Atomic Kitten wrote:
davecole wrote:You keep making comparisons between a tendency to think that the climate scientists might be right and a belief in God.
You keep failing to see the analogy. I should have discontinued the practice after realising you did not "get it" the first time.
I can see the analogy you are making but I can't understand the reasoning for making the comparison. To my understanding a belief in God is based upon faith, something that requires the absence of evidence. If I say that I believe the climate science has a non-zero probability of being correct enough that we have a problem on our hands, that does not mean that I believe the science is correct in any kind of absolute sense.
Rather than your three states for climate science and its theories, I believe there is a semi-infinite set of possibilities. The theories are very complicated and seek to explain mind bogglingly complicated systems. The probability that we will ever have a correct theory is essentially zero. I do not believe that means that the climate science is a waste of time and can never tell us anything useful enough to act upon. I believe that the science simply needs to stand up to the tests we subject it to, and needs to provide information that can be used by things such as risk analysis.
While you are willing to put it in the too hard basket and move onto other more black and white questions (or whatever you spend your time thinking about), the insurance industry does not have that luxury. I have read a number of news articles explaining that insurers are using climate science to calculate future risks and determine the premiums they charge.
Atomic Kitten wrote:
Are you willing to explain the rational thought processes that lead to your opinion that the climate science is wrong? ...
You seem to believe climate science is either right or wrong. I believe there are at least 3 states for climate science and its theories, or any science and its theories:
I am going with #3 for climate science and its "climate change" theory.
I do not believe that climate science is either right or wrong. I believe that there are elements of the science that are partially right, or more correctly, right enough. I thought I had explained that. I made an effort to explain the thought process I went through to arrive at my current stance on climate change. If you missed it, go back and read it.
If you are willing to express an opinion on climate science, but are not willing to explain how you arrived at that opinion, it is very hard to believe that opinion is based upon logical deduction. But as you say, you are not going to explain it, so I am left with that impression.
Atomic Kitten wrote:I am finding your consistent misunderstanding of what I have written frustrating. I will not be responding further to you in this thread either, no offense intended.
It seems that I do not hold a monopoly on consistent misunderstanding.