Author Topic: Climate Change  (Read 28643 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #570 on: May 22, 2019, 03:38:37 pm »
Any researcher who smears skeptical researchers as "deniers" or "oil company funded" exhibits the symptoms of group think.

Anyone who smears scientists with the allegation of group think exhibits the symptoms of a propagandist.
Agree Agree x 1 Winner Winner x 2 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #571 on: May 22, 2019, 03:49:24 pm »
Natural variations in ocean currents, black carbon and reduced cloud cover due to cosmic rays also would melt ice. The non-relipacable hypothesis is that CO2 induced warming the primary cause of the observed melting.
 Except when they can't do replicable experiments to verify their hypotheses then "finding out why" ends up being indistinguishable from "wanting to believe".
Any researcher who smears skeptical researchers as "deniers" or "oil company funded" exhibits the symptoms of group think. Any researcher who uses the "consensus" argument a justification to dismiss anyone who questions the consensus exhibits the symptoms of group think. Any researcher who conspires to keep competing ideas about of the peer reviewed literature exhibits the symptoms of group think. The symptoms are obvious and on full display to anyone paying attention, however, people who are caught in the group think themselves will obviously insist that it does not exist. This is why I have been pointing where you and other alarmists exhibit the symptoms of group think with your own arguments.

Who is the one who used to continually try to flog the idea that environmental scientists findings were in some way "paid off" by, I guess the government? Now you are naive enough to think that the few deniers remaining might not be supported by big oil? tsk tsk 

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #572 on: May 22, 2019, 04:02:44 pm »
Anyone who smears scientists with the allegation of group think exhibits the symptoms of a propagandist.

I'm still waiting to hear the logic of the Tim types to explain why governments would pay scientists, as he seems to suggest they do, to come up with phony science which shows we need to wean off fossils, which will be a challenge. Why wouldn't they just accept what the other 3% says and continue to collect that revenue at the gas pumps?

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #573 on: May 22, 2019, 04:04:15 pm »
Anyone who smears scientists with the allegation of group think exhibits the symptoms of a propagandist.
Got to love the circular logic. But ultimately, the differences in opinion simply prove my point: there are few objective facts that can be proven in this field of knowledge. Almost every claim is someone's subjective opinion which is biased by their own ideologies and preferences. That includes my own and yours and anyone who claims to have knowledge of what the "truth" is.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2019, 04:07:40 pm by TimG »

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #574 on: May 22, 2019, 04:11:23 pm »
Got to love the circular logic. But ultimately, the differences in opinion simply prove my point: there are few objective facts that can be proven in this field of knowledge. Everything is someone's subjective opinion which is biased by their own ideologies and preferences. That includes my own and yours and anyone who claims to have knowledge of what the "truth" is.

Science is based on facts not "ideologies or preferences" My preference would be to drive around in the fancy ass gas guzzler I drove around in decades ago. Now I know better.
a: because I like the air I breathe
b: because I can see the Arctic melting

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #575 on: May 22, 2019, 04:31:27 pm »
Science is based on facts
Science uses facts to create hypotheses. If it is possible to create replicable experiments to test hypotheses then the hypotheses become like facts. If no replicable experiments are possible then the hypotheses are just some's opinion and subject to bias.

IOW, by giving examples of hypotheses proven by replicable experiments you simply prove you do not understand how science works.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #576 on: May 22, 2019, 04:37:09 pm »
Science uses facts to create hypotheses. If it is possible to create replicable experiments to test hypotheses then the hypotheses become like facts. If no replicable experiments are possible then the hypotheses are just some's opinion and subject to bias.

IOW, by giving examples of hypotheses proven by replicable experiments you simply prove you do not understand how science works.

How would you suggest we scientifically "replicate" major areas of polar ice melt? Apparently your knowledge of science is a bit confined to grade school stuff.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #577 on: May 22, 2019, 04:43:55 pm »
How would you suggest we scientifically "replicate" major areas of polar ice melt?
Another gold star for "completely missing the point". Yes, we can't replicate an experiment for polar ice melting which is my point. In climate science such experiments are not possible which means that any hypotheses are inherently less certain than hypotheses from fields where such experiments are possible. It is simply wrong to put climate science in the same category as gravitation or medicine. Climate science can never provide the same quality of results and should never be compared to those fields.

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12477
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #578 on: May 22, 2019, 05:02:12 pm »
Stirring the pot...

While TimG's point of 'group think' being a problem isn't the primary issue facing us, with Climate Change, I don't think he's off the mark in describing it as a 'general' problem with organizations.  Of course, Waldo will pillory me because I agree with some minor premise and therefore 'enable' TimG's argument (I don't) I find it interesting that sometimes Climate Change is given too much leeway.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/sea-level-rise-climate-change-1.5144739

^ This is one study that made the front page of the CBC page.  There was also a study in the past year or two saying that climate change from ice melt could be lower than thought but that didn't get front page on the CBC.

Everything is political.  Everyone is political.

Oh.

Except me.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #579 on: May 22, 2019, 05:02:43 pm »
Another gold star for "completely missing the point". Yes, we can't replicate an experiment for polar ice melting which is my point. In climate science such experiments are not possible which means that any hypotheses are inherently less certain than hypotheses from fields where such experiments are possible. It is simply wrong to put climate science in the same category as gravitation or medicine. Climate science can never provide the same quality of results and should never be compared to those fields.

You seem to like to use that word "hypothesis" a lot, but "reality" seems to be difficult. Increased sea level rise along with water temp. combined with ice melt are not, once again, hypothesis. Measurements of increased GHG are not hypothesis. The fact that we now have over a billion vehicles roaming around spewing fossil fuel carbon ( for the first time in the history of the planet) is not a hypothesis. Wake up and smell the...cough, cough, roses. 

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #580 on: May 22, 2019, 05:32:09 pm »
While TimG's point of 'group think' being a problem isn't the primary issue facing us, with Climate Change, I don't think he's off the mark in describing it as a 'general' problem with organizations.  Of course, Waldo will pillory me because I agree with some minor premise and therefore 'enable' TimG's argument (I don't) I find it interesting that sometimes Climate Change is given too much leeway.
The issue I am arguing here is a pedantic one about properly understanding what science can do and not do and where biases of researchers can affect results and where they don't matter. I also feel that by denying the inherent limitations of the science they conduct, climate scientists only undermine their own credibility and exacerbate the politically polarized environment when they should be using science to bridge the divide.

In any case, the issue is irrelevant to the question of what to do since I agree that we know enough to justify some policy response to increasing CO2 emissions. I obviously have my own opinions on what policy response is appropriate but those opinions are not going change if I was suddenly convinced that everything the "consensus" said was the absolute truth because the appropriate policy response is a question of economics (what can we afford?), technology (what can we do given what we can afford?) and values (what priorities do we have?).
« Last Edit: May 22, 2019, 05:53:40 pm by TimG »

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #581 on: May 22, 2019, 06:10:31 pm »
just some's opinion and subject to bias.

Yes, the bias is education. I know some prefer the uneducated biases.

Gravity is simply a hypothesis, so you better put on your seat belt lest you float away.
Funny Funny x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #582 on: May 22, 2019, 06:14:14 pm »
Gravity is simply a hypothesis, so you better put on your seat belt lest you float away.
A great example of a replicable experiment. Replicable experiments are the way to turn a hypothesis into a well established theory. Unfortunately, no such replicable experiments exist for climate science which means the various claims remain hypotheses.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2019, 06:16:28 pm by TimG »

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #583 on: May 22, 2019, 06:20:02 pm »
A great example of a replicable experiment. Replicable experiments are the only way to turn a hypothesis into a well established theory. Unfortunately, no such replicable experiments exist for climate science which means the various claims remain hypotheses.

You confuse experiments with observations. Einsteins theories are confirmed by predicted observations. If you want to replicate an experiment, then tell me how you are going to move a distant star behind the Sun?

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #584 on: May 22, 2019, 06:26:37 pm »
You confuse experiments with observations. Einsteins theories are confirmed by predicted observations. If you want to replicate an experiment, then tell me how you are going to move a distant star behind the Sun?
I suspect Einstein would agree with me:
Quote
Albert Einstein proposed[3][4] three tests of general relativity, subsequently called the "classical tests" of general relativity, in 1916:

the perihelion precession of Mercury's orbit
the deflection of light by the Sun
the gravitational redshift of light
In the letter to the London Times on November 28, 1919, he described the theory of relativity and thanked his English colleagues for their understanding and testing of his work. He also mentioned three classical tests with comments:[5]

"The chief attraction of the theory lies in its logical completeness. If a single one of the conclusions drawn from it proves wrong, it must be given up; to modify it without destroying the whole structure seems to be impossible."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

General relativity was validated because it could predict specific details about future events reliably and consistently. 
« Last Edit: May 22, 2019, 06:30:45 pm by TimG »