Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

We Have Consensus!

JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 10:52:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

I don't know. But, I'm not sure it matters.

If we always went with scientific consensus, we would still believe that the universe is geocentric, that man is a blank slate, and that human settlement cause rainfall in arid areas (this was a serious consensus) among other things.

The real question isn't whether or not a consensus exists but whether consensus, which has been wrong many times in the past, really matters.

More former scientific consensus's:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 11:08:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 10:52:53 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

I don't know. But, I'm not sure it matters.

If we always went with scientific consensus, we would still believe that the universe is geocentric, that man is a blank slate, and that human settlement cause rainfall in arid areas (this was a serious consensus) among other things.

The real question isn't whether or not a consensus exists but whether consensus, which has been wrong many times in the past, really matters.

More former scientific consensuses:

That is a weird word.

No, there isn't consensus. I have personally met with scientists who don't agree with many aspects of the reports we get from NASA, IPCC, etc...

My dad can go on and on about friends of his(he's a double Ph.D. in botany and chemistry) who have been ostracized from certain portions of the 'scientific' community, denied funding, etc... because of research projects into natural causes of warming, as well as criticism of current practices for temperature measurement.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 11:11:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 10:52:53 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

I don't know. But, I'm not sure it matters.

If we always went with scientific consensus, we would still believe that the universe is geocentric, that man is a blank slate, and that human settlement cause rainfall in arid areas (this was a serious consensus) among other things.

The real question isn't whether or not a consensus exists but whether consensus, which has been wrong many times in the past, really matters.

More former scientific consensus's:





http://en.wikipedia.org...

I am a fervent global warming denier, not because I reject the science, but because I bitterly hate plants.
Tsar of DDO
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 11:12:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 11:09:15 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
I would argue that the word "consensus" has no place in scientific discussions.

Agreed.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 11:12:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 10:52:53 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

I don't know. But, I'm not sure it matters.

If we always went with scientific consensus, we would still believe that the universe is geocentric, that man is a blank slate, and that human settlement cause rainfall in arid areas (this was a serious consensus) among other things.

The real question isn't whether or not a consensus exists but whether consensus, which has been wrong many times in the past, really matters.

More former scientific consensus's:





http://en.wikipedia.org...

Arguing consensus isn't science, it isn't valid as science is never certain. It's merely a fallacy and physiological tactic....... http://www.paulmacrae.com...

"Just as a vote of citizens doesn't make a scientific fact true or false, neither does a vote of scientists make a fact true or false. Only empirical evidence does that. And the empirical evidence for anthropogenic warming isn't there.".......... http://www.paulmacrae.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 11:13:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 11:09:15 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
I would argue that the word "consensus" has no place in scientific discussions.

+1
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 2:35:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 11:12:54 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/18/2012 10:52:53 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

I don't know. But, I'm not sure it matters.

If we always went with scientific consensus, we would still believe that the universe is geocentric, that man is a blank slate, and that human settlement cause rainfall in arid areas (this was a serious consensus) among other things.

The real question isn't whether or not a consensus exists but whether consensus, which has been wrong many times in the past, really matters.

More former scientific consensus's:





http://en.wikipedia.org...

Arguing consensus isn't science, it isn't valid as science is never certain. It's merely a fallacy and physiological tactic....... http://www.paulmacrae.com...

And you propose what exactly in lieu of science?
"Just as a vote of citizens doesn't make a scientific fact true or false, neither does a vote of scientists make a fact true or false. Only empirical evidence does that. And the empirical evidence for anthropogenic warming isn't there.".......... http://www.paulmacrae.com...

'I can't claim to be an expert on climate science.' - Paul Macae
turn down for h'what
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 8:44:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 2:35:29 AM, Aaronroy wrote:
At 8/18/2012 11:12:54 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/18/2012 10:52:53 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

I don't know. But, I'm not sure it matters.

If we always went with scientific consensus, we would still believe that the universe is geocentric, that man is a blank slate, and that human settlement cause rainfall in arid areas (this was a serious consensus) among other things.

The real question isn't whether or not a consensus exists but whether consensus, which has been wrong many times in the past, really matters.

More former scientific consensus's:





http://en.wikipedia.org...

Arguing consensus isn't science, it isn't valid as science is never certain. It's merely a fallacy and physiological tactic....... http://www.paulmacrae.com...

And you propose what exactly in lieu of science?
"Just as a vote of citizens doesn't make a scientific fact true or false, neither does a vote of scientists make a fact true or false. Only empirical evidence does that. And the empirical evidence for anthropogenic warming isn't there.".......... http://www.paulmacrae.com...

'I can't claim to be an expert on climate science.' - Paul Macae

I am aware of that. But three years of research, hundreds of footnotes (in his book at least), and interviewing many scientists is better then you.
"I can't claim to be an expert on climate science. But, as a former journalist, I do claim an ability to know when the public is being told partial truths or falsehoods. Everything I have read since I began my research in 2007 convinces me more and more that most of what we, the public, have been told about global warming is misleading, exaggerated, or plain wrong, including the claim that the planet is warming (it hasn't since at least 1998)."
http://www.paulmacrae.com...

He later said in the comments: "And, are you suggesting that journalists who aren't climate scientists shouldn't be allowed to write about climate? That would eliminate Mark Lynas, George Monbiot, Eugene Linden, Thomas Friedman, and Ross Gelbspan, to name a few on the warmist side. Or would you bar all non-climate scientists, period? That would eliminate Al Gore, which might actually be a blessing."
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 12:41:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Right, because the technology present 2000 years ago was totally paralleled to the technology now.....

*facepalm*
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 12:42:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Actually, in science, consensus of scientists is a good way of determining whether something is true or not ex. 99.98% of scientists believe in evolution.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 12:56:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 10:52:53 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

I don't know. But, I'm not sure it matters.

If we always went with scientific consensus, we would still believe that the universe is geocentric, that man is a blank slate, and that human settlement cause rainfall in arid areas (this was a serious consensus) among other things.

The real question isn't whether or not a consensus exists but whether consensus, which has been wrong many times in the past, really matters.

More former scientific consensus's:





http://en.wikipedia.org...

The supposed scientific consensus on man made climate change is the result of 3 fallacies; the false-consensus bias, the bandwagon fallacy, and an appeal to authority.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 12:57:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 12:42:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Actually, in science, consensus of scientists is a good way of determining whether something is true or not ex. 99.98% of scientists believe in evolution.

bandwagon fallacy
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 1:01:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 12:57:24 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:42:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Actually, in science, consensus of scientists is a good way of determining whether something is true or not ex. 99.98% of scientists believe in evolution.

bandwagon fallacy

At that point could you not say the same of belief in gravity?
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 1:02:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 12:57:24 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:42:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Actually, in science, consensus of scientists is a good way of determining whether something is true or not ex. 99.98% of scientists believe in evolution.

bandwagon fallacy

Scientists are those who interrogate the theories every day and test them. If the entire scientific community agrees on something, then it is most definitely right, especially with modern day technology.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 1:10:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 1:01:45 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:57:24 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:42:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Actually, in science, consensus of scientists is a good way of determining whether something is true or not ex. 99.98% of scientists believe in evolution.

bandwagon fallacy

At that point could you not say the same of belief in gravity?

I don't believe in gravity because most scientist believe in it, I believe in gravity because it's the simplest answer, and in science the simplest answer is the right one.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 1:13:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 1:10:54 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/19/2012 1:01:45 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:57:24 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:42:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Actually, in science, consensus of scientists is a good way of determining whether something is true or not ex. 99.98% of scientists believe in evolution.

bandwagon fallacy

At that point could you not say the same of belief in gravity?

I don't believe in gravity because most scientist believe in it, I believe in gravity because it's the simplest answer, and in science the simplest answer is the right one.

Hence evolution.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 1:14:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 1:10:54 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/19/2012 1:01:45 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:57:24 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:42:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Actually, in science, consensus of scientists is a good way of determining whether something is true or not ex. 99.98% of scientists believe in evolution.

bandwagon fallacy

At that point could you not say the same of belief in gravity?

I don't believe in gravity because most scientist believe in it, I believe in gravity because it's the simplest answer, and in science the simplest answer is the right one.

Isn't saying that Occam's Razor is right because of Occam's Razor sort of circular?
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 1:18:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 1:02:51 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:57:24 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:42:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Actually, in science, consensus of scientists is a good way of determining whether something is true or not ex. 99.98% of scientists believe in evolution.

bandwagon fallacy

Scientists are those who interrogate the theories every day and test them. If the entire scientific community agrees on something, then it is most definitely right , especially with modern day technology.

Bandwagon Fallacy
Appeal to authority.

If scientists are in agreement, that does not mean it is right. If we took that approach to science, than we would never be able to make any new scientific breakthroughs.
The scientific community does not determine which theories are right. In science there is never an end to the debate. It is the role of scientists to challenge theories, not to confirm them.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
sadolite
Posts: 8,839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 1:23:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 11:08:25 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/18/2012 10:52:53 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

I don't know. But, I'm not sure it matters.

If we always went with scientific consensus, we would still believe that the universe is geocentric, that man is a blank slate, and that human settlement cause rainfall in arid areas (this was a serious consensus) among other things.

The real question isn't whether or not a consensus exists but whether consensus, which has been wrong many times in the past, really matters.

More former scientific consensuses:

That is a weird word.

No, there isn't consensus. I have personally met with scientists who don't agree with many aspects of the reports we get from NASA, IPCC, etc...

My dad can go on and on about friends of his(he's a double Ph.D. in botany and chemistry) who have been ostracized from certain portions of the 'scientific' community, denied funding, etc... because of research projects into natural causes of warming, as well as criticism of current practices for temperature measurement.

"ostracized from certain portions of the 'scientific' community,"

That statement alone should send chills down ones spine when it comes to giving the "Scientific Community" any credibility on anything with regard to enviromental issues.

A "real scientist" would never do such a thing. They would immediately take the information and apply it to try and disprove their theory. It's called the "scientific method" No data no matter the source is ever ignored, it is used to punch holes in theories, if it can. Any scientist who says the science is settled with regard to the climate isn't worth the paper his fake PHd was printed on. They are not "scientists" they a political hacks with an agenda.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 1:24:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 1:14:57 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/19/2012 1:10:54 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/19/2012 1:01:45 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:57:24 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:42:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Actually, in science, consensus of scientists is a good way of determining whether something is true or not ex. 99.98% of scientists believe in evolution.

bandwagon fallacy

At that point could you not say the same of belief in gravity?

I don't believe in gravity because most scientist believe in it, I believe in gravity because it's the simplest answer, and in science the simplest answer is the right one.

Isn't saying that Occam's Razor is right because of Occam's Razor sort of circular?

Occam's Razor is not justified by Occam's Razar, it's justified by Probability theory.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 1:28:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 1:24:38 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/19/2012 1:14:57 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/19/2012 1:10:54 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/19/2012 1:01:45 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:57:24 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:42:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Actually, in science, consensus of scientists is a good way of determining whether something is true or not ex. 99.98% of scientists believe in evolution.

bandwagon fallacy

At that point could you not say the same of belief in gravity?

I don't believe in gravity because most scientist believe in it, I believe in gravity because it's the simplest answer, and in science the simplest answer is the right one.

Isn't saying that Occam's Razor is right because of Occam's Razor sort of circular?

Occam's Razor is not justified by Occam's Razar, it's justified by Probability theory.

Ah right, I misunderstood what you were doing there.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 2:24:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 1:01:45 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:57:24 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:42:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Actually, in science, consensus of scientists is a good way of determining whether something is true or not ex. 99.98% of scientists believe in evolution.

bandwagon fallacy

At that point could you not say the same of belief in gravity?

You do know that, at one point, the consensus was AGAINST gravity.

If it weren't for that crank/ science denier Galileo, we wouldn't know about gravity today.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 3:24:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 1:10:54 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/19/2012 1:01:45 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:57:24 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:42:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Actually, in science, consensus of scientists is a good way of determining whether something is true or not ex. 99.98% of scientists believe in evolution.

bandwagon fallacy

At that point could you not say the same of belief in gravity?

I don't believe in gravity because most scientist believe in it, I believe in gravity because it's the simplest answer, and in science the simplest answer is the right one.

Hm.

So for a scientific truth to exist, it must be inherently reductionist?
turn down for h'what
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 5:41:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Consensus has impact not scientifically, but politically. You may believe one scientist is right, but that belief doesn't allow you to ignore a thousand experts who say likewise, especially if they are held in higher regard. It's like taking a vote: you are entitled to your own view, but politically you cannot ignore swathes of evidence, when coming from an ignorant background (i.e. not an expert in the field) while retaining political integrity, I would claim.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...