Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[Mofra]

Brilliant, philosophers are now weighing in.

The author of that tripe, John Cook, earned his PhD as a cognitive ******* psychologist!!!!

The citations are listed and linked. Powell 2016 & Powell 2019 are new ones I hadn't encountered before.

 

[Corpuscles]

That 97% figure of scientific consensus based on the 2013 Cook paper?
Digging deeper, it may actually under-represent the consensus.

The Logic of Science

thelogicofscience.com

And further

A sample of 10,546 articles written by sports journalists concerning AFL football in 2019, it was found that only 2% of them expressed criticism of the code and the game in general.

Who woulda thunk it!?

PS I don't read many articles but I reckon I have found more negative articles (scientific journal) than that bloke claims to have found. Just because most don't directly state, that it definitely is not humans , doesn't mean they dispute the extent of , and main driver of, climate change

 

[Snake_Baker]

Feel free to provide your explanation, but I'm reading this within the article stating:

I did.

What the article & research does provide is that the prediction modelling is seriously flawed,..........

The article also outlined that sulfuric acid, ammonia, amines and organic aerosols, in conjunction with cosmic rays, facilitate one third the nucleation events that lead to cloud formation (this IS significant).

The phrase "narrow the variation in projected global temperature rise" is consistent with my first comment - namely, the modelling will improve so scientists will better be able to model the 'projected global temperature rise'. The article expects 1.5-4.5c projection range will narrow.

OK, I see how you arrived at that conclusion. The article does make the claim of "narrowing" variation as an implied factor in correlation with existing modelling, but of course, adding an entirely new different factor that seriously impacts cooling, cannot strictly imply that any new resulting data would stay between these parameters.

I supports the premise that the modelling could be improved which is somewhat consistent with your argument, but not the conclusion that the entire modelling process is garbage.

It has some short term benefit, but virtually zero value beyond that.

If the scientific community are using the best available model they have, and then discover there is a better method of modelling, that's something to be applauded.

Of course, I agree, and for all I know the current factors might end up being ratified by better science, but right now it's fortune telling mixed up with a lot of political pollution.

 

[Snake_Baker]

If MA classics can (and you quote him in your defence lol), why can't a psychologist? Funny how you pick and choose who is 'qualified' to comment and who isnt... same old theoretical physics bs you played with me in the other thread, never change Snakey, keep quoting a few more tinfoil hatters out there claiming everyone else is in a mass conspiracy against the world.

 

[mcnulty]

And further

A sample of 10,546 articles written by sports journalists concerning AFL football in 2019, it was found that only 2% of them expressed criticism of the code and the game in general.

Who woulda thunk it!?

PS I don't read many articles but I reckon I have found more negative articles (scientific journal) than that bloke claims to have found. Just because most don't directly state, that it definitely is not humans , doesn't mean they dispute the extent of , and main driver of, climate change

Actually I doubt you’d find too many journalists who haven’t been critical of aspects of the game over the journey, and of the AFL heirachy.

Gee that’s a stupid analogy.

 

[Total Power]

just exposing you for the hypocrite that you are. What is wrong with a psychologist expressing his opinion while you quote a high school failed idiot time and time again through his blog? You always pick and choose what is science and who is credible, this is your problem, hence you fail in every single thread.

 

[Snake_Baker]

just exposing you for the hypocrite that you are. What is wrong with a psychologist expressing his opinion while you quote a high school failed idiot time and time again through his blog? You always pick and choose what is science and who is credible, this is your problem, hence you fail in every single thread.

Okay, you have had your 5 seconds of fame. Fevered ego has been fed. Chopraism re-established. Now * off and cease boring people to death.

Moving on................now if Cern's CLOUD research holds up well IN THE LABORATORY, then putting on my scientist cap, we can start looking at the factors required to engineer cloud seeding.

 

[Mofra]

And further

A sample of 10,546 articles written by sports journalists concerning AFL football in 2019, it was found that only 2% of them expressed criticism of the code and the game in general.

Who woulda thunk it!?

PS I don't read many articles but I reckon I have found more negative articles (scientific journal) than that bloke claims to have found. Just because most don't directly state, that it definitely is not humans , doesn't mean they dispute the extent of , and main driver of, climate change

Care to post some? A few? Genuinely interested how prevalent they are.

 

[Total Power]

my scientist cap.

You mean this one?

 

[Mofra]

Moving on................now if Cern's CLOUD research holds up well IN THE LABORATORY, then putting on my scientist cap, we can start looking at the factors required to engineer cloud seeding.

We have quite the history of cloud seeding in Australia. The CSIRO first trialled it in 1947.
The new Liberal Premier in Tassie has already vowed to stop it.

 

[Snake_Baker]

The new Liberal Premier in Tassie has already vowed to stop it.

Ahhhhhhhhh........politicians.

******* up science for millennia.

 

[Grin]

You have failed the most basic tenet of science philosophy.

Lack of objectivity exposed and corresponding opinions have now been deemed worthless.

You sound just like an anti vaxer
Sorry mate, you've been taken in by conspiracy theories that you really, really want every one else to believe. It must be so frustrating that the only people who do are mindless Murdoch drones.

 

[Clems Knee]

And further

A sample of 10,546 articles written by sports journalists concerning AFL football in 2019, it was found that only 2% of them expressed criticism of the code and the game in general.

Who woulda thunk it!?

PS I don't read many articles but I reckon I have found more negative articles (scientific journal) than that bloke claims to have found. Just because most don't directly state, that it definitely is not humans , doesn't mean they dispute the extent of , and main driver of, climate change

You made up the statistics about sports journalists. Every ex footballer likes to carry on about how the game was tougher, more skilful, more exciting in his day.
I reckon that you have made up how many scientific journals you’ve read. A climate denier blog is not a scientific paper.

From what I’ve read, the argument is about small details. Pseudo-scientists like to latch onto the small details and claim that human action (or carbon dioxide if they have been funded by the fossil fuel industry) have not caused the major and rapid changes we are currently undergoing.

 

[Snake_Baker]

You sound just like an anti vaxer
Sorry mate, you've been taken in by conspiracy theories that you really, really want every one else to believe. It must be so frustrating that the only people who do are mindless Murdoch drones.

You simply cannot be reading my dozens of posts on this matter and making this conclusion based upon any sound logic.

Your political branding sums up your value to this discussion. YOU are the true generic thinker.

 

[Total Power]

You sound just like an anti vaxer
Sorry mate, you've been taken in by conspiracy theories that you really, really want every one else to believe. It must be so frustrating that the only people who do are mindless Murdoch drones.

He is mad at me cause i exposed some of his sources and he claims i don't wish to discuss the subject, yet he objects to a psychologist giving his thoughts while quoting a UKIP conservative politician in his defense (as a "scientific paper") just 10 pages ago. There is nothing to see here, he is doing the exact same thing what accuses the other side of doing. Move on

 

[Snake_Baker]

Every ex footballer likes to carry on about how the game was tougher, more skilful, more exciting in his day.

It was tougher and more skillful in some aspects, and definitely more exciting.

From what I’ve read, the argument is about small details. Pseudo-scientists like to latch onto the small details and claim that human action (or carbon dioxide if they have been funded by the fossil fuel industry) have not caused the major and rapid changes we are currently undergoing.

Question: Are you a scientist..............or psuedoscientist?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Question: Are you a scientist..............or psuedoscientist?

 

[Corpuscles]

Actually I doubt you’d find too many journalists who haven’t been critical of aspects of the game over the journey, and of the AFL heirachy.

Gee that’s a stupid analogy.

The point is that if you are looking at scientific articles, about climate change written by people who are looking at an aspect of climate change then :
1. The article may not be addressing the matter of whether it is caused by humans or Co2 emissions
2. Those likely to be written by advocates of anthropomorphic CC ( people who are employed to investigate and prove it), are likely to be far greater in number.
3. As stated the negative ones are not necessarily coming to a complete definitive declaration.

I wonder how many are written that highlight that the CC modelling is currently totally inadequate.
Did the survey include those as negative? Obviously not.

Kapish?


Sorry it wasn't about footy , only a few months to go!

 

[Snake_Baker]

...........As stated the negative ones are not necessarily coming to a complete definitive declaration.

Kapish?

Good luck getting that through the skulls of the black & whites.

 

[mcnulty]

The point is that if you are looking at scientific articles, about climate change written by people who are looking at an aspect of climate change then :
1. The article may not be addressing the matter of whether it is caused by humans or Co2 emissions
2. Those likely to be written by advocates of anthropomorphic CC ( people who are employed to investigate and prove it), are likely to be far greater in number.
3. As stated the negative ones are not necessarily coming to a complete definitive declaration.

I wonder how many are written that highlight that the CC modelling is currently totally inadequate.
Did the survey include those as negative? Obviously not.

Kapish?


Sorry it wasn't about footy , only a few months to go!

So it was a stupid analogy?

 

[Corpuscles]

You made up the statistics about sports journalists. Every ex footballer likes to carry on about how the game was tougher, more skilful, more exciting in his day.
I reckon that you have made up how many scientific journals you’ve read. A climate denier blog is not a scientific paper.

From what I’ve read, the argument is about small details. Pseudo-scientists like to latch onto the small details and claim that human action (or carbon dioxide if they have been funded by the fossil fuel industry) have not caused the major and rapid changes we are currently undergoing.

"You made up the statistics about sports journalists."

Congrats! Give yourself a pat on the back ! Genius!

"Every ex footballer likes to carry on about how the game was tougher, more skilful, more exciting in his day."

What in every article they write? Give yourself a few light slaps.

 

[Corpuscles]

So it was a stupid analogy?

Yes, far too stupid for you to understand!

 

[Mofra]

The point is that if you are looking at scientific articles, about climate change written by people who are looking at an aspect of climate change then :
1. The article may not be addressing the matter of whether it is caused by humans or Co2 emissions
2. Those likely to be written by advocates of anthropomorphic CC ( people who are employed to investigate and prove it), are likely to be far greater in number.
3. As stated the negative ones are not necessarily coming to a complete definitive declaration.

I wonder how many are written that highlight that the CC modelling is currently totally inadequate.
Did the survey include those as negative? Obviously not.

Science and the Public Part 3: A Scientific Consensus is Based on Evidence, not Peer Pressure and Adherence to Dogma

In this post, I am going to debunk an argument that is very commonly used by the anti-science movement. Namely, the argument that scientists merely go along with the accepted dogma of their field a…

thelogicofscience.com

In this post, I am going to debunk an argument that is very commonly used by the anti-science movement. Namely, the argument that scientists merely go along with the accepted dogma of their field and either refuse to consider contrary evidence, or even if they realize that their position is flawed, they refuse to speak up for fear of being rejected by the scientific community. I have frequently heard claims such as, “many scientists realize that global warming isn’t true, but they keep quiet because if they spoke up they would be ridiculed by their peers and might lose their job.” This argument generally appears either in an attempt to persuade people not to trust scientists or as a response to the dilemma presented by the fact that there is enormously strong agreement among scientists on issues such as global warming, vaccines, evolution, etc. In either form, it is horribly, horribly flawed. In the former situation, it commits both the ad hominem and question begging fallacies, and in the later, it commits the ad hominem and ad hoc fallacies. These are the same logical fallacies committed by the conspiracy argument (see Part 2). These arguments attack the scientists, rather than their results (ad hominem).

Further, there is no evidence to support them, and they wouldn’t be believed by anyone who wasn’t already convinced that the scientific results were false (question begging/ad hoc fallacy depending on context). So I could really stop right here. Anyone who says that you shouldn’t believe scientists because they are either involved in a conspiracy or are simply refusing to accept contrary evidence is not following the rules of logical analysis and you shouldn’t listen to a word they say. Nevertheless, I will explain the problems with this argument in more detail.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I'm still waiting to find out if Clem the scientific authority is an actual scientist or not.

He'd want to have won a few Nobel Prize's based upon his ability to discern scientists from psuedoscientists on an internet discussion board.

 

[mcnulty]

Good luck getting that through the skulls of the black & whites.

Yeah, but what would Monckton say

Yes, far too stupid for you to understand!

Far to stupid for even a Luddite dribbler like you. Which is why I was a little surprised.