USA Today: Could we be wrong about global warming?

[mobes23]

While I love the access to information you get out of the internet, there's no doubt the internet also spews a lot of crap too. Any idiot can make himself out to be an expert and a lot of times it's brutally hard to separate the signal from the noise. Throughout this thread, I've wished I'd done a better job keeping up with those NOAA scientists -- they lived this stuff everyday and knew the field inside and out.

I don't think Barfo's been out of line pointing out that it's tough to know who the real experts are purely by googling. (Cripes, is that really a controversial point to make?) Absent having direct knowledge of the field, then well-respected, peer-reviewed journals would be the best bet, but do any of us know which ones those are purely by the title? Near as I can tell, none of here on S2 are really experts on this stuff. And, we're not going to be come experts because of google or bing.

 

[PapaG]

While I love the access to information you get out of the internet, there's no doubt the internet also spews a lot of crap too. Any idiot can make himself out to be an expert and a lot of times it's brutally hard to separate the signal from the noise. Throughout this thread, I've wished I'd done a better job keeping up with those NOAA scientists -- they lived this stuff everyday and knew the field inside and out.

I don't think Barfo's been out of line pointing out that it's tough to know who the real experts are purely by googling. (Cripes, is that really a controversial point to make?) Absent having direct knowledge of the field, then well-respected, peer-reviewed journals would be the best bet, but do any of us know which ones those are purely by the title? Near as I can tell, none of here on S2 are really experts on this stuff. And, we're not going to be come experts because of google or bing.

Which is why dismissing a person's data based on assumed credentials, yet accepting another person's data with assumed similar credentials, seems a bit agenda-driven.

When skepticism is shunned and skeptics are smeared, it isn't science. It's politics/agenda.

 

[mobes23]

When skepticism is shunned and skeptics are smeared, it isn't science. It's politics/agenda.

Lol. Politics? Agenda? In this thread? You're crazy.

Personally, I've taken everything said in this thread with a grain of salt. We're all hacks trying to act like we're experts.

 

[PapaG]

Lol. Politics? Agenda? In this thread? You're crazy.

Personally, I've taken everything said in this thread with a grain of salt. We're all hacks trying to act like we're experts.

Since when has skepticism, based on available scientific data that offers a counterpoint, been considered hackish in the field of science? It seems hackish to automatically dismiss the countering data without refuting it with data.

 

[mobes23]

Since when has skepticism, based on available scientific data that offers a counterpoint, been considered hackish in the field of science? It seems hackish to automatically dismiss the countering data without refuting it with data.

That's just it. You DON'T understand the articles you've posted. To be an effective skeptic, you actually have to understand the science. Heck, I'm even lumping myself in the hack category and I have a solid scientific background in a fairly relevant field. It takes a hardcore hack to not realize he's a hack.

As it is, you google articles, find one you like and accept it as gospel because it fits your political view. You deem someone an expert because their resume sounds relevant (if you knew the science, you'd know who the experts are because you'd have read their papers and appreciated the work of the best researchers.) I think it's hilarious anyone could actually be outraged that other people question the "expert" they found on google. Do you really know enough to get to that point?

To say that I've dismissed anything automatically is crap. I read those articles (or plot, as the case may be), considered them, and offered counterpoints. I've also gone so far as to say some of it is interesting and worth consideration. No automatic dismissals here. On the other hand, I think it's pretty fair to ask what's up with the automatic gospelization of those articles when you don't understand them.

 

[PapaG]

That's just it. You DON'T understand the articles you've posted. To be an effective skeptic, you actually have to understand the science. Heck, I'm even lumping myself in the hack category and I have a solid scientific background in a fairly relevant field. It takes a hardcore hack to not realize he's a hack.

As it is, you google articles, find one you like and accept it as gospel because it fits your political view. You deem someone an expert because their resume sounds relevant (if you knew the science, you'd know who the experts are because you'd have read their papers and appreciated the work of the best researchers.) I think it's hilarious anyone could actually be outraged that other people question the "expert" they found on google. Do you really know enough to get to that point?

To say that I've dismissed anything automatically is crap. I read those articles (or plot, as the case may be), considered them, and offered counterpoints. I've also gone so far as to say some of it is interesting and worth consideration. No automatic dismissals here. On the other hand, I think it's pretty fair to ask what's up with the automatic gospelization of those articles when you don't understand them.

So you're an admitted hack. You still can't explain/refute the temp v. CO2 graphs and the lack of correlation. I don't "google articles". I read articles. I see they don't match with the alarmism. I posted some in this thread.

Your answer?

Smear me and say I am "gospelizing" data that refutes your stance, and smear the scientists who compiled the data. Again, it's all agenda, and you are Exhibit A.

Skepticism based on new data isn't "gospelization" as a counterpoint. Immediately disregarding solid data that counters your beliefs? That is "gospelization".

I don't claim anything. You seem to be claiming an unprovable.

 

[mobes23]

So you're an admitted hack. You still can't explain/refute the temp v. CO2 graphs and the lack of correlation. I don't "google articles". I read articles. I see they don't match with the alarmism. I posted some in this thread.

Your answer?

Smear me and say I am "gospelizing" data that refutes your stance, and smear the scientists who compiled the data. Again, it's all agenda, and you are Exhibit A.

Skepticism based on new data isn't "gospelization" as a counterpoint. Immediately disregarding solid data that counters your beliefs? That is "gospelization".

I don't claim anything. You seem to be claiming an unprovable.

- Back to Refute? You don't understand the underlying science, but you apparently believe you do. Because of this, no one can ever refute anything. It's impossible. This thread is becoming proof of this. I've begun to hate the world "refute". (And yes, you are a HUGE hack . . . at least when it comes to global warming. The more you deny it the more your hack stature continues to grow.)

- No smeared scientists. I don't think I've smeared any scientists and I apologize if I have hurt a scientist's feelings. More than anything, I have called into question your idolatry of certain scientists (who just happen to mesh with your politics).

- All for skepticism. Science works best when there are opposing viewpoints. Scientists constantly test their own ideas. I have been skeptical of both sides of this issue. You have only been skeptical of the view you oppose for political and economic reasons. That's not skepticism. That's being an ideaologue.

- I'm not the one making wild claims. I see merit in both sides of the argument and think more research is needed. You say there is no correlation of CO2 to global warming and our policies should reflect this. I'd like to think I'm wrong about this, but you have not wavered once. Scientists are not prone to absolute statements, but politicos are.

 

[PapaG]

- Back to Refute? You don't understand the underlying science, but you apparently believe you do. .

You are the one dismissing science that contradicts the CO2 v. Temp causation. Again, smear the skeptic, but don't address the data.

It's a broken record, and your act is very old at this point. I didn't read the rest of your post because the first sentence was so absurd.

You may as well just take the barfo approach and dismiss things automatically based on assumed/perceived credentials.

Oh wait, you just did do that.

 

[Denny Crane]

mobes,

What do you think a graph of human life expectancy compared to CO2 emissions or global temperature would look like?

 

[mobes23]

mobes,

What do you think a graph of human life expectancy compared to CO2 emissions or global temperature would look like?

Hmmm. What years are we talking about? If the plot started with years when modern science (loosely, the start of the industrial age) started to improve healthcare, then I would expect a positive slope. The two would probably appear to have correlation because CO2 levels generally increased during that period.

Edit: I was mainly thinking CO2 emissions -- not sure if that will impact the point that you want to make.

 

[mobes23]

You are the one dismissing science that contradicts the CO2 v. Temp causation. Again, smear the skeptic, but don't address the data.

It's a broken record, and your act is very old at this point. I didn't read the rest of your post because the first sentence was so absurd.

You may as well just take the barfo approach and dismiss things automatically based on assumed/perceived credentials.

Oh wait, you just did do that.

I offered scientific arguments. I then reiterated scientific arguments. Like I've said before, go back and look. (And, by the way, we both know you read my entire post, but you weren't able to come up with a reasonable response and then copped out.)

Looks like an interesting article in Nature: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090610154453.htm

 

[Denny Crane]

Hmmm. What years are we talking about? If the plot started with years when modern science (loosely, the start of the industrial age) started to improve healthcare, then I would expect a positive slope. The two would probably appear to have correlation because CO2 levels generally increased during that period.

Edit: I was mainly thinking CO2 emissions -- not sure if that will impact the point that you want to make.

That correlations between any two things can be made to look scary or not so scary.

The effect of NATURAL global warming does seem to have coincided with people living longer. I suspect a lot of it has to do with the environment being better for agriculture. In fact, I would argue that Man has gone from spending nearly 100% of his time gathering food to the point, today, where a relative few (Arthur Daniels Midland and other big companies) do all this work, allowing for pursuits of things like Internets and building of bigger cities.

As much as you argue that there needs to be some expertise in evaluating all the evidence on both sides, there's a lot of plain old common sense that can be applied, too.

 

[yakbladder]

barfo is dismissing the people as experts.

the others are acknowledging that the people are experts but disagree with their conclusions.

It's still ironic. Let me see if I can make it clearer for you:

- You claim barfo dismisses the "expert" credentials of an individual because that individual presents evidence contrary to his belief that there is man-made climate change.
- I claim the others dismiss the evidence presented by thousands of individuals because their evidence contradicts those others' preconceived beliefs.
- You do not call out those other people, just barfo.

Better?

The point still stands either way.

 

[yakbladder]

Since when has skepticism, based on available scientific data that offers a counterpoint, been considered hackish in the field of science? It seems hackish to automatically dismiss the countering data without refuting it with data.

PG, here's the issue I have with your take on this - let me use an example - there could be 9 million accredited flavor experts in the world. 8,999,999 say "this jellybean tastes like lemon". 1 expert says "this jellybean tastes like lime". You have a preconceived notion that the jellybean will taste like lime. So you go, "Aha! I've found this expert who says what I believe! Therefore, it is right." Is it possible that the 1 expert is right and 8,999,999 are wrong? Sure it is. Is it likely? Not really. There have been times in our history when that hasn't been the case, but I don't see that happening now.

Pushing aside the obvious fact that both camps would have to begin by defining an acceptable term for "expert" in order to weed out the "hacks" and "google scrubs", my question to you would be this -> What would it take for you to be convinced? Would it take Rush Limbaugh blaring out about how man-made climate change exists and is potentially fatal to the Earth? Or would it take some piece of evidence that would sway you and if so what type of evidence? Because anyone..ANYONE...can find evidence to refute a point of view. And it seems that the only deciding factor is pre-conceived notions that is deciding what is right and wrong.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I come in on this side of the debate...

No one has shown me (to my personal satisfaction yet) that there is a clear winner or loser to this. For every chart Denny throws up on here, someone's going to find an "expert" that they believe that refutes it. For every time someone says "there's 9M experts that believe it exists", someone like Crichton can do a bunch of research quoting papers and analysis, not Al Gore's powerpoint.

So why is our government trying to create policy and laws, potentially handicapping our economy, for something that isn't a given yet? Especially since China and India (and much of the rest of the developing world) are, by their actions, saying they couldn't care less about the planet if it means cheap energy and development? I'm not saying discontinue research--I'm not even saying to stop the grants. I'm asking "How about we attempt to figure this out first, before enacting policy on a guess?"

 

[Minstrel]

So why is our government trying to create policy and laws, potentially handicapping our economy, for something that isn't a given yet? Especially since China and India (and much of the rest of the developing world) are, by their actions, saying they couldn't care less about the planet if it means cheap energy and development? I'm not saying discontinue research--I'm not even saying to stop the grants. I'm asking "How about we attempt to figure this out first, before enacting policy on a guess?"

The crux is simply that, while we pretenders (I agree with mobes23 that we all basically are) on this forum cannot prove it conclusively one way or the other for you, the vast majority of the scientific community does feel that it has been demonstrated. That's why many governments are accepting these conclusions and making policy for it. The argument on this forum really boils down not to which of us can prove what, but whether we should believe the scientific establishment or the small minority who suggest otherwise.

As for China and India, it's somewhat akin to nuclear test ban treaties...they're a "luxury" for those who have, a problem for those who have not, even if it's a "good thing" in the abstract. I don't mean the words "luxury" and "problem" literally, since obviously it hurts anyone's economy...but it's similar to middle class or above middle class doing things that cost more but are better for the environment...they can afford to do it, lower class people can't.

India and China developing their economies in a rapid, "who cares about anyone else?" way, similar to how the US or UK did in the past. It's tough to tell them "Do as we do now, not as we did then." That doesn't mean that we shouldn't still act responsibly and encourage them to act responsibly too, especially as they become global economic powers in their own rights.

 

[barfo]

Bingo. It's not a debate when one side automatically dismisses anything that goes against their dogma by questioning the person presenting the data, and not the data itself.

It's a debate over credentials because none of us know enough about the subject to actually debate the science. So having a scientific debate, while highly amusing, would be pointless. Not that this thread isn't fairly pointless anyway...

As for my 'dogma', my dogma is not that there is or isn't global warming, but that science is the way to determine that question, and scientists are the people who do that. I don't have the time and energy to become an expert in this field, but I think I have a pretty good idea how much I don't know, and I have respect for those that do know.

There are also many "climate scientists" (whatever that means) who question anthropogenic global warming, or even what impact man has on global warming.

And that's fine with me. I don't reject their work. If in the end they win out, then I'll accept that conclusion. At the moment they are a small minority.

Calling them kooks, or questioning their credentials while accepting similarly credentialed people because they are on "your side" (not you, just an example), tells me that the science backing anthropogenic GW has some holes in it.

As I say, I don't reject the work of anyone who is actually employed as a "climate scientist" (whatever that means). The EPA guy and the mining geologist, however, are apparently not employed as "climate scientists" (whatever that means). In fact, I seem to recall Denny found one actual climate scientist who agreed with his point of view - not sure if that was this thread or another one - and I did not dismiss him as unqualified.

The EPA "economist's" report, through meta-analysis, illustrates the weakness of the science that is recorded, yet instead of rebutting it with new science, or even pulling up the data and arguing against the "economists" conclusions, we simply get smears on the man's character, with zero knowledge of what he knows about climate science.

Well, I didn't bring him into the discussion as an expert. It seems to me that if you want to present him as an expert you should give us some reason to believe that he is. And no, a bachelor's degree in physics doesn't cut the mustard. As for weakness in the science, sure. No one is saying we have a perfect understanding. But the science we have is the best we can do, currently.

My point is really that: science is the best we can do. Religion, politics, wild assumptions, random guesses, and graphs downloaded from the internet are all far lesser approaches. And right now, the science says global warming is in part caused by us humans.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

It's a debate over credentials because none of us know enough about the subject to actually debate the science. So having a scientific debate, while highly amusing, would be pointless. Not that this thread isn't fairly pointless anyway...

As for my 'dogma', my dogma is not that there is or isn't global warming, but that science is the way to determine that question, and scientists are the people who do that. I don't have the time and energy to become an expert in this field, but I think I have a pretty good idea how much I don't know, and I have respect for those that do know.



And that's fine with me. I don't reject their work. If in the end they win out, then I'll accept that conclusion. At the moment they are a small minority.



As I say, I don't reject the work of anyone who is actually employed as a "climate scientist" (whatever that means). The EPA guy and the mining geologist, however, are apparently not employed as "climate scientists" (whatever that means). In fact, I seem to recall Denny found one actual climate scientist who agreed with his point of view - not sure if that was this thread or another one - and I did not dismiss him as unqualified.



Well, I didn't bring him into the discussion as an expert. It seems to me that if you want to present him as an expert you should give us some reason to believe that he is. And no, a bachelor's degree in physics doesn't cut the mustard. As for weakness in the science, sure. No one is saying we have a perfect understanding. But the science we have is the best we can do, currently.

My point is really that: science is the best we can do. Religion, politics, wild assumptions, random guesses, and graphs downloaded from the internet are all far lesser approaches. And right now, the science says global warming is in part caused by us humans.

barfo

No it doesn't, at least not beyond reproach or skepticism. I can see why you would feel that way, though, since you automatically reject any data, or any analysis of data, that questions your predetermined conclusion. Whoever posted that the only "experts" you accept are those who you agree with. I'd ask what makes the head of the IPCC an expert, but I wouldn't expect a serious answer from you.

I think that's called willful ignorance, right?

 

[barfo]

Not it doesn't, at least not beyond reproach or skepticism.

Saying "no it doesn't" isn't much of an argument.

I can see why you would feel that way, though, since you automatically reject any data, or any analysis of data, that questions your predetermined conclusion.

You are confused. I'm not looking at any data one way or the other. I'm trusting the scientists to look at the data. They are better at it than me.

I think that's called willful ignorance, right?

It's called knowing your limitations. I'm not an expert, and looking at graphs on the internet won't make me one.

barfo

 

[barfo]

I'd ask what makes the head of the IPCC an expert, but I wouldn't expect a serious answer from you.

I'm actually not sure whether he is an expert. He's clearly a successful scientific manager, but I have no idea what he actually knows. His role may be more akin to a CEO than a working scientist (I'm just speculating, I have no idea how the IPCC is run).

barfo

 

[PapaG]

Saying "no it doesn't" isn't much of an argument.

Data has been presented. You won't even read it. Willful ignorance.

You are confused. I'm not looking at any data one way or the other. I'm trusting the scientists to look at the data. They are better at it than me.

You are accepting the data from one side, and rejecting the data from another side. That's called bias. It has no place in science.

It's called knowing your limitations. I'm not an expert, and looking at graphs on the internet won't make me one.

barfo

You're no expert, yet you can judge which people in the field are experts, and which people are not. I'm assuming they are all experts, and there is some conflicting data. You are arguing an absolute that is not an absolute, and I am wondering why data that casts doubt on the "consensus" is suppressed or ignored.

 

[barfo]

Data has been presented. You won't even read it. Willful ignorance.

Yes, willful ignorance. Because I know how much effort it would take to properly understand and analyze. I don't have the time and energy for that, so I'll rely on those who do.

You are accepting the data from one side, and rejecting the data from another side. That's called bias. It has no place in science.

I'm not doing science here. I'm just accepting the conclusions of the scientists.

You're no expert, yet you can judge which people in the field are experts, and which people are not.

No, I can judge which people can be presumed to be experts, and which cannot.

I'm assuming they are all experts, and there is some conflicting data.

You can assume what you want, and yes, of course there is some conflicting data. There is always some conflicting data.

You are arguing an absolute that is not an absolute, and I am wondering why data that casts doubt on the "consensus" is suppressed or ignored.

You are wondering that because you don't know that there is always conflicting data in any complex field. It's not a simple subject.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

I'm not doing science here. I'm just accepting the conclusions of the scientists.

You're accepting the conclusions of some scientists. Others, you ignore or smear.

No, I can judge which people can be presumed to be experts, and which cannot.

Sure you can, and I can laugh at you for doing so.

You can assume what you want, and yes, of course there is some conflicting data. There is always some conflicting data.

Um, not really. There are sets in science where there is no conflicting data. I don't see people challenging the molecular make-up of water, for instance.

You are wondering that because you don't know that there is always conflicting data in any complex field. It's not a simple subject.

barfo

"The debate is over".

Anyhow, since you admit you know jack squat about science, I'll have to disregard your sentence, but I will stress that you are the one being "simple" here by smearing/disregarding any conflicting data. Seriously, thanks for the laugh.

 

[mobes23]

Anyhow, since you admit you know jack squat about science, I'll have to disregard your sentence, but I will stress that you are the one being "simple" here by smearing/disregarding any conflicting data.

On the other hand, ignoring your own dearth of scientific knowledge or understanding while claiming expertise means you know what you're talking about?

Refute this, wise and all knowing one: http://www.cccma.ec.gc.ca/papers/ngillett/PDFS/nature08047.pdf

 

[PapaG]

On the other hand, ignoring your own dearth of scientific knowledge or understanding while claiming expertise means you know what you're talking about?

Refute this, wise and all knowing one: http://www.cccma.ec.gc.ca/papers/ngillett/PDFS/nature08047.pdf

I'm not refuting anything. That's the point.

 

[PapaG]

Refute this, wise and all knowing one: http://www.cccma.ec.gc.ca/papers/ngillett/PDFS/nature08047.pdf

Interesting paper. Did you read the methods summary?

 

[Minstrel]

Um, not really. There are sets in science where there is no conflicting data. I don't see people challenging the molecular make-up of water, for instance.

The "molecular make-up of water" isn't a model. It's a stand-alone empirical fact. All models have some level of uncertainty or conflicting data, because all scientific models are inherently limited by human knowledge, which is not all-encompassing or even close.

The fact there are questions and some conflicting data in the man-made global warming model doesn't mean that it's not solid science. There is always the possibility that it is wrong, and any credible scientist would agree to that...that possibility exists with every single scientific model. What the vast majority of informed scientists say is that the bulk of evidence suggests that man-made effects are amplifying the natural temperature cycle. How much and what the ultimate effects will be aren't conclusively known and the scientific community (Al Gore isn't part of it) doesn't claim that it is known.

 

[Denny Crane]

I come in on this side of the debate...

No one has shown me (to my personal satisfaction yet) that there is a clear winner or loser to this. For every chart Denny throws up on here, someone's going to find an "expert" that they believe that refutes it. For every time someone says "there's 9M experts that believe it exists", someone like Crichton can do a bunch of research quoting papers and analysis, not Al Gore's powerpoint.

So why is our government trying to create policy and laws, potentially handicapping our economy, for something that isn't a given yet? Especially since China and India (and much of the rest of the developing world) are, by their actions, saying they couldn't care less about the planet if it means cheap energy and development? I'm not saying discontinue research--I'm not even saying to stop the grants. I'm asking "How about we attempt to figure this out first, before enacting policy on a guess?"

Yep.

I did talk about common sense in a previous post, I'll get to that in reply to Minstrel below.

The crux is simply that, while we pretenders (I agree with mobes23 that we all basically are) on this forum cannot prove it conclusively one way or the other for you, the vast majority of the scientific community does feel that it has been demonstrated. That's why many governments are accepting these conclusions and making policy for it. The argument on this forum really boils down not to which of us can prove what, but whether we should believe the scientific establishment or the small minority who suggest otherwise.

As for China and India, it's somewhat akin to nuclear test ban treaties...they're a "luxury" for those who have, a problem for those who have not, even if it's a "good thing" in the abstract. I don't mean the words "luxury" and "problem" literally, since obviously it hurts anyone's economy...but it's similar to middle class or above middle class doing things that cost more but are better for the environment...they can afford to do it, lower class people can't.

India and China developing their economies in a rapid, "who cares about anyone else?" way, similar to how the US or UK did in the past. It's tough to tell them "Do as we do now, not as we did then." That doesn't mean that we shouldn't still act responsibly and encourage them to act responsibly too, especially as they become global economic powers in their own rights.

The vast majority of "experts" who study space BELIEVE that we are not alone. There's funding for projects like SETI and grants for fields like astrobiology (where scientists make 3d models of what ET might look like). Yet everywhere we do look we find frigid barren deserts, planets and moons without plate tectonics, radiation on a scale makes it so no life can for long, not one single signal of any kind there's life near any star, etc... There's a consensus among these scientists that there surely is life out there.

They're playing a game of odds, probability and statistics, that giant numbers means only a tiny chance makes it so.

The grounds for there being life out there are no better than there's evidence we're causing (more) global warming. You want me to believe because someone else believes. You sound like a religious nut trying to convert me to your religion. See it?

Here's where common sense comes in. We can create a decision matrix, 2x2:

---------- Is Manmade | Is Not
Act           A       |     B
Don't Act     C       |     D

Let's look at the consequences.

A) Save the world!
B) Starve to death.
C) Learn to swim.
D) Profit from not wasting money on whatever Act costs.

I think you propose B. We waste a lot of money for no real good. We end up living in caves because no energy we can produce is clean enough. Either that or we spend 100% of our time (Man as a whole) making and gathering energy; we starve to death.

I propose D and I am right!

We need to consider the other two. The consequences of C will happen in any case. Instead of in 100 years (if you're right) in 200. You cannot deny the Earth is warming without Man's help.

A is the biggie. There's no compelling evidence we can save the world or need to. In fact, the consensus is equally sound that there is life out there, so you may as well argue we spend all our resources preparing for an attack from little green men.

So D is right.

 

[Denny Crane]

I would add an irony to my previous post, OT because it's about the big numbers and life thing.

If the numbers and probabilities are to be the sole basis for belief (belief is a religious thing, not a scientific one)...

Then there must be multiple other Minstrels out there. And other earths. And so on.

Don't laugh, because it is somewhat mainstream belief among scientists and mathematicians.

 

[Minstrel]

The vast majority of "experts" who study space BELIEVE that we are not alone. There's funding for projects like SETI and grants for fields like astrobiology (where scientists make 3d models of what ET might look like). Yet everywhere we do look we find frigid barren deserts, planets and moons without plate tectonics, radiation on a scale makes it so no life can for long, not one single signal of any kind there's life near any star, etc... There's a consensus among these scientists that there surely is life out there.

They're playing a game of odds, probability and statistics, that giant numbers means only a tiny chance makes it so.

The grounds for there being life out there are no better than there's evidence we're causing (more) global warming. You want me to believe because someone else believes. You sound like a religious nut trying to convert me to your religion. See it?

I'm afraid not. I realize the "science believes in aliens as a religious belief" is your go-to tenet about science, but it's nonsense. "Science" has no position on whether there's intelligent life out there and certainly no model regarding it (Drake's equation is merely a toy to play with, not a model). There are people who search for intelligent life (looking for such a thing is certainly a scientific endeavour) and there are differing opinions on the likelihoods of ever finding intelligent life (or even non-intelligent life). But there's definitely no conclusion about it, because nothing has been observed yet.

This has nothing at all to do with the model of man-made global warming, which is based on actual observations and data. The preponderance of which, most scientists who study the issue believe, suggests man has effect on global temperatures.

Your "decision matrix" is equivalent to Drake's equation. There's nothing scientific about it, just a "fill in your chosen probabilities and results to reach whatever conclusion you want."