• 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!

What is (and isn't) the AGW Scientific Consensus?

Modern Science IS Peer-review.
yes it is. But read the wording carefully of studies and verify what the often lying pundits say.
It's the last and UNAVOIDABLE part of Science since Galileo! Galileo had not yet proven his statements at the time of the famous trials. He DID prove them in the course of the next 10 years. But as they were at the moment of his trials, many of them would not have been published today.
The modern AGW cult is like the science deniers of his time. If you do not worship at the alter of AGW, they do their best to destroy any heritic to their religion.
This is one of the main reasons why Galileo is considered the shift from Classical Science to Modern Science.
Science simply was not as refined then.
Peer-reviewers don't house-arrest scientists anymore.
The IPCCC et al would if they could.
They just don't get published. And if they do manage to circumvent the pre-publication safeguards, post-publication peer reviewers have a field day. any
I can only guess as to what you mean here. Major publishers refuse to accept some good science because they are not ready to poke the 800 gigaton gorrilla with heracy.
Many science students and up and coming young scientists have built a name for themselves by pointing out flaws in published studies.
Flaws can always be found in older science as science matures.
This is why if you attack peer-review, you attack Science. So if it's not your intention to attack Science, you need to understand how it works.
And you think you do? The climate sciences are far too politicized to work like science is supposed to. If it did, the IPCCC would ve dead.
 
Maybe. Solar however was largly paud for by others.... you know... subsidies to inclue net metering. You are subsidized ubless you also bought batteries to hold the night and seasonal needs. If that is the case, your piwer costs nore than natural gas still.
You have no idea what I have, what I paid, or how it works.
 
Which is true, but irrelevant to my point. The poster I responded to linked to an article that contains a graph showing how this is likely to flip.
Not possible. The AWG will never ve intense enough. In the cities however where tge UHIE can cause city temperatures to be 18 degrees Fahrenhiet greater that the one natural terrain is where the heat is a problem.
I don't know how trustworthy or accurate that is. But the fact is (as you probably know), AGW causes more deadly cold events, as well as deadly heat events.
Sorry. I don' buy into that verse if your Bible.

Have a link by chance?
So you're saying it's cleaner than solar? In that case, this is a MUST HAVE bill. We need to force industries to innovate and MAKE sources like solar, wind, hydropower.... cleaner and more afaffordable.
At what grade level is your reading comprehension? I said "and cheaper."

Natural gas burns clean. It is not a problem. It is far cheaper than solar as with solar you need to add storage. If you insist on the mining to get natural gas, then do not forget the processes it takes to make solar panels and all its dirty secrets.
 
NATURE is phasing out natural gas. Because it's not renewable. Governments are forcing industries to develop an alternative. One that will be cheaper and readily available to PEOPLE. You said something about the government "forcing PEOPLE", and you STILL haven't explained what it is they are being forced to DO.
None of this should be forced. Do you like authoritarianism?
 
yes it is. But read the wording carefully of studies and verify what the often lying pundits say.
VERY often. Even in this thread we've seen a lot of it.

But to debunk that, blanket statements are useless. I think a quote should be required.

I can only guess as to what you mean here. Major publishers refuse to accept some good science because they are not ready to poke the 800 gigaton gorrilla with heracy.
I can only guess what YOU mean. Through all the history of Modern Science some VERY good science has been rejected. Not because it's wrong. But because the proponent fails to prove what they intended. Again, a fine example is Galileo. Yes! "Eppur si muove" is right. But you failed to PROVE it, fella!

It IS akin to "heresy" to publish a paper that does NOT conform to Scientific requirements. But that's the way it HAS to be. For every "good" science that is rejected, hundreds more "bad" science is also rejected. This is why the Method WORKS!



Flaws can always be found in older science as science matures.
"Always"? I know that a math student found a flaw in Principia in the 1990s. But it didn't invalidate the conclusions. Science is not perfect. But if the flaw is so obvious that it doesn't take 300 years to spot, it's a good thing that it's removed.


And you think you do?
Pretty much. I taught epistemology. And I was also in the Committee that approved scientific funding where I taught. As an epistemologist. That was a long time ago, but I still remember most of it.


The climate sciences are far too politicized to work like science is supposed to. If it did, the IPCCC would ve dead.
Science is not politicized AT ALL.. Not one bit. Looks to me like you confuse policies with science. There are workgroups within the IPCC that deal with policies. They are political BY DEFINITION!
 
I meant that they don’t agree with the reflexive libertarian poster trying to pass himself off as understanding science.
Please explain the science I am wrong about. No links about some bloggers lies, but your words. please explain it in a science way. If you are incapable of enunciating it, detailing how I am wrong, then consider that maybe you are making a fool of yourself.
 
None of this should be forced. Do you like authoritarianism?
Do you know what "authoritarianism" MEANS? Why are you constantly using words of which you obviously don't know the meaning? You keep doing that and then ask why I underestimate your knowledge. Please read my sig!
 
It’s here. www.IPCC.ch

And don’t whine that I haven’t pulled out a paragraph for you. If you want to waste your time (I refuse to waste my time on you yet again), just search the document for methane.
Quote the part that in an assessment report, and link the paper they get their information from.

Just saying "IPCCC" shows you do not know squat. That you appeal to authority.

You love your goofy logical fallacies.
 
VERY often. Even in this thread we've seen a lot of it.

But to debunk that, blanket statements are useless. I think a quote should be required.
If yuou understood the science as i do, you would not need me to quote what someone else says.
I can only guess what YOU mean. Through all the history of Modern Science some VERY good science has been rejected. Not because it's wrong. But because the proponent fails to prove what they intended. Again, a fine example is Galileo. Yes! "Eppur si muove" is right. But you failed to PROVE it, fella!
It depends on what the paper is trying to accomplish. Prove huh... If you have read climate papers, you would see they do not prove anything in tangible numbers with adequate error ranges to justify the scares generated by the pundits.
It IS akin to "heresy" to publish a paper that does NOT conform to Scientific requirements. But that's the way it HAS to be. For every "good" science that is rejected, hundreds more "bad" science is also rejected. This is why the Method WORKS!
Are you talking just to talk?
Science is not politicized AT ALL.. Not one bit. Looks to me like you confuse policies with science. There are workgroups within the IPCC that deal with policies. They are political BY DEFINITION!
The climate sciences are very highly politicized. It is the pundits that appeal to the politicians, and the politicians in turn keep the scare scam alive.

Follow the money.
 
Do you know what "authoritarianism" MEANS? Why are you constantly using words of which you obviously don't know the meaning? You keep doing that and then ask why I underestimate your knowledge. Please read my sig!
LOL... the whole network of the AGW scam is authoritarian. they operate in a political manner and ostracize any scientists that disagree with them or challenge them.

You do not research you answers to me regarding this science, unless you call inaccurate talking points research.

If you researched before your answers you would understand the physics, chemistry, and appropriate math. I challenge you to detail how I am wrong about the things I have said.

Why an I wrong about the consensus?

Why am I wrong about RE and GWP?

Why am I wrong about the UHIE affecting meteorological stations?

Why am I wrong about the scientists attempt to take out the UHIE skew impossible to do with any usable accuracy?

Why am I wrong about a multiple decade lag that the changes in ASR take to equalize?

I will bet you cannot sufficiently address any of this without appealing to authority, which it is, because you do not understand how they get to their conclusions.
 
Please explain the science I am wrong about. No links about some bloggers lies, but your words. please explain it in a science way. If you are incapable of enunciating it, detailing how I am wrong, then consider that maybe you are making a fool of yourself.
You said methane is harmless. Im giving you the reference where the scientific consensus says its not.

Not my fault you dont understand the science, and you want me to walk you through the basics so you can dish out your usual bullshit.
 
Quote the part that in an assessment report, and link the paper they get their information from.

Just saying "IPCCC" shows you do not know squat. That you appeal to authority.

You love your goofy logical fallacies.
Again, its pretty goddamn obvious what they say about methane. But you want me to waste even more of my time spoonfeeding you.

And appealing to authority is what one does when discussing a complicated science that you are not an expert in. When you are diagnosed with cancer, you dont consider going to an oncologist an 'appeal to authority'.
 
You said methane is harmless. Im giving you the reference where the scientific consensus says its not.

Not my fault you dont understand the science, and you want me to walk you through the basics so you can dish out your usual bullshit.
The IPCC material is shoddy. They cherry pick.

Explain it in your own words. Show us that you understand what is said and meant instead of using logical fallacies.
 
Again, its pretty goddamn obvious what they say about methane. But you want me to waste even more of my time spoonfeeding you.

And appealing to authority is what one does when discussing a complicated science that you are not an expert in. When you are diagnosed with cancer, you dont consider going to an oncologist an 'appeal to authority'.
Yet you are incapable of enunciating it in your own words.
 
If yuou understood the science as i do, you would not need me to quote what someone else says.
You said "...what lying pundits say" Are you saying that what lying pundits say is science? It's not! And I WOULD require a quote to see if they're lying or not! I'm not interested in your vague generalizations.

Prove huh...If you have read climate papers, you would see they do not prove anything in tangible numbers with adequate error ranges to justify the scares generated by the pundits.
Studies in Climate Science either prove what the conclusion claims they prove, or they don't get published. And, again, the "scares generated by the pundits" are not science. So I'm not interested... You dwell too much on the emotional and on vague generalizations (yet another one here) at the expense of REAL arguments


The climate sciences are very highly politicized.
And they SHOULD be, if we want to avoid the worst consequences of AGW. But here is yet another vague generalization. If you're trying to say that the scientific PROCESS (from the formulation of a hypothesis to publication, for example), or something like that... then SAY it. But be aware that you wouldn't be attacking AGW but the scientific method ITSELF.
 
LOL... the whole network of the AGW scam is authoritarian. ...
Ok. So you double down on using a term you don't understand.


they operate in a political manner and ostracize any scientists that disagree with them or challenge them.
Total ignorance of how science works. What scientists agree or disagree on is IRRELEVANT in Science. The ONLY relevant thing is what they can prove. And the ONLY way to prove ANYTHING in Science, is a study in a peer-reviewed publication.


Why am I wrong about the UHIE affecting meteorological stations?

Why am I wrong about the scientists attempt to take out the UHIE skew impossible to do with any usable accuracy?

Why am I wrong about a multiple decade lag that the changes in ASR take to equalize?
I don't know. Maybe you're not. But, like Galileo, you'll need to PROVE it! AGW has met its burden. You'll need to meet yours! Science is not going to stop and wait for YOU to catch up....
 
You said "...what lying pundits say" Are you saying that what lying pundits say is science? It's not! And I WOULD require a quote to see if they're lying or not! I'm not interested in your vague generalizations.
Almost everything you guys come up with is a lie, like the 99% of the climate scientists saying that we are the majority case of the AGW. That percentage that state that level of influence we have is well under 10%. The 99% includes any scientist agreeing that we have any effect, no matter how small out effect it.
Studies in Climate Science either prove what the conclusion claims they prove, or they don't get published.
And all these papers that the pundits in blogs or the news are never what is claimed in papers. Papers often to an "if we assume" scenario and come up with a set of results, generally based on modelling which is still far from correct. then you have activists cvlaimy that a particular paper makes a claim, that was nothing more than a what if.
And, again, the "scares generated by the pundits" are not science. So I'm not interested...
I agree. it is not science, you the IPCCC is a chronic offender of just that. Being considered the Bible, other organizations follow suit.
You dwell too much on the emotional and on vague generalizations (yet another one here) at the expense of REAL arguments
Have yoiu read any of those climate related threads I started? i get rather specific.
And they SHOULD be, if we want to avoid the worst consequences of AGW.
See, you have fallen for the scare scam as well.
But here is yet another vague generalization. If you're trying to say that the scientific PROCESS (from the formulation of a hypothesis to publication, for example), or something like that... then SAY it. But be aware that you wouldn't be attacking AGW but the scientific method ITSELF.
No, you still will not accept what my claims are. You are in denial of what my points represent. There are exceptionally few papers I disagree with as written, and what the papers can show in science. It is the misinterpretation of the papers that I am against.
 
Back
Top Bottom