Climate Consensus Con Game

[AFTiger 282]

This entire thread is about how AGW alarmists use the argument that the consensus of scientists support AGW. Dr. Singer says consensus is not science. Without the consensus argument, the entire AGW argument falls apart.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

AF, you realize that there is no science in that statement either, don't you? Just rhetoric and ridiculousness. Show us your science.

[homersapien 11,373]

It's still embarrassing to have such ignorance of the basic issue* displayed by AU grads. I suppose the only consolation I have is the knowledge that AU is no more or less representative than other universities in this regard. After all, many university grads are relatively ignorant scientifically speaking.

* (By basic issue, I refer to the scientific consensus that AGW is real. Most of what you guys are obsessing about are side issues that are merely political fall out from the scientific conclusion it is real. There is a difference, even though you don't recognize it.)

Anyway, I am willing to try to help anyone understand the basic science that lies behind the conclusion AGW is real. On the other hand, it is obvious there is nothing I can contribute to the political discussion that could make a difference.

Peace.

If you had read the article, you would understand that consensus is not science. Your mind is closed to differing opinions thereby demonstrating your ignorance and arrogantly so. Faithfully reciting the AGW mantra is not a legitimate discussion and certainly will not sway those of us with open minds. When you examine the data of Michael Mann et. al. you will discover it is flawed and wrongly concluded. AGW is base on modeling and again if you had bothered to read the article you would know that every model has been badly in error.

Don't feel embarrassed for us. I am not embarrassed by your tiny loquacious mind. I feel pity for your uncurious faith in this new found religion.

No one has claimed that "consensus is science". That is a inane take on the issue. It is sophistry.

Nothing about the case for AGW depends on "consensus". The case is settled by the overwhelming amount of evidence which supports the hypothesis compared to the pitiful case against it. The reason the word "consensus" is used is because, in a practical sense, it appears to be a consensus. That alone is hardly an argument against the science. Just the opposite.

And my mind is not closed to valid scientific arguments. But I do make a distinction between valid scientific arguments and fake ones (such as so called Intelligent Design in a different field). That's not being "closed minded". That's educated judgment.

As for my arrogance, I will plead guilty. But I have limited patience when it comes to suffering fools.

[homersapien 11,373]

All you have to do is go to the home page of the site hosting the article and note the political bias. Or, you can think about the premise of; consensus in science is inherently bad. Or, you can be content in the world believing your political bias provides simple, absolute answers for almost everything.

OK this statement is nonsense. AGW is only political because it is being used to push a political agenda espoused by the left.

That being said, consensus is not science.

So, if the "left" latches on to AGW in order to push a political agenda, does that necessarily mean the science is wrong?

[homersapien 11,373]

Ok...simple questions that has been put forth for those that believe in global warming is man made and we are causing all of these problems and the mass destruction that will befall us:

1. How do you explain why the temperature hasn't risen since 1997?

2. How did the earth go into and out of the ice age? (less people than today and they weren't driving vehicles back then)

3. What is the gas that mostly affects temperature change?

Now some fella on here wanted to help us understand the science...so here is your chance....

See, these are the exact same questions I and others have addressed in previous threads, often extensively.

They all have very elementary responses which I am not inclined to re-generate. (Maybe if I decide to, I'll go back and try to find those previous threads and repeat them.)

Of course, if you are impatient, the answers are (obviously) already available to anyone who is really curious and can understand them.

[homersapien 11,373]

AF, I didn't say consensus is science. However, logic would dictate that consensus by itself can neither prove nor disprove anything. However, the use of consensus opinion as evidence against, is a stupid argument.

Very succinct response. I doubt it will be understood.

[AFTiger 282]

Consensus said the earth was flat. Consensus said he sun revolved around the Sun. Consensus leads to group think.

AF, you realize that there is no science in that statement either, don't you? Just rhetoric and ridiculousness. Show us your science

icanthearyou, your statement is argumentative and without basis. I say again consensus is not science. Science does not need consensus, it only needs to be correct. Science is not up for a vote as you seem to contend. Open your mind and learn.

You have not bothered to read he posted articles and you will not visit this site: http://wattsupwiththat.com/

[AFTiger 282]

As for my arrogance, I will plead guilty. But I have limited patience when it comes to suffering fools.

homer, you must really hate yourself.

I guess we can end the "the science is settled" crap and agree that it is still open for discussion if you are not to embarrassed.

[homersapien 11,373]

Ok...simple questions that has been put forth for those that believe in global warming is man made and we are causing all of these problems and the mass destruction that will befall us:

1. How do you explain why the temperature hasn't risen since 1997?

2. How did the earth go into and out of the ice age? (less people than today and they weren't driving vehicles back then)

3. What is the gas that mostly affects temperature change?

Now some fella on here wanted to help us understand the science...so here is your chance....

There's going to be a whole lot of PRATT in this thread if we start discussing the science of it, but I'll have a go at your questions.

1. Actually, 1998 was supposedly warmer than 1997 and was supposedly a record year. But this illustrates the importance of not cherry picking your data. NASA actually has 2005 breaking 1998's record as well. It's about long term trends. It would take decades of measurement before we could reasonably assert that the warming trend stopped in 1997.

2. The theory is that it's the result of a combination of factors: atmospheric composition, flow of the ocean currents and the effect the position of the continents may have on them, and slight wobbles in Earth's orbit called Milankovitch cycles.

3. Water vapor is the most plentiful greenhouse gas, but it's a bit of a wildcard. It's the biggest contributor to the natural greenhouse effect, but its concentrations are dependent on temperature. The general theory is that the recent warming is a result of all the CO2 we've been producing since the dawn of the industrial era. Estimates suggest it's the highest it's been in 800,000 years.

Thank you Ben.

It's always fascinated me how people bring up the natural history of climate variation as a profound argument against AGW. Don't they realize they exact same scientists who have defined and studied this natural variation are the ones who support AGW? It's a very naive perspective of science.

P.S.: What's PRATT?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

AF, You are very close to crossing over the threshold into outright lying.

Again, no one who thinks, would ever propose the idea that consensus is science. However, suggesting the consensus opinion is wrong merely for being the consensus, is as dumb or dumber than suggesting they are correct merely by being the consensus. This is all meaningless rhetoric. None of this "consensus" talk has anything to do with the science.

[AUDub 11,148]

Ok...simple questions that has been put forth for those that believe in global warming is man made and we are causing all of these problems and the mass destruction that will befall us:

1. How do you explain why the temperature hasn't risen since 1997?

2. How did the earth go into and out of the ice age? (less people than today and they weren't driving vehicles back then)

3. What is the gas that mostly affects temperature change?

Now some fella on here wanted to help us understand the science...so here is your chance....

There's going to be a whole lot of PRATT in this thread if we start discussing the science of it, but I'll have a go at your questions.

1. Actually, 1998 was supposedly warmer than 1997 and was supposedly a record year. But this illustrates the importance of not cherry picking your data. NASA actually has 2005 breaking 1998's record as well. It's about long term trends. It would take decades of measurement before we could reasonably assert that the warming trend stopped in 1997.

2. The theory is that it's the result of a combination of factors: atmospheric composition, flow of the ocean currents and the effect the position of the continents may have on them, and slight wobbles in Earth's orbit called Milankovitch cycles.

3. Water vapor is the most plentiful greenhouse gas, but it's a bit of a wildcard. It's the biggest contributor to the natural greenhouse effect, but its concentrations are dependent on temperature. The general theory is that the recent warming is a result of all the CO2 we've been producing since the dawn of the industrial era. Estimates suggest it's the highest it's been in 800,000 years.

Thank you Ben.

It's always fascinated me how people bring up the natural history of climate variation as a profound argument against AGW. Don't they realize they exact same scientists who have defined and studied this natural variation are the ones who support AGW? It's a very naive perspective of science.

P.S.: What's PRATT?

PRATT

[homersapien 11,373]

Consensus said the earth was flat. Consensus said he sun revolved around the Sun. Consensus leads to group think.

AF, you realize that there is no science in that statement either, don't you? Just rhetoric and ridiculousness. Show us your science

icanthearyou, your statement is argumentative and without basis. I say again consensus is not science. Science does not need consensus, it only needs to be correct. Science is not up for a vote as you seem to contend. Open your mind and learn.

You have not bothered to read he posted articles and you will not visit this site: http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Apparently you fail to make a distinction between consensus supported by superstition and tradition vs. consensus supported by science.

Or perhaps you think consensus has a value of it's own?

[homersapien 11,373]

As for my arrogance, I will plead guilty. But I have limited patience when it comes to suffering fools.

homer, you must really hate yourself.

I guess we can end the "the science is settled" crap and agree that it is still open for discussion if you are not to embarrassed.

Well, there are plenty of people who insist Evolution is still "open for discussion" (in the sense it can be refuted). It's called wishful thinking.

[homersapien 11,373]

P.S.: What's PRATT?

PRATT

Thanks. Very appropriate.

I need to start a file with stock responses to these stock questions. I really like your graph for the "why is the climate cooling since 1997?" Even a complete layman should be able to understand that.

[AFTiger 282]

As for my arrogance, I will plead guilty. But I have limited patience when it comes to suffering fools.

homer, you must really hate yourself.

I guess we can end the "the science is settled" crap and agree that it is still open for discussion if you are not to embarrassed.

Well, there are plenty of people who insist Evolution is still "open for discussion" (in the sense it can be refuted). It's called wishful thinking.

exactly

[AUDub 11,148]

P.S.: What's PRATT?

PRATT

Thanks. Very appropriate.

I need to start a file with stock responses to these stock questions. I really like your graph for the "why is the climate cooling since 1997?" Even a complete layman should be able to understand that.

It's a helpful graph, yes, but it's only up to 2005. I wish I could find one that included the most recent years. It was supposedly warmer in 2010 than 1998 and 2005.

[homersapien 11,373]

AF, You are very close to crossing over the threshold into outright lying.

Again, no one who thinks, would ever propose the idea that consensus is science. However, suggesting the consensus opinion is wrong merely for being the consensus, is as dumb or dumber than suggesting they are correct merely by being the consensus. This is all meaningless rhetoric. None of this "consensus" talk has anything to do with the science.

I think one has to truly understand their own argument before they are lying, which is the only thing you can say in his support. Personally, I think he is more ignorant than deceptive.

At least there is no shame in ignorance, until you start pushing it.

[homersapien 11,373]

As for my arrogance, I will plead guilty. But I have limited patience when it comes to suffering fools.

homer, you must really hate yourself.

I guess we can end the "the science is settled" crap and agree that it is still open for discussion if you are not to embarrassed.

Well, there are plenty of people who insist Evolution is still "open for discussion" (in the sense it can be refuted). It's called wishful thinking.

exactly

So you agree your argument is based on wishful thinking? That's funny (but somewhat confusing).

[AFTiger 282]

AF, You are very close to crossing over the threshold into outright lying.

Again, no one who thinks, would ever propose the idea that consensus is science. However, suggesting the consensus opinion is wrong merely for being the consensus, is as dumb or dumber than suggesting they are correct merely by being the consensus. This is all meaningless rhetoric. None of this "consensus" talk has anything to do with the science.

Then you agree with me and Dr. Singer. So when Al Gore and John Kerry say the science is settled and 97% of scientists agree we can continue to debate the science. Did you miss the title of the thread?

[AFTiger 282]

As for my arrogance, I will plead guilty. But I have limited patience when it comes to suffering fools.

homer, you must really hate yourself.

I guess we can end the "the science is settled" crap and agree that it is still open for discussion if you are not to embarrassed.

Well, there are plenty of people who insist Evolution is still "open for discussion" (in the sense it can be refuted). It's called wishful thinking.

exactly

So you agree your argument is based on wishful thinking? That's funny (but somewhat confusing).

AGW may be based on wishful thinking. Agree?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

It's funny that the global warming zealots now talk about climate change. Typical of the left......when something goes astray, change the name. Everybody agrees on climate change. It's been going on in cycles forever. and no amount of wasted money is going to change that. It will allow for politicians to line the pockets of their friends and even their own pockets in some cases.........can you say Al Gore?

[homersapien 11,373]

As for my arrogance, I will plead guilty. But I have limited patience when it comes to suffering fools.

homer, you must really hate yourself.

I guess we can end the "the science is settled" crap and agree that it is still open for discussion if you are not to embarrassed.

Well, there are plenty of people who insist Evolution is still "open for discussion" (in the sense it can be refuted). It's called wishful thinking.

exactly

So you agree your argument is based on wishful thinking? That's funny (but somewhat confusing).

AGW may be based on wishful thinking. Agree?

Of course not. It is based on a scientific case.

To think the scientific establishment would base a consensus position on "wishful thinking" is delusional at best if not outright insane. Well, at least for anyone with at least a modicum of understanding of what science is.

[homersapien 11,373]

It's funny that the global warming zealots now talk about climate change. Typical of the left......when something goes astray, change the name. Everybody agrees on climate change. It's been going on in cycles forever. and no amount of wasted money is going to change that. It will allow for politicians to line the pockets of their friends and even their own pockets in some cases.........can you say Al Gore?

Actually the climate change is driven by global warming. Unfortunately the term "global warming" implies that all changes resulting from same must involve phenomena that involve warmer temperatures. At least that is the way that the scientifically illiterate would interpret it. (As well as those who are hauling water for the carbon industries like Rush Limbaugh.)

But it is possible for global warming to effect changes that involve colder than normal temperatures in a given location. In other words, it's possible for global warming to produce winter blizzards (for example) in an area that wouldn't experience them without global warming.

This greatly confuses the scientific illiterate so climate change is an appropriate change in terminology that is less confusing and more accurate.

Understand?

[AFTiger 282]

As for my arrogance, I will plead guilty. But I have limited patience when it comes to suffering fools.

homer, you must really hate yourself.

I guess we can end the "the science is settled" crap and agree that it is still open for discussion if you are not to embarrassed.

Well, there are plenty of people who insist Evolution is still "open for discussion" (in the sense it can be refuted). It's called wishful thinking.

exactly

So you agree your argument is based on wishful thinking? That's funny (but somewhat confusing).

AGW may be based on wishful thinking. Agree?

Of course not. It is based on a scientific case.

To think the scientific establishment would base a consensus position on "wishful thinking" is delusional at best if not outright insane. Well, at least for anyone with at least a modicum of understanding of what science is.

Politicians would. And true scientists would not dismiss contrary science as bunk, and sue those who disagree. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/23/breaking-mann-has-filed-suit-against-nro/

[Tigermike 3,027]

As for my arrogance, I will plead guilty. But I have limited patience when it comes to suffering fools.

homer, you must really hate yourself.

I guess we can end the "the science is settled" crap and agree that it is still open for discussion if you are not to embarrassed.

Well, there are plenty of people who insist Evolution is still "open for discussion" (in the sense it can be refuted). It's called wishful thinking.

exactly

So you agree your argument is based on wishful thinking? That's funny (but somewhat confusing).

AGW may be based on wishful thinking. Agree?

Of course not. It is based on a scientific case.

To think the scientific establishment would base a consensus position on "wishful thinking" is delusional at best if not outright insane. Well, at least for anyone with at least a modicum of understanding of what science is.

Please explain what happened to all the data, evidence and "proof" that was manufactured, made up, falsified and just plain lied about several years ago.