Climate talks fail

Post Reply New Topic

Read the discussion here:
Scientists reach 100% consensus on anthropogenic global warming

“Many aspects of the catastrophic scenario have already been largely discounted by the scientific community [and] fears of massive sea level increases have been steadily reduced by orders of magnitude” (p. 87). In 2012, Lindzen and 15 coauthors published a letter to the Wall Street Journal titled, “No Need to Panic about Global Warming”

Yes. Thank you.

So where do you stand in regard to the: "97% of scientists" concensus?

And what other gases influence global temperatures?
And do you believe that the sun has an influence here too?

I skimmed the discussion, didn't see anything to change my mind. There was mostly a whole lot of cries about, "OMG, can you believe they said that?" Some attempted to get more technical and go into particular studies or whatever, but discussions like that go way over my head. I guess if it's valid, they can try getting it published in a peer-reviewed journal somewhere. But if they're not able to publish everywhere, I will take that as a proxy for, There's something wrong with their arguments they need to rectify. My advice to them would be, like I've said before:

GIT GUD

Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit
Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”

Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

Arguments from authority carry little weight—“authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.

Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way-station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.

Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.

If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise)—not just most of them.

Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.

Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle—an electron, say—in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

If you guys have a valid point, it's YOUR job to get better and start convincing climate scientists.

I guess if it's valid, they can try getting it published in a peer-reviewed journal somewhere. But if they're not able to publish everywhere, I will take that as a proxy for, There's something wrong with their arguments they need to rectify. My advice to them would be, like I've said before:

GIT GUD

I don't want to hear whining about how all the institutions around the world are supposed to be part of some conspiracy to unfairly block their "research", or groupthink or whatever. If you make a valid point in the field, you can get published in the peer-reviewed literature, it happens frequently in multiple fields. The peer-reviewed journals are not afraid to publish controversy where it legitimately exists in a field. If you guys have a valid point, it's YOUR job to get better and start convincing climate scientists.

Mate,
Why are you feeding the troll?

Of course you do. I've witnessed you being a troll and a bully for years. Not always. You shift gears from being sincere to to being a troll. But the troll part sticks out the most.

Heavens no, you must be mixing me up with somebody else. My posts are squeaky clean.

Does it make you feel like a big man doing this in an autism forum? Do you brag to your NT friends about it?

Does it make you feel like a big man doing this in an autism forum? Do you brag to your NT friends about it?