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.
Odd view. Without scientists there is no science. And most scientists in the field of climate research still agree with my position more than with yours.
Scientists do not establish anything, science does. Science is a specific process of testing and evaluation to which the nature of its process establishes something. A scientist is irrelevant in the process as it is not their "opinion" to which establishes the issue, rather it is the process to which validates a given opinion. This is why what a scientists opines is irrelevant and it is only what he establishes through the process of validation, verification, and replication that is relevant.
So, if several scientists opinion is that of a given conclusion, it is irrelevant unless the science has shown that opinion to be conclusive. This is why saying "scientist agree" is a bogus and pointless argument. It doesn't matter what they agree on, only the validity they can establish through the process.
Lastly, your claim of "scientists agree" is bogus. I assume you are using that "97%" claim that was released a while back? You do realize it was a false claim do you not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
I indeed don't need anyone to confirm my views. I just mentioned it as I heard an interview on the radio yesterday on that extreme weather conference where they mentioned that professor and others. That news simply coincided with our exchange yesterday.
I don't need to attack your credibility as there simply is none. You are just an anonymous poster on a public message board, just like me and everyone else.
1. Yet you flip flop back and forth from claiming you are right without science and you disregard scientist anyway because they "don't see the Forrest for the trees", while at the same time making appeals to their authority with "scientists agree" and other irrelevant claims. So which is it? You need them or you don't? A little consistency would be nice, though I understand it is hard to keep your "facts" straight when you are up against a wall.
2. You say you don't need to attack my creditability, but then you do so anyway by questioning my motive and my authority while dismissing my argument. So which is it? You do or you don't need to do it because you keep doing it. Say what you mean and mean what you say, it goes a long way to proper communication.
There is nothing science as such can do, without scientists there is no science. Science is the product of scientists. Science is not the absolute truth or reality, it is just an intellectual discipline trying to find out how reality works. It is a discipline like others such as philosophy. Without philosophers there would be no philosophy, either. The mere rules of science were laid down by scientists to begin with.
Thus scientists' views matter a lot, and it also matters what the majority of them think on a given topic.
I don't know the percentage, there are differing numbers out there. Still, if you go and ask all climate experts in the world, the big majority of them will say that there is human-caused climate change (regardless of any natural one) rather than there isn't. Every process has an effect on nature, so it is naive to assume our massive changes made to the planet don't.
Again, I just posted the link for those who like to hear from scientists. I don't need scientists' opinion, though. I don't even need this thread, I am just here to promote my agenda, which is not merely to promote any view on climate change as such, but a change of our economic system because it is an unhealthy and pointless system. I will continue to post links to NASA and other news on this topic, just for people reading here, not because I need them to confirm my views. But of course I don't expect anyone to believe me anything, I am just another anonymous poster. Thus links etc.
Huh? I said I don't need to attack your credibility. That doesn't mean that I won't. Another example: I don't need to go to the toilet, but still I may, for instance proactively.
Yep, they always do this when there is growth in the arctic. They focus on the multi-year ice and make suppositions about how the younger ice will melt faster. They also use terms like "rotten ice" and other silly terms to describe how even though the ice has more extent and area, it is a sign that it will melt fast and reach its tipping point.
The problem is, it hasn't and their models keep severely missing the issue and the records they are using to establish this is from only 1980 on. They are attempting to claim a pattern of loss concerning multi-year ice when they don't have enough information to begin making such predictive claims concerning it.
There are a lot of problems with NASAs claims and it has been an issue of discussion here.
But I want to expand the scope a bit. For the first time in history, starting about 1980 with the advent of satellite remote sensing, we have geophysical data we’ve never had before. The trouble is, that 30+ year period from 1980-2012 is just barely over a 30 year climate normals period. We don’t know what sea ice extent and age trends were before that, as there really aren’t any good data on the Arctic ice pack prior to 1980.
The thing is, they don't even know where NASA gets its imagery on the ice extent as there is no record to which they use to claim such knowledge.
Quote:
I’m not sure where they got that high resolution data for 1955, since we didn’t have any satellites then (Sputnik launched in 1957 and had no remote sensing capability, only a radio beacon beeper so you could track it) and we didn’t have under the ice submarines (to measure ice thickness) then either as the USS Nautilus (SSN-571) was the first vessel to complete a submerged transit beneath the North Pole on August 3, 1958.
Even the USS Skate (SSN-578) didn’t surface at the North Pole through the ice until 1959. Here’s that photo again that drives Tamino and Neven crazy when they see it because it shows open water in the Arctic in 1958:
So the thing is, they only have a 30 year record and this specific issue is a pretty complex one to which using a short term record and then attempting to find causation is rather premature.
The fact is, the arctic and antarctic growth and loss is a thorn in the side of those who have been gunning for ice-less poles. Their predictions have consistently failed and no discernible patter has been established that fits their hypothesis.
This type of "excuse" isn't new. They used this during the growth spurts of 2008, 2009, 2010 to claim it was "temporary" and would all melt away fast because it was new ice. The problem is, the young ice is growing and not fully melting away. Its extent is increasing as well, but keep in mind that it was stated emphatically during the heavy loss of the arctic at the time that the arctic was the "key" to the entire AGW position. They put all of their money on that bet and promoted it heavily (thinking the 2007 melt would be a slam dunk for them).
Now, with the ice acting as it is, they are back tracking, using more suppositions that are unfounded to explain the divergence in their previous assessments. In science, explaining a divergence from your hypothesis is extremely important and it must be done through proper verification and validation. That is, you can not explain a divergence with more guesses, that is what we call an excuse. You must validate the the failure of the hypothesis (divergence) consistently to show why it fails under that condition (in this case, through observational confirmation).
The problem is, their explanation is not a validation, it is simply an "excuse" to why their previous suppositions are not correct and it is not validated to the explanation of their previous suppositions failures. It is simply more promises to the conclusion being sure when there is no evidence of such a result. That is ok though, eventually the excuses will wear thin and people will start to see the adherence to their bias.
Notice the Antarctic I linked in the previous post. Intitially there was a loss a while back and they began along the same lines they were with the arctic. The sea ice started to grow and they did the same thing they are with the arctic. When sea ice began to rise well above the 30 year average, they focused on the ice cover on land (specifically the warm temps in the peninsula) to which they weighted heavily claiming the Antarctic was warming. Though, this failed as it was shown that the warming was specifically related to that of UHI as the temps were related to human settlements which were, you guessed it, predominately in the peninsula.
So, since then they have pretty much ignored the Antarctic as every supposition they have made has failed considerably and observational data is showing that it is not warming there outside biased instrument weighting.
Back to the arctic, the same thing is happening there. If we happen to grow extensively, then they will be in a pickle. Most certainly if we lose below 2007, they will claim they are validated (even though the data does not support the sprial trend).
What is also interesting is that the AGW position is that the arctic is warming and the "multi-year ice" argument evades this simple issue. That is, it does not deal with the fact that there is ice growth this year in areas where we have not seen it in many many years. So, the argument of multi-year ice is a bit of a dodge to the fact that we are not showing an increased warming there to the level of the AGW hypothesis.
They are grasping at straws and play a dangerous game. By insisting on the validity of their hypothesis and consistently making excuses as to why the failures of it are still confirmations of it, if the arctic does make a strong recovery, it will destroy the creditability of the agencies and scientists who refused to accept anything other than their hypothesis as correct.
There is nothing science as such can do, without scientists there is no science. Science is the product of scientists. Science is not the absolute truth or reality, it is just an intellectual discipline trying to find out how reality works. It is a discipline like others such as philosophy. Without philosophers there would be no philosophy, either. The mere rules of science were laid down by scientists to begin with.
Stop being obtuse. You know very well that a scientist without proper scientific method is just some guy with an opinion. It is the process of science to which validates a given supposition that a scientist may have. It is the process to which establishes a given supposition as correct, not the other way around.
Science is a process, not a person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Thus scientists' views matter a lot, and it also matters what the majority of them think on a given topic.
Their opinion may have some weight, but in the end, it is still an opinion. Without the process to validate such an opinion, it is simply an educated guess. Scientists are not infallible, I can show you their failures in beliefs all day long. That is why science is not a process of consensus and one of a specific process of verification, validation, and replication.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
I don't know the percentage, there are differing numbers out there. Still, if you go and ask all climate experts in the world, the big majority of them will say that there is human-caused climate change (regardless of any natural one) rather than there isn't. Every process has an effect on nature, so it is naive to assume our massive changes made to the planet don't.
Not good enough. Provide some support to your position. You don't know the number, but then you know it is a majority. Where do you know this from? What evidence do you have to support such a generalized claim? Provide something that properly establishes this please.
Why am I asking you for this evidence? It is because this is an issue of major misinformation. The fact is, scientists do not agree on AGW to the position that is claimed. They agree on warming generally over the past century, but differ on recent trends. They agree C02 is a component of warming and man contributes to such.
What they do not agree on is that C02 is the main driver (that it is significant to the process) and that mans contribution is relevant to even that addition. They disagree on C02 doubling and its significance, on forgings, and many other elements of the issue.
The IPCC was the one that made the summary claim that scientists were in a consensus and all the agencies out there picked that up and ran with it, placing it in their own organizations summaries as to that conclusion claiming that their memberships also agreed (which was completely false and there was a lot of fallout from members who objected to such generalized statements).
We also found that the IPCC AR4 was political garbage to which only a key few were in control of the entire AR4 process and to which those few acknowledged their intent to promote a "cause" and to which their work was the driving force behind that position. We also found that the review process was a sham, administered and moderated by those whose work was being reviewed. Not only that, but we found that the AR4 contained thousands of references to grey literature (unfounded, non-peer reviewed sources to which were as common as a generalized claim in an activist sites pamphlet).
Your position of "scientists" agree is false, unless of course you would like to validate such a claim by providing proper citation that we can properly evaluate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Again, I just posted the link for those who like to hear from scientists. I don't need scientists' opinion, though. I don't even need this thread, I am just here to promote my agenda, which is not merely to promote any view on climate change as such, but a change of our economic system because it is an unhealthy and pointless system. I will continue to post links to NASA and other news on this topic, just for people reading here, not because I need them to confirm my views. But of course I don't expect anyone to believe me anything, I am just another anonymous poster. Thus links etc.
You posted a link from a news report that summarized a professor who was making unsupported assumptions about a given topic and to which that news article did not even properly cite its mention, nor did the professor properly cite the work to which he was referring. You were using an appeal of authority as a means to strengthen your position, it failed.
Yes, I know you are here to promote your agenda. You are here to see your view (which is ignorantly established on nothing more than subjective bias to a given self interest as you made clear) and see if you can get the idiot masses to suck down your garbage. You are promoting activist propaganda, nothing more. This is why you get angry with me showing up in the threads because I seem to rain on your happy little kool-aid session of recruiting more idiots to your unfounded view.
Thank you though for being completely honest and showing people here that you don't care about the science, you don't care about the facts, you simply want people to accept your position as valid simply because you speak it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Huh? I said I don't need to attack your credibility. That doesn't mean that I won't. Another example: I don't need to go to the toilet, but still I may, for instance proactively.
I don't even need this thread, I am just here to promote my agenda, which is not merely to promote any view on climate change as such, but a change of our economic system because it is an unhealthy and pointless system.
Stop being obtuse. You know very well that a scientist without proper scientific method is just some guy with an opinion. It is the process of science to which validates a given supposition that a scientist may have. It is the process to which establishes a given supposition as correct, not the other way around.
Science is a process, not a person.
Their opinion may have some weight, but in the end, it is still an opinion. Without the process to validate such an opinion, it is simply an educated guess. Scientists are not infallible, I can show you their failures in beliefs all day long. That is why science is not a process of consensus and one of a specific process of verification, validation, and replication.
Not good enough. Provide some support to your position. You don't know the number, but then you know it is a majority. Where do you know this from? What evidence do you have to support such a generalized claim? Provide something that properly establishes this please.
Why am I asking you for this evidence? It is because this is an issue of major misinformation. The fact is, scientists do not agree on AGW to the position that is claimed. They agree on warming generally over the past century, but differ on recent trends. They agree C02 is a component of warming and man contributes to such.
What they do not agree on is that C02 is the main driver (that it is significant to the process) and that mans contribution is relevant to even that addition. They disagree on C02 doubling and its significance, on forgings, and many other elements of the issue.
The IPCC was the one that made the summary claim that scientists were in a consensus and all the agencies out there picked that up and ran with it, placing it in their own organizations summaries as to that conclusion claiming that their memberships also agreed (which was completely false and there was a lot of fallout from members who objected to such generalized statements).
We also found that the IPCC AR4 was political garbage to which only a key few were in control of the entire AR4 process and to which those few acknowledged their intent to promote a "cause" and to which their work was the driving force behind that position. We also found that the review process was a sham, administered and moderated by those whose work was being reviewed. Not only that, but we found that the AR4 contained thousands of references to grey literature (unfounded, non-peer reviewed sources to which were as common as a generalized claim in an activist sites pamphlet).
Your position of "scientists" agree is false, unless of course you would like to validate such a claim by providing proper citation that we can properly evaluate?
You posted a link from a news report that summarized a professor who was making unsupported assumptions about a given topic and to which that news article did not even properly cite its mention, nor did the professor properly cite the work to which he was referring. You were using an appeal of authority as a means to strengthen your position, it failed.
Yes, I know you are here to promote your agenda. You are here to see your view (which is ignorantly established on nothing more than subjective bias to a given self interest as you made clear) and see if you can get the idiot masses to suck down your garbage. You are promoting activist propaganda, nothing more. This is why you get angry with me showing up in the threads because I seem to rain on your happy little kool-aid session of recruiting more idiots to your unfounded view.
Thank you though for being completely honest and showing people here that you don't care about the science, you don't care about the facts, you simply want people to accept your position as valid simply because you speak it.
LoL
147 IQ?
/boggle
I don't know if it is those 97% or not, maybe it is just 90% or 80%. I won't even waste my time looking for any numbers as it doesn't change anything for me. If you feel like thinking it is less than 50%, which you seem to do, also fine with me, I don't even expect you to back up your claim. On the Internet one can find sources for any statement whatsoever.
You are not in the position to evaluate the findings of people who know much more about the matter than you do. You can say professor this and that is not credible as often as you want, it doesn't mean anything. If he had as much time as you do and were on this board, too, he would take you apart. So, be happy none of them is here...
You can't even read people's moods. What gave you the idea that I get angry about your posting? I don't care, I mostly ignore you and people have long noticed your agenda, maybe you are even on the payrole of certain companies or organizations, who knows. You can post whatever you want, I don't care, people decide for themselves what and whom they believe, and what/whom not. Just don't expect me to waste as much time on this topic and your posts as you are obviously willing to invest. Since I don't care about your views on this topic and you are just an anonymous poster, it doesn't matter whether you write 1 line or 1 page posts as far as I'm concerned. If you have so much time and don't know what to do with it, knock yourself out as they say We all believe what we want to and are ready to believe, and we ignore what we don't like to hear...
Of course to me it is all about my political/economic/societal agenda, I never said anything else. Climate change and other environmental damages have long become facts to me. If I didn't think our actions and life style were a problem, I would not care about climate change just for the sake of it. And even if I did not believe there was AGW etc., I would still have my agenda as it doesn't change a thing about my views of our systems.
You are still trying to find out if there is a problem in the first place, or so you claim, while I am already thinking of solutions to the problem, and certainly not technical ones, as those would not solve the underlying problem, but only shift them from one area to another.
Yep, they always do this when there is growth in the arctic. They focus on the multi-year ice and make suppositions about how the younger ice will melt faster. They also use terms like "rotten ice" and other silly terms to describe how even though the ice has more extent and area, it is a sign that it will melt fast and reach its tipping point.
The problem is, it hasn't and their models keep severely missing the issue and the records they are using to establish this is from only 1980 on. They are attempting to claim a pattern of loss concerning multi-year ice when they don't have enough information to begin making such predictive claims concerning it.
There are a lot of problems with NASAs claims and it has been an issue of discussion here.
The thing is, they don't even know where NASA gets its imagery on the ice extent as there is no record to which they use to claim such knowledge.
So the thing is, they only have a 30 year record and this specific issue is a pretty complex one to which using a short term record and then attempting to find causation is rather premature.
The fact is, the arctic and antarctic growth and loss is a thorn in the side of those who have been gunning for ice-less poles. Their predictions have consistently failed and no discernible patter has been established that fits their hypothesis.
This type of "excuse" isn't new. They used this during the growth spurts of 2008, 2009, 2010 to claim it was "temporary" and would all melt away fast because it was new ice. The problem is, the young ice is growing and not fully melting away. Its extent is increasing as well, but keep in mind that it was stated emphatically during the heavy loss of the arctic at the time that the arctic was the "key" to the entire AGW position. They put all of their money on that bet and promoted it heavily (thinking the 2007 melt would be a slam dunk for them).
Now, with the ice acting as it is, they are back tracking, using more suppositions that are unfounded to explain the divergence in their previous assessments. In science, explaining a divergence from your hypothesis is extremely important and it must be done through proper verification and validation. That is, you can not explain a divergence with more guesses, that is what we call an excuse. You must validate the the failure of the hypothesis (divergence) consistently to show why it fails under that condition (in this case, through observational confirmation).
The problem is, their explanation is not a validation, it is simply an "excuse" to why their previous suppositions are not correct and it is not validated to the explanation of their previous suppositions failures. It is simply more promises to the conclusion being sure when there is no evidence of such a result. That is ok though, eventually the excuses will wear thin and people will start to see the adherence to their bias.
Notice the Antarctic I linked in the previous post. Intitially there was a loss a while back and they began along the same lines they were with the arctic. The sea ice started to grow and they did the same thing they are with the arctic. When sea ice began to rise well above the 30 year average, they focused on the ice cover on land (specifically the warm temps in the peninsula) to which they weighted heavily claiming the Antarctic was warming. Though, this failed as it was shown that the warming was specifically related to that of UHI as the temps were related to human settlements which were, you guessed it, predominately in the peninsula.
So, since then they have pretty much ignored the Antarctic as every supposition they have made has failed considerably and observational data is showing that it is not warming there outside biased instrument weighting.
Back to the arctic, the same thing is happening there. If we happen to grow extensively, then they will be in a pickle. Most certainly if we lose below 2007, they will claim they are validated (even though the data does not support the sprial trend).
What is also interesting is that the AGW position is that the arctic is warming and the "multi-year ice" argument evades this simple issue. That is, it does not deal with the fact that there is ice growth this year in areas where we have not seen it in many many years. So, the argument of multi-year ice is a bit of a dodge to the fact that we are not showing an increased warming there to the level of the AGW hypothesis.
They are grasping at straws and play a dangerous game. By insisting on the validity of their hypothesis and consistently making excuses as to why the failures of it are still confirmations of it, if the arctic does make a strong recovery, it will destroy the creditability of the agencies and scientists who refused to accept anything other than their hypothesis as correct.
Various countries seem to think differently, Russia, Canada, etc. are already planning for the time after the Arctic ice is gone, at least during the summer...
I don't know if it is those 97% or not, maybe it is just 90% or 80%. I won't even waste my time looking for any numbers as it doesn't change anything for me. If you feel like thinking it is less than 50%, which you seem to do, also fine with me, I don't even expect you to back up your claim. On the Internet one can find sources for any statement whatsoever.
I am not making claims, you are. You continuously state you don't care about the facts, you simply believe what you wish to believe and then spout of such as it is fact to others. I honestly don't know how many believe a given specific point, only that there is not a majority to a given one that you specify.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
You are not in the position to evaluate the findings of people who know much more about the matter than you do. You can say professor this and that is not credible as often as you want, it doesn't mean anything. If he had as much time as you do and were on this board, too, he would take you apart. So, be happy none of them is here...
I can read, I can write, I can do math, I can think (at a level of a computer science and math degree). The beauty about scientific process is I don't have to be an expert to check their facts. I simply have to be able to follow along the argument and then see if their means of verification is according to their claims. Another interesting aspect of the internet is that many people do far more in depth evaluations to the issues of this science than I, which saves me the trouble of doing it myself. I can easily follow along their objections and note the points between it and the scientific author. What is interesting is seeing them bring up valid objections to a given issue to which that "scientist" dismisses through fallacious argument and refuses to acknowledge a lacking in their given evaluation. Sorry, but the old argument of "you are a peasant, this is high priest stuff you wouldn't understand" is an argument for idiots of past generations. Today, people are far more educated than those of the past and simply "The king speaks, therefore it is truth" doesn't work. It really is the beauty of scientific process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
You can't even read people's moods. What gave you the idea that I get angry about your posting? I don't care, I mostly ignore you and people have long noticed your agenda, maybe you are even on the payrole of certain companies or organizations, who knows.
I don't care about your "moods". Your emotional endeavors are not of my concern, but I can tell when you are lacking in your logic and lashing out like an idiot because your position is failing. You do this quite frequently. If you are happy when you promote such stupid arguments, then so be it. It doesn't change the idiocy of your position.
As for your implication of my motive. Here again we see your stupid attempt to attack my credibility. You can't argue the science, you have admitted to a devious agenda and now all you have is to attack my motives so as to bring my intent down to your nefarious level. Sorry, but not everyone is like you. Some people just despise liars and propaganda pushers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
You can post whatever you want, I don't care, people decide for themselves what and whom they believe, and what/whom not. Just don't expect me to waste as much time on this topic and your posts as you are obviously willing to invest. Since I don't care about your views on this topic and you are just an anonymous poster, it doesn't matter whether you write 1 line or 1 page posts as far as I'm concerned. If you have so much time and don't know what to do with it, knock yourself out as they say We all believe what we want to and are ready to believe, and we ignore what we don't like to hear...
Oh, but you do care. In fact, you care so much as to continue to try and rationalize your position and dismiss mine. You are caught, your position is well outlined by your own admission. You aren't here for the science, the facts, or increasing knowledge. You are here by your own words because:
Quote:
I don't even need this thread, I am just here to promote my agenda, which is not merely to promote any view on climate change as such, but a change of our economic system because it is an unhealthy and pointless system.
So, people know your agenda is above the truth. It is focused on your personal crusade to demand economic systems change. A rational person of any intelligence will view your responses as an admission that you will distort and manipulate the issue to your agenda. Sorry, but you mouthed off, your credibility is in the toilet. I doubt anyone of any real thought will consider your commentary to be anything other than blowing smoke up peoples arses to get your way, but hey... you have that 147 IQ to comfort you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Of course to me it is all about my political/economic/societal agenda, I never said anything else. Climate change and other environmental damages have long become facts to me. If I didn't think our actions and life style were a problem, I would not care about climate change just for the sake of it. And even if I did not believe there was AGW etc., I would still have my agenda as it doesn't change a thing about my views of our systems.
You are still trying to find out if there is a problem in the first place, or so you claim, while I am already thinking of solutions to the problem, and certainly not technical ones, as those would not solve the underlying problem, but only shift them from one area to another.
Yes yes, blah blah... we don't care. You have admitted your nefarious position and willingness to disregard fact and proper scientific process to achieve your goals.
Nothing you say is worth anything. Its just the ramblings of an idiotically supported position. Nope, that wasn't an insult to you, it is merely an accurate description of your argument which is supported by "utterly foolish or senseless" means.
Various countries seem to think differently, Russia, Canada, etc. are already planning for the time after the Arctic ice is gone, at least during the summer...
Care to site such and not generalize it all? That would be an idiotic position to take without proper support wouldn't it? You aren't an idiot are you? You can properly cite your claims? By all means, please cite some support for your claims so people don't mistake your argument, or you personally for being such.
Besides, "planning" for it is not evidence it is happening. If we used such stupid logic, then we could claim that the "doomsday preppers" of today prove that what they are prepping for will happen. We aren't that stupid now are we? Surely we wouldn't make such claims as evidence? Would we?
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.
We all believe what we want to and are ready to believe, and we ignore what we don't like to hear...
