Global warming?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by classicman

Evidence that contradicts the ruling belief system is held to extraordinary standards, while evidence that entrenches it is uncritically accepted. -Carl Sagan

Ruling belief system: global warming is a hoax.
Extraordinary standards: 100% of all scientists (and people who can be quoted as if they were scientists) must agree, or there isn't consensus.
Uncritically accepted: the occasional study that can be (sometimes mis)interpreted as casting doubt.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Ruling belief system: global warming is a hoax.

This part is backwards.

Extraordinary standards: 100% of all scientists (and people who can be quoted as if they were scientists) must agree, or there isn't consensus.
Uncritically accepted: the occasional study that can be (sometimes mis)interpreted as casting doubt.

This part is filled with personal bias.
Who said 100% must equal consensus?
Occasional study...
mis)interpreted ...

You missed the part where the raw data is still being questioned as well.

My OPINION - You are in the "ruling belief system" not the other way around.

My personal position on this issue has been posted before, but it has become all to common for the same tired info to be posted without the opposing point of views. If we don't look at all the info we wont have many worthwhile discussions.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Attacking the science is the correct approach.
Attacking the believers, on either side, is not.

I'm discussing the attitude described by the Sagan quote. It applies to people on both sides, but when it comes to "extraordinary standards" required, it is extremely lopsided.

Originally Posted by classicman

This part is backwards.

Not among the deniers.

Who said 100% must equal consensus?

Anyone who says that there isn't consensus now. If it isn't enough that almost all climatologists agree, I can only conclude that 100% is required.

Occasional study that can be (sometimes mis)interpreted ...

What's wrong with that? Most studies support it, so the others are, comparatively, occasional. And sometimes (a word you missed) some aspect of a study that supports it is siezed on to imply that the study opposes it.

My OPINION - You are in the "ruling belief system" not the other way around.

There are different "ruling opinions" in different communities. I was saying that the "extraordinary standards" required by the deniers are ridiculously high.