Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
willm

Climate change issue resolved?

Recommended Posts

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.

Wait a second, you want me to provide evidence that the consensus has not been correct in the majority of cases.

 

That's your claim - not mine.

 

Prove to me that the consensus has been right in the majority of cases since 1950. You made the claim, you back it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science is all about the violent invalidation of consensus (or refinement, if you prefer less evocative languag), to be replaced with a new, better-but-still-imperfect principle.

 

At any given time in history, any area you could think of - from social theory to experimental particle physics - could be said to have "consensus", in that there was a principle that was largely accepted as the the best. Of course, at any given time you will also find people staking their reputations and sometimes their lives on disproving this principle.

 

And throughout history, practically every principle that was once held as "the best explanation for what we see" has been toppled. In fact, sustained consensus is the exception rather than the rule. Even theology isn't immune to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opinion does not equal fact. The point that a number of scientists (not even shown as a majority), many not even from the relevant fields, hold the "opinion" that man is responsible for "climate change" does not make this fact. Nothing you have linked to proves this. Opinions are not facts.

 

Luckily i have since given up expecting you to deliver, you just keep dancing around and making up excuses, because you clearly have nothing.

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.

Wait a second, you want me to provide evidence that the consensus has not been correct in the majority of cases.

 

That's your claim - not mine.

 

Prove to me that the consensus has been right in the majority of cases since 1950. You made the claim, you back it up.

 

 

I can't back it up either way, I can't find any easy list. FWIW, we are both making claims here regarding the consensus. We have an equal onus to back them up.

 

It doesn't matter though, as you're incorrect. The consensus may later be found to be incorrect.

 

If it is then a new consensus will emerge based on the correct new data and understanding.

 

Your reasoning only applies if I were to maintain the current consensus will always be correct, which is not what I or any reasonable person would do.

 

Opinion does not equal fact. The point that a number of scientists (not even shown as a majority), many not even from the relevant fields, hold the "opinion" that man is responsible for "climate change" does not make this fact. Nothing you have linked to proves this. Opinions are not facts.

 

Luckily i have since given up expecting you to deliver, you just keep dancing around and making up excuses, because you clearly have nothing.

I never said opinions are facts. It appears you enjoy arguing against strawmen. So be it.

Edited by willm

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.

Wait a second, you want me to provide evidence that the consensus has not been correct in the majority of cases.

 

That's your claim - not mine.

 

Prove to me that the consensus has been right in the majority of cases since 1950. You made the claim, you back it up.

 

 

I can't back it up either way, I can't find any easy list. FWIW, we are both making claims here regarding the consensus. We have an equal onus to back them up.

 

It doesn't matter though, as you're incorrect. The consensus may later be found to be incorrect.

 

If it is then a new consensus will emerge based on the correct new data and understanding.

 

Your reasoning only applies if I were to maintain the current consensus will always be correct, which is not what I or any reasonable person would do.

 

Opinion does not equal fact. The point that a number of scientists (not even shown as a majority), many not even from the relevant fields, hold the "opinion" that man is responsible for "climate change" does not make this fact. Nothing you have linked to proves this. Opinions are not facts.

 

Luckily i have since given up expecting you to deliver, you just keep dancing around and making up excuses, because you clearly have nothing.

I never said opinions are facts. It appears you enjoy arguing against strawmen. So be it.

 

 

Oh, now you're resorting to accusing me of strawman attacks. Complete shite. You're simply annoyed i keep poinyting out the failings of yout arguement. Get over yourself, and stop being childish. I have never accused you of what you said, so quit doing the strawman shit yourself. You keep providing links to others opinions as evidence. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly. Don't get shirty just becvause your short-comings are pointed out. Man up, offer some actual evidence, or shut the hell up. You keep making claims, and have nothing to back them up, you just aren't man enough to admit you were wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't back it up either way, I can't find any easy list. FWIW, we are both making claims here regarding the consensus. We have an equal onus to back them up.

 

It doesn't matter though, as you're incorrect. The consensus may later be found to be incorrect.

 

If it is then a new consensus will emerge based on the correct new data and understanding.

So you can't back up the consensus with science and you can't back up the assumption that the consensus is a safe bet. You can't even back up the assumption that the consensus represents a majority.

 

Bear in mind that I've found 2 complete non-scientists in the first 20 of the letter you linked in the OP. So here I present you an equally flawed list, the Oregon Petition with 31,000 American Scientists challenging global warming alarmism.

 

Is that a consensus?

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A consensus is only valid when all parties are recreating experiments and models for themselves, from the same data.

Then we no longer call it consensus, but rather, verification.

 

Consensus, by common definition, is simply the average belief held by a group of people.

It has no requirements for factual basis.

 

People hold consensus on theological, sociological, and cultural ideals which are patently absurd from foreign areas. It is not a tool or measurement which deserves *any* place in science.

 

It is a poorly wielded political tool, at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A consensus is only valid when all parties are recreating experiments and models for themselves, from the same data.

Then we no longer call it consensus, but rather, verification.

 

Consensus, by common definition, is simply the average belief held by a group of people.

It has no requirements for factual basis.

 

People hold consensus on theological, sociological, and cultural ideals which are patently absurd from foreign areas. It is not a tool or measurement which deserves *any* place in science.

 

It is a poorly wielded political tool, at best.

 

This.

 

These are the words that were needed. Excellent summation dude. Spot-on. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A consensus is only valid when all parties are recreating experiments and models for themselves, from the same data.

Then we no longer call it consensus, but rather, verification.

 

Consensus, by common definition, is simply the average belief held by a group of people.

It has no requirements for factual basis.

 

People hold consensus on theological, sociological, and cultural ideals which are patently absurd from foreign areas. It is not a tool or measurement which deserves *any* place in science.

 

It is a poorly wielded political tool, at best.

The consensus of most people in the world is that God exists.

 

Willm? You a believer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The consensus of most people in the world is that God exists.

 

Willm? You a believer?

I think you know my position on that!

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A consensus is only valid when all parties are recreating experiments and models for themselves, from the same data.

Then we no longer call it consensus, but rather, verification.

 

Consensus, by common definition, is simply the average belief held by a group of people.

It has no requirements for factual basis.

 

People hold consensus on theological, sociological, and cultural ideals which are patently absurd from foreign areas. It is not a tool or measurement which deserves *any* place in science.

 

It is a poorly wielded political tool, at best.

Not looking to continue arguing - I just have a question for VannA.

 

I understand that consensus can be abused, misinterpreted, can be incorrect etc.

 

My point is just that I feel it makes sense for someone not educated in a particular scientific field to defer to the mainstream scientific opinion on an issue in that field until it is proven either way.

 

As an analogy lets look at wifi signals being harmful to a persons health. The consensus at the moment is that wifi signals are not harmful to a persons health.

 

There are still people claiming it is who are not involved in science at all, and many who are.

 

I am not knowledgeable about the physics of radiowaves nor their possible effects on the human body. Is it not reasonable to defer to the scientific opinion on the matter until it is proved eitherway?

Edited by willm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is just that I feel it makes sense for someone not educated in a particular scientific field to defer to the mainstream scientific opinion on an issue in that field until it is proven either way.

Scientists aren't a protected species and they don't hold the keys to all the gates. A scientist is no more expert in their field than anyone else at theirs. Let me give you an example.

 

I've a mate who is a wiz at maths - he works for an Australian company that designs the logic behind poker machines. In my life, I've never called him up to solve a difficult maths problem, because I can do it myself. I have another mate who specialises in cars, but I can change the oil in it - and if I could really be bothered and had the equipment - fix the entire car.

 

Being a scientist is a job/career. It doesn't make you smarter than anyone else and it doesn't make you less wrong than anyone else.

 

Everyone seems to have this view of science and scientists as if they're untouchable exalted gods. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

As an analogy lets look at wifi signals being harmful to a persons health. The consensus at the moment is that wifi signals are not harmful to a persons health.

 

There are still people claiming it is who are not involved in science at all, and probably some who are*.

 

I am not knowledgeable about the physics of radiowaves nor their possible effects on the human body. Is it not reasonable to defer to the scientific opinion on the matter until it is proved eitherway?

No. I don't know what the consensus is either, but until there is a study with double-blind testing, that is able to show experiments, plus further studies confirming the experiments, followed by further analysis, the default position defaults to the null hypothesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a scientist is a job/career. It doesn't make you smarter than anyone else and it doesn't make you less wrong than anyone else.

 

Everyone seems to have this view of science and scientists as if they're untouchable exalted gods. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I don't believe that I have read a post on this forum that was more 'on the money' than this.

 

Good Stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a scientist is a job/career. It doesn't make you smarter than anyone else and it doesn't make you less wrong than anyone else.

 

Everyone seems to have this view of science and scientists as if they're untouchable exalted gods. Nothing could be further from the truth.

You are replying to a point I never made, but that your reply implies I did. I don't know if that was intentional or not.

 

I understand scientists are just people and their word is not the law etc etc.

 

What you left out, is that scientists tend to be far far more qualified in their field than the average joe. We're not talking about cars or basic math here, but fields which require a great many years of study.

 

Secondly, I am not taking the word of a single, or even a few scientists. I am taking the word of the majority of scientists in the relevant field. Which is entirely reasonable to do so.

 

No. I don't know what the consensus is either, but until there is a study with double-blind testing, that is able to show experiments, plus further studies confirming the experiments, followed by further analysis, the default position defaults to the null hypothesis.

As far as I understand it, there is a consensus because significant testing has been done, although the idea can not be ruled out completely.

 

Adopting the null hypothesis is the best position for anything not proven one way or the other. Which is why I only use the current scientific opinion as an indication, not as an absolute.

 

I'd still be interested to hear VannA's input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you left out, is that scientists tend to be far far more qualified in their field than the average joe.

That's complete nonsense.

 

Secondly, I am not taking the word of a single, or even a few scientists. I am taking the word of the majority of scientists in the relevant field. Which is entirely reasonable to do so.

And again: that means absolutely nothing. Until several years ago most scientists believed ulcers were caused by stress.

 

As far as I understand it, there is a consensus because significant testing has been done, although the idea can not be ruled out completely.

Then that is merely unsubstantiated opinion.

 

Put it this way, if climate science were to be put on trial in a court of law, it would be acquitted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's complete nonsense.

No, it isn't.

 

Just as an MD is 9 times out of 10 going to be more qualified than some guy interested in medicine, a climatologist is more often than not going to be more qualified than some schmuck on the interwebs.

 

And again: that means absolutely nothing. Until several years ago most scientists believed ulcers were caused by stress.

Sure, and then the scientific opinion changed to reflect the new data and information.

 

Like I said before, what you're arguing against only makes sense if someone sticks with an outdated scientific opinion, not the current scientific opinion at any given time.

 

Then that is merely unsubstantiated opinion.

No, it isn't unsubstantiated.

Edited by willm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a scientist is a job/career. It doesn't make you smarter than anyone else and it doesn't make you less wrong than anyone else.

 

Everyone seems to have this view of science and scientists as if they're untouchable exalted gods. Nothing could be further from the truth.

You are replying to a point I never made, but that your reply implies I did. I don't know if that was intentional or not.

 

I understand scientists are just people and their word is not the law etc etc.

 

What you left out, is that scientists tend to be far far more qualified in their field than the average joe. We're not talking about cars or basic math here, but fields which require a great many years of study.

 

Secondly, I am not taking the word of a single, or even a few scientists. I am taking the word of the majority of scientists in the relevant field. Which is entirely reasonable to do so.

 

No. I don't know what the consensus is either, but until there is a study with double-blind testing, that is able to show experiments, plus further studies confirming the experiments, followed by further analysis, the default position defaults to the null hypothesis.

As far as I understand it, there is a consensus because significant testing has been done, although the idea can not be ruled out completely.

 

Adopting the null hypothesis is the best position for anything not proven one way or the other. Which is why I only use the current scientific opinion as an indication, not as an absolute.

 

I'd still be interested to hear VannA's input.

 

 

And again, you still have yet to provide proof of this allegation that the "majority" of scientists, even the "ones in this field", support such a view. Despite repeated requests, you have been unable to demonstrate this, yet keep insisting it to be true. And you wonder why i call you a fraud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not knowledgeable about the physics of radiowaves nor their possible effects on the human body. Is it not reasonable to defer to the scientific opinion on the matter until it is proved eitherway?

I educate myself to the point where I can understand the technical requrements. For that particular issue, like, say, Nuclear Power or Homeopathy, its not particularly difficult. From there, you can read source materials with a depth of understanding.

 

The reason this is difficult with regards to AGW, is the utter dearth of source materials or experimental records or modelling data. To the best of my knowledge, it still hasn't been released.

 

As I mentioned before, I will accept consensus when it is actually verification.. something which has been done to a significant degree with radiowaves and their impact on the cells, and something that hasn't been done at all, to the best of my recollection, with climate 'science'.

 

Also, Leo and I would have 9 years of industry qualifications behind us, for our fields.

Limitations of human memory mean people generally specialise, while generalists are usually in a position where they can seek specialist help.

This applies to *all* fields of human endevour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it isn't.

 

Just as an MD is 9 times out of 10 going to be more qualified than some guy interested in medicine, a climatologist is more often than not going to be more qualified than some schmuck on the interwebs.

Heh. Here's where you're about to get shot down.

 

There is small problem – climate scientists aren't really scientists, someone defined as one who practices the scientific method, for the simple reason that climate scientists can’t actually do in situ experiments. I hasten to add that under this definition neither are most theoretical scientists with the exception of certain physical sciences.

 

Climate scientists may think they are scientific in their work and in a technical sense that is correct, but their science is restricted to the virtual world of their imagination, not physical reality, because, quite simply, they can’t send a probe to the past or the future, for example, to measure in-situ temperature.

 

But doctors and medical scientists don’t live in the past and when testing medicines - such scientists are immersed in the practical implementation of the scientific method.

 

Do you understand the difference? When an MD says something, it's because it's been tested and confirmed and tested again and tested again. When a climate scientist says something, it's never been tested.

 

Sure, and then the scientific opinion changed to reflect the new data and information.

 

Like I said before, what you're arguing against only makes sense if someone sticks with an outdated scientific opinion, not the current scientific opinion at any given time.

The correct answer while the consensus existed was "ulcers aren't caused by stress" - ie the null hypothesis. Everyone, and the consensus itself, was wrong.

 

No, it isn't unsubstantiated.

It actually is. Please stop arguing with this fact. It's been well past ascertained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I educate myself to the point where I can understand the technical requrements. For that particular issue, like, say, Nuclear Power or Homeopathy, its not particularly difficult. From there, you can read source materials with a depth of understanding.

Thanks for replying.

 

What about instances you simply don't have time to educate yourself on, or perhaps don't have a desire to?

 

There will always be controversial topics in science and people won't always be able to educate themselves to the necessary level in each field to have an opinion.

 

In which case I think it is entirely reasonable to defer to the shifting majority scientific opinion, at least to give an indication.

 

With AGW since verification is impossible, I will accept the opinion of the majority qualified individuals in that field.

 

I've seen nothing saying why this is a bad idea. If AGW is disproved or approved either way, then the scientific opinion will shift to reflect that.

 

Midnighter: I did provide the evidence you asked for. If you don't accept it that's fine, but don't say I didn't provide it. Stop putting words in my mouth and laying down insults for a moment, and read back over the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no issues I don't desire to educate myself on.

If there is an issue where there is not enough information to confirm multiple instances of verification, and I'm required to make a snap decisions, I will do so, in the same way I do for any other field of knowledge.

 

Erh, why do you think verification is impossible?

 

If the ICCC (or whatever their name is) would release the modelling information, raw data, and analaytical processes in a document, any monkey with time could verify their results, and compare against alternative data sources.

 

Also, you're not accepting the opinion of a marjority of qualified individuals.

You're accepting the opinion of confirmation bias amongst people lacking the same knowledge as you, but in a position to sign a questionable document.

 

To you accept the same documents with similiar signature numbers that defend and justify ID?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With AGW since verification is impossible, I will accept the opinion of the majority qualified individuals in that field.

That is a scientifically illiterate position to take. But thanks for playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no issues I don't desire to educate myself on.

If there is an issue where there is not enough information to confirm multiple instances of verification, and I'm required to make a snap decisions, I will do so, in the same way I do for any other field of knowledge.

 

Erh, why do you think verification is impossible?

I should have said currently impossible, and the reason is precisely because of a lack of data.

 

You're accepting the opinion of confirmation bias amongst people lacking the same knowledge as you, but in a position to sign a questionable document.

I'm not going by or talking about the letter in the OP at all, but rather the wiki article on the scientific opinion on climate change I linked to previously.

 

I am deferring to the opinion of those people who are qualified and do possess the knowledge I lack to have an indication.

 

I'm not taking that opinion as fact as others have suggested and don't even care that much about climate change.

 

Going by the fact that the vast majority of people qualified in the field or a related field seem to be in agreement then I think that gives a useful indication.

 

I think it's right to disregard the letter in the OP for the reasons mentioned. I'm less likely to disregarding the prevailing scientific opinion from those who are qualified and experienced in such matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no issues I don't desire to educate myself on.

If there is an issue where there is not enough information to confirm multiple instances of verification, and I'm required to make a snap decisions, I will do so, in the same way I do for any other field of knowledge.

 

Erh, why do you think verification is impossible?

I should have said currently impossible, and the reason is precisely because of a lack of data.

 

You're accepting the opinion of confirmation bias amongst people lacking the same knowledge as you, but in a position to sign a questionable document.

I'm not going by or talking about the letter in the OP at all, but rather the wiki article on the scientific opinion on climate change I linked to previously.

 

I am deferring to the opinion of those people who are qualified and do possess the knowledge I lack to have an indication.

 

I'm not taking that opinion as fact as others have suggested and don't even care that much about climate change.

 

Going by the fact that the vast majority of people qualified in the field or a related field seem to be in agreement then I think that gives a useful indication.

 

I think it's right to disregard the letter in the OP for the reasons mentioned. I'm less likely to disregarding the prevailing scientific opinion from those who are qualified and experienced in such matters.

 

The wiki article references surveys and letters like this one.

 

Disregard that too?

 

Hey Vanna, it's a sad day when we have to argue with someone who takes letter-writing seriously.

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  

×