Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

[Sleipnir]

After joining and making a grand total of 18 posts you already know he's dogmatic?

It's a classic behaviour among climate-change denialist that TimG displayed.

climate models predictions cannot be evaluated in a reasonable timeframe therefore such predictions are no better than astrology.

[wyly]

You're missing my point. Firstly, why should I have something to offer? My nothing equals your green energy policy in terms of effect combating climate change, unless you insist on getting down to hours and days when predicting what temperature the Earth will reach and when.

the most basic science says you're wrong...

let's simplify it to a Grade one science level for you...a pot of water is boiling on the stove if you want it to stop/cool you turn off the heat...I don't need to be any type of scientist to know that but here you are challenging something that so basic a grade one student could explain it...

so if your going to challenge something so basic you had best have something to back it up...

Do 97% of climatologists actually believe we can affect the climate with a few windmills and a Prius or two? If they do, then it certainly would appear that my scientific knowledge is greater than theirs.

Now, if those climatologists believe that the climate can be affected by their fantasy of a green energy policy, including total co-operation from China, Brazil, India, the entire first world, etc, then I would certainly consider a second look. Even then, I doubt we could anything to seriously affect the climate, all the while keeping everyone fed and warm.

How do you feel about forced sterilization of every child born on the planet, with it being reversed for those who qualify to have a child when they reach a certain age? With the qualifications being extremely stringent, such that maybe only 1 or 2% of applicants actually get to have children. Because that might work. Not much else will.

made up facts and fantasy scenario’s you got anything of substance? no?....oh ya I forgot... “why should I have something to offer” .... you got nothin

Edited October 21, 2012 by wyly

[wyly]

a couple dozen posts and you've got them pegged perfectly, well done ...welcome to denierworld mapleleafweb Edited October 21, 2012 by wyly

[Pliny]

No, I don't understand. It sounds counterintuitive.

I am more than willing to pay attention if you could expand on this.

The simplicity of it is in a recognition of self. The Skeptic has no input as "self" to his assertions nor does he have any desire to assert "self" as a point of view. Self is irrelevant and unimportant. What he himself thinks does not matter and what others think does not matter. The scientific process overrides all independent thought and that can hardly be a contributor to critical thinking.

Skeptics explain the failures of science as there being no absolute truths yet seem to accept a consensus of scientific opinion as fact and forwarding that as truth. Granted, while scientific opinion is based in empirical evidence, a fact is something that does not require a consensus. Forwarding AGW as a truth out of consensus is thus invalid. The facts in AGW are that there is GW in the amount of 1.5 degrees F per century. No one is certain of the anthropogenic contribution to GW if there is any. The theory of GHGs says there should be but it is not being proven out by the models. All contradictory data is ignored and if it can't be ignored is vilified and discredited - for what purpose? The sustaining of the concensus? If we must sustain the concensus we would never have gotten past the once held consensus that the world is flat. Perhaps, there is a 97% consensus because no one wishes to face the ridicule and vilification of dissent and only 3% will risk the inevitable wrath they would face. There are indeed few brave men in the world and many will go a long to get along even to the point of disregarding their own point of view.

So what is the purpose of propounding AGW if not to sustain the consensus of scientific opinion? Science itself would never refute findings that are anything but obviously flawed. But, Skeptics, due to a lack of critical thinking, refute all findings contrary to the consensus. Only an out and out definitive swing of the consensus will sway a skeptic. He has a built in defense in the statement there are no absolutes but in the meantime retards the scientific evolutionary process of consensus by forwarding current consensus as irrefutable fact.

The skeptic also tends to be political and wishes to quash all dissenting points of view through law, e.g., the theory of evolution is fact and thus creationism should be outlawed.

Now I am not arguing that Creationists are critical thinkers but that the Skeptic is no more a critical thinker than the Creationist.

I don't expect you would understand the above as holding any value unless you give it some critical thought. I am guessing you will not see any value in it, especially since no studies are cited.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Pliny

[cybercoma]

my point: climate models predictions ... are no better than astrology.

And it's a really stupid and biased point that shows you know nothing about scientific modelling.

[Sleipnir]

The simplicity of it is in a recognition of self. The Skeptic has no input as "self" to his assertions nor does he have any desire to assert "self" as a point of view. Self is irrelevant and unimportant. What he himself thinks does not matter and what others think does not matter. The scientific process overrides all independent thought and that can hardly be a contributor to critical thinking.

Scientific process requires independent thoughts to quantitfy the data to speak for itself.

Skeptics explain the failures of science as there being no absolute truths yet seem to accept a consensus of scientific opinion as fact and forwarding that as truth. Granted, while scientific opinion is based in empirical evidence, a fact is something that does not require a consensus.

A fact is something that REQUIRES consensus - that is, independent groups of scientists replicating the exact same experiments to ensure that the result obtained is consistent with all other data obtained from different groups.

That's how the 'fact' that vaccine caused autism was rebuke - because the scientists couldn't reach a consensus after multiple experimental attempts failed to replicate the original.

The effect and model of climate change has reached a general consensus because different designs of models have been shown the same thing in different part of the world.

[Sleipnir]

Scientific process requires independent thoughts to quantitfy the data to speak for itself. Scientific data would be useless if no one can interpret it.

A fact is something that REQUIRES consensus - that is, independent groups of scientists replicating the exact same experiments to ensure that the result obtained is consistent with all other data obtained from different groups.

That's how the 'fact' that vaccine caused autism was rebuke - because the scientists couldn't reach a consensus after multiple experimental attempts failed to replicate the original.

The effect and model of climate change has reached a general consensus because different designs of models have been shown the same thing in different part of the world.

Damn I mistakenly quote myself - how do I delete this post?

Edited October 21, 2012 by Sleipnir

[wyly]

And it's a really stupid and biased point that shows you know nothing about scientific modelling.

and he isn't aware climate models are projections not predictions...

[TimG]

And it's a really stupid and biased point that shows you know nothing about scientific modelling.

Actually, it is clear that I know more than you. "scientific models" can be useful for many applications even if their ability to predict the future is no better than random chance. The problem in the climate debate are activists that constantly want to over sell the capabilities of models in order to push a political agenda.

[wyly]

Damn I mistakenly quote myself - how do I delete this post?

edit then delete

[TimG]

and he isn't aware climate models are projections not predictions...

And that semantic difference makes absolute no difference to my point. In fact, I took the projections/predictions distinction into account when i added the qualifier that old models may need to be updated with actual emissions data during the validation process. Of course, you would not have noticed that because you are not basing your opinion on any knowledge of the techniques involved. You are simply regurgitating talking points you do not understand. Edited October 21, 2012 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Actually, it is clear that I know more than you. "scientific models" ... ability to predict the future is no better than random chance.

Yes. It's so very clear. Keep going. This is great.

[Guest]

the most basic science says you're wrong...

In what way? I think I'm exactly right. Do you really believe that the measures we in the west are planning to take with what we call our green energy policy is going to halt our extinction? Extinction being your word.

let's simplify it to a Grade one science level for you...a pot of water is boiling on the stove if you want it to stop/cool you turn off the heat...I don't need to be any type of scientist to know that but here you are challenging something that so basic a grade one student could explain it...

Let's simplify it even further for you. A pot of boiling water is bubbling away over 110 degree heat and you turn the heat down to 105 degrees. It doesn't stop boiling. No matter how much you really, really want it to.

so if your going to challenge something so basic you had best have something to back it up...

made up facts and fantasy scenario’s you got anything of substance? no?....oh ya I forgot... “why should I have something to offer” .... you got nothin

I did actually offer you a scenario that might help a little, so when I say I've got nothing to offer I'm being a little hard on myself. I asked you what you thought of my sterilization plan but I needn't have. If you think we're headed for extinction then it's a no brainer that you support it, right?

But staying on that thought. Why should I have something to offer in order to argue that you are wrong with what you have to offer? Is it a precondition mentioned in the site rules?

Edited October 21, 2012 by bcsapper

[Pliny]

Scientific process requires independent thoughts to quantitfy the data to speak for itself.

Correct but it eliminates your independent thought if you are not the scientist.

A fact is something that REQUIRES consensus - that is, independent groups of scientists replicating the exact same experiments to ensure that the result obtained is consistent with all other data obtained from different groups.

That's how the 'fact' that vaccine caused autism was rebuke - because the scientists couldn't reach a consensus after multiple experimental attempts failed to replicate the original.

The effect and model of climate change has reached a general consensus because different designs of models have been shown the same thing in different part of the world.

No factual matter requires a consensus. Theory does require a consensus. GW is a fact, no consensus is necessary, that it is caused by anthropogenic activity is a theory and not a fact, a consensus is necessary to forward the theory. Skeptics tend to forward theories as facts. If I were a scientist I would really get in the face of skeptics for retarding the development and evolutionary process of scientific theory.

[Sleipnir]

Correct but it eliminates your independent thought if you are not the scientist.

Well if you don't understand what the data is telling you, misinterpretation is likely.

GW is a fact, no consensus is necessary, that it is caused by anthropogenic activity is a theory and not a fact

Fact and theory are the same thing in scientific community.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Sleipnir

[Pliny]

Well if you don't understand what the data is telling you, misinterpretation is likely.

Fact and theory are the same thing in scientific community.

Well if you don't understand what the data is telling you, misinterpretation is likely.

Yes.

Fact and theory are the same thing in scientific community.

Theories are a fact? Is that what you are saying?

[Sleipnir]

Theories are a fact? Is that what you are saying?

Well similar anyway. I was referring to theory and fact in a scientific term.

Theory: an explanation of some aspect of the observed natural world that incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Fact: an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true".

Edited October 22, 2012 by Sleipnir

[TimG]

Fact: an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true".

Except in the case of climate there have been no observations that "confirm" the various hypothesis on the magnitude and effects of CO2 induced warming. In fact, actual comparisons of climate model "projections" to actual warming suggest that the magnitude of warming is considerable less than what the hypothesis claims.

[Pliny]

Well similar anyway. I was referring to theory and fact in a scientific term.

Theory: an explanation of some aspect of the observed natural world that incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

So where does creation theory fit? Obviously you don't believe it to be a theory. It doesn't fall in line with your criteria. Yet it does qualify as a theory, one that some people accept. Facts are that the physical universe is here, which infers someone put it here. I don't know. It's just a theory?

Maybe it's a conspiracy theory? A theory is a theory not a fact accepted as true. They are not the same. They are not similar.

In a scientific sense a theory must indeed be accepted as true or it would be senseless to do further research. A theory is never a fact and always includes unknowns or it would be a fact.

Fact: an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true".

Edited October 22, 2012 by Pliny

[wyly]

• Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
  
• Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
  
• Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
  
• Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
  

creationism is not a theory, it has no basis in fact...

[Sleipnir]

Except in the case of climate there have been no observations that "confirm" the various hypothesis on the magnitude and effects of CO2 induced warming. In fact, actual comparisons of climate model "projections" to actual warming suggest that the magnitude of warming is considerable less than what the hypothesis claims.

Surely you've never done a single research on this topic - it has been confirmed by countless observations.

So where does creation theory fit? Obviously you don't believe it to be a theory. It doesn't fall in line with your criteria. Yet it does qualify as a theory, one that some people accept. Facts are that the physical universe is here, which infers someone put it here. I don't know. It's just a theory?

Creationism isn't a theory, it's a complete load of bunk - scientifically speaking.

A theory is a theory not a fact accepted as true. They are not the same. They are not similar.

There is a difference between 'true' and 'fact' - check 'em.

And yes, theory and fact are similar - not 100% the same, but very similar.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Sleipnir

[TimG]

Surely you've never done a single research on this topic - it has been confirmed by countless observations.

You need to look at the data rather than the news headlines. The magnitude and effects of warming have not been confirmed by observations. In fact, in many cases the scientists are "adjusting" the data from the past to make the data better confirm to their pet hypotheses. They would not be "adjusting" the data if it matched their hypotheses. Edited October 22, 2012 by TimG

[Sleipnir]

You need to look at the data rather than the news headlines.

News headline is the worst source of scientific information one can turn to.

The magnitude and effects of warming have not been confirmed by observations. In fact, in many cases the scientists are "adjusting" the data from the past to make the data better confirm to their pet hypotheses. They would not be "adjusting" the data if it matched their hypotheses.

Sounds like something a conspiracy theorist would say lol

Edited October 22, 2012 by Sleipnir

[Moonbox]

Sleipnir, address his claim. Implying he's a conspiracy theorist is a juvenile and pointless counter. I could just as easily call you a brainwashed climate science sheep, but that doesn't get us anywhere does it?

[Mighty AC]

In fact, in many cases the scientists are "adjusting" the data from the past to make the data better confirm to their pet hypotheses. They would not be "adjusting" the data if it matched their hypotheses.

No they don't. The data remains the same, the models improve over time. The same data is fed into new models as they improve. For something as chaotic as global climate the models have been doing a fantastic job of predicting the trends.