My understanding of what Alex's intentions were was first
"The position I’m taking is that the 90 or 97% consensus is completely false." I agree. It's a Myth. That's one point I am trying to point out. I provided published scientific papers as references to support my point, not my opinion nor my beliefs nor my personal values or political ideology, which are all irrelevant to the facts.
Alex's second more important point was this:
My more important point about that is Alex is missing point here. Rick has it right, not Alex. Because based on the above, Alex is then falsely claiming that:
There is a galactic difference between believing a non-scientific incorrect publicly accepted myth about
"97% of climate scientists concur..." and holding beliefs about AGW based on the science. Alex has created a strawman here and then believes that he has burnt it to the ground. He's done no such thing.
I totally support Alex in any endeavor to destroy myths held in the public domain. He is correct to challenge and expose the affects of personal beliefs people adhere to from all sides of any controversy. That's good and that is healthy. That's what skepticism is supposed be all about.
But Alex has not made the tiniest dint into the validity of climate science itself. All he has done is proven that Rick believed something that was in fact not really true ... or at the very least was not and has not been supported by any scientific or academic published paper. And that's it.
Putting what I think Alex believes into my words as it is commonly help myth in it's own right.
"People who believe in climate science, including climate scientists only believe in AGW/CC because of their pre-existing beliefs, values and personal ideologies .... and/or out some particular self-interest. And then, even when confronted with genuine scientific rigor, they (and humanity in general) do not and will not change their beliefs as a result of the work of Science and Scientists -- even when that proves beyond all doubt they had it wrong."
(and if I have that wrong, I am open to Alex to correct it)
Now what I am saying here is that, itself, is merely another belief. It's a falsehood but it's a myth that Alex truly believes is correct. I say he is wrong. It's not true and I can prove it. And I only need to prove it once and not under any and all circumstances to show how wrong he is in sticking to that "belief/myth". However he is right to make a big deal about it, because it is also true - or rather a "truism" that persists. But it is not as universal as he (and I suspect you) might believe it is.
My example? In a medieval Europe controlled and run by the powers that be in the Church, Royalty and Professional Guilds despite all the previously known facts that the world was not flat and the Sun did not circle around the Earth a chap called Galileo finally went public about what Copernicus, the Greeks, the Persians, and the Muslims had known for centuries .... the earth was round and the planets revolved around the Sun. He used "early science and a very new technology" to prove that. Over time as a direct result of that scientific research and the publication of same eventually the existing Myths that were being forced upon the populace by the Chruch et al were destroyed. People, both in power circles and the general public and the learned did in fact change their Beliefs.
And in time even those more delusional souls who choose to stick with the young earth mythology of the fundamentalist Christians will likewise change their mythical beliefs as well about Astrophysics, Evolution on planet Earth and their literalist interpretation of the Garden of Eden stories.
To me this thread is not about the validity of Climate Science - it is only about the extent of public disinformation of what Climate Science really is versus what it is not, and how easily people tend to latch onto false beliefs and myths in the public domain and how that happens. My main point is offering some suggestions about how to properly destroy those myths without creating other equally misleading myths at the same time. :)
So let me quote a classic example of a AGW/CC science everyday proponent/believer and what he uses to argue about it:
"when 97 out of 100 working climate specialists say one thing and 3 say something else,"
He's using the non-scientific accepted myth .... but that does NOT prove the Climate Science is correct. Just as denying the myth doesn't prove Climate Science is incorrect and totally flawed, or that the only reason people "accept the science" is because they have a faulty BELIEF about it. Which is why Rick has it 100% correct - it makes no difference, in reality - it's just another myth.
Anyone ever heard of the Dunning Kruger Effect? If not do some research about it, for it is really enlightening in more ways than one. It takes cognitive dissonance and similar human difficulties to a much higher level of understanding imo. Check this comment out for how and why it applies to almost all internet discussions and media reporting about climate science:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...sea-level-rise/comment-page-3/#comment-649306
.