An inconvenient truth

[Gone]

Nevermind…...I'm one of "them"... you know, the guys that are paid by "the deep state" to run the world. Go back to your twitter feed idiot

You may be one of "them", I don't know; but you are a shallow person since you apparently want to go immediately into the name-calling game when confronted with an opposing viewpoint. But then again, that's what people like you do. Done with you, pal.

 

[mopar 3 B]

Climate change will last as long as the funding to study it. When day to day weather or even hour to hour weather threw out a day can not be predicted with any kind of accuracy how are we to believe in climate change and the eradication of man.
Life will cease when our creator says it time and not a minute before. We have been warned about prediction and false prophets. Science is proven wrong every day. We are here to be stewards of the earth and have dominion over it. Nothing here has been said of deforestation, the polluting of food and water supplies or the affect it will have on man. These will get us long time before any climate change

 

[Dipstick]

So are you saying anyone who disagrees is wrong?

Anybody who disagrees is merely in lockstep with their side of the political/social spectrum...IOW right-wingers are inclined to agree with their fellow right-wingers and deny that climate change is influenced by humans. Left-wingers, just the opposite but still in lockstep. Free-thinkers draw their own conclusions without being influenced by the opinions of others.

A few minutes on Google search will provide all of the "facts" necessary to support either side of the argument so the point becomes moot.

 

[Jcharger]

Bunch of crap. Where's the proof? You said that the "evidence is pretty overwhelming" and in you next sentence you say that "It is true there is no way to prove it...".

The point was more nuanced than that. Proof is not something that is done in science. Gathering evidence and developing hypotheses is part of science. Testing can be done via experiment and tests are also provided by model-data comparison using independent data.

The consensus of scientists is clear. It is pure conjecture that their conclusions are predicated on them getting money. I argue their conclusions are based on evaluation of the evidence.

Our Forbb community is picking and choosing what to believe and some are picking a small subset of the community that has a clear agenda.

My bet remains with the scientific consensus. If that changes, my opinion will change. But I have greater faith in them than in these others.

 

[Slap Stick]

Anybody who disagrees is merely in lockstep with their side of the political/social spectrum...IOW right-wingers are inclined to agree with their fellow right-wingers and deny that climate change is influenced by humans. Left-wingers, just the opposite but still in lockstep. Free-thinkers draw their own conclusions without being influenced by the opinions of others.

A few minutes on Google search will provide all of the "facts" necessary to support either side of the argument so the point becomes moot.

So "right wingers" can't be "free thinkers"?
Here is the fact...
It cannot be scientifically proven that Man is causing global warming. It is physically impossible to do.
And consensus is not science. That is lockstep-to use your term-with other so called scientists who have a theory they cannot prove through scientific experiments.

 

[Richard Cranium]

Here's a worthwhile read...........

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-unsettling-anti-science-certitude-on-global-warming-1438300982

 

[Dipstick]

So "right wingers" can't be "free thinkers"

 

[MidWestMopar]

Those that are interested in this topic...it's always nice to have a little historical perspective...

 

[Jcharger]

Correct, consensus is not science, but a consensus among people using scientific approaches signals consistency of people reaching similar conclusions from the evidence. That is all the consensus does for me. The evidence is what the science is based on, and I don't think proof is the goal. That is mathematics. Oh, almost forgot. Science isn't politics so right or left doesn't matter.

 

[Dipstick]

Recipe

Ingredients:
One version of Microsoft Office, one version of any video creation software, one version of dogma.

Directions:
Mix all the ingredients and create a presentation that claims to be fact. Post on the WWW and you have "proof" supporting your side of any debate.

 

[mopar 3 B]

Science it only fact till proven right or wrong. Climate change is only a theory and a simulated one at that. In ten years if the simulation pans out or not it will be climate change or something else just as it has always been.
I am still waiting for the great earth quake science clamed to have predicted form past quakes 20 years ago. Insurance made out like bandits on that one.

 

[ws23jrt]

Science it only fact till proven right or wrong. Climate change is only a theory and a simulated one at that. In ten years if the simulation pans out or not it will be climate change or something else just as it has always been.
I am still waiting for the great earth quake science clamed to have predicted form past quakes 20 years ago. Insurance made out like bandits on that one.

Many folks were subducted by that one.

 

[Jcharger]

It was a little longer than 20 years ago and had to do with a guy named Lex, who bought land east of the San Andreas with the plan of making a new Pacific coast. Lucky for us, it didn't quite work out as planned. I think science has: 'facts', repeatedly confirmed observations; 'hypotheses', our explanations for 'facts'; ; and 'theory' which when used in science is more substantiated and broader than hypothesis but still an explanation for observations. Proof of right for something like this is not possible in my book. Proof of wrong, should be possible because one exception means modification. I try to go with the balance of evidence and the broad view of scientists who also use that principle.

 

[Slap Stick]

Correct, consensus is not science, but a consensus among people using scientific approaches signals consistency of people reaching similar conclusions from the evidence. That is all the consensus does for me. The evidence is what the science is based on, and I don't think proof is the goal. That is mathematics. Oh, almost forgot. Science isn't politics so right or left doesn't matter.

Again...consensus is not science. And gw is not based on any proven science based on empirical evidence. It is all man made al(gore)ithms that proves that suckers are born every minute.
Show me just one observed scientific experiment tat actually removes man from the environment.
It can't be done.
Unfortunately these so called scientists are making the issue political.
Real science used observed scientific evidence, not theories, models or consensus.

 

[Jcharger]

I'll repeat because I think you didn't understand "... consensus is not science, but a consensus among people using scientific approaches signals consistency of people reaching similar conclusions from the evidence. That is all the consensus does for me. The evidence is what the science is based on, and I don't think proof is the goal."

What you wrote made it seem like I was arguing otherwise. I think you are stuck on a narrow definition of hypothesis testing and that you will not believe any science unless a perfect control experiment can be run. In some cases that is not possible, so other ways of hypothesis testing are devised. It is a valid way for hypothesis construction and testing and is what has been done in this case.

Does it mean that observations are invalid? No?
Does it mean that they hypotheses are invalid? No.
Does it mean that the most parsimonious explanation for the observations is that warming/climate change is not occurring? No.
Does it mean that human activity is ruled out? No.

The conclusion reached by the majority of climate scientists who evaluate the findings, is that climate change has occurred and that humans have played a role.

There are outliers. You are clearly one of them. But they are the minority.

Are they necessarily wrong? No.
Do I believe their interpretations? No, because they generally twist things, or argue exceptions, and many don't do things in a way that follows logic.

I have my opinion and you have yours. But from what I have seen of the data, my reading is similar to that of the majority of scientists. That climate change is strongly supported by the available evidence and that it is highly likely that humans have played a role in effecting this change.

 

[Slap Stick]

There is NO data because there have been NO observed tests to gather data. It is all conjecture, theory and opinion....consensus.
And how do you know the majority of climate scientists agree with each other?
Are you thinking about the poll asking scientists if they thought gw was real and out of 300 REPLIES 97% said yes?
That is opinion and consensus. Not science.
Notice I said replies to the poll. Most didn't bother replying. 97 % of respondents is not "most scientists".
Show me observed data that proves Man is the cause of gw and then we can talk.
But it cannot be done. Man cannot be removed from the equation.
It like somebody who gets lung cancer. Lets say they smoked. Can it be proven cigarettes caused the cancer? NO. That person may have gotten cancer if they hadn't smoked and its too late to prove one way or the other.
You can say cigs caused it but it cannot be proven.

 

[Jcharger]

Funny? Polls are not part of my argument nor have I argued for proof.

I described the process of evaluating evidence and converging on similar conclusions. The observations (data) form the evidence and first order constraints on physical processes provide a basis for constructing hypotheses which can be tested with models and model data comparisons where the data is independent of the model.

 

[Slap Stick]

Models are man made. They are not science. Models assume gw is man made so any test using models is moot.
How can one evaluate evidence? First you must have the evidence and you won't have that until an observed experiment is run....and said experiment must do what? Take Man out of the mix.
No one is saying there is not climate change. What is being said is there is NO evidence Man is causing it.
Models are just that. Models. Fabricated scenarios.
They are not evidence or data. Theories are just that. Theories. Unproven opinions. There is no, none, observed actual empirical data to back them up.

 

[Jcharger]

I disagree. Models can be a valid part of the scientific enterprise, in part because they can be used to evaluate and ultimately test hypotheses. I also disagree that one needs to take man out of the mix to evaluate the potential role of man on this world.

 

[Cranky]

For how many years have we been keeping records on temp changes? When you look at how long the earth has been around.....a fraction of a percentage point of record keeping? Yeah, there's evidence of drastic changes in temps but geez....imo, we're giving humans way too much credit for climate change. How much dust/junk etc comes in from space and how much of our pollution goes out into space? I know stuff comes in. You know our atmosphere doesn't keep everything in nor everything out. As for fresh oxygen, the more we clear out vegetation and forests, the less fresh oxygen production we have. That right there might have a more profound effect on our atmosphere than anything else we do.