|
|
|
|
|
by knowtheory
4380 days ago
|
|
Unfortunately one of the skills experts develop is the ability to detect bullshit arguments. It is difficult to convey skepticism to a lay audience. One of the red flags this Rutan thing immediately sets off is that it is INCREDIBLY long, and despite that, doesn't provide any sense of what the structure of the argument it is providing will be. Does he dispute the data that scientists have collected? Does he dispute the analyses? On what basis? Can he attribute the effects the scientists are pointing to to other causes? Does he simply think that the effects don't matter? The main thing that's clear from all of his graphs is that he thinks that there's a lot of "scare tactics" going on. But the fact that this thing is 100 pages long and doesn't appear to have any structure should trigger alarm bells by itself. |
|
I thought it was interesting that he leads with a 150ppm argument. He basically states that increasing CO2 saved us from certain doom.
Interestingly, I don't hear anyone here refuting his primary point so it must be too new for realclimate.org to have a page giving marching orders to the drones. Mostly all I see is sarcasm and name calling... ie. Quality comments in league with Yahoo news and YouTube.
I'm glad this didn't make it to the front page. It's pretty off topic for this site. It doesn't really belong on hacker news.