Words of wisdom from a climate heretic

A well known climate scientist, Judith Currey, has recently made a name for herself by daring to challenge her collegues to employ their own brains and resist the urge to get caught up in the multi billion dollar business of climate science.

In the comments section from this excellent piece from Scientific American, someone writes:

This goes back to something Czech President Vaclav Klaus said in his talk at the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London this week:

It is not that simple to tell who is and who is not a climatologist or an expert on climate change and global warming. Ross McKitrick once said that there is no such thing as an expert on global warming, because no one can master all the relevant subjects. On the subject of climate change everyone is an amateur on many if not most of the relevant topics.

Reminds me of Michael Crichton’s favorite rejoiner to the arguement from scientific consensus. Consensus is not science. Any time someone attempts to persuade us with an appeal to either the authorities or the majority we should reach for our wallets because we can be sure we are being conned.

Share

25 responses to “Words of wisdom from a climate heretic

  1. Any time someone attempts to persuade us with an appeal to either the authorities or the majority we should reach for our wallets because we can be sure we are being conned.

    Sounds like Christian evangelism. Ironic.

    • Some of it may be, but the bulk of Christian evangelism rests on evidence such as eyewitness accounts.

      • Disputed and debatable eyewitness accounts which are then used to prop up an entire tome of rules and regulations handed down by an authority figure that punishes with eternal torture. I'll choose to keep my hand on my wallet, thank you.

        • You can only claim they are disputed if you can provide a competing eyewitness account or reason to call into question the ones we currently have. Even Bart Ehrman, in a Q&A after one of his lectures, admitted that the gospels are the best evidence we have for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

          • The best evidence we have that a unicorn sleeps under my bed is my word. Doesn't mean that the evidence isd good or the account, worthy of belief. Nice try, though.

            You can only claim they are disputed if you can provide a competing eyewitness account or reason to call into question the ones we currently have.

            This logic is so warped and presupposes that humans are required to know everything about their universe, lest they be punished. How barbaric and intellectually immature.

          • So, if we don't like what an eyewitness says, or if what they claim runs contrary our naturalistic presuppositions, we are free to disregard them as unreliable?

            How intellectually fair and honest.

          • I know it makes you feel better to impart bad motives onto those silly atheists who don't believe like you do, but belief and like/dislike don't have anything to do with one another.

          • So tell me, what are the objective reasons you have for rejecting the eyewitness testimony provided by the gospel authors?

          • Again, you start from a false premise. The claim isn't true until I find enough reasons to reject it. That's backwards.

          • So your answer is basically that there is no real reason for you to reject the eyewitness accounts of the gospel writers.

          • So your answer is to continue using faulty reasoning to prop up your beliefs.

          • How is it faulty reasoning to objectively examine the evidence set before me? That seems a lot more reasonable than rejecting it outright before even examining it.

          • If that is actually what you were doing (and asking me to do) then you'd be in the ballgame.

          • I asked you above why you rejected the eyewitness evidence presented by the gospel writers. Your answer indicated you had no reason.

            All I am saying is that you shouldn't operate in an epistemically closed environment. It stunts your intellectual development.

          • I DIDN'T answer because as you can see above, I rejected the premise of your question.

            I don't reject the eyewitness accounts as known to be false. They are inconclusive to me and not sufficient to believe that a man named Jesus rose from the dead.

            You have a hard time with this OVER and OVER again because you are operating under a false dichotomy: that I must ACCEPT or REJECT the claim with known certainty. I do neither.

            But in your heaven or hell world, that lumps me into the same fire-lake-burning class as those that believe Jesus rose from the dead and spit on his risen spirit anyway. You are inclined to do that but I am inlcined to consider you woefully close-minded and blinded by your religion as a result.

          • Right, so rather than examine the evidence that is available you would rather operate in an epestemically closed system. You believe in naturalism and so that naturally leads to your undercutting any and all evidence that would otherwise dissuade you from your current position.

            But please, be intellectually honest. You ARE rejecting the available evidence, you are just doing so on dubious grounds. It's like saying you don't believe X exists. When presented evidence that supports the existence of X you reject it because of your prior commitment to X not existing. It's circular and wholly dishonest.

            So if you want to continue to willfully reject the available evidence for Jesus's having lived, died, and subsequently risen. That's your choice. But don't insult yourself and others by claiming that your rejection of such data is based on anything other than a logical fallacy.

            If and when you are ever willing to engage this subject as an adult in an intellectually honest manor, I would be more than willing to discuss this further. However it appears at this point that you are content to simply reject and deride anything that you didn't already agree with at the outset.

          • Is there anyone you won't make assumptions about and ascribe their motives to while willfully rejecting when they tell you otherwise?

          • How am I making assumptions? What part about my statement above is false?

            You claim "my rejection of X is based on lack of evidence". However when I say "well here's evidence". You say "well I reject that off the bat". Outside of a prior commitment to naturalism, what is your reasoning for rejecting the evidence I've presented?

            And what about my evidence are you rejecting anyway? From your claims, I almost wonder whether you believe any historical knowledge is possible at all.

          • You assume I am a naturalist, disbelieve in supernatural phenomena a priori, haven't read the gospels, haven't read the rest of the Bible, haven't pondered the Bible from a historical and philosophical standpoint, haven't listened to sermons and apologists, haven't read non-Christian critique and analysis of the Bible and Christianity in general..

            You're delusional.

          • So, would you accept evidence for supernatural events?

            BTW: I've never said that I think you are ignorant of the Biblical evidence. There is a big difference between being ignorant of the facts and deliberately rejecting them. The former is forgivable.

          • So, would you accept evidence for supernatural events?

            Depends what you mean by "accept". I accept that you present the gospels as sufficient warrent to believe in the ressurection of Jesus. I do not find them convinving enough to believe in the resurrection of Jesus.

            There is a big difference between being ignorant of the facts and deliberately rejecting them.

            Yes and your hidden premise in this sentence is that these are the only 2 options for regarding the Bible.

          • "I do not find them convinving enough to believe in the resurrection of Jesus. "

            In your view, are supernatural events even possible? Or do you reject them all at the outset regardless of the evidence?

            "Yes and your hidden premise in this sentence is that these are the only 2 options for regarding the Bible."

            There are, you either believe or disbelieve the propositional truth claims contained therein.

          • In your view, are supernatural events even possible? Or do you reject them all at the outset regardless of the evidence?

            Sure, they are "possible".

            There are, you either believe or disbelieve the propositional truth claims contained therein.

            And there is the root of your problem. Belief isn't binary, it maps to the degree of evidence available. It is a continuous function. I can have more belief or less belief in certain propositions depending on the evidence availabke (e.g. I believe stronger in what color my desk is than what color my friend in Florida's mailbox is.)

          • Sorry, but beliefs are binary. You either believe or you disbelieve. Even if that disbelief is weak or passive, it is still disbelief. In your case, however, it is safe to say that your disbelief is active and strong and not passive or weak.

            There is no mythical state of "lack of belief". If you "lack belief" then you disbelieve, plain and simple. I know its popular in an age of chronic doubt to try and make "i don't know" an answer, but the truth is that if you don't know whether something is true, there is no way you can believe that something is true. That disbelief may indeed be weak, but in the case of most agnostics in America (yourself included) I highly doubt it mostly because a requisite for a weak belief is a lack of exposure to the relevant facts.

            So when it comes to the eyewitness accounts of the gospel, it is safe and logical to conclude that you disbelieve them for no good reason as you, yourself, have stated above. What I would like to know is how you consider this state of disbelief intellectually respectable and valid.

          • Sorry, but your idea of belief is overly simplistic and fails to acknowledge a whole host of belief states on the continuum. Now THAT is willful rejection of realtiy.

            Well, I am at least glad I found the fatal flaw in how you are able to call my position "willful rejection". Now, how you can square in your mind that it is moral and just that I burn for eternity for my position is another matter.

Leave a Reply