Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2015 08:19 pm
@Briancrc,
Briancrc wrote:
Yes, what if the science has been wrong and we made the planet better for no good reason.


Hehehehe . . .

Irony is a wunnerful thing . . .
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2015 09:03 pm
@Tuna,
Quote:
I do agree that some of the presentations of the problem have created more of a rift between the public and science and have the potential to fuel an anti-science backlash.


Once more detail modelings of climate changes with predictions for the next few hundreds years is not science in any sense of the word science.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2015 09:06 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Please provide your evidence that the predictions in climate change are wrong


As you and people like you wish to take actions base on those predictions you are the ones with the burden of proof.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2015 10:23 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:

Once more detail modelings of climate changes with predictions for the next few hundreds years is not science in any sense of the word science


obviously your definition of science and mine differ widely. Predictiona are always made and calibrated and recalibrated via iterations and comparisons to real data. Do you have a time machine that supplies you with your insight?
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2015 03:35 am
@Baldimo,
You've been fed lies for too long to change track now. Lost cause. Keep rowing...

My point was that this "assault on science" was all PAID FOR, just like the assault on medical science in the 70s about tobacco was all paid for by Peter Stuyvesant etc. All this confusion that you guys are under was done to you ON PURPOSE, so that the US would as a whole resist any change to its oil consumption patterns and levels.

You guys were conned. Wake up.
layman
 
  0  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2015 03:45 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
You guys were conned. Wake up.


Heh, Ollie, the old "THEM guys do that ****, NEVER us," routine, eh?

Have oil companies and other related interests ran a well orchestrated propaganda campaign to convey "doubt" about IPCC "summary reports," etc.? Hell, yeah!

Is there legitimate scientific call to doubt the extreme claims of the UN officials on this matter? Hell, yeah. Just ask the lead writers for the IPCC themselves, if you're not sure.

Have the opposing interests ran an extremely well-funded propaganda campaign designed to convey the false impression that this is all "settled science," accepted by "97% of scientists?" Hell, yeah.

There is an ideological stance which tells some people that if "big oil" is for it, then, a priori, they must be against it.

Pick your poison. It's not about science when it comes to public discussion. It's about politics.
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2015 03:52 am
@layman,
You envoyed being fucked, I guess.
layman
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2015 03:55 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
You envoyed being fucked, I guess


Heh, Ollie. I'm just not as partisan as you are. If I'm gunna get fucked, I won't do it out of loyalty to a "cause." I'm gunna insist on cash on the barrelhead, eh?
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2015 06:45 am
@layman,
Not really. The amazing thing about the GW denial campaign by big oil is that they managed to enlist in their little crusade against science an army of useful idiots who are relaying their BS for free...

Think about it: what's in it for you?
Baldimo
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2015 10:25 am
@Olivier5,
See this is exactly what I was talking about. If you don't buy into the climate change narrative, then you are against science. This is the very reason that climate science is becoming more of a religion then an actual science.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2015 10:57 am
@Baldimo,
I am still waiting for your science showing that the predictions are wrong.

Against science or ignorant of science? I guess you can make the call. What predictions have proven to be wrong and not just statistical noise?

We have seen an increase in temperature globally. Not much question there.
CO2 increases the ability of an air mixture to retain heat. Not much question there.
Humans pump a lot of CO2 into the air every year. Not much question there.

What science do you have?
Baldimo
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2015 12:20 pm
@parados,
Quote:
I am still waiting for your science showing that the predictions are wrong.

Against science or ignorant of science? I guess you can make the call. What predictions have proven to be wrong and not just statistical noise?


http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/04/25-years-of-predicting-the-global-warming-tipping-point/

Quote:
We have seen an increase in temperature globally. Not much question there.

You are right of course, but no one said the climate was static. The amount of temp rise has never matched what they said it would be. Can those #'s be trusted? It seems when they release those #'s, it always comes after they have adjusted something somewhere to account for something else. They don't release the raw data, only adjusted data. Even then they still can't get the temps' to match the predictions.

Quote:
CO2 increases the ability of an air mixture to retain heat. Not much question there.

There is actually still some question about this. It's hard to believe that the very gas we exhale and plants and green plants inhale is a dangerious as climate science makes it out to be.

Quote:
Humans pump a lot of CO2 into the air every year. Not much question there.

This is the very point I'm making. More than humans put CO2 into the air but there are lots of things on earth that require that CO2. Tree's and just about everything that grows gree would die without CO2. Those green things die and we have no O2, but climate science doesn't seem to account for those effects.

Our planet isn't no where near the danger zone the predictions said we would be in 20 years ago. Instead they keep pushing out the doom and gloom predictions. That is the double down effect.

The religion of climate science puts man as the devil, and the devil must be stopped. You don't want to save humanity, you want to destroy it.
parados
 
  5  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2015 01:58 pm
@Baldimo,
So I ask you for science and you give me politics? Where is your science that says the science is wrong?


Quote:

You are right of course, but no one said the climate was static. The amount of temp rise has never matched what they said it would be. Can those #'s be trusted? They don't release the raw data, only adjusted data. Even then they still can't get the temps' to match the predictions.

What do you expect for a match? Is within .9 degrees OK? .2 degrees? You do realize that weather would tell us we won't get an exact match except by chance. Of Hanson's 3 predictions of warming from 1988, the current warming is between B and C. We have less warming than B and more warming than C. With this being an el nino year we may find we are closer to B after this year.

What nonsense about the raw data. You can get the raw data.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnm/v2.php
NOAA and others use the raw data to come up with global temperature by adjusting for missing data or moved stations. To claim there is no raw data is to simply ignore facts. Scientific studies have been done that state that the adjustments may actually be under counting the temperature increase.

Quote:
Quote:
CO2 increases the ability of an air mixture to retain heat. Not much question there.


There is actually still some question about this.
Really? Where is your science? Here is a simple experiment you can conduct yourself. Let us know the answers you get.
http://www.fofweb.com/Onfiles/SEOF/Science_Experiments/1-15.pdf
The fact that a mixture of air with higher concentrations of CO2 retains more heat has been shown scientifically for over 100 years. I doubt you can present a single experiment that will show an increase in CO2 causes an air mixture to lose heat faster.


Of course more things than humans put CO2 in the air but until humans started pumping tons of CO2 into the air the amount of CO2 had remained fairly constant for hundreds of thousands of years. Please point to what natural production of CO2 could account for the increase since you are talking science. All those natural things were balanced out with a cycle that removed it as fast as it was produced. The natural cycle still removes an amount equal to all the natural Co2 and a majority of the man made CO2.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

Quote:
You don't want to save humanity, you want to destroy it.
Are you resorting to hyperbole because you have no science? I asked you for science since you said I had none. I gave you three statements that you could agree with or dispute. You have disputed but given us no evidence as to why they would be false scientifically.
layman
 
  0  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2015 03:58 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Really? Where is your science?


Please don't take this bait and turn this into a "my science is better than your science" free-for-all, Baldy. There are other threads for that, and this aint intended to be one of them.

The issues here are more philosophical and theoretical, I think. It is not intended to promote long pseudo-scientific rants by laymen trying to argue for specific science conclusions.

I have used climate science merely as a means of illustrating the general "assault on science" issue. I regret it if anyone took anything I've said otherwise.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 02:59 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
My point was that this "assault on science" was all PAID FOR


I've addressed this in general Ollie, but here's some specifics (many more where this comes from, but you might listen to this guy since he's a commie, eh?):

Quote:
Harold ("Hal") Warren Lewis (born October 1, 1923, in New York City; died May 26, 2011) was an Emeritus Professor of Physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB). He, along with the other theoretical physics professors at Berkeley, refused to sign the McCarthy era loyalty oath on principle, and in 1950 went to Princeton. Later, when offered reinstatement at Berkeley, he chose instead to accept a position at Bell Labs. He wrote a text on the trade-offs between technological advances and risks, and also authored a popular book on decision making.[5] In 1991 Harold Lewis won the Science Writing Award for his book 'Technological Risk'.

Lewis was a fellow of the American Physical Society. In 2010, after 67 years of membership, Lewis resigned from the APS, citing "corruption" from "the money flood" of government grants. His letter characterizes the APS as having changed from an organization that seeks to further scientific knowledge, to an organization that suppresses science in its attempt to obtain further funding from government agencies. The majority of his letter details his criticism of the group's support for the "global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave", and further expresses his belief that the loss of that funding would be devastating to those organizations .

In his open letter to the APS president, Lewis declared the "global warming scam" as "the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Lewis

"Pseudo-scientific fraud," eh? Trillions of dollars, he says. Here's webpage with a select list of about 60 scientists. There are 164 footnotes on this page. Look at some of them if you have any inclination to look at "science" rather than ideology:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
layman
 
  0  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 03:26 am
@layman,
Some excerpts from Warren's resignation letter:

Quote:
Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

The ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate.

The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.)

I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/

There's a lot more detail there, Ollie, if you want to read it (I can't imagine that you would, but....).
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 03:34 am
@layman,
Even commies make mistakes. Especially when they are outside of their field of competence. A climatilogist not believing in quantum physics would not be taken too seriously; and the same applies to a physicist not believing in climate change... What the heck does he know on climate? Not anymore than the average garbage collector.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 03:41 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
What the heck does he know on climate? Not anymore than the average garbage collector.


I'm sure you know so much MORE than him, eh? The guy was a professor at Berkeley, Princeton, and other places. I think he's capable of understanding scientific literature he reads.

So typical. An attack on the person, coupled with a summary dismissal of the SUBTANCE of his complaints, without knowing a damn thing about the technical subject matter.

Got any comment on his allegations about corruption, fraud, and "trilions of dollars," etc.? Wait, he's only a physicist that was a member of American Physical Society for 67 years. What the hell would HE know about APS, eh?

Let me guess, eh? No more than a garbage collector and MUCH LESS than you know, right?
layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 03:49 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
What the heck does he know on climate? Not anymore than the average garbage collector.


Tell, me Ollie, do you claim to know more than him? If not you're saying YOU don't know anymore than the average garbage collector. So where do you get your unshakable faith from? Chairman Mao, or what?
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 03:50 am
@layman,
I am also capable of understanding scientific literature, by and large. It's important to remember that moden science is a very specialized affair. Physicists may entertain the illusion that they are the top dogs, but in fact they are just like anybody else in the science world, knowing a whole lot
within a very narrow domain.

So if you have a question about, say, quasars or general relativity, ask this guy what he thinks of it. But for a question on climate, go to someone else. Somebody competent. A climatologist.

Of course YOU want to do the exact opposite because if you ask him about relativity, you will probably not like the (i assume competent) answer you're given.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/21/2021 at 08:12:05