Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I made no such value judgment - I pointed out others who seem to indicate that the science is not settled - but made no comment, myself, either way...
(to me... the inconvenient truth I referenced is merely that others disagree with the reported levels of consensus, btw, and not a value judgment on a hypothesis)
I find many things interesting... not necessarily to judge things as fact or fiction, but merely as interesting information to consume
You used his credible science and then linked to discredited junk science, presenting them as equally valid when they are not.
Edit: I should add that this is PRECISELY what I was talking about in my earlier post. The dangers of allowing this anti intellectual slant in to our schools where you are judging things by what you find interesting instead of what has scientific merit. If you can't see the difference or the problem with such an approach, I can't help you.
so are you saying to me that the notion has been "discredited," that there are folks in the science community who question the hypothesis of man made climate change -- that the scientific community is not 'really' in a 97% consensus agreement - with respect to the extent and ramifications of ACC?
EDIT* perhaps this sort of disingenuousness, if wide spread in academia, is why some folks are not interested in pursuing the career path....
so are you saying to me that the notion has been "discredited," that there are folks in the science community who question the hypothesis of man made climate change -- that the scientific community is not 'really' in a 97% consensus agreement - with respect to the extent and ramifications of ACC?
EDIT* perhaps this sort of disingenuousness, if wide spread in academia, is why some folks are not interested in pursuing the career path....
Again, you self admitted to choosing articles not based on what is accurate, but what you find interesting. This is why fake news is thriving. Facts don't seem to matter. I find it very disconcerting.
Again, you are self admitted to choosing articles not based on what is accurate, but what you find interesting. This is why fake news is thriving. Facts don't seem to matter. I find it very disconcerting.
So, the national review & WSJ articles linked to, and others reporting on the debate relating to the scientific consensus, is relegated to "fake news" now?
The AllSides Bias RatingTM reflects the average judgment of the American people. We don't use a convoluted mathematical or artificial intelligence model, but instead have regular people representing the broad spectrum of Americans blindly rate the bias of articles. That produces a fair, verifiable bias rating. Confidence Level: Medium
The AllSides Bias RatingTM reflects the average judgment of the American people. We don't use a convoluted mathematical or artificial intelligence model, but instead have regular people representing the broad spectrum of Americans blindly rate the bias of articles. That produces a fair, verifiable bias rating. Confidence Level: High
So, the national review & WSJ articles linked to, and others reporting on the debate relating to the scientific consensus, is relegated to "fake news" now?
The National Review (which I read), is extraordinarily biased. The link you provided agrees.
The Wall Street Journal (which I also read) is a centrist news source, however their editorial page is very right leaning.
Like most complicated things, there is a lot of nuance to this discussion. Some things are considered scientifically settled, and some are not. I'm not intending to debate this with you even though that's what you seem to want to do.
This is a good read on the nuance of what is and what isn't settled (outside of the fringe, agenda driven garbage you can post all day)
very interesting to me also -- but not as interesting as the attack leveled at the gentleman, his credentials and work by the Colorado Rambler...
I am honored that you find my humble posts interesting. However, I have failed in my attempt to convey what constitutes valid science and what does not. POLITICAL science is not climate science. The individual you are defending does not have the background to make his sweeping conclusions about atmospheric sciences. End of story.
Quote:
if you recall, I personally made no such representation about the validity of any given scientific consensus, but rather, merely pointed out that (it seems to me that) some folks in the scientific community are not really wanting to hear any 'inconvenient truths' (to borrow a phrase) regarding their chosen field of study...
Here are some articles I found interesting -- about the reported scientific consensus:
Ooooooh! The WSJ, you say. Definitely an excellent source of scientific fact if ever there was one. The only thing the WSJ does better is sci-fi, but I'd recommend such masters of that genre as Ray Bradbury and Robert Heinlein.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyDog77
You used his credible science and then linked to discredited junk science, presenting them as equally valid when they are not.
Edit: I should add that this is PRECISELY what I was talking about in my earlier post. The dangers of allowing this anti intellectual slant in to our schools where you are judging things by what you find interesting instead of what has scientific merit. If you can't see the difference or the problem with such an approach, I can't help you.
Agree with Skydog. It is your misfortune to be a scientific illiterate. You don't know the difference between a highly respected, refereed scientific journal such as Science and a business oriented newspaper like the Wall Street Journal. For the final time. here's Rambler's quick quiz to test someone's understanding of the study of science. Answers from Google, Bing, or Yahoo will be given an automatic "F." I was "mean" to my beloved "brats" at Fort Lewis College. Too bad you weren't one of them:
1) What is the scientific method?
2) List the first three laws of thermodynamics.
3) How does one prove a scientific hypothesis?
4) What are the best sampling techniques to use when studying changes in the composition off the earth's atmosphere?
5) What statistical method(s) will give the highest degree of confidence when analyzing the data you have collected?
6) What is the Keeling Curve? (again)
7) When did CO2 levels begin their most recent increase in the earth's atmosphere and why?
8) What are Boyle's gas laws?
9) What is the periodic table of elements and how is it arranged?
10) What is the difference between an atom and a molecule?
Bonus Question for extra credit:
What is the Journal of Irreproducible Results?
You may think the questions above are beyond the pale, too esoteric for even a college graduate to know the answers to. If you think this, you are wrong. If you do have a college degree, you should sue the institution of higher learning that allowed you and your classmates to scamper off without so much as a single required course in Science for Non-science Majors.
The questions I have posed above are the equivalent of asking "Who was Shakespeare? Name at least 4 of his plays. What were the proximate causes of the Civil War? Where did Homo sapiens most likely originate? What is the difference between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution? Who wrote the Canterbury tales? What is existentialism and who are its most important proponents? What were the conditions in pre-war Germany that allowed Hitler his rise to power?
Anyone with a degree in the humanities should be able to answer these questions without a single thought - and they are the equivalent of the questions about science which I posted above.
Obviously, you cannot address any of the questions I posed about science in my little "Quick Quiz". If you do not know or understand about these things, please cease and desist from reporting second hand misinformation from the Wall Street Journal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eatsDEN
So, the national review & WSJ articles linked to, and others reporting on the debate relating to the scientific consensus, is relegated to "fake news" now?
With the greatest of respect, keep smacking your head - perhaps you will knock some common sense into your brain.
Not only are you are cherry picking your sources, you are looking for the least desirable fruit from the tree. I've already mentioned what misguided information the WSJ gives its readers about climate science. William F. Buckley was the founder of the National Review about 55 years ago. For those who arrived on the scene after his time, Buckley was a far right political commentator who knew plenty about the neo-con agenda and nothing about science. Citing a publication like the National Review may give the far right a lot of fun, but not much understanding of anything beyond Buckley’s foibles.
Let's take a quick look at some legitimate publications and scientific groups who have spoken out about the consensus on climate change:
According to the Stalinist publication, Bulletin of the Atomic Sciences: Studies in 2009 and 2010 both found 97 percent agreement among climate scientists that humans are causing global warming. Nonetheless, a US national survey in 2015 found that only 12 percent of Americans were aware that the scientific consensus was over 90 percent." This group of scientists have been around for 70 years and are very highly respected.
Here's a partial list of scientific organizations where more than 97 to 99 percent of the members agree about the dangers of human caused global warming:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
U.S. Global Change Research Program
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
The Geological Society of America
American Physical Society
American Meteorological Society
American Medical Association
American Geophysical Union
American Chemical Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Even the AMA, for heaven's sake! And I could list many more, but one hopes that the examples above will give the open minded reader the general idea.
Now, to get back to the original subject of this thread. How long have you lived in Colorado, eatsDen? Have you been here for at least 20 -30 years or, better yet, are you a native of Colorado? Do you spend much time hiking, camping, and just plain wandering around our wonderful state? If so, the first thing you'll notice is all the many stands of dead standing trees. Those trees may appear fine to the untutored eye or to that of a tourist. Nothing could be more wrong. Our trees are suffering from one of those most savage outbreaks of beetle kill since at least the arrival of the white man. The old school method of preventing fires from cleaning out dead trees and debris hasn't helped things much, but the major culprit is climate warming which has left our forests drought stricken and less able to survive beetle attack. Pine beetles are showing up in numbers never seen before because the new mild winters don't get cold enough to kill beetle larvae and eggs as they once did. We've had some horrific wildfires almost every summer as a result and those fires are only going to get worse. If you can at all manage it, I urge Colorado teachers to include field trips to see the ridge after ridge of dead trees which comprise far too much of Colorado's forested lands - both public and private.
BTW, this will be my final reply to you. I do not argue science with "true believers." It's a complete waste of time. My replies have been written for the information of others who may come across this thread and are open to reading about both sides of this argument. I pray for the sake of the little kids alive today that they won't inherit a planet that can no longer support them and their own children. It's just too tragic to contemplate.
so Mr. Cook is reliable, in your estimation?
I'm just going to leave these opinions and references to his work at Skeptical Science here --
as, "one hopes that the examples above will give the open minded reader the general idea"
so Mr. Cook is reliable, in your estimation?
I'm just going to leave these opinions and references to his work at Skeptical Science here --
as, "one hopes that the examples above will give the open minded reader the general idea"
ASKED AND ANSWERED:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler
BTW, this will be my final reply to you. I do not argue science with "true believers." It's a complete waste of time. My replies have been written for the information of others who may come across this thread and are open to reading about both sides of this argument. I pray for the sake of the little kids alive today that they won't inherit a planet that can no longer support them and their own children. It's just too tragic to contemplate.
And you STILL don't know what the Keeling Curve is, do you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
