MTP: Climate Change Discussion - no Deniers

[Oddball]

I just stated several of the long-standing acid tests of scientific method, fool.....If it's anyone who knows nothing it's you.

You used the word 'prove'. It shows you know nothing about science. The words are 'evidence' and 'consensus'.

If you can't prove your hypothesis, repeat it, then disprove any and all plausible other possibilities for the given phenomenon, then you don't have so much a a popcorn fart let alone a theory....And 'consensus" is still a political process, not a scientific one.

You know less than nothing about both science and semantics.

 

[Olde Europe]

How would you recommend we deal with those who deny the threat even exists, and who, insofar as they hold sway over U.S. policy making, would leave the U.S. unprepared?

Whatever way you think is best!
.

Don't be such a coward!

But, we already know where you stand. You recommend we give liars, stooges, misfits, scientific illiterates and flat-earthers a seat at the table. Because... debate. You never know what pops up, or so you inform us. Since a seat at the table with no say on policy would just be a sham, in effect you recommend the U.S. be less prepared to counter the threat than she otherwise could be, less healthy, less prosperous, more miserable.

I, for one, cannot think of a plausible reason to do something so self-defeating.

 

[progressive hunter]

How would you recommend we deal with those who deny the threat even exists, and who, insofar as they hold sway over U.S. policy making, would leave the U.S. unprepared?

Whatever way you think is best!
.

Don't be such a coward!

But, we already know where you stand. You recommend we give liars, stooges, misfits, scientific illiterates and flat-earthers a seat at the table. Because... debate. You never know what pops up, or so you inform us. Since a seat at the table with no say on policy would just be a sham, in effect you recommend the U.S. be less prepared to counter the threat than she otherwise could be, less healthy, less prosperous, more miserable.

I, for one, cannot think of a plausible reason to do something so self-defeating.

dear olde guy,,,

we know youre full of sht or you would just prove them wrong instead of the personal attack.

we are willing to discuss the solutions to a clear problem, but your evidence doesnt prove humans are the problem

it seems your only solution is bigger government and control of the people,
solutions never come from the barrel of a gun,,,better to just plant trees

 

[Slyhunter]

 

[blackhawk]

If you want no opposing views then you’re really not having a discussion you just have a bunch of people sitting around agreeing with each other. That is more of a circle jerk than a discussion.

 

[Elton]

Watching Meet the Press. They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change. They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled. Now it is time to discuss solutions.

A recent poll shows even a majority of Republicans do not dispute anthropogenic climate change.
Opinion | More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change

I applaud Meet the Press. Time to push deniers and their pseudo science to the curb or back into closet. Choose your metaphor. They are just standing in the way and are no more than obstructionists.

We need to discuss only solutions and adaptations.

That's funny. If the "science were settled" they shouldn't have any problem arguing facts with a denier. The fact that they aren't brave enough to do so tells me the science is far from settled. What you have just described, and endorsed, is propaganda pure and simple. I thought you were supposed to be able to think critically. People who can think critically aren't afraid of someone with an alternate position.

There are hundreds of threads debating the science. Debating the science is no more than noise now. Time to get to work on finding and debating solutions.

All I see are opinion pieces. I see no science. I am not a scientist, but I have a good grounding in how science works, and the one thing I constantly see from climatologists is a abandonment of the scientific method. That is troubling to me. It should be troubling to you too.

You see no such thing. Your lack of integrity concerns me. It should concern you too.

Yes, I do. I have seen climatologists assert that repeatability in their experiments isn't necessary. I think it was Trenberth who said that. I hate educate you but that assertion is a complete abandonment of the scientific method. If it isn't repeatable, it isn't measurable, which means it ain't scientific.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Watching Meet the Press. They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change. They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled. Now it is time to discuss solutions.

A recent poll shows even a majority of Republicans do not dispute anthropogenic climate change.
Opinion | More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change

I applaud Meet the Press. Time to push deniers and their pseudo science to the curb or back into closet. Choose your metaphor. They are just standing in the way and are no more than obstructionists.

We need to discuss only solutions and adaptations.

That's funny. If the "science were settled" they shouldn't have any problem arguing facts with a denier. The fact that they aren't brave enough to do so tells me the science is far from settled. What you have just described, and endorsed, is propaganda pure and simple. I thought you were supposed to be able to think critically. People who can think critically aren't afraid of someone with an alternate position.

There are hundreds of threads debating the science. Debating the science is no more than noise now. Time to get to work on finding and debating solutions.

All I see are opinion pieces. I see no science. I am not a scientist, but I have a good grounding in how science works, and the one thing I constantly see from climatologists is a abandonment of the scientific method. That is troubling to me. It should be troubling to you too.

You see no such thing. Your lack of integrity concerns me. It should concern you too.

Yes, I do. I have seen climatologists assert that repeatability in their experiments isn't necessary. I think it was Trenberth who said that. I hate educate you but that assertion is a complete abandonment of the scientific method. If it isn't repeatable, it isn't measurable, which means it ain't scientific.

You’re not a serious person. Please find someone who will humor you.

 

[cnm]

If you can't prove your hypothesis, repeat it, then disprove any and all plausible other possibilities for the given phenomenon, then you don't have so much a a popcorn fart let alone a theory....And 'consensus" is still a political process, not a scientific one.

Hypotheses are not proven. If that was the case Newtonian physics would still be 'proven', instead of useful, when they have been superseded. Proof only exists in maths. This is a basic point of science, the ignorance of which illustrates your scientific ignorance. Science does evidence and consensus.

 

[cnm]

If you want no opposing views then you’re really not having a discussion you just have a bunch of people sitting around agreeing with each other. That is more of a circle jerk than a discussion.

No one will deny you've just wanked off.

 

[jasonnfree]

It most scientists agree that man causes global warming, why not go along with them? Kind of funny how it's right down the middle politically. The 'left' says GW is caused by mankind, the 'right' says no. If there are doubts, why not opt for green energy anyway just to be on the safe side and also we'll have less pollution.

 

[blackhawk]

If you want no opposing views then you’re really not having a discussion you just have a bunch of people sitting around agreeing with each other. That is more of a circle jerk than a discussion.

No one will deny you've just wanked off.

You're mommy help you write with that one?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I just stated several of the long-standing acid tests of scientific method, fool.....If it's anyone who knows nothing it's you.

You used the word 'prove'. It shows you know nothing about science. The words are 'evidence' and 'consensus'.

If you can't prove your hypothesis, repeat it, then disprove any and all plausible other possibilities for the given phenomenon, then you don't have so much a a popcorn fart let alone a theory....And 'consensus" is still a political process, not a scientific one.

You know less than nothing about both science and semantics.

How about...you freakish deniers who are on the wrong side of facts, science, and history go pull each others' taffy in one of your 9 million denier threads? ( As we all know, you can't do it in any educated company.)

This thread is about the great new trend of not inviting deniers to the table to give "equal time" to their laughable nonsense. You fools have been regulated to "flat earther status". The only reason you don't realize it is because you are all huddled here in your little self help group on the internet, crying on each others' shoulders and telling each other you are normal.

 

[cnm]

Scientific consensus is what most scientists in a particular field of study agree is true on a given question, when disagreement on the question is limited and insignificant.

The consensus may or may not turn out to be confirmed by further research. When it is, a hypothesis becomes known as a (lower-case) theory, or, given enough time and evidence, an (upper case) Theory, such as Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Numerous times in the history of science one theory has been superseded by another as anomalies or counter-examples accrued over time and the scientific community has discarded an older theory in favor of a new theory which accounted for more of the data in a more satisfactory way. This often occurs as the result of improvements in the accuracy of the instruments used to observe, record and measure phenomena.
Scientific consensus - RationalWiki​

 

[cnm]

You're mommy help you write with that one?

Need a tissue?

 

[cnm]

More fuel efficient vehicle engines will contribute to lower CO2 emissions, unfortunately I believe Individual 1 has reversed that trend.

 

[Blackrook]

The push to more fuel efficient "cars" has caused the auto manufacturers and consumers to transition to "trucks" which are under no such restriction. "Trucks" include SUVs, pick-ups, and even those smaller types of SUVs. So, really, nothing will be accomplished by cracking down on "cars" because soon there will be no such thing as "cars."

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"trucks" which are under no such restriction.

Except that's totally false , and there are fuel restrictions on trucks.

 

[cnm]

The push to more fuel efficient "cars" has caused the auto manufacturers and consumers to transition to "trucks" which are under no such restriction. "Trucks" include SUVs, pick-ups, and even those smaller types of SUVs. So, really, nothing will be accomplished by cracking down on "cars" because soon there will be no such thing as "cars."

As though more efficient vehicle engines will not lead to lower CO2 emissions. This sort of shit is why the idiots should be banned from the table.

 

[blackhawk]

You're mommy help you write with that one?

Need a tissue?

No you need help coming up with a good response?

 

[cnm]

It most scientists agree that man causes global warming, why not go along with them?

The 'I've got mine, fuck you' brigade doesn't want to make any sacrifice.