Perhaps the difference between what we consider "us" and what we consider "them" is that we have all undergone John Shade's suggested self-examination about what we believe.

At some point or other, most of us have been one of "them" and we became one of "us" because we stopped just going along with the people we trusted and looked for ourselves. To find out you've been betrayed by people you like and trust is not something everyone is psychologically up to. If they are wrong on that then they could be wrong on other things you also believe in and like the idea they share your view. It's a scary world.

"us" on the other hand, have passed through that anger phase onto a hardy self-reliance when it comes to what to believe and not believe. We don't hate the people that still believe, we used to be one.

I just wish they'd stop hating us for a moment. Whast you feat is finding out you've been had. We may be the agents of that, but it's not our fault.

I have wondered if we should approach Dara to make a programme called ‘Convincing the Climate Sceptics.’ But you know how much warmists love presenting both sides of the argument because it’s easier to refute straw men. They can’t risk us coming across as reasonable.

I try not to be too hard on Dara, and think "what would I have said if I was him?" - His career could be over if he publicly sided with Johnny. That is the problem in microcosm. If a comedian felt he had to go along with the consensus, and abandon ordinary human decency to stay in a job, then perhaps we can understand why scientists don't speak out.

Johnny Ball was an old man, alone in front of a baying crowd. I would like to think I would have had a berating word for the cowards, rather than going along with them.

missy: "If you think there really is no strong consensus, why not prove it?"

You clearly don't understand what you're being told. Whether there is a consensus, or not, is irrelevant to a scientific hypothesis. You clearly feel that a lot of scientists saying something is true is a clincher. It isn't. As I explained to you in my, clearly ignored, comment for a hypothesis to be accepted it has to (a) be falsifiable and (b) be able to predict the outcome of the hypothesis in the physical world, in short provide empirical evidence.

Why don't I accept the consensus view, well it isn't science, it's belief without the empirical evidence. So far there is no empirical evidence that CO2 is causing most of the warming. There is no empirical evidence that will be feedbacks of 3C for a doubling of CO2, in fact most of the scientific papers this year have come up with lower figures. Finally there is no way the scientists who are forecasting the future climate can do so, they've said so themselves, because the climate is coupled non-linear chaotic system, and you cannot predict the future states of these systems.

Does the consensus among priests that there is a deity mean there really is a deity?

I said earlier:

All I have heard is evasion along the lines of "there is no consensus" or "we are all of the consensus" (...)
Jun 19, 2013 at 12:20 AM Missy

Missy, if that is all you have heard, than you have not been listening.
Jun 19, 2013 at 8:15 AM splitpin

geronimo -save your keystrokes. Missy, even if she glances at your comment, is simply not listening.

"geronimo -save your keystrokes. Missy, even if she glances at your comment, is simply not listening."

Your right of course, we seem to attract two types of "warmist tourists" on this site. Scientists who think they're going to run rings round us because we're a bunch of right-wing thickos, and near greenies who also believe we're a bunch of right-wing thickos and think that, armed with the approval of the consensus, believe they can ask questions we can't answer. Missy asked the questions, was given innumerable answers, and then said the answers were "there is no consensus", which I doubt anyone said. She's (if she is a "she") is clearly out of her depth technically and believes that telling us that most scientists believe something is a clincher. Clearly no historian of science.

rhoda, on the contrary, the existence of the consensus is so that people don't have to bother looking. If they look, they see how flimsy it is, so it's better that they don't. It's a mental shorthand for "no need to re-do our sums, just go forth and preach"

Rhoda "You can't really support a consensus without knowing what it says, can you?" You can if you can't be bothered or aren't allowed to do your own thinking. Mankind has never had a better opportunity to examine all aspects of life for themselves. There are very few curtains behind which small men are pretending to be wizrds any more. We should all seize that with both hands.

A popular argument for consensus is the 'if your consultant neurosurgeon told you, you needed a brain operation you wouldn't argue with her/him.' Ignoring that to even get to see a specialist you have to have convinced any number of medical professionals there's something wrong with you. The more proactive the patient the better the outcome. Those who go with the medical consensus that 'there's nothing physically wrong with you, take two paracetamol and consider stress councelling' are more likely to die.

'if your consultant neurosurgeon told you, you needed a brain operation you wouldn't argue with her/him.'
Jun 19, 2013 at 8:46 PM TinyCO2 "

Would you really consult a neurosurgeon whose every prognosis had been proved wrong and whose solution to your problem was that you should have your brain removed?

I don't think so.

Glad the docs were wrong Rhoda :-)

I think everyone has tales of how the medical profession hasn't got it right. My story (one of many) was after having blood tests; 2 Ultra sounds; X ray; CT Scan; cystoscopy; much explaining of symtoms and personal probing; and finally after an MRI they operated to discover what I'd got wasn't what they expected. At least I didn't have to pay for it all but I did have my GP question whether I was a hypocondriac in the early stages because my symptoms were complicated

It highlights that even with some of the best observations available to science, nature keeps her secrets to herself. Climate science doesn't even have very good observations.

"Glad the docs were wrong Rhoda :-)"

Me too.

Some of you seem to think that I necessarily accept the truth of any consensus. I don't think this is what I have said. What I meant was that, given a consensus, a layman cannot just discard it. Even if he thinks he has a seemingly good reason to discard it, he risks falling prey to the Dunning–Kruger effect. Of course this requires that there is a consensus. Never mind...

I watched John Shade's video of the MIT debate (well actually I half-watched it while cooking) and fail to see his enthusiasm for such a dull debate. On balance, of the bearded ones, I found Emanuel more convincing than Lindzen. The latter seemed rather gnomic and I had trouble accepting his refusal to address the funding issue. I know from subsequent searching that he has acted on behalf of fossil fuel interests and while I can understand that he wouldn't want his personal finances examined in public, he fails to occupy the moral high ground. He also seems not to be so popular among fellow climate scientists from what I can gather (I read of scientists having tired of refuting him) and seems to have supported the AGW consensus a decade ago (co-authoring an NAS report on the subject). He is of course at will to change his mind, but anyway I wont be joining his fan club.

With respect to countries not reducing their CO2 emissions, Germany has reduced its by 20% from 1990 without so much as a riot, let alone revolution and war. I suppose these warnings of the dire consequences of cutting emissions are part of what people refer to as climate alarmism, although I thought it was usually an accusation aimed at climate scientists.

Missy, would you like to precis what the consensus actually says? As a list of bullet points as briefly as possible?

"Some of you seem to think that I necessarily accept the truth of any consensus. I don't think this is what I have said."

So it is reasonable to ask what your criteria are for believing or not believing a consensus?

What you've been told, time and time again, is that a consensus can be accepted if there is empirical evidence showing the hypothesis to be true. Empirical evidence means that the scientists make a prediction based on their hypothesis about future physical behaviour, like how the temperature will rise over the next ten years, and wait to see if there forecasts are true. If they are then the hypothesis might be true, if they're not then the hypothesis is wrong. It's that simple.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-observations-for-tropical-tropospheric-temperature/

"With respect to countries not reducing their CO2 emissions, Germany has reduced its by 20% from 1990 without so much as a riot, let alone revolution and war. I suppose these warnings of the dire consequences of cutting emissions are part of what people refer to as climate alarmism..."

Is it a good thing, or a bad thing. that Germany has reduced its CO2 output by 20%?

Nice one, but if you want to tool along to the EU Commission site and look at the price of electricity in Europe since 2005 you'll see it has risen by40%. In the same time period Japan's has risen by 15% and the US' has fallen by 5%. I don't know if you see that as a "dire consequence" but I do, and there will be many in fuel poverty who agree with me, along with those who lose their jobs as companies decamp to areas of the world where they don't have an artificial burden on their costs.