Want a crap link ? NOAA.ORG
A Growing Volume Of Evidence Undercuts ‘Consensus’ Climate Science
- Thread starter cancel2 2022
- Start date
Want a crap link ? NOAA.ORG
Cancel 2018.1
New member
So what the article summarizes and apparently concludes is that a political term to describe a political term about a hypothesis is binding.
Wow.
Last edited:
Funny, alloy did exactly as you predicted.
Cancel 2018.1
New member
I knew some yahoo would say that. I should've predicted it'd be you, probably the (im)poster on this board with the least aptitude for comprehension of scientific articles, but I thought I was on your ignore. There was no attacking the source. Attacking the source would be attacking either iopscience.org or archives.
It's called debate and what I stated was counterpoint, using the G &T article as reference.
Last edited:
No, but the antithesis is pure idiocy. Look up two more non-scientific terms. Heterodoxy and orthodoxy. If one is going to admit to not having expertise in a subject, who cares, say plumbing or golf or fucking cooking
and 99 percent of the experts say keep your head down, stop buying Costco toilet paper and slowly whisk in the egg yolks, and one percent say stare at the sky, shove tampons down the drain and dump the egg shells in your sauce, respectively,
who the fuck are you going to listen to?
You need credible science to adopt a heterodox opinion in science. You have none. You have god in the gaps. That's all. You are on the dumbass side, as is cornholio and the rest of you conservatives, and that's a fact. Dumbass decision is not a scientific word of art, yet true here.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Well there you have all the nutters in one place. John Cook and Dana Nutterelli of 97% consensus and Skeptical Science notoriety plus Naomi Oreskes and Stephen Lewandowsky.
Not one of them is actually a climate scientist yet they speak as if they are, because you are not very bright you've just plucked that out of a random Google search. It tells me that you have no hinterland or scientific background and thus pray to the almighty consensus God for enlightenment.
Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
Last edited:
cancel2 2022
Canceled
You're not really very bright, as witnessed by your continual use of the word heterodoxy, thinking that somehow gives you props where you patently have none.
Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
cancel2 2022
Canceled
He claims that his dad was a nuclear engineer, in which case I can only assume that McDawber was exposed to a large dose of gamma rays when young.I knew some yahoo would say that. I should've predicted it'd be you, probably the (im)poster on this board with the least aptitude for comprehension of scientific articles, but I thought I was on your ignore. There was no attacking the source. Attacking the source would be attacking either iopscience.org or archives.
It's called debate and what I stated was counterpoint, using the G &T article as reference.
Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
Let me summarize, I wholeheartedly adopt the consensus position on climate change, rocket science, brain surgery, quantum physics, super string theory, tying flies, and everything else I can't do so long as the topic is not metaphysical and at least oh, say 58 percent of the people who are versed agree.
To do otherwise is idiocy.
To do otherwise is idiocy.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
So which one of the four Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), outlined by the IPCC AR5 do you ascribe to and why?
Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
cancel2 2022
Canceled
That shut the arsehole up!!So which one of the four Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), outlined by the IPCC AR5 do you ascribe to and why?
Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
I've heard of the melt disrupting the thermohaline circulation (conveyor belt) but last I heard, about 6 or 7 years ago maybe there was no evidence of disruption and it remained conjecture.
I just googled for some insight on disruption but wikipedia was citing Peter Wadhams, LOL that's the guy who questioned the deaths of fellow scientists as possibly the work of big oil.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ED-astonishing-claim-Cambridge-professor.html
I haven't really studied this topic
Last edited:
The AMO is roughly about 60 year cycle. 30 warming, 30 cooling. It's a build up of warm layers that get trapped beneath cooler water in the Atlantic (Cooling phase... due to difference in the density fresher vs saltier) and it get released (some point is reached where the warm water builds sufficiently)and warms the surface (warm phase) leading to warming of the continents. The Pacific does the same thing but on shorter time scales. The PDO
These are the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation, and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
Deep pocket shakedown, baby!
So now what we have is an arguememt of semantics
Let's use common sense, if a review of the literature of a particular theory studied by close to 20,000 individuals in that field shows that well over ninty percent of those people are in unison, in agreement on their explanation and conclusion, I think there exists a pretty high probability that that analysis is correct
Now, in the history of mankind it is pretty easy to show that there have been some exceptions, but credibility favors the majority especially when it is over nine out of every ten
And what you have done, which is commonly done by Flat Earthers, is take a study from a scientist who is not in the field of climate study and presented it as a axiom
Why cause he read and mastered the semantics of a study and then presents it as if he knows what he is talking about? Given the opportunity and desire to waste time I think anyone can find and present a study contradicting any prevailing theory
Cancel 2018.1
New member
Not at all. "Consensus" doesn't prove anything in science. Google 'scientific method' and you'll see nothing about consensus driving a hypothesis into theory, much less consensus driving a theory into a law.
“Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know
them. You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly
wrong—to explain it.” - Richard Feynman
What theory are you talking about? If it's AGW, it's a hypothesis that has never been repeatable enough to become a theory. There may be a consensus on the hypothesis but that's irrelevant. The hypothesis test must be predictably repeatable to be a theory.
Some exceptions??? Countless. The consensus in medicine was to use leeches to blood-let for the cure of most anything. There was a consensus we had reached peak oil in 1970.
Off hand I can think of three things in particular that I was forced to regurgitate on tests in school that would be considered heresy today and malpractice if used.
I've already presented the credentials of Ligates. Yes he very much is in the field of climate study. As far as the 'field of climate study', it's an amalgam of different fields.
Last edited:
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I won't waste my time with intellectual minnows like you, it's abundantly clear that you just parrot talking points gleaned from blogs like Skeptical Science.
Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
cancel2 2022
Canceled
You are wasting your time trying to argue logically with people like him.
One of the articles of faith of the new despotism is that climate change is caused by human activity. It has to be an article of faith because there is no objective testable proof that this is the case, which is the normal requirement in science.
We are told instead that there is a‘consensus' or a‘vast majority' in favour of this belief. But scientific questions are not decided by majorities. They are decided by hard empirical evidence and experiments, repeatedly verified.
Precisely because it is a religious-like faith rather than a fact, a special intolerant fury is turned on any who publicly doubt it as can be seen here. What you are witnessing is scientology not science in action.
Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk