Come on! If you are applying your analogy to AGW or Climate Change your premise is wrong.
"One doctor says the X-ray is blurry so he is not sure you have cancer." You don't have an x-ray regarding this subject. You don't even have the symptoms that would have you go to a doctor in the first place.
The Earth's temperature is declining and CO2 is rising. What is the problem?
Would you trust doctors who repeatedly got caught lying? You really would trust Al Gore, James Hansen and Phil Jones? You got to be kidding!
The analogy could be better.
Many people have a view of science from their schooldays and nothing else. Every experiment they did the teacher already knew the answer. He knew that if you ramped up the voltage across a resistor and measured the current and plotted the results you would get a straight line. He even knew the slope. He also knew that you did not get a straight line if you swapped the resistancs for a light bulb. He knew what the charge on the electron was; he knew the mechanical equivalent of heat etc etc. A lot of people think that is how science works. You ask the expert and they tell you the answer. Simple.
However, research at the cutting edge of anything is not so clear cut. No-one, not even teacher, knows the answers. If an experiment is done it is not always wise to believe the answers. There may be some unrecognised unknowns.
A typical family doctor is a bit like teacher. If you have an established illness then it will be recognised and you will be referred to suitable expert for confirmation and treatment.
There was once a time when the missionaries went to Africa and set up hospitals for the inhabitants. All was going well until people presented with influenza type symptom. This turned into chest pain, nausea, abdominal pain, diarrhea, and vomiting. It seemed to be affecting more and more people until the doctors and nurses contracted it too. Victims could start bleeding from a number of orifices.
When the locals realised that the medics could not cure themselves they resorted to what they would have done before. They all returned to their own villages, locked themselves away at home and didn't venture out until people had stopped dying.
In fact, the local hospital set up by the experts was, in fact, one of the major factors in spreading the disease.
The locals' instincts were right as quarantine was the best solution as medical science did not have a cure.
So, at the cutting edge of science the experts do not always know the answers.
If I had a well-known disease I would believe the medics. If I had something unrecognised then I would be more sceptical.
I guess you could play the game Moe seems to be and make a claim like this
"Your analogy is incomplete. First you show no symptoms and this diagnosis began 10 years ago when you went to the doctor with a fever and swollen limphnodes."
Of course the claims for the first signs of AGW are, rising sea level, retreating glacial ice, shrinking small mountain glaciers and the retreat of Arctic glacial ice. The only problem with Moe comment of "no symptoms" is that all those things are actually happening, that is an observed fact, some like the Arctic sea ice are actually happening faster than was first estimated. The size of the 'wishful thinking' bubble denier are living in is starting to contract.
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators#s...
Current Arctic sea ice is running below even the record set in 2012
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/image...
The continuation of your analogy would be a your patient telling all those doctors they are wrong because a mad English Lord who invents kids games and has a serious nazi fetish told him he is not sick and that was supported by blogger who was a radio & TV weatherman, which is basically what a great deal of deniers excuses against AGW boil down to nonsense from mockingtone & watts (which sounds like a magic act), neither of whom is or has ever been any sort of scientist, in your analogy they would be Philippine faith healers.
Your analogy is incomplete. First you show no symptoms and this diagnosis began 10 years ago when you went to the doctor with a fever and swollen limphnodes. Doing nothing was going to cause severe illness in the future. You did nothing despite the warnings and everytime you go for your annual check your warned about how your putting your future at risk but you still do nothing. Oh, you got the flu a few times, a back ache that put you out of comission a couple days, and occasionally you've had an upset stomach you thought was from bad food, but overall nothing out of the ordinary. These doctors tell you while these illnesses seem normal to you, you're not a doctor and have no clue, in fact these are the types of illnesses you would expect from a cancer patient, these illillnesses are masking your cancer, just because everyone else gets these illnesses doesn't mean you don't have cancer and insist you need chemo. What do you do?
All you've shown is that like most climate skeptics, you don't have a clue how to construct a proper analogy.
Here is a more reasonable one.
You decide to go on a sex junket to Thailand because you really want to nail some teenagers. Most public health specialists tell you that you should be very cautious because a lot of those Thai prostitutes have a combination of HIV, MDR gonorrhea, and syphilis. These doctors show you multiple studies done by independent clinical researchers all published in respected journals Journal of Public Health, NEMJ, Lancet, and Nature, funded by the WHO, the U.S. CDC, Thai public health workers, and non-profit groups like Doctors without Borders, all pointing out that the incidence of STDs among Thai sex workers, particularly underage Thai sex workers, is very high, and that the risk of contracting something very bad is quite large. These doctors caution you to either not go on your sex junket at all (in part because from a moral perspective, what you want to do is not in the best interests of the Thai teenagers who will be servicing you), or at least proceed very slowly and be extremely careful about what you do to minimize your risk. However, the doctor in charge of your sex junket tells you that those fears are completely overblown, the doctors who did the studies were corrupted by the money, and that there is no problem and you can do whatever you want with minimal risk. He then provides you some self-published studies available on websites that were funded by the Thai brothels and tour companies that arrange these sex junkets showing that the risk is minimal.
So, you really want to have sex with a Thai teenager, do you ignore the peer-reviewed published studies and choose to believe all those doctors were lying about the risk?
That, my denying friend, is an analogy. And I know what you would do based on your climate skepticism.
Have a good trip.
Any doctor who says cancer is a hoax is clearly a quack. He is ignoring the weight of scientific evidence, his opinion is based in ideology, not reality. Or he is just trying to sell you his product, so he is a reprehensible and vile con-artist.
All medical treatments have risks and benefits - you must weigh them up before making your decision. In the case of most cancers, the benefits of science-based treatments far outweigh the risks. And your doctors will give you straight answers concerning success rates and probabilities.
It's a no-brainer - if you want the absolute best treatment available, you stick with the science (and evidence) based medicine. If in the end it's not successful, at least you know you have done the best you can possibly do.
I have been through this, my wife was diagnosed with cancer and died 3 yrs later, and believe me I have a very low opinion of doctors, I only found one that I could trust, some were just after my money some were quite ignorant and disliked me because through constant research, I was asking questions they couldn't answer, most doctors have been brainwashed by the pharmaceutical companies, medical journals and med schools are all funded by pharma, and it is no wonder they are all oriented to drugs.
My wife was told she had three to six months to live, she lived three years by us not taking their advice
If I talk to 100 doctors, and 98 of them say I have cancer, I'm going to assume I have cancer. I might not *necessarily* go with the operation and the chemo, I'd research my options and consider the likelihood of success. But if most of those 98 doctors think my best medical option is the operation, and if I can scrape together the money (because I live in the US, rather than a civilized country), I'm getting the operation and the chemo.
Climate change deniers don't trust doctors. By personality type they are people who don't trust anybody. So an appeal to reason means nothing to these people.
http://environment.yale.edu/climate-comm...
It is amusing to see how the fake skeptics are trying to avoid the analogy. They use the same claims which their fake experts (the Anthony Watts and the Marc Moranos, etc.) have been pushing all along, completely unaware that fake expertise is precisely the issue here.
And it is these fake experts who, just like the homeopaths and the anti-vaxers, have been repeating over and over again the false claims that 'climate scientists have been wrong before', 'it is all based on models' and `'they were caught fudging the data' to name just a few popular myths.
And all this while completely unaware how science actually works and how useful and widespread models are (ie, as in cancer research and prevention).
One doctor says the X-ray is blurry so he is not sure you have cancer. Another says cancer is a hoax and to buy his herbal supplements. “Those doctors make money on cancer, they get kickbacks from chemo drug companies. They own X-ray companies. Sloan-Kettering gets ALL its income from cancer.”
Another doctor agrees that you have cancer, but thinks that even with an operation and chemo you might die anyway.
In all, 98 doctors say you have cancer. All twenty hospitals do too. A major operation, $10,000 out of pocket, months of painful radiation and chemo, and it all might not be necessary. Or it might not even work.
What do you do?
The trouble is is that the 98 doctors have lost nearly ALL of their patients.
They have been wrong in ALL of their predictions.
Not only that, they have fudged the results and have been caught doing it.
I won't argue on the level of, "these guys say this and they are smart".
I like to argue on this level, "What does the data say? Where did the data come from? Why was this data thrown out and this data kept? Why was this data adjusted?" on a case by case basis.
If you do this, it all falls apart.
Now, if only it WERE warming....
Sigh, if only...
I would listen to the 98 doctors and 20 hospitals.
The proper analogy is that the surgery absolutely will not work, unless you can get 100 other people who don't have $10000 to do the same surgery.
This is such a stupid analogy. I know you think it applies, but it is really stupid. If a doctor tells me I am going to die in 100 years due to some mysterious disease, take a wild guess what I am going to do about it??? NADA.
Further, if a doctor tells me that they "modeled" it, I would laugh at them.
You want to pretend that because we had some linear warming that you can scare the world with BS models predicitng exponential warming. Further, we are already spending hundreds of billions and you want us to spend much more.
You want to talk about possible deaths in the future??? I can tell you about deaths occurring RIGHT NOW.
Now I am all for risk mitigation, BUT you have to be realistic about the risk. Your exponentially increasing stupidity models are NOT realistic and have consistently been overestimating.
And for your doctor analogy. If 98 doctors and 20 hospitals have consistently been wrong and want a million dollars to fix a problem that may or may not come in 20 years, I would ignore them. More to the point though, if they asked me to make small changes that are helpful anyways, I would do it. If they asked me to spend a million dollars on a serious surgery, I would tell them where to go.
Point being that your taxation solutions are extremly painful, extremely costly and hit the middle class and poor the most. This is why you have to pretend that AGW is some apocalyptic nightmare instead of telling the truth. Work on better solutions and you won't have to lie to convince people to do them.
Gringo,
You can show LINEAR warming in the past. If you ahve anything beyond climate models that shwo that the future warming will be exponential, then present it.
LOL, you can't can you? You are just talking crap about who you deem to be expert and who you do nto and who you deem to be skeptics and whom you do not. This is why you want to talk in pathetic analogies instead of talking facts. FACTS are that your models have been overestimating. A linear model accounting for the PDO, would ahve been right on the money.
Now if you want to talk about what we should do, given linear warming, then lets talk. It will likely involve intelligent changes and not giving the gov't the power to tax the air we breathe. I would love a discussion of intelligent strategies without the mind-numbing scare-mongering.
Chemflunky,
Then fell free to spend your own money. IN FACT, I have seen green energy companies advertising green energy. They don't get much because, although there are so many of you smart warmers around, you evidently don't want to sign up for this service, as you would rather have otehrs taxed.
You figure it out. If 40% of people actively sought out these clean energy companies, what would happen??? What change would occur??? Why is it that liberal would rather tax a solution into existence then use means already available to them?
Gary K,
"And your doctors will give you straight answers concerning success rates and probabilities. "
Yep, and the warmers do exactly the opposite.
GNCP,
I agree with you entirely, Everyone knows the effect of overtaxation and the immorality of it as well. That is the proper analogy my communist friend, errr comrade.
