• 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?

Threegoofs said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nope. I can not recall you ever being able to enunciate the science in any way, shape, or form.
 
Lord of Planar said:
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.
Click to expand...
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%



Lord of Planar said:
I agree. it is not science, you the IPCCC...
Click to expand...
Right. Policy is not Science. And much of the IPCC's focus is policy. It only USES science.

I'll skip the visceral nonsense...

Lord of Planar said:
No, you still will not accept what my claims are.
Click to expand...
I do have a tendency to reject vague generalizations.

Lord of Planar said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm against misinterpretation of papers too. So? Does that mean we should start singing kumbaya?
 
Feynman Lives! said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Feynman Lives! said:
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%
Click to expand...
I'm surprised it isn't 100%, as it should be.
Feynman Lives! said:
Right. Policy is not Science. And much of the IPCC's focus is policy. It only USES science.
Click to expand...
It uses cherry picked science. So many studies get different results, and they use what they can to promote their agenda.
Feynman Lives! said:
I do have a tendency to reject vague generalizations.
Click to expand...
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?

Lord of Planar

Thread 'RE and GWP Explained'

RE (Radiative Efficiency) and GWP (Global Warming Potential) explained. I consider both RE and GWP nonsensical metrics for studying the climate system regarding greenhouse gasses. This is because the values are a linearized value between two points on a log curve and grow in error very fast.

RE is seen in the tables as to its calculation. It is the forcing value difference with 1 ppb (part per billion) of gas added. This makes it a slope of the graph between the gas levels and forcing levels of the two points. Because this is a linear slope, it does not follow the log curve, and this...

Lord of Planar

Thread 'Evapotranspiration'

Most of you probably remember me speaking of evapotranspiration. I don't think any of you realize how serious of an influence it is on stationary meteorological station, most of which are close enough to metro areas to be highly influenced.

I have looked and looked. Maybe I'm just not good at searching. All I find is evapotranspiration changes by changing the landscape with things like crops. I have looked for the influence of this phenomena regarding the replacement of the natural landscape with asphalt, concrete, and building.

My searches have yielded no results. Anyone care to help...

Lord of Planar

Thread 'My assumed sensitivity to CO2'

I have pondered this question for some time regarding CO2 sensitivity. I am going to float the idea of a very simple model and it produces a sensitivity of 0.7 degrees of warming for a doubling of CO2.

It's actually quite simple. No complex modeling needed. Not all the variables are linear, in fact there is a fourth power equation involved. The non-linear water vapor feedback is so small that the 0.7 degree result should still hold as a close estimate.

The assumed 1.1 degrees is based on the idea of the atmospheric window decreasing by the 3.71 W/m^2 amount. When you take the TOA of ~240...
  • Like

Lord of Planar

Thread 'Scientific Malpractice by the IPCC'

Now that the AR6 is finalized, I took some time today to skim through it. I know there are people why deny that the IPCC is just a over-bloated agenda driven global government conception, but it continually pouts out cherry picked science to suit their agenda over the nations of the world. They rarely ever lie. They just take the facts of science, and intelligently choose what fits their agenda. I believe this is the correct link to download the AR6 from:

AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch www.ipcc.ch

Here is my first example regarding the misconception.

On...
  • Like

Feynman Lives! said:
I'm against misinterpretation of papers too. So? Does that mean we should start singing kumbaya?
Click to expand...
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'.
 
Bullseye said:
I understands how it works just fine, I also understand how politics has wormed its way into science
Click to expand...
Anybody who understand how science works knows that the first sentence is invalidated by the second.

But even clearer evidence is this....


Bullseye said:
Maybe you missed the hundreds of failed hypotheses that WERE peer reviewed
Click to expand...
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....
 
Feynman Lives! said:
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....
Click to expand...
Feynman Lives! said:
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....
Click to expand...
Yes,
Feynman Lives! said:
Anybody who understand how science works knows that the first sentence is invalidated by the second.

But even clearer evidence is this....
Click to expand...
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
Feynman Lives! said:
Hypothesis were peer-reviewed?
Click to expand...
Uh, a paper is a hypothesis on the topic of discussion - the author is saying here's what I think these data mean.
Feynman Lives! said:
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....
Click to expand...
you're not grasping the issue I'm talking about - politics has a big big influence on Climate Science.
 
Feynman Lives! said:
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....
Click to expand...
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!
 
longview said:
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!
Click to expand...
Again, the consensus is here- www.IPCC.ch
 
Lord of Planar said:
Logical Fallacy: "Appeal to Authority."
Click to expand...

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.
 
Threegoofs said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.​

Argument from authority - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

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.​

systemicsustainability.wordpress.com

Logical Fallacies – The Appeal to Authority

The logical fallacy of appealing to authority arises when an argument relies on the assertion of an authority figure or institution rather than objective evidence, logical reasoning, or verifiable …
systemicsustainability.wordpress.com systemicsustainability.wordpress.com
 
Lord of Planar said:
Person(s) A claims that X is true.​
Person(s) A is an expert in the field concerning X.​
Therefore, X should be believed.​

Argument from authority - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

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.​

systemicsustainability.wordpress.com

Logical Fallacies – The Appeal to Authority

The logical fallacy of appealing to authority arises when an argument relies on the assertion of an authority figure or institution rather than objective evidence, logical reasoning, or verifiable …
systemicsustainability.wordpress.com systemicsustainability.wordpress.com
Click to expand...

So says person A.
 
I am speaking of the consensus statement in this thread!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom