Is it not the case that whatever climate science exists is so tangled up with the IPCC propaganda that it's nearly impossible to unravel them?
@Surasanji No scientist ever said, "The science is settled." That's what priests and dogmatists say.
I'll let the logical fallacy (appeal to authority) slide.
@sda Okay, so prove to me that the majority of scientists say otherwise.
@sda It's only an appeal to authority if the facts don't line up.
@Surasanji
a) science is a democracy? If 1000 scientists say there's no God, but 666 say there is, then there's no God? The science is settled?
b) The hypothesis is that CO2 causes global warming. That hypothesis has never been tested, much less proven. It's up to the politicians asserting it to prove it.
The job of scientists is to be skeptical.
🇳🇱
@sda Except that isnt accurate at all. We have countless peer reviewed journal papers that address the hypothesis that CO2 causes global warming and there is overwhelming consensus in the community that yes, indeed it does. Politicians dont need to prove it, the scientists already did. In fact despite all their natural skepticism they STILL agree with very high levels on consistency, which is rather rare for scientists, further showing how obvious the results from the experiments really were.
@freemo Multiple scientists have left the IPCC in disgust. If you read the reasons they left, you might find some skepticism of your own when it comes to the infallibility of the IPCC.
@sda So? There will always be a few unintelligent people in any group. I would not be surprised if one or two people left in disgust. The numbers are still well below 1%, more than enough to claim consensus.
@freemo Science doesn't care about consensus. It cares about data and observation. Politics is the arena for consensus. Religion is the arena for dogma.
What do you think about the (admittedly dated) BBC video?
@sda Science doesnt care about consensus, but if your going to stand up and claim you have the superior science that disagrees with virtually all scientists in the field, scientists who hae proven countless other things and turned out to be right... well if you want to make that claim you actually have to demonstrate you have the intellectual capacity to be smarter (or at least more correct) than they are.
I dont watch TV, i find its a waste of my time usually, particularly when it comes to science. I prefer to read original research (scientific journals).
@freemo
> if your going to stand up and claim you have the superior science
I don't recall ever having claimed to have superior science. Does anyone actually "have" science? It's an odd phrasing.
Study A may not agree with Study B. Climate model A may omit 3 critical variables while model B may omit only 2. They're both science guessing at which things are important and which are not. My problem is not with the data, or the methodology. My problem is with the rabid and fervent dogmatism. The idea of "settled science" is the idea that science as an exploration of reality is no longer useful. My problem is starting with the conclusion and working the methodology backward to get the "correct" results.
@sda No the models have nothing to do with determining if human caused climate change is real. They are superflous. The sort of science it takes to confirm human caused climate change is more at the high-school level. You simply look at the well established records that show extremely tight relationship between CO2 and temp, then establish the amount of CO2 currently being contributed by humans. Its actually extremely trivial to verify.
The point is if you're going to claim 99.9% of scientists are all wrong then you need to convince me you're smarter on the subject than 99.9% of scientists or have information they dont. You ave done neither.
In all seriousness arguing that human caused climate change isnt real or significant, or to even doubt it, is a bit like questioning if the world is a sphere or not. Its settled science and looks extremely clueless and unintelligent when someone asserts otherwise.
@freemo
> The sort of science it takes to
confirm human caused climate change is more at the high-school level.
Got it. You look at the past and say,
1) Greenland used to be green. Now it's ice. What caused the earth to be warmer before man-made CO2?
2) England used to have a thriving vineyard industry. Now it's too cold for grapes. How was the earth warmer before man-made CO2?
The medieval warm period would suggest that warmer is better. Mankind thrived.
>The point is if you're going to claim 99.9% of scientists are all wrong
Nobody has claimed that.
> Its settled science
Again with the dogmatism. No scientist would ever say that. No intelligent person even remotely connected to science would ever say that.
So, AR.
@sda Those are all easily answered questions.
@sda I'm a scientist, I just said it. I am sure so have many others...
@bigl0af
eugenics is not and never has been a scientific theory. Genetic Theory is a scientific theory, it was settled science and still is. As well it should be.
Some people chose to apply the science in an immoral way (eugenics). You are wrongly mixing up the ideas of morality vs science. Science doesnt tell you what is moral, it doesnt even try to. Thats not its domain.
@sda You are the one asserting that 'propaganda' is making it nearly impossible to unravel the facts. SO.. Prove it.
a) Doesn't matter- not applicable to my question or your statement.
b) The hypothesis is that 'green house gasses' such as CO2 cause a warming effect in the climate. This is easily proven, and has been prove to the point that most climate scientists agree that climate change is happening. It isn't up to politicians to prove a damn thing- it's up to rational scientists to show facts, figures, and trends towards the hypothesis.
They have.
You're the one saying otherwise. So, please, cite your sources.
a) You said "Okay, so prove to me that the majority of scientists say otherwise."
Irrelevant what a "majority" of scientists say. The science is not the the same as the number of scientists who say it. Einstein said something to the effect of "No number of experiments can prove me right, but a single one can prove me wrong."
"most climate scientists agree that climate change is happening"
Irrelevant what "most" scientists agree.
"You are the one asserting that 'propaganda' is making it nearly
impossible to unravel the facts.
SO.. Prove it."
I made no such assertion. I asked a question about unraveling science from propaganda.
Let's pretend for a moment though that I actually did make such an assertion. How would I prove something that I've already said would be nearly impossible to unravel?
Christy quit the IPCC in disgust because they altered his reports. Others' reports were also altered. That's sort of the definition of propaganda. The scientists submit their reports. The political body (IPCC) alters them for publication.
If I thought you'd watch it, even for a laugh, I'd point you to the BBC show that asks a lot of questions about global warming assumptions.
@sda There is literally no question that human based climate change is happening and we are in big trouble if we don't do something. Well educated people all agree, climate scientists almost universally agree that it is happening and it is bad.
It's not impossible at all. In fact, it's quite easy.