This is by far the most common argument I hear in my daily life from those within my social circle. It is, in essence, an attempt to establish reasonable doubt rather than refute the science. It fails miserably.
Here is my reply.
You check your general savings account and notice a large drop in the balance from what you know should be in there.
You go into a branch of your bank to question them about it. The teller looks at your account and confidently concludes, “Your account balance always changes.”
Is that the end of the story? Would you accept, on any level, that this reply answers your concern?
newanthropocene.wordpress.com 
Reblogged this on uknowispeaksense.
LikeLike
For the U.S., I think the baseball/steroids analogy works well here also. Batters have always hit home runs, some years fewer, some years more. But during the big steroid years, they were hitting more and more. Finally, it became clear that this was not a coincidence or a “natural cycle.”
LikeLike
Your car’s speed always changes when you drive it. And you have certainly accelerated from 0 to 60 many times in the past.
Therefore, accelerating from 0 to 60 because you were rear-ended by a speeding truck should be no problem — unless you are a highway-safety alarmist, that is.
(Note to deniers: In case you don’t understand this analogy, it’s a rate of change thing. The consequences of accelerating from 0 to 60 in 1/10 of a second will be quite a bit more extreme than the consequences of accelerating from 0 to 60 in 10 seconds. It’s not just the magnitude of the change; that rate at which it occurs is also extremely important.)
LikeLike
The better analogy would be that you have had a bank account for 4.5 billion years, and over that time the balance has repeatedly moved up and down wildly in cycles lasting thousands of years. Now this week it appears to be moving slightly. And your analogy persuades the skeptic how?
LikeLike
I wouldn’t need to because that analogy is entirely flawed and irrelevant.
Moreover, are you trying to tell me that we understand paleo-climate better than that we can actually directly observe and that you believe there has been some covered up conspiracy to hide a factor leading to the Holocene? To make an analogy, you need to understand the science. To be be a sceptic, you need to understand the methodology being used in a given paper well enough to spot an error, should one exist.
Now, I admit, my background has been on other subjects (ecology and meteorology) and I don’t have the specialised skills to pick up errors in a climate study apart from the more general types that can appear in any paper. However, I know first hand that “climate sceptics” lack even that. They do not approach the science able to test it, they just flat out reject it without approach. They are not sceptics, they deny what they choose to ignore.
LikeLike
Moth, why so emotional? You admit that you personally lack the expertise requisite to scientific knowledge (or the scientific confidence that approaches it) and then you resort to ad hominem attacks against a broad group of people, impugning both their qualifications and their intentions. Your accusing, emotional approach is one of the reasons that honest skeptics like me find the climate hysteria so hard to take seriously. When I ask an honest question and find myself shouted down, labeled a “denier” (see “holocaust”), and accused of malicious intentions, it feels more like a Spanish Inquisition than an intelligent scientific discussion.
LikeLike
lol. No emotion.
What’s wrong with admitting I’m not a climate scientist, thus lack the speciality to critique the finer details of climate research?
To deny something does not automatically indicate denial of holocaust. That’s poisoning the well.
I know a very successful aristocratic misinformer who screams ad hominem when anyone challenges his lack of understanding on a subject.
I pointed out that you, oddly, accept paleo-climate research but reject directly observable climate studies to make an ill-informed analogy.
And all you note is my admission of note being a climate scientist. I’m very use to the denial word games played off as “debate”
LikeLike
I’ll explain my analogy, because it seems to have gone over your head.
Your bank balance will not change without something influencing it. Simply saying that your bank balances is not an answer as to why it changed.
It is the same with climate. Climate only changes due to influencing factors. To say that climate always changes doesn’t impact the question as to why the climate is currently changing – which is how the argument is used.
Your paleo-climate argument is, frankly, odd. It’s also irrelevant to the article and the point being made. Jumping on “holocaust” and “ad hominem” rants at my simple reply are also typical tactics for the anti-science position.
LikeLike