A question about the accuracy of science

[Crick]

Many people here bring up instances in which the majority opinions of scientists in a number of fields have been found incorrect. Peptic ulcers were once thought to be caused by acidic food. The universe's expansion was once thought to be slowing. These posters have used these sorts of instances to argue that we have no reason to be influenced by the fact that the vast majority of climate scientists in the world today believe that the world is still warming and that the dominant cause since at least the middle of the last century is human activity. They believe that history tells them that we have no reason to trust such opinions - that their universality simply makes them more suspect.

So, here is the question. Let us look at all the positions held by all the world's scientists since the development of the modern scientific method. If we rule to the best of our knowledge on which of those positions have since been shown to be incorrect, will we find that individual scientists or small groups of scientists have been wrong LESS often than majorities, or MORE often wrong.

The answer, of course, is that there is a very strong and direct correlation between the numbers of scientists (percent or absolute) who hold a given position and the likelihood that it is found correct - that it is not falsified. Thus the logic of rejecting the common opinion for that of the lone wolf fails its most basic test.

The Earth is getting warmer and the dominant cause is human GHG emissions and deforestation. The effects of that warming will be consequential and a committed human response is required.

 

[skookerasbil]

Nobody cares about the science except the hobbyists. These kind of threads give people peptic ulcers.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Many people here bring up instances in which the majority opinions of scientists in a number of fields have been found incorrect. Peptic ulcers were once thought to be caused by acidic food. The universe's expansion was once thought to be slowing. These posters have used these sorts of instances to argue that we have no reason to be influenced by the fact that the vast majority of climate scientists in the world today believe that the world is still warming and that the dominant cause since at least the middle of the last century is human activity. They believe that history tells them that we have no reason to trust such opinions - that their universality simply makes them more suspect.

So, here is the question. Let us look at all the positions held by all the world's scientists since the development of the modern scientific method. If we rule to the best of our knowledge on which of those positions have since been shown to be incorrect, will we find that individual scientists or small groups of scientists have been wrong LESS often than majorities, or MORE often wrong.

The answer, of course, is that there is a very strong and direct correlation between the numbers of scientists (percent or absolute) who hold a given position and the likelihood that it is found correct - that it is not falsified. Thus the logic of rejecting the common opinion for that of the lone wolf fails its most basic test.

The Earth is getting warmer and the dominant cause is human GHG emissions and deforestation. The effects of that warming will be consequential and a committed human response is required.

The earth is getting warmer (or colder)

So what? That's what the earth has done

Domant cause humans

So in your world you want to exterminate us all? You go first.


The effects of that warming (or cooling) will be consequential

Again so what, it would happen anyways

human response is required.

Why? So it makes you feel good, when we all die anyway when yellow stone explode or a mile wide asteroid slams into us?

 

[ScienceRocks]

It is all a lie and we must praise Jesus Christ and read the bible for all of our truths. Only listen to god o'mighty!!! Do I get a mother fucking Amen?

 

[Old Rocks]

You have to laugh at the idiots here that denigrate the accomplishments that science given us. The very machine they post their drivel on, is a result of the work of the scientist they denigrate. Ah well, they know they have completely lost.

How much have you seen them mention the 'pause' lately. Hard to do with it looking like we will have three record years in a row. And we are well past the half way point to 2 degrees. We will blow right by that.

 

[ClosedCaption]

What a stupid ass OP masquerading as intellectual talk with circular logic and psycho babble.

This is actually a perfect example of the arguments from GW deniers. Don't believe facts because facts might not be facts....and that's a fact, Jack! Lol

 

[elektra]

You have to laugh at the idiots here that denigrate the accomplishments that science given us. The very machine they post their drivel on, is a result of the work of the scientist they denigrate. Ah well, they know they have completely lost.

How much have you seen them mention the 'pause' lately. Hard to do with it looking like we will have three record years in a row. And we are well past the half way point to 2 degrees. We will blow right by that.

Liar, post the temperatures, can you post temperatures, like take one station, where they measure temperature, and show us that station's temperature for the last 1000 years, or even the last 200 years.

If you can not post actual temperatures from one station, you are a liar.

 

[elektra]

You have to laugh at the idiots here that denigrate the accomplishments that science given us. The very machine they post their drivel on, is a result of the work of the scientist they denigrate. Ah well, they know they have completely lost.

How much have you seen them mention the 'pause' lately. Hard to do with it looking like we will have three record years in a row. And we are well past the half way point to 2 degrees. We will blow right by that.

How about a link Old Crock, I bet any Link Old Crock gives, Proves Old Crock wrong.

Post the temperatures, not what the government dictates

Old Crock is a Liar,

Old Crock has ran from so many threads, wear your title proudly

Liar

 

[elektra]

Post their names, or be a liar, anyone can say a majority, so how many scientists are there in the world, list the names of those who "BELIEVE".

Go ahead. Anything less than the names is a LIE.

 

[ClosedCaption]

 

[PredFan]

Many people here bring up instances in which the majority opinions of scientists in a number of fields have been found incorrect. Peptic ulcers were once thought to be caused by acidic food. The universe's expansion was once thought to be slowing. These posters have used these sorts of instances to argue that we have no reason to be influenced by the fact that the vast majority of climate scientists in the world today believe that the world is still warming and that the dominant cause since at least the middle of the last century is human activity. They believe that history tells them that we have no reason to trust such opinions - that their universality simply makes them more suspect.

So, here is the question. Let us look at all the positions held by all the world's scientists since the development of the modern scientific method. If we rule to the best of our knowledge on which of those positions have since been shown to be incorrect, will we find that individual scientists or small groups of scientists have been wrong LESS often than majorities, or MORE often wrong.

The answer, of course, is that there is a very strong and direct correlation between the numbers of scientists (percent or absolute) who hold a given position and the likelihood that it is found correct - that it is not falsified. Thus the logic of rejecting the common opinion for that of the lone wolf fails its most basic test.

The Earth is getting warmer and the dominant cause is human GHG emissions and deforestation. The effects of that warming will be consequential and a committed human response is required.

Nice job. You do a good job setting up the discussion according to strict guidelines designed to elicit only one outcome, the outcome you want. That's kind of what the AGW scientists do. Bravo.

 

[Old Rocks]

Science is science. The babblings of obese junkies on the AM radio, or that of fake British Lords is just that, babblings.

Name a single Scientific Society that states AGW is not happeing.

 

[mamooth]

Ah, philosophy of science questions.

First rule of thumb. If someone quotes Popper or Feymann non-ironically to back their position, you're almost certainly looking at a pseudoscience crank, as that's a favored tactic of those who have no evidence for their own position.

Popper had some problems. He said that falsifiability defines science. To show the problems with that, consider ...

"Vaccines do not cause autism."

Now show what could falsify that.

It's pretty much impossible to absolutely falsify that statement with any realistic data. Yet it's still clearly science.

Real science is more defined by coherence, consilience, and consensus.

Coherence. Internally consistent. Real climate science is coherent. Denialism cobbles a dozen conflicting conspiracy theories together.

Consilience. Multiple independent evidence streams converging on the same result. Real climate science has that, which is why it's so peculiar that deniers think obsessively nitpicking a single minor point means anything.

Consensus. Scientists share a common set of theories, observations and models, and can talk to each other, find flaws in any points, and work forward from it. Real climate science has that. Denialism has no consensus of its own, just a religious belief that requires hating the opposition.

 

[IanC]

Here is a record that is hundreds of years long. It has an obvious Pause in the new millennium.

While I would like to say that it is pristine and unadulterated, I cannot. In a previous thread I showed evidence that even this long running record is being corrupted by algorithms that are adjusting past year's values.

 

[IanC]

Wow! mamooth's dialogue has too many fallacies to cover them all.

Let's change the example. Peptic ulcers are caused by stress. The evidence was overwhelming that stress exacerbated peptic ulcers. But that dealt only with symptoms not the primary cause. Bacteria was found to be the primary cause. Was the evidence for stress wrong? Or just misguided?

Global warming/climate change is a debate over whether CO2 is the cause or just an exacerbating factor. Warmers and Skeptics have positions that are similar in the basic fundamentals but differ in the extremes. Yes, the globe is warming and CO2 is adding to that. Over the past three decades the skeptics have been pointing out that many of the conclusions are exaggerated.

Temperature records are being adjusted and combined to exaggerate the global warming trend.

Positive feedbacks are exaggerated to produce unrealistic predictions.

Climate sensitivity to 2xCO2 is exaggerated by circular reasoning and calculated by model produced 'data'.

Every new technology produces exaggerated results that need to be clawed back as longer data records show the assumptions to be exaggerated in favour of more warming or its consequences.

Scientists and scientific societies take the easy way out by going along with the exaggerated predictions because there is little penalty for erring on the safe side, even if it is tremendously expensive.

As it stands now we have much more time than was predicted to solve the CO2 problem. Let the technology catch up to the need. While I wouldn't recommend it, we already have the capability to lower temps if need be, just by pumping up aerosols into the stratosphere. So far the effects of global warming and extra CO2 are probably net beneficial.

 

[jc456]

Science is science. The babblings of obese junkies on the AM radio, or that of fake British Lords is just that, babblings.

Name a single Scientific Society that states AGW is not happeing.

so show how many of the members to those societies agree with the society? I do know that Judith Curry does not believe the APS. I'm just saying, how many scientists are part of the society and then post up how many agree with the statement from said society. I know you won't and without it is rather weak at best. I do laugh at you and the others on here. your continued posts of inaccuracies is all we get daily in here. And still you can't provide evidence to support your claim, or how it is that the IPCC agrees with the pause? just funny shit daily in here.

IPCC, they back me and my side.

 

[jc456]

Ah, philosophy of science questions.

First rule of thumb. If someone quotes Popper or Feymann non-ironically to back their position, you're almost certainly looking at a pseudoscience crank, as that's a favored tactic of those who have no evidence for their own position.

Popper had some problems. He said that falsifiability defines science. To show the problems with that, consider ...

"Vaccines do not cause autism."

Now show what could falsify that.

It's pretty much impossible to absolutely falsify that statement with any realistic data. Yet it's still clearly science.

Real science is more defined by coherence, consilience, and consensus.

Coherence. Internally consistent. Real climate science is coherent. Denialism cobbles a dozen conflicting conspiracy theories together.

Consilience. Multiple independent evidence streams converging on the same result. Real climate science has that, which is why it's so peculiar that deniers think obsessively nitpicking a single minor point means anything.

Consensus. Scientists share a common set of theories, observations and models, and can talk to each other, find flaws in any points, and work forward from it. Real climate science has that. Denialism has no consensus of its own, just a religious belief that requires hating the opposition.

Consensus. Scientists share a common set of theories, observations and models, and can talk to each other, find flaws in any points, and work forward from it. Real climate science has that. Denialism has no consensus of its own, just a religious belief that requires hating the opposition
This explanation cracks me fkn up!!! dude/dudette, did you read what you posted? "scientists find flaws" yes they do, and when they do they present their data, and then get called denier. too funny ted. too fkn funny. And then you whine that deniers don't know science and your own explanation excepts them as a science. Too fkn funny ted. too funny.

Hey one you forgot, scientists share their data.

So that would mean those who don't share their data aren't true scientists. Right? let's call a spade a spade ted.

 

[Uncensored2008]

AGW isn't science.

AGW is religion, and anti-scientific.

 

[mamooth]

Wow! mamooth's dialogue has too many fallacies to cover them all.

You neglected to show where any of it was a fallacy. You just repeated your various unsupported conspiracy theories.

I showed the problem with Popper. Feynman, the problem is not with Feynman, but with the way deniers cherrypick him to misrepresent his views, and the way that they lack the self-awareness to understand Feynman was criticizing them. For instance, this bit of Feynman is aimed directly at denier types.

“Ordinary fools are all right; you can talk to them, and try to help them out. But pompous fools-guys who are fools and are covering it all over and impressing people as to how wonderful they are with all this hocus pocus -- THAT, I CANNOT STAND! An ordinary fool isn't a faker; an honest fool is all right. But a dishonest fool is terrible!”

That is, Feynman was a real skeptic, and he'd have had zero patience with poseur-skeptics like deniers.

The favorite denier quote from Feynman is

“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong”

Which is stupid of them, being climate science does agree with the experiments, while those experiments contradict denier claims.

It's also an oversimplification. If an observation contradicts a theory, it doesn't mean the theory has to be completely wrong. It often means the theory only needs a bit of modification.

For example, the theory of gravity says things fall down.

I see a bird flying.

That doesn't nullify the entire theory of gravity, but denier logic says that it does.

Let's change the example. Peptic ulcers are caused by stress. The evidence was overwhelming that stress exacerbated peptic ulcers. But that dealt only with symptoms not the primary cause. Bacteria was found to be the primary cause. Was the evidence for stress wrong? Or just misguided?

I think everyone already clearly sees how global warming deniers are the equivalent to the "Ulcers are caused by stress!" diehards. New convincing evidence poured in saying they were wrong, but they refused to budge from their debunked beliefs. Some of them, doctors with practices based on treating ulcers the old way, had a financial incentive to deny the evidence. And some people just liked being contrarians, because they thought it made them look smart.

 

[martybegan]

You have to laugh at the idiots here that denigrate the accomplishments that science given us. The very machine they post their drivel on, is a result of the work of the scientist they denigrate. Ah well, they know they have completely lost.

How much have you seen them mention the 'pause' lately. Hard to do with it looking like we will have three record years in a row. And we are well past the half way point to 2 degrees. We will blow right by that.

Your side confuses science with the politics you try to spawn out of said research. It's less about the science and more about every solution to the issue from your side being "more government".

It's why the term "Watermelon" for Environmental Activists is usually dead on.