"March for Science protests ramp up around the globe"

[Jose Fly]

If you want to continue this discussion, stop the smart *** digs, they only show your insecurity. Either listen (read) and speak ( write ) civilly or this ends and you can FO. Either you are interested in exchanging ideas and considering a well established and coget view of many with much greater scientific qualifications than you, or you are interested only in not so subtle verbal aggression. If the latter, I have already wasted way too much time on you. Let me know.

Then let's start by you answering some of the questions I've been asking you, and for whatever reason you keep ignoring.

Where did you get the idea that evidence can only exist when there's a conclusion that's an "established fact"?

Where did you get this notion of random chemistry?

Can you provide a citation to where any abiogenesis scenario is taught as an "established fact"?

 

[shmogie]

They're also usually creationists, and employ almost the exact same dishonest tactics as creationists. That stands to reason since when you boil it all down, all of them are really just variations of the same theme......science denialism.

What utter nonsense, and to use your tactic, Citations proving they are creationists ? Cite also dishonest tactics. Science denialism ? Because they don't come to the same conclusions as you ? Tell me, was Max Planc (you know who he was, right ?) a science denier ? Your penchant for empty hyperbole and resultant bonehead comments is amazing. Who denies the climate is changing, has changed, and has cyclically changed from the beginning ? I mean, no less than that great scientific pioneer, al gore, said in the early 90's that Manhatten would be awash in two feet of water by now. My favorite of these prognosticating scientists, Dr, Paul Erlich, a premier population expert of the time, sad in the 70's that by now the world would be totally destabilized by massive food riots in every country, and millions dying from hunger every day. I think this well respected and acclaimed authority of the scientific method, might have been wrong, ya think ? Climate change, and man caused climate change aren't the same thing, are they ?

 

[shmogie]

Then let's start by you answering some of the questions I've been asking you, and for whatever reason you keep ignoring.

Where did you get the idea that evidence can only exist when there's a conclusion that's an "established fact"?

Where did you get this notion of random chemistry?

Can you provide a citation to where any abiogenesis scenario is taught as an "established fact"?

First question ; Evidence must be an established fact that points to a clearly defined goal or conclusion Second ; There is no notion of random chemistry, the chemistry allegedly took place as a result of random conditions third: My high school biology class " It had to have happened because there is no other explanation for the beginning of life" Now, are you through pretending to be an interrogator and authority ?

 

[shmogie]

What makes them "political"?

The only side that would have a political agenda would be those working for the industries who are trying to avoid the expense that comes with reducing emissions.

The idea that the overwhelming majority of scientists would all take part in some vast convoluted conspiracy despite having everything to lose (career, credibility, reputation, etc.) and nothing to gain from it is simply kooky cartoon nonsense.

Really ? Man made climate change has certainly not been established. It is political because believers of a certain set of political doctrines support the idea. Those of that political cast were in charge, until recently, of the government coffers that funded research grants. They made sure that only those who believed the notion got government research grants. Researchers live or die by grants, thus the continuation of the political mantra was ensured. The ones who are losing careers and credibility aren't the believers in the political doctrine, it is the non believers who are being persecuted.

 

[Jose Fly]

Citations proving they are creationists ?

Just my personal observation that in general, there is quite a bit of overlap between creationists and warming denailists. Guy T. here is a good example, and it looks like you are one too. But that's to be expected given that both are tied to conservative political identity.

Cite also dishonest tactics.

I've been doing that ad nauseum here. Your posts in this thread were good examples. Another example is where Ben cited the IPCC's slight widening of the range of the equilibrium climate sensitivity. But Ben only focused on the downward end and not the upward revision. When I asked him about it, like you, he ignored the question.

Science denialism ? Because they don't come to the same conclusions as you ?

No. One main reason is because in both camps, the general explanation for why the vast majority of the scientific community doesn't agree with them is to invoke massive long-running conspiracies.

If you're interested you can read more here: The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism

Tell me, was Max Planc (you know who he was, right ?) a science denier ?

Not that I know of.

Your penchant for empty hyperbole and resultant bonehead comments is amazing.

Rather ironic given how you just called for an end to personal insults. I guess you were exempting yourself from that?

Who denies the climate is changing, has changed, and has cyclically changed from the beginning ?

The denialism relates to the role of human activities.

I mean, no less than that great scientific pioneer, al gore, said in the early 90's that Manhatten would be awash in two feet of water by now. My favorite of these prognosticating scientists, Dr, Paul Erlich, a premier population expert of the time, sad in the 70's that by now the world would be totally destabilized by massive food riots in every country, and millions dying from hunger every day. I think this well respected and acclaimed authority of the scientific method, might have been wrong, ya think ?

I urge you to understand the difference between the actual science, and statements about science made by public figures.

Climate change, and man caused climate change aren't the same thing, are they ?

Nope.

 

[Jose Fly]

First question ; Evidence must be an established fact that points to a clearly defined goal or conclusion

You didn't answer the question I asked. Remember, I asked where you got this idea from.

Second; There is no notion of random chemistry

Good. Glad we cleared that up.

the chemistry allegedly took place as a result of random conditions

What do you mean by "random conditions"? Do you mean that the early earth was just as likely to be made of peanut butter as it was anything else?

third: My high school biology class " It had to have happened because there is no other explanation for the beginning of life"

It's unfortunate that you received such a poor education in science.

Now, are you through pretending to be an interrogator and authority ?

It always fascinates me how reluctant creationists are to answer questions. Says a lot IMO.

 

[Father Heathen]

Is there one believer who was around during teh global cooling


100% of paranormal investigators believe in ghosts, the idea that they would all be involved in some vast conspiracy theory is obviously kooky cartoon nonsense!

So you're comparing science to ghosts, even though it's a proven method that produced the very technology you're using to access this forum?

 

[shmogie]

You didn't answer the question I asked. Remember, I asked where you got this idea from.


Good. Glad we cleared that up.


What do you mean by "random conditions"? Do you mean that the early earth was just as likely to be made of peanut butter as it was anything else?


It's unfortunate that you received such a poor education in science.


adieu, syanora, hasta ls vista, finito

 

[shmogie]

Just my personal observation that in general, there is quite a bit of overlap between creationists and warming denailists. Guy T. here is a good example, and it looks like you are one too. But that's to be expected given that both are tied to conservative political identity.


I've been doing that ad nauseum here. Your posts in this thread were good examples. Another example is where Ben cited the IPCC's slight widening of the range of the equilibrium climate sensitivity. But Ben only focused on the downward end and not the upward revision. When I asked him about it, like you, he ignored the question.


No. One main reason is because in both camps, the general explanation for why the vast majority of the scientific community doesn't agree with them is to invoke massive long-running conspiracies.

If you're interested you can read more here: The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism


Not that I know of.


Rather ironic given how you just called for an end to personal insults. I guess you were exempting yourself from that?


The denialism relates to the role of human activities.


I urge you to understand the difference between the actual science, and statements about science made by public figures.


Nope.

I didn't say a word about personal insults. How can the truth be an insult ? This is a totally different thread and topic. LOL, if one accepts climate change, some warming, though the trumped up papers and very selective use of data makes it appear more than it is, and the extent of human activities as causation hasn't been actually measured or quantified, so the jury is out on that one, makes one a denier ? Oh, so the leading scientist in his field, suddenly becomes unscientific and a public figure and his peer reviewed and accepted theory, because it was flat wrong, is something other than his scientific work with "evidence". I love it. A simple logic syllogism for this would be; science is always right, Erlich was wrong, therefore he did not do science, therefore he is not a scientist, therefore he is a public figure. Extremely illogical, but that is the way your "scientific" mind seems to work.

 

[Jose Fly]

I didn't say a word about personal insults.

Ok then.

if one accepts climate change, some warming, though the trumped up papers and very selective use of data makes it appear more than it is, and the extent of human activities as causation hasn't been actually measured or quantified, so the jury is out on that one, makes one a denier ?

That you think that is an accurate description of the state of the science makes you either very ignorant or a denalist (or perhaps both).

Oh, so the leading scientist in his field, suddenly becomes unscientific and a public figure

The "public figure" was Al Gore.

and his peer reviewed and accepted theory, because it was flat wrong, is something other than his scientific work with "evidence".

Not sure what you're talking about. Could you link to the paper?

A simple logic syllogism for this would be; science is always right, Erlich was wrong, therefore he did not do science, therefore he is not a scientist, therefore he is a public figure. Extremely illogical, but that is the way your "scientific" mind seems to work.

I agree that's extremely illogical. Now, if you could just show where I said anything like that you might have a point.

 

[Revoltingest]

Can you think of any aspect of it that's not? that's actually got any scientific validity?

Remember that scientific "validity" is not about being true or correct....it's about
fitting the scientific method, ie, being testable (making predictions). Some predictions
by some have been shown wrong, eg, more hurricanes. But some have been verified,
eg, warming temps will be most severe at the poles.

 

[shmogie]

Ok then.


That you think that is an accurate description of the state of the science makes you either very ignorant or a denalist (or perhaps both).


The "public figure" was Al Gore.


Not sure what you're talking about. Could you link to the paper?


I agree that's extremely illogical. Now, if you could just show where I said anything like that you might have a point.

Lol, so then, science knows exactly what percentage of climate change is caused by humans, how it causes the change, the exact composition of the causation gasses or chemicals, and how they react in a variety of environments and temperatures, Gads, what a pip you are ! There is no agreement on the first, let alone the rest. Dude, you are a legend in your own mind, and you speak about science with a forked tongue

 

[shmogie]

Just my personal observation that in general, there is quite a bit of overlap between creationists and warming denailists. Guy T. here is a good example, and it looks like you are one too. But that's to be expected given that both are tied to conservative political identity.


I've been doing that ad nauseum here. Your posts in this thread were good examples. Another example is where Ben cited the IPCC's slight widening of the range of the equilibrium climate sensitivity. But Ben only focused on the downward end and not the upward revision. When I asked him about it, like you, he ignored the question.


No. One main reason is because in both camps, the general explanation for why the vast majority of the scientific community doesn't agree with them is to invoke massive long-running conspiracies.

If you're interested you can read more here: The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism


Not that I know of.
Planc was a creationist. I guess with that knowledge you will now say he actually wasn't a scientist. Sir Fred Hoyle considered abiogenesis impossible, oops ! Well Fred, sorry to break it to you, but you weren't a scientist either.

Rather ironic given how you just called for an end to personal insults. I guess you were exempting yourself from that?


The denialism relates to the role of human activities.


I urge you to understand the difference between the actual science, and statements about science made by public figures.


Nope.

 

[Jose Fly]

Lol, so then, science knows exactly what percentage of climate change is caused by humans, how it causes the change, the exact composition of the causation gasses or chemicals, and how they react in a variety of environments and temperatures

Again we see your fundamentalist black/white thinking in action, where either scientists know absolutely everything to a level of absolute perfection, or their findings can be safely waved away as without merit.

No wonder you struggle so much with science. Your simplistic mode of thinking just isn't conducive to the sort of nuance required in science.

Planc was a creationist. I guess with that knowledge you will now say he actually wasn't a scientist. Sir Fred Hoyle considered abiogenesis impossible, oops ! Well Fred, sorry to break it to you, but you weren't a scientist either.

Again you would have a point if I ever said anything like that. Since I haven't.......well, there's not much else to say.

And BTW, why can't you figure out the quote function? You've been a member for about 2 1/2 years and you still haven't learned how to quote? Interesting......

 

[shmogie]

Again we see your fundamentalist black/white thinking in action, where either scientists know absolutely everything to a level of absolute perfection, or their findings can be safely waved away as without merit.

No wonder you struggle so much with science. Your simplistic mode of thinking just isn't conducive to the sort of nuance required in science.


Again you would have a point if I ever said anything like that. Since I haven't.......well, there's not much else to say.

And BTW, why can't you figure out the quote function? You've been a member for about 2 1/2 years and you still haven't learned how to quote? Interesting......

So, contrary to what you said, there is no consensus on the amount, if any, of man made climate change. The British call what you do, telling PORKIES, Backtracking on a specific statements by the use of ambiguous ones. That's going from order to disorder, shouldn't that be the other way around ? Soon your responses will be total chaos. Yes, perhaps you are right, my kind of thinking isn't conductive to the nuances of your kind of science - provided nuance means in your definition, cumulative porkies. Interesting is the fact that you are so wedded to insult in your nuanced way of speaking, you have to try to scrape up one on a totally irrelevant issue. I understand, and I am sure your mental health practitioner has explained to you why, since you view yourself as so inadequate, you can only attempt, no matter how feeble an attempt, to knock someone down to your level. What a sad little ego the evidence shows you have. I truly feel sorry for you. The emperor/scientist has no clothes.

 

[Jose Fly]

So, contrary to what you said, there is no consensus on the amount, if any, of man made climate change.

What th........? You're not making any sense at all.

The British call what you do, telling PORKIES, Backtracking on a specific statements by the use of ambiguous ones. That's going from order to disorder, shouldn't that be the other way around ? Soon your responses will be total chaos.

What specific statement of mine did I backtrack on?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Given how you rely exclusively on denialist sources for your info rather than actual climatologists, I can see how you would think that's the case.


If Dr. Curry feels she has a valid case, she needs to publish it in a scientific journal.


Let's check your claims against the actual reports.

In the AR4, the IPCC concluded: "Most of the global average warming over the past 50 years is very likely due to anthropogenic GHG increases and it is likely that there is a discernible human-induced warming averaged over each continent (except Antarctica)."

In the AR5, the IPCC concluded: "Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century."

So they went from "very likely" to "extremely likely", yet you're trying to cast that as a "lessening of confidence"? That raises an obvious issue.....did you deliberately misrepresent their conclusions, or were you copying from someone else who misrepresented the conclusions?


You can keep making that claim, but as I showed earlier the reality is that warming is currently happening faster than the models predicted.


Given your fundamental errors/dishonesty above, I understand how you see it that way.

Science is not a religion you know, true believers need to understand that and be prepared to respond to challenges in a manly way.

Dr Curry is a climatologist, and an accomplished one at that, often invited to address politicians on the state of climate science. Here is a list of her peer reviewed papers to 2011.... Curry Papers - Online and downloadable
Here are some on climate Modelling...Climate Chnage

No misrepresentation intended, I take note of your correction, thank you. However the rhetoric of both AR4 and 5 do not match the reality that the temperature upward trend had paused, and an ever increasing deviation between models and real temperature was evident.

95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong « Roy Spencer, PhD

I explained to you that the temperature spike of the last couple of years was El Nino related, but even so, the trend long term trend is showing an increasing deviation on most of the models. Here is the graph over a hundred and thirty years duration to present, only about 1 degree C increase, note the spike over the last couple of years that you are referring too, that's an El Nino effect.

 

[leibowde84]

So no non-political sources then

It's NASA, which is a non-political administration.

 

[leibowde84]

Is there one believer who was around during teh global cooling


100% of paranormal investigators believe in ghosts, the idea that they would all be involved in some vast conspiracy theory is obviously kooky cartoon nonsense!

NASA isn't an administration of climate change investigators. They are scientists and experts in their respective fields. So, your analogy makes absolutely no sense. NASA is not a pro climate change organization. They are merely the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

On the other hand, if you provide a climate change skeptic website as a source for your argument, that would be the same as asking paranormal investigators about ghosts.

 

[leibowde84]

It is as likely as anything else you can imagine.

How so? What demonstrable evidence is there supporting an afterlife?