Quote:
Originally Posted by Cedars
Sigh....
Again, no comment on the data quality questions. Focus on the messenger, rather than the message.
|
Okay, I get it. You don't want to address my bigger picture, general philosophy question. I'm asking it because I actually think others, freezy in particular, have already adequately responded to your questioning the reliability of the data points.
In my opinion, it is totally valid to expect that the individual temperature readings be as accurate as possible, and it is valid to identify potential inconsistencies. I don't believe that there exists any real desire to avoid refinement by the researchers, and scientists are willing to acknowledge where there are weaknesses in their data and take them into consideration as they develop their theory.
But to me, to stand on this specific issue as justification for your overall belief about the validity of AGW is like saying that showing statistics that Babe Ruth struck out a lot is all that is necessary to form the belief that he generally wasn't a good hitter, and doesn't deserve to be recognized as such and glorified in the MLB Hall of Fame. If someone told me that, I would tend to think that they are either not using enough information to form their belief about Babe Ruth, they have some particular bias against him, or they just don't know what the hell they're talking about.
Yes, when you're looking at the science, it's important to be as specific and accurate as possible. But when it comes to forming a belief, sometimes I think it is important to consider the bigger picture, and what it is that motivates our choices. When it comes to this topic, what is it in us that tends to accept or reject scientific information that leads to the conclusion of AGW?
I'm not convinced that those who reject AGW are doing so because they have more convincing climatological research than has been presented in IPCC reports, but because they have some other bias that keeps them focused on any information that supports the opposite conclusion.
I'm curious about the nature of those biases if they exist, and the influence they have on the way people form their beliefs about climate change in general. I've had the same curiousness about people's biases against the science of evolution in these threads as well, for instance, and I see similarities in the attitudes of those who reject each of these scientific conclusions.
It is true that to consider such things may mean getting somewhat personal, so I understand if you don't want to go there.
