SoAMadDeathWish

Well, I and most other people have never read Newton's Principia, but that doesn't mean that we are not justified in believing in the laws of mechanics, nor that we have to accept Newton's claims on faith. Do you even understand why scientific authority is authoritative? No, I'm not going into this on faith. My local library has a wonderful little textbook called Global Physical Climatology by Dennis L. Hartmann, which is an excellent advanced introduction to climatology and AGW. Nobody here has presented a single bit of evidence that supports it, only the assertions that there are thousands of papers which do support it and none which don't, coupled with the admission that the asserter has read none of the papers herself and doesn't know enough about the science to understand the papers she hasn't read. Ellen Ummm.... actually yes I have. First of all, I pointed to the fact that just about every climate research organization on Earth supports AGW. Secondly, I'm also referring you to a nice little book that is accessible to anybody who can do differential equations. The fact that you choose to bury your head in the sand and simply ignore all scientific research on AGW doesn't mean it doesn't exist. All you have to do is look at publications by actual climatologists to see that it does. Meanwhile, you have failed yet again to present any data which contradicts AGW. It's simple. If AGW isn't real, then why can't you find even a single reputable source which refutes it?

Heh. Why do you think, with this, the public support for AGW is tanking so badly? These scientists have discredited their profession badly. Peer reviewed = government toady in the public mind for AGW. Deservedly so. They should be ashamed of themselves for selling out their integrity for money. Science is supposed to be objective. Notice that toady image for AWG scientists grows and grows with each passing day. Ignore it if you must, but that won't stop the growth. Like I said, enjoy your echo chamber. Don't despair as the echoes lose more and more sound. That's just what happens to discredited people. I'm certainly not taking these folks seriously any more. I did at one time. See some early threads here on OL for the kerfuffles. Long and longwinded, acrimonious, sourced threads with science quotes galore, like this topic always generates. If I'm not doing that sourcing here, it's because you are really late to this party, but saying all the same things in the same manner as before, mocking and all. It's like someone time-traveled from back then to now. Same old crap every time this issue comes up. You're a true believer on this issue, not a proponent of science. If you were, you would be mocking the AWG scientists who have been caught lying and playing dirty with scientists who disagree with them along with mocking us yokels. But you don't. You support the bullies sight unseen. That's faith, not reason. Us against them cult thinking. Michael The public believes a lot of stupid things. --------------------------------------------------------- There are definitely those scientists who have engaged in scientific fraud. They deserve to be mocked. However AGW is sound science done by honest scientists. A proponent of science respects the work of scientists and the scientific method. What most people here are doing is engaging in conspiracy theory and irrational denialism because they don't like the possible public policy implications that AGW might have. Nobody here has presented a single bit of evidence that contradicts AGW, which is what they would do if they actually had a rational basis for being skeptical. Additionally they claim that because some AGW scientists are guilty of scientific fraud it must mean that all AGW science is fraudulent. This is not respect for science. It is the politicization of science. You are doing precisely what you accuse "the bullies" of doing.

A consensus among people who make models and guess and change the models, and the data, when the guesses don't pan out - and call this procedure "science." Ellen Wow, it's almost as if those models are fallible or something. Surely, no real scientific theory has ever been disproven in the history of actual science. Honestly I would be a lot more concerned if the models did not change in response to falsifying evidence. Further, all the data collected so far supports AGW. How would you know that the data has been fudged unless you have the real data? Where is that data?

What percentage of atmospheric carbon dioxide is human produced? Each year, 720 GT of CO2 are pumped into the atmosphere, about 0.8% of which is done by humans. It's not that I'm not looking, it's that none exist. None. I don't have the money technical expertise to understand a scientific paper on climate science. It's a perfectly reasonable logical inference. There are thousands of papers that have been published in peer-reviewed journals that support AGW. Papers that don't support AGW are virtually non-existent. Now, in light of all this evidence in favor of AGW, if you disagree with it, then it must be that you have evidence that falsifies it. Do you? If so, I'd be very interested in seeing it. (I'm not holding my breath though) Two of the journals which are closed against counter material. Ellen So?

Naomi, Please show me some credible models from those who do not lie. I have no interest in entertaining the thoughts of people who lie to my face, then lie again and again. I don't care if their suppositions are true or not. If there is something to AGW, one day a credible person will bring it up. I have a lot of faith in people of good will. I have none in the people you support. You deal with them. I will only do so when they point a gun at my head. I believe most people are starting to feel this way. Once again, look at the polls... Michael There are thousands of papers on climate change that have been published in peer-reviewed journals such as Nature and Science. (or just go here and take your pick). If you want direct access to the current research, that would be the place to go. If you can't or won't do that, then buy a textbook on the subject.

Actually they would make you entertaining, but you sound too much like typical leftist propaganda. I mean that literally. You guys keep repeating the consensus hype and hoping one day it will become a fact. But it never will and all it does nowadays is sound like propaganda. Not just to me. Look at the polls. This AWG stuff is tanking in public opinion. Enjoy your true believer echo chamber, emails about fake data, intimidation of dissenting scientists, falsified reports, and all the other crap involved in this mess. And keep on blanking it out. I doubt you will convince anyone on this board. I don't even think you are interested in convincing anyone anyway. I think you just want to laugh at the yokels like a true believer. If you were interested in convincing folks, why don't you get someone who hasn't lied their asses off to present the AGW case, the consensus hype, etc? You can't because they don't exist, and I, for one, will not take serial liars seriously. You keep asking people to prove AWG doesn't exist. Here's the deal. The people saying it does keep lying and getting caught. What on earth is there to prove? That this time they are not lying? Heh. WSS sometimes comes up with something reasonable to look at, but you never do. Michael Michael, If it is in fact true that human activity has no significant effect on global warming, or that global warming doesn't exist, or both, then it should be easy to come up with the data and models that refute the AGW theory (i.e. explain temperature trends using only natural factors). However, as far as I know, no such data or models have been given or proposed by any climate researchers. If these AGW skeptics had the data which falsifies AGW, then why not just present it? I find it very suspicious when someone refuses to give the strongest possible case for their position. One also wonders how so many independent climate researches could all independently come up with the exact same falsehood. However, if we assume that AGW is true, then that explains the current state of the field perfectly. The scientific method is reliable, and thus we should expect that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe that AGW is true. ALthough some might disagree, but then again there are biologists who believe in intelligent design. Even if some scientists have been very bad boys and girls, that in no way disproves AGW. Only evidence can do that.

I am from NY City woman. I have walked at 2 AM in places you would't go with a tank. Ja sam zivela na Kosovu (u Pristini) izmedu 1998 i 1999 dok je bio rat. Po noci nisam mogla da spavam zbog zvuka sirena i bombardovanja, a po danu sam skupljala caure sa ulica na kojim sam se igrala sa prijateljima pre nekoliko meseci. Translation: I lived in Kosovo (in Pristina) between 1998 and 1999 during the war. At night I couldn't sleep from the sound of the sirens and bombardment, and during the day I collected bullet casings I found on the streets I played with my friends on just a few months before. Your "tough guy" credentials don't impress me.

That was published by The Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, which is not involved in any actual Climate research whatsoever.

The project is complete baloney. First of all, according to the site: Simply having a bachelor's degree or even a PhD in a field of study in no way makes you an expert in that field. One actually has to be involved in ongoing scientific research in order to be considered a researcher. Secondly, No, they don't, only the climatologists do (at least for claims about AGW which is what is being discussed) of which there are only 39.

And the "overwhelming majority" cannot be expressed in a percentage...hmm - must be that Common Core math. You're just playing semantics. It's not that one can't pick a percentage to represent the idea of an "overwhelming majority". It's that it doesn't make much sense to do so because the definition is arbitrary. One person could say that it's 51%, another 90%, and still another 99.99999%. Any choice would lead to confusion if the definition is not specified. Butt if you do specify it then you might as well simply say that x% of scientists agree and leave it at that. Don't even go there...

It's not a matter of specific percentages. When asked for the color of my eyes, I don't respond to the question by giving a spectrum of frequencies. What I mean by "scientific consensus" is just what I said. That the overwhelming majority of scientific research organizations and climatologists generally agree on a certain set of propositions. It's kind of like pornography. I know it when I see it. You call that evidence, do you? Ellen Yes. Since it is well known that employing the scientific method in an investigation of nature produces accurate theories and beliefs about nature better than chance, a consensus among people who employ the scientific method in their investigations is evidence in favor of those beliefs and theories. Additionally, since the scientific method performs significantly better in that regard than all of the alternatives, then the consensus of such experts is very strong evidence in favor of the theories they advocate. By the way, you have failed once again to present the facts which would prove your claims in the most effective way possible were they to exist, which they don't.

Find any that supports such claims! How about pretty much the entire scientific community? What do you got?

The general agreement on a proposition by the experts in a field. So, would that be 50.000001 % of the experts in the field? Or, would it have to be 66.6666 %? Or, 90.00 %? Additionally, a consensus of the experts in the field of theology would be that a God exists? Yes? looks like 50.00000001 % works as a consensus which of course makes you quite sadly, incompetent in argumentation. A... Try looking up "scientific consensus", and not "consensus" as it relates to non-scientific contexts such as theology or business.

FYI - Climate change: no consensus on consensus J. A. Curry and P.J. Webster School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA 30332-0340 Correspondence: curryja@eas.gatech.edu Conclusions The climate community has worked for more than 20 years to establish a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. The IPCC consensus building process arguably played a useful role in the early synthesis of the scientific knowledge and in building political will to act. We have presented perspectives from multiple disciplines that support the inference that the scientific consensus seeking process used by the IPCC has had the unintended consequence of introducing biases into the both the science and related decision making processes. The IPCC scientific consensus has become convoluted with consensus decision making through a ‘speaking consensus to power’ approach. The growing implications of the messy wickedness of the climate change problem are becoming increasingly apparent, highlighting the inadequacies of the ‘consensus to power’ approach for decision making on the complex issues associated with climate change. Further, research from the field of science and technology studies are finding that manufacturing a consensus in the context of the IPCC has acted to hyper-politicize the scientific and policy debates, to the detriment of both. Arguments are increasingly being made to abandon the scientific consensus seeking approach in favor of open debate of the arguments themselves and discussion of a broad range of policy options that stimulate local and regional solutions to the multifaceted and interrelated issues of climate change, land use, resource management, cost effective clean energy solutions, and developing technologies to expand energy access efficiently. No consensus on consensus - Climate Etc. That paper in no way says that there is no scientific consensus on AGW, despite the suggestive title. It merely says that a specific set of policies about consensus building at a single organization, namely the IPCC, introduces biases and is otherwise messy. Whether that is true or not, the bottom line is that that article in no way shape or form says what you would like it to say.

I've seldom noticed you being right. I'm saying that the idea that there is a consensus is hype. You can find plenty for starters on this board. You might begin by reading the early posts on this thread. I'm not going to compile information for you, since I've seen enough examples of how you proceed in a discussion to think that I'd be wasting my time. Ellen I did just that and can you guess what I did not find? Yup, not a single bit of evidence that contradicts AGW claims. It's not that you won't "compile information for me" (or as I like to call it, "substantiating your claims like you would if you were presenting a rational argument") because you don't like how I proceed in a discussion. You're just giving excuses because you know your skepticism is based on absolutely nothing that has even a shred of scientific merit.

If what you're saying is that AGW claims are false because the scientific consensus is merely "hype" and doesn't actually exist and that therefore there exist reputable scientific organizations and climate scientists whose data and theories refute those claims, then why not simply point those people, data, and their theories out? My guess is that's because there aren't any, and instead of giving the most decisive and informative refutation of a claim possible, you choose to split hairs about a consensus in order to dodge the real problems with AGW skepticism. Maybe I'm wrong, and you will point to those people, organizations, data, and theories in your next post and prove it. But I am almost never wrong.

The general agreement on a proposition by the experts in a field.

*suppresses laughter* Naomi, That's a funny reaction seeing as you talk about the virtue of looking at facts. Michael Yes, the facts are precisely what make Ellen's statement there so entertaining.

*suppresses laughter*

The question of whether or not scientific consensus is "in and of itself authoritative" is irrelevant. What matters is whether or not it is strong evidence in favor of or against some proposition. Your implication that the scientific consensus is meaningless ignores the fact that the experts form their beliefs via a process called "the scientific method" which has been shown to produce accurate theories better than chance. If your disagreement with AGW is that the models used are unfalsifiable, then why not take some specific mainstream climate models and demonstrate that they are unfalsifiable?

That's because there were very good reasons and overwhelming evidence in support of the theory, as I'm sure you already know. When just about every expert in a field agrees that some proposition is true, then that is very strong evidence that that proposition is true. The scientific consensus represents the propositions for which everyone who has access to the best data, arguments, and relevant skills in that field agrees are true. These people and their process may be fallible, but that does not make them automatically wrong. What was interesting was how many physicists still believed aether existed even after the famous after the Michelsob Morley experiment showed contrary results. the MMX has been done thousands of times with ever more sophisticated equipment. The conclusion is still --- No Aether -- The aether theory was respectable until the MMX busted it. All it takes is one contrary fact, properly observed and corroborated to take down the most beautiful theory or hypothesis. Facts Rule, Theory sometimes serves. Ba'al Chatzaf Ba'al Chatzaf Exactly. So if you want to disprove AGW, why not find the facts and explanations which actually do that instead of claiming (wrongly) that scientific consensus is meaningless?

That's because there were very good reasons and overwhelming evidence in support of the theory, as I'm sure you already know. When just about every expert in a field agrees that some proposition is true, then that is very strong evidence that that proposition is true. The scientific consensus represents the propositions for which everyone who has access to the best data, arguments, and relevant skills in that field agrees are true. These people and their process may be fallible, but that does not make them automatically wrong.

Oh thank god. *breathes a sigh of relief*

Eeww... why do you watch network television?

If this is the book's central argument then it is a really really bad one. To see why, look at lotteries. It is extremely unlikely that any specific lottery player will win, but it is pretty much guaranteed that there will be a winner. Likewise, it is very unlikely that any specific person will be plucked out of person space to be born, but it is almost guaranteed that a pregnant woman will give birth to someone. Therefore, while the specific conditions that led to the rise of life on Earth and the existence of life on Earth are extremely unlikely, the probability of the existence of any life at all in the galaxy could be significantly higher.