• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

OMG "All the scientist" were WRONG.

Verax said:
Its not my job to walk you through the models and assure you they are good. The scientific consensus says they are right. If you don't agree with it you go ahead and start a thread where you tear into their models and explain to us all why they are bad.
Click to expand...

You ever try solving an algebra problem with four unquantified variables?
 
Verax said:
Co2 is only a single part of AGW, though yes it is generally the centerpiece. As I explained in other threads it is part of climate change theory that is tested through modeling which itself takes into account thousands of individual hypotheses, data, observations, etc.

You do not understand what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

"Testing through modeling" doesn't prove a thing. The models must accurately predict outcomes which can be measured, and Mann's fraudulent "hockey stick" has done a great deal to discredit the AGW claims.
 
Diogenes said:
"Testing through modeling" doesn't prove a thing. The models must accurately predict outcomes which can be measured, and Mann's fraudulent "hockey stick" has done a great deal to discredit the AGW claims.
Click to expand...

But the 'hockey stick' is not fraudulent in the real world ( as opposed to whatever reality you are choosing to inhabit) since it has been confirmed a dozen times in subsequent papers, including a couple this year, and is generally considered to be a landmark work in paleoclimatology.

The rest of your blabbering about models must be put into the context that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about based upon your statement about Mann's work.
 
Diogenes said:
"Testing through modeling" doesn't prove a thing. The models must accurately predict outcomes which can be measured, and Mann's fraudulent "hockey stick" has done a great deal to discredit the AGW claims.
Click to expand...

Mann's hockey stick has been reconfirmed by more than a handful of subsequent studies, and the honesty of his work confirmed in court.

Aplogoes, Three, I really should read to the end of a thread before posting!
 
Dittohead not! said:
OK, so science is wrong, and its predictive ability worthless.
But, the chicken entrails before me clearly show that there will be yet another thread on global warming, and that its premise will be just as absurd as the premise in the OP.

Count on it. Chicken entrails never lie.
Click to expand...

So in your opinion scientist are right 100% of the time and we should bow at the alter and do whatever they say? Are they god to you?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
So in your opinion scientist are right 100% of the time and we should bow at the alter and do whatever they say? Are they god to you?
Click to expand...

Your claim that "OMG all scientist(sic) were wrong" is no less inaccurate. You obviously worship at the altar of antiscience. Suckling on the teat of the almighty Kochs. Are you one of the many Koch-suckers?
 
Manc Skipper said:
Your claim that "OMG all scientist(sic) were wrong" is no less inaccurate. You obviously worship at the altar of antiscience. Suckling on the teat of the almighty Kochs. Are you one of the many Koch-suckers?
Click to expand...

How was I wrong? Were their scientist proclaiming Mt St Helens would recover in 20 or 30 years?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
So when the scientist admit they were wrong about AGW after we destroyed our economy and way of life based on their false assumptions ...... Point is the "all the scientist agree" argument is a joke and the Mt St Helens example proves just that.
Click to expand...
Unless it isn't.

The upshot of the article is that the scientists were arguing about how the flora would recover from the eruption. One group thought it would be due to seeds drifting in randomly; the other thought it would be more orderly, with some pioneer plants slowly encroaching on the area. Scientists are observing both.

In this case, there were at least two competing theories, and they have turned to the evidence to make an observation.

With AGW, you have north of 95% of scientists active in the field who agree that human activity is contributing to global warming, and it's based on the evidence. That's a very different situation from a genuine scientific difference of opinions, which was settled by... looking at the evidence.

Good luck in your continuing quest to find completely irrelevant "evidence" against AGW, that doesn't actually wind up proving anything, let alone your alleged point.
 
Visbek said:
Unless it isn't.

The upshot of the article is that the scientists were arguing about how the flora would recover from the eruption. One group thought it would be due to seeds drifting in randomly; the other thought it would be more orderly, with some pioneer plants slowly encroaching on the area. Scientists are observing both.

In this case, there were at least two competing theories, and they have turned to the evidence to make an observation.

With AGW, you have north of 95% of scientists active in the field who agree that human activity is contributing to global warming, and it's based on the evidence. That's a very different situation from a genuine scientific difference of opinions, which was settled by... looking at the evidence.

Good luck in your continuing quest to find completely irrelevant "evidence" against AGW, that doesn't actually wind up proving anything, let alone your alleged point.
Click to expand...

Wrong again, the upshot of the article was scientist thought the mountain would take 100s of years to come back.
 
Manc Skipper said:
You are still wrong. Not all scientists made the claim you said they did.
Click to expand...

Can who were these scientist that said Mt St Helens would recover in a decade or two? You do make one good point though, not all the scientist buy the AGW hypothesis so there is a difference between the two subjects.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Can who were these scientist that said Mt St Helens would recover in a decade or two? You do make one good point though, not all the scientist buy the AGW hypothesis so there is a difference between the two subjects.
Click to expand...

You are confusing climate scientists with vulcanologists and biologists. Which "ALL SCIENTISTS" did you mean, as obviously not all scientists have an interest in volcanic eruptions.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Wrong again, the upshot of the article was scientist thought the mountain would take 100s of years to come back.
Click to expand...
Try again.

1) Mt St Helens hasn't fully recovered. Cf https://maps.google.com/maps?q=mt+s...11,0.675659&hnear=Mt+St+Helens&gl=us&t=h&z=11

2) No one quoted in the article said it would take "hundreds" of years.

3) The scientists are surprised that it's recovering as fast as it has. And as the article noted, some expected it to recover in one way, other scientists in another; it looks like it is recovering via multiple methods.

It is also patently absurd to suggest that what we learn from Mt St Helen's proves that "a scientific consensus has no value."


sawyerloggingon said:
....not all the scientist buy the AGW hypothesis so there is a difference between the two subjects.
Click to expand...
Around 95% of climatologists believe that human activity has contributed to global warming.

There is no actual scientific controversy on the issue, and very little scientific dissent.
 
Manc Skipper said:
You are confusing climate scientists with vulcanologists and biologists. Which "ALL SCIENTISTS" did you mean, as obviously not all scientists have an interest in volcanic eruptions.
Click to expand...

Name any scientist that said St Helens would heal up in a couple of decades. You kinda painted yourself into a corner didn't you.:lol:
 
Visbek said:
Try again.

1) Mt St Helens hasn't fully recovered. Cf https://maps.google.com/maps?q=mt+s...11,0.675659&hnear=Mt+St+Helens&gl=us&t=h&z=11

2) No one quoted in the article said it would take "hundreds" of years.

3) The scientists are surprised that it's recovering as fast as it has. And as the article noted, some expected it to recover in one way, other scientists in another; it looks like it is recovering via multiple methods.

It is also patently absurd to suggest that what we learn from Mt St Helen's proves that "a scientific consensus has no value."



Around 95% of climatologists believe that human activity has contributed to global warming.

There is no actual scientific controversy on the issue, and very little scientific dissent.
Click to expand...

By full recovery you must mean there are not 200 year old trees where there was 30 years ago. :lol:

Do some research, hundreds of years was the standard line and if you can find examples of scientist predicting recovery in a couple of decades be my guest. Here's one article for you.

"Experts at the time of the 1980 eruption predicted that the area would take perhaps hundreds of years to rebound. Yet after only 20 years, biologists noted the speedy recovery of plants and animals on what had been a vast moonscape.6 Today, the 30-year-old blast zone is a lushly treed forest." 30 Years Later, the Lessons from Mount St. Helens

After all this you still throw out your 95% number like it is relevant, have you learned nothing here? The St Helens scientist were at least as certain of their models for recovery as climatologist are of AGW and look how that turned out. Don't get me started on the scab lands of Washington that "all the scientist" said were caused by glacial activity and when a lone voice said he thought it was from a huge flood they laughed him into oblivion. WOOOOPS! :lol:
 
Visbek said:
Around 95% of climatologists believe that human activity has contributed to global warming.

There is no actual scientific controversy on the issue, and very little scientific dissent.
Click to expand...

There was a time when an even greater percentage of scientists bought into Ptolemaic astrology and there was even less controversy and scientific dissent. That didn't make it true.
 
Just like in sports, sometimes the underdogs win.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
By full recovery you must mean there are not 200 year old trees where there was 30 years ago.
Click to expand...
By "full recovery" I mean "the majority of the areas covered by ash redeveloped flora and fauna."

If you bothered to look at the sat photos, you'd see that is nowhere near the case.


Do some research
Click to expand...
From where, the Institute of Creation Research? Please.


The St Helens scientist were at least as certain of their models for recovery as climatologist are of AGW and look how that turned out.
Click to expand...
They're even more certain that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Should we also get rid of Newton's First Law of Thermodynamics, because the initial assumptions about recovery in the immediate area of a volcano happened faster than expected?

How about the idea that water is composed of two hydrogen and one oxygen atom? That no region of space can be at absolute zero? That electrons have characteristics of both particles and waves? That cigarettes are carcinogenic? Why aren't these "certain" scientific claims also in doubt?

If you were absolutely certain that Ronald Reagan had five biological children, and you find out that one of his children was adopted, would that completely invalidate the truth of every belief you hold? Of course not. Specific claims need to be evaluated on an individual basis.

Your basic claim here, that "the scientific consensus on AGW doesn't matter," and trying to back that up by criticizing biologist's predictions of recovery period in something we have never directly observed before, is desperately absurd.
 
Visbek said:
By "full recovery" I mean "the majority of the areas covered by ash redeveloped flora and fauna."

If you bothered to look at the sat photos, you'd see that is nowhere near the case.



From where, the Institute of Creation Research? Please.



They're even more certain that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Should we also get rid of Newton's First Law of Thermodynamics, because the initial assumptions about recovery in the immediate area of a volcano happened faster than expected?

How about the idea that water is composed of two hydrogen and one oxygen atom? That no region of space can be at absolute zero? That electrons have characteristics of both particles and waves? That cigarettes are carcinogenic? Why aren't these "certain" scientific claims also in doubt?

If you were absolutely certain that Ronald Reagan had five biological children, and you find out that one of his children was adopted, would that completely invalidate the truth of every belief you hold? Of course not. Specific claims need to be evaluated on an individual basis.

Your basic claim here, that "the scientific consensus on AGW doesn't matter," and trying to back that up by criticizing biologist's predictions of recovery period in something we have never directly observed before, is desperately absurd.
Click to expand...

You seem to be saying the scientist that said they were wrong about Mt St Helens recovery time are wrong about being wrong.:lol: Give it up bud. :peace
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom