Author Topic: Climate Change  (Read 28533 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Squidward von Squidderson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5630
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #420 on: May 10, 2019, 09:59:48 am »
Quote
Of course, I realize I am whistling in the dark because way too many people have stopped caring about science...


This is what flat-earthers say too...   “You have to look at the REAL facts, not what all the so-called scientists are saying”.

It’s embarrassing.
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #421 on: May 10, 2019, 09:37:19 pm »
It’s embarrassing.
What embarrassing is your complete inability to read arguments written and address those instead of spouting whatever nonsense pops into your head.

From my post above I put a very important qualifier:
Quote
There is always dissent in any fields where it is not possible to prove a hypothesis with repeatable controlled experiments.
Repeatable experiments are the bedrock of the scientific method and the foundation for all science which we rely on today whether we are talking astronomy, medicine, physics, chemistry or anything else.

However, those kinds of experiments are not possible in every field of study. When a field lacks the ability settle scientific arguments with repeatable experiments then dissent becomes essential because that is only way to protect against group think. That is the problem with climate science.

So call me names if you like; but if you are unable to address the nuance in the argument I am making all that does is show how little you understand about how the scientific method works.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2019, 09:59:21 pm by TimG »

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #422 on: May 11, 2019, 01:27:29 am »
...only way to protect against group think.

what do you call fake skeptics and deniers group think? 

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #423 on: May 11, 2019, 01:44:13 am »
Repeatable experiments are the bedrock of the scientific method and the foundation for all science which we rely on today whether we are talking astronomy, medicine, physics, chemistry or anything else.

Yes, and the 3% climate change denial were not repeatable.
The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers—a common way to test scientific studies—and found biased, faulty results.

So what do you conclude from that?

Do you conclude that the scientific method doesn't work? Lol
« Last Edit: May 11, 2019, 01:48:11 am by Granny »

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #424 on: May 11, 2019, 01:49:15 am »
Yes, and the 3% climate change denial were not repeatable.
Neither is any of the so called 97%. The nature of the field means repeatable and verifiable experiments are not possible. This makes any claims inherently uncertain. Trying to hide this uncertainty with a manufactured consensus simply creates an environment where the truth is less important than preserving the consensus. The net result is the field is not trustworthy as long as they keep insisting on this consensus.
Dumb Dumb x 3 View List

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #425 on: May 11, 2019, 01:59:44 am »
Neither is any of the so called 97%. The nature of the field means repeatable and verifiable experiments are not possible. This makes any claims inherently uncertain.

Hahahahahahaha
Absolute nonsense.


Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #426 on: May 11, 2019, 08:22:56 am »
Hahahahahahaha
Absolute nonsense.
So please explain how you think claims of past temperatures are 'verified'? Do you think they have time machines that can go back and collect reference measurements? How about the extra planets and time machines needed to do double blind studies on the effects of different policies? Computer models don't count as verification. At best, they are equivalent to testing a drug on mice. No government regulator would ever dream of approving a drug for use based only on the tests on mice. They insist on real human trials. Yet people expect governments to treat the climate science equivalent of testing on mice as incontestable truth. It is nonsense.

Whether you want to acknowledge it or not the field is inherently uncertain because repeatable real world experiments cannot be done. Any claimed "consensus" is manufactured and only evidence of group think.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2019, 08:26:52 am by TimG »

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12461
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #427 on: May 11, 2019, 08:30:16 am »
... repeatable real world experiments cannot be done. Any claimed "consensus" is manufactured and only evidence of group think.

Of course they can't be done.  Do you want to say 97% isn't consensus ?

How would society work if we needed 100% approval for anything moving forward ?

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #428 on: May 11, 2019, 08:43:18 am »
How would society work if we needed 100% approval for anything moving forward ?
I am saying the opposite. I think we would have more confidence in the field if the "consensus" as 80% or so and there was strong contingent of contrarians poking holes and showing the limits of knowledge. As it stands contrarians are silenced in the name of "protecting the consensus". Without real world experiments this is the only way to expand our knowledge.

Consider a trial where someone is convicted of murder. Would you have more confidence in the verdict if the accursed is allowed to present contrary evidence or a trial where only the prosecution is permitted to present evidence? The latter is the way climate science is run today.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2019, 09:13:47 am by TimG »

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #429 on: May 11, 2019, 09:53:23 am »
I am saying the opposite. I think we would have more confidence in the field if the "consensus" as 80% or so and there was strong contingent of contrarians poking holes and showing the limits of knowledge. As it stands contrarians are silenced in the name of "protecting the consensus".
Disagreeing with the contrarians is not silencing them.
Proving them wrong (for faulty scientific methods) is not silencing them.
Their faulty papers are still readily available.
In fact, the paper reported in the Harvard Business Review would contain full references for all of them.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2019, 09:55:47 am by Granny »

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12461
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #430 on: May 11, 2019, 10:37:33 am »
1. I am saying the opposite. I think we would have more confidence in the field if the "consensus" as 80% or so and there was strong contingent of contrarians poking holes and showing the limits of knowledge. As it stands contrarians are silenced in the name of "protecting the consensus". Without real world experiments this is the only way to expand our knowledge.

2. Consider a trial where someone is convicted of murder. Would you have more confidence in the verdict if the accursed is allowed to present contrary evidence or a trial where only the prosecution is permitted to present evidence? The latter is the way climate science is run today.
1. There's no way only 80% of climate scientists believe in Climate Change.  Provide a subjective definition of 'suppression of truth' that can be applied across any discipline and I'll opine on that and we can try to apply it - discussion for another thread.

2. See #1.  There is no conspiracy of silence.  People try to express opposition to aspects of the papers but it doesn't stick. 

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #431 on: May 11, 2019, 10:38:07 am »
Whether you want to acknowledge it or not the field is inherently uncertain because repeatable real world experiments cannot be done. Any claimed "consensus" is manufactured and only evidence of group think.
Experimental manipulation of variables in controlled (eg double blind) settings can mimic and elucidate very  specific effects related to climate change. But their validity can't be generalized beyond those controlled settings. To understand the larger picture in the REAL world requires the collection over time of data on a large number and variety of factors about climate itself, and about factors that may impact on climate, all in situ - in the natural settings where they occur - with multiple factors and interactions of factors intact.
 
Computerization since the 70's has given us the capacity to collect and analyse these huge datasets.
Experimental manipulations of factors - like double blind studies - can't tell you how the factors would act and interact in the real world. But they can generate hypotheses that can be applied to and evaluated through analyses of large real world datasets.
Those analyses may reveal that factors tested in laboratory studies may have different effects, depending on interactions with other, possibly unanticipated, factors in the natural environment.
(Eg, forested vs deforested areas, etc). Those additional factors can then be included in future experimental manipulations to assess their effects more closely, generating more specific hypotheses that can then be applied to the large datasets .... etc.

Double blind studies are not the be all and end all of science (as believed in the computerless 1960's). They are necessary for generating specific hypotheses, but they cannot stand alone as they can only produce findings relevant to specifically controlled factors in unnatural settings. Unlike the 60's, we now have the capacity to test those hypotheses on real world data.

We'd be silly fools to cherry pick preferred methods and fight about them, when the reality is so complex that it requires all methods interacting appropriately to elucidate the complexities of climate.
 
« Last Edit: May 11, 2019, 10:45:06 am by Granny »

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #432 on: May 11, 2019, 11:00:29 am »
1. There's no way only 80% of climate scientists believe in Climate Change.
Saying scientists "believe" in climate change is religious nonsense. Science is not about belief. It is about evidence.  More importantly, you missed my point. I said we would have more confidence in the consensus view if there were more contrarians. As it stands, we have a claimed consensus that is not supportable given the methods available so we are left wondering what evidence is being ignored in ordered maintain this artificially high consensus.

Provide a subjective definition of 'suppression of truth' that can be applied across any discipline and I'll opine on that and we can try to apply it - discussion for another thread.
The field is not a field that allows unequivocal knowledge. Claims of certainty are simply false. Attempts to suppress or downplay uncertainties are attempts to deceive.

2. See #1.  There is no conspiracy of silence.  People try to express opposition to aspects of the papers but it doesn't stick.
Again, this brings me back to my original point. In a field where no real world experiments are possible then these kinds of disputes cannot be settled with experiments. They are settled by politics. So when you say these papers did not 'stick' all that really means is they said things that were politically inconvenient for many scientists so they made  up excuses to dismiss them despite the fact that exactly the same kinds of flaws exist in pro-consensus research.

It is simply not possible to show that the skeptical papers are definitively wrong. It all comes down to the subjective opinion of human beings which are rarely reliable.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2019, 11:27:18 am by TimG »
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #433 on: May 11, 2019, 11:04:24 am »
We'd be silly fools to cherry pick preferred methods and fight about them, when the reality is so complex that it requires all methods interacting appropriately to elucidate the complexities of climate.
I  am not cherry picking methods. I am pointing out the limitations of the methods that are available in climate science. The limitations of these methods means unequivocal claims are simply no supportable and any claims of a grand consensus have to manufactured because the available methods do not provide a foundation for that strength of claim.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #434 on: May 11, 2019, 11:13:27 am »
As it stands contrarians are silenced in the name of "protecting the consensus".

good to read your consistency - that you'll always (eventually) revert to conspiracy... that the poor, 'fake-skeptic/denier man can't get anything published'! Except, of course, when they do - often get published! Unfortunately for your agenda driven denial, these papers are either fundamentally flawed and/or can't stand-up to peer-response.
Agree Agree x 1 Dumb Dumb x 1 View List