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.
Oddly, people who are proponents of the concept of man-made climate change never seem to get that. They seem to think that writing articles in journals is the scientific method.
They either are ignorant or have a political motive. Either way, they have throughout history been an impediment to scientific process.
Not sure what the ignorance is caused by though. Do they no longer teach the scientific method in schools anymore? I mean, this was grade school level stuff and yet I have met college grads who are severely ignorant on these basic concepts.
They either are ignorant or have a political motive. Either way, they have throughout history been an impediment to scientific process.
Not sure what the ignorance is caused by though. Do they no longer teach the scientific method in schools anymore? I mean, this was grade school level stuff and yet I have met college grads who are severely ignorant on these basic concepts.
That's nothing, I met someone who has been a scientist for 25 years in this thread who thought that.
The movement has though. The word "denier", the 1010.org video "No Pressure" showing skeptics being blown up, the movement to use RICO to attack scientists who do not support CAGW idealogy. The numerous actions by agencies, organizations and governments to attack anyone who did not toe the line from trying to black list scientists, to get meteorologists fired who did not continue the narrative, to using "wanted" signs to portray skeptical scientists as criminals.
The standard for the CAGW crowd is well known, you may "personally" claim no part, but they are the majority, they are the movement, and their actions have been very well documented on numerous fronts (Peter Glieck fraud, Climategate emails, etc...).
This can all be ignored since it doesn't actually change any of the facts, just demonstrates that in any sufficiently large population there will be unethical people/jerks.
For the rest, we will just pretend "CAGW" is "AGW" since "CAGW" is a nonsense made up strawman version of AGW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxtGen
CAGW is a hypothesis and does not meet the rigors of scientific validation. You can not validate something with a guess. A model can not verify and validate a given assumption. The observations do not meet their explanations without using models and torturing the data. They refuse to consider the Null Hypothesis for all the failures and they continue to manufacture a narrative.
Bolded needs substantiation. What models do you think were wrong and why? What were the scientists explanations for why the models were wrong? Why do you think that their explanations were wrong? These are the questions that need to be answered in order to overturn the scientific consensus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxtGen
This is why the Climate gate emails were so telling as they admitted they had no evidence, but needed to continue the narrative, to promote the "cause". It shows they were invested in politics, not science.
More politics. Yes in any sufficiently sized population you will have some corruption. To support your contention you need explanations on WHY the data and conclusions were wrong beyond just political dislike of a few unethical scientists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxtGen
CAGW supporters don't get to spend years throwing eggs and then act like they were civil and legitimate. It would be insulting to anyone who can read and isn't an idiot to play a game that the CAGW proponents have not been severely out of line. If you are willing to admit this, then we can move on, if you deny it then I know you are playing more games.
Yes in any sufficiently sized population you will have some corruption. None of this has any impact on the veracity of the science itself. It is irrelevant. What would be relevant is if you can come up with the actual reasons WHY you think the scientific consensus is wrong, not the reasons you don't like some scientists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxtGen
I have an issue with the so called "science" being played at. Models do not verify and validate, they can not be used to establish a hypothesis as being consistently met. I have a problem with data being adjusted to fit what is expected (USHCN station data being manipulated to the point of uselessness to push a narrative).
I have a problem with data being manipulated to fit a narrative as well. Do you have evidence that the overwhelming majority of climate data is manipulated or are you picking out one potentially corrupt example and trying to broad brush every single climate data collection sensor on the planet with this one example?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxtGen
The fact is, CAGW has not been verified, validated, and replicated to the standards of science.
So far your primary support of this is that some scientists are corrupt. Yes in any sufficiently sized population you will have some corruption. What you need to support this statement is evidence to the contrary of the scientific consensus not personal dislike of some scientists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxtGen
Past that, I don't care about peoples suppositions, save the planet political rhetoric or "think of the children" emotional arguments.
Neither do I.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxtGen
Establish the hypothesis properly, or it is wrong.
You have not provided evidence that it has not been established properly. Corruption in a few members of the science community != evidence contradicting the consensus on AGW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxtGen
So far, we have had decades of observational data conflicting with the narrative these so called "scientists" have claimed. Each time, they manipulate the data, stretch to explain why their "hypothesis" is still valid. That isn't science, it is anti-science.
Citation needed.
Your current objections seem heavy on politics and light on data. Politics has no impact on truth. Maybe the data is coming in your next post?
Last edited by zzzSnorlax; 12-21-2016 at 12:21 PM..
C= Mans contribution is significant and shows direct results to such warming.
You can word smith all you like, but it won't make your argument valid.
Correct, it is the SCIENTIFIC term of AGW with Catastrophic tacked onto the front of it, dishonestly making it sound more "chicken little" than the actual science suggests. If you are going to debate science, why not use the actual scientific terms? Using loaded non science terms just demonstrates your bias.
You should ask yourself why you feel the need to NOT use the actual scientific term and instead use a term designed purposefully to make it sound more alarmist than it actually is. That is an indication of a bias seeking rather than truth seeking outlook.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxtGen
They either are ignorant or have a political motive. Either way, they have throughout history been an impediment to scientific process.
Not sure what the ignorance is caused by though. Do they no longer teach the scientific method in schools anymore? I mean, this was grade school level stuff and yet I have met college grads who are severely ignorant on these basic concepts.
Make sure to throw some unsupported ad-hominem arguments in there too. I hear those work real good in science. Nobel prize is in the mail!
But seriously, you appear to view the world entirely through a political lens. Are you sure you aren't just psychologically projecting here?
Last edited by zzzSnorlax; 12-21-2016 at 12:26 PM..
A. I have only ever heard the term "consensus" used, which means "general agreement" which would be correct.
This isn't true. You have heard the statement that 97% all climate scientists agree that such and such is happening. The only thing 97% agree on is that there is climate.
I am also against world government unless its for the greater good of mankind.
LOL, double speak of the year award right here. You are against it except where you are for it.
Quote:
I don't care how other countries do business on a daily basis but when it comes to something that affects every person on the planet we need a baseline. It doesn't do much good if one country has standards in place but the 4 countries surrounding it don't. Sort of defeats the purpose in my opinion. We need to all be on the same page when it comes to the environment. After we have a plan for the environment then we can all go back to hating each other and running our countries as we wish as long as it falls under the baselines we have in place for the environment.
It's never going to happen. Too many varied political goals.
C= Mans contribution is significant and shows direct results to such warming.
You can word smith all you like, but it won't make your argument valid.
Except that climate change is a term that encompasses the entire phenomenon and global warming only one portion.
Why are you only willing to talk about the warming? What about shifts in precipitation patterns, changes in the oscillations, etc. Climate is more than temperature.
This isn't true. You have heard the statement that 97% all climate scientists agree that such and such is happening. The only thing 97% agree on is that there is climate.
I discussed specific topics, you seem to be confused which leads me to believe you lack the knowledge of this topic past talking points.
Again, what specific points did I mention are invalid? What specific points did I discuss that you find trouble with? If you would like me to validate a given claim, by all means bring up the specific of it. All that I mentioned is common knowledge to anyone who has actually educated themselves on this issue, so you need only bring into question a comment I made and I will provide proper sourcing.
My points were rather clear to the educated on this subject.
This topic is heavily infested with politics and I mentioned by name numerous items which supported this. Do you contest them? Which one would you like me to verify for you?
As for the science, anyone with even a basic knowledge of scientific process knows that science is a specific method of evaluation which requires a given explanation of an observation to be properly tested to it by means of verification, validation and replication.
If you want to discuss, then do so, I will not follow some flow chart of talking points.
I laid out my objection to the issue, you can attend to it or you can spin in your seat confused because you weren't prepared for this which again suggests to me that you have no clue about this topic past talking points.
Why are you so angry?
I have been very civil with you and have not attscked you in any way. What about this topic causes such a reactive response and so many ad Homs at that? Not for nothing this is literally a large part of my professional career and I am less emotionally invested than you are.
I am in interested in hearing anyone's view point but your rancor makes what could otherwise be an interesting exchange meaningless.
So if you want to start with one thing, in a much more reasonable manner please, it would be your claim that anthropogenic climate change is a hypothesis.
Can you please explain your reasoning for that one. Which part do you find hypothetical? That the climate is changing? That it is anthropgenic in nature? Or just the consequences?
In reality it much more fits the theory paradigm. It's a bit basic but theories need to have a body of supporting evidence, make predictions and must be falsifiable. Anthropogenic climate change checks all of those boxes, so if anything it would be a theory.
This can all be ignored since it doesn't actually change any of the facts, just demonstrates that in any sufficiently large population there will be unethical people/jerks.
You mean the majority and the mainstream positions? These unethical actions and behaviors are not minorities, they are the standard. In fact, anyone who uses "denier" in their comments is a part of these charlatans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
For the rest, we will just pretend "CAGW" is "AGW" since "CAGW" is a nonsense made up strawman version of AGW.
By all means, establish this position by more than retorich. Explain how man contributing to warming equals man being the cause of major weather and climate events? Go ahead, I will be waiting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
Bolded needs substantiation. What models do you think were wrong and why? What were the scientists explanations for why the models were wrong? Why do you think that their explanations were wrong? These are the questions that need to be answered in order to overturn the scientific consensus.
Models are suppositions. They can NEVER establish a hypothesis because they are are suppositions themselves. You can not take an unknown (a guess) and establish a known. You can not take an assumption of climate systems and then use that assumption as a means to validate the assumption. It is not simply anti-science, it is pure stupidity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
More politics. Yes in any sufficiently sized population you will have some corruption. To support your contention you need explanations on WHY the data and conclusions were wrong beyond just political dislike of a few unethical scientists.
I mentioned some the data (USHCN), but your understanding of the issue is obviously limted and so you did not understand what I meant, otherwise you wouldn't be accusing me of making vague mention. Anyone who knows their head from their arse concerning this issues knows that surface stations, specifically the USHCN and the manipulations by some agencies is in contention not only in the base evaluations, but the methodology in the graduation between site locations.
You go ahead and tell me how you know your head from your arse though. I am sure we will all be impressed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
Yes in any sufficiently sized population you will have some corruption. None of this has any impact on the veracity of the science itself. It is irrelevant. What would be relevant is if you can come up with the actual reasons WHY you think the scientific consensus is wrong, not the reasons you don't like some scientists.
Consensus is not science. A bunch of people agreeing does not validate a given assumption, this has and never will be science. The fact that you are promoting consensus shows you are political, pushing talking points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
I have a problem with data being manipulated to fit a narrative as well. Do you have evidence that the overwhelming majority of climate data is manipulated or are you picking out one potentially corrupt example and trying to broad brush every single climate data collection sensor on the planet with this one example?
There are numerous examples over the decades, I even mentioned one issue with the USHCN which you have still yet to deal with specifically and only tend to in generalized terms. Do you care to go into detail with the various methods of data manipulation done by some of the agencies? Maybe you would like to discuss GISS and their continued adjustments of the USHCN data which severely conflicts with raw data and even the USCRN network to which is much more strict in its requirements? Please, specify your topics, I am all ears to you discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
So far your primary support of this is that some scientists are corrupt. Yes in any sufficiently sized population you will have some corruption. What you need to support this statement is evidence to the contrary of the scientific consensus not personal dislike of some scientists.
Consensus is not science, so please stop pushing that political crap. It makes you look like a tool for propaganda. What I am saying is that science it not being practiced, politics are. That verification, validation,. and replication are being pushed aside to promote ideology. That when scientists are questioned, when that "consensus" is questioned, they are attacked, much like the church attacked Galileo when he questioned their "consensus".
You will not establish a valid argument by calling forth appeals to authority and the consensus among them, in fact, you will merely be another tool pushing politics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
Neither do I.
Yet you seem to advocate that very thing. CAGW is exactly that, an assumption, unfounded, unsupported, and entirely founded in supposition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
You have not provided evidence that it has not been established properly. Corruption in a few members of the science community != evidence contradicting the consensus on AGW.
My statements stand for themselves.
1) The majority position of the issue both official and unofficial have acted politically and unscientifically concerning the issue.
2) CAGW has not been verified, validated, and replicated to proper scientific means. It is established on supposition and collective bullying through "consensus" political establishment.
I can prove both of these by showing you numerous evidence of agencies, governments, organizations, scientists, news organizations and academic agencies who have promoted this.
I can prove that CAGW has not been scientifically verified, validated and replicated to proper scientific means based on the fact that any single discrepancy of that hypothesis no meeting its supposition instantly fails the supposition as is the standard of scientific process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
Citation needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
Your current objections seem heavy on politics and light on data. Politics has no impact on truth. Maybe the data is coming in your next post?
how about you specify what you would like to talk about rather than carefully never attending to a specific issue so as not to show your ignorance on the issue.
I have spoken numerous times directly of topics, while you keep mouthing off in ignorance, always careful to never actually talk about anything specifically, but most certainly to arrogantly proclaim authority.
You know what I think?
I think you are out of your league, but you go ahead and get your feet wet and lets see this turns out for you shall we? Take a dip, get wet... speak about things more specifically, talk in your own words and not in talking points.
Be an individual, don't be a witless drone passing on other peoples claims.
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.