Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Climate Scientists got it wrong.


  • Please log in to reply
159 replies to this topic

#151 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,804 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 20 January 2020 - 21:46

No it's not - it's crap. 

Yep - and they didn't really land on the moon right?



Advertisement

#152 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,804 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 20 January 2020 - 22:11

Enjoyed reading that link Neil - thanks. A useful quote from Neil's link: https://thelogicofsc...OCB0t1kKZoXgdK4

 

What is a scientific consensus?

 

 There are really two different levels at which we can talk about a consensus, and this can become confusing because most people are bad at specifying the level at which they are talking (I have been guilty of this myself). At one level, there is a consensus of experts. In other words, this exists when the vast majority of experts agree on something. This is what most people think of when they think of a scientific consensus, but it is not actually the best level to look at.

 

You see, when we say something like, “this is a fact” or “the science is settled,” we aren’t basing that on a consensus of experts, but rather a consensus of evidence (i.e., a large body of studies that all agree with and support each other). The consensus of experts is a secondary by-product of the consistent body of evidence. This is really the level we need to look at when asking questions like, “is there any serious debate on topic X.” Science is not a democracy. It is about evidence, not authority. So simply finding some people with advanced degrees who disagree with X does not mean that there is serious scientific debate about the topic. Rather, if there is serious debate, it will be reflected in the peer-reviewed literature, because people will be publishing papers presenting evidence that X is not correct. So that is really the level we should focus on when we talk about a scientific consensus: the evidence, not the experts.

 

This also highlights the futility of polling this forum.  For example, a summary might look like this:

 

50% of forum members believe climate science is settled.

70% of the general public believe climate science is settled.

97% of scientists believe climate science is settled.

99% of research publications agree (broadly) on climate science.


Edited by gruntguru, 20 January 2020 - 22:12.


#153 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 3,327 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 22 January 2020 - 00:26

There is a cycle to scientific endeavour .

 

First it takes someone with enough chutzpah to disagree with 'the scientific consensus' to present a contrary position, they also have to have enough passion and self belief to withstand the subsequent negative onslaught.

 

If this occurs, and  subsequent scientific data agrees with the one with the chutzpah and passion, then it will eventually become 'the scientific consensus'

 

At what point are we in this cycle of scientific endeavour ?

 

Where does chutzpah and passion fit into a scientific paradigm (Or self and belief for that matter) ?

 

 (ps)


Edited by carlt, 22 January 2020 - 01:03.


#154 GreenMachine

GreenMachine
  • Member

  • 1,560 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 22 January 2020 - 01:11

It seems it isn't going to get better, not by itself anyway.

 

http://theconversati...e-warned-130211

 

But then again, they are only scientists*, and what has science ever done for us?**

 

 

*  Caution - irony alert!

 

**  Rhetorical question, no answer required.



#155 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,513 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 22 January 2020 - 02:45

Yep - and they didn't really land on the moon right?

 

 I have been asked this question before - I will give much the same answer:

 

  Clearly NASA  did go to the moon - but only with the  assistance of  the Alien Lizard Shapeshifter  People's  technology.  Everybody KNOWS  that  - even you  gg.

 

  I would imagine all the NASA people  do these days  is mince about squealing and grabbing each other on the bum  (not that there's anything wrong with that you understand)  - while spouting "woke" crap.    

 

  PS - it's top secret but  the Jews and the ALSPs  are one and the same.


Edited by Kelpiecross, 22 January 2020 - 02:54.


#156 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,513 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 22 January 2020 - 02:52

Enjoyed reading that link Neil - thanks. A useful quote from Neil's link: https://thelogicofsc...OCB0t1kKZoXgdK4

 

This also highlights the futility of polling this forum.  For example, a summary might look like this:

 

50% of forum members believe climate science is settled.

70% of the general public believe climate science is settled.

97% of scientists believe climate science is settled.

99% of research publications agree (broadly) on climate science.

 

  I don't think a typical "summary" would look anything like this.  



#157 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,804 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 22 January 2020 - 06:55

  I don't think a typical "summary" would look anything like this.  

Feel free to post another "example".



#158 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,513 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 23 January 2020 - 04:16

   It really depends on the question being asked on all propositions:

 

  I would think that No. 1 is the only one where you would approach your predicted/desired  result.   This is the only statement that can be easily settled  - ask the "forum members" that exact question.   And even then  a 50/50 would reflect a more "buggered if I know"   attitude than anything else.  

 

  70%?   Not the general public I know or associate with.   Amongst the "practical"  people I know there seems to be an increasing  "push back"  against the ever-increasing tide of  "woke/PC/lefty"  propaganda.   I don't know even one fervent Climate Change  supporter.    This is not a  "dig"  (well it is a bit)   -  but I would imagine that the people you associate with could  almost all  be described as painfully  "woke, PC"  etc. and are  fervent "warmists".  No point in quoting  various surveys etc.  - it is impossible to tell how biased they are in either  direction.  

 

 97%?  Didn't  somebody on this forum thoroughly demolish that figure through sensible logic a while back?   You saw what Plimer said -  97% of scientists  (or any group of humans)  could not agree on even the simplest   proposition.

 

  (And - no - Plimer is not my "muse" as Flummery, Greta, Indian ex-bus drivers, Al Gore etc. etc. apparently  are to the "PC Brigade").  

 

 99% ?   Not even amongst the most biased  "publications" - and that is pretty much all of them.             


Edited by Kelpiecross, 23 January 2020 - 04:20.


#159 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,804 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 23 January 2020 - 22:13

 . . and your "example" was????

 

 

EDIT. BTW there have been a number of polls of the Australian public and 70% is a very conservative number. eg 89% in a 2019 Lowey institute poll.

https://www.lowyinst...-climate-change


Edited by gruntguru, 23 January 2020 - 22:16.


Advertisement

#160 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,513 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted Today, 10:16

Your post 156  refers to "climate science being settled"   -  the Lowy survey  is something entirely different  -  no mention of any "science"  being settled.