Page 2 of 7

Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?

Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2015 8:19 am
by ant
Of course. Thats why Ive always supported reduction of emmisions.
It's the politics and consensus that is likely duping people into the anthropogenic cult.

Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?

Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2015 10:00 am
by Interbane
ant wrote:I suspect you are in a political trance about this.
However I do avree that we need to clean up our act.
You're still missing the forest for the trees. Why won't you answer my question? Quotes of L Stein and Russel are meaningless unless... you seek to answer the questions. It's actually the more important part. They're speaking to you, not me.

Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?

Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2015 10:51 am
by ant
Interbane wrote:
ant wrote:I suspect you are in a political trance about this.
However I do avree that we need to clean up our act.
You're still missing the forest for the trees. Why won't you answer my question? Quotes of L Stein and Russel are meaningless unless... you seek to answer the questions. It's actually the more important part. They're speaking to you, not me.

Yeah, that goes without saying - first questions, then a pursuit of their answers.
:yawn:

Anyway, the history of consensus science is not really that impressive. In fact, it's quite telling. Politics are usually the culprit when a consensus has been declared. It goes back as far as Copernicus.

What's important is that people aren't fooled by people like you into thinking that science is in the business of setting consensus goals and proclaiming them as truth to the word. I agree with Chrichton (who was a scientist, if that makes you feel better) science has zero to do with consensus and the greatest scientists in history were great because they broke with the consensus.

A lot of reactions from laymen are what they are because personal beliefs are being questioned and examined.
People don't question their beliefs very often. Even honest skeptics like you.
"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

“...consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way”
- Chrichton, M

Ps

I actually met Mr. Chrichton once, very briefly. He was a big, friendly guy. :)

Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?

Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2015 11:46 am
by Interbane
ant wrote:Yeah, that goes without saying - first questions, then a pursuit of their answers.
I'm just feeding the troll now. You obviously have no idea what the consensus actually is, or how it should affect policy, or how it should influence individual conclusions. Without giving answers yourself, I find it hard to believe you even understand your own questions.

Let us know when you feel like answering.

Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?

Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2015 11:51 am
by ant
Interbane wrote:
ant wrote:Yeah, that goes without saying - first questions, then a pursuit of their answers.
I'm just feeding the troll now. You obviously have no idea what the consensus actually is, or how it should affect policy, or how it should influence individual conclusions. Without giving answers yourself, I find it hard to believe you even understand your own questions.

Let us know when you feel like answering.

Yes of course.
When all you're doing is hiding your own ignorance, resort to ad hominem.


This must be way too complicated for me to understand the science of it all!

:lol:

Okay - you win.
Let's just call each other names now.

Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?

Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2015 12:02 pm
by ant
It's interesting, just to name two examples, both Einstein and Darwin eventually (it took time) overturned the consensus of the time because their theories were testable and eventually generated predictions.

As esplained previously, and what has been admitted by scientists, climate models are notoriously poor and inadequate at making climate projections.

What specific theories by meteorologists are testable in nature?
And how strong were the predictions?

Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?

Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2015 3:11 pm
by Interbane
So, based on all the information you've provided in the thread so far, what do you think we should do in response to the consensus? Or is the consensus meaningless? Does the consensus warrant a response in the form of policy?

Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?

Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2015 4:39 pm
by ant
Interbane wrote:So, based on all the information you've provided in the thread so far, what do you think we should do in response to the consensus? Or is the consensus meaningless? Does the consensus warrant a response in the form of policy?

That is a very good question regarding policy.

It's not likely that an international policy on emissions control can be implemented when rising economic powers like India and China are in full swing industrially. Their argument would be very basic - It's our turn now (industrial revolution time)

If I had one of those Myther black belts in conspiracy theories I'd say a global warming alarmist campaign is motivated by a socialist goal of global taxation, global economy, and perhaps eventually a one world government.

How meaningful was the Euclidean space geometry consensus?
An entire re-conceptualization of space was needed. But we were able to empirically verify Einstein's theory by TESTING it. Its predictive power reconfirmed it.

What specific theories by meteorologists are testable in nature?
What is the predictive power of current models? Was the warming "pause" predicted?
What's the weather going to be like in a 100 years from now?

The Euclid consensus had meaning, of course. But if science was in the business of achieving a consensus Einstein would have stopped because the consensus agreed with Euclid.

How meaningful was the Aristotelean consensus?
The Ptolemaic consensus?

Our knowledge of nature vastly changed after the consensus was found to be wrong.
Bonus question: Is mankind any wiser because of it?


Let me be clear again:

I believe the climate is changing, like it has many, many times in the past.

I believe our predictive power is not very good at all when it comes to climate change.

I believe we (meaning the U.S.A.) should substantially decrease the crap we pump into the air by the ton. We should be caring for our planet. This is our only home (for now).
(it just makes sense).

I do not believe Man is the primary contributor to climate change. Consensus arguments are just a lot of political/scientific hand waving. Bandwagoners are just that - BANDWAGONERS - who ask little and are easily persuaded because they hear only what they want hear and READ only what they choose to read (confirmation bias at its best).


Thanks

Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?

Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2015 5:01 pm
by Interbane
ant wrote:I do not believe Man is the primary contributor to climate change.
Why not?

Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?

Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2015 5:04 pm
by ant
Interbane wrote:
ant wrote:I do not believe Man is the primary contributor to climate change.
Why not?

Common, Interbane.
We are going around in circles.

I've already peppered my reasons all over this forum many times whenever the topic has come up.