Well Dessler seems to have at least two errors in just his first paragraph.
1/
There is NO climate debate, remember !  The science is settled, so there is nothing to debate; except who is going to pay for the lunatic actions being proposed to change the climate. (In what direction ?)

2/
There is no concensus either; unless you regard 2500 or so IPCC "scientists" who disagree with many thousands of "scientists" who have publicly expressed their non belief in the conclusions of the IPCC, as representing concensus.  And we all know what Dame Margaret Thatcher had to say about "concensus"

Was the Big Bang , just the bottom end of the 1/f noise spectrum ?

Yesterday I discovered the Wikipedia has a page on the Global Warming Controversy (including who/what is causing it). It's a long page, and I suspect it includes the major figures who either dispute global warming or its origins. I think that anyone who wants to be fair who reads it would agree that it seems balanced. For example, it makes clear that essentially all legitimate scientific societies agree global warming exists and that man is a, if not the, major contributor to it. The page also notes the peer reviewed status of global warming dissenters. I think that proponents of either position would be annoyed that their opponents are even given a hearing on the Wikipedia.  But this would seem to be a way for journalists to cover their asses, by directing people to that Wikipedia page for a lot more detail.

I realize it's pointless discussing this with you, but I'm genuinely curious: for the vast majority of us who are not scientists and are not in a position to evaluate primary data, how are we to know what to believe? If we're not to base our beliefs on the size and strength of current scientific consensus, what do we use? Does everyone just get to pick the results and theories they like, regardless of how well-supported they are or how few scientists back them?

For non-scientists, what's the alternative to assessing the consensus? This particular skeptical talking point makes no damn sense to me.

grist.org

I have a friend who, while we generally agree on things, sometimes argues what I call the "no nothing" position that Dave's arguing against.  And when he does, I ask him the same question.  The point is, no one can predict the future with complete accuracy, or even in most cases, with significant accuracy.  However, we can make educated guesses that inform our behavior, the key word being "educated."

While I don't worship western science due to its anthropocentric nature and its gross over reliance on reductionist methods and thinking, there is absolutely no basis on which to claim that emitting massive amounts of industrial pollutants into our atmosphere will not have serious consequences, even if we don't fully understand them at this point.  By allowing morality, spirituality, and a strong respect and love for all life to guide what we learn from science, we can make the best decisions.  On the other hand, we will make very poor decisions if we just stick our heads in the sand and pretend that there's no way to really know anything.

Let me get this straight. Instead of trusting the bulk of scientists I should trust bizarre conspiracy theories on obscure skeptical websites, which counsel rejecting the experts and instead accepting the assertions of a group of people with no training in the relevant science.

And this is alleged to be a better heuristic than accepting the consensus?

grist.org

David science is not about trust. But if you are a journalist try this:

Get off your butt and go talk to the many scientists who were once on the AGW gravy train and have announced they are now skeptics. Go Google it and find them and talk to them.

Let's stay focused for a minute on the principle, not the particular subject matter. You say "science isn't about consensus" and that there's no particular reason we should trust one when one exists.

Is that generalizable? How about, say, evolution? The consensus there is pretty strong as well. But there are plenty of people running around say it's made up, it's a conspiracy, there are flaws in the theory science can't explain, etc. etc.

If a) I'm not a scientist so I can't evaluate the primary data, and b) I'm not supposed to trust the consensus, how am I to decide what to believe about evolution? Different people are saying different things. You say I can't take how many into account. So what then? What's my heuristic?

Get away from climate change for a minute and tell me how your principle applies in other areas of science.

grist.org

The real issue is of course more related to Cognitive Science.  Not climate science.

In particular Confirmation Biases created by Cognitive Dissonance.

_

Basically,

People highly question things that tell them that their preconceptions are wrong.

Where as people tend to not question sources that agree with their preconceptions.

_

As Lakoff puts it, Progressives keep scratching their heads how someone who is given incontrovertible facts that lead to only one clear logical conclusion, and yet can still come to completely opposite conclusions.

Because it's not about the facts.  It's the Filter of how those facts are viewed.  Mix that with no cultural ability to tell the difference between peer reviewed science, and psuedoscience, and you get yourself people who can be thoroughly convinced of things that make no logical sense.

_

What we're really missing is that people don't have a functioning conceptual model of climate change.

And arguably, Gore has done a great disservice by simplifying that model Too Far. Giving the impression of a "CO2 Only" driven climate model.

And whenever you have major factors which go outside that simplified "CO2 Only" model, those who are predisposed to disagreeing, are utterly convinced that this "CO2 Only" model must be incorrect.

It's simple strawman logic.

So you usually see people swing back and forth between the arguments that either

The climate is too complex, that we can't possibly understand it
The climate is so simple, that if 1 variable doesn't cause ALL of the climate change, then that 1 variable can't have ANY impact on the climate.

The trick of course is that there's the third option.

3. We can understand the climate well enough to within a limited error range.  And from that we can figure out scenarios of it's risk implications.

-David Ahlport

David-??

As Lakoff puts it, Progressives keep scratching their heads how someone who is given incontrovertible facts

Please elaborate as to what are the incontrovertable facts for AGW--I would just love to see some warmenista list them for me?? LOL

Come on David--you can do better then that. Please list all the incontrovertable facts that "PROVE" AGW has caused the recent slight warming over the past ~20yrs.

That was an oversimplification all along.

It is GHG climate disaster, featuring extra trapped solar energy.  Individual temperature trends in various regions going up or down are not part of the proof.  

Bob's argument is that since the temperature is not rising in one area, global warming is false.  This is just as silly as saying that it's cold outside today, so global warming isn't true.  A dimbulb limboob line of astounding popularity.  As in "Brrrr..it's cold outside, where's your global warming now?"

It is increased weather volatility that results from the increased solar energy retention.  Temps at the poles and on glaciers rising, melting the ice.

Extremes in rain fall, temperature swings, drought, storms and so forth, that make the climate less human friendly.

Even concrete buildings blow away in 300+ mph tornadoes.  A nuclear bomb or fire storm set off by humans can produce this level of destruction in relatively small areas.  But storms can do this over whole regions.

Drought or flood can kill all the crops in a whole region.  

That is why it is properly named GHG climate disaster, instead of global warming.  Bob and his blog friends are hiding this basic fallacy behind theory laden terminology that one suspects few if any of them actually understand.

This is an old talking point disguised with technical language that scares most people away. Nice try Bob.  This is why "drug" limbaugh still has an audience.  Speaking of talking points. Whatever happened to drudge?  Haven't heard him mentioned antwhere lately.

Most don't want to prove they are scientifically illiterate when it comes to the incredibly complex mathematics of climate study, they would rather remain silent and cover that common failing up.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

So David. where are the incontrovertable facts that "PROVE" AGW has caused the recent slight warming over the past ~20yrs?

I'll give you a hint---don;t waste your time--there are none. The only thing holding up the AGW scare are climate models which recently have been shown to not include feedbacks correctly and especially don't simulate could cover,ENSO,PDO,AMO etc.

So please next time don;t be so blustery about skeptics until you get your FACTS straight.

One more try. Let's forget for a moment about global warming. I want you to tell me how your "consensus doesn't matter" principle applies to other areas of science.

Do you accept the prevailing scientific consensus with regard to evolution? Gravitational fields? The behavior of gases at high pressures?

When do you accept the scientific consensus and when do you not? I'm just not clear on the principle at work. Can you answer the question before your recite any more talking points?

grist.org

David, the consensus is only as good as the last good measurement. One data point can turn any "theory" into a falsehood. At first quantum theory was not accepted as consensus. Einstein refused to accept some conclusions from quantum mechanics. Recent measurements using delayed choice experiments with photons show "spooky " action at a distance is verified.
Evolution is still a theory, but the data coming from fossils still point to evolution as being a viable theory. But then again one discovery in the future could possibly negate that? As far as gravitational  waves, string theory etc need to be verified. If a theory can never be verified one could argue it is useless.
One exciting experiment due to be run soon at CERN could verify the theory of cloud formation due to high energy particles. If CRF does indeed change cloud cover, then that would go a long way to prove the reasons for the slight global warming. Cloud cover has a huge effect ~15W/M-sq
Climate models are suppose to be valid over decade time scales. It is only now that Hansen's original 1988 simulations have shown to be wrong. So what are the consequences for that? None he goes around like a loon talking now about tipping points and that we are all going to die. Why should we believe him now?
So for a journalists, the way I see it is to report on real DATA. Keep away from speculation and keep politics out of science and keep activists like Hansen out of positions where he has huge conflicts of interest.
Follow the money. search out who or how people would benifit from public funding.

The old moldy "just a theory" talking point.  With blather about other scientific theories.

Good one Bob.

Which dimbulb limboob talking point will he use next?  Hehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin