Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:53 am





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 69 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ? 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?
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.



Mon Jun 15, 2015 8:19 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7075
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1079
Thanked: 2077 times in 1666 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?
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.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Mon Jun 15, 2015 10:00 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?
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.

Quote:
"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


Quote:
“...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. :)



Last edited by ant on Mon Jun 15, 2015 10:56 am, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Jun 15, 2015 10:51 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7075
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1079
Thanked: 2077 times in 1666 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?
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.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Mon Jun 15, 2015 11:46 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?
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.



Mon Jun 15, 2015 11:51 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?
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?



Mon Jun 15, 2015 12:02 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7075
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1079
Thanked: 2077 times in 1666 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?
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?


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Mon Jun 15, 2015 3:11 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?
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



Mon Jun 15, 2015 4:39 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7075
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1079
Thanked: 2077 times in 1666 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?
ant wrote:
I do not believe Man is the primary contributor to climate change.


Why not?


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Mon Jun 15, 2015 5:01 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?
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.



Mon Jun 15, 2015 5:04 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7075
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1079
Thanked: 2077 times in 1666 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?
ant wrote:
I've already peppered my reasons all over this forum many times whenever the topic has come up.


The dots aren't connecting for me, help me out. Examples of past consensus being wrong aren't evidence that current consensus is wrong. Weak predictive power isn't evidence that consensus is wrong.

But still you believe consensus is wrong. That position has a bandwagon all its own.

For the record, I'm not certain the change to our climate is entirely anthropogenic. But neither are the scientists who put their name on the consensus list. There is strong evidence that it is anthropogenic, so I wonder what strong contrary evidence you have.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


The following user would like to thank Interbane for this post:
ant
Mon Jun 15, 2015 5:19 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?
The consensus relies on mathematical models that have been notoriously poor in their predictive power.
The models to date "run hot" and yet miserably failed to predict the 16 year warming "pause"
Actually the pause has been described as surprising and has caused a scramble to save past models.

Recently there is a new model that tracks temperature and temperature trends more closely than previous models which
"most significantly overstates the amount of warming the planet has experience during approximately the past 120 years"

Here is the full quote:

Quote:
The new model tracks temperatures and temperature trends more closely than the complex climate models used by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).



Quote:
Climate ‘Complexity’ Mistakes

The authors note each of the complex climate models used by the IPCC significantly overstates the amount of warming the planet has experience during approximately the past 120 years. In addition, based on the theory temperatures should rise right along with carbon-dioxide emissions, the complex models have missed a more than 18-year pause in temperature increase.

In the paper, authors Lord Christopher Monckton, Astrophysicist Willie Soon, Ph.D., climatologist and geologist David Legates, Ph.D., and statistician William Briggs, argue complex climate models get temperature projections wrong because they overestimate, or miscalculate entirely, the strength and direction of the feedback mechanisms built into the climate in response to increased carbon-dioxide concentrations.


http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-art ... rks-debate


Here is the actual article (pdf). It was published in the journal Science in 2014

http://download.springer.com/static/pdf ... 20eb849c7d


Look at this from the Abstract:

Quote:
Once those discrepancies
are taken into account, the impact of anthropogenic
global warming over the next century, and even as
far as equilibrium many millennia hence, may be no more
than one-third to one-half of IPCC’s current projections.



Part of the intro may catch your interest and motivate you to read and digest what you are able to, being the layman you (and I) are.

Quote:
Are global-warming predictions reliable? In the 25 years of
IPCC’s First to Fifth Assessment Reports [1–5], the
atmosphere has warmed at half the rate predicted in FAR
(Fig. 1); yet, Professor Ross Garnaut [6] has written, ‘‘The
outsider to climate science has no rational choice but to
accept that, on a balance of probabilities, the mainstream
science is right in pointing to high risks from unmitigated
climate change.’’ However, as Sir Fred Hoyle put it,
‘‘Understanding the Earth’s greenhouse effect does not
require complex computer models in order to calculate
useful numbers for debating the issue. To raise a delicate
point, it really is not very sensible to make approximations
and then to perform a highly complicated computer
calculation, while claiming the arithmetical accuracy of the
computer as the standard for the whole investigation’’



Essentially what laymen bandwagoners can only do is point to a graph that indicates a rise in average global temperatures over a fixed period of time.

But a graph does not tell the entire story:

A graph can not predict the future of highly complex systems.

A graph does not demonstrate the high variability and impact of built in feedback mechanisms that compensate the system.

A graph is static. It is not dynamic.

A graph is not a 100 year weather forecast.


Is this recent mathematical model wrong because it doesn't fit with the current paradigmatic dogma that rejects and frowns on open scientific and public discourse because there's a "consensus"?


What i've said here is not intended to persuade you of anything.
I'm simply more open minded than you are.



Last edited by ant on Tue Jun 16, 2015 12:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Tue Jun 16, 2015 12:26 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7075
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1079
Thanked: 2077 times in 1666 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?
ant wrote:
The consensus relies on mathematical models that have been notoriously poor in their predictive power.


Models for climate change?

This is beside the point. You already said you believe the climate is changing.

This doesn't clear things up for me at all. I'm more confused. Do you have an issue with all of it, or just the claims that climate change is most likely caused by mankind?

Quote:
I'm simply more open minded than you are.


Yeah! That's why your brain keeps falling out. You are far more close-minded that you realize.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:02 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?
Weak



Tue Jun 16, 2015 7:56 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7075
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1079
Thanked: 2077 times in 1666 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?
Hey, you started that one.

What are you thoughts on the Pope's encyclical? Is he merely jumping on a bandwagon, or has he done his homework?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/19/world ... .html?_r=0


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Thu Jun 18, 2015 9:12 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 69 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
How To Promote Your Book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2019. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank