propagandized) viewer.

[Spendulus]

The 'trick' of the '97%' scam (Cook et-al) is to say the 'ninety seven percent' part, but leave the 97% believe XXX blank and allow the reader to assume one thing or another.  'humans cause' is deliberately vague,  And sometimes they even leave that out and say scientists 'believe in ' climate change.  Well, everyone 'believes in' climate change including 'deniers'.

I read somewhere that if the question is:

  "Do you [competent scientist with domain experience] believe that the human contribution of carbon dioxide
     to the atmosphere accounts for more than 50% of the warming which the earth has experienced over the last 100 years."

it is far fewer than 3% of the scientist who report to believe that this hypothesis is true. ,,,,

That sounds very reasonable to me. If on the other hand you ask credible scientists "have humans contributed to (blah blah blaH) virtually all would answer "yes" because 1% is a yes answer, as well as 99% and all points in between.

[Spendulus]

We're not saying "97% of the general population believe it, so it must be true". Also we're not really saying "97% of qualified experts believe it, so it must be true"... the part that's missing, the part that's implied, is the belief that the experts have evidence to support their claims. We are not qualified to challenge experts in a field. But other experts are qualified, and fail to produce their own evidence.  So it's not really an ad populum or an appeal to authority, and relying on the evidence-based consensus of scientists is hardly antithetical to the scientific method....

Umm, yes it is. It is EXACTLY opposed to the scientific method, which is a method of critical inquiry.

Okay, your argument is basically that we cannot trust any evidence that we haven't gathered ourselves. ...

Not true at all. Evidence is only one step in the scientific method, and it is often gathered by others than those doing a study. Let me just ask a simple question. What is the hypothesis you seek to prove or disprove?


The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

[alani123]

So why isn't the overwhelming evidence published by established academics and institutions fit for your standards to confirm climate change is real and man made?

[tvbcof]

Global warming is coming it's just a matter of time people will see what will happen but it will be too late

It's been here since the bottom of the last ice age.

[Spendulus]

So why isn't the overwhelming evidence published by established academics and institutions fit for your standards to confirm climate change is real and man made?

You are not reading or thinking, but parroting.

Evidence is one single step in the method. I did link to it.

But one response to your assertion is worth making. Dr. Michael Mann, inventor of the "Hockey Stick" of global warming fame, hid his data and his procedures and methods.

As a result, his conclusions are worthless.

I'm curious if you have a problem with that.

[c_atlas]

So why isn't the overwhelming evidence published by established academics and institutions fit for your standards to confirm climate change is real and man made?

...But one response to your assertion is worth making. Dr. Michael Mann, inventor of the "Hockey Stick" of global warming fame, hid his data and his procedures and methods.

As a result, his conclusions are worthless.

I'm curious if you have a problem with that.

I wonder if the replication crisis would show it's ugly face in climate science provided academics were allowed to pursue alternative theories without outstanding backlash.

Here's a relevant quote from Peter Thiel

I can't resist mentioning sort of the anecdote from one of my friends. His advisor at Stanford, Bob Laughlin, got a Nobel Prize in physics in late '90s. And he suffered from the supreme delusion that once he had a Nobel prize in physics, he would have academic freedom [laughter], and he could do whatever he wanted to. And so what he decided to do is he was going to sort of investigate all of the other scientists at Stanford who, he was convinced were sort of stealing money from the government and sort of engaged in mostly fraudulent research, just a lot of input of money, but not much output. The two grad students, he'd sort of come into their office once a week and it would be, "I'm very proud of you. We're on the front lines. We're doing battle for science against the whole universe in this office." And you can sort of imagine how this movie ended. It sort of was quite catastrophic. The grad students couldn't get PHDs. He got defunded. And my hermeneutic suspicion is always when there's speech that is completely forbidden and questions that are not allowed to be asked, normally, you should assume that those things are simply true.

[Spendulus]

So why isn't the overwhelming evidence published by established academics and institutions fit for your standards to confirm climate change is real and man made?

...But one response to your assertion is worth making. Dr. Michael Mann, inventor of the "Hockey Stick" of global warming fame, hid his data and his procedures and methods.

As a result, his conclusions are worthless.

I'm curious if you have a problem with that.

I wonder if the replication crisis would show it's ugly face in climate science provided academics were allowed to pursue alternative theories without outstanding backlash.

Here's a relevant quote from Peter Thiel

I can't resist mentioning sort of the anecdote from one of my friends. His advisor at Stanford, Bob Laughlin, got a Nobel Prize in physics in late '90s. And he suffered from the supreme delusion that once he had a Nobel prize in physics, he would have academic freedom [laughter], and he could do whatever he wanted to. And so what he decided to do is he was going to sort of investigate all of the other scientists at Stanford who, he was convinced were sort of stealing money from the government and sort of engaged in mostly fraudulent research, just a lot of input of money, but not much output. The two grad students, he'd sort of come into their office once a week and it would be, "I'm very proud of you. We're on the front lines. We're doing battle for science against the whole universe in this office." And you can sort of imagine how this movie ended. It sort of was quite catastrophic. The grad students couldn't get PHDs. He got defunded. And my hermeneutic suspicion is always when there's speech that is completely forbidden and questions that are not allowed to be asked, normally, you should assume that those things are simply true.

Excellent question, link, and Thiel quote.

Here are a couple 'thought questions' on the general subject. All are the "show your work" variety, so answers parroted from the internet won't work.

1. What is the equilibrium temperature of the Earth?  The average temperature? The correct temperature?
2. Can anything prevent the next ice age? What?
3. What are the implications of the virial theorem for Earth's temperature?
4. If "global warming" is a scientific theory, what was the hypothesis?

[alani123]

conclusions are worthless

And why exactly is that? This is the core of my question.

Hypothetically speaking, if a 100% neutral and insensitive AI was doing all the data collection, the would have been very much the same.
Yet you seem to disregard any and all proof of man made global warming for political reasons(?) because according to supporters of such theories scientists are politicized/controlled yadda yadda and therefore should not be trusted for their conclusion... So I'm just asking, who is to be trusted for stating the objective truth in that case? The outliers go against the overwhelming majority you might say. But are they really more credible than the entire scientific consensus?

[Spendulus]

conclusions are worthless

And why exactly is that? This is the core of my question.
....

So, you'll ignore completely my question about Mann's data and methods, and go on to another parroted talking point. Blah-blah-blah.

Or do you actually not understand why it's unacceptable for a scientist to actively prevent people from attempting to replicate his results?

If there is believed to be "a consensus", replication and verification of results is no longer required? (Hint: Your response to this tells us if you are an idiot bot or a human. Hint Hint: Humans can be bots also)

[alani123]

Obviously it's quite unacceptable for a scientist to not publish the data. As is the case with all the YouTube "scholars" that parrot conspiracy theories that global warming is a hoax etc. Always without citing credible sources and without being lead to this conclusion based on acceptable evidence.

[Spendulus]

Obviously it's quite unacceptable for a scientist to not publish the data. ...

Great, then we agree that any credible belief in the hockey stick of temperature cannot be based on Mann's work, and it should be discredited (more than it already is).