Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[kerplunk]

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

[Kawasicki]

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.

[turbobloke]

kerplunk said:

duh, what a scientifically ignorant thing to say.

Perfect for "we no longer have a stationary climate". Only a believer (or two) could read that and not laugh out loud.

The Newton quote is about other scientists doing useful groundwork.

[kerplunk]

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.

Scientist's researches these days are always built on the work of others (see the citation list attached to every scientific paper) so the idea that subscribers to a consensus of scientific opinion should have all arrived at the same conclusion 'independently' is an oxymoron from the start. Science is a team effort.

[LongQ]

kerplunk 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.

Scientist's researches these days are always built on the work of others (see the citation list attached to every scientific paper) so the idea that subscribers to a consensus of scientific opinion should have all arrived at the same conclusion 'independently' is an oxymoron from the start. Science is a team effort.

On the other hand if the results are based on the same sets of difficult to obtain and verify data and when even they cannot always be analysed to provide the same or extremely similar results, one might assume that there is still work to be done. Maybe more money to be spent on, say, extended satellite research programs? Run by different teams but replicating, at least in part, other programs running at the same time.

But it seems everyone is keen to avoid that and push for money for new research projects rather than verification of the earlier work. Especially odd when people suggest there are known problems with the current equipment/process/analysis yet no one seems to want to repeat the experimental measurements.

That's a little like a pharmaceutical company stopping a clinical trial early on the pretext that some people have responded so well that it immoral to complete the trial and keep the others on a placebo.

It sounds like a good reason but is it?

It breaks the medical science safety guidelines for a start. It may also mean that longer term negative affects are no found until long after the treatment has been widely used. What then of moral sensitivity? Does it matter once the money of flowing?

It remind me of the old adage that is you want a straight line graph be sure to measure only two points.

From a career POV I can understand why.

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk 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.

Scientist's researches these days are always built on the work of others (see the citation list attached to every scientific paper) so the idea that subscribers to a consensus of scientific opinion should have all arrived at the same conclusion 'independently' is an oxymoron from the start. Science is a team effort.

I understand that. Basing your research on the existing work of others is fine, doing that without fully understanding their work is unwise. If the existing work is sound, it shouldn't be difficult to trace the background of that knowledge, raw data, methodology, test results, etc. If this process is difficult, be very wary...

[Bacardi]

El stovey said:

I’m appealing to the authority of a consensus of experts - That’s known as following scientific consensus.

But there is no consensus.

Baaa, Come bye...

[powerstroke]

Snow I see no Snow !!!!

[turbobloke]

Bacardi said:

El stovey said:

I’m appealing to the authority of a consensus of experts - That’s known as following scientific consensus.

But there is no consensus.

Baaa, Come bye...

You'd think it would have sunk in by now. I blame the fever of global warming believership.

We looped this attrition loop in April and a couple of times since iirc.

Cook considered published papers and used a definition that mankind had caused most post-1950 warming. On this definition the true consensus among published scientific papers has been demonstrated to be only 0.3% not 97.1% as Cook claimed. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined had explicitly concluded that mankind caused most of the warming since 1950. This 97% claimed consensus is false, the uncooked books give a 0.3% 'consensus.

The Doran survey also involved a 97% 'result' which came about from 10,256 questionnaires with only 3,146 respondents. Their responses were conveniently narrowed down to 75 out of 77 “expert” ’active climate researchers’ (chosen by the survey people) to give another false 97% consensus figure which is actually nearer 2%.

Those experts are a peachy bunch to appeal to, one has confessed that The Team cannot balance the planet's energy budget with no idea where energy is going or why the predicted warming is awol. Another says we no longer have a stationary climate ho ho ho. A third acknowledged in a peer-reviewed paper that it's only a few dozen IPCCers making attribution statements. There's an embarrassingly large number of 'experts' with failed ice-free arctic claims running from 2000 to 2016 and, having failed 100%, now running on to 2030 with more brassneck than the national supply of brasso could cope with.

At this stage, consensus tripe is trolling pure and simple.

[turbobloke]

powerstroke said:

Snow I see no Snow !!!!

A rare and exciting event, children won't know what it is. Wasn't that another 'expert'?

[durbster]

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.

[AreOut]

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?!

[Jinx]

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.

The boiling point of water was used to determine the temperature scale (Have a little read about Andre Celcius) I get the feeling you may need to read up on science and specifically the history of science (where consensus has been spectacularly wrong before - and there is no reason to expect it cannot be spectacularly wrong now) .

[turbobloke]

Jinx 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.

The boiling point of water was used to determine the temperature scale (Have a little read about Andre Celcius) I get the feeling you may need to read up on science and specifically the history of science (where consensus has been spectacularly wrong before - and there is no reason to expect it cannot be spectacularly wrong now) .

The Guardian has an article agreeing with you

Even though it's just more same-old it's worth pointing out what the Grauniad said.

"Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong."

Science, history of science, so many lessons for durbster to play catch-up.

[Engineer792]

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.

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.

[robinessex]

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.

Er, some question Einstein. Paper airplanes can't fly according to the theory. Apparently, neither can Bees. Engineers don’t fully understand contact (hertzian) stress. I could go on. Think you’d better go to night school, and get re-educated on some things.

[durbster]

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

[durbster]

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?

Jinx 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.

...consensus has been spectacularly wrong before - and there is no reason to expect it cannot be spectacularly wrong now) .

It has indeed.

Erm... and?

[wc98]

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.

if it worked like that stress would still be the consensus accepted cause of stomach ulcers.

[wc98]

turbobloke said:

You'd think it would have sunk in by now. I blame the fever of global warming believership.

We looped this attrition loop in April and a couple of times since iirc.

Cook considered published papers and used a definition that mankind had caused most post-1950 warming. On this definition the true consensus among published scientific papers has been demonstrated to be only 0.3% not 97.1% as Cook claimed. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined had explicitly concluded that mankind caused most of the warming since 1950. This 97% claimed consensus is false, the uncooked books give a 0.3% 'consensus.

The Doran survey also involved a 97% 'result' which came about from 10,256 questionnaires with only 3,146 respondents. Their responses were conveniently narrowed down to 75 out of 77 “expert” ’active climate researchers’ (chosen by the survey people) to give another false 97% consensus figure which is actually nearer 2%.

Those experts are a peachy bunch to appeal to, one has confessed that The Team cannot balance the planet's energy budget with no idea where energy is going or why the predicted warming is awol. Another says we no longer have a stationary climate ho ho ho. A third acknowledged in a peer-reviewed paper that it's only a few dozen IPCCers making attribution statements. There's an embarrassingly large number of 'experts' with failed ice-free arctic claims running from 2000 to 2016 and, having failed 100%, now running on to 2030 with more brassneck than the national supply of brasso could cope with.

At this stage, consensus tripe is trolling pure and simple.

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