2 of 2
2
Examining the pretender’s meme “Don’t trust Scientific Consensus”
Posted: 10 August 2017 10:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3922
Joined  2009-10-21
MikeYohe - 10 August 2017 09:48 AM
Lausten - 10 August 2017 08:38 AM

short list of errors in Mike’s post

Using a 300 year old example of science to comment on the current consensus

You are saying the use of history is wrong. I disagree.


No, I’m saying an example of something that a consensus of scientists thought was true 300 years ago, but the consensus of scientists today think is not true, is exactly why the scientific method is better than any other method. They didn’t vote on it, they didn’t follow a guru up a mountain and believe it, a politician didn’t make a speech they all bought into based on emotions, they didn’t pray and change their answer, they arrived at the consensus by collecting data and evidence and interpreting it. That’s why I accept it. I accept it conditionally, knowing that the scientific work continues.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 August 2017 12:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1937
Joined  2013-06-01
Lausten - 10 August 2017 10:46 AM
MikeYohe - 10 August 2017 09:48 AM
Lausten - 10 August 2017 08:38 AM

short list of errors in Mike’s post

Using a 300 year old example of science to comment on the current consensus

You are saying the use of history is wrong. I disagree.


No, I’m saying an example of something that a consensus of scientists thought was true 300 years ago, but the consensus of scientists today think is not true, is exactly why the scientific method is better than any other method. They didn’t vote on it, they didn’t follow a guru up a mountain and believe it, a politician didn’t make a speech they all bought into based on emotions, they didn’t pray and change their answer, they arrived at the consensus by collecting data and evidence and interpreting it. That’s why I accept it. I accept it conditionally, knowing that the scientific work continues.

That’s not what I understand happened. The so-called climate scientists were not all real scientists on the subject.
What was the real issue of the survey? It was natural verses man-made. Which was the MAJOR driver of the warming? It was not whether Climate Change existed or not.
All this talk about climate denial is side stepping. Have you ever met a climate denial person? What is happening here is the pot has been stirred so much with so many issues that no one knows to call the soup anymore.
 
Abstract
Fifty-two percent of Americans think most climate scientists agree that the Earth has been warming in recent years, and 47% think climate scientists agree (i.e., that there is a scientific consensus) that human activities are a major cause of that warming, according to recent polling (see http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm). However, attempts to quantify the scientific consensus on anthropogenic warming have met with criticism. For instance, Oreskes [2004] reviewed 928 abstracts from peer-reviewed research papers and found that more than 75% either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities. Yet Oreskes’s approach has been criticized for overstating the level of consensus acceptance within the examined abstracts [Peiser, 2005] and for not capturing the full diversity of scientific opinion [Pielke, 2005]. A review of previous attempts at quantifying the consensus and criticisms is provided by Kendall Zimmerman [2008]. The objective of our study presented here is to assess the scientific consensus on climate change through an unbiased survey of a large and broad group of Earth scientists.
//onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/full

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 August 2017 01:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1937
Joined  2013-06-01
Lausten - 10 August 2017 10:40 AM
MikeYohe - 10 August 2017 10:19 AM

CC, you know there was 95% consensus that humans are responsible for “Climate Change”. One has to ask, why only 95%? That is because of the IPCC policy to never claim 100%. By claiming 100% they create a feedback problem with the agitators.

This is the kind of idiotic thing you say that leads me to ignore you most of the time. They don’t just “say” it’s 95%, it’s that the data shows that it is 95%. It’s not a claim that they made up on the spot, like most of the things you say, it’s a demonstrable fact.

You should read the IPCC policy memos. And the memo says, do not ever use 100%. Your reaching here because we are talking about anthropogenic global climate change. Which by its definition is (chiefly of environmental pollution and pollutants) originating in human activity. So, yes it would be 100% man-made. So, yes they do say 99% or 95% and not 100%. The thinking is that when they say 100% it causes to many challenges. It is the policy, and policies are written for a reason. And the reason is not to get bogged down in challenges. To keep the ball rolling.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 August 2017 01:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3922
Joined  2009-10-21

You should read the IPCC policy memos. And <Don’t start a sentence with And> the memo says, do not ever use 100%. Your <should be you’re> reaching here because we are talking about anthropogenic global climate change. <no period, no capital> Which by its definition is (chiefly of environmental pollution and pollutants) <why parenthesis?, just put this at the end, or new sentence> originating in human activity. So, yes it would be 100% man-made. So, yes they do say 99% or 95% and not 100%. The thinking is that when they say 100% it causes to <too> many challenges. It is the policy, and policies are written for a reason. And the reason is not to get <get too> bogged down in challenges. <,> To keep the ball rolling.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 August 2017 09:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  855
Joined  2016-01-24

There’s never going to be 100% consensus because there is no such thing in science. There is always room left for doubt and modification of current theory. It’s why science has advanced so much further than religion and philosophy that get stuck on unquestionable “truth” then spend centuries arguing over how many angels you can fit on the head of a pin.

Science must not just “work” once then be discussed ad infinitum, it must be consistently demonstrated to function in the real world or it isn’t science.

And as I’ve already posted the science that underlies human forced climate change is the very same science that underlies the transistor electronics that enable “people” like Mike Yohe to participate here.

If Mike Yohe is claiming that the science of climate change doesn’t work - which is all he’s doing over and over with no evidence at all - then he is also claiming that the science that allows him to post here in the first place doesn’t exist.

Let’s just treat him in the same manner, if his position is so illogical it doesn’t even allow the existence of the means to participate here then what is the point in addressing anything he has to offer.

It is all counter to reality as we experience it, having someone post over and over that reality isn’t real isn’t being part of a rational discussion on the nature of reality as informed by that most power of tools we now have to describe reality in objective terms - the scientific method.

Mike Yohe is essentially rejecting the scientific method itself because it clashes with his clear biases. What is more likely, the method of inquiry that has given us an understanding of the universe in ways that have completely revolutionized our understanding of reality is all wrong and not applicable at all to natural phenomena.

Or that someone who is clearly part of a well documented disinformation campaign to deny extremely well supported science doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about.

I’m pretty sure it’s the second one.

If Mike Yohe wants to pretend that the most significant informational advances in human history simply don’t exist then let him do so… but that is exactly what climate change denial does. In the end it must deny the existence and clear strength of science itself to describe in functional terms how the universe operates.

We just saw a thread here that attempted to discount science totally because it’s not the “truth”.

If we let people like Mike Yohe define what is real then we are doomed and that is already happening. The province where I live and have spent most of my life is burning up again this summer in a process that will only get worse in coming years entirely because highly irrational people like Mike Yohe have been setting policy for years. This is a growing catastrophe that will hit everyone everywhere.

This is 2017 not 1988 or even the mid 1970s when the US Congress began hearings on human forced climate change. Deniers could claim then with a tiny amount of justification the evidence wasn’t there to support climate change but that is long gone. The science is clear now.

And so deniers should be gone, they play no role now other than cheer leaders for the unfolding Holocaust.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2017 08:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1937
Joined  2013-06-01

DougC is 100% scientific proof that tax dollars spent on education has been wasted. DougC claim that climate change is created by the tobacco companies and the rich is the same idiotic thinking he has for Trump and the Republicans. DougC communist views will not work in a democratic operating country like America. 
Creating your own little world, are we. Do you ever read any of the postings and pick up the ideas that is trying to be communicated? If you understood where the IPCC is today in assembling the science of climate change then you would understand how silly your personal assaults are and that they carry no scientific understanding or backing.
Let me help you out and explain to you what Climate Change is. You obviously don’t know. Climate Change is a sub-category term of Global Warming that is used with measurements and understanding of the man-made Global Warming.
 
As part of the goals of the Global Warming computer modeling, the Climate Change affect is needed to understand what man-kind can do to help reduce the effects of Climate Change. Right now, the scientists are dealing with data showing the potential effects and forecasting effects of Climate Change.

DougC - 11 August 2017 09:51 AM

If Mike Yohe is claiming that the science of climate change doesn’t work ...

Please stop wasting my time using me in your little scenarios. Just ask me if I think the science of Climate Change doesn’t work. I will tell you.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2017 08:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  855
Joined  2016-01-24
MikeYohe - 12 August 2017 08:47 AM

DougC is 100% scientific proof that tax dollars spent on education has been wasted. DougC claim that climate change is created by the tobacco companies and the rich is the same idiotic thinking he has for Trump and the Republicans. DougC communist views will not work in a democratic operating country like America. 
Creating your own little world, are we. Do you ever read any of the postings and pick up the ideas that is trying to be communicated? If you understood where the IPCC is today in assembling the science of climate change then you would understand how silly your personal assaults are and that they carry no scientific understanding or backing.
Let me help you out and explain to you what Climate Change is. You obviously don’t know. Climate Change is a sub-category term of Global Warming that is used with measurements and understanding of the man-made Global Warming.
 
As part of the goals of the Global Warming computer modeling, the Climate Change affect is needed to understand what man-kind can do to help reduce the effects of Climate Change. Right now, the scientists are dealing with data showing the potential effects and forecasting effects of Climate Change.

DougC - 11 August 2017 09:51 AM

If Mike Yohe is claiming that the science of climate change doesn’t work ...

Please stop wasting my time using me in your little scenarios. Just ask me if I think the science of Climate Change doesn’t work. I will tell you.

Just confirmed human forced climate change by using a device entirely reliant on the same science that underlies climate change.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2017 09:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1087
Joined  2016-12-24

Mike and why don’t you stop being such an evasive jack ass as define “scientific consensus” so we know what you are talking about.

Then perhaps you can also start sharing specific links to these claims you love making on behave of the IPCC !!!

You’ve yet to rise above arm waving,  you have no standing to insult other’s scientific understanding\ given how poorly you support all your blah blah.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2017 09:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1087
Joined  2016-12-24

Yeah, yeah, no name calling - but jez, can’t we expect people to stop ignoring and sidestepping everything of substance that’s been shared with them!  angry

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2017 06:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1937
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 12 August 2017 09:17 AM

Mike and why don’t you stop being such an evasive jack ass as define “scientific consensus” so we know what you are talking about.

Then perhaps you can also start sharing specific links to these claims you love making on behave of the IPCC !!!

You’ve yet to rise above arm waving,  you have no standing to insult other’s scientific understanding\ given how poorly you support all your blah blah.

go read the evasive post #7 and then tell me what problems of understanding you are having.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2017 09:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1087
Joined  2016-12-24

{went back to fix a few typos and wound up rewriting bits here an there. Sunday afternoon}

MikeYohe - 12 August 2017 06:22 PM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 12 August 2017 09:17 AM

Mike and why don’t you stop being such an evasive jack ass and define “scientific consensus” so we know what you are talking about.

Then perhaps you can also start sharing specific links to these claims you love making on behave of the IPCC !!!

You’ve yet to rise above arm waving,  you have no standing to insult other’s scientific understanding given how poorly you support all your blah blah.

go read the evasive post #7 and then tell me what problems of understanding you are having.

Now, what the heck is this riddle about?
Your evasive comment #7 starts:

MikeYohe - 10 August 2017 08:28 AM

Scientific consensus is valid if used in a scientific method. Scientific consensus should not be used when human belief is substituted for science.  ...

Climate scientists definitely follow the scientific method - keep in mind we are talking Earth Sciences - complex systems science, not simplistic focused physics experiments.
Mike’s never managed to offer one real world example of a serious climate scientist publishing in serious peer reviewed literature substituting “human belief” for science.  In fact, I know climate scientists have been outrageously conservative and holding back from making any conclusions.
Further, he believes he has a right to shout that slander from every soap box.  I think it’s malicious and criminal, since he’s smart enough to know he’s peddling lies.
And these lies are helping inflict gross dangers

Were we at a local bar, he’d be told to put up or shut up with his malicious trash talk   angry 
Provide real examples, or shut up.  Lets see what you got!!!
Serious specific examples from within the real scientific community! 
Not from gossip pages.  Can he do it?  I don’t think he can.
But if he could I’ll certainly look at it and consider what he offers up.
That’s the difference between us, I can handle, (even enjoy - if in a perverse sort of way), taking a close look at his information and arguments.

Here’s a scientist explaining what the “consensus” actually means, he also gives us insight into complex Earth sciences
(and how it’s not amenable to over simplified Popperian notions)

Science & Distortion - Stephen Schneider PhD explains climate science and what systems science means
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_eJdX6y4hM&t
1:40 - ” Climate science is Systems Science, like trying to understand your body. ...”

The rest of Mike’s comment #7 continues a descent into a confused flailing, sadly again sans references to serious science.

Mike makes many nasty charges and claims, but that is all they are, unsupported trash talk.  This is the same guy who thinks he can ridicule people who understand, and yes believe in the CO2 theory and all it’s implication(The evidence is over whelming, check those two links)

Then in comment #7 Mike get’s to “scientific consensuses” and attacks a fictitious thing. 
Notice Mike refuses to define his understanding of “scientific consensus,” so who knows what phantoms he’s conjuring.  We really do not know what his point is.  One thing is certain his words show zero understanding of what real scientific “consensus” is about.  That would be, the state of the collective understanding.  I suspect it’s because my pal Mike doesn’t have an intellectually honest leg to stand on, so bluster and handwaving is all he can produce for us.

Best of all after dismissing the serious collective understanding of the informed experts, Mike steps into the shit and reveals he thinks economic interests are more important than scientific results.  In other words, Mike reveals himself to think that economics is supposed to supersede scientific reality. 
Ironic for someone who writes:
Scientific consensus should not be used when human belief is substituted for science.

[ Edited: 13 August 2017 11:30 AM by Citizenschallenge-v.3 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2017 09:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  855
Joined  2016-01-24
MikeYohe - 12 August 2017 06:22 PM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 12 August 2017 09:17 AM

Mike and why don’t you stop being such an evasive jack ass as define “scientific consensus” so we know what you are talking about.

Then perhaps you can also start sharing specific links to these claims you love making on behave of the IPCC !!!

You’ve yet to rise above arm waving,  you have no standing to insult other’s scientific understanding\ given how poorly you support all your blah blah.

go read the evasive post #7 and then tell me what problems of understanding you are having.

Once again confirms human forced climate change by demonstrating quantum mechanics underlying both transistors and CO2 absorption of infrared radiation.

http://www.pbs.org/transistor/science/info/qmsemi.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EJOO3xAjTk

Any time a denier like this uses any transistor based electronics to communicate they are in fact confirming the science they claim doesn’t work.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 August 2017 11:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1087
Joined  2016-12-24
MikeYohe - 10 August 2017 08:28 AM

The green movement and the Left wants to tax and regulate now based upon what they are claiming to be consensus science. They are distorting and bending the scientific facts to the point of creating total confusion.

Time and again you have shown yourself incapable of logical debating of the information that’s been shared with you since you constantly meander away from the central theme onto time and energy wasting distractions.
Oh and you never absorb anything that is shared with you, thus you get sooo dang redundant.  Reminds me of talking to a wall.

MikeYohe - 10 August 2017 08:28 AM

This scientific consensus being used in Climate Change has all the above and is highly distorted.

You have yet to offer any evidence, let alone proof. 
You have had the scientific understanding explained many times yet you keep missing it like some record with an awful skipped groove, you keep slipping back into your know-nothing rut and return to repeating pure (demonstrable) nonsense (but you ignore all shared evidence so how would you know?).
Or like water against a hydrophobic membrane.

Rather than allowing solid scientific information to gain some traction in your mind, you reject it reflexively and with self-certain oblivion,
while blundering forward.  This is not an ad hominem, it is a description, since time and time again you’ve demonstrated as much with your devious comments and ignoring challenges.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2