"The Science is settled", and other fairy tales

[Dr Kynes]

No it's not only limited to the US - But you're right, concensus is democracy not science.

1) i never argued that science was decided by consensus, that was claimed by my esteemed opponent when he asserted that everybody except americans believes in global warming, and implied it was due to the disinformation campaign and insanity of a few clowns from fox news.

2) the list was not put forth to establish that there is or ios not consensus on global warming it was merely there to refute the "only americans (presumably ignorant fox news viewers) question the orthodoxy" assertion, when in fact russia and india have both withdrawn from the ipcc over mishandling of their data and misrepresentations of fact.

3) the presence or lack of consensus does not settle the global warming issue, and in fact the various estimates of geological and man made emission of co2 remains a matter of debate with some extremely wide variations in some cases on orders of magnitude.

4) if the levels of co2 (presumably the mechanism causing global warming) has not yet been ascertained, then how can the effects or even the existence of global warming be sufficiently settled to make it "fact"

5) and the problem still remains, many qualified and intelligent people in the feild of climatology and geology are still not sure if the phenomenon is caused by man, or if it is part of a continuing natural cycle. it's certainly not time to start making soyylent green and instituting a china-style one child policy and mandatory abortions.

6) there is too much shenanigans goin on in the global warming issue for me to trust the press and the cassandras since they are all cashing checks as fast as possible for anything they can slap the global warming label on. example: al gore.

 

[echelon1k1]

1) i never argued that science was decided by consensus, that was claimed by my esteemed opponent when he asserted that everybody except americans believes in global warming, and implied it was due to the disinformation campaign and insanity of a few clowns from fox news.

2) the list was not put forth to establish that there is or ios not consensus on global warming it was merely there to refute the "only americans (presumably ignorant fox news viewers) question the orthodoxy" assertion, when in fact russia and india have both withdrawn from the ipcc over mishandling of their data and misrepresentations of fact.

3) the presence or lack of consensus does not settle the global warming issue, and in fact the various estimates of geological and man made emission of co2 remains a matter of debate with some extremely wide variations in some cases on orders of magnitude.

4) if the levels of co2 (presumably the mechanism causing global warming) has not yet been ascertained, then how can the effects or even the existence of global warming be sufficiently settled to make it "fact"

5) and the problem still remains, many qualified and intelligent people in the feild of climatology and geology are still not sure if the phenomenon is caused by man, or if it is part of a continuing natural cycle. it's certainly not time to start making soyylent green and instituting a china-style one child policy and mandatory abortions.

6) there is too much shenanigans goin on in the global warming issue for me to trust the press and the cassandras since they are all cashing checks as fast as possible for anything they can slap the global warming label on. example: al gore.

While I stronly disagree with almost all of your viewpoints, we are in agreement on this issue. Concensus is NOT science. I was mearly pointing out that the term "concensus" should have no place in scientific discussion.

 

[Dr Kynes]

While I stronly disagree with almost all of your viewpoints, we are in agreement on this issue. Concensus is NOT science. I was mearly pointing out that the term "concensus" should have no place in scientific discussion.

this is however the first last and only resort of the global warming alarmists.

any refutation of their claims results in either

A) 99% of those qualified to hold an opinion agree, so youre outvoted.

or

B) but science is not decided by consensus so any dissenting opinion is invalid!!

in this case we get both!

 

[Dr Kynes]

While I stronly disagree with almost all of your viewpoints, we are in agreement on this issue. Concensus is NOT science. I was mearly pointing out that the term "concensus" should have no place in scientific discussion.

also... i firmly believe hunting children for sport is wrong! *


your disagreement makes you a monster!











































* children should only be hunted for food and trophies.

 

[echelon1k1]

also... i firmly believe hunting children for sport is wrong! *


your disagreement makes you a monster!

* children should only be hunted for food and trophies.

We put a stop to that a long time ago here. That is now solely the domain of the dingo...

 

[abandonconflict]

Human activity has tipped a balance and continues to do so.

The change will become more drastic before people stop fucking the planet.

Too bad we have no planet B.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Human activity has tipped a balance and continues to do so.

The change will become more drastic before people stop fucking the planet.

Too bad we have no planet B.

nothing's stopping you from doing your part for the planet...

 

[canndo]

not true at all.

volcanic and geological Co2 release is significant, but is relegated to the "baseline" because it is unavoidable, uncontroillable and inescapable.

without geological co2 releases co2 levels would be dropping due to photosynthesis and co2 sequestering by coral growth and whatnot. without human co2 emissions co2 levels in the atmosphere would hold steady or very gradually drop.

the fact remeains that between geology microbial action and other "natural" sourtces of co2 human co2 emissions are pretty small, but since co2 levels ARE rising ever so slowly, and we cant stop swamps from decomposing dead plant material or prevent the earth from offgassing, or prevent termites from farting, human co2 sources are the only thing in our control.

the numbers:

human sources of co2: 29 gigatonnes per annum on average in 2009.
"natural" sources: 750 gigatonnes per annum on average in 2009.

source: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7.html

the importance of the tiny increase in global co2 levels and it's possible effects are the bone of contention, but the fact remeains "natural" co2 production exceeds human co2 production by an enormous margin, and thats a FACT.

the reason the 1970's global ice age scare is relevant is because the SAME people who were making that claim are making this new claim, using the SAME evidence to sell two fundamentally different hypotheses, theres one guy in paarticular who's name is escaping me, but in the 70's he was shouting from the rooftops, going on network tv and predicting a frosty doom for us all within 30 years, then just a few years later he started shouting an opposite doomsday scenario with even less cause.

if the climate clowns want people to take your ideas seriously, how about NOT using fabrications and lies to bolster their claims?

when the fabrications are revealed it undermines their position and makes people angry, and as a result a great deal of anger is also leveled at the cassandras who repeat the lies based on their trust of the climate clowns and their shitty "science"

also, consensus still does not make for scientific fact. we cant all vote for mars to have a breathable atmosphere and expect the universe to comply.

At issue are VOLCANIC emssions, not "natural" emissions such as oh, say the decomposition of all matter. You seem to have changed the argument, I am still not incorrect in my statement.

 

[canndo]

Ok, I'll put this to bed.
The driving force behind weather on earth is the sun.
The solar maximum(cycle 24) is significantly weak, thus far, compared to what was expected.
The atmosphere is shrinking because our ionosphere is not receiving solar particles which causes it expand.
Its not global warming or cooling, its extreme weather change. The earth is reacting to a different solar interaction right now.
I agree that we pollute too much, for our own sake, but as far as the planet is concerned were insignificant.
Thats my two cents.

Yah, right. So six BILLION large mamals with oposable thumbs and a penchant for changing vast tracts of their environment have no effect upon that environment. Nevermind that we have two plastic "sargaso seas" the size of texas filled with swirling masses of human flotsom. Never mind that we can detect DDT in the ice at the poles, Mercury in the fat of seals, lead in iceflows and - medical waste washing up on every shore in the world. No, it is very convenient for us to claim that we don't and can't have an effect on the planet, it is just too big so we really don't have to clean up after ourselves - hell GOD will do it one of these days anyway right?


The very fact that we have the ability to wipe out the majority of all life on the earth makes us far less than.. insignificant.

 

[ChesusRice]

At issue are VOLCANIC emssions, not "natural" emissions such as oh, say the decomposition of all matter. You seem to have changed the argument, I am still not incorrect in my statement.

You are outmatched
The Koch brothers and the Right have entire Zombie hoards ready to repost propaganda and misinformation all over the internet for their own self interest.
Forget about changing minds. Anti Climate change people wont hear of it.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

You are outmatched
The Koch brothers and the Right have entire Zombie hoards ready to repost propaganda and misinformation all over the internet for their own self interest.
Forget about changing minds. Anti Climate change people wont hear of it.

Classic case of protection.

 

[cannabineer]

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Totally for spontaneous use, huh?

 

[RyanTheRhino]

Totally for spontaneous use, huh?

naw just for those extra rank girls

 

[RyanTheRhino]

As far as global warming , the sun is not in a controlled burn it is sporadic.

I still believe the sun spot theory

 

[BadDog40]

I think the whole thing is hooey too. Scientists say the cause is CO2. It's a green house gas. Yet, water vapor is the most abundant, not CO2.

Did you also see the: "rather than a direct result of industrialization," " water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly
measured and understood," and " However,
huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop."

Translation: "we have no idea what's going on, but please pay global scaring taxes!"

Gosh ... the advantages of being brainwashed by FAUX NOISE and Company. You obviously regarded advanced education as a bother that was not worth the trouble.

The educated community has spoken. The fact that you are too stupid to understand the message does not in any way diminish the validity of the message.

 

[cannabineer]

Totally for spontaneous use, huh?

I illustrated your post. cn

 

[UncleBuck]

it's not.

you may pretend it is, but it is NOT.

or are you suggesting that all these guys are american?

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/un-signatories.html

see i dont usually copy/paste but you ignored my previous comment regarding the international groundswell against climate othodoxy, so this should open your eyes a little if you bother to look.
​

​

lol.

social scientists. physicists.

you suck kynes.​

 

[UncleBuck]

As far as global warming , the sun is not in a controlled burn it is sporadic.

I still believe the sun spot theory

why was 2010 among the hottest years ever despite solar irradiance being in a lull?

 

[Dr Kynes]

At issue are VOLCANIC emssions, not "natural" emissions such as oh, say the decomposition of all matter. You seem to have changed the argument, I am still not incorrect in my statement.

herp a derp.

the actual levels of co2 being released on average world wide by geysers, sinks, fumaroles, hot springs, volcanoes, black smoker volcanic vents etc is still not fully understood.

the estimates range from a few megatonnes to HUNDREDS of gigatonnes every year. and it is always changing.

as such you may CLAIM to be correct, but you cannot BE correct until you can tell me how much co2 is released by geological action in a given year, and compare that to the estimates of between 28 and 35 gigatonnes from human action.

the citation i offered first was from the IPCC, and you didnt want to touch that with a ten foot pole, so now youll simply declare it's non-sequitor because they didnt offer the breakdown you wanted.

they didnt offer a breakdown because the numbers would not add up. the numbers do NOT add up.

thats why india and russia withdrew in protest, because both countries sent data, and when the ipcc published, the data from russia and india had been "optimized" by orders of magnitude to make the numbers look scary.

but you dotn want to hear that. you want to gish gallop your way through a mountain of differing claims, and any attempt to refute one of the claims is taken as an admission that all the other claims MUST BE TRUE!

very much like dnaprotection and his "GMO Dope" conspiracy theory.

a thousand wild claims, and if i dont refute them all im working for the kocj brothers in a plot to steal your dope and touch your dick.