Iambiguous,
Honestly dude! When you’re 2 years old, you probably said that 2+2 = a million
When you became older, now you know that it is 4.
That’s all your “fractured self”is. Because you didn’t know EVERYTHING !! The first time, facts can’t exist!!
That’s called “narcissism”
Note to others…
Pick one:
He is…
…a double boogie short of a hole in one
…a few fries short of a Happy Meal
…not the brightest bulb in the box
…one twist short of a slinky
…not the sharpest tool in the shed
…a few sandwiches short of a picnic
…a few clowns short of a circus
…a few beers short of a six-pack
…missing a few buttons on his remote control
…a few Bradys short of a bunch.
Unless of course we’re all wrong. 
A “current debatable in a context”? Not sure what you mean.
Do you mean a moral or political issue in which there are men and women all up and down the political spectrum who, in a debate, will argue for or against conflicting goods?
My point though is that in regard to Agenda 21, that is exactly what does happens. Both sides make arguments that, given a particular set of assumptions regarding such things as the human condition, the United Nations, the role of government, the distribution of wealth and power, the global economy, God and religion, individualism vs. collectivism etc., come to conflicting conclusions as to how human beings should interact across the globe.
Indeed, once as an objectivist myself [a Marxist, a socialist, a democratic socialist, a social democrat], I embraced the left/liberal political agenda. Now, however, I have come to the conclusion the arguments of those on the right are equally reasonable given their own set of initial assumptions about all those things above.
Again, my argument revolves around this:
Though, sure, if you would like to explore these relationships more substantively/contextually in regard to another issue like abortion or race or human sexuality or Trump or the welfare state or gun legislation etc., let me know and I will start the thread.
Iambiguous, you can’t beg your way out of this one:
You’re fractured self (as described by you) is:
1.) you have dreams
2.) you didn’t pick the right political narrative the first or even the second time
The reason I call this narcissism is because if you thought 2+2 equals a million and now you know it’s 4, if YOU got it wrong ONCE!!! Everyone must be wrong about everything!
Okay, okay I’ll add a few more…
He is…
…a few tires short of an eighteen wheeler
…a few pecans short of a fruitcake
…a few sheep short of a flock
…a few colors short of a rainbow
…a few bristles short of a broom
[size=50]of course I’m just joshing!![/size]
Biggie wrote
Yes, pick one and define your words that are important.
Source? Wiki links to dozens of studies backing up the claim (including ones who seem to begin their study with the claim that you’re making), as well as reports produced by mutually-independent scientific bodies also supporting the consensus.
What one study are you rejecting, based on what, and what about all the many many others that reach the same conclusion?
Had a video that went over all that but I can’t remember its title. I’ll continue looking, but in the meantime I’ve added an interesting article link. https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/#6511766b3bb3
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/nipcc-scientists/ This website may be a legit group of scientists who aren’t getting any payoff. I read some sections that dispute the climate change conspiracy and they even have a category where they respond to their critics. I plan on reading those eventually.
Several supposed climate alarmist, scientific organizations have perpetrated bogus findings and false claims leaving out the majority of scientists, scientists who are even members of those organizations who never consented to their organizations claims who do not state that humans are causing climate change. However as the climate hysteria escalates, climate scientists who speak out are excommunicated from their jobs, their labs, their grants, their reputations are smeared and they are bullied into silence.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/04/peoples-climate-march-climate-change-bullies/
Wiki
I’ll bet you big bucks that he and his help didn’t read through 24,210 articles in a year or less. This smells fishy like what I was trying to describe where they add key words in a google search of abstracts, such as entering the words “no anthropogenic warming” without actually reading the papers. Only five papers had the words “no anthropogenic warming” in them, so wham-bam-thankyou-ma’am, his findings of only five scientists who said there was no anthropogenic warming. Today, science is driven by money and there’s no level too low for those trying to cash in to sink.
I’d really like to read his paper. How though? I tried to follow a few links and it’s not easily made available to the public.
Obviously I don’t know for sure, but from this description this sound’s like an obviously unreliable source.
Space architect Larry Bell, writing an opinion piece in Forbes, and unsure what “significant” might mean to a climate scientist.
I don’t want to spend too much time dunking on this, because it’s a bad source and he cites better sources that you cite again that I’ll address separately. But I should point out that he argues 1) there’s no consensus, 2) the consensus is caused by funding and institutional pressure; 3) we should dismiss opinions from non-specialist (or panels including non-specialists), 4) we should take seriously climate skeptics who are “environmental business leaders” (see also: space architect).
Sure, or it could be a branch of a farm lobbying organization that spent years arguing that cigarettes aren’t bad for your health because its constituents include tobacco farmers. Who can really tell?
Space architect Larry Bell points to a bruhaha at the American Physical Society, in which a group of scientists opposed the APS’ position on climate change. Were these scientists summarily fired and dismissed from the organization? No, the organization convened a panel to review the literature and determined that their position on climate change was well supported, but decided to review the statement for “clarity and tone”.
Which is not to say that we can’t find a lot of people who are dicks to people they disagree with, of course wecan. But claims of a witch hunt are overblown (as are claims about what exactly most academic climate scientists are looking for; seems like the in the APS case some of the scientists were objecting to the word “incontrovertible”, which does seem somewhat unscientific).
Yep, that’s the consensus.
Found on scholar.google.com:
rescuethatfrog.com/wp-conte … l-2015.pdf
(Also, for future reference, sci-hub often has papers when Google Scholar only links to an abstract (sci-hub.tw). It’s like Pirate Bay for scientific papers)
You are right that they did not read the papers, only the titles and abstracts. Given the perceived consensus, I think that’s a reasonable approach, since a paper that challenges or doesn’t accept the consensus position would be likely to note that in the abstract. They aren’t interested in most of what the paper has to say, so reading the paper as a whole would be overkill. But reading the abstract should give a good estimate of the level of consensus.
Even to the extent we reject it, the response isn’t to throw out everything. Knowing that the abstracts for only 5 out of 24,210 papers mentioning
“global warming” or “climate change” explicitly reject human-caused global warming tells us something important about the level of consensus. Even if we think the paper itself overstates its conclusion, what’s a reasonable estimate of how much that changed the consensus? 5%? 10%? That would still leave a near-universal scientific consensus that humans cause (some part of) climate change.
Carleas wrote
He’s saying that there is no legitimate consensus due to funding, institutional pressure, and politics. He gives examples why the evidence of research even you use in Wiki is faulty. The stuff you refer to in Wiki is bogus but you can’t understand that the climate alarmists aren’t really doing science so much as pushing their fear mongering agenda. What about the 30,000 scientists who signed a report than man-made emissions are not causing global warming? 30,000 Does that look like 97%, 98% or the 100% that one of your Wiki scientists claim agree in global warming?
Wiki
You think that they read the abstracts…no they didn’t. They googled for key words, that’s all. None of those supposed scientists read the articles and none have any idea how the words they googled were applied in the papers, only that those words were present. Really disingenuous research. Carleas, most of what Wiki offers as evidenced science are these research shams and organizations supporting those research shams that never applied any real scientific investigation into their stats. Huge batches of unread paper with key words in them. No one read what the key words were referring to. Total sham of evidence about what the papers say and what the scientists actually think.
I can’t believe that this is the type of science you support.
Carleas wrote
If climate scientists who deny global warming aren’t bullied, why would Happer say “took quite a bit of a risk in signing the statement?” If honest scientists weren’t bullied, there would be NO risk in speaking the truth.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/20/susan-crockford-fired-after-finding-polar-bears-th/
Google police haven’t made that article disappear yet but they will because it doesn’t support the climate change narrative and it makes the climate alarmists look bad.
Carleas wrote
And where is the consensus that it’s causing problems and is harmful to the environment? A general consensus that both natural and man-made climate change contributions are happening is not the issue, the negative effects are the issue.
Thanks for the sci-hub link Carleas. That will help with our future debates.
He’s saying 1) there’s no consensus, and 2) there’s no legitimate consensus. But his evidence in support of the latter undermines the former. There is a consensus, it’s clearly visible in the published climate literature. If you want to argue that institutional pressure and anti-orthodoxy witch hunts are the reason for the consensus, fine, but first you need to acknowledge that there’s a solid consensus in expert opinion as expressed in published literature. Otherwise, you’re offering an explanation of a phenomenon you don’t think we’re observing.
Here is the petition’s website, where you or I or anyone can find a form to mail in to add our illustrious names to the petition.
Your credulity dial is all over the place. On the one hand, published research that provides information about methods and limits its search to articles published in climate science journals is “disingenuous” and a “sham”, but an anonymous petition that anyone can fill out, collated by a cooky little medical nonprofit, which treats doctors, electrical engineers, and mathematicians as experts, is dispositive. Why do you trust the OISM petition more than the dozen surveys of climate scientists and reviews of climate science literature, written by different people, exploring the question using different methods, published by different journals in different countries, and all pointing to a strong consensus?
And even if we trust the OISM, why do we treat it as particularly strong evidence against a consensus? The pool of “experts” in the fields they include would be more than 10.6 million, so 30k is .3%, and we still seem to be left with a 99.7% consensus.
Because denying well attested conclusions is associated with bad science. Believing things for bad reasons is bad science. And not giving someone a promotion or tenure or a book deal because they’re a bad scientist is not bullying.
I don’t mean to say that challenging the orthodoxy is always bad science, but it is usually bad science, and taken by itself it is bayesian evidence of being a bad scientist.
Ooo, this has the makings of a testable prediction: how long do you think it will take to get disappeared? What search terms should we test, and when, to see? And when we find that it’s still there, what belief of yours will change?
This contradicts your earlier claims that, “less than 1% of scientists say that climate change is caused by human contributions.” Happy to move on if you retract that claim.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQFCKICwFEQ[/youtube]
Climate scientist discusses the climate change hoax as part of the UN’s Agenda 21, how the hoax was started, who started it, etc.
Do you understand the arguments in that video well enough to make them yourself? If so, please make them yourself. If not, please admit that you are not well-enough informed on this to have a strong opinion.
Also, to rephrase a question you ignored in my last post: “Why do you trust [this Youtube video] more than the dozen surveys of climate scientists and reviews of climate science literature, written by different people, exploring the question using different methods, published by different journals in different countries, and all pointing to a strong consensus?”
More generally, what makes a source reliable to you, other than confirmation bias?
jesus christ wendy… you picked a fight with carleas too?! I thought I told y’all to stay away from that guy. Listen, the dude bought a philosophy forum, mmkay. You don’t buy a philosophy forum unless you’re really, really, really into debating.
You wanna know my secret? You wanna know why I’m always right? Because I don’t argue with carleas.
A recent study of past climate models finds that they made accurate predictions of how the climate would change over the past 50 years. Unfortunately it’s behind a paywall and my work blocks scihub, so I can read the specifics. From the abstract:
That last sentence is explained further in a “plain language summary”:
That “other factors affecting the climate” gives me pause, so salt as needed until we have the full study before us, but if true this is effectively an experimental validation of the climate theories baked into the models.
Where’s the evidence of how they conducted the study? They could have typed in “global warming model” and when those words popped up in their search said those models accurately predicted global warming, right? Can you point me to a legitimate study or two where climate scientists have gathered their data from the actual current weather and CO2 emissions compared it with the actual past climate readings from 50 years ago or so then said it was due largely to human activity and not natural phenomenon, not a google search study evidence that your giving me that doesn’t confirm anything but that a particular word appeared in the study. I’d really like to read some legitimate research. Denialists are even saying that NOAA is cooking the books with their current temp records. Also that the reason that global warming catch phrase fell by the wayside and it became about climate change instead is that the air temps were not showing an average 1 degree increase but actually .33% over the last 100 years but the ocean had an average 1 degree increase so global warming which referred to the air temps had to be changed to climate change since they couldn’t prove the increased air temps. Read a story about great barrier reef scientists claiming that ocean temp increases were killing the barrier reef with their bleachings, then read about how the scientists, NOAA, and ICPP refuse to include reef bleachings from cold water temperature changes as if those don’t exist. Temperature decreases don’t go along with their temperature increase agenda so those occurrences are not reported officially by NOAA, IPCC, the UN.
Is CO2 bad? In what ways is CO2 bad? One study that proves that CO2 damages life on Earth would go along way. Got one? Temperatures have run in cycles throughout our history. It’s said that temperatures thousands of years ago were warmer than they are now and that there were higher CO2 readings without human life existing than there is today.
Yeah, getting access to full studies is turning out to be difficult. Not sure how to find them and round them up. The scientific databases that recommend searches and do the searches want money, I’m guessing substantial money since they assign their representatives to walk you through the process. Let me know if you have some leads to studies.
I assume it’s in the study, but as I said, I can’t get it.
I’m assuming the study has a “methods” section. And I assume it actually specifies the models that it tested, so that other climate scientists could verify what those models predicted and how close they were to observation. So I guess, to your question, no, they almost certainly didn’t do that (it’s not a metaphysical impossibility, but the prior likelihood on it has to be approximately zero).
So, the study I think you’re asking for is this study, in which they compared prominent climate models from the past 50 years to observed climate changes. This study isn’t the study we were discussing earlier – which, to be clear, did not 1) use google, nor 2) count hits for a search term.
I’m not surprised by this, but it’s a significant red flag. When a hypothesis predicts certain observations, and the best available data on those observations contradicts what the hypothesis predicts, the usual response is to reject the hypothesis. If instead we posit a global conspiracy involving tens of thousands of independent researchers and their mutually-independent parent institutions to reject the truth of the best available data, that is strong evidence that we are more wedded to our hypothesis than to the truth.
My understanding is that the models predict that an increase in temperatures could trigger an ice age (over several thousand years), so global warming isn’t really accurate. It’s also not the case that the earth is warming constantly (winters are still colder than summers) or uniformly (changing weather patterns can decrease temperatures locally while temperatures rise globally). The concern is also bigger than warming, to include extreme weather, acidification, desertification, and ecosystem collapse (I’m less confident on the state of the science there, but that they are among the concerns justifies a change in language to encompass them).
‘Bad’ is value-laden. The question is, do human activities that increase the amount of CO2 and other pollutants in the atmosphere have an impact on global climate?
I believe this is true, but it doesn’t end the inquiry. Even if we expect to be in a part of the cycle where temperatures are increasing (which I don’t grant, because I have seen no evidence either way), if they are increasing faster than we would expect, or if their increase tracks the increase in human-produced pollutants in the atmosphere, we can still conclude that human activities is changing the climate from where it would be.
And the consensus of subject matter experts on these questions is that global temperatures are outpacing their expected values, and that we can connect that increase to human actions.
That was not a complete study, Carleas. Hey, what are you trying to pull by acting as though it was? Plus adding that you are certain that the researchers did not do what was recorded in the Wiki article as proof of climate change (their presto chango google searchers)does not prove your point. Wiki and their researchers prove my point though and here is the video I was looking for that explains it…enjoy.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewJ6TI8ccAw[/youtube]