I actually replied to that point in a previous thread, I did notice that a lot of those retractions where in health and social sciences, not much of that in physics and it does not deny at all what I said, your insinuation that then that can be applied to a lot of climate science was unadulterated bullshit. In big part because (if you apply logic to it), then a lot of what they are teaching right now would be very different indeed.
So, no, there is not much of a consensus, what it happens is that the consensus comes from the evidence that has been found and corroborated many times before.
You know there’s no contradiction there, right? Or do you think that if the state of science is not good that it’s impossible to draw any conclusions at all? Or what?
The state of science being poor just means that we all shpuld do more diligence and not accept findings uncritically, especially when the conclusions match your priors, because that tends to be when our judgment is worst.
And as the previous discussions made in the last decades showed, That already took place. The sad reality for your position here is that nowadays, the extraordinary evidence has to come from the ones that infer that we will find a natural or cheap way to mitigate climate change or declare that what is happening or likely to happen will not take place as the best evidence shows.
So yeah, the bullshit here is to try to claim that you were not trying to discredit what was already checked or confirmed by many researchers.
As Feinman would say: it does not matter that the claim about lack of replication in climate science was looking like it was the truth to you, it does not matter how beautiful it was to you, It is actually wrong, so you should drop the idea.
You’re not really understanding that quote. Feynman isn’t talking about when reading published papers, he’s talking about scientists doing science. And he’s right about that.
But your point about the state of science makes for a nice excuse to ignore tens of thousands of papers that have rigorous methodologies. But then you would have to admit that you are part of the problem because you value money more than human life.
Question away. But you’re not questioning it are you? You’re not citing a paper and saying: “In this paper, I find that yadda yadda yadda.” You’re replacing thousands of professionals with your best politicized guess.
There’s a lot more wrong with you post, which is not surprising because the right has to not believe in science because the right simply does not believe things that are true. I will sum up with your view of the scientific community is deeply flawed.
This is total bullshit, but it makes for a convenient excuse to watch the world burn and millions suffer and die while absolving yourself of any responsibility for siding with not acting. I mean, we just don’t know, so how can we justify spending money when we just don’t know for sure.
This is such a self fulfilling prophecy. The more evidence that mounts the more it is evidence that it is biased.
You don’t even read your own cites. There’s practically zero chance you’ve read and understood the IPCC reports.
Also, I love that you say you read them and then leap to The science is bad! Bad Science Bad! You don’t address anything from the reports. Just I’ve read them, and boy howdy are they bad. Stinkers the whole lot.
You’re so full of shit.
But please, but all means, cite one of the reports and question a problem you have with any of it. I would LOVE to see this.
All of this is carefully vague blather designed to foster an emotional impression of distrust in the findings of mainstream climate science, rather than to seriously analyze any of its results or the overall reliability of the field.
If we look at any of your citeless claims more closely, we see how dubious they are. Treating an increase in retraction rates, for example, as an unambiguous indicator of declining scientific quality is unjustified, as this article points out:
Sam, the amount of stuff you’re pulling out of your ass here would give any proctologist nightmares. Nobody is actually advocating for blind unquestioning adherence to every officially published scientific result, or discouraging any serious and informed questioning of research findings.
But it’s obvious that you’re just deliberately working on manufacturing doubt to flatter the suspicions of the ignorant about climate science as a field, rather than exposing any real-life flaws in its actual scientific practice.
Nobody is suggesting that cranks and misinformation, or crank-and-misinformation enablers like yourself, should be legally prohibited from disseminating stupid anti-science shit. But treating crankery and misinformation and other stupid anti-science shit with respect or deference is not required or desirable.
What a surprise; Sam’s willing to insinuate all sorts of distrust and suspicion about climate science as a research field in general, based on vague unsupported “stands to reason” arguments, but as soon as somebody asks him to support his chatter with some specific evidence of scientific misconduct, he’s “out”.
Naturally, nobody here is claiming that every published climate science finding is true or that no climate scientist has ever published results tainted by sloppiness or fraud. Climate science is just as subject to human fallibility and immorality as any other area of science. But none of that validates Sam’s rather slimy attempts to argue, based on his personal wish-fulfilling distrust of “liberal causes” rather than on any actual evidence, that climate science as a discipline is somehow exceptionally untrustworthy due to alleged ideological bias.
@Sam_Stone hasn’t read them, and he’s not going to read them. He doesn’t read his own citations, and this is undeniable because people do read his citations and have found over and over and over and over and over again that they do not claim what he says they claim. He reads the title and decides what it means from that. My favorite was definitely the left-wing violence paper that actually said very clearly that while there was some small uptick in left-wing violence, that by far the greatest threat was continued right-wing violence. And that uptick in left-wing violence may have be a reaction to increased right-wing violence. But no the title said “Left-Wing Violence” and by God that’s good enough for Sam.
But if I give him the benefit of the doubt (and why would I, given his total lack of credibility), he knows that he cannot refute the science of the IPCC reports. And this isn’t to say that the study of climate change has been perfect, but the core findings are absolutely rock solid based on impeccable methodology across thousands of papers. And despite what he says scientist have examined it from the contrarian viewpoint, and it hasn’t ended their careers unless it is crank science. But Sam doesn’t know that because he’s never actually honestly looked into it. His sources tell him the scientists are a bunch of left-wing nuts and so he believes it.
Deep down I firmly believe that he knows that he has nothing. And as you said, that’s why he running away with his tail between his leg. He has to stay pure to the right-wing cause of valuing money over people, and accuse others of being in a hive mind.
This sort of “ulterior-motive dowsing” has been a favorite strategy of “climate skeptics” for a very long time. It’s a way to justify treating climate science research with elevated levels of suspicion even if you don’t understand what it’s saying.
I pointed out over sixteen years ago (yikes) that this approach is rather reminiscent of a classic Peanuts cartoon. The one where Linus thinks he can bluff his way through a true-or-false test without knowing the material, just by being savvy about the meta-nature of such tests:
Compare to:
It’s so fun and easy, isn’t it, to figure out how to evaluate the False and the True based just on your ass-extracted hunches about how “the system” works, rather than on actually understanding the technical issues!
And to circle back to an earlier point in this thread, I’m slightly impressed, if I say so myself, at how accurate that accompanying prediction from sixteen-plus years ago turned out to be:
One very annoying reason for recent Nuclear plant closings is that Natural gas, and Solar, wind and other renewables are cheaper to deploy rather than Nuclear, I still remember that in a previous discussion, deniers of change posters like Shodan wanted to discredit politicians for the closings, but it was mostly a decision from the private energy companies, that are nowadays building natural gas energy plants instead of Nuclear.
That is a problem because with Natural gas you get a lot of emissions, now, if only there had been a system in place to make it valuable for private enterprise to keep nuclear going? A system where the real cost of using fossil fuels would be added in a system of trade, something like cap-and-trade?..
Unfortunately, the current crop of Republicans in congress came in funded by fossil fuel people and aided by business groups of that nature. And they won elections by declaring things like cap-n-Trade as “deals with the devil” or other nonsense. as being anti-business.
The result?
No cap-n-trade system in place to make the energy companies see non emission nuclear power as a viable option. (Circa 2012)
Read the Transcript or see the video of the Frontline report linked earlier for the details. Notice how moderated Republicans that were in favor of dealing with climate change with cap-n-trade were defeated in the primaries by the crazy Right wing Republicans that we see nowadays.