I thought you guys were "winning"...?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
see post #59
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
"No position" is the default, less than 3% say 'no', 97% say 'yes'
Enjoy your 97% shit ham sandwich
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
No position is default?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
You either have an active position on something or you don't. Having no position could include someone who is ignorant of the facts, has studied the facts but hasn't reached a valid conclusion for any number of reasons, or someone who doesn't believe the valid reasons for having reached said conclusion. Having an active position means you've studied the information and reached a valid conclusion. You've looked at the equation '2 + 2' and concluded it '= 4'. That'd be 97% of publishing climate scientists.No position is default?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Was that a question? If it was, I don't need people to agree with me, unless they are experts.
Why don't you cite some experts?
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
I already did, no need to be dishonest AC
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
reasonevangelist
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure that "i don't know" occurs before both affirmation and negation.No position is default?
Let's take it further back: absence of knowledge and understanding, is the default. Any scientist worthy of his title, knows not to leap to any premature conclusion. It's possible that lots of "trained scientists" (not all, and probably not the majority) are actually flawed human beings like most of us, and can possibly mistake, misunderstand or misinterpret legitimate facts, and arrive at an incorrect conclusion as a result... whereas the "proper" conclusion in any given scenario, may indeed be "no conclusion," due to insufficient data or tests. Some people conclude prematurely... but the interesting thing is how not all premature conclusions are incorrect, despite the flaw in the process of reaching them. A correct conclusion can still be scientifically invalid. Science can correctly refuse to "scientifically conclude," even when the correct answer seems apparent and/or obvious, due to inadequate understanding of How or Why that answer is correct, or the process of arriving at the correct conclusion, having been incomplete, or somehow flawed or compromised.
We can say "gravity exists, and is X" because we can observe a phenomenon that clearly shows that something is happening, and that something has been named "gravity." But from what i've seen, gravity isn't yet sufficiently understood, despite the fact that we have named it and must agree that it exists, regardless of our incomplete and possibly errant interpretation of how it works, and what it actually is.
But, i don't think any sane, competent person will honestly insist that gravity is a myth, and doesn't actually exist.
Similarly, i don't think anyone sane and/or competent will suggest that pollution doesn't exist, or that it has zero relevant impact on the earth and its habitats and inhabitants, or that humans, whose nature it is, to deliberately and purposefully modify their surroundings to better suit themselves, are not doing Anything detrimental that will have any significant long-term repercussions.
But "how much of a problem is this, Really? And who/what is Actually causing it?" Are very important questions, IMO. I think we can reasonably assume several particular culprits... even in the absence of absolutely conclusive scientific consensus.
In the end... does it really matter? Lots of people think it matters, and in many ways it surely must... but perhaps what the earth really needs, is for humanity to become extinct? Maybe if that happens, the earth will eventually self-correct, and after another few hundred million years or so, perhaps another type or types of life forms will evolve and advance to achieve similar or better than what we currently have? And if that is "nature's way," should we intervene and try to preserve ourselves at the cost of preventing yet-untold species from ever existing?
I will still agree that i think we should minimize our detriments anyway, whether it "matters" or not.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
No pad you are doing it again. Of the 12K, 1/3 are are saying it's conclusive. That's not 97%. The 97% represents those who are certain out of the 4K, not the 12K. 97% of 1/3 does not mean that 97% of scientists agree.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
In all seriousness, you should drop that 97% meme pronto.
We already dissected that to disgrace in an earlier thread.
Your attempt to use it as a weapon causes me to wonder if you're that ignorant (science science science!), or just pushing-buttons (I'm leaning towards the latter).
And speaking of Pada,
I'm still waiting for that IPCC explanation on the physics of CO2 and why it's soooooo powerful relative to water vapour. Found it, yet?
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
I'm not convinced of one third saying it's conclusive.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Well, there is a peer reviewed scientific study which concludes that of the scientists with a conclusion regarding climate change, 97% concluded affirmative. So what I did was to link the study (not a meme) and to use it as a citation for the claim that I made.
Sorry if it bothers you. No, not dropping it.
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
You're basing your argument on a guy (John Cook) who was a cartoonist and web blogger, he has no degree in science but watched Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, you are aware of that, aren't you?
Below is an archive of your renown source Skeptical Science.
Cook was so embarrassed, he scrubbed it from the website.
About Skeptical Science
This site was created by John Cook. I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade. I did a Physics degree at the University of Queensland and while I achieved First Class Honours and could've continued onto a PhD, I instead quit academia and became a professional scrawler. Too much doodling in lectures, I think. Nevertheless, I've pursued a keen interest in science and if anything, found my curiosity about how the world works increased once I wasn't forced to study for impending exams.
My interest in global warming began when I drew a cartoon spoof of the TV show 24 that wondered what Jack Bauer would do if Al Gore was President and global warming was the "threat du jour". I watched An Inconvenient Truth for research which I found thought provoking although I didn't know what to make of all the science.http://web.archive.org/web/20080213042858/http://www.skepticalscience.com/page.php?p=3
Last edited:
heckler73
Well-Known Member
And that was one of the studies we dissected. I don't intend on demonstrating why it's nonsense, again. It's too bad you weren't reading when it happened.
You should be able to do it yourself if you actually read the papers, though (not just the abstracts).
After all, that is one of the criticisms for such "reviews of literature". Abstracts can be misleading since they are the "selling" point, meant to suck you into reading the paper. That's another reason why those "reviews of abstracts" are laughable since the scientists involved won't publish their thoughts and opinions in them, saving it for "Discussion of Results" sections.
I can give you a tip, too, for discerning which papers have something conclusive. When reading abstracts, if you see something such as "and we found xxxxx to be accurate to +/- XXXX with a chi-square of XXX," then you can be more sure the study itself has some concrete experiment involved with modelling of hypotheses.
If the paper uses subjective language to imply something in the abstract, it is probably a light-weight piece, if not garbage.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Whoa, hold on dumb shitYou're basing your argument on a guy (John Cook) who was a cartoonist and web blogger, he has no degree in science but watched Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, you are aware of that, aren't you?
Below is an archive of your renown source Skeptical Science.
Cook was so embarrassed, he scrubbed it from the website.
About Skeptical Science
This site was created by John Cook. I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade. I did a Physics degree at the University of Queensland and while I achieved First Class Honours and could've continued onto a PhD, I instead quit academia and became a professional scrawler. Too much doodling in lectures, I think. Nevertheless, I've pursued a keen interest in science and if anything, found my curiosity about how the world works increased once I wasn't forced to study for impending exams.
My interest in global warming began when I drew a cartoon spoof of the TV show 24 that wondered what Jack Bauer would do if Al Gore was President and global warming was the "threat du jour". I watched An Inconvenient Truth for research which I found thought provoking although I didn't know what to make of all the science.
Before I go on, wow you're a colossal tard.
Moving forward...
That webpage is full of garbage and what I linked from it was an article which I did find useful, the article about why a consensus of scientists is worth seeking. The way you describe it as "my renown source" is egregiously deceitful. I used it as a source precisely because it skeptical of the consensus. If a source from the skeptical side bolsters the consensus, how can you call it into question?
Now, for the study, there were 9 authors. The subject of the study however is not climate science, but statistics. It is a peer reviewed study of peer reviewed studies. In essence, it counts other research papers and draws a conclusion regarding consensus. You have yet to cite anything worthwhile from a skeptical source, while I have cited a skeptical source which actually bolsters the consensus. There are several other such peer reviewed studies pointing to a vast majority of relevant experts agreeing that climate change is man made. You're having trouble finding a study that offers anything worthwhile, while I can find studies (plural) which have to count the thousands of studies pointing to man as the culprit in climate change.
reasonevangelist
Well-Known Member
Whoa whoa, hold on... "THE" culprit? As-in "without humans there would be zero climate change?"
I'm not saying humans have no relevant impact, but come on. The universe moves through linear time as matter and energy interact and exchange; of course climate change exists regardless of humanity. Saying humans are *THE* cause of climate change, is a bit much. It's almost as absurd as saying that the universe only exists because we exist to perceive it (which is logically impossible, since the universe existed for billions of earth-years, before the first human or humanoid existed... and probably before any life on earth existed at all).
Also: who says the climate is NOT supposed to be altered by the small percentage of humanity creating the majority of the pollution? Maybe it is? Maybe that's what's "supposed to" happen?
We're basically just microbes processing matter and exchanging energy. We're essentially "the soil food web," but on a global scale. We're moving stuff around, killing some stuff, making more of ourselves, converting materials into other materials, being granted energy, in exchange for exerting it upon our surroundings. Maybe all this pollution is going to become something amazing someday? Maybe we have to irradiate the earth a whole lot in a relatively short time, in order to produce the next important mutation, and among an ever increasing population, so that the best mutant traits have the highest probability of being preserved? I know this must seem bizarre, but none of us can honestly claim to know the "purpose" of all of this, and despite the fact that it seems to be absent of any "purpose," maybe there is one? Maybe there are many? Maybe it's a set of far more simplistic, naturalistic purposes, and everyone is infatuated with science and intellectualism, and over-thinking everything. Maybe we should take a page from reductionism, and simplify everything as much as possible, instead of making everything so complicated?
Just casting some thoughts into the cyber-ether. ^^
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
Talk about a tard, you haven't a clue of what you are reading, quoting or defending.
The 97% consensus crap you've hung your hat on came straight from John Cook of Skeptical Science you idiot.
Skeptical Science is a deceiving name, i guess you haven't figured out that the site is totally pro ACC.
Step on your dick some?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
remember all that stuff about proof and evidence?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
actually, there were 9 authors