You don't say...lol

[Confounding]

Do you think scientists the world over are floating a bullshit conspiracy with no evidence to support it? Do you think they don't know how science works?

No.

What would you say to the people in this thread that believe those things?

those are by NO MEANS settled science or have any kind of consensus..

I guess you missed me educating an ignorant leftist on that just the other day. You're underestimating me.

Because in science you have consensus for EACH very concise question and GW/CC has at least 100 critical questions eligible for " consensus"... NOT ALL OF THEM are "settled science".. And the media depiction is that ALL OF THIS WORK is settled.. It's not ... Far from it...

So you also agree that there can be a consensus in science because all that means is scientists are in general agreement about a specific matter. I would really appreciate your support in this thread since our views seem to be somewhat aligned.

 

[flacaltenn]

What would you say to the people in this thread that believe those things?

I already have spent DOZENS of pages with various forms of deniers trying to talk them down about THEIR theories... I'd say there's a couple that just deny basic science.. Maybe not in this thread right now...

I've invested 25 years in following this science. Its less difficult to follow than most of the articles that appear in Scientific American.. And as a career scientist/engineer, my ONLY concern is to keep folks like you from crapping their pants over stuff that's been HYPED and sometimes LIED about...

 

[Confounding]

What would you say to the people in this thread that believe those things?

I already have spent DOZENS of pages with various forms of deniers trying to talk them down about THEIR theories... I'd say there's a couple that just deny basic science.. Maybe not in this thread right now...

I've invested 25 years in following this science. Its less difficult to follow than most of the articles that appear in Scientific American.. And as a career scientist/engineer, my ONLY concern is to keep folks like you from crapping their pants over stuff that's been HYPED and sometimes LIED about...

I am not an alarmist and I think that's plainly obvious.

 

[flacaltenn]

So you also agree that there can be a consensus in science because all that means is scientists are in general agreement about a specific matter. I would really appreciate your support in this thread since our views seem to be somewhat aligned.

There's various "bars" in science to pass for consensus. There's the level of a TEAM working on a paper and what to write for conclusions... Has to be a general consensus there.

There's the level of consensus you see after YEARS of refining opinions on various VERY SPECIFIC questions. Like WHY is West Antarctic Ice melting and not really the interior or the East... Sometimes this is iffy consensus... Because after 15 years of telling the public that 40% of Antarctica is endangered by CC, they find out there are MASSIVE VOLCANIC rifts active under the footings of those WAIS glaciers near the sea... Would be shame to spend $28Trill on CO2 abatement policies and STILL get flooded....

Then there's textbook consensus... When all the specific statements end up in SEVERAL textbooks, that's as good as it gets...

But like I said, There's a 100 questions that need consensus before public policy is altered and school kids are taught they won't survive to retirement... Best opinion study is a series of studies by Bray and von Storch.. They were taken every couple years for awhile back between 2004 and about 2008... This is DIRECT POLLED opinion on SERIOUS VITAL questions that the media would not even understand.. It's OF climate scientists and BY climate scientists. No special interest or biased organization involved. Here's a few samples. It's paywalled and you can get it that way or if you privileges at a University -- it's yours for free...

You get the drift -- about 120 questions that NEED CONSENSUS to validate all of the global warming moving parts.. And there's NOT EVEN consensus on the reliability of the models that are making those catastropic predictions the media hypes so much...

 

[westwall]

Yeah, now show me where consensus is described anywhere within the scientific method. GO!

It doesn't have to be. It's just a word that can be used when scientists are in general agreement about something. When somebody mentions the consensus they are simply saying that there is a general agreement among scientists when it comes to this issue.

For it to be SCIENCE it does. Where did you get your so called education again? Out of a cereal box?

I am amazed that you have a PhD and fail to understand why it's not inappropriate for me to use the word consensus when describing the fact that there is a general agreement on a scientific matter. I am not saying a consensus is guaranteed to be right and leaves no room for skepticism.

Because I AM a scientist, so know what I am talking about. Unlike you.

 

[Muhammed]

These kinds of perspectives always seem to come from agenda driven sites like wattsupwiththat.com.

In your opinion, what is the agenda of wattsupwiththat?

Is it positive or negative in your opinion?

 

[SSDD]

you lack the wit to question your programming.

I bet you couldn't even read and comprehend work done by actual climate scientists.

Most of us skeptics have spent a great deal of time reviewing what passes for science in the field of climatology...it's why we are skeptics. Have the studies which found that skeptics have a better grasp of science than AGW believers escaped you?

Do you think you have a better understanding of science than climate scientists the world over?

Since I can safely say that there is no actual observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and have absolutely no doubt that anyone....anywhere will post actual evidence to contradict me....then yes...I would say that I have a better understanding than any scientist who believes wholeheartedly that the AGW hypothesis is true...

And again...the 97% number is a bullshit myth...

 

[SSDD]

"almost all climate scientists have come to a general agreement". Care to prove that statement?

Go to any place of science on Earth and start having conversations with real scientists. I'll tell you what I told SSDD. Please make sure it's on video when you start arguing with them about how science works. I wonder how many Youtube hits a video of you being laughed out of the room will get.

Actually...I do...and not so many are on board with the CAGW hypothesis...

 

[SSDD]

Yeah, now show me where consensus is described anywhere within the scientific method. GO!

It doesn't have to be. It's just a word that can be used when scientists are in general agreement about something. When somebody mentions the consensus they are simply saying that there is a general agreement among scientists when it comes to this issue.

For it to be SCIENCE it does. Where did you get your so called education again? Out of a cereal box?

I am amazed that you have a PhD and fail to understand why it's not inappropriate for me to use the word consensus when describing the fact that there is a general agreement on a scientific matter. I am not saying a consensus is guaranteed to be right and leaves no room for skepticism.

Here is a quote from a pretty smart guy regarding consensus as it applies to science...and it hits the nail right on the head...you guys go on incessantly about consensus because you aren't able to provide even the first piece of observed measured evidence to support your case...if you had evidence, you wouldn't need consensus...

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

“In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of”

 

[SSDD]

Most often they are found by statisticians

And these statisticians that find most of the mistakes and correct the climate scientists believe that AGW is a sham? Can you show some evidence of your claim?

Looks at the initial debunking of michael mann's hockey stick...it was ripped to shreds...which is why he has spend millions of dollars trying to keep it hidden from general view....if his data and methods are ever revealed, his career will be over....

 

[SSDD]

So yo, not confused, you going to post up that observed evidence? Or are you actually going to confirm you are confused?

I'm not going to argue the science with a bunch of nobodies on a political forum. If you have an honest curiosity (you don't) go talk to a climate scientist that disagrees with you and has the patience to explain why you don't know what you're talking about.

You aren't arguing science...you are arguing politics...if you were arguing science, we would each be providing actual evidence to support our positions...you have already made it clear that you can't do that and I have already made it clear in previous posts that I can provide actual science to support my position till the cows come home..

 

[Confounding]

Because I AM a scientist, so know what I am talking about. Unlike you.

Oh, well Flacal, another alleged scientist, seems to disagree with you on some key points.

 

[Confounding]

There's various "bars" in science to pass for consensus.

Thank you for confirming that you agree that it's not inappropriate to use that word in science when there is in fact a general agreement. You bogged what I asked for down with a lot of extra shit. You'd be wrong if you think I don't understand the nature of consensus in science. I am not an alarmist clown.

SSDD

Billy_Bob

westwall

Are you scientists and scholars seeing this? Flacal thinks there's a place for the word consensus in science. I'm pretty sure that contradicts some of your claims in this thread. What do you think about that? I look forward to your dancing and excuses.

 

[Confounding]

Actually...I do.

In addition to the hours and hours you spend on this sub-forum spouting the same talking point over and over again? You're a one trick pony and a liar.

 

[Confounding]

Looks at the initial debunking of michael mann's hockey stick...it was ripped to shreds...which is why he has spend millions of dollars trying to keep it hidden from general view....if his data and methods are ever revealed, his career will be over....

You won't provide me with what I asked for because you can't.

 

[Confounding]

if you had evidence

flacaltenn

He thinks scientists all over the world are basing their claims on no evidence. Your thoughts?

 

[jc456]

We're NOT using it to indict the science.

Maybe you're not. Did you read the whole thread? The intention of the article was to perpetuate distrust in AGW science.

what the thread was actually about is how the science lies to us about climate. In order to prove AGW in their minds is to show how hot the globe is, well, that isn't happening in the manner the scientists are saying. And you bash the messenger to encourage an argument that the thread is about something else. We don't believe AGW and we feel the scientists manipulate data, which there is evidence of, and more from the OP.

 

[Confounding]

the science lies to us

We don't believe AGW

flacaltenn

You'll attempt to criticize me but not this?

 

[SSDD]

Actually...I do.

In addition to the hours and hours you spend on this sub-forum spouting the same talking point over and over again? You're a one trick pony and a liar.

Do feel free to bring forward any lie I have told...or don't and simply confirm once again that you really don't know what you are talking about...Rational people call others liars when they catch them in a lie...you believe that anyone who doesn't agree with you must be a liar or have nefarious intentions...hardly rational thought...

 

[SSDD]

Looks at the initial debunking of michael mann's hockey stick...it was ripped to shreds...which is why he has spend millions of dollars trying to keep it hidden from general view....if his data and methods are ever revealed, his career will be over....

You won't provide me with what I asked for because you can't.

What do you want?