Comments DavidWojick has made

  • There are no NAS conclusions

    It is inaccurate to say "the National Academy of Sciences concluded" anything. These studies are organized by the NRC and conducted by small groups, typically over a weekend. They try to have at least one NAS member but they are in no way the findings of the NAS.

    The study you cite had, as I recall, 11 members, most of whom were well known warmers. Their conclusion is no surprise, nor does it have any particular scientific merit. No more than any other pickup group of 11 scientists, who might come to opposite conclusions. David Wojick

    Climatechangedebate.org

    On A new series posted 3 years, 1 month ago 24 Responses

  • Skeptics versus Warmers, why the debate exists

    Consider the list of arguments. The first reason why the climate change debate exists is because different people consider the same arguments and underlying facts and come to opposing conclusions. This is an important human trait.

    But the underlying reason why they can do this rationally is that the science is similarly divided. There is no killer argument on either side. Rather we have a complex set of arguments (the Grist list only scratches the surface) based on a complex body of often conflicting science. The latter is in turn due to the complexity of the climate system, which after many billions in research we are only beginning to understand.

    Unfortunately many people on both sides find this unresolved tension intolerable, so accuse one another of dishonesty, insanity, or worse. The truth is that reasonable people of good will can look at the same evidence and come to opposite conclusions, including scientists. This is what makes the climate change debate so interesting. It is one of the greatest scientific debates in history. David WojickOn A new series posted 3 years, 1 month ago 24 Responses

  • A Skeptic's View

    The taxonomy of arguments is very useful. Ironically the sheer number of arguments tends to support skepticism, as do many of the comments. The result is actually pretty balanced.

    Looking through Coby's answers, one thing stands out, which is probably the central fallacy in the AGW position--> false confidence. Scientific speculation offered as established fact.

    Speculation is the state of the science, but speculation is not refutation. The fact that there is a scientific counter argument to every skeptical argument does not refute the skeptics, because there is a scientific counter argument to every one of these AGW counter arguments, and so on.

    The science is divided on this issue, between AGW and natural variability. That is why the people are divided. David WojickOn A new series posted 3 years, 1 month ago 24 Responses