@joe-shmo saidInsert rolling eyes
@shavixmir
I don't think you understand a few concepts. Consensus on science is not the same as having the correct science. 500 years ago there was a scientific consensus the earth was flat and the center of the universe...
Also, the Bell curve applies to scientist as well. Just because they are scientist doesn't mean they aren't relatively stupid in comparison with their piers.
@joe-shmo said- 500 years ago the scientific method was barely developed.
@shavixmir
I don't think you understand a few concepts. Consensus on science is not the same as having the correct science. 500 years ago there was a scientific consensus the earth was flat and the center of the universe...
Also, the Bell curve applies to scientist as well. Just because they are scientist doesn't mean they aren't relatively stupid in comparison with their piers.
- Scholars at that time and even most ordinary people in the developed parts of the world knew that the Earth was approximately spherical; we've known that for thousands of years.
In other words, there literally never was a "scientific consensus" the Earth was flat. I guess that indicates on what part of the Bell curve you land...
@kazetnagorra saidI suspect Mr Shmo landed on the far left side of the bell curve.
- 500 years ago the scientific method was barely developed.
- Scholars at that time and even most ordinary people in the developed parts of the world knew that the Earth was approximately spherical; we've known that for thousands of years.
In other words, there literally never was a "scientific consensus" the Earth was flat. I guess that indicates on what part of the Bell curve you land...
Which is relatively flat.
And I think he landed on his head.
@js357 saidI wouldn't bother, he thinks he's a free thinker because he gets all his information from Breibart, Russia Today, and Climate Change Denial websites. I've basically stopped contributing to threads on climate change in the science forum because of his toxic presence.
When you attack a person’s character, you take the discussion away from civility and yourself away from rational disagreement. It helps no one. I don’t have to put up with that, “metal brain”.
@metal-brain saidDo you realize that this '100% false' report is from the Trump admin.? The people he has hand picked to be his closest advisors are now in a total state of disarray, the people with ties to Trump who are not already in jail, that is. And Trump is the reason for this confusion, not the news or his detractors, Trump and Trump alone.
Here is an excerpt from the link you posted:
"Asked outside the White House about the findings that unchecked global warming would wreak havoc on the US economy, he said: "I don't believe it."
The report found that climate change will cost the US hundreds of billions of dollars annually and damage health."
I don't believe it either. It is a stupid assertion with ...[text shortened]... ists who are putting out more propaganda in the style of "Reefer Madness" to scare people with lies.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
@kazetnagorra said"- Scholars at that time and even most ordinary people in the developed parts of the world knew that the Earth was approximately spherical; we've known that for thousands of years. "
- 500 years ago the scientific method was barely developed.
- Scholars at that time and even most ordinary people in the developed parts of the world knew that the Earth was approximately spherical; we've known that for thousands of years.
In other words, there literally never was a "scientific consensus" the Earth was flat. I guess that indicates on what part of the Bell curve you land...
Was it "known" or "believed" the Earth was spherical until it was proven by the scientific method?
Anyhow, I'll concede that I've fallen prey to the apparent common "Myth of the Flat Earth" that was perpetuated in the 19th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Myth_of_the_flat_Earth
As usual, thank you for being the arrogant tool you perpetually are.
@joe-shmo saidThe Greeks proved it was a sphere over 200 years before the birth of Christ and Classically educated people would know this.
"- Scholars at that time and even most ordinary people in the developed parts of the world knew that the Earth was approximately spherical; we've known that for thousands of years. "
Was it "known" or "believed" the Earth was spherical until it was proven by the scientific method?
Anyhow, I'll concede that I've fallen prey to the apparent common "Myth of the Flat Earth ...[text shortened]... Earth#Myth_of_the_flat_Earth
As usual, thank you for being the arrogant tool you perpetually are.
@joe-shmoPeople argue about this, but a justified belief which is true is said to be known. Since the world was believed to be a sphere, and it is true that the Earth is more-or-less spherical it hangs on the justification.
Was it "known" or "believed" the Earth was spherical until it was proven by the scientific method?
If you take a look at the Wikipedia page on "flat earth", as opposed to the one you linked, there is an excerpt from some Norse writing where the author explains the theory in terms of an apple and a candle. They were able to explain differences in temperature between the North and the equator in terms of the model, as a result of which I'd argue that the belief was justified by the explanatory power of the theory. So their belief in a spherical Earth counts as knowledge.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
@KazetNagorra
Anyhow, I stand by my original premise despite your best efforts to deflect by pointing out a "bad example". You got me...
1) Scientific consensus does not validate a theory, the science does. I'm sick of hearing the scientific consensus is this, and the scientific consensus is that... It is a line of argumentation that historically means nothing, and will continue to mean nothing.
2) Not all scientists are created equal. Again, its not the "opinions" of "most scientists" that validate a theory, the science does. So I don't care how many scientist hold opinions and what they are. A few bright bulbs can quite dramatically shift " consensus".
@joe-shmo saidScientific theories stand or fall depending on their agreement with experiment. The difficulty with your formulation of science validating scientific theories is that science includes the theories, so you're in danger of a circular argument. The catch is that theories can only be falsified with certainty. Whether a theory is considered validated depends on whether the relevant scientific sub-community regards the evidence as sufficient. So the consensus does matter.
@KazetNagorra
Anyhow, I stand by my original premise despite your best efforts to deflect by pointing out a "bad example". You got me...
1) Scientific consensus does not validate a theory, the science does. I'm sick of hearing the scientific consensus is this, and the scientific consensus is that... It is a line of argumentation that historically means nothing, and ...[text shortened]... tist hold opinions and what they are. A few bright bulbs can quite dramatically shift " consensus".
@deepthought saidThe oil lobby can whine and twist all they want, hunans create more CO2 and more CO2 warms the Earth.
Scientific theories stand or fall depending on their agreement with experiment. The difficulty with your formulation of science validating scientific theories is that science includes the theories, so you're in danger of a circular argument. The catch is that theories can only be falsified with certainty. Whether a theory is considered validated depends on whether the relevant scientific sub-community regards the evidence as sufficient. So the consensus does matter.
It’s proven by experiment and by data comparison.
To say it isn’t is either stupidity, ignorance or deliberetely misleading.
Pick your poison, but for God’s sake, stop with the denial of the obvious.
- the Earth is not flat
- a god with willpower exists only because various humans believe in it
- etc.
Good grief.
@joe-shmo said1) Saying "the science" validates a theory and that there is "scientific consensus" are one and the same thing. Scientists are only people, they are not infallible, but who better to judge the science than scientists themselves?
@KazetNagorra
Anyhow, I stand by my original premise despite your best efforts to deflect by pointing out a "bad example". You got me...
1) Scientific consensus does not validate a theory, the science does. I'm sick of hearing the scientific consensus is this, and the scientific consensus is that... It is a line of argumentation that historically means nothing, and ...[text shortened]... tist hold opinions and what they are. A few bright bulbs can quite dramatically shift " consensus".
2) And unless and until those "bright bulbs" do such a thing, laymen would be well-advised to trust the scientific consensus. After all, you as a layman are not in a position to judge which of the dissenters are on to something.
28 Nov 18
@js357 saidWhen you lie you should be exposed for it. I didn't attack you, I exposed you for lying. I realize some people resent me for revealing the truth and exposing them for lying (deepthought is good example), but I am not responsible for other people resorting to lies.
When you attack a person’s character, you take the discussion away from civility and yourself away from rational disagreement. It helps no one. I don’t have to put up with that, “metal brain”.
You brought it on yourself just like deepthought did. Deal with it.
@shavixmir saidIt is not a proven fact that CO2 is causing the warming. It is a popular theory and nothing more. It may be causing warming and I tend to agree with that, but there is no ironclad evidence that is the case.
God only knows where to start.
Okay... one.
CO2... why does it cause the Earth’s temperature to rise?
There is more CO2 in the air: fact
The Sun’s heat warms the Earth: fact
The Earth emits some of this energy as infrared radiation: fact
Due to the level of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the Earth stays 33 degrees warmer than without these gasses: fact
The ...[text shortened]... act.
So there you go.
There is evidence that CO2 is causing global warming. It is a proven fact.
You even acknowledged methane is a greenhouse gas in the same post you claim there is evidence CO2 is causing global warming. How do you know methane isn't the main cause of AGW? Not that there is compelling evidence man's contribution to GW is very much.
It has been proven that CO2 causes warming in a laboratory, but not in the atmosphere. That is a fact.
"There is more CO2 in the air: fact"
That is proof of nothing. We have roughly the same CO2 levels now as there was back during the Pliocene Epoch. This was determined by sediment samples because there were no glaciers back then.
We still have glaciers because the earth is colder than the Pliocene Epoch. That is because CO2 is not why the Pliocene was so much warmer than today.
The CO2 levels were high during the Pliocene because the temperatures were warm, not the other way around. You have your cause and effect backwards because you listened to AL Gore's propaganda. He knows fully well CO2 lags behind temperatures in the ice core samples. That is why he does all the talking during events about AGW. He doesn't want anyone to ask him about it. It would be incredibly embarrassing.
I know your cognitive dissonance is keeping you from accepting you had your cause and effect backwards, but you need to accept facts. Don't be a denier of science.