• 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?

I've enunciated it in the past plenty of times.

You couldnt catch on the first ten times, so I wont bother with an 11th.
Nope. I can not recall you ever being able to enunciate the science in any way, shape, or form.
 
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.
Ok. This sentence doesn't speak well of your credibility. Who CARES who 99% climate scientists SAY? The ONLY thing that matters is what they can PROVE. BTW, didn't it use to be 97%. When did we convince that other 2%? Never mind.... just a fun fact that the narrative on the Science Denialist side has shifted a whole 2%



I agree. it is not science, you the IPCCC...
Right. Policy is not Science. And much of the IPCC's focus is policy. It only USES science.

I'll skip the visceral nonsense...

No, you still will not accept what my claims are.
I do have a tendency to reject vague generalizations.

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.
I'm against misinterpretation of papers too. So? Does that mean we should start singing kumbaya?
 
Modern Science IS Peer-review. 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. This is one of the main reasons why Galileo is considered the shift from Classical Science to Modern Science. Peer-reviewers don't house-arrest scientists anymore. 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. Many science students and up and coming young scientists have built a name for themselves by pointing out flaws in published studies.

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.
I understands how it works just fine, I also understand how politics has wormed its way into science. I also understand the difference between a hypothesis and proven theory. To PROVE a hypothesis the author must construct n experiment or experiments. So far, that hasn't happened - tests were conducted on very climate models but none get close to the chaotic and complex environment that is our universe.
Real data shows only a minuscule temperature change over the past 150 year - essentially from the end of the Little Ice Age. Maybe you missed the hundreds of failed hypotheses that WERE peer reviewed and generating hundreds of predictions of weather apocalypse - none of which ever happened. In the mid-1970s the scare d'jour was another Ice Age. Than Al Gore got rich saying we only had eight years. The list of failed predictions that were based on peer-reviewed studies would run to hundreds of pages; with not on major prediction even in the ball park.

Here's a little primer on the subject
 
Ok. This sentence doesn't speak well of your credibility. Who CARES who 99% climate scientists SAY? The ONLY thing that matters is what they can PROVE. BTW, didn't it use to be 97%. When did we convince that other 2%? Never mind.... just a fun fact that the narrative on the Science Denialist side has shifted a whole 2%
I'm surprised it isn't 100%, as it should be.
Right. Policy is not Science. And much of the IPCC's focus is policy. It only USES science.
It uses cherry picked science. So many studies get different results, and they use what they can to promote their agenda.
I do have a tendency to reject vague generalizations.
Until someone gives me something specific, why should I be specific?

Have you read my threads on the UHIE, RE & GWP, Evaporation Cooling, or others? They should be specific enough. Care to show anything wrong with my work?





I'm against misinterpretation of papers too. So? Does that mean we should start singing kumbaya?
No, it just means you should verify what a papers says before believing what someone claims what a paper says.
 
The hilarious thing is that LoP claims that he reads papers and says that what people claim they say isnt what the scientist who wrote them says, and in the past I and others have dug up articles or interviews with those exact scientists describing exactly what they mean, he calls them 'pundits'.
 
I understands how it works just fine, I also understand how politics has wormed its way into science
Anybody who understand how science works knows that the first sentence is invalidated by the second.

But even clearer evidence is this....


Maybe you missed the hundreds of failed hypotheses that WERE peer reviewed
Hypothesis were peer-reviewed?

Just like this, the rest of your post is a hodgepodge of words that "sound" as if they had something to do with science... but obviously don't.

Thanks anyway....
 
Anybody who understand how science works knows that the first sentence is invalidated by the second.

But even clearer evidence is this....



Hypothesis were peer-reviewed?

Just like this, the rest of your post is a hodgepodge of words that "sound" as if they had something to do with science... but obviously don't.

Thanks anyway....
Anybody who understand how science works knows that the first sentence is invalidated by the second.

But even clearer evidence is this....



Hypothesis were peer-reviewed?

Just like this, the rest of your post is a hodgepodge of words that "sound" as if they had something to do with science... but obviously don't.

Thanks anyway....
Yes,
Anybody who understand how science works knows that the first sentence is invalidated by the second.

But even clearer evidence is this....
Maybe in some perfect world that would be true - this isn't a perfect world. Some peer reviewed paper attack other peer reviewed papers.
If e
Hypothesis were peer-reviewed?
Uh, a paper is a hypothesis on the topic of discussion - the author is saying here's what I think these data mean.
Just like this, the rest of your post is a hodgepodge of words that "sound" as if they had something to do with science... but obviously don't.

Thanks anyway....
you're not grasping the issue I'm talking about - politics has a big big influence on Climate Science.
 
Anybody who understand how science works knows that the first sentence is invalidated by the second.

But even clearer evidence is this....



Hypothesis were peer-reviewed?

Just like this, the rest of your post is a hodgepodge of words that "sound" as if they had something to do with science... but obviously don't.

Thanks anyway....
Here's the truth on your beloved concensus
 
The original consensus statement is incomplete, let’s review what is missing?
that there is an abnormal increase in the Earth's surface temperature. And that increase is caused mainly by human activity.”
First off there is no time frame stated for the abnormal increase in temperature,is it in the last 50 years, 100 years, or 10,000 years!
Also human activity could be land use changes. Air pollution changes, or possibly changes in greenhouse gas levels. The statement is so vague as to not mean much at all!
 
The original consensus statement is incomplete, let’s review what is missing?
that there is an abnormal increase in the Earth's surface temperature. And that increase is caused mainly by human activity.”
First off there is no time frame stated for the abnormal increase in temperature,is it in the last 50 years, 100 years, or 10,000 years!
Also human activity could be land use changes. Air pollution changes, or possibly changes in greenhouse gas levels. The statement is so vague as to not mean much at all!
Again, the consensus is here- www.IPCC.ch
 
Logical Fallacy: "Appeal to Authority."

From the person who claims time and again that he “knows” the truth regarding AGW because he has “read the articles” and thus considers himself somewhat of an expert in that regard.
 
I explained earlier in this thread why in this case it’s not a logical fallacy.

I see you are refractory to learning, which checks out on many levels.
Then you fail to understand what the term means.
 
Person(s) A claims that X is true.
Person(s) A is an expert in the field concerning X.
Therefore, X should be believed.


The key issue with an appeal to authority is whether it bypasses critical analysis and substitutes deference to expertise for independent verification. In essence, an argument should be supported by evidence, logic, and reasoning, with authority serving as a supplement rather than the foundation of the claim.

 
Person(s) A claims that X is true.
Person(s) A is an expert in the field concerning X.
Therefore, X should be believed.


The key issue with an appeal to authority is whether it bypasses critical analysis and substitutes deference to expertise for independent verification. In essence, an argument should be supported by evidence, logic, and reasoning, with authority serving as a supplement rather than the foundation of the claim.


So says person A.
 
I am speaking of the consensus statement in this thread!
 
Back
Top Bottom