Fuck yeah. Someone once told me that both fridges and stoves can be operated using a gas flame. I laughed my 'cken ass off, natch. What a maroon.
One aspect of this whole debate that irks me is the idea that scientists doing climate change research and predicting outcomes that are gloom and doom are all some sort of homogenous unit and that anyone who breaks free of this and calls bullshit on their claims is going to get run out of town on a rail.
If any scientist can come up with a repeatable experiment or verifiable analysis of the data that actually is a better fit for what the results we’ve seen so far, after a predictable and very human resistance to change, every single scientist on the planet will be redirecting their efforts to the direction of this new research.
Why? Because those scientists want to be the one do discover “it” whatever it is.
In some cases that’s because it gets them funding for their research, and in some cases it is purely ego, but there isn’t a scientist worthy of the name out there that is trying to follow the pack because they worry about being ostracized.
And one thing that those who still believe in the garage / armchair scientist who can’t get published in the right journals so their discovery of the “Truth” is being suppressed are forgetting the very medium you and I are communicating in right now.
It might be possible to be a garage / armchair scientist to have been ignored even 30-40 years ago, but not today… today that scientist can have his theory, data and methods in front of millions of people minutes after he or she has finished the final draft.
And if they make any sort of compelling argument at least three other scientists will be working through that data and methodology to see if they can duplicate it, or solidly refute it.
If they can duplicate it, you can bet those additional scientists will want to contribute to and get their names on the scientific journal article to follow.
If they can solidly refute it, they will do so publicly and let the garage / armchair scientist respond and if they respond with something useful, the cycle begins again.
I don’t care if you’re talking about climate change, evolution, how to make the best solar cell, or stem cells therapies to let mice with MS walk again, that is how science works in the information age.
If any of the “scientists” denying climate change had a leg to stand on they would be gaining additional scientists to their side in a tidal wave.
Strawman much?
Point out one case this has happened, please.
As has been pointed out many, many, many times already, any scientist would love to find good evidence that warming is (1) not occurring or that (2) human activity is not a major factor. They would get tons of exposure and lots of money.
The problem? No honest scientist can do this with the data we have on hand.
You can make the same argument about any number of bullshit things.
There is a consensus the moon is not made of green cheese. Oh noes, any scientist who claims it is risks being ridden out of town on a rail! Well sure, but not because of an exclusive, elitist cabal of scientists but because any scientist who claims a dairy origin to the moon needs to come up with some good evidence or be rightfully ignored.
“But what if they’re wrong?” is not a good argument. But that seems to be all any climate change deniers care about. “What if they’re wrong?” Well, they might be. But any position needs to be backed by evidence, and there’s a severe dearth of that.
Actually I thought the entire remainder of my message was pointing out that this premise is a strawman?
Indeed so. My apologies. I should know better than to post before my first cup of coffee.
I’m currently not wasting time reading GIGOs nonsense, but I will bet money he didn’t even mention the expert reviewers paper, the arguments and points in it, much less the issues related to the topic.
Nor the quoted post from the other topic about this. But this is par for the course when it comes to actual issues about the problems with current science and climate and the global warming scare. Instead of countering the alarmists simply claims victory, with out ever even responding to anything.
Has there been any response at all since I re-posted the post from 2011?
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12171215&postcount=133
How do you counter that? It’s a concise statement, with logic and reason and facts involved. It even has a source (cite)
The “demolition of your argument” consist of somebody saying “that’s not true”, which means nothing at all.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12171215&postcount=133
Once again, avoiding responding to that doesn’t mean you destroyed an argument.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12171215&postcount=133
Once again, what was the devastating professional response from GIGO? I bet money there was none at all.
FXMastermind: You incorrectly attributed material I posted to dublos.
There was none, because that reviewer was not what it claimed, like virtually every “expert” contrarian that is put forward by FXMatermind.
Yes, that talking point/reviewer is that old too, the sorry point was made by an inexperienced in climate scientist. The point here is that just as FX is all thumbs with quotes, he is also all thumbs with the sources that he thinks are the beesnees.
So, so much for him claiming that there was no reply, the take home lesson is that there is a sea of information that FX is willfully ignoring out there regarding the underhandedness and chicanery that the Mc Experts are committing in their fight to get us to waste even more of out economy in the future by not dealing with the issue now.
I’m sorry, it certainly wasn’t by intent. I can ask a Mod to fix it I think.
Correcting that last paragraph:
So, so much for FX claiming that there was no reply, many did before and added Vincent Gray into the unreliable narrator column.
The take home lesson is that there is a sea of information that FX is willfully ignoring out there regarding the underhandedness and chicanery that the Mc Experts are committing in their fight to get us to waste even more of our economy in the future by not dealing with the issue now.
At least I have to thank **FXMastermind **for pointing at the many examples of sorry research and misrepresentations made by even serious contrarians and deniers, anyone that thinks that there is an equal number of researchers using discredited research in the other side has a broken equivalency radar.
Just because he schools you in debates and is not consistently wrong doesn’t make what he posts nonsense, you know…
Speaking of nonsense, FX is also relying on some poster that uses very silly “logic” to declare the IPCC and all other climate science as unfalsifiable, the cliche of science fiction of “reversing the polarity” should be enough to keep in mind to allow many to think about simple ways to falsify all what climate scientists or the IPCC is telling us, in the case of the scenarios, then it just means that if an specific level of greenhouse gases is released and the scenario that depends on that amount does not take place then the thing is falsified. Of course, the falsification of a single item does not mean that then the danger is gone. Far from it.
The complication that deniers out there do not see because it will make them look even more foolish, is that more than once the outcomes are turning to be **worse **than the predictions. Particularly in the case of the ice loss and therefore the expected rise of the oceans got into worse levels. Can one then report that the scenarios in those cases were falsified as the results were worst than expected? I guess one can, but that only goes to the conservative scenarios they made regarding the ice loss and ocean rise (To be fair, the IPCC punted in the previous report because back then there was no good evidence of the acceleration of the loss of ice in the poles and in the mountains)
To me it just means that the IPCC was too conservative, and that should tell you how irresponsible are the few skeptics, that abuse of their experience to pontificate outside their area of expertise. Because the default position for them is to tell us that very little to nothing will take place, after all, all what the IPCC is telling us is not science and not happening or beneficial or easy to overcome if we do nothing now.
Or course, because they told us that “we should not worrying about the ice loss”, that turned to be poppy cock, so I do think that the falsification test remains a bigger problem for the “reviewers” of the IPCC.
I must have missed that. To whom are you referring?
I haven’t followed this whole thread. However I found a couple things that might provide a little food for thought, especially for those who seem to believe that the science of AGW (or is it CAGW? or CCC? I forget which one we are using this week) is absolutely solid and that we know everything.
A paper was just published in Nature. The paper finds that:
Link to Nature.
Why is this important? If the paper is correct, then our understanding of the CO2 cycle is badly mistaken.
That is a big deal.
Another paper published in Journal of Climate claims:
Why is this important? Because, if it holds up, the SST (Sea Surface Temperature) trends have a significant natural component that we don’t understand and have (since we don’t understand it) underestimated.
Link.
Another paper published in CO2 Science finds:
Why is this important? Well, after all the recent news reports that lead one to believe that the whole world is gonna be flooded sometime next week due to CO2 melting the ice caps, it turns out that the sea level rise isn’t due to CO2.
Link.
Slee
On post 146 and one before FX links to poster Terry Oldberg’s tirade on how the IPCC projections are unfalsifiable, besides being a bit off the point, that line of attack was silly one.
How does that brand “all other climate science as unfalsifiable”?
And you must had missed this that was posted many times before:
Of course, but as NPR interviewed the scientists, they clarified that that was not a “show stopper” it was likely that it was only for a few years and then as the vegetation is in desert areas they are bound to dry, or burn in a few years releasing once again the CO2 in the atmosphere, another thing that I got from the interview is that the sequestration was big but not enough to overcome what we are still spewing.
Using models there, now who told us to not rely on them? Besides the contradictory nature of contrarians showing up again, the issue here is to miss what they also conclude:
In essence they do report that there is a need to investigate more but like the IPCC would tell you better information is needed to counter what was found before and this study does not look like it contradicts much of what was found already.
Using CO2 Science is the like citing Answers in Genesis in a biology discussion.
That was the point of FXMastermind, and that Darwin and Newton were also unfalsifiable too. So deal with him please.
What, you want I should copy-and-paste what was already posted?
I asked for clarification from you because I had no idea what you meant by “FX is also relying on some poster that uses very silly “logic” to declare the IPCC and all other climate science as unfalsifiable”. I read that and thought: wait, what?
To the extent that I see no need to clarify (a) FX’s views, or to clarify (b) various of the responses that have swiftly popped up right here in response, it’s hardly my place to “deal with” him or them; this thread already suffices, clarity already ensued.