Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
willm

Climate change issue resolved?

Recommended Posts

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.

 

 

Again, you have NOT provided any such evidence at all. Quit deluding yourself. It's painful watching you continue to embarrass yourself this way. You have NOT provided any such proof.

 

And I am not putting words in your mouth, or insulting you. I am stating facts. You repeatedly claim something that you have not provided any proof for, and claim that you have. You ARE a fraud. That , or a deluded fool. You decide.

Edited by Midnighter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wiki article references surveys and letters like this one.

 

Disregard that too?

Are you saying that the majority of statements from the academies of sciences, surveys of experts in the field and of scientific literature are all as equally worthless as the letter in the OP?

 

I have not handchecked every reference that wiki article gives but after reading it I think it is significantly more reliable than the letter in the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying that the majority of statements from the academies of sciences, surveys of experts in the field and of scientific literature are all as equally worthless as the letter in the OP?

Absolutely. All those academies that have signed, signed without polling their members, and even if they did so, it would still be irrelevant.

 

The [people that signed were the 5-12 members of the board of those academies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, here's a question (Also, you didn't answer regarding the ID letter.)

 

Why do you think you need to follow a consensus? What does it gain you? What is it *actually* a consensus about?

 

I take a fairly agnostic view of AGW, precisely because there is not enough evidence.

 

That does not mean that I do not believe there are a *lot* of demonstratably poor things in the environment, and in how humanity relates to it.

 

I differ from Leo in a number of those elements, mostly on philosophical grounds that stem from the importance of sentience and potentially sapience amongst other creatures on the planet.

 

Independant from that, though, you'll find both of us want coal-fired plants dissembled. Actual green technologies (Hydro (Including Tidal) geothermic, and nuclear power) to replace them, and better costings behind manufacturing processes, including costings for cleanups. (Apologies if you don't really agree on that one, Leo)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying that the majority of statements from the academies of sciences, surveys of experts in the field and of scientific literature are all as equally worthless as the letter in the OP?

Absolutely. All those academies that have signed, signed without polling their members, and even if they did so, it would still be irrelevant.

 

The [people that signed were the 5-12 members of the board of those academies.

 

 

Was typing a similar reply, refreshed, saw you'd already answered for me. How this is not understood despite having it repeatedly explained is beyond belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wiki article references surveys and letters like this one.

 

Disregard that too?

Are you saying that the majority of statements from the academies of sciences, surveys of experts in the field and of scientific literature are all as equally worthless as the letter in the OP?

 

I have not handchecked every reference that wiki article gives but after reading it I think it is significantly more reliable than the letter in the OP.

 

You've already indicated that you believe verification to be impossible due to lack of data.

 

So why are these people actually better qualified?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying that the majority of statements from the academies of sciences, surveys of experts in the field and of scientific literature are all as equally worthless as the letter in the OP?

Absolutely. All those academies that have signed, signed without polling their members, and even if they did so, it would still be irrelevant.

 

The [people that signed were the 5-12 members of the board of those academies.

 

I didn't count exactly, but there seems to be roughly 50 academies referenced.

 

Many of these are highly notable and prestigious. I don't believe they make controversial claims without having decent supporting evidence.

 

I also don't accept that out of these 50 or so academies that none of them polled their members.

 

That's not even getting into the surveys and literature that is mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't count exactly, but there seems to be roughly 50 academies referenced.

 

Many of these are highly notable and prestigious. I don't believe they make controversial claims without having decent supporting evidence.

 

I also don't accept that out of these 50 or so academies that none of them polled their members.

 

That's not even getting into the surveys and literature that is mentioned.

It's time to stop believing. Everything I have said is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've already indicated that you believe verification to be impossible due to lack of data.

 

So why are these people actually better qualified?

As I understand it there is a lack of complete data, so proof is currently not possible. This does not mean there isn't sufficient data to give a strong indication.

 

I consider those people more qualified because they have the necessary education and experience in that particular field.

 

I didn't count exactly, but there seems to be roughly 50 academies referenced.

 

Many of these are highly notable and prestigious. I don't believe they make controversial claims without having decent supporting evidence.

 

I also don't accept that out of these 50 or so academies that none of them polled their members.

 

That's not even getting into the surveys and literature that is mentioned.

It's time to stop believing. Everything I have said is true.

 

You're a big proponent of not just taking things on faith.

 

As such, I'm sure you won't mind backing up your claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying that the majority of statements from the academies of sciences, surveys of experts in the field and of scientific literature are all as equally worthless as the letter in the OP?

Absolutely. All those academies that have signed, signed without polling their members, and even if they did so, it would still be irrelevant.

 

The [people that signed were the 5-12 members of the board of those academies.

 

I didn't count exactly, but there seems to be roughly 50 academies referenced.

 

Many of these are highly notable and prestigious. I don't believe they make controversial claims without having decent supporting evidence.

 

I also don't accept that out of these 50 or so academies that none of them polled their members.

 

That's not even getting into the surveys and literature that is mentioned.

 

"I don't believe"

 

"I also don't accept"

 

Again, it's simply about what you choose to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've already indicated that you believe verification to be impossible due to lack of data.

 

So why are these people actually better qualified?

As I understand it there is a lack of complete data, so proof is currently not possible. This does not mean there isn't sufficient data to give a strong indication.

 

I consider those people more qualified because they have the necessary education and experience in that particular field.

 

There is strong indication that the world is warming. There is no strong indication humans are responsible.

 

Do you even know why some scientists think humans bear the majority of the responsibility?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've already indicated that you believe verification to be impossible due to lack of data.

 

So why are these people actually better qualified?

As I understand it there is a lack of complete data, so proof is currently not possible. This does not mean there isn't sufficient data to give a strong indication.

 

I consider those people more qualified because they have the necessary education and experience in that particular field.

 

There is strong indication that the world is warming. There is no strong indication humans are responsible.

 

Do you even know why some scientists think humans bear the majority of the responsibility?

 

Are you going to back up your claim or not?

 

You said that each of those 50 or so academies did not poll their members, and the statements were issued by the 5-12 members of the board of those academies.

 

I'm not going to just believe you, so can you back up that claim?

Edited by willm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I consider those people more qualified because they have the necessary education and experience in that particular field.

Based on what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've already indicated that you believe verification to be impossible due to lack of data.

 

So why are these people actually better qualified?

As I understand it there is a lack of complete data, so proof is currently not possible. This does not mean there isn't sufficient data to give a strong indication.

 

I consider those people more qualified because they have the necessary education and experience in that particular field.

 

There is strong indication that the world is warming. There is no strong indication humans are responsible.

 

Do you even know why some scientists think humans bear the majority of the responsibility?

 

Are you going to back up your claim or not?

 

 

Now you want him to prove the world is warming?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I consider those people more qualified because they have the necessary education and experience in that particular field.

Based on what?

 

What do you mean?

 

How do I know they have the relevant education and experience?

 

Because when people are admitted to academic panels or boards or hold professorships or have completed PhD's in those fields then I think it is likely that they have the relevant education.

 

When those people have being working in that field in one of those capacities for a significant amount of time, then I think it is likely they have the relevant experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you going to back up your claim or not?

The null hypothesis does not ever need proof. That's why it's called the null hypothesis. Your scientific illiteracy is showing again.

 

My question again: do you actually know why some scientists believe the world is warming thanks in majority to human activities?

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you going to back up your claim or not?

The null hypothesis does not ever need proof. That's why it's called the null hypothesis. Your scientific illiteracy is showing again.

 

My question again: do you actually know why some scientists believe the world is warming thanks in majority to human activities?

 

I'm not talking about the null hypothesis. You made a positive claim.

 

You said that each of those 50 or so academies did not poll their members, and the statements were issued by the 5-12 members of the board of those academies.

 

I'm not going to just believe you, so can you back up that claim?

Edited by willm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you going to back up your claim or not?

The null hypothesis does not ever need proof. That's why it's called the null hypothesis. Your scientific illiteracy is showing again.

 

My question again: do you actually know why some scientists believe the world is warming thanks in majority to human activities?

 

I'm not talking about the null hypothesis. You made a positive claim.

 

You said that each of those 50 or so academies did not poll their members, and the statements were issued by the 5-12 members of the board of those academies.

 

I'm not going to just believe you, so can you back up that claim?

 

 

You seem to be insisting they did, can you support that claim? Only the board members signed, not the scientists themselves. And again, no actual proof is shown, just their "beliefs". Nothing scientific about it.

Edited by Midnighter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF you've followed any of the controversy, or looked at Leo's prior threads, you'll find several examples of members decrying the fact that boards released statements without querying their members or faculty staff.

 

I consider those people more qualified because they have the necessary education and experience in that particular field.

Based on what?

 

What do you mean?

 

How do I know they have the relevant education and experience?

 

Because when people are admitted to academic panels or boards or hold professorships or have completed PhD's in those fields then I think it is likely that they have the relevant education.

 

When those people have being working in that field in one of those capacities for a significant amount of time, then I think it is likely they have the relevant experience.

 

I mean, what do you think gives them qualification?

 

As Leo mentioned earlier, half those people have degrees very, very tenously linked to climate studies. Some of them don't have doctorates. This is not an isolated occurance.

 

As far as I can see, you're taking the fact that they are on the signature list as verification of their comprehension of the issue.

 

So, based on that.. answer my question regarding Intelligent Design?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF you've followed any of the controversy, or looked at Leo's prior threads, you'll find several examples of members decrying the fact that boards released statements without querying their members or faculty staff.

I have no doubt that it happens.

 

I just don't think it is the case with the 50 or so in the wiki article.

 

I would hope it is less likely when it's some of the most notable and respected scientific institutions in the world.

 

Anyway, I'm happy to agree to disagree. I'll take the unanimous words of these respected institutions because of they're proven track record, until I find a reason to question it.

 

Time to watch Supernatural.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF you've followed any of the controversy, or looked at Leo's prior threads, you'll find several examples of members decrying the fact that boards released statements without querying their members or faculty staff.

I have no doubt that it happens.

 

I just don't think it is the case with the 50 or so in the wiki article.

 

I would hope it is less likely when it's some of the most notable and respected scientific institutions in the world.

 

Anyway, I'm happy to agree to disagree. I'll take the unanimous words of these respected institutions because of they're proven track record, until I find a reason to question it.

 

Time to watch Supernatural.

 

 

So, you'll go with your "beliefs" over actual facts? Again? Figured as much. You've got nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, what do you think gives them qualification?

 

As Leo mentioned earlier, half those people have degrees very, very tenously linked to climate studies. Some of them don't have doctorates. This is not an isolated occurance.

 

As far as I can see, you're taking the fact that they are on the signature list as verification of their comprehension of the issue.

 

So, based on that.. answer my question regarding Intelligent Design?

Sorry, I missed this part of your reply before.

 

I'm going by the wiki link, and I find nothing indicating that these people have degrees loosely linked to climate studies. Rather it appears they are directly related to climate studies.

 

The fields of the institutions or people I consider qualified are in part from the following disciplines: Academies of Science, General science, Earth sciences, Meteorology and oceanography, Paleoclimatology, Biology and life sciences

 

I copied and pasted that directly from the wiki TOC, the article itself is a bit more in depth.

 

Also, I am not taking the fact that they are on a signature list as verification. I am taking the statements from notable institutions and academies with a proven track record as an indication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said that each of those 50 or so academies did not poll their members, and the statements were issued by the 5-12 members of the board of those academies.

 

I'm not going to just believe you, so can you back up that claim?

Oh I see. Well that's simple. The APS (American Physical Society) has 47,000 members, of which my wife's uncle, my uncle and my grandmother's brother are three.

 

They've never been polled. That's not proof to you, but it's proof to me.

 

But here's proof to you - a poll of 47,000 scientists with names signed under a letter would eclipse any known lists of alarmists or sceptics by a factor of at least 2 in the case of sceptics and at least 50 in the case of alarmists.

 

Where is that list? From any organisation?

 

It isn't there. Now, Occam's Razor tells us to take the most simple explanation - and that simple explanation is that the list doesn't exist and the members were never polled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still waiting for anything showing that a majority of "climate" scientists agree on this stuff, let alone proof of it being the case. This is all one big exercise in conformity as far as I can see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe this clown is still trying to argue this, with no evidence, and being constantly shown how wrong he is. Must be lonely on whatever planet hes from.

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  

×