BookTalk.org
https://www.booktalk.org/

what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?
https://www.booktalk.org/what-is-an-alleged-scientific-consensus-t19776.html
Page 1 of 5

Author:  ant [ Sat Jun 13, 2015 5:40 pm ]
Post subject:  what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?

Quote:
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of thecommunity of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity


Quote:
There are many philosophical and historical theories as to how scientific consensus changes over time. Because the history of scientific change is extremely complicated, and because there is a tendency to project "winners" and "losers" onto the past in relation to our current scientific consensus, it is very difficult to come up with accurate and rigorous models for scientific change.[5] This is made exceedingly difficult also in part because each of the various branches of science functions in somewhat different ways with different forms of evidence and experimental approaches.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

There is no unanimity regarding global warming, for instance:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... al_warming

Most bleeding heart environmentalists (although i do not entirely disagree with all their arguments) regularly claim that it is the consensus of science that justifies their belief that global warming is caused by humans.
History says winners and losers in scientifc debates are difficult to untangle.

Author:  Interbane [ Sat Jun 13, 2015 5:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?

Based on what you posted, what is your conclusion regarding the various theories where we find scientific consensus?

Author:  ant [ Sat Jun 13, 2015 6:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?

Here's what Im thinking. Freeman Dyson actually has motivated me consider variables we know little about and those which can not add to our current models because we no nothing about them:

What is the impact of space weather on our climate? Is it a a well enough understood variable yet?

Cosmic dust.

http://m.digitaljournal.com/article/322466

Although its been alleged that the effects of oxygen levels on the climate are not significant enough to dismiss the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis, its admitted that little is known about its effects on climate change models that attempt to esplain warming periods of the past. That variable needs to be taken into account.

How can we be sure of the degree of its significance? I think its premature to claim its of little significance when compared to what humans have contributed to warming.

Here is one interesting article that discusses it briefly without political taint.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... years.html

Are humans also changing oxygen levels , Interbane?

Author:  ant [ Sat Jun 13, 2015 6:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?

Interbane wrote:
Based on what you posted, what is your conclusion regarding the various theories where we find scientific consensus?


Why do you disagree with those scientists that are not in uniform with the consenus?
Can you name a couple of them and tell us all why it is you disagree with their position?

Author:  ant [ Sat Jun 13, 2015 6:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?

Quote:
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What isrelevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.



https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton

Author:  LanDroid [ Sun Jun 14, 2015 1:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?

There have been Fellows of the Royal Astronomical Society and the Royal Geographic Society who advocate the Earth is flat.
There are Phd. Cosmologists who believe in YEC, that Yahweh created the entire universe in 144 hours about 6000 years ago.
Therefore we must reserve judgment on these two matters.

Author:  Interbane [ Sun Jun 14, 2015 1:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?

ant wrote:
Why do you disagree with those scientists that are not in uniform with the consenus?
Can you name a couple of them and tell us all why it is you disagree with their position?


So... what about the answer to my question? Why would I answer your questions after you ignore mine?

What is your conclusion regarding the various theories where we find scientific consensus?

Author:  ant [ Sun Jun 14, 2015 4:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?

Interbane wrote:
ant wrote:
Why do you disagree with those scientists that are not in uniform with the consenus?
Can you name a couple of them and tell us all why it is you disagree with their position?


So... what about the answer to my question? Why would I answer your questions after you ignore mine?

What is your conclusion regarding the various theories where we find scientific consensus?


Consider how a report like this did not get much airtime

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-mode ... ts-1.12810

Look at the record setting year Texas and Oklahoma arr about to record:

http://www.weather.com/forecast/regiona ... ay-ranking

And whats forcasted for CA

http://m.accuweather.com/en/weather-new ... t/47173554

El Nino, La Nina effects are thought to have a greater impact on long term forcasting than atmospheric conditions. .But here's a question also to consider:
If the levels of C02 are higher than ever before (thanks to us) someone esplain to me why a warming pause/cooling trend is even possible at this alleged doomsday point?

Do you intelligent folks even bother to attempt some reasonable sceptical questions?
It's like working out your brain!

Author:  ant [ Sun Jun 14, 2015 4:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?

By the way. My crystal ball says I should move up north ro Oregon because of the impending doomsday mega drought forecast for CA .

I am seriosuly considering it.

Author:  Interbane [ Sun Jun 14, 2015 4:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?

ant wrote:
Do you intelligent folks even bother to attempt some reasonable sceptical questions?


Here's a skeptical question for you. If past consensus has turned out to be false in many cases, what is your conclusion regarding current issues where there is consensus?

Author:  ant [ Sun Jun 14, 2015 4:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?

Interbane wrote:
ant wrote:
Do you intelligent folks even bother to attempt some reasonable sceptical questions?


Here's a skeptical question for you. If past consensus has turned out to be false in many cases, what is your conclusion regarding current issues where there is consensus?


Has there ever been a consensus or unanimity with any climate change models?
Which ones?

I assume you are ill informed here.

But look:

Quote:
Now, as the global-warming hiatus enters its sixteenth year, scientists are at last making headway in the case of the missing heat. Some have pointed to the Sun, volcanoes and even pollution from China as potential culprits, but recent studies suggest that the oceans are key to explaining the anomaly. The latest suspect is the El Niño of 1997–98, which pumped prodigious quantities of heat out of the oceans and into the atmosphere — perhaps enough to tip the equatorial Pacific into a prolonged cold state that has suppressed global temperatures ever since.


http://www.nature.com/news/climate-chan ... at-1.14525

Why the 16 year pause when C02 levels are off the charts? Is heat generated from oceans a greater impact than CO2 emissions?
The El Nino effect from 1998 is apparently still with us.
If we were still pumping climate altering amounts of C02 into the atmosphere from 1998 to the present, why wasnt it enough to keep our warming models accurate?

I suspect you cant match my questioning prowess, Intebane. That or youre just too lazy because the consensus says humans are responsible for global warming.

Author:  Interbane [ Sun Jun 14, 2015 10:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?

ant wrote:
I suspect you cant match my questioning prowess, Intebane.


I sure can't. I bet you can't match my answering prowess. Give it a shot:

If past consensus has turned out to be false in many cases, what is your conclusion regarding current issues where there is consensus?

Author:  ant [ Sun Jun 14, 2015 11:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?

In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted - Bertrand R.

I think anyone who simply bandwagons a consensus cant actually think for HIMSELF or is too caught up in a web of confirmation bias.

Here is another great article in Nature mag:


Quote:
The sad truth of climate science is that the most crucial information is the least reliable. To plan for the future, people need to know how their local conditions will change, not how the average global temperature will climb. Yet researchers are still struggling to develop tools to accurately forecast climate changes for the twenty-first century at the local and regional level


http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/ ... 3284a.html

I think this ties in to what Freeman Dyson said about the need for a necessary distinction between global averages and regional differences. A global trend does not mean the entire planet will warm or even continue to warm.

Percipitation:

Quote:
Unfortunately, when it comes to precipitation, that is about all the models agree on. The different simulations used by the IPCC in its 2007 assessment offer wildly diverging pictures of snow and rainfall in the future (see graphic, right). The situation is particularly bad for winter precipitation, generally the most important in replenishing water supplies. The IPCC simulations failed to provide any robust projection of how winter precipitation will change at the end of the current century for large parts of all continents2.

Even worse, climate models seemingly underestimate how much precipitation has changed already — further reducing confidence in their ability to project 


Have you ever researched this?
Heck, before this, I didnt know that space "weather" and oxygen levels can impact the climate to a degree that is to date uncertain.
Why has the consensus convinced you its not? What model convinced you this is small potatoes compared to what science and technology has done to pollute our atmosphere?

I suspect you are in a political trance about this.
However I do avree that we need to clean up our act.

Author:  ant [ Sun Jun 14, 2015 11:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?

"The wise man questions the wisdom of others because he questions his own, the foolish man, because it is different from his own" - L Stein.

Author:  DWill [ Mon Jun 15, 2015 7:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?

I read an op-ed a while back by George Schultz, who was Ronald Reagan's Sec. of State. No liberal, obviously. But what he said about GW in terms of true conservative thinking made sense. If the possible stakes of GW are so tremendously high (this seems to be true), the conservative response would be to err on the side of caution and not wait until we have a ( perhaps mythical) scientific consensus. That is what prevention is all about. We'll never know exactly how effective our preventive actions are, but it's just wise to take them. Schultz talked about Reagan's strong advocacy of the treaty banning CFCs, which were damaging the ozone layer. He implied that were he around today, RR might also be inclined to act to put the brakes on CO2 emissions. But we'll never know that for sure, of course.

All of our squabbling about AGW could be like Nero's fiddling while Rome burned.

Page 1 of 5 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/