Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
El stovey said:
The point is Barry Marshall, an unknown bloke proved the scientific consensus to be wrong and changed it.
You guys think you have evidence to prove the climate change consensus wrong but aren’t doing anything.
Why not do what Barry did and change the consensus?
For all mattes concerning science - there is the scientific method.You guys think you have evidence to prove the climate change consensus wrong but aren’t doing anything.
Why not do what Barry did and change the consensus?
El stovey said:
wc98 said:
El stovey said:
Would you say that to his face!
stomach ulcers 
Scientific consensus was that stress caused stomach ulcers.
Someone proves them wrong and that stomach ulcers are actually caused by bacteria.
Scientific consensus is now that bacteria causes stomach ulcers.
So you’re saying, in between silly threats and comments about environmentalists causing fires in Manchester and fawning after turbobloke, that this is like the consensus over climate change?
Scientific consensus is that humans are causing climate change.
Some people think that’s wrong and think that other causes are responsible or that there isn’t any climate change.
Scientific consensus is still that humans are causing climate change.
The important bit in your endless banging on about stomach ulcers is that the scientific consensus was changed when Barry Marshall presented facts that proved it wrong.
This is the difference. The scientific consensus will change when it gets proven wrong, which hasn’t happened.
Your story about stomach ulcers is actually showing how consensus science works. We have a theory and when it gets proved wrong there is a new theory.
If someone comes along and proves the earth is flat that will be the new consensus. If someone comes along and proves god created the universe, that will be the new consensus.
Your story about ulcers is good evidence as to why there is still a consensus on climate change. Nobody has proved it wrong and changed the consensus like Barry Marshall did over ulcers.
kerplunk said:
I really can't be bothered, but were you using the royal 'we' in your previous? I doubt that so you were talking about your group/side/clique whatever.
KP there is no group/side/clique of sceptics. Hence there is no consensus of sceptics. There are just so many things wrong with CAGW that people have become sceptical for many different reasons. I am sceptical because the narrow bands of IR that are absorbed by CO2 do not have the energy to create the imbalance attributed to them (black body radiation in the CO2 IR bands is at temperatures rarely experienced anywhere on earth or in the atmosphere) - even if CO2 was at 100% at 1 atmosphere the IR radiation would slip away through the huge gaps in the IR spectrum that CO2 is invisible to (think Mars). H2O is the only GW gas that makes any difference on a water planet such as earth. Others are sceptical because they have seen it all before with the Ozone scare and global cooling scares. Some are sceptical because the economic arguments do not make any sense, others because the "global governance" cure is worse than the CAGW symptoms. Some simply see the actions of the CAGW advocates in the media and are sickened by the hypocrisy.
The consensus as quoted in the original survey is that mankind is partly responsible for the increase in average global temperatures since 1850. That is all the consensus has to say - everything else is hyperbole from self-interested NGOS, politicians, celebs, and climate grant farmers.
El stovey said:
wc98 said:
El stovey said:
Would you say that to his face!
stomach ulcers Scientific consensus was that stress caused stomach ulcers.
Someone proves them wrong and that stomach ulcers are actually caused by bacteria.
Scientific consensus is now that bacteria causes stomach ulcers.
So you’re saying, in between silly threats and comments about environmentalists causing fires in Manchester and fawning after turbobloke, that this is like the consensus over climate change?
Scientific consensus is that humans are causing climate change.
Some people think that’s wrong and think that other causes are responsible or that there isn’t any climate change.
Scientific consensus is still that humans are causing climate change.
The important bit in your endless banging on about stomach ulcers is that the scientific consensus was changed when Barry Marshall presented facts that proved it wrong.
This is the difference. The scientific consensus will change when it gets proven wrong, which hasn’t happened.
Your story about stomach ulcers is actually showing how consensus science works. We have a theory and when it gets proved wrong there is a new theory.
If someone comes along and proves the earth is flat that will be the new consensus. If someone comes along and proves god created the universe, that will be the new consensus.
Your story about ulcers is good evidence as to why there is still a consensus on climate change. Nobody has proved it wrong and changed the consensus like Barry Marshall did over ulcers.
The original scientific consensus on stomach ulcers was worth diddly squat.
The current scientific consensus on stomach ulcers is also worth diddly squat.
Science doesn’t work by consensus, in fact it is probably the second biggest hindrance to science, after the corruption caused by the need to maintain funding.
kerplunk said:
Then I have no idea who you were referring to.
Loonytunes said "Why does it not surprise me that on here that's a valid view?"And my response is that on here we (the commentators) are able to logically discuss ideas even if the initial idea is from someone who has other beliefs that are not in line with the current zeitgeist. Being able to critically asses ideas and concepts in an online forum that is not censored (well not heavily censored) unlike others we could mention, and being able to separate the idea from the idealist is a freedom that is not universal and should be cherished and not trolled....
Well unless it is funny......
In that case all bets are off.......
Kawasicki said:
El stovey said:
wc98 said:
El stovey said:
Would you say that to his face!
stomach ulcers Scientific consensus was that stress caused stomach ulcers.
Someone proves them wrong and that stomach ulcers are actually caused by bacteria.
Scientific consensus is now that bacteria causes stomach ulcers.
So you’re saying, in between silly threats and comments about environmentalists causing fires in Manchester and fawning after turbobloke, that this is like the consensus over climate change?
Scientific consensus is that humans are causing climate change.
Some people think that’s wrong and think that other causes are responsible or that there isn’t any climate change.
Scientific consensus is still that humans are causing climate change.
The important bit in your endless banging on about stomach ulcers is that the scientific consensus was changed when Barry Marshall presented facts that proved it wrong.
This is the difference. The scientific consensus will change when it gets proven wrong, which hasn’t happened.
Your story about stomach ulcers is actually showing how consensus science works. We have a theory and when it gets proved wrong there is a new theory.
If someone comes along and proves the earth is flat that will be the new consensus. If someone comes along and proves god created the universe, that will be the new consensus.
Your story about ulcers is good evidence as to why there is still a consensus on climate change. Nobody has proved it wrong and changed the consensus like Barry Marshall did over ulcers.
The original scientific consensus on stomach ulcers was worth diddly squat.
The current scientific consensus on stomach ulcers is also worth diddly squat.
Science doesn’t work by consensus, in fact it is probably the second biggest hindrance to science, after the corruption caused by the need to maintain funding.
El stovey said:
Ok Rocky.
Scientific consensus was that stress caused stomach ulcers.
Someone proves them wrong and that stomach ulcers are actually caused by bacteria.
Scientific consensus is now that bacteria causes stomach ulcers.
So you’re saying, in between silly threats and comments about environmentalists causing fires in Manchester and fawning after turbobloke, that this is like the consensus over climate change?
Scientific consensus is that humans are causing climate change.
Some people think that’s wrong and think that other causes are responsible or that there isn’t any climate change.
Scientific consensus is still that humans are causing climate change.
The important bit in your endless banging on about stomach ulcers is that the scientific consensus was changed when Barry Marshall presented facts that proved it wrong.
This is the difference. The scientific consensus will change when it gets proven wrong, which hasn’t happened.
Your story about stomach ulcers is actually showing how consensus science works. We have a theory and when it gets proved wrong there is a new theory.
If someone comes along and proves the earth is flat that will be the new consensus. If someone comes along and proves god created the universe, that will be the new consensus.
Your story about ulcers is good evidence as to why there is still a consensus on climate change. Nobody has proved it wrong and changed the consensus like Barry Marshall did over ulcers.
that is a lot of words to basically prove my point. my point was nothing more than repeatedly holding up the consensus as proof of cagw is meaningless.Scientific consensus was that stress caused stomach ulcers.
Someone proves them wrong and that stomach ulcers are actually caused by bacteria.
Scientific consensus is now that bacteria causes stomach ulcers.
So you’re saying, in between silly threats and comments about environmentalists causing fires in Manchester and fawning after turbobloke, that this is like the consensus over climate change?
Scientific consensus is that humans are causing climate change.
Some people think that’s wrong and think that other causes are responsible or that there isn’t any climate change.
Scientific consensus is still that humans are causing climate change.
The important bit in your endless banging on about stomach ulcers is that the scientific consensus was changed when Barry Marshall presented facts that proved it wrong.
This is the difference. The scientific consensus will change when it gets proven wrong, which hasn’t happened.
Your story about stomach ulcers is actually showing how consensus science works. We have a theory and when it gets proved wrong there is a new theory.
If someone comes along and proves the earth is flat that will be the new consensus. If someone comes along and proves god created the universe, that will be the new consensus.
Your story about ulcers is good evidence as to why there is still a consensus on climate change. Nobody has proved it wrong and changed the consensus like Barry Marshall did over ulcers.
the observations matched against predictions are the proof of the pudding. the predictions aren't doing too well at the moment as i posted recently.
as for the rocky comment, if that is how you read that post it would tie in with the other nonsense you project from others posts you twist into whatever meaning you decide. is that how you would behave in a discussion on something where you disagreed with others in person ? meetings where you work must be a right barrel of laughs.
kerplunk said:
Yeah but it's what informs policy and that's the bit you don't reallly like. You'd take the antibiotics if you got an ulcer right?
Yep, I really don’t like it when policies are based exclusively on consensus science, because the consensus science may be corrupted by group think and/or ideology or money/power/fame. The “low fat“ governmental diet advice is a non climate related example.So I get a stomach ulcer, I take the medicine, it works, I get better. Praise be to those lone scientists who are brave enough to challenge the worthless consensus.
Kawasicki said:
Yep, I really don’t like it when policies are based exclusively on consensus science, because the consensus science may be corrupted by group think and/or ideology or money/power/fame. The “low fat“ governmental diet advice is a non climate related example.
i would say that is how the phrase "science advances one funeral at a time" came about.Kawasicki said:
kerplunk said:
Yeah but it's what informs policy and that's the bit you don't reallly like. You'd take the antibiotics if you got an ulcer right?
Yep, I really don’t like it when policies are based exclusively on consensus science, because the consensus science may be corrupted by group think and/or ideology or money/power/fame. The “low fat“ governmental diet advice is a non climate related example.So I get a stomach ulcer, I take the medicine, it works, I get better. Praise be to those lone scientists who are brave enough to challenge the worthless consensus.
kerplunk said:
Praise be that the consensus changed to another consensus, and that the policy response changed with it.
Yep, one scientist and a repeatable experimental result overturned the 97+% consensus. Still, the 97+% meant well.Climate science consensus - CO2 at a very high level for a long time now, temperatures...hmm, not so much, in fact the temperatures are probably lower than typical for an interglacial period. Still, let’s panic and waste gigantic amounts of effort and money. We mean well.
kerplunk said:
Kawasicki said:
kerplunk said:
Yeah but it's what informs policy and that's the bit you don't reallly like. You'd take the antibiotics if you got an ulcer right?
Yep, I really don’t like it when policies are based exclusively on consensus science, because the consensus science may be corrupted by group think and/or ideology or money/power/fame. The “low fat“ governmental diet advice is a non climate related example.So I get a stomach ulcer, I take the medicine, it works, I get better. Praise be to those lone scientists who are brave enough to challenge the worthless consensus.
I think they can’t really admit it’s a new consensus as it’s hard to then explain why climate change consensus hasn’t changed like it did with stomach ulcers.
Obviously the different is that a lone person changed the ulcer consensus with facts, scientists accept the evidence and it’s s new consensus.
They can’t change the climate change consensus because they don’t have these facts so they have to rubbish the whole concept of the consensus or even say there isn’t one.
turbobloke said:
Kawasicki said:
Ali G said:
And still - there is no consensus!
As if it mattered!
The consensus is that there is a 97% consensus.As if it mattered!
That is settled.....the time for debate is over etc
Barry Marshall proved that stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria, he proved the consensus wrong with facts. He did experiments, published his findings and other experts read them, checked them out and the consensus changed. He won a Nobel Prize.
If you’ve got facts proving scientific consensus is wrong, get them published and let experts check them out. Then the scientific consensus will change and like Barry you too can win a Nobel Prize.
Barry published his in The lancet, I expect there is an equivalent suitable place for climate papers. I’m pretty sure it’s not the NPandE though.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff