DeletedUser35712
I replied that to your statement on how over 99% of climate scientists agree with you.
-
We are looking for you! Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
- Status
DeletedUser35712
Who is Adam, unless if this was a typo? I am not preaching about my views on what science should be. I am just stating how it works:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16
Grumblenuts
Member
Yes, I really do agree with them. My word on that is the best source you'll find. Take my word for it. If, otoh, you still doubt overwhelming scientific consensus exists then you must have been sleeping the past several decades.
DeletedUser35712
Except based on the overwhelming evidence in the scientific literature that supports anthropogenic climate change, one cannot be a skeptic and say climate change isn’t real at the same time. Skeptics look at evidence and derive conclusions that have to conform to all the evidence out there.
DeletedUser35712
Thanks for the prompt answer. Now I was trying to correct your misconception on how scientific publishing and communications happen by explaining how it actually happens, but I might have sounded like a jerk when I explained it.
DeletedUser35712
Why should I take your word for it, when I could use some skepticism? Why are you not going to post links that show the scientific consensus? Do you want me to post the links for you?
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Grumblenuts
Member
Semantics. One cannot claim to hate Brussels sprouts while eating them.. yet one's parents make them do it anyway. Go figure.
DeletedUser35712
So I screwed up the wording, and should have said not really acceptable or a pretty weak argument. My apologies.
DeletedUser35712
But if we are going to use this analogy, how does science skepticism force somebody to deny climate change? Or the other way around?
Grumblenuts
Member
There ya go, but why should I bother? You fail to appreciate my absolute conviction that there's zero chance of related productive dialogue occurring in a venue such as this, let alone any scientifically rigorous debate of the subject. Everyone knows NASA provides the genuine facts. They don't care. It's just a game to them.
Last edited:
Grumblenuts
Member
Exactly. The use in the original context did not presume all skeptics to be deniers. That's just you making that leap.
Grumblenuts
Member
The few skeptical scientists in question had/have their honest, alternative explanations for what goes on. They really, really want to believe they're right. Exactly like those with the consensus and everyone in between.
DeletedUser
Close, but no cigar. To be correct, your statement should read: "Said conclusion in order to be official accepted as science by the science community's internal standards must be published in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal."
Grumblenuts
Member
Yes, "valid" to all determined to defend and promote the establishment at all costs for whatever reason. Not to change the subject, but I'd like to inject what I see as an example of my healthy (imo) disagreement with possibly an even greater scientific consensus. Considering all the "Prove it" and "cite your source" demands made here, ever seen an electron? What did it look like? Are they particles, waves, or some combination thereof? Has any scientist ever seen one? How about a theoretical physicist? Does each one really possess a mass? A charge? A "spin"? How about all that supposed smaller junk? Quarks, gluons,.. Why do you believe in them? The math seems to work out so far? Fits their apparent movement after collisions? That's it? Well there's the power of suggestion for ya!
plinker2
Well-Known Member
There have been many ice ages during the last 2.6 million years but when people talk about the Ice Age, they are often referring to the most recent glacial period, which peaked about 21,000 years ago and ended about 11,500 years ago.
Man is arrogant to think they can affect the earth's climate. Weather comes and goes in cycles.
In the 1980's the cover of Time magazine was "The coming of the next ice age." We cannot control it, and never will.
Man is arrogant to think they can affect the earth's climate. Weather comes and goes in cycles.
In the 1980's the cover of Time magazine was "The coming of the next ice age." We cannot control it, and never will.
Grumblenuts
Member
That chestnut was thoroughly debunked in at least one of potholer54's videos. Actually, man is beyond arrogant to think they can't affect the earth's climate and haven't significantly already.
DeletedUser35712
Wait, what? Science is based on promoting the establishment? Then why has Alfred Wegener's work on continental drift been accepted as valid science today, even though at the time of his observations, the scientific consensus was that mountains and features on Earth were based on contractions of the early Earth? Surely if the scientific community wanted to promote the establishment, they would have never accepted Wegener's work up til today.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html
Why has Einstein been able to overturn some assumptions of Newtonian physics by demonstrating through the math (and later scientists doing experiments) that gravity and acceleration has the ability to affect time itself, and this became part of the scientific knowledge?
https://futurism.com/newtonian-physics-vs-special-realtivity/
Why has Oparin's experiment overturned Darwin's ideas of life starting in muddy ponds?
https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_oparin.html
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtomics/did-life-evolve-in-a-warm-little-pond/
Why is the scientific establishment debating over whether the KT extinction was the final elimination of the dinosaurs at this very moment?
https://www.livescience.com/693-scientists-debate-dinosaur-demise.html
The process of science is not promote the establishment, but rather to discover more and possibly overturn our previous assumptions.
Sight is not the only quality that we can use to determine whether something exists or not. JJ Thomson discovered the electron after putting an electrical charge through a cathode tube, and used opposing magnets. When he saw the beam bend towards the positive side, that indicated that there was a particle with an electric charge. He then figured out the mass of said negative particles by seeing how the beam bent based on the charge and using a mass to charge ratio. He tested this many times with different metals and components in the cathode ray tube, and found that this phenomenon keeps on happening. He deduced that there must be subatomic particles with a negative charge that are smaller than any other particle discovered previously. And of course, this idea was incredibly edgy among the scientific community at the time, but after further tests by other scientists, the electron became accepted science.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science...cture/a/discovery-of-the-electron-and-nucleus
We don't need to know what they look like. Some things are not visible to the human eye, even with visual aids such as microscopes. On this similar line of thinking, how do we know breezes exist? We can't see those.
Specialized machines are much better for the job, as they can detect more minute stimuli like an electron.
See my example above about JJ Thomson.
Spin was discovered by Goudsmit if I am not mistaken, although there was a contention on if some grad students would have gotten the discovery.
https://lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/history/spin/goudsmit.html
Originally, such subparticles were once just untest math on paper, but with the use of particle accelerators and detection machines, one can find such particles in real life. I will not pretend to understand the experiment that was done by Panofsky, but if you are a very smart individual, feel free to read here.
https://www.learner.org/courses/physics/unit/text.html?unit=1&secNum=5
Sounds like somebody knows more: you, or the thousands of physicists working on their research. I can't comment because I am not smart. I'm just stating what happened with the scientists and their work. Feel free to talk to some physicists about their work.
But they don't have the evidence, and papers that have tried to show that climate change isn't real like the Soon and Baliunas paper have misused the data from previous studies.
Thanks for adding some clarification to my statement.
DeletedUser35712
A denier of climate change has to reject the overwhelming peer-reviewed scientific evidence about the topic, which is not skepticism of any form. Now, you can have every right to be skeptical of certain minute things such as projections about climate change, but you cannot reject the phenomenon as a whole and call yourself a skeptic. However, the climate models have been quite accurate so far, although like all models, it might not fit projections longer into the future, and you can use skepticism on that.
DeletedUser35712
Alright, we'll agree to disagree then. I say a possible small chance from the bystander.
- Status