Record Cold Forces Rethink on Global Warming

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Josephwalker, Jan 31, 2019.

  1. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    26,999
    Likes Received:
    11,048
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And what science is there that the vast majority of scientists do not believe in?

    It sounds like we have a different definition of "settled science" and I don't have a clue how you think nature has made it a settled science. Settled science means that the vast majority of scientists agree. It is not disputed. In the case of global warming, that is simply not true. Most like me, agree that man has an influence and that influence is most likely warming. What they do not agree with is how much of an effect man has had and how much we can change it or the ability to accurately forecast it. In those three areas, it is far from settled.

    According to your definition, it was a settled science even before man evolved from apes.
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2019
    Blaster3 likes this.
  2. Blaster3

    Blaster3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2018
    Messages:
    6,008
    Likes Received:
    5,302
    Trophy Points:
    113
  3. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,647
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What the hell are you talking about?

    Yeah. I have the definition used in Scientific circles, in Epistemology and in Academia. And you have the definition used by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. I'll stick to mine.

    Of course the vast majority of scientists agree. But that's not what makes it settled science.

    The vast majority of scientists agree with many things. For example, the vast majority of quantum scientists agree with M-Theory (which a comprehensive theory of the Universe based on String Theory), but it's not settled Science. Because there has not been enough peer-reviewed studies that prove it. Peer-reviewed studies are the heart of the matter in Science.

    Pay attention!

    I will repeat what I said above. The consensus position is 1- That Global Warming is real. 2- That is it caused by human activity 3- That if left unchecked it will have dire consequences for human beings.

    Focus!

    Regardless. What Scientists "agree" or "disagree" with is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant in science is what they can prove.

    I have to repeat myself because you don't pay attention.

    What in the world are you talking about? Why do you not read before making absurd comments like this?
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  4. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    26,999
    Likes Received:
    11,048
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You said.
    If nature doesn't care what anybody or even scientists believe, then man is not required at all. Therefore
     
    Blaster3 likes this.
  5. yabberefugee

    yabberefugee Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2017
    Messages:
    20,620
    Likes Received:
    8,982
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Your problem is.....no one will deny climate changes, but you insist it is man caused. Plenty of scientists that don't have your political bent that disagree with you. You need to find another way to wield power over others lefty!
     
    Blaster3 likes this.
  6. yabberefugee

    yabberefugee Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2017
    Messages:
    20,620
    Likes Received:
    8,982
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
     
  7. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,647
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your "logic" is as pathetic as your reading comprehension.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  8. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,647
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What scientists agree or disagree with is absolutely irrelevant in Science. Only thing that matters in Science is what they can prove.... Sparky!
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2019
    Bowerbird likes this.
  9. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    26,999
    Likes Received:
    11,048
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Where did I go wrong in post #479? You clearly said
    "Nope! Science is not a democracy. It's settled when nature says it's settled. It is not a "belief" system. Nature doesn't care what you or anybody (even scientists) believe."
     
    557 likes this.
  10. Blaster3

    Blaster3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2018
    Messages:
    6,008
    Likes Received:
    5,302
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :roflol:
    talk about contradicting oneself!
    :roflol::roflol::roflol:

    IF a theory is proven, its considered law in science... agw is nothing more than a hypothesis based upon greed... it hasn't been 'proven'...

    concentrate!

    focus!

    pay attention!

    and most of all...

    put your political bias aside!
     
  11. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,377
    Likes Received:
    9,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I like the parts where claims are made that science is not political, democratic, or influenced by opinion. Then out comes the “peer review” card. I wish more people would look into the problems with peer review.
     
  12. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Are you a solipsist? That is the only way you could possibly come to that conclusion
     
  13. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I wish more people would look at the actual process instead of latching on to the few instances where it was bypassed or failed
     
  14. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Few theories are “proven”

    What it does have is a very high level meta-analysis of the data. ANY time you want to I am willing to review the IPCC reports with you to see how many errors we can find
     
  15. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    As well as “local” and “global”
     
  16. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    26,999
    Likes Received:
    11,048
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That conclusion followed what Golen said. He said:
    "Nope! Science is not a democracy. It's settled when nature says it's settled. It is not a "belief" system. Nature doesn't care what you or anybody (even scientists) believe." . Therefore man is not needed at all to be a settled science.
     
  17. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    They do

    95% of scientists
     
  18. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Because “nature” is and will continue to react too the high levels of co2 regardless of what you I or anyone postulates
     
  19. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    26,999
    Likes Received:
    11,048
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Show me that survey.
     
  20. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,647
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No idea what it is you don't understand. Science is the study of nature. What nature says is fact. Period! There are no "opinions" Scientific method is the instrument used to study and understand nature. There are no opinions there either. Scientists either follow the method, or they are not doing Science..

    When there is a large number of studies that point to the same conclusion, we have a scientific consensus. Normally they don't have to be 100%. Close to 100% is usually enough to consolidate a "consensus". There can be a handful of dissenting papers, when the body of work is strong enough. But, in the case of Global Warming, it just so happens that 100% of studies in the last 20 years do participate in the consensus.

    The Scientific Method is not "perfect", but it works!
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2019
    Bowerbird likes this.
  21. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Homeopathy
    The finer details are still being researched and contested but the key principles are well accepted. Who are these dissenters you claim do not agree with mainstream science?

    ( i am taking bets that he will drag our one of about half a dozen we’ll know scams and frauds. OISM, WUWT, the fossil fuel fools etc)
     
  22. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Which one?
    It has been researched multiple ways and verified more than once. I am suuuuure you would have heard of at least one of the studies since you purport to know the subject well
     
  23. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    26,999
    Likes Received:
    11,048
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In this case there are varied opinions. There has been no absolute proof of anything. You may think it is absolute proof, but the vast majority of scientists do not agree with you.
     
  24. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,377
    Likes Received:
    9,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Me too.
     
  25. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    26,999
    Likes Received:
    11,048
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Show me one where there is 95% agreement among scientists that man is the primary cause of global warming, that man can significantly change the outcome and that man can predict decades in advance what is going to happen.

    I have seen a number of such surveys. The most comprehensive asks the scientists such questions as what percentage of global warming is man responsible for? How much has man changed the weather? How accurate are the predictions? What is the confidence in your answers. They disagree widely and they don't come any where close to having high confidence in their answer.
     

Share This Page