• 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!

Why I'm a "denier"

AProudLefty said:
If they are wrong, they would know. That's the point.
Click to expand...

No. The point is they wouldn't.

“The man who is striving to solve a problem defined by existing knowledge and technique is not, however, just looking around. He knows what he wants to achieve, and he designs his instruments and directs his thoughts accordingly. Unanticipated novelty, the new discovery, can emerge only to the extent that his anticipations about nature and his instruments prove wrong. . . . There is no other effective way in which discoveries might be generated.”
― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
 

Odd that millions of scientists are wrong but a few scientists are right.
 
Jack Hays said:
At present melt rate, 99% of ice present in Greenland in 1900 will still be there in 2100.
Click to expand...

... if the ice sheet doesn't collapse. And as the planet warms, the melt rate will increase.
 
AProudLefty said:
:lamo
Click to expand...

Aliens Cause Global Warming

Thursday, January 31st, 2019

By Michael Crichton
Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003


". . . There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor — southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result — despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology — until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2 . Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. . . ."
 

Good author. Loved his books and movies.
 
Jack Hays said:
Harvard MD. Invited by Caltech to deliver one of their most prestigious lectures.
Click to expand...

Cool.

Those cases Michael mentioned were resolved quickly. It seems odd that the "myth" of AGW persisted for decades with no resolution.
 
Jack Hays said:
We shall see. Regardless, the ice sheet will be robust throughout the 21st century.
Click to expand...

Scientists give themselves a large margin of error when making big predictions and try to present as much data as possible. You would be wise to do the same.
 
AProudLefty said:
Cool.

Those cases Michael mentioned were resolved quickly. It seems odd that the "myth" of AGW persisted for decades with no resolution.
Click to expand...

Actually, it only goes back to 1995. Please see the book Searching for the Catastrophe Signal by Bernie Lewin. Here's a discussion.

[h=2]Manufacturing consensus: the early history of the IPCC[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on January 3, 2018 by curryja | 385 comments[/FONT]
by Judith Curry Short summary: scientists sought political relevance and allowed policy makers to put a big thumb on the scale of the scientific assessment of the attribution of climate change.
 
distraff said:
Scientists give themselves a large margin of error when making big predictions and try to present as much data as possible. You would be wise to do the same.
Click to expand...

99.7% of the 1900 ice sheet is still present in 2020. I'm comfortable with the margin.
 

So 25 years.
 
Jack Hays said:
99.7% of the 1900 ice sheet is still present in 2020. I'm comfortable with the margin.
Click to expand...

You aren't accounting for ice sheet collapse or change in melting rate due to change in temperature.
 

What matters is the average temperature over decades not extreme weather on some days. Every year, some places will get record lows on some days and record highs on others. Warming temperatures don't eliminate record lows. They only reduce the number of record lows relative to record highs.
 

I'm not worried.

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[h=1]Greenland retained 99.7% of its ice mass in 20th Century!!![/h][FONT=&quot](Featured image borrowed from Free Cliparts - ClipArtBest) Naturally, the Real Clear Science headline actually read… Greenland Lost 9 Trillion Tons of Ice in Century Which sounds even more serious than the original headline… Greenland has lost 9,000 billion tons of ice in a century One would think that the fact that 99.7% of Greenland’s ice sheet survived the…
[/FONT]
December 30, 2015 in Alarmism, Climate News, Greenland ice sheet, John Cook.
 
Jack Hays said:
I suggest you review the link in #121.
Click to expand...

And again, that rate is going in increase with warming, and is going to be a lot bigger if the ice sheet fully or partially collapses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…