Science denial

Discussion in 'Science' started by (original)late, Aug 23, 2020.

  1. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To what?
    Your personal opinions and fluff?
    If you can't present a scientific argument, don't bother!
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2020
  2. GrayMan

    GrayMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    8,357
    Likes Received:
    3,512
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Meh, Washington State.
     
  3. James California

    James California Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2019
    Messages:
    11,335
    Likes Received:
    11,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ~ To the best of my knowledge the U.N. is where this whole fiasco started ... ?
    { Ulterior purpose ? }
     
  4. Grey Matter

    Grey Matter Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2020
    Messages:
    4,401
    Likes Received:
    2,579
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ugh, it's a complete **** show in terms of being science.

    How many other "Science" programs are literally governed by a UN panel.

    Whoa, disagree, no funding for you!

    Claiming to predict future average global temperature increases based on what are basically trace levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    All of the funding is governmental.

    And the payback is "carbon" taxes.

    It's really not that difficult.
     
    James California likes this.
  5. PatriotNews

    PatriotNews Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    27,756
    Likes Received:
    3,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We're onto the little game of attacking the messenger, fake fact checkers, gaslighting and outright fraud.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2020
  6. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    @Grey Matter

    Thanks. I appreciate the research. I'll check it out so I can be up to date.
     
    Grey Matter likes this.
  7. Grey Matter

    Grey Matter Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2020
    Messages:
    4,401
    Likes Received:
    2,579
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I did not assert that Mike C was the pinnacle of anything.

    I asserted that an MD is the pinnacle of the US education hierarchy.

    I stand by my assertion that having a formal degree as a Medical Doctor more than qualifies one to have an expert opinion on what is, and isn't, science.

    I find it interesting that you assert that getting a PhD does not involve taking classes.

    Good luck getting a PhD in this program without passing the classes referenced in this link,

    https://climate.fas.harvard.edu/courses main

    Sorry to have triggered you so much so that you went apoplectic, apparently.

    I've pretty much always agreed with your posts in this forum's Science category as well as other categories.

    Apologies that I have a contrary opinion on AGW as science, and on it's proposed taxation "solutions" as good policy.

    You might want to give the ~2h video a try.

    As I pointed out, Mike C really had no dog in the fight other than his opinion.

    You are aware that these IPCC models are computer models, yes?

    Mike C was playing around with computers at a pretty detailed level before MSFT or APPL were incorporated.

    Westworld featured the first CGI film enhancements.

    https://www.newyorker.com/tech/anna...ns-westworld-pioneered-modern-special-effects

    Watch the 2h clip, it will at the very least give you a perspective to question IPCC/consensus "science".
     
  8. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The science on climat has been available to EVERYONE.

    Your charges are totally empty.

    The rightwing has been assaulting science, NOT messengers.

    Fact checkers have been comparing right wing BS against what science states - and they have been VERY clear and open about that, so anyone can read the basis for the results of the fact checking.

    And, your fraud accusation is absolutely ridiculous.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  9. James California

    James California Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2019
    Messages:
    11,335
    Likes Received:
    11,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ~ USA should pull out of the U.N..
    ~ I agree. Let us hope that this too is not dumbed down by politics - as so much in the USA has.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2020
    Grey Matter likes this.
  10. Grey Matter

    Grey Matter Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2020
    Messages:
    4,401
    Likes Received:
    2,579
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm all about it at this point.

    Pull out of the UN.

    Pull out of international trade.

    If it ain't made here then it ain't available.

    ****ing pandemic and the US 3M Corporations N95 masks are unavailable thanks to low wage labor in China.

    Then again, the phrase is that Karma is a bitch.
     
    James California likes this.
  11. James California

    James California Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2019
    Messages:
    11,335
    Likes Received:
    11,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    :confuse:´~ Who is checking the "fact" checkers ? You should check on that ...
    { That means you will have to read more }
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2020
    Grey Matter likes this.
  12. PatriotNews

    PatriotNews Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    27,756
    Likes Received:
    3,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The so called "climate scientists" have been wrong for 30 years so who gives a damn about fake sciences?
     
    James California likes this.
  13. James California

    James California Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2019
    Messages:
    11,335
    Likes Received:
    11,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    :nod: ~ This pretty much sums it up in a nutshell.
     
    PatriotNews likes this.
  14. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The IPCC does not conduct original scientific research or fund that research. They provide assessments based on research funded by many countries throughout

    the world. The IPCC assessments rely on the most cited and significant research. Of course all of the funding is governmental, but there are many governments

    involved in the research. There is some competition among the various governments and agencies. Should we expect private individuals or corporations to fund

    climate science? Would that make it more reliable?


    "Through its assessments, the IPCC determines the state of knowledge on climate change. It identifies where there is agreement in the scientific community on topics related to climate change, and where further research is needed. The reports are drafted and reviewed in several stages, thus guaranteeing objectivity and transparency. The IPCC does not conduct its own research. IPCC reports are neutral, policy-relevant but not policy-prescriptive."
     
    Cosmo and WillReadmore like this.
  15. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The scientists have been mostly right. Your information sources on climate science have been mostly wrong.
     
    Cosmo and WillReadmore like this.
  16. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know that's what you said, and I totally disagree. First, medicine and climatology are very different fields. Second, medical science is only one branch of biology, and suggesting it is somehow above physics and chemistry (which are key elements of climatology) is preposterous. Third, taking classes does not confer any level of authority on Crighton. So, claims made about the subjects of classes he took is irrelevant.
    And, that is utter nonsense. Climatology and the areas of chemistry and physics that pertain are serious disciplines NOT to be confused with medicine.

    Doctors do NOT study those fields.
    In the hard sciences, class requirements end at the level of master's degree - earning an MS at most.

    PhD goes on from there. But, by that time progress is made as an individual and is monitored by a major professor who guides the development of those striving to earn that degree.

    The final requirement is the defense of a a paper that advances the student's chosen field beyond what has been known by science to date. That paper gets serious review and if successful will be published in a publication that is watched by experts in the field around the world.
    Solutions are the realm of engineering and public policy, not science.

    Don't accuse science of solutions you dont like or that you think won't work.
    I have NO interest in what Chrighton said. He can say what he likes, but the catch with listening to one guy is that there is no active rebuttal of what he says. It becomes HIS opinion.

    If you like what he says, you ABSOLUTELY need to find a reputable science organization to review what he said. Until then, all you know is his opinion - along with whatever data he chose to present.

    In general, we can not listen to one guy who has taken medical science courses and think we understand climatology - without even consulting scientific review of what he says.

    That approach is simply BS.

    Also, there is the problem that he died almost a decade ago. Do you really think the several central climate sciences have stagnated during that time?
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  17. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The reputable fact checkers carefully document their sources and line of reasoning so that anyone can look to see why they are saying what they say.

    And, yes - that means reading is required.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  18. PatriotNews

    PatriotNews Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    27,756
    Likes Received:
    3,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The SF Chronicle ran a story about rising sea levels putting much of the Bay Area under water in 30 years.

    That was 30 years ago. We're still here.
     
    James California likes this.
  19. James California

    James California Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2019
    Messages:
    11,335
    Likes Received:
    11,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ~ I disagree. You should be more skeptical.

    ~ The funding is directed through and from the U.N.. Anything controlled by the U.N. is suspect and not to be trusted.

    upload_2020-9-14_17-50-28.png Institute of Public Affairs › ..
    Web results
    Can The IPCC Be Trusted? - IPA - The Voice For Freedom
    The IPCC is an organisation that has systematically told untruths about the nature of its own personnel. It has systematically misled the public about how its reports are prepared. In the climate debate, this is the body in which governments have placed their trust.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2020
    PatriotNews likes this.
  20. James California

    James California Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2019
    Messages:
    11,335
    Likes Received:
    11,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ~ Turns out there are a lot of fake facts from these sources.
     
    PatriotNews likes this.
  21. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Cite please.
     
  22. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ad hom's are not supporting evidence for your allegations.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2020
  23. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    You are giving an opinion, "the funding is directed through the U.N.", but don't provide any supporting evidence. Does the U.N. direct how the U.S. spends its money on climate research? No

    Does the U.N. direct how any other country spends its research budget on climate research? No. That isn't the role of the U.N.'s IPCC. Would climate science tell us anything different if the U.N.

    didn't exist? No. The IPCC wasn't formed until 1988 and at that time it was understood that human emissions of carbon dioxide could lead to catastrophic warming.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2020
    Cosmo likes this.
  24. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't know if that is true but the SF Chronicle is not a scientific publication. The IPCC has been consistently conservative in its predictions of sea level rise.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  25. James California

    James California Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2019
    Messages:
    11,335
    Likes Received:
    11,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ~ If you feel comfortable believing the inaccurate scientific methods used to predict global weather catastrophe so be it. If you depend on analysis from " fact check" sites that it your choice. I do not.
    I look back at the " expert's " predictions from 20 years ago and decided they are nothing more than an educated opinion - not facts. None have come to fruition.
    Sometimes the more you read the less you know.
     

Share This Page