Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[DC Tom]

How was it determined that we only contribute 1/10 of the CO2?

 

It was determined...poorly.

 

The original source material doesn't say that. Someone played fast-and-loose with it.

[Logic]

There's really no sense in trying to debate someone over a topic about which 97% of scientists are in agreement.

If the only response to "97% of experts on this issue agree" is "It's a money laundering scheme started by unions!", then, well...where do you really go from there?

I simply don't understand how it can be so easy for so many people to completely disavow a near 100% consensus by scientists that something is a fact. I'll say it again: The good thing about science is that it's true whether you believe it or not.

And to those upset that I didn't comb through all 140 pages of this thread to ensure that what I posted has not previously been posted, I apologize. But in fairness, "97% of scientists agree" is pretty much the thread ender...unless you truly believe that climate change is a big hoax created to launder money. If you don't believe 97% of scientists, I don't know what to tell you. It's like the kid who sticks his fingers in his ears and shouts "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!".

[Deranged Rhino]

There's really no sense in trying to debate someone over a topic about which 97% of scientists are in agreement.

 

If the only response to "97% of experts on this issue agree" is "It's a money laundering scheme started by unions!", then, well...where do you really go from there?

 

I simply don't understand how it can be so easy for so many people to completely disavow a near 100% consensus by scientists that something is a fact. I'll say it again: The good thing about science is that it's true whether you believe it or not.

 

And to those upset that I didn't comb through all 140 pages of this thread to ensure that what I posted has not previously been posted, I apologize. But in fairness, "97% of scientists agree" is pretty much the thread ender...unless you truly believe that climate change is a big hoax created to launder money. If you don't believe 97% of scientists, I don't know what to tell you. It's like the kid who sticks his fingers in his ears and shouts "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!".

 

 

 

Because science isn't about consensus... arguing that consensus is proof of anything scientific is to misunderstand what science is.

[Logic]

 

Because science isn't about consensus... arguing that consensus is proof of anything scientific is to misunderstand what science is.

I could just easily state that "ignoring and/or disavowing a 97% consensus among a scientific community is to misunderstand what science is".

[TakeYouToTasker]

I could just easily state that "ignoring and/or disavowing a 97% consensus among a scientific community is to misunderstand what science is".

Let's take a step back.

 

"Consensus" is not a scientific term.

 

"Falsifiable" is.

 

Talk to me about falsifiable.

[Logic]

Let's take a step back.

 

"Consensus" is not a scientific term.

 

"Falsifiable" is.

 

Talk to me about falsifiable.

Are you insinuating that you think the majority of the 97% are falsifying their data?

 

And I'd like to suggest a topic, too (and yes, I'm sure it's been discussed already somewhere in these 140 pages. That doesn't make it any less pertinent to the discussion): The ten hottest years on record. What do we suppose this data means? Was it, too, falsified?

[Deranged Rhino]

I could just easily state that "ignoring and/or disavowing a 97% consensus among a scientific community is to misunderstand what science is".

 

You could, but you would just be doubling down on your previous error. Consensus alone has no scientific value.

 

And, for clarity: I do believe humans have contributed to climate change, I also believe the climate is changing. I do not believe the former has been scientifically proven, and most of the "solutions" offered by those who do feel it's been scientifically proven are stop-gap measures at best that will have no impact on the issue at hand.

Edited March 20, 2017 by Deranged Rhino

[Logic]

 

You could, but you would just be doubling down on your previous error. Consensus alone has no scientific value.

To be fair, I don't see much scientific value in talking about how snowstorms mean climate change is a hoax, either, but that's what the last page and a half were loaded with.

 

 

[/dev/null]

 

Wrong, but don't take it from me. Ms McElhinney states it perfectly:

 

 

pwnd

[Gary M]

There's really no sense in trying to debate someone over a topic about which 97% of scientists are in agreement.

 

If the only response to "97% of experts on this issue agree" is "It's a money laundering scheme started by unions!", then, well...where do you really go from there?

 

I simply don't understand how it can be so easy for so many people to completely disavow a near 100% consensus by scientists that something is a fact. I'll say it again: The good thing about science is that it's true whether you believe it or not.

 

And to those upset that I didn't comb through all 140 pages of this thread to ensure that what I posted has not previously been posted, I apologize. But in fairness, "97% of scientists agree" is pretty much the thread ender...unless you truly believe that climate change is a big hoax created to launder money. If you don't believe 97% of scientists, I don't know what to tell you. It's like the kid who sticks his fingers in his ears and shouts "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!".

 

 

 

Show me the data behind the 97%, please.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Are you insinuating that you think the majority of the 97% are falsifying their data?

 

And I'd like to suggest a topic, too (and yes, I'm sure it's been discussed already somewhere in these 140 pages. That doesn't make it any less pertinent to the discussion): The ten hottest years on record. What do we suppose this data means? Was it, too, falsified?

...

 

I'll try again:

 

What does falsifiable mean?

[Azalin]

pwnd

 

Yep, that's what clinging to consensus gets you.

 

The belief that scientific fact is determined by popular vote never ceases to amuse me.

[Logic]

...

 

I'll try again:

 

What does falsifiable mean?

The possibility or likelihood that information or data can be proven false.

 

Now is where you explain your point in asking this or show me the proof that the data in question has been falsified.

[DC Tom]

The possibility or likelihood that information or data can be proven false.

 

Wrong.

 

A theory is "falsifiable" when it has the quality of being able to conceive or design a negative test that could disprove it. That's not a "possibility or likelihood of being proven false." That's the certainty of being able to define a test that can prove something false.

 

For example: Newtonian gravity is falsifiable. I can conceive of a test to disprove it: I push a pen off my desk (27 inches high), and it takes longer than 0.37 seconds to hit the ground. That I can design the test makes Newtonian gravity falsifiable. That the test will almost* certainly always demonstrate Newtonian gravity is true has absolutely no bearing on the falsifiability of the theory.

 

 

(*"Almost," because quantum physics says that there is about a 1 in 10^40 chance that the pen will hover in midair or go straight through the floor or something equally ridiculous.)

[IDBillzFan]

There's really no sense in trying to debate someone over a topic about which 97% of scientists are in agreement.

 

If the only response to "97% of experts on this issue agree" is "It's a money laundering scheme started by unions!", then, well...where do you really go from there?

 

I never mentioned unions. If you want to convince me about global warming cooling climate change, it starts by removing the billions of dollars blindly handed over to "scientific groups" who are more than happy to (1) say whatever they need to say for more money and (2) give a chunk of that money to the congressman these "scientists" got elected in order to allot them the billions they need to agree on something.

 

There's actually more evidence to suggest that 3 out of 4 dentists recommend Trident gum to their patients who chew gum.

[DC Tom]

There's really no sense in trying to debate someone over a topic about which 97% of scientists are in agreement.

 

Not just 97% of scientists, but four out of five dentists surveyed.

[Greg F]

It appears someone is unfamiliar with Karl Popper and falsification.

These considerations led me in the winter of 1919-20 to conclusions which I may now reformulate as follows.

 

1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.

 

2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.

 

3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.

 

4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.

 

5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.

 

6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.")

 

7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem.")

 

One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.

 

I would suggest reading the whole thing and pay special attention to his discussion of "confirming evidence" what is often times called confirmation bias. Also notice there isn't a word about 'consensus' having anything to do with science.

[Logic]

 

I never mentioned unions. If you want to convince me about global warming cooling climate change, it starts by removing the billions of dollars blindly handed over to "scientific groups" who are more than happy to (1) say whatever they need to say for more money and (2) give a chunk of that money to the congressman these "scientists" got elected in order to allot them the billions they need to agree on something.

 

There's actually more evidence to suggest that 3 out of 4 dentists recommend Trident gum to their patients who chew gum.

Sure. So long as we also get to remove the billions of dollars that oil companies spend to pump out misinformation and denial reports.

 

And with regard to convincing you...what say you to the fact that the 10 hottest years in modern history all came within the past 15 years? Coincidence? Unrelated? False? (Forgive me, I did not use the search function to go back and try to hunt down your opinion on this fact, much to the possible dismay of that Meazza fellow).

It appears someone is unfamiliar with Karl Popper and falsification.

 

 

I would suggest reading the whole thing and pay special attention to his discussion of "confirming evidence" what is often times called confirmation bias. Also notice there isn't a word about 'consensus' having anything to do with science.

I appreciate the link and the further explanation.

 

What I'd like to know is this: What evidence exists that the "theory" of climate change, as you put it, was found to be false? What peer-reviewed (or at least reasonably unbiased and fact-based) reports exist claiming that the science on global warming has been disproven? If I have missed it in this thread, forgive me. I admittedly have not read all 140 pages of discussion and am genuinely curious to know why several people here are of this opinion. Thanks.

Edited March 20, 2017 by Logic

[4merper4mer]

 

Not just 97% of scientists, but four out of five dentists surveyed.

Are you saying dentists are off by 17% you anti-dentite?

[DC Tom]

Sure. So long as we also get to remove the billions of dollars that oil companies spend to pump out misinformation and denial reports.

 

And with regard to convincing you...what say you to the fact that the 10 hottest years in modern history all came within the past 15 years? Coincidence? Unrelated? False? (Forgive me, I did not use the search function to go back and try to hunt down your opinion on this fact, much to the possible dismay of that Meazza fellow).

I appreciate the link and the further explanation.

 

What I'd like to know is this: What evidence exists that the "theory" of climate change, as you put it, was found to be false? What peer-reviewed (or at least reasonably unbiased and fact-based) reports exist claiming that the science on global warming has been disproven? If I have missed it in this thread, forgive me. I admittedly have not read all 140 pages of discussion and am genuinely curious to know why several people here are of this opinion. Thanks.

 

"Has not been proven" and "has been disproven" are not the same thing.