Irreversible climate damage is imminent

[DerHoggz]

If you believe that the "free market" will solve a long term, global, social issue, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the "free market" works.

Hey, don't you remember how the free market ended slavery, got rid of child laborers, and granted minorities voting rights? You don't?

 

[Unrepresented]

Hey, don't you remember how the free market ended slavery, got rid of child laborers, and granted minorities voting rights? You don't?

On a global scale, no less!

 

[DerHoggz]

Thanks for seeing it my way... he was performing science now wasn't he? Before the modern scientific method. Which was my point. He wasn't some common layman who just had a thought pop in his head. The flat earth thing was only to point out how the leading scientists of the time marginalized those who did not conform to the desired narrative. You can substitute the Earth being the center of the universe if you like. My point is still the same.

Do you even reading comprehend, bro?

Yes he was performing the equivalent of science for his time and (pay close attention here) he DIDN'T think the Earth was flat. Anyone who did think the Earth was flat was basing it on "common sense" kind of like those who think snow disproves global warming. The same can be said for believers in geocentrism, they had no basis for their beliefs, it was just the way it was to them. A lot of people think heavier things fall faster.

This is why scientists often study seemingly worthless "well duh" things. You can't just think something works a certain way without any basis.

 

[GrumpiusMaximus]

Let me just clarify something.

'Science' is a relatively modern construction. It follows several steps:

Hypothesis
Experiment (or observation - data collection)
Analysis
Conclusion
Peer Review
Publication
Repetition
Theory
Development

I am a 'layman' so if my understanding is wrong, feel free to correct me. The difference between 'Science' since the enlightenment (a big thing that happened in Europe) and before is the idea of the testable hypothesis. Prior to the enlightenment, 'experiments' were not carried out in the way we know today. If they were, they were done in a very different way. The scientific process is specifically designed to look at evidence whose data collection is based upon a testable hypothesis. You then look at the evidence, make conclusions as to whether or not there is a causal basis or a coincidental basis using the data and heavy statistical analysis. At this point, a paper is written, sent for peer review and if the peer review process is passed, then the paper is published in a journal.

At each step of the way, you are actually attempting to demonstrate that the hypothesis is false. Everyone is doing this, from the data collection through to peer-review. After a paper has been published, you usually find others trying to repeat the same data collection process (experiment) to achieve repeatability. If the data is repeatable and reliable then eventually a view might build that it is approaching a consensus. At this point, it's called a 'theory'. A 'theory' is the accepted explanation for phenomena. Theories are liable to change if better predictions can be made using a different model.

For instance, Newton's laws of gravitation work but are superseded by Einstein's theory of relativity - which make better predictions. In turn, these have also been expanded upon and tested. Einstein's model doesn't work at the small scale, so Quantum theory has developed and continues to change almost daily as new models are explored within it.

So no. Whilst ancients may have followed experimental procedures from time-to-time, they were not 'science' as we know it today. The 'four humors' model of medicine was used for over a thousand years and never actually tested. It is only in the last two hundred and fifty years that modern medicine has developed because we started testing hypotheses.

Let me say that again. Sometimes experimental models were used to test ideas but this was never the norm until the enlightenment. It wasn't 'science' as we know it now, more like proto-science. Alchemists were - at best - guessing. Eventually a few of them decided to publish various findings and test them and that is where the science of chemistry begins.

Mathematics is an entirely different prospect. In mathematics you can either demonstrate truth through mathematical means, or you can't. In that respect, it is not quite the same process and it is more cut-and-dry most of the time.

 

[DerHoggz]

Essentially yes. Science was formalized only recently. Earlier people may have done similar, but it was lacking the rigor applied today at the least.

 

[Schlyder]

If you care to comprehend, the point was that some scientists have been discounted by other scientists who claim because of consensus, they are correct. And that seems to be their big proof. "97% of our guys agree" "The debate is over" When you need to make statements like those to support your science, it isn't science.
And when you manipulate data to get the result you wanted, that isn't science either.

 

[Unrepresented]

If you care to comprehend, the point was that some scientists have been discounted by other scientists who claim because of consensus, they are correct. And that seems to be their big proof. "97% of our guys agree" "The debate is over" When you need to make statements like those to support your science, it isn't science.

I don't claim to be a scientist. I do claim that 97% of the people with far better credentials on the subject than you or I disagree with you. You're basically claiming that "only the science I agree with is correct."

 

[Tituscrow]

I don't claim to be a scientist. I do claim that 97% of the people with far better credentials on the subject than you or I disagree with you. You're basically claiming that "only the science I agree with is correct."

Branch....quicksand...?

 

[Schlyder]

That is what your 97% of scientist are operating on. Any scientist worth his salt would happily accept any challenges to their hypothesis and methods of data collection. They would not be hiding data or manipulating it, then say everyone else is wrong.

 

[Unrepresented]

Branch....quicksand...?

:|

That is what your 97% of scientist are operating on. Any scientist worth his salt would happily accept any challenges to their hypothesis and methods of data collection. They would not be hiding data or manipulating it, then say everyone else is wrong.

Do you believe that all 100% of scientists are in one big room, simultaneously conducting one experiment, after which they all write their own independent conclusions?

 

[GrumpiusMaximus]

Science>Politics

That's the difference.

 

[Schlyder]

:|

Do you believe that all 100% of scientists are in one big room, simultaneously conducting one experiment, after which they all write their own independent conclusions?

I believe that the science claimed by the IPCC, that humans are the cause of Climate Change, is weak and hasn't met the rigorous tests required to be proven so.

And when you get scientists who were main players promoting the AGW/CC hypothesis for decades, step away and denounce their previous claims, that only supports further my belief that the IPCC's science is bad.

 

[Unrepresented]

I believe that the science claimed by the IPCC, that humans are the cause of Climate Change, is weak and hasn't met the rigorous tests required to be proven so.

Where did the IPCC accumulate their science?

 

[GrumpiusMaximus]

I believe that the science claimed by the IPCC, that humans are the cause of Climate Change, is weak and hasn't met the rigorous tests required to be proven so.

The science is sound, it's the IPCCs interpretation and use of the science that is less than sound - even if their message is one I broadly agree with.

The anthropomorphic science of climate change is a nearly-consensus view. It's the subtleties of how and when that the IPCC have potentially manipulated - not the fact that it's happening and humans are the cause.

Plus, if you knew anything about science, you wouldn't use the word 'prove'.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

I believe that the science claimed by the IPCC, that humans are the cause of Climate Change, is weak and hasn't met the rigorous tests required to be proven so.

Please feel free to highlight the weak points and issues in interpretation.

Also feel free to carry out your own studies to disprove the claims, under the rigorous testing and peer review as required.

We'll wait.

 

[bolophonic]

No offense to you sir, but I don't really like someone telling me to not "waste" natural resources.



I use what I determine I need or want. I don't "waste" them, although you may think I do. I'm not telling you how to use YOUR natural resources.



And they're not "ours." The resources I pay for are mine and I use them how I see fit.



I'm not "tempted" to use resources, I employ them to accomplish my goals. It's not evil; it's called living and I'm taking it to the hilt baby.



Don't take this as a personal attack on you, I only quoted you because it gives me a point to respond to with my opinion.



Everyone is "wasting" (exploiting) resources for their own purposes. EVERYONE. It's just that some like to tell others to use less, and the rest of us do our thing without trying to control others.



And "global warming" is not going to "disappear overnight" because I start recycling plastic jugs. "Global warming" or whatever you want to call it - "supposed" man-made climate change, will not end because the causes of it are not gong to change. There is currently no substitute for fossil fuels! There is no way to lift a jet off the runway except fossil fuels. There is no other way to transport people and goods how we ALL need them to be transported. There's no other way to produce the food and products, and provide the services that we ALL need and want. Etc. etc. etc. NOTHING SIGNIFICANT IS GOING TO CHANGE in terms of what we're doing nor does it need to. And everyone who clamors for others to "reduce" is using tons of resources, which is the definition of hypocritical. So don't tell others to reduce, just reduce if that's what you want to do, but realize you're still part of your "problem."



Al Gore flies to a Climate Change summit to try and get me to "reduce," and "wastes" more fossil fuel than I will use responsibly in ten years! PREPOSTEROUS!! HYPOCRITE!! And he does it to LINE HIS OWN POCKET$! :scowl:



One more government-subsidized electric train that 99.999% of us don't want or need, or one more government-subsidized green factory that most of us won't benefit from, are not going to offset all the other uses for fossil fuels that we ALL need, want, and are going to continue to exploit... for our own good and respectable purposes.



Increase. Exploit. Recycle (aluminum cans, because they pay for them). And I don't care what the lofty-critical-but-fellow-exploiters think.



:not hiding:

Oh look, Mr. Macho is here with a lesson.

 

[Schlyder]

Please feel free to highlight the weak points and issues in interpretation.

Also feel free to carry out your own studies to disprove the claims, under the rigorous testing and peer review as required.

We'll wait.

It isn't my burden to disprove the claims. It is the burden of those making the claims to prove them so, under the scrutiny of peer review and rigorous testing. Which the IPCC has NOT done.

 

[bolophonic]

.

 

[Unrepresented]

It isn't my burden to disprove the claims. It is the burden of those making the claims to prove them so, under the scrutiny of peer review and rigorous testing

They did. That's why we're talking about them and not the random blogs being presented as rebuttals.

 

[duff beer]

I dont really care about al Gore, but the polar bears are definitely NOT fine!!..neither is any of large mammal on the entire planet that we dont cultivate for food.

Polar bears are doing just fine. In fact, the doomsayers are having a hard time explaining the population INCREASE:

"He added that there are about 15,000 polar bears across Canada’s Arctic. “That’s likely the highest [population level]there has ever been.”

Invalid Link Removed