5 of 6
5
Examining the pretender’s meme “Don’t trust Scientific Consensus”
Posted: 26 August 2017 10:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 61 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1698
Joined  2016-12-24
Lausten - 26 August 2017 07:13 AM

Which just goes to show that you don’t understand how to interpret scientific data. Your bias is showing. On the one hand, you want to prove that the scientists are often wrong, so you grab a bunch of headlines and you remember what you were thinking at the time.

Actually he grabbed the list courtesy of Anthony Watts, March 1, 2013.
I doubt he remembers much if anything about the 70s

Mike goes for the easy low hanging fruit that supports his bias.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2017 11:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 62 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1698
Joined  2016-12-24

Here’s some more substantive background

My 1975 ‘Cooling World’ Story Doesn’t Make Today’s Climate Scientists Wrong
It’s time for deniers of human-caused global warming to stop using an old magazine story against climate scientists.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/my-1975-cooling-world-story-doesnt-make-todays-climate-scientists-wrong
Peter Gwynne - May 21, 2014

(Inside Science)—“The central fact is that, after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the Earth seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.” – Newsweek: April 28, 1975

That’s an excerpt from a story I wrote about climate science that appeared almost 40 years ago. Titled “The Cooling World,” it was remarkably popular; in fact it might be the only decades-old magazine story about science ever carried onto the set of a late-night TV talk show. Now, as the author of that story, after decades of scientific advances, let me say this: while the hypotheses described in that original story seemed right at the time, climate scientists now know that they were seriously incomplete. Our climate is warming—not cooling, as the original story suggested.

Nevertheless, certain websites and individuals that dispute, disparage and deny the science that shows that humans are causing the Earth to warm continue to quote my article. Their message: how can we believe climatologists who tell us that the Earth’s atmosphere is warming when their colleagues asserted that it’s actually cooling?

Well, yes, we should trust them, despite the views of detractors such as comedian Dennis Miller, who brought my story to The Tonight Show in 2006. Several atmospheric scientists did indeed believe in global cooling, as I reported in the April 28, 1975 issue of Newsweek. But that was then. ...

...

The recent National Climate Assessment takes an equally emphatic view.
http://1.usa.gov/1neTdkz 
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights#section-5682

“What is new over the last decade is that we know with increasing certainty that climate change is happening now,” it states. “While scientists continue to refine projections of the future, observations unequivocally show that climate is changing and that the warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases.”

I’m sure it’s clear by now that I accept the views of the National Academy, National Climate Assessment, Mann, and the huge majority of his fellow climatologists. Nevertheless, websites devoted to denying the existence of human-caused climate change – or at least promoting the idea that nothing should be done about it – continue to use my article to validate their thinking. In fact the article has reportedly become the most-cited article in Newsweek’s history. ...

Those that reject climate science ignore the fact that, like other fields, climatology has evolved since 1975.

The certainty that our atmosphere is indeed warming stems from a series of rigorous observations and theoretical concepts
that fit into computer models and an overall framework outlining the nature of Earth’s climate.

These capabilities were primitive or non-existent in 1975. In fact my report reflected a real strand of climatological thinking back then.  ...

Speaking personally, though, I accept that I didn’t tell the full story back then.

...

... “Three independent strands of science at the time got conflated in the articles: analyses of direct temperature data that showed a decline in temperatures particularly over the Northern Hemisphere since the 1940s; a very high level of pollution by sulfate aerosols that cooled the planet; and evidence that the timing of ice ages was caused by wobbles in Earth’s orbit,” explained Gavin Schmidt, deputy chief of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in New York. Indeed, he added, “some parts of the article are OK even today.”

At the same time, however, evidence had emerged of increases in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, a gas known to warm the atmosphere.

“The science was sort of speculative [in 1975],” Mann recalled. “A National Academy of Sciences report concluded there wasn’t enough information at that particular time because we had two competing forces – aerosols and greenhouse gases. It wasn’t entirely clear which would win out.”

Ironically, efforts to clean up the atmosphere made it possible to resolve the scientific mystery and convince climatologists that human activity is warming the planet. ...  (there’s more!)

Fake “global cooling” news persists and propagates

Debunking not only fails against Breitbart and others—it gets attacked.
Steven T. Corneliussen
http://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.8199/full/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2017 06:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 63 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4216
Joined  2009-10-21
MikeYohe - 26 August 2017 08:46 AM

If the response is scientific force driven then I would expect some logical responses.  For example. How do we know that scientists were wrong on the Ice Age?

I’ve tried discussing facts with you, you don’t listen to them. I’ve tried logic, you don’t know what the word means. If you want an answer to this question, google it. I gave up trying to educate you a long time ago.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2017 06:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 64 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4216
Joined  2009-10-21
MikeYohe - 26 August 2017 09:14 AM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 26 August 2017 08:49 AM
MikeYohe - 26 August 2017 08:46 AM

  For example. How do we know that scientists were wrong on the Ice Age?
We could have been heading into an Ice Age and the Industrial Age carbon saved us from the Ice Age.

By learning what the scientists were actually saying and why!!!

Lausten has the idea. Go for the zeitgeist, you will have a hard time putting together a scientific consensus.

This was not an “idea”. It was not a suggestion. It was not equal choices. One of the choices was to be a blissful and willful ignoramus because it’s easy. The other was to try to know more true things than false things. You made the wrong choice.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 August 2017 04:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 65 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  388
Joined  2015-11-28

This forum is an amazing tribute to our primitive uneducated errogant tribal mentality.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 August 2017 05:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 66 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1698
Joined  2016-12-24
AMH - 27 August 2017 04:47 PM

This forum is an amazing tribute to our primitive uneducated errogant tribal mentality.

Don’t see you doing anything to help improve the level of discussion.

Bitching is sooo easy, vague statements that can be taken any way, by any side, are worthless.

peace dude  kiss

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 August 2017 03:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 67 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  926
Joined  2016-01-24
Lausten - 26 August 2017 06:47 PM
MikeYohe - 26 August 2017 09:14 AM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 26 August 2017 08:49 AM
MikeYohe - 26 August 2017 08:46 AM

  For example. How do we know that scientists were wrong on the Ice Age?
We could have been heading into an Ice Age and the Industrial Age carbon saved us from the Ice Age.

By learning what the scientists were actually saying and why!!!

Lausten has the idea. Go for the zeitgeist, you will have a hard time putting together a scientific consensus.

This was not an “idea”. It was not a suggestion. It was not equal choices. One of the choices was to be a blissful and willful ignoramus because it’s easy. The other was to try to know more true things than false things. You made the wrong choice.

Or he’s being paid a lot of money to act the complete idiot, it doesn’t matter how much well support evidence on climate change has been provided to inform Yohe of the highest confidence science on the subject he always defaults to the denier mantra of, “It’s not real, it’s not us, or we can’t do anything about it” mixed up just enough to not be totally obvious what a fraud he’s engaging in.

This is 2017, the science on climate change was already strong enough that the premier researcher at the time, James Hansen, took the extraordinary step of going before Congress in 1988 to sound the warning. The science has become so well supported since then to make denial virtually nothing more than industry funded PR to deceive not inform all of us who are so deeply affected by this unfolding catastrophe.

So the “wrong choice” made by “people” like Yohe goes far beyond turning their backs on the facts. It involves rejecting humanity as whole so dire are the consequences of climate change denial.

It is in fact an intentional genocide on a scale that dwarfs all other acts of inhumanity in the past.

People who are enabling this modern global Holocaust are doing far worse than making the wrong choice. They are demonstrating a contempt for all life that I think truly does meet the definition of evil.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 August 2017 09:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 68 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2228
Joined  2013-06-01
DougC - 28 August 2017 03:20 PM
Lausten - 26 August 2017 06:47 PM
MikeYohe - 26 August 2017 09:14 AM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 26 August 2017 08:49 AM
MikeYohe - 26 August 2017 08:46 AM

  For example. How do we know that scientists were wrong on the Ice Age?
We could have been heading into an Ice Age and the Industrial Age carbon saved us from the Ice Age.

By learning what the scientists were actually saying and why!!!

Lausten has the idea. Go for the zeitgeist, you will have a hard time putting together a scientific consensus.

This was not an “idea”. It was not a suggestion. It was not equal choices. One of the choices was to be a blissful and willful ignoramus because it’s easy. The other was to try to know more true things than false things. You made the wrong choice.

Or he’s being paid a lot of money to act the complete idiot, it doesn’t matter how much well support evidence on climate change has been provided to inform Yohe of the highest confidence science on the subject he always defaults to the denier mantra of, “It’s not real, it’s not us, or we can’t do anything about it” mixed up just enough to not be totally obvious what a fraud he’s engaging in.

This is 2017, the science on climate change was already strong enough that the premier researcher at the time, James Hansen, took the extraordinary step of going before Congress in 1988 to sound the warning. The science has become so well supported since then to make denial virtually nothing more than industry funded PR to deceive not inform all of us who are so deeply affected by this unfolding catastrophe.

So the “wrong choice” made by “people” like Yohe goes far beyond turning their backs on the facts. It involves rejecting humanity as whole so dire are the consequences of climate change denial.

It is in fact an intentional genocide on a scale that dwarfs all other acts of inhumanity in the past.

People who are enabling this modern global Holocaust are doing far worse than making the wrong choice. They are demonstrating a contempt for all life that I think truly does meet the definition of evil.

It is hard to keep fooling the public. Every time you post, Trump gets more votes. Keep it up and 2020 will be a lock for Trump.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 August 2017 10:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 69 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  926
Joined  2016-01-24
MikeYohe - 28 August 2017 09:01 PM
DougC - 28 August 2017 03:20 PM
Lausten - 26 August 2017 06:47 PM
MikeYohe - 26 August 2017 09:14 AM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 26 August 2017 08:49 AM
MikeYohe - 26 August 2017 08:46 AM

  For example. How do we know that scientists were wrong on the Ice Age?
We could have been heading into an Ice Age and the Industrial Age carbon saved us from the Ice Age.

By learning what the scientists were actually saying and why!!!

Lausten has the idea. Go for the zeitgeist, you will have a hard time putting together a scientific consensus.

This was not an “idea”. It was not a suggestion. It was not equal choices. One of the choices was to be a blissful and willful ignoramus because it’s easy. The other was to try to know more true things than false things. You made the wrong choice.

Or he’s being paid a lot of money to act the complete idiot, it doesn’t matter how much well support evidence on climate change has been provided to inform Yohe of the highest confidence science on the subject he always defaults to the denier mantra of, “It’s not real, it’s not us, or we can’t do anything about it” mixed up just enough to not be totally obvious what a fraud he’s engaging in.

This is 2017, the science on climate change was already strong enough that the premier researcher at the time, James Hansen, took the extraordinary step of going before Congress in 1988 to sound the warning. The science has become so well supported since then to make denial virtually nothing more than industry funded PR to deceive not inform all of us who are so deeply affected by this unfolding catastrophe.

So the “wrong choice” made by “people” like Yohe goes far beyond turning their backs on the facts. It involves rejecting humanity as whole so dire are the consequences of climate change denial.

It is in fact an intentional genocide on a scale that dwarfs all other acts of inhumanity in the past.

People who are enabling this modern global Holocaust are doing far worse than making the wrong choice. They are demonstrating a contempt for all life that I think truly does meet the definition of evil.

It is hard to keep fooling the public. Every time you post, Trump gets more votes. Keep it up and 2020 will be a lock for Trump.

Thanks for once again illustrating my point…

And for demonstrating once again the kind of science you keep trying to claim doesn’t exist. Basically if climate change wasn’t real, very serious and caused by us then you wouldn’t be able to even post here using modern electronics. The same quantum mechanics underlies both.

If you’re so fundamentally wrong on the nature of reality itself who gives a damn what you post, it comes from darkness not light which is almost certainly why you’re a Trump supporter.

Kind of doubt he’s going to be in a position to do anything meaningful much longer. Either he will be removed from office for his close links to the Putin government or he will in fact take the US down. Which is likely why he was placed in office in the first place.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/19539/

At which point there’s little point in discussing anything because that will almost certainly trigger one of the bloodiest conflicts in history.

Like I said, evil…

[ Edited: 29 August 2017 09:29 AM by DougC ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 August 2017 08:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 70 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  388
Joined  2015-11-28

For the purpose of the forum, I think of science as being involved in a process of formulating testable hypotheses about the natural world. Data are directly observable characters and measurements.  For the discussion of human origins the data set would include observations and measurements of skeletal remains, descriptions of sedimentary context, etc etc.

Faith is acceptance of statements, interpretations, or hypothesis as absolutely true without evidence or with contradictory evidence.

Cosmology is the belief system explaining the cause for the underlying harmony in the universe. Examples of cosmologies include natural law as self-existent and is the sole cause for the underlying harmony of the universe, evolution is the extension of natural law that covers change through time

Supernatural cosmology includes theistic evolution, progressive creation, intelligent design, young earth creation, etc. are all variants of the supernaturalistic cosmology with differing levels or timings of intervention by the supernatural being. Supernatural cosmologies are belief systems, they are not directly testable and are not included as science.

I believe it is not honest exploration to believe without review anything upon insufficient evidence or to ignore evidence that is relevant or to dismiss relevant evidence in a facile way

It is not the purpose or within the scope of CFI forums to resolve the cosmological debate on human origins or global evolution.

I am grateful CFI provides a forum for honest exploration of our notions that our world and all life evolved over a very long period of time or was all created over a relative blink of an eye.  Next, it is up to the members to honestly explore.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 August 2017 10:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 71 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  926
Joined  2016-01-24
Lausten - 26 August 2017 06:45 PM
MikeYohe - 26 August 2017 08:46 AM

If the response is scientific force driven then I would expect some logical responses.  For example. How do we know that scientists were wrong on the Ice Age?

I’ve tried discussing facts with you, you don’t listen to them. I’ve tried logic, you don’t know what the word means. If you want an answer to this question, google it. I gave up trying to educate you a long time ago.

He’s been doing this since I’ve got here, “asks” a question regarding climate change then when someone responds totally contradicts the evidence they present.

It has absolutely noting to do with science or real inquiry, it’s climate change denial.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 August 2017 10:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 72 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  388
Joined  2015-11-28
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 27 August 2017 05:12 PM
AMH - 27 August 2017 04:47 PM

This forum is an amazing tribute to our primitive uneducated errogant tribal mentality.

Don’t see you doing anything to help improve the level of discussion.

In my post #70 I am trying to help improve the level of discussion. I don’t say I am right in my takeaways of Science, faith, and cosmologies. But if we helped our readers understand our assumptions they have a better opportunity to respond in the context of the writers definition.

Bitching is sooo easy, vague statements that can be taken any way, by any side, are worthless.

peace dude  kiss

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 August 2017 12:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 73 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  926
Joined  2016-01-24
AMH - 29 August 2017 10:57 AM

[
Bitching is sooo easy, vague statements that can be taken any way, by any side, are worthless.

What does that even mean in the context of the science supporting human forced climate change which is about as extensive and well supported as any knowledge we have.

As opposed to the massive industry funded denial campaign which has almost zero confidence and doesn’t even produce peer-reviewed research.

Are you saying that pointing out how dishonest and completely unsupported claims by deniers are on an issue that is already catastrophic for millions worldwide is mere “bitching”.

There’s nothing vague about the science supporting human forced climate change, we’re all watching it unfold in real time and it is getting progressively worse each year.

I’m pretty sure it’s not bitching to point out how truly unpleasant it is to watch what I’ve called home for over half a century on fire this summer.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/19503/

All the while deniers like Yohe here are the definition of vague, that’s all climate change denial is or ever will be because it is the denial of valid facts, not the presentation of a valid interpretation of the evidence.

So there is really only side here, the evidence provided by science on how dangerous and real human forced climate change is.

Then there is the black hole of denial that tries to suck all that information permanently out of the visible universe because it’s inconvenient for a few.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 August 2017 12:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 74 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  388
Joined  2015-11-28

DougC. Don’t know exactly how I captured part of CC’s post. But the comment about bitching is sooo easy is from him or her.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 August 2017 12:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 75 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  926
Joined  2016-01-24
AMH - 29 August 2017 12:33 PM

DougC. Don’t know exactly how I captured part of CC’s post. But the comment about bitching is sooo easy is from him or her.

okay, the posting here can get a little quirky.

thanks for pointing that out.

Profile
 
 
   
5 of 6
5