Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[anonymous-user]

wc98 said:

this post should be a sticky at the start of each new volume of this thread

On the door of the echo chamber.

[Engineer792]

durbster said:

Engineer792 said:

Then you might agree that, for example, "97% of scientists agree that the boiling point of water at sea level is 100 deg C" is a pretty meaningless statement, and you might even start to question the motives of whoever made it.

Of course it's a meaningless statement, scientifically speaking. I said as much a few posts ago (with my thoughts on why the statement was made).

As for the other replies about the boiling point of water, I can only

So what makes the 97% consensus statement any less meaningless when it's applied to AGW?

[durbster]

Engineer792 said:

So what makes the 97% consensus statement any less meaningless when it's applied to AGW?

I don't know why you're asking me, I'm agreeing with you.

[Kawasicki]

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Engineer792 said:

Scientific consensus is only worth anything if it can be generally said that the subscribers to the consensus all independently arrived at the same conclusion.

duh, what a scientifically ignorant thing to say.

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." - Isaac Newton

Your statement makes no sense, including the Newton quote.

No, it's spot on. The whole point of the scientific method is to establish a theory to the extent that it doesn't need to be revisited by everyone else.

If science didn't build on established science, we'd be starting from page one every single day and we'd have got nowhere. Today's scientists don't have to do an experiment to discover the boiling point of water, it's been done.

No, the primary purpose of the scientific method is to formulate hypothesis, collect the relevant data, test that hypotheses and make a conclusion.

Science knowledge builds on established science, of course, but that is not the point of the scientific method. Established science makes the scientific method easier and faster, but it is not the point of the method.

[durbster]

Kawasicki said:

No, the primary purpose of the scientific method is to formulate hypothesis, collect the relevant data, test that hypotheses and make a conclusion.

You've simply described the method here, not its purpose

Kawasicki said:

Science knowledge builds on established science, of course,

Well there you go then, Newton's quote.

[Allsmokeandmirrors]

durbster said:

No, it's spot on. The whole point of the scientific method is to establish a theory to the extent that it doesn't need to be revisited by everyone else.

If science didn't build on established science, we'd be starting from page one every single day and we'd have got nowhere. Today's scientists don't have to do an experiment to discover the boiling point of water, it's been done.

I see that statement as nonsense.
By suggesting that a theory is accepted by a consensus and does not need revisting, it eliminates any further scope for investigation.
It essentially makes you closed minded to any other view other than the so called accepted theory, nothing to see here, etc etc.
How many more times throughout history does that kind of view need to be shot down before it gets binned?
Hardly the kind of attutude one would expect from someone with scientific pretensions.
Not that AGW is a proven theory in any case, its still hypothetical, regardless of how many signatures you rack up on a piece of paper.

But since a consensus is so obviously a valued commodity in todays scientific world heres another;

84% of the world people ( a nice fat consensus figure like in AGW hypothesis) currently take it on faith that a big sky man is sitting on a cloud watching their every move.
Should we just accept it?
Nope. Nor should we accept the 97% consensus which isnt real either.....

[Ali G]

The reasonable hypothesis stands until falsified. However AGW is unfalsifiable due to vague specification of the AGW hypothesis, which permits fully adjustable goalposts, and also requires all measurements to be conducted and verified by official AGW proponents.

In other scientific and/or professional realms, AGW would be seen for what it is.

[Engineer792]

durbster said:

Engineer792 said:

So what makes the 97% consensus statement any less meaningless when it's applied to AGW?

I don't know why you're asking me, I'm agreeing with you.

Well, there you go then

[AreOut]

durbster said:

How do you know?

you've lost me there

[turbobloke]

I'm reliably informed that the BBC has been up to its usual tricks already this morning. They had somebody in the studio, a grown-up, who apparently kept a straight face while telling the viewing public that permafrost was melting for the first time. It wasn't challenged, it was lapped up. BBC

[durbster]

Allsmokeandmirrors said:

durbster said:

No, it's spot on. The whole point of the scientific method is to establish a theory to the extent that it doesn't need to be revisited by everyone else.

If science didn't build on established science, we'd be starting from page one every single day and we'd have got nowhere. Today's scientists don't have to do an experiment to discover the boiling point of water, it's been done.

I see that statement as nonsense.
By suggesting that a theory is accepted by a consensus...

Nobody said that.

[mondeoman]

durbster said:

AreOut said:

durbster said:

Today's scientists don't have to do an experiment to discover the boiling point of water, it's been done.

because, somehow, it boils at the same point every time?!

How do you know?

Because when we put that info into models, they ALWAYS give the same answer (subject to pressure obvs). We even have formulae that work, are totally repeatable and dont require unknown "forcings" to be added to give an answer someone wants to see.

Unlike climate models.

[Allsmokeandmirrors]

durbster said:

Allsmokeandmirrors said:

durbster said:

No, it's spot on. The whole point of the scientific method is to establish a theory to the extent that it doesn't need to be revisited by everyone else.

If science didn't build on established science, we'd be starting from page one every single day and we'd have got nowhere. Today's scientists don't have to do an experiment to discover the boiling point of water, it's been done.

I see that statement as nonsense.
By suggesting that a theory is accepted by a consensus...

Nobody said that.

But they have. "The science is settled!" I seem to remember being a battle cry of the advocates. No need to look any deeper dearest sheeple, the scientists have spoken!
The fact is AGW isnt theoretical, its hypothetical and a consensus view amongst scientists are said to endorse the opinion that its real.
The data isnt supportive but the models are.
Ill take testable, empical data over models that dont model all factors, anytime, why dont the AGW advocates do the same?
Why the need to disregard counter evidence?
The question regarding the religious consensus still stands btw, should that be questioned or not?
I see no difference between any supposed AGW consensus or any other consensus, its all appeals to authority, celebrity endorsements, media collusion to promote a narrative and tortured data sources coupled with dubious homogenising methods producing a favourable, believeable result for John Q Public to lap up.
I note that you didnt respond to the obvious issue of revisting established scientific results,that of basically ignoring any attempts to test them further, thats a mistake and poor science in itself I believe, its why AGW is and will remain unproven conjecture, regardless of who decides to join the ahem, "cause".

For me, the one thing that marks up the so called consensus, AGW/Global Warming as a scam is the very nature of the hype that surrounds it.
Who remembers the old outlawed high pressure (not barometric) sales tactic?
AGW is just the same thing, with various parties stating "50 days to save the world!" or other similar scare tactics to get the unfortunate punters to sign up now.
It smells quite rank when you take a little time to evaluate the actual arguments for it. Fireball earth indeed!

[turbobloke]

durbster said:

. The whole point of the scientific method is to establish a theory to the extent that it doesn't need to be revisited by everyone else.

That statement might be more wrong but it's tricky to see how. It's hopelessly wrong.

Science at the research level in particular is never settled. Every hypothesis and every theory is constantly open to challenge. and hypothesis testing is strictly 'to destruction' and therefore ongoing, the only exception being climate due to political patronage mostly. In keeping with a religion holding sway via faith - rather than credible empirical data supporting a hypothesis - it undergoes regular resurrection. The agw coffin is covered in nails and those nails have nails in them, but burial is temporary awaiting the next data diddle, more reasoning by assertion and umpteen failed armageddonist predictions from gigo models now exploring the more distant future in order to kick the agw failure can further down the road.

Allsmokeandmirrors makes very good points along the same lines.

[Kawasicki]

turbobloke said:

durbster said:

. The whole point of the scientific method is to establish a theory to the extent that it doesn't need to be revisited by everyone else.

That statement might be more wrong but it's tricky to see how. It's hopelessly wrong.

Science at the research level in particular is never settled. Every hypothesis and every theory is constantly open to challenge. and hypothesis testing is strictly 'to destruction' and therefore ongoing, the only exception being climate due to political patronage mostly. In keeping with a religion holding sway via faith - rather than credible empirical data supporting a hypothesis - it undergoes regular resurrection. The agw coffin is covered in nails and those nails have nails in them, but burial is temporary awaiting the next data diddle, more reasoning by assertion and umpteen failed armageddonist predictions from gigo models now exploring the more distant future in order to kick the agw failure can further down the road.

Allsmokeandmirrors makes very good points along the same lines.

I'm sure not every climate scientist is predicting armageddon...but they sure as hell stay silent when the catastrophic predictions are making the headlines. Make one wrong move in climate science and suffer the consequences.

[turbobloke]

Kawasicki said:

turbobloke said:

durbster said:

. The whole point of the scientific method is to establish a theory to the extent that it doesn't need to be revisited by everyone else.

That statement might be more wrong but it's tricky to see how. It's hopelessly wrong.

Science at the research level in particular is never settled. Every hypothesis and every theory is constantly open to challenge. and hypothesis testing is strictly 'to destruction' and therefore ongoing, the only exception being climate due to political patronage mostly. In keeping with a religion holding sway via faith - rather than credible empirical data supporting a hypothesis - it undergoes regular resurrection. The agw coffin is covered in nails and those nails have nails in them, but burial is temporary awaiting the next data diddle, more reasoning by assertion and umpteen failed armageddonist predictions from gigo models now exploring the more distant future in order to kick the agw failure can further down the road.

Allsmokeandmirrors makes very good points along the same lines.

I'm sure not every climate scientist is predicting armageddon...but they sure as hell stay silent when the catastrophic predictions are making the headlines. Make one wrong move in climate science and suffer the consequences.

Many scientists aren't predicting armageddon (no consensus) but those who are doing so get the headlines from a uniformly on-message media. Each nonsense prediction is a shot in the arm for the agw religion. Those who aren't doing so are vilified, ostracised and 'encouraged' to keep quiet, from Bellamy and Ball on the one hand to Bengtsson and Climategate victims on the other.

https://www.thegwpf.org/lennart-bengtsson-resigns-...

From the days of Climategate 2:

"the latest release shows top scientists in the field fudging data, conspiring to bully and silence opponents."

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

durbster said:

. The whole point of the scientific method is to establish a theory to the extent that it doesn't need to be revisited by everyone else.

That statement might be more wrong but it's tricky to see how. It's hopelessly wrong.

I wish you all the best in your continued strawman building exercise

turbobloke said:

Allsmokeandmirrors makes very good points along the same lines.

Yes, very on-message.

[Allsmokeandmirrors]

durbster said:

Yes, very on-message.

On message?
In the absence of unmolested data, climate that fails to react as the models have stated, weather that refuses to bow to alarmist predictions, media and political hype, what would you suggest someone should do to inform themselves?
True scientists are always sceptical of any claims and would normally investigate such to destruction or confirmation, I see nothing of the sort when it comes to climate investigations, no wonder people are suspicious, it looks like the advocates have something to hide, like lack of truth.

If youve got an inside line on why doubters are wrong then im all ears.

[robinessex]

CLIMATE CHANGE - THE FACTS 2017 - Institutue of Public Affairs - Sydney, July 27th 2017

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIi1b17HKF8

Says it all really. Bet Durbster will ignore it of course!!

[Wobbegong]

My believer friend was claiming man-made climate change was responsible for the floods and heavy rain in the UAE last week


fk me, he was right

http://whatson.ae/dubai/2017/12/cloud-seeding-behi...

Cloud seeding!