Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
El stovey said:
Unfortunately we’ve gone down the employment and academic qualifications route many times, it never goes well for you deniers.
The problem is also that you deniers are going against pretty much the entire scientific community over AGW so it’s unlikely you’re right and you have no (consensus changing proof) apart from political blogs. That’s why nobody takes you seriously.
LT has posted many lists of the scientific institutions that disagree with you. Those are the people you need to prove wrong. You’re not going to do that by churning out tired old political dogma.
He also points out this is the politics thread. None of the climate cult posts in the scientific thread because they don’t anything about science and can’t disprove the scientific consensus so they stick to theories about global conspiracy involving wealth redistribution, taxation and scientists on the take.
that's a strange post. currently the president of the united states appears not to be a believer (yes he is a clown, but still the main man in global politics). many members of these listed institutions also disagree with the position the few committee members put forward as being the position of those institutions, making a mockery of any consensus claims.The problem is also that you deniers are going against pretty much the entire scientific community over AGW so it’s unlikely you’re right and you have no (consensus changing proof) apart from political blogs. That’s why nobody takes you seriously.
LT has posted many lists of the scientific institutions that disagree with you. Those are the people you need to prove wrong. You’re not going to do that by churning out tired old political dogma.
He also points out this is the politics thread. None of the climate cult posts in the scientific thread because they don’t anything about science and can’t disprove the scientific consensus so they stick to theories about global conspiracy involving wealth redistribution, taxation and scientists on the take.
no one on here needs to do anything more than discuss the topic, i certainly don't think anyone cares whether someone on a discussion forum takes them seriously. do you think you are going to change anyone's position with your poor attempts at ridiculing people, that have at least spent some time looking into the topic prior to discussing it on here, by your consensus mantra chanting ?
LoonyTunes said:
Perhaps you could drop him an email asking for his position on Climate Science data? Might be worth reading as a side bar.
i can think of a couple of statisticians that have already had a look at climate science stats. they climate science stats didn't come out too well from that
i could ping another email, though the last one hasn't had a reply.pity as it looked like jjlynn was looking forward to reading it. i did get a reply from a solar scientist that was a rebuttal to the solar claims made within the recent paper that scientist authored, and as he is the only climate related scientist to make an accurate verifiable prediction on anything to date that was good enough for me.
wc98 said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
how about proving your understanding is superior, you attack his credibility, yet provide no proof of yours. Come on, put up or shut up.
he won't bite, knows you have him beat in the qualifications stakes. i am surprised though, gadgetloonymactunes likes lists. maybe he only likes it when his list is the longest. It’s not really difficult.
If you’re on here saying science is broken and scientists are on the take and making stuff up and scientific institutions are wrong then you need to prove it and change the consensus.
The fact that the most vocal of you appear to have no proof of your assertions, no relevant qualifications or relevant jobs or even jobs all, makes this unlikely.
Simply put, who is going to believe you lot over a list of all the reputable scientific organisations on the planet.
There’s an overwhelming scientific consensus over AGW. If you think it’s wrong, then prove it and change the consensus.
t"? wc98 said:
LoonyTunes said:
You don't need to actually use the word 'conspiracy' you just have to infer it.
I appreciate that using the word 'conspiracy' makes you (or anyone) feel like everybody must be looking at you and thinking "what a loon" but I'm afraid that's the bed you've made yourself when you hint that they are 'all in it together' for either the funding or for fear of upsetting the apple cart in one way or another.
you have been told before there is no conspiracy required. here is a good article that explains the issues facing modern science very well. i trust you will be happy with the source ?I appreciate that using the word 'conspiracy' makes you (or anyone) feel like everybody must be looking at you and thinking "what a loon" but I'm afraid that's the bed you've made yourself when you hint that they are 'all in it together' for either the funding or for fear of upsetting the apple cart in one way or another.
At the risk of oversimplifying a complex historical process, we think the strongest force pushing science (and statistics) in the wrong direction is existential: science has become a career, rather than a calling, while quality control mechanisms have not kept pace.
https://www.significancemagazine.com/2-uncategoris...
dickymint said:
Good read and worthy of a Loony response..... Oh hang on it doesn't support him, the source is credible, the author has excellent qualifications, no spelling mistakes and can't see Heartland involved - only one thing left in his arsenal "hasn't got time" to read it
It was and it got one.Jeez you're thick as a post Dick.
May I be so bold as to steer discussion back to politics?
Last weeks' IPCC disaster-fest contained much headline interest, including the latest dates for avoiding 'doom'. If I understand it the UK is 'offering' to go carbon neutral (or was it zero) in only 12 years - by 2030?
Can that be correct - we'll be replacing the rolling stock on UK roads in just a dozen years?
Is that not an optimistic timetable...? Or is it only referring to energy production?
Sorry if I'm derailing the joyful banter, and regrettably I have zero climate scientific credentials.
Last weeks' IPCC disaster-fest contained much headline interest, including the latest dates for avoiding 'doom'. If I understand it the UK is 'offering' to go carbon neutral (or was it zero) in only 12 years - by 2030?
Can that be correct - we'll be replacing the rolling stock on UK roads in just a dozen years?
Is that not an optimistic timetable...? Or is it only referring to energy production?
Sorry if I'm derailing the joyful banter, and regrettably I have zero climate scientific credentials.
wc98 said:
LoonyTunes said:
List them... 
nah, making lists is your job. i wouldn't want to remove your raison d'etre So instead of appeals to authority (of the scientific community) you now have to make appeals to the authority of each other and your previous posts.
El stovey said:
There’s an overwhelming scientific consensus over AGW. If you think it’s wrong, then prove it and change the consensus.
what makes you think people should do that ? bit like you not giving up your job to save the world even though you believe the science that says you are destroying your and others childrens childrens future by burning more fossil fuels per hour at work than most burn in a year(good job by the way). anyone motivated to do anything one way or another will not be on a motoring forum chatting about it.LoonyTunes said:
It's a fair article and the source, FOR ONCE, seems reasonable however...
....
...nowhere does he talk about Climate Science in particular. Indeed he sees benefits for other areas and mentions them rather than mentioning Climate Science. Which would be strange if he were taking aim Climate Evidence as it's a far more pressing issue than those he does mention.
"Statisticians are pointing out biases inherent in “big data” and machine-learning approaches to social issues, such as predictive policing. They could also work with economists to monitor new forms of exploitation of intellectual labour now that new modes of working can be exploited in old ways.
We statisticians can support initiatives such as the Reproducibility Project, the Meta-research Innovation Center, the EQUATOR network, alltrials.net, retractionwatch.com, and others that aim to improve quality and ethics in science, and hold scientists accountable for sloppy, disingenuous, or fraudulent work."
When he starts in on the Climate Scientists please update me.
Lets also not forget he's a Statistician and not a Climate Scientist so I don't expect him to question Climate Change - and indeed he didn't.
Perhaps you could drop him an email asking for his position on Climate Science data? Might be worth reading as a side bar.
strange you didn't quote what i thought was the most pertinent section to the debate on here .......nowhere does he talk about Climate Science in particular. Indeed he sees benefits for other areas and mentions them rather than mentioning Climate Science. Which would be strange if he were taking aim Climate Evidence as it's a far more pressing issue than those he does mention.
"Statisticians are pointing out biases inherent in “big data” and machine-learning approaches to social issues, such as predictive policing. They could also work with economists to monitor new forms of exploitation of intellectual labour now that new modes of working can be exploited in old ways.
We statisticians can support initiatives such as the Reproducibility Project, the Meta-research Innovation Center, the EQUATOR network, alltrials.net, retractionwatch.com, and others that aim to improve quality and ethics in science, and hold scientists accountable for sloppy, disingenuous, or fraudulent work."
When he starts in on the Climate Scientists please update me.
Lets also not forget he's a Statistician and not a Climate Scientist so I don't expect him to question Climate Change - and indeed he didn't.
Perhaps you could drop him an email asking for his position on Climate Science data? Might be worth reading as a side bar.
Scientists collectively risk losing credibility and authority in part because of prominent examples of poor practice, but also because many are guilty of ultracrepidation: acting as if their stature in one domain makes them authoritative in others. Science is “show me,” not “trust me.”32 The example of 107 Nobel laureates – mostly in areas unrelated to genetics, agriculture, ecology, or public health – endorsing one side of the genetically modified organisms in food argument as “scientific”33 is a visible example of prestige and uninformed consensus conflated with evidence. As G.K. Chesterton wrote: “Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”34
LoonyTunes said:
dickymint said:
Good read and worthy of a Loony response..... Oh hang on it doesn't support him, the source is credible, the author has excellent qualifications, no spelling mistakes and can't see Heartland involved - only one thing left in his arsenal "hasn't got time" to read it
It was and it got one.Jeez you're thick as a post Dick.
Must be very frustrating every time they turn on the tv or go to a science museum or read or watch the news to be thinking they’re being lied to by NASA or the British Antarctic Survey or whoever.
You can imagine them at the Kennedy space center telling the person next to them that NASA has been infiltrated by political agents or going to the science museum and asking the guide why scientists are helping the government redistribute wealth.
El stovey said:
You deniers...
And I've switched off immediately...Are you so blinkered and naive to not question a politically agreed consensus backed up by government funding, poor data and Institutions and other parties (even Countries) on the take? You really need to get out more.
fakenews said:
El stovey said:
You deniers...
And I've switched off immediately...Are you so blinkered and naive to not question a politically agreed consensus backed up by government funding, poor data and Institutions and other parties (even Countries) on the take? You really need to get out more.
You’re the unblinkered one that can see the truth?
They’re all in on it, science the government, other parties?
You’re exposing the fake news with your alternative facts?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff