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 Mon Jul 22, 2019 3:05 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
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" ?
Quote:
Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.


http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 013-9647-9

As Ive said before the existence of the IPCC originally was to develope a socioeconomic strategum to respond to the possibility of a warmer planet. At some point immediately thereafter the IPCC introduced a null hypothesis - "climate change is anthropogenic" that it presupposes and guides its scientific research selection and analysis.
Its easy to see how politics can control science by creating a perfect storm for built in bias within a promoted consensus.



Mon Jun 29, 2015 7:05 pm
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" ?
Below is an example of IPCC blundering:

Nature mag published an article to discuss ways to improve communication with the public.

Quote:
One journalist at the conference asked Stocker, "you acknowledged that a 15-year period is less relevant from looking at a climate point of view and 30 years is what you would normally look at. If that's the case, why did you even mention a 15-year period?"

The question went unanswered.

To avoid similar confusion in the future, scientists should strive to communicate certainty, but also be open to discussing details that they are less certain about, Pearce said in a statement.


http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060019873


Quote:
Here we demonstrate that speakers at the press conference for the publication of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (Working Group 1; ref. 1) attempted to make the documented level of certainty of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) more meaningful to the public. Speakers attempted to communicate this through reference to short-term temperature increases. However, when journalists enquired about the similarly short ‘pause’2 in global temperature increase, the speakers dismissed the relevance of such timescales, thus becoming incoherent as to ‘what counts’ as scientific evidence for AGW. We call this the ‘IPCC’s certainty trap’. This incoherence led to confusion within the press conference and subsequent condemnation in the media


http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/ ... e2672.html


It's easy to see the 15 year period was mentioned by the IPCC as yet another attempt at alarmism.
They just got caught, again.
Why alarmists can't see that the IPCC has become a political body that maintains its own scientific community for the purpose of promoting a political agenda is flabbergasting.

Who checks the IPCC's honesty and integrity?
I know who approves of its methods - Climate Alarmists.



Tue Jun 30, 2015 11:51 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 membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7040
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1071
Thanked: 2064 times in 1656 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?
ant wrote:
Why alarmists can't see that the IPCC has become a political body that maintains its own scientific community for the purpose of promoting a political agenda is flabbergasting.


What political agenda? Convincing the stubborn masses that we're changing the climate? I agree, that isn't what science is for. They're not very good at communicating, and make mistakes. That doesn't mean their science isn't sound.

If you want to see a true politically motivated group, look at the denialists, who are almost entirely either anti-government or in the pockets of the carbon industry. They don't even hide it. Why should they? You're a living breathing example of why they don't need to. You just keep on thinking it's the other side that has the ulterior motives. It's fascinating.


_________________
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 30, 2015 12:11 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" ?
Quote:
we're changing the climate


That hasn't been evidenced.

IS the climate changing - yes

Should we base policies on alarmism - NO.

Even the IPCC isn't even certain WE are changing the climate.
For that reason, over the past past 10+ years the IPCC has been reeling in the claim that WE are changing the climate.
If you do the research you can clearly see their change in language and tone.

The HadCRUT suite of models the IPCC references have not provided an adequate climate record to date.
Because of that, datasets previously dismissed are now being revisited, particularly because natural variances previously dismissed are becoming better understood. Hence, the attention they are now beginning to receive.

In all the rush to alarm the public, the IPCC has set aside rigorous science. Something you'd expect from a political body.

Different datasets provide different temperatures for millennial cycles of warming and cooling.
If retroforcasts were off, then it's highly likely climate forecasts are off as well.


Actually, there are points in this issue from both sides that can be agreed on.
It's tribalism that keeps people from communicating what they can agree on.
History is filled with examples of groups and people that were marginalized because of tribalism. It turned out what they had to say had merit to it.

Solar physics is something that hasn't been seriously considered by the IPCC. It's incredibly complex. It's been mostly dismissed by the IPCC science club. Of the 38 co-authors and three review editors of the IPCC's solar sub-chapter only one is an expert on solar physics.

By the way, it's not the world's lone-wolf, superhero scientists that are telling us we are changing the climate. It's a selected number of scientists the IPCC declared as being in explicit agreement with their campaign that we are changing the climate, and that the planet will continue to warm. I pointed that out to you in another post but you conveniently ignored it.

Within that group, to my knowledge, there was not unanimous explicit agreement we are changing the climate by ourselves and that the planet will continue to warm if we don't do something about it. Of course there was subjective interpretation of what was thought to be implicit agreement with the IPCC's alarmist mongering.

How many times have governing bodies made hasty decisions which later turned out to be idiotic?


Quote:
That doesn't mean their science isn't sound.



You personally wouldn't even know if the science was sound or not, Interbane,
Stop pretending you know that it is.
All you know is that the consensus says we're screwing up the climate.



Last edited by ant on Tue Jun 30, 2015 1:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Tue Jun 30, 2015 1:43 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 membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7040
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1071
Thanked: 2064 times in 1656 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?
ant wrote:
That hasn't been evidenced.


Yes, it has.

We can know things to be true without being certain of them.

ant wrote:
Should we base policies on alarmism - NO.


We should base policies on conclusions established by science. Which is to say, we are changing the climate.

ant wrote:
You personally wouldn't even know if the science was sound or not, Interbane,


I never said I did or would, that's what scientists are for. And they agree that climate change is man-made. Explicit agreement isn't necessary, as the conclusion is established strongly enough that it need not be mentioned. Any paper that showed a minimalization of human impact was counted as a rejection. So the error is in favor of denialists, yet it is still at 97%. And this isn't simply a small group of scientists. It's a collection of over ten thousand peer reviewed papers.

Yet you disagree with them based on the biased websites and books you've been reading, written by people with political interests or who are in the pockets of the carbon industry. Just look up their names for god's sake! The writing is on the wall here. How can you not see it?

You repeat their arguments without searching to see if their arguments are in any way valid. Every argument you've put forward has turned out to be misinformation or debunked. Why do you believe the arguments you repeat, unless you think you're qualified to understand the science?

Is anyone else reading along that doesn't find this incredible? Ant, I'm done with this thread. You've fallen off the edge into delusion.


_________________
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 30, 2015 3:03 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" ?
Is that you, Robert?



Tue Jun 30, 2015 3:20 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 membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4345
Location: NC
Thanks: 1836
Thanked: 1909 times in 1429 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?
Interbane wrote:
Is anyone else reading along that doesn't find this incredible? Ant, I'm done with this thread. You've fallen off the edge into delusion.

I've poked my head in here a few times, but honestly it's difficult to figure out what specifically is being argued.

The problems with a consensus argument have already been acknowledged; we simply don't always have the luxury of certainty with respect to climate science. As Interbane has already stated, most of us don't have ten years to delve into the mountains of data, so the most reasonable position is to rely, for now at least, on the consensus of climate scientists. Ant tries to argue that the 97 percent figure is specious, but clearly a majority of scientists do say there's probably something to anthropogenic warming. The rest is all bluster—focusing on trivial inconsistencies in order to reject the whole kit and caboodle.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Wed Jul 01, 2015 9:18 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" ?
Specious? No, i wouldnt express it as such.

Reliable from an entirely historical perspective - no. That is safe to say based on prior ideological consensus claims.

Do I believe based on evidence that the climate is changing - yes. I have stated that several times.

Are there prominent scientists that question our current knoedge base - yes. There are and I am of the opinion that we should not be boxing them out of the discussion.

Is the IPCC more of a political body than an objectively driven group of scientists that are out to save the world from an apocalyptic scenario - i question that possibility.



The following user would like to thank ant for this post:
geo
Wed Jul 01, 2015 9:59 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 membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4345
Location: NC
Thanks: 1836
Thanked: 1909 times in 1429 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?
It's all hunky dory then.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Thu Jul 02, 2015 9:58 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



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 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