No Science Zone

[RyanT]

@Skeptic14 and others, the consensus issue is not bunk. Science deals in uncertainties, so as a framework of knowledge acquisition, it takes time and multiple studies to begin to understand complex phenomena. Once huge numbers of independent studies begin to converge on a consensus, it is usually pointing us in the right direction. As another example, what is your view on the role of saturated fats in our diet promoting heart disease? Most clinicians agree that it is a risk factor, yet you can find some who argue against it. As a non-cardiovascular scientist, which side are you going to come down on?

Better yet, I have a challenge...pick up copies of the journals Science or Nature (the world's premier peer-reviewed science journals) from the past few years and read the reports on climate change (there is probably at least one article every other week on climate change). Then explain where the science in those reports is wrong (BTW, very few if any of those reports will claim that NYC will be underwater in 20 years). I grow rather weary of people claiming that climate change is not happening or is not human induced, but those claims fail to criticize the studies directly. So my challenge...read 100, independent peer-reviewed reports from the past 5 years or so and explain in your words why the research does not support human induced climate change.

 

[Skeptic14]

@Skeptic14I grow rather weary of people claiming that climate change is not happening or is not human induced, but those claims fail to criticize the studies directly. So my challenge...read 100, independent peer-reviewed reports from the past 5 years or so and explain in your words why the research does not support human induced climate change.

Hopefully you are referring to "the others" here and not me, as I've made zero claims regarding climate science, only that consensus isn't science and the statement is used to shutdown dissent. It's a lazy argument that internet experts (and unfortunately talking heads on tv) use to try and start a discussion from a position of being correct and dismissing your opposition without having to provide any evidence or rationale.

When was the last time someone used a consensus argument on gravity? Exactly, they use empirical data, repeatable experimentation, etc.

No internet expert is going to change anyone's mind here on climate science, but lets at least try and use sound arguments if we're going to try.

 

[diver0008]

@Skeptic14... explain in your words why the research does not support human induced climate change.

Because predictions of doom from over the past 20 years have not come true, corruption has been uncovered in the data process, politics and wealth redistribution are all over it, the elephant in the room of overpopulation is not being given the weight it requires, people who are skeptical are shouted at, discredited, dismissed, and insulted, the solar role has not been nearly as expounded upon, and above all else, I have not seen it with my very own eyes. At all. There's just this stink all over it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for reducing pollution. I'm just not jumping on any bandwagon.

 

[RyanT]

When was the last time someone used a consensus argument on gravity? Exactly, they use empirical data, repeatable experimentation, etc.

The difference in your analogy though is that the theory of gravity hasn't been politicized, at least in the last few hundred years! Regardless, I do agree on the use of good science! Hence my challenge to directly critique the current studies on climate change!

 

[JohnN]

You do realize that in your eagerness to argue with someone and play the game of "I've got more and better links/sources than you" you've completely missed my point.

Not better links, better science. Dummies and dupes appear to have a plurality of climate change deniers

It feels like we're discussing evolution vs. creationism (hello Richard ) of whether the earth is flat again.


Please tell me again, you had a point you were trying to establish?

 

[drrich2]

It feels like we're discussing evolution vs. creationism (hello Richard ) of whether the earth is flat again.

Another issue where people often try to pigeon-hole others into 'all-or-nothing' mutually exclusive positions.

Richard.

 

[tilikum]

Although in this case it actually is. Either you are a denier, or you acknowledge that humans have contributed to climate change. It truly is that cut and dried.

 

[JohnN]

Another issue where people often try to pigeon-hole others into 'all-or-nothing' mutually exclusive positions.

Richard.

Happy to see you're checking in Richard. So for the record, I recall you were a Creationist (as if trying to equate a Religious belief with an evidence based orrientation). Did I miss something?

 

[drrich2]

I am a Christian and believe that God brought about creation. In just what way, to what extent time frame has been accurately or inaccurately interpreted and by which parties, I don't know all the details. Given that death is currently a reality for all biological organisms, and the genome subject to alteration (e.g.: in response to mutagens), natural selection & genetic modification over time occur.

Although in this case it actually is. Either you are a denier, or you acknowledge that humans have contributed to climate change. It truly is that cut and dried.

So what about someone who believes humans contribute to part of the change, but are skeptical of the practical magnitude of it, of our current grasp of that magnitude, and of what can & should be done about it? What of those who believe we're seeing a natural trend in climate change, perhaps in addition to what the human race is causing? How much does that impact how we should react?

Just because someone agrees humans impact climate doesn't mean he/she will fall in line with all other who think so.

Richard.

 

[They call me Tater]

John, I'm confused. Why post for a discussion when you not only have all the answers, you have the attitude to insult those who don't agree 100%. Why did you even post? Just to get validation of your unshakable opinion? Perhaps the need to convert the non-believers like the JWS that come to our doors. Your attitude is not capable of changing anyone's mind. It actually has the opposite effect. I will avoid sea save posts in the future. Dive safely.