No Science Zone

[diver0008]

Storker pretty much hit the nail on the head.

But....@Murky Waters, I'll give you an alternative, I'll train you how to read scientific papers. I take freshmen biology students with no science background and train them to do this all the time. Yes, there is a lot of jargon, etc. in the reports, and it takes time, but if my freshmen can do this, so can you. Let's start here. I'm posting links for two papers, one is a review that summarizes a bunch of existing studies (by Parmesan). The other is an empirical study. Take a look at these and then shoot me questions. I'll start explaining any terms and methods that don't make sense.

Regards,
Ryan

https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/bitst...212/bg-10-161-2013.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y

http://www.rosemonteis.us/files/references/049004.pdf

Thank-you. That's very nice. I will decline. I do not think that you understand the mind-set of people like me, deniers to a certain degree. As skeptics naturally, if we read something that promotes something, we cannot help but wonder if there is another side to the issue, if we are being lied to or manipulated, told only part of the picture that leaves out details that would otherwise not be supportive of the premise being proposed. These are not unheard of concepts, so instead, our curiosity directs us to the minority voices, the dissenters, those who are mocked and ridiculed, the unpopular opinions with nothing to lose. The majority opinions have all the power and support that they could ever want, including proponents like you, and there is way too much political and emotional capital already invested in this for objectivity to be expected.

So I remain happily Agnostic, but quite aware that when something has so much loud noise all around it, that there is often something weak in$ide.

 

[RyanT]

The majority opinions have all the power and support that they could ever want, including proponents like you, and there is way too much political and emotional capital already invested in this for objectivity to be expected.

And that is the beauty of science! Minority opinions can, and do win. Of course it takes time and effort, and is sometimes a slow process, but science is a self-correcting endeavor. I've experienced this myself in my own work, advancing ideas that have not been in the mainstream. The science itself removes the political aspects, emotional capital etc. and just is. Afterwards, its up to the people to decide what they want to do with the science. But the view of science should drive the politics, not the other way around.

 

[RyanT]

To follow up on what I just sad, for example. If someone says, "I've read the climate science and it's pretty clear, we're warming the planet. But, I don't agree with predictions of how much sea levels are going to rise in the future, and I don't think we should spend money on mitigating this uncertainty." In this case, I would have no argument with that person. They've made an informed decision. The issue always arise when folks deny the science without understanding it.

 

[Storker]

if we read something that promotes something, we cannot help but wonder if there is another side to the issue, if we are being lied to or manipulated, told only part of the picture that leaves out details that would otherwise not be supportive of the premise being proposed.

If that's your beef, you really should take on the scientific literature as @RyanT suggests. Any hints of lies, or political biases, are the first things that will be killed during the peer review process. Unless you're a serious geek, scientific journal articles are among the dullest stuff you can read.

 

[diver0008]

The issue always arise when folks deny the science without understanding it.

The science is irrelevant.

Too tainted by politics.

Show me the face of god.

Show my seasons changing.

Show my lakes and rivers rising.

Forests drying up.

Mountains crumbling.

Farms unyielding.

Paper is not enough.

It must be tangible.

They want me to show them the money?

Show me some climate change.

 

[JohnN]

The science is irrelevant.

Show me the face of god.

Show my seasons changing.

Show my lakes and rivers rising.

Forests drying up.

Mountains crumbling.

Farms unyielding.

Paper is not enough.

It must be tangible.

They want me to show them the money?

Show me some climate change.

So you're basically smarter than everyone who has spent their lives studying this. . . Awesome !!

 

[diver0008]

So you're basically smarter than everyone who has spent their lives studying this. . . Awesome !!

I said nothing of the sort.

All I said is that I need to see it to believe it.

Troll.

 

[RyanT]

Have you ever seen gravity? How about an oxygen molecule? How do you know it's oxygen that you're breathing in your tanks?

 

[JohnN]

I said nothing of the sort.

All I said is that I need to see it to believe it.

Troll.

Even more awesome. . . so all the time people have spent trying to explain the science behind the statements that the climate is changing and it is highly likely humans are a causal factor was wasted. . .

You could have saved everyone a lot of time and effort.

Doesn't that make you the troll?

 

[Skeptic14]

We see "gravity" everyday; it's simply man's way of describing a natural behavior. I can perform my own experiments on gravity to a degree all day long , maybe not relativistic gravity but Newtonian.

@Murky Waters if you want to know how skeptical you should be of something in science, don't just look for papers (string theory was inundated with papers for a few decades and it's still a mathematical game with little in terms of experimental testing) instead look for future predictions and than eventually accurate results.

From 1998 through 2015 temperatures (as reported by remss and NOAA) were flat while CO2 continued to increase. No IPCC models predicted this (or reported on it). Until we can routinely make accurate global climate predictions "the science isn't settled".

And yes, global climate is an incredibly complex problem, there are so many moving parts and so much feedback and that's why it is hilariously absurd when someone makes a claim that in regard to how the planetary climate works, there's no discussion, it's settled.