Walk me through this. Show me…not fear-mongering; not Michael Mann’s hockey-stick algorithm…but scientific tests, beginning with hypotheses; premises around the staged tests, what is to be proven or disproven with each test, and peer review.
Scientists are not pundits and they are not politicians. Not if they’re scientists. Science doesn’t advocate "DO SOMETHING…NOW!! BEFORE WE…ALL…DIE!!!" Science takes critical premises; formulates them as a testable hypothesis; tests it; translates the result; and then works towards the next hypothesis.
Einstein didn’t start by saying, wWe need cheaper energy, FAST…or, We need to kill people by the millions per device. No, he worked with the Theory of Relativity. And then published his results. Which were then tested in in the first atomic reactor at the University of Chicago.
How different was that research, from the panic-spreading, hair-pulling, of these quack “Climate Scientists.”
I look at it the following way:
A well studied professional, who is an expert in their field, is a significantly more likely to be correct about the topic of their expertise than I am. So if you gather a few thousand of them together and they all pretty much agree on something, I’ll side with them, because that’s the most likely event.
Sure, it’s possible I could randomly speculate about things, luck out and be correct. But those are bad odds. I like to go with whatever is most likely, because that’s how you develop winning steaks. And I like winning steaks. I do not like losing streaks. And people who bet against the smart odds tend to lose more often than they win. Which is why you usually hear them complaining about things more than people on a winning steak.
So I bet on global warming being man-made, because it’s part of my overall process in going with the best odds. That’s a system that has served me well for many years, and I trust the system more than my personal feelings about things. My system has produced very good results for me.
Do you think that I disagree with that statement? If you do, then you need to go back through the three threads I’ve commented on with respect to climate change and tell me where anything I said would lead you to the conclusion that I believe that…
Clearly, you don’t understand what an “argument from authority” is.
An argument from authority is fallacious when the authority says that something must necessarily be true because the authority says so, rather than because of objective evidence that backs up the claims that the authority makes, or when someone claims to be an authority, but in fact is not, or when one (or few) authorities is in disagreement with many others who are authorities.
The claim that grant and research money corrupts scientists, is sometimes true in that people can do things for selfish reasons, but it’s not true with respect to science as an institution which has a method for screening out blatantly false information. This is because conclusions are reached based on a preponderance of data, data that is checked and verified by others, many who don’t know the people of the work they are checking. The “authority” isn’t a single person, but thousands of people across several disciplines in dozens of countries. Even if you could convince yourself that they are all in league with one another, across the globe, you want me to believe that the thousands of new scientists that enter the field every year are all instantly corrupted. That ALL are driven by money and greed and not where the evidence points?
If you believe that, you are, as I said, desperate to create fantasy about a conspiracy theory the world over, across tens of thousands of people, corrupting hundreds of thousands of pages of data per year all so you and others hear don’t have to come to terms with the fact that the evidence and your ideology are out of sync.
An authority cites data of the consensus, but remember that the consensus isn’t true because an opinion is held by a majority of scientists, but because of the data that has been published for all to see, dispute and verify.
You can’t refute the data, so you attack the people that create it. You attempt to undermine an entire field of science because you are uncomfortable with the results that it finds.
Not Fusion Reactors or Battery technology. Both of those things have been going on for longer than modern Climate science, and are at a further stage of development.
Both of those things equally have the capability to be falsified; that’s why we know the British Reactor ZETA didn’t actually achieve fusion in 1957. They thought Fusion was happening due to the production of a small stream of neutrons; which was the stated project goal. But they found Neutrons were still being produced in the reactor even when they weren’t attempting to initiate a fusion reaction. That’s when they discovered the reactor wasn’t hitting the necessary temperature thresholds to produce fusion, and that the neutrons we’re actually coming from electrical fields produced by instabilities in the current channel.
Falsification, is a stage climate science has yet to reach. Ergo, can you establish parameters where you don’t detect Anthropological climate change? This is important to knowing how well your own testing apparatus or protocol works.
> The problem for you and others here is that you deny that science,
I don’t deny “science”; I deny the conclusions alarmists have made from it.
There is no consensus that our current warming is “catastrophic” or will become so. Or that humanity will be better served simply by submitting to centralized, ecological planning vs organically adopting more efficient technology as it becomes viable.
No spin, just reality. I didn’t change my argument at all and I’m not sure to what you refer “two posts ago”. Either way, if you read what I wrote, and I refer to the work ”scientists" as an authority, again I’m really appealing to a body of work. If I were making the argument you claim I’m making, I would be citing the work of a particular scientist, rather than “scientists”.
Ok, so that portion of the post was a bit tongue-and-cheek. I mean, I could Google papers on fusion science and on climate change too see which has the greater number, but you’d remind me, and rightly so, that published papers doesn’t necessarily make a thing more understood. I mean you could write a single paper on any one of Newton’s theories and have more understanding than thousands of papers of climate science or fusion.
Falsification merely means that a claim can be proved wrong. There is little more to it than that. In the case of the basic element of AGW is the idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the theory suggest that in the absence of any other change in the forcings that could explain it, a cooling trend on a centennial scale would be impossible while CO2 concontrations continue to rise at a non-negligible rate. This means that the thoery is falsifiable because there is an observaton (centennial cooling trend) that is excluded by the theory. Of course there could be quibbling about the length of the trend required and the rate of increase of CO2 etc., but the idea of falsifiability assumes that both parties are acting in a rational and fair manner to determine the exact details of the test.
I think part of this idea rests on the idea that climate science is all done with computers creating “models”. But that’s just not the case. There is plenty of observational science that lends evidence to the theory.
Excellent, you are a formidable debater my friend and I’m glad we are in agreement here. As long as we are talking about “alarmists” scientist or not, then I agree. See the bottom of THIS POST, and a little blurb about how I don’t support “carbon credits” in THIS POST. I’m not advocating panic and I’m not aware of “science” as a body advocating panic.
I simply believe there is ample evidence to show that the earth is warming. I believe that there is ample evidence to show that CO2 can trap heat. I beleive that there is ample evidence to show that certain activities carried out by man put a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere and I conclude that that, even if I beleive that the effect of CO2 can’t be quantified (an argument I’m not willing to make here and now), it makes sense to me to limit activities that would contribute to warming, regardless of the cause, again, as long as the limitation of those activities doesn’t put unreasonable stress on our nations economy (yes that is a very debatable statement).
Since there are other negatives that result from burning of fossil fuels, I think it’s a good idea to gradually phase them out. I don’t support panic. I don’t support taxes or other means to force anyone to do anything. I do support government research to find alternatives. As I’ve said, I think Molton-Salt reactors are a good stop gap while other greener technologies can be developed and deployed when they are attractive alternatives based solely on their own merits. Even if you don’t support MS reactors for their "green value, they have a very real and very practical application in that they can reduce the amount of traditional nuclear waste by 100 times. Again, sort of a win for deniers, and a win-win for environmentalists.
Again we agree. I’ve said several times in multiple threads on the subject that man has a predictable habit of overestimating the capabilities and threat posed by his enemies and much can be said for the potential for natural changes.
From the threat posed by ISIS, to deforestation, to running out of oil, to the reduction in the bee population, to the threat that transgender people will harm children in bathrooms, and climate change. All things people worry about to much relative to the real threats we face.
My personal feeling on climate change is, we should take sensible steps to research alternatives, not just for CC as I said, but also for the other benefits it provides. Research should continue on green technologies as well as understanding the ecosystem as it relates to the mechanisms that make climate change. I think that those that support the consensus AND those that oppose it should be funded. I think it would be a great idea if the government offered a certain minimum be guaranteed to skeptics, because the strength of any theory isn’t just in the data that lends evidence to it, but, even more importantly, the lack of evidence against it.