Truth Detector (02-02-2014)
A brilliant riposte to the consensus bullshit that is trotted out with monotonous regularity by the scientifically incontinent.
We’ve seen the “If 99 doctors said…” argument, or facsimiles, used often by global warming enthusiasts in recent months. George Clooney used it when interviewed at the Britannia Awards. (See the Open Letter to Lewis Black and George Clooney.) James Cameron used it in the trailer for the upcoming ShowTime series “Years of Living Dangerously”. (Refer to the open letter to Mr. Cameron and the other executive producers of that show.) And on The Daily Show, Jon Stewart included a clip of Dan Weiss of the Center for American Progress using it (See the Open Letter to Jon Stewart.)
I responded to those arguments and discussed many other topics in the posts linked above, with links to more-detailed explanations and examples…and, of course, with links to my ebooks.
The following is something I wrote for my upcoming book with the working title The Oceans Ate My Global Warming (or another possible title CO2 is Not a Control Knob). I thought you might use for it when you see the “If 99 doctors said…” argument again.
Imagine you’re running a persistent slight fever. You visit a new clinic. The nurse takes your vitals and enters them into a computer program. A short time after the computer model completes its simulations, the doctor arrives, advises you of the computer-diagnosed ailment, and prescribes controversial high-cost medications and treatment.
You’re not comfortable with the service, diagnosis, prescription or treatment, so you check out online the computer model used by the clinic. It is proclaimed to be wonderful by its programmers. But, the more you research, the more you discover the model’s defects. It can’t simulate circulation, respiration, digestion, and other basic bodily functions. There are numerous research papers exposing the flaws in the model, but they are hard to find because of all of the other papers written by the model programmers extolling its virtues.
Of course, you would not accept the computer-based medical diagnosis from a model that cannot simulate basic bodily functions and processes. But that’s the position we’re faced with climate science.
We need a second opinion for the slight warming the Earth had experienced. Unfortunately, it is not likely to be coming anytime soon, not until there are changes to the political agendas that drive climate science funding.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/0...d/#more-102569
Truth Detector (02-02-2014)
I love this from the comment section. Even though he believes in AGW he is at least open minded and realises how many certainties down the years have actually turned out to be scientific chimeras.
Even as a believer in the consensus of climate science, I’ve always been slightly dubious of this medical stat due to my background as a health professional. Anyone who has worked in health over the years will know that we faithfully believed for many years that tonsils were best removed, and acidosis in cardiac events should be treated immediately with sodium bicarb, we are also guilty with with such issues as thalidomide and victim blaming in family therapy and incorrectly treating gastric ulcers.. We truly believed in certain things, until someone pointed out we were wrong using good peer reviewed science. But we are still not by any means perfect. Neither is climate science, but from what I can see, the overwhelming body of evidence points in one direction and that is what I will believe until substantial studies show any different conclusions.
Last edited by cancel2 2022; 02-02-2014 at 07:57 AM.
He merely poked a hole in one of their analogies. He is still a true believer. None of the true believers will ever give up no matter what amount of evidence you put forth.
Hurricane Katrina? Proof of global warming and they predicted more numerous and ferocious hurricanes. Did it happen? No. When it was pointed out that their prediction didn't come true, they claimed that the lack of hurricanes is in and of itself proof of global warming
I could go on and on, but you get the point. They merely see global warming as another mechanism to exert control over the population with more taxes and more regulation at the expense of innovation and the people. Then when their policies blow up and more people starve and suffer they will turn around and blame the rich. Rinse. Wash. Repeat.
Truth Detector (02-02-2014)
Bookmarks