Posters here do not have the credentials to decide whether the opinion in some science paper invalidates what the entire field believes to be the case. Specific papers do NOT include the response to those papers by the world wide understanding of climatology. >>> Please remember that YOU REGULARLY point to papers where the scientists in that field find flaws that could not have been found in the review that takes place before the papers are published. For YOU, of all people, to claim that one paper invalidates that entire field of science is especially surprising - it violates everything you claim about the credence that should be given to a science paper.
What matters is the overwhelming scientific consensus. I can find a study that found, not only does smoking not cause cancer, it prevents it, but the overwhelming scientific consensus is that smoking causes cancer.
Scientific Illiteracy is a problem on both sides of the aisle and has major consequences for us all. How science works is not generally taught in schools in my experience. Instead, Science is taught a mile wide and an inch deep, with what usually amounts to rote memorization. However, since at least the 17th century Researchers have used the scientific method, to some degree or other, in every scientific discovery that has ever been made: The scientific method involves creating a falsifiable hypothesis based on observation, devising experiments to test predictions that are logical consequences of the hypothesis, then verifying the results via peer review. I know the basis of this thread is climate change but genetically modified organisms have been mentioned and are an example of some of the scientific illiteracy on the left and the consequences for it. Researchers at Monsanto created a genetically modified form of rice whose biological pathway eventually leads to the creation of vitamin A, which is not in the wild type of rice. The rice is called golden rice for its color and it’s estimated it would prevent the deaths of at least 670,000 children under the age of 5 every year in the developing world, as well as preventing the blindness of many more. However, left wing groups like green peace oppose it, claiming Monsanto will profiteer from it when in reality Monsanto is offering free licensing to it in the developing world. Green peace also claims GMOs like golden rice cause a myriad of health and environmental problems in the absence of any evidence GMOs our harmful to people and the environment, in the presence of overwhelming contradictory evidence GMOs are better for the environment and sometimes they our even being better for you. In a Democracy, schools should strive for scientific literacy, so people can make educated choices when they vote in elections, purchase products in stores, and make decisions in courtrooms.
Then you have the questionable science, that often makes no sense. Like the reports some scream that smoking marijuana does not cause cancer (and some that it even cures it). George Burns smoked cigars his entire life, and lived to be 100. And there have been strong connections between radon and lung cancer. And that smokers on the second floor of buildings have the same risk levels as non-smokers. And those that live in basements have a higher risk of cancer. A lot of what people think is "science" is crafted for the audience. That is why I often enjoy just pointing out the inconsistencies in some claims.
One of the problems is the use of the term "law" in science. I think a better term is "settled" science. As posted above ohm's law doesn't always work as Ohm calculated it. But it is settled science. It is used all the time in the physics of electricity. Because Ohm's law isn't always applicable, does not mean that it is not important and useful. Another example is Darwin's "theory" of natural selection. We call it a "theory" because of the religious and political trappings it carries but it is really settled science just like Ohm's law. The scientific method involves observing, theorizing, experimenting, questioning and more experimentation. It is how scientists arrive at settled science. A "law" can be overturned with new information or new experimentation. As an example I remember in a college geology class I was taught that the Rocky Mountains were caused by a "dome uplift." In other words an ocean or sea filled up with stuff causing the crust to sink into the mantle. The mantle then rebounded creating a dome which eroded into the mountains we see to day. Today we know this is wrong. The Rockies were actually caused by plate tectonics like most other mountain ranges. The new information and experimentation that led to plate tectonics undid the settled science of the 1960's. Plate tectonics are now the settled science. The scientific method doesn't stop. All theories and settled science are subject to review, new information and new experimentation. Ohm's law, Darwin's theory and plate tectonics could all be upended in the future. This is not a problem. It is a good thing and it is how science works. Science is a process. It has always been so. The science becomes settled when most scientists support it and becomes unsettled with new input. Not a problem.
Is the Earth in a warming trend currently? Yes it is. It has warmed a couple of degrees over the past century. We have thermometers and measuring temperature is trivial. That it is caused primarily by human greenhouse gasses, though, is a theory. Common sense says humans have contributed to global warming but there is no way to know how much. Is it the primary reason? We don't really know. Special interests will tell you that it is the primary cause and other special interests will tell you that the primary reason is the normal fluctuations in global climate. Things have been both warmer and cooler in the past and will be warmer and cooler in the future. So the issue isn't all scientific. There are money interests, power interests and even religious interests involved. Science has measured the temperature and provided a theory about the cause. You have some fact and some opinion. It is all normal science.
But just because there are exceptions to the rule does not mean the exception is the rule. We don't completely understand quantum mechanics. For example, quantum mechanics is not compatible with relativity however transistors are a direct application of quantum mechanics and without them the computers we are using would not exist.
Also, theories are theories and not facts in science because theories can change as new evidence is discovered. For example, evolution is a theory not a fact because a theory can change, and indeed with the advent of Molecular Biology in the 1930's the theory of evolution changed showing a mechanism of evolution-single nucleotide polymorphisms and the theory of evolution changed once again in 2005 with the discovery of horizontal gene transfer which explained how an organism could acquire an entirely functional gene, hundreds to thousands of nucleotides long, in a single generation.
I think you are ignoring that there are almost no scientists in the entire world who study climate related issues, but who don't point out that human activity is the primary cause of the warming that is taking place. If any scientists could defend a falsification, they would be famous. That IS normal science.
And my main question to that science is rather simple. Was the Earth warming before man had advanced farther than their most advanced technology being a stone tied to a stick? Because at that time, there was no "North Sea", no "San Francisco Bay", you could swim easily the mile or two from Florida to Cuba. And even when that was still the most advanced technology, that started to change. I see absolutely nothing exceeding the conditions prior to the Little Ice Age in the current trends. Absolutely nothing. The false assumption that most seem to make is that the "Age of Science" largely took off during the coldest period of time since the end of the last Ice Age. And they now all assume that is the "normal" for the planet. It is not, it is a period of the coldest period of time in over 20,000 years. You do not use that as your "benchmark", that is a guaranteed fail. Like saying you want to get an "average temperature" reading of the inside of your house, and putting the thermometer inside your refrigerator. And if one was to do the exact opposite and use the Medieval Warming Period as the "planetary average", we have only started to even meet that status. And interestingly enough, the "Industrial Revolution" kicked off during the Little Ice Age. The first significant period in 30,000 years where glaciers were actually growing and advancing instead of shrinking. And that is your "benchmark" for how the planet should be? That is a complete fail.
No, you fail because what you should be saying is "there are almost no scientists in the entire world that I believe, but who don't point out that human activity is the primary cause of the warming that is taking place." There, I have fixed it for you. Tell me, why is it "scientifically accurate" to place the "global benchmark" in the coldest period of time in around 30,000 years? Are you ever going to actually reference a damned thing? Are you ever going to actually try and use science, other than screaming that some kind of popularity contest in your own mind means that the most that agree with you are right? Because if not for the Little Ice Age, the world would be a hell of a lot hotter than it is right now. And also, are you ever going to answer how CO2 is making Antarctica melt even faster, when the mean temperature there is still on average of around -40? What about CO2 makes water melt at -40? How in the hell is "global warming" making an entire continent melt, when it is in subzero temperatures?
Of course. I also said that settled science can be unsettled. I don't understand why you responded to my post with this.
There are many measures of the consensus of scientists world wide on the causes of climate change. Just go take a look.
I have. New paper: Fraud, Bias & Public Relations - The 97% ‘Consensus’ And Its Critics 2014 › 09 › 08 › new-paper-fraud-bias-public-relations-the-97-consensus-and-its-critics Claims of 97% consensus on global warming depend on research described as fraudulent and biased ... President Obama and Ed Davey, of an overwhelming consensus on climate change. These depend on research that . . . Andrew Montford, the author of the paper, said: “It has now been shown beyond doubt that the claims of a 97% consensus on climate change are at best misleading, perhaps grossly so, and possibly deliberately so. It’s high time policymakers stopped citing this appalling study.” Full paper (pdf) – Fraud, Bias And Public Relations: The 97% ‘Consensus’ And Its Critics
You think this is about what posters believe. And, that is just plain ridiculous. This has to be about what scientists have found. I posted science concerning methods whereby a warming Earth reduces glaciers. I think others did that, too.
This is one paper of hundreds attacking ONE individual's method of measurement. It is NOT a representation of the size of the scientific consensus among climate related scientists.
Another voice: Distinguished Professor: “Fed Up” With “Religious Climate Claptrap”…”Green Energy Fantasies” By P Gosselin on 25. June 2022 Share this... Prof. Dr. Knut Löschke, (photo above) Member of the University Council at the University of Leipzig, Member of the Board of Trustees of the Max Planck Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences, came out and stated at Facebook not so long ago: I’m fed up, or to put it even more clearly: I’m fed up with the permanent and increasingly religious climate claptrap, green energy fantasies, electric car worship, scary stories about doomsday scenarios from corona to conflagrations to weather catastrophes. I can no longer stand the people who shout this into microphones and cameras every day or print it in newspapers. I suffer from having to witness how natural science is turned into a whore of politics. . . .
More: 97% Consensus Claim? German Historians Warn Against Shutting Down “Open Debate”, “Opinions” By P Gosselin on 5. May 2020 In these times when legitimate, qualified and alternative voices and opinions on science are being snuffed out by the mainstream and social media, e.g.: on issues related to the Corona lock down and the causes behind climate change, many worry that our fundamental rights are being infringed. “I’ve been called on to save you!” Führers […] Posted in Alarmism, Scepticism | 4 Responses 2019 Science Refutes Climate Alarm On Every Front… Shrinking Deserts, Growing Islands, Crumbling Consensus, Weaker Storms, Cooler Arctic Etc. Etc. Etc. By P Gosselin on 31. December 2019 2019 science: Absolutely no climate alarm No alarm on every aspect: stable polar ice, normal sea level rise, no consensus, growing snow cover, less tropical storms, tornadoes, shrinking deserts, global greening, predictions wrong, models flawed, climate driven by sun, ocean cycles, biodiversity, warmer 1000 years ago…etc… 2019 saw a great amount of new science emerge […] Posted in Alarmism, Scepticism | 16 Responses New Paper: Investigative Journalism Professor Slams Today’s ‘Fake News’ Climate Science Reporting By Kenneth Richard on 3. August 2017 Professor: Climate Journalism Awash In ‘Emotional Propaganda’, ‘Mythological Constructs’ Too Much Reliance On Models, ‘Consensus’ A University of Wollongong (Australia) investigative journalism professor with a research interest in ecological science and exposing environmental fraud has just published a scathing indictment of the climate science journalism industry in the academic journal Asia Pacific Media Educator. Pulling […] Posted in Alarmism, Climate Politics, Models | 17 Responses 1000 Skeptical Peer-Reviewed Climate Papers “Should Put UN IPCC To Shame,” Says Harvard Astrophysicist! By P Gosselin on 3. January 2017 Claims that the earth is rapidly heating up because of man-made CO2 and thus heading for a “climate catastrophe” have taken a serious body blow over the past three years as a huge and fresh body of science emerges. More than 1000 peer-reviewed papers published over the last 3 years expose climate alarmism as fake science. […]
These last couple posts demonstrate your common approach of finding people who agree with you and then implying that they know better than the vast majority of active climate scientists. Obviously, the catch with that is that they represent a miniscule number of the scientists working on this issue, and the vast majority are not in agreement with their conclusions.
Snuffing out ideas??? No, this is NOT about snuffing out ideas. And, AGAIN you post numbers of papers that APPEAR to disagree. But, you ignore the response of other scientists to those papers. And, when you decide to play a numbers game, you can't just give the numbers of papers YOU agree with. It's like reporting a sports score by giving how many points one side made, but not how many the other side made!
