Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[Si modo]

Here is your claim: "There are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused."

Back it up.

It's not rocket science.

But, until you do back it up, your claim is utter bullshit.

That's how it works.

(I hope you realize how idiotic you are looking. Just so you know.)

Yes, anytime I spend with someone as pathetic as yourself harms my image. I agree. But human personality interests me, and you're a really amazing case. For example, your saying that "[my] claim is utter bullshit" unless I give you a link is uniquely abnormal. KWIM?

Rocks posted a consensus statement on global warming that absolutely is "the science". You rejected it. Now you're reduced to insisting that there are no journal articles on AGW.

Here is a definition of consensus science.....As you can see it is a recent term and bears no relation to actual science. Now here's a question for you. The claim from the warmists is that if it gets warmer it will get colder. If it gets warmer it will get hotter, if it gets hotter it will rain less, if it gets hotter it will rain more. Do you understand what is occuring here?

Do you understand the very scientific term "Unfalsifiable Hypothesis". I suggest you look it up then get back to us. Then we'll find out if you're just another intellectually dishonest troll or not.


Consensus science is a term used to describe a theory or claim believed to be founded on insufficient evidence or research, and to owe its support primarily to popular opinion. The term may also be used by people wishing to revive a theory that is generally believed to be false, but that they believe has not been proven so. People using the term believe that the exclusive or primary use of scientific consensus constitutes an appeal to authority or appeal to the majority, and that the underlying evidence should be evaluated instead.

Note that the term scientific consensus refers to the actual majority agreement of a particular field, while the term consensus science refers to the use of that consensus as a primary means to demonstrate, establish, or promote a scientific hypothesis or theory.

One who perceives a scientific theory to be supported by both scientific consensus and conclusive evidence would not consider it "consensus science", because a supporting argument can be easily formulated using the existing conclusive evidence without relying primarily on consensus for support. The term "consensus science" does not refer simply to a scientific theory which has a consensus, but rather to one which uses that consensus as a primary support.



Consensus science - Definition | WordIQ.com

Previously I gave the kid a link to a summary of Popper's philosophy on the logic of it. I doubt he read it.

But, indeed the models are unfalsifiable - there exists no data set, either real or hypothetical - that falsifies the model.

The foremost litmus test on whether something is scientific is it must be falsifiable. That is the demarcation between science and pseudo-science.

Thus, the models are not scientific models.

Good luck with seeing if the poster grasps that.

I doubt it; he can't even grasp simple burden, etc..

 

[del]

Nope. It is a very recent trend, beginning circa 1990. Before that scientists actually did real work, well good ones still do. Good scientists laugh at "consensus science".

does this mean that the earth isn't the center of the universe?

Ohhh geez Del, now you're asking some tricky questions!

copernicus is going to be bullshit.

 

[westwall]

Yes, anytime I spend with someone as pathetic as yourself harms my image. I agree. But human personality interests me, and you're a really amazing case. For example, your saying that "[my] claim is utter bullshit" unless I give you a link is uniquely abnormal. KWIM?

Rocks posted a consensus statement on global warming that absolutely is "the science". You rejected it. Now you're reduced to insisting that there are no journal articles on AGW.

Here is a definition of consensus science.....As you can see it is a recent term and bears no relation to actual science. Now here's a question for you. The claim from the warmists is that if it gets warmer it will get colder. If it gets warmer it will get hotter, if it gets hotter it will rain less, if it gets hotter it will rain more. Do you understand what is occuring here?

Do you understand the very scientific term "Unfalsifiable Hypothesis". I suggest you look it up then get back to us. Then we'll find out if you're just another intellectually dishonest troll or not.


Consensus science is a term used to describe a theory or claim believed to be founded on insufficient evidence or research, and to owe its support primarily to popular opinion. The term may also be used by people wishing to revive a theory that is generally believed to be false, but that they believe has not been proven so. People using the term believe that the exclusive or primary use of scientific consensus constitutes an appeal to authority or appeal to the majority, and that the underlying evidence should be evaluated instead.

Note that the term scientific consensus refers to the actual majority agreement of a particular field, while the term consensus science refers to the use of that consensus as a primary means to demonstrate, establish, or promote a scientific hypothesis or theory.

One who perceives a scientific theory to be supported by both scientific consensus and conclusive evidence would not consider it "consensus science", because a supporting argument can be easily formulated using the existing conclusive evidence without relying primarily on consensus for support. The term "consensus science" does not refer simply to a scientific theory which has a consensus, but rather to one which uses that consensus as a primary support.



Consensus science - Definition | WordIQ.com

Previously I gave the kid a link to a summary of Popper's philosophy on the logic of it. I doubt he read it.

But, indeed the models are unfalsifiable - there exists no data set, either real or hypothetical - that falsifies the model.

The foremost litmus test on whether something is scientific is it must be falsifiable. That is the demarcation between science and pseudo-science.

Thus, the models are not scientific models.

Good luck with seeing if the poster grasps that.

I doubt it; he can't even grasp simple burden, etc..

I've allways admired Popper, reminds me of John Rawls in many ways. And I agree with you, but for a different reason, they don't care to know the truth, they could understand if they chose too. They choose not to.

 

[westwall]

does this mean that the earth isn't the center of the universe?

Ohhh geez Del, now you're asking some tricky questions!

copernicus is going to be bullshit.

Just don't bring up Brahe...deal?

 

[gslack]

SAT runs on the assumption science requires consensus. The truth is the only thing that requires a consensus is public opinion.

No real scientist (the real kind not the ones who seek out press coverage and make dramatic statements) sets out in research or study in the hopes all other scientists will agree with him or his theory. A true scientist seeks the truth, truth in the truest sense. Whether or not another scientist agrees with him may feed his ego and offer some extra satisfaction, but that was not his reason for doing it.. Only ego-driven people forsake scientific truth to further themselves or a theory. Those types can be in any field including academics and science.

I have worked with several PHD's over the years mostly in psychology and military history, and in all the conversations I can remember with any of them regarding this or that theory or contention, I never once heard them speak of consensus dictating its validity. In fact the only time I here about consensus is when we talk about AGW theory..

Consensus is a PR move. This to give the impression of there being no doubt. This allowed to run wild will eventually effect the science and scientific communities themselves. As we have already seen, there are many scientists who never bothered to check the math, and many other aspects for many years simply because there seemed no reason to doubt something that was apparently so well agreed upon. Thankfully many have begun to actually DO the work and find there is a lot of holes.

Whenever someone tries to brow beat me with "consensus" especially in politics, science, or social problems I immediately start to get my guard up... Im being sold something through peer pressure... I didn't like in high school and I don't like it now..

 

[westwall]

SAT runs on the assumption science requires consensus. The truth is the only thing that requires a consensus is public opinion.

No real scientist (the real kind not the ones who seek out press coverage and make dramatic statements) sets out in research or study in the hopes all other scientists will agree with him or his theory. A true scientist seeks the truth, truth in the truest sense. Whether or not another scientist agrees with him may feed his ego and offer some extra satisfaction, but that was not his reason for doing it.. Only ego-driven people forsake scientific truth to further themselves or a theory. Those types can be in any field including academics and science.

I have worked with several PHD's over the years mostly in psychology and military history, and in all the conversations I can remember with any of them regarding this or that theory or contention, I never once heard them speak of consensus dictating its validity. In fact the only time I here about consensus is when we talk about AGW theory..

Consensus is a PR move. This to give the impression of there being no doubt. This allowed to run wild will eventually effect the science and scientific communities themselves. As we have already seen, there are many scientists who never bothered to check the math, and many other aspects for many years simply because there seemed no reason to doubt something that was apparently so well agreed upon. Thankfully many have begun to actually DO the work and find there is a lot of holes.

Whenever someone tries to brow beat me with "consensus" especially in politics, science, or social problems I immediately start to get my guard up... Im being sold something through peer pressure... I didn't like in high school and I don't like it now..

Whaaaa? You're not a lemming?

 

[Si modo]

Here is a definition of consensus science.....As you can see it is a recent term and bears no relation to actual science. Now here's a question for you. The claim from the warmists is that if it gets warmer it will get colder. If it gets warmer it will get hotter, if it gets hotter it will rain less, if it gets hotter it will rain more. Do you understand what is occuring here?

Do you understand the very scientific term "Unfalsifiable Hypothesis". I suggest you look it up then get back to us. Then we'll find out if you're just another intellectually dishonest troll or not.


Consensus science is a term used to describe a theory or claim believed to be founded on insufficient evidence or research, and to owe its support primarily to popular opinion. The term may also be used by people wishing to revive a theory that is generally believed to be false, but that they believe has not been proven so. People using the term believe that the exclusive or primary use of scientific consensus constitutes an appeal to authority or appeal to the majority, and that the underlying evidence should be evaluated instead.

Note that the term scientific consensus refers to the actual majority agreement of a particular field, while the term consensus science refers to the use of that consensus as a primary means to demonstrate, establish, or promote a scientific hypothesis or theory.

One who perceives a scientific theory to be supported by both scientific consensus and conclusive evidence would not consider it "consensus science", because a supporting argument can be easily formulated using the existing conclusive evidence without relying primarily on consensus for support. The term "consensus science" does not refer simply to a scientific theory which has a consensus, but rather to one which uses that consensus as a primary support.



Consensus science - Definition | WordIQ.com

Previously I gave the kid a link to a summary of Popper's philosophy on the logic of it. I doubt he read it.

But, indeed the models are unfalsifiable - there exists no data set, either real or hypothetical - that falsifies the model.

The foremost litmus test on whether something is scientific is it must be falsifiable. That is the demarcation between science and pseudo-science.

Thus, the models are not scientific models.

Good luck with seeing if the poster grasps that.

I doubt it; he can't even grasp simple burden, etc..

I've allways admired Popper, reminds me of John Rawls in many ways. And I agree with you, but for a different reason, they don't care to know the truth, they could understand if they chose too. They choose not to.

Sadly, I think you have a point - it is willful ignorance. The odd thing is, they don't care if they look like morons. That's always puzzled me.

I'm very thankful to my research advisor while in grad school. While we were all overloaded with actual research work, he stressed the importance of the philosophy of science - old school guy. I hated it at the time - philosophy was one of the last things I wanted to study, for craps sake - but am thankful for it now. Because of Popper, the methodology in the sciences is as protected from human and other influences (ie. political) as is feasibly possible. This revolution started in the 30s and was complete within a year or two. The entire community adopted it with open arms.

Anyway, I wish these sorts of basics were required material in high school. How things would be different if more non-science folks knew this information (both 'sides', too). There should never be 'sides' in science.

Popper is rolling over in his grave.

Contrary to popular opinion, I don't care the outcome of this topic. If the science shows a significant influence of man made CO2, then so be it. But, give the actual science a chance. The only 'side' I am on is the side of science. The irony is, that makes many of us 'deniers' of science. (Only to the ignorant and/or dishonest, though.)

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL.

There is a consensus that evolution has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen on earth as long as there is life here.

There is a consensus that GHGs increase heat on the surface of the earth in accordance with the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. There is a consensus that we are rapidly increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere.

There is a consensus among those with a brain that Sis is a lying political troll. All that flap yap without a single referance to real science is just deflection from the fact that you cannot present a single bit of real science to support your political postitions.

 

[Si modo]

LOL.

There is a consensus that evolution has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen on earth as long as there is life here.

There is a consensus that GHGs increase heat on the surface of the earth in accordance with the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. There is a consensus that we are rapidly increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere.

There is a consensus among those with a brain that Sis is a lying political troll. All that flap yap without a single referance to real science is just deflection from the fact that you cannot present a single bit of real science to support your political postitions.

Yes, there is a consensus about evolution.

But, that certainly isn't any valid support for it; science is.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, science gives valid support for evolution just as it gives valid support for AGW. Your flap yap gives support for nothing other than the existing order.

 

[Si modo]

Yes, science gives valid support for evolution just as it gives valid support for AGW.

....

Then give us the science that indicates the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

Thanks.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, dumbass. You can show that CO2 has contributed significantly to warming and cooling in the geological past. Now, would you care to explain to me why CO2 we put into the atmosphere should not cause the same effect? Are we somehow creating magical CO2 that doesn't have the same effect as the CO2 in the past?

A23A

We know the absorption bands for CO2 and CH4, as well as the other GHGs that we are creating. We have data from satellites that show less energy being emitted from the earth in those bands. Therefore, we are retaining the heat that would have otherwise been emitted.

We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%, the amount of CH4 by over 150%. And we are already seeing the effects of that. We have put GHGs into that atmosphere that have no natural analogs, some that are many thousands of times as efficient GHG as CO2.

The Phd physcists at the AIP, the Phd geophysicists at the AGU, and the Phd geologists at the GSA have all stated that the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere have created the warming that we are presently seeing. And that we will see it increase even further as we continue to load the atmosphere with GHGs. They have stated the science conscerning how the GHGs work in many of the articles that I have posted. Articles that you ignored, even though they have been from peer reviewed publications. Science is definately not your strong suit, Sis.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

OK, dumbass. You can show that CO2 has contributed significantly to warming and cooling in the geological past. Now, would you care to explain to me why CO2 we put into the atmosphere should not cause the same effect? Are we somehow creating magical CO2 that doesn't have the same effect as the CO2 in the past?

A23A

We know the absorption bands for CO2 and CH4, as well as the other GHGs that we are creating. We have data from satellites that show less energy being emitted from the earth in those bands. Therefore, we are retaining the heat that would have otherwise been emitted.

We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%, the amount of CH4 by over 150%. And we are already seeing the effects of that. We have put GHGs into that atmosphere that have no natural analogs, some that are many thousands of times as efficient GHG as CO2.

The Phd physcists at the AIP, the Phd geophysicists at the AGU, and the Phd geologists at the GSA have all stated that the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere have created the warming that we are presently seeing. And that we will see it increase even further as we continue to load the atmosphere with GHGs. They have stated the science conscerning how the GHGs work in many of the articles that I have posted. Articles that you ignored, even though they have been from peer reviewed publications. Science is definately not your strong suit, Sis.

So what's the magnitude?

 

[gslack]

OK, dumbass. You can show that CO2 has contributed significantly to warming and cooling in the geological past. Now, would you care to explain to me why CO2 we put into the atmosphere should not cause the same effect? Are we somehow creating magical CO2 that doesn't have the same effect as the CO2 in the past?

A23A

We know the absorption bands for CO2 and CH4, as well as the other GHGs that we are creating. We have data from satellites that show less energy being emitted from the earth in those bands. Therefore, we are retaining the heat that would have otherwise been emitted.

We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%, the amount of CH4 by over 150%. And we are already seeing the effects of that. We have put GHGs into that atmosphere that have no natural analogs, some that are many thousands of times as efficient GHG as CO2.

The Phd physcists at the AIP, the Phd geophysicists at the AGU, and the Phd geologists at the GSA have all stated that the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere have created the warming that we are presently seeing. And that we will see it increase even further as we continue to load the atmosphere with GHGs. They have stated the science conscerning how the GHGs work in many of the articles that I have posted. Articles that you ignored, even though they have been from peer reviewed publications. Science is definately not your strong suit, Sis.

So which is it? Did it contribute to warming or cooling? And one more thing, contribute is not a cause....The sooner you start thinking without the faith, the better you will be...

 

[Si modo]

OK, dumbass. You can show that CO2 has contributed significantly to warming and cooling in the geological past. Now, would you care to explain to me why CO2 we put into the atmosphere should not cause the same effect? Are we somehow creating magical CO2 that doesn't have the same effect as the CO2 in the past?

A23A

We know the absorption bands for CO2 and CH4, as well as the other GHGs that we are creating. We have data from satellites that show less energy being emitted from the earth in those bands. Therefore, we are retaining the heat that would have otherwise been emitted.

We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%, the amount of CH4 by over 150%. And we are already seeing the effects of that. We have put GHGs into that atmosphere that have no natural analogs, some that are many thousands of times as efficient GHG as CO2.

The Phd physcists at the AIP, the Phd geophysicists at the AGU, and the Phd geologists at the GSA have all stated that the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere have created the warming that we are presently seeing. And that we will see it increase even further as we continue to load the atmosphere with GHGs. They have stated the science conscerning how the GHGs work in many of the articles that I have posted. Articles that you ignored, even though they have been from peer reviewed publications. Science is definately not your strong suit, Sis.

Once again, I wasted my time watching that. I watched it last year and the year before. But, I will give him kudos for talking plainly for the masses. Anything that brings science more accessible is good, except when it's not actually science.

You, on the other hand, really should try to understand the concept of falsifiability and its relation to science. There are recent posts on exactly that.

As a footnote, he acknowledges that the state of the science does not allow for any quantification of the magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming, yet he concludes that the magnitude is the only significance. Very odd. An assumption that leads to the desired conclusion. And, that is yet another issue with the IPCC models, along with the fundamental lack of falsifiability.

 

[SAT]

Si, the Journal of Climatology is a research journal. You have to pay to read it online, they don't give it away for free.

Please don't let your anger blind you to this-I'm not asking that you agree with that POV. Just that such articles exist.

Let's get even simpler. Do you agree that there is such a publication as the Journal of Climatology?

LOL.

There is a consensus that evolution has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen on earth as long as there is life here.

There is a consensus that GHGs increase heat on the surface of the earth in accordance with the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. There is a consensus that we are rapidly increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere.

There is a consensus among those with a brain that Sis is a lying political troll. All that flap yap without a single referance to real science is just deflection from the fact that you cannot present a single bit of real science to support your political postitions.

What he said.

I've tried the simplest of questions, starting with "Is the Earth getting hotter?" That question was met with various expressions of fear, including Si sourly admitting that the Earth has gotten hotter over the last 130 years.

I tried to point out that there might be a reason that there's a correlation between package delivery and global warming. That was met with fear as well.

Now I can't even get Si to admit that there are research papers purporting to show evidence of AGW. She says if I can't post a link to them, they don't exist. She thinks reality is dependent on my posting a link.

Somehow I don't think Popper would be too proud of that. KWIM?

 

[wirebender]

LOL.

There is a consensus that evolution has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen on earth as long as there is life here.

But there are holes in the theory big enough to fly a C5A through.

There is a consensus that GHGs increase heat on the surface of the earth in accordance with the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. There is a consensus that we are rapidly increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere.

And yet, as those so called GHG's increase, there has been no warming for more than a decade now and it doesn't seem as if there is likely any coming. When the consensus view doesn't match the observed reality, the consensus view becomes highly suspect.

 

[SAT]

Of course not. He's an AGW cultist. They don't do science. They do religion.

That shoe would be on your foot.

Regarding the state of the evidence, the EPA link points out that the processes involved in global warming are well understood. Is that sentence understood by the deniers? Do you understand that they are working from an existing body of knowledge?

Here's a rebuttal to the "there is no evidence" claim.

‘There is no evidence’—Yes, there is | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

Here's a response to the complaint about computer models.

‘Climate models are unproven’—Actually, GCM’s have many confirmed successes under their belts | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

 

[SAT]

When the consensus view doesn't match the observed reality, the consensus view becomes highly suspect.

Yes, and when the consensus view matches the observed reality, the deniers view becomes highly suspect.

 

[wirebender]

We know the absorption bands for CO2 and CH4, as well as the other GHGs that we are creating. We have data from satellites that show less energy being emitted from the earth in those bands. Therefore, we are retaining the heat that would have otherwise been emitted.

We also know that the emission bands are the precise opposite of the absorption bands indicating that no energy is being trapped by so called greenhouse gasses. As to satellites showing that less energy is being emitted from the earth in those bands, I call bullshit. I have provided snapshots of those satellite data and they show no decrease in energy in those bands even though the concentration of so called GHG's has increased. The only thing that showed less energy as a result of so called GHG's was the models. Once again, you guys are accepting the output of models as actual data. That is the primary reason you can't be taken seriously.