Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
willm

Climate change issue resolved?

Recommended Posts

You don't understand what I was asked to provide evidence for, do you?

 

Hint, it didn't have anything to do with science.

 

 

edit: For what it's worth, there is a more comprehensive article here: Scientific opinion on climate change.

 

It's a very comprehensive article that is well researched and well references, and supports the claim I originally made.

 

Feel free to dismiss it, just don't accuse me of not having provided any evidence.

Edited by willm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't understand what I was asked to provide evidence for, do you?

What do you think you were asked to provide evidence for, conspiracy boy?

 

Because the question I keep asking you is quite simple: prove to me that what scientists believe is right, is actually right.

 

edit: For what it's worth, there is a more comprehensive article here: Scientific opinion on climate change.

 

It's a very comprehensive article that is well researched and well references, and supports the claim I originally made.

 

Feel free to dismiss it, just don't accuse me of not having provided any evidence.

It's an idiotic article that constitutes proof for idiots. It provides not an iota of evidence that the science of the consensus is correct.

 

Congratulations for falling for media spin.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm shit at answering and spacing my answers among multi-posts, so you get this instead.

 

A wiki link of "sources" without anything solid behind them is worthless considering the subject matter at hand. They do not address the science, and therefore are a fail.

 

Leonid's requests are not a "cop-out". If you indeed have the access you claim, proving it would have taken far less than multiple posts claiming otherwise. I have been more than patient allowing you time in case you were not able to access them at home, but it's now middle of the week, and you still have nothing. Hence, my running out of patience, and pointing out you are a fraud. I have been reasonable. Despite your claims, I have been most patient, allowing form many things, but the week is almost done, and you refuse to fulfill a very simple criteria. I'm sorry, but your bullshit excuse of "it is unreasonable" would easily be solved bey simply proving him wrong. Hence, you clearly have nothing. Feeling annoyed i have finally stopped being patient and called your bluff is hardly "insulting you", I'm simply stating then obvious. You refuse to provide ANY proof for anything you claim, and seem to feel anything pointing this out is an "insult". I am, despite what some think, a very reasonable man, but you have failed to provide a single shred of evidence I have requested. The few links you have given have little to do with the question at hand, and only seem to be more "claims" of "consensus", none of which are proven, and consensus is irrelevant. I asked for proof of claim. You claim things. You should back it with evidence, or admit you were mistaken. Some can do this. You have unfortunately, despite repeated, polite requests, failed to do so. Claiming I am "insulting you" by pointing this out is a fallacy. You expect proof from others, yet dance around providing it yourself. Wiki is NOT proof. Your links do not answer the requested questions. How much plainer can i make it?

 

For the last time, please provide proof of your assertions. I am not asking for unrealistic objectives. This is science. You make claims, you prove them.

 

And it is NOT at all "entirely unreasonable for me to have to prove I have access journal articles". It's s a simple thing tom prove. If you cannot prove this, then you do not have access. It's that simple. Stop playing games, and provide evidence. Or else be shown to be making false and libelous claims. Simple really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm shit at answering and spacing my answers among multi-posts, so you get this instead.

 

A wiki link of "sources" without anything solid behind them is worthless considering the subject matter at hand. They do not address the science, and therefore are a fail.

I was asked to provide evidence for my claim that a majority of the scientific community in in agreement on AGW. I have done so.

 

I was not asked to provided evidence showing scientific proof to substantiate AGW, which is what you are now asking for.

 

Leonid's requests are not a "cop-out". If you indeed have the access you claim, proving it would have taken far less than multiple posts claiming otherwise. I have been more than patient allowing you time in case you were not able to access them at home, but it's now middle of the week, and you still have nothing.

Bullshit. If you have the references provide them. He made the claim. When called on it, he started adding extra conditions. It doesn't matter how easy it is for me to prove I have access. I shouldn't have to prove something, just so he can prove the claims he originally made.

 

It is shifting the burden or proof from himself to me, which is unreasonable as he made the original claims. If you can't see that, then there is no point in discussing this with you further.

 

I didn't quote the rest of your reply, because my response would have been identical to what I have already said.

 

Every single point you made about me not providing evidence for my claims is better suited towards Leonid. Why? Because I have supported my claims, without making people jump through hoops first. I'll tell you what though. I'll be happy to provide you with reliable sources to corroborate my claims, as soon as you prove you have an account with Nature. Seem reasonable?

Edited by willm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I was asked to provide evidence for my claim that a majority of the scientific community in in agreement on AGW. I have done so."

 

No, you have not. I don't know how you tell yourself you have, but you have not. A letter from a few scientists (most of whom are not even in the field they are protesting about), does NOT constitute "the majority of the scientific community". Do you get it yet? My patience really is wearing thin. I am not even bothering to ask for scientific proof of AGW (cute name btw), just proof even of a "majority of the sci community" supporting this. Which you failed in. I gave you plenty of lead team, and plenty of room. But still, nothing. Even you cannot deny plenty of time to provide such support. Which you failed to provide. :/

 

"Bullshit. If you have the references provide them. He made the claim. When called on it, he started adding extra conditions. It doesn't matter how easy it is for me to prove I have access. I shouldn't have to prove something, just so he can prove the claims he originally made."

 

Um, nothing unreasonable, or inexcusable about his request. And as i said, several times, if you actually had the access you claimed, it would be a very simple task to prove him wrong, rather than rage against a simple requirement. Quite frankly, answering it would have strengthened your case, and made him look like he was hiding something, instead you've made it look otherwise. Frankly, you would have been better served proving him wrong, instead of complaining you're hard done by. Your refusal to show otherwise is what has cemented you as a fraud. Complaining you are "insulted" by this is weak. Show you have access and prove it wrong. A simple request from day 1. Your refusal to do so paints you as a liar and a fraud. Don't complain when called out on it. You have been presented with the opportunity many times, but let it pass, claiming ridiculous excuses. Don't be surprised you are called out on it. It just makes you look even worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you have not. I don't know how you tell yourself you have, but you have not. A letter from a few scientists (most of whom are not even in the field they are protesting about), does NOT constitute "the majority of the scientific community".

I was referring to both wiki articles I provided, which are well referenced and written. Not the original letter referenced from the Slashdot article.

 

I'll ignore the rest of you diatribe, and give you a chance to review them.

 

Um, nothing unreasonable, or inexcusable about his request.

You seem to have missed the point I made that shifting the burden or proof from the person making the claims to the person asking for the claims to be corroborated is unreasonable.

 

So, no point in discussing this further.

Edited by willm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you have not. I don't know how you tell yourself you have, but you have not. A letter from a few scientists (most of whom are not even in the field they are protesting about), does NOT constitute "the majority of the scientific community".

I was referring to both wiki articles I provided, which are well referenced and written. Not the original letter referenced from the Slashdot article.

 

I'll ignore the rest of you diatribe, and give you a chance to review them.

 

Um, nothing unreasonable, or inexcusable about his request.

You seem to have missed the point I made that shifting the burden or proof from the person making the claims to the person asking for the claims to be corroborated is unreasonable.

 

So, no point in discussing this further.

 

The problem is that I proved your claim, and you keep pushing the consensus argument to prove the science.

 

Consensus doesn't prove science. If all the scientists in the world believed in fairies, it would not make it true.

 

How absolutely despicably has our education standard dropped, when we release people like willm from year 12 as scientific illiterates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dismissing the source I provided as an idiotic article for idiots isn't proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dismissing the source I provided as an idiotic article for idiots isn't proof.

Your source states has not a single experiment, graph or data source. It contains no scientific conclusions, and no procedures.

It contains letters to the media and petitions to government, as well as surveys.

 

That is not science - it's only science to idiots. Do you consider it science? Because if you do, then you're an idiot.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If you think(or don't think) X then you are an idiot" = best internet argument ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dismissing the source I provided as an idiotic article for idiots isn't proof.

Your source states has not a single experiment, graph or data source. It contains no scientific conclusions, and no procedures.

It contains letters to the media and petitions to government, as well as surveys.

 

That is not science - it's only science to idiots. Do you consider it science? Because if you do, then you're an idiot.

 

No I don't consider it science, nor did I ever imply as much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I don't consider it science, nor did I ever imply as much.

Right then. And therefore you agree that what scientists believe is separate to what they can prove and thus the OP about your letter by 3 or 4 scientists and 252 randoms provides no evidence whatsoever that the "mainstream" view is right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I don't consider it science, nor did I ever imply as much.

Right then. And therefore you agree that what scientists believe is separate to what they can prove and thus the OP about your letter by 3 or 4 scientists and 252 randoms provides no evidence whatsoever that the "mainstream" view is right?

 

Yes, I agree with that. I never said anything to the contrary.

 

The statement I made was that as I am not educated in that field, I will adopt the view shared by the majority who are educated and in a position to have an relevant opinion*

 

I understand that a consensus is not proof, but I will use it as an indication until the issue is resolved.

 

 

 

*By this I am referring not to the letter in the OP, but the subsequent wiki article which I feel shows that it is indeed the mainstream view in the scientific community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree with that. I never said anything to the contrary.

 

The statement I made was that as I am not educated in that field, I will adopt the view shared by the majority who are educated and in a position to have an relevant opinion*

 

I understand that a consensus is not proof, but I will use it as an indication until the issue is resolved.

 

 

 

*By this I am referring not to the letter in the OP, but the subsequent wiki article which I feel shows that it is indeed the mainstream view in the scientific community.

Are you talking about the Copernican Earth theory or Climate Change?

 

Because your cheer-squad position is exactly the reason why the mainstream supported the Church in Galileo's house arrest.

 

Believing the consensus is the height of scientific illiteracy.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you agree there is a consensus?

The presence or not, of a consensus is irrelevant.

 

So my answer is: yes, no, maybe

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe the world is warming because of a consensus. Not sure why you're trying to imply that I do.

 

edit: You have substantially altered your post to when I originally replied. It is important to point out that you originally agreed there was a consensus.

Edited by willm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe the world is warming because of a consensus. Not sure why you're trying to imply that I do.

Because you said that you do.

 

The statement I made was that as I am not educated in that field, I will adopt the view shared by the majority who are educated and in a position to have an relevant opinion

 

Your own words.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.

 

That means I think the current consensus is most likely to be correct. Not that I accept it as unequivocal fact.

 

If your last example where this was a bad course of action is from the time of Copernicus, then I would think in 2010 it's a safe bet.

 

If you can provide reasoning with examples as to why this is poor reasoning, I would welcome to hear it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That means I think the current consensus is most likely to be correct. Not that I accept it as unequivocal fact.

Your opinion is wrong. There is no causation between opinions of scientists and facts.

 

If your last example where this was a bad course of action is from the time of Copernicus, then I would think in 2010 it's a safe bet.

In 300 years, people in 2310 will be making the same argument you are now.

 

And whoever it is occupying my position in 2310, I hope he calls them prize idiots for believing in anything other than what the data clearly spells out.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That means I think the current consensus is most likely to be correct. Not that I accept it as unequivocal fact.

Your opinion is wrong. There is no causation between opinions of scientists and facts.

 

Lucky that isn't my opinion.

 

What I am saying is that generally when there is a consensus it turns out to be correct. I understand this to be true more often than not.

 

As such, I said it's a safe bet to take the same stance as the consensus, until it is proven either way.

 

If you can actually show me why this is a bad idea with logic and examples I really would appreciate it.

 

If you're just going to insult me because my opinion is different to yours, I'd say don't bother but I know you'll do it anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I am saying is that generally when there is a consensus it turns out to be correct. I understand this to be true more often than not.

That's incorrect. Most scientific consensuses in history have been overturned.

 

You can believe the consensus all you want, but it does give even more validity to my claim of your scientific illiteracy.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about in the last 50 years?

 

 

edit: In any event, if the current consensus becomes invalidated and the scientific community then reaches a new consensus based on the new data available, then I will then take that as an indication.

Edited by willm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about in the last 50 years?

Most of the big stuff has been overturned as well.

 

Gravity was assumed to be a completed experimentally sound theory. Now it doesn't align with Quantum theory and they're searching for answers to it in the LHC.

 

About the same time ago, we thought the atom was the smallest particle. Until we split the atom.

 

Betting on consensus is betting on likely failure.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, there are a few key examples.

 

More often than not it seems the consensus turns out correct, especially in the last 50 years or so.

 

If you can provide evidence to the contrary I'd appreciate it, otherwise we can agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×