Republicans Against Science

[RDD_1210]

Consensus of peers is required for wide acceptance of scientific knowledge.

At one time there was great consensus that the Earth was flat.

But hey, there ya go.

I'll raise you.

At one time there was consensus that the sun, planets and entire universe revolved around the Earf....It was the consensus of all the people privy to the "secret and sacred knowledge", who subsequently rat fucked and branded the man who questioned their dubious conclusions a heretic.

Sound familiar?

Yeah, and how was it determined that this was incorrect? Scientific theory and testing. You can't come to a conclusion without a theory and a means of testing it. What you're doing is denying any chance of man made global warming because we haven't reached a position of undeniable certainty. Even though we are working towards it and the data continues to mount that is showing that man made global warming does in fact exist.

You are actually positioning yourself as part of the group of people who still do think the earth is flat and that the earth is the center of the Universe. Science, testing and exploration for greater knowledge revealed those to be false. Science and knowledge, too things you love to ignore. Congrats on being a part of "The earth is definitely flat" crowd.

 

[Oddball]

Indeed.

Now, where has the gullible warming myth been physically bench tested, to the extent that it can be reproduced on demand?

When has it been quantified, to the point that anyone can say; X amount of CO2 = Y temperature increase?

Scientifically inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Oddball]

Oh yea, It's grand conspiracy involving thousands of scientists and dozens of the most prestigious scientific societies, and academies of science whose purpose is promote world socialism.

Doesn't have to be a conspiracy...That strawman argument has already been debunked.

Pay attention, s0n.

 

[konradv]

Indeed.

Now, where has the gullible warming myth been physically bench tested, to the extent that it can be reproduced on demand?

When has it been quantified, to the point that anyone can say; X amount of CO2 = Y temperature increase?

Scientifically inquiring minds want to know.

The ability of CO2 to absorb infra-red radiation has been bench tested. Anyone with a spectrophotometer can do it and it's a relativelty east experiment. A direct measurement of CO2 vs temp hasn't been done, because it's impossible to create an entire climate in the lab. The conclusions of AGW theory are, therefore, based on logic. If More CO2 traps more IR, then more IR will generate more heat. The amount of that extra heat and the time course of warming is debatable, but the basic facts aren't.

 

[Oddball]

Has it been bench tested in the context of an infinitely dynamic ecosystem?

Can you, with any kind of accuracy, determine that; X amount of CO2 = Y amount of ambient temperature increase?

Nope.

 

[konradv]

Has it been bench tested in the context of an infinitely dynamic ecosystem?

Nope.

You're creating a strawman. Since when is deductive reasoning something to be simply sluffed off, in favor of one's biases? That's hardly the impartial, dispassionate reading of the facts you expect of scientists. Why do you get a pass?

 

[Oddball]

I'm creating no strawman at all.

I'm asking for physical reproducibility and quantification, which are two ages-old benchmarks of "settled science".

If the answer is "no" just say it.

 

[konradv]

I'm creating no strawman at all.

I'm asking for physical reproducibility and quantification, which are two ages-old benchmarks of "settled science".

If the answer is "no" just say it.

You've moved the goalposts. In previous posts you talked about a benchtop experiment. This time you left it out. What gives? That was the strawman part of it!!!

 

[Oddball]

I moved no goalposts...You assumed.

An airfoil doesn't create lift in a vacuum...I needs to be in a proper environmental context to do so and be tested.

But that's a diversion from the fact that you also cannot quantify the phenomenon.

 

[konradv]

I moved no goalposts...You assumed.

An airfoil doesn't create lift in a vacuum...I needs to be in a proper environmental context to do so and be tested.

But that's a diversion from the fact that you also cannot quantify the phenomenon.

I assumed nothing. This is what you said. You mentioned bench testing and then dropped it later, when it was pointed out that creating a climate on a lab bench is impossible, ergo the "strawman" charge.

Now, where has the gullible warming myth been physically bench tested, to the extent that it can be reproduced on demand?

When has it been quantified, to the point that anyone can say; X amount of CO2 = Y temperature increase?

As far as quantification goes, the work goes on every day. If the skeptics/deniers want this info so much, why are they trying to stop the research?

 

[konradv]

I moved no goalposts...You assumed.

An airfoil doesn't create lift in a vacuum...I needs to be in a proper environmental context to do so and be tested.

But that's a diversion from the fact that you also cannot quantify the phenomenon.

I get it, airfoil=knowledge and vacuum=your brain!!!

 

[flacaltenn]

Flopper:

Oh yea, It's grand conspiracy involving thousands of scientists and dozens of the most prestigious scientific societies, and academies of science whose purpose is promote world socialism

You're conflating politically instituted panels and academies who excersize "selective" membership and participation with PRESTIGE?

How do you explain those instances (post above) of "prestigious scientists" complaining about the bias and politicization of their work? No comments on those Flopper?

There are HUNDREDS of examples of blatant manufactured consensus in this GW issue. And it only takes a couple to taint "the science" of any work that comes out of a cesspool like this.. Your nose must not be working to detect the taint or you have no appreciation for the normal processes of how science gets kicked forward.

 

[rdean]

Republicans say they are FOR science and then everything they say afterwards proves they're not.

Do they really think they can have it both ways?

Leftists say they are intelligent and then everything they say afterwards proves they're not.

Do they really think they can have it both ways?

I don't know what a leftist says.

But I know what Republicans aren't.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Republicans say they are FOR science and then everything they say afterwards proves they're not.

Do they really think they can have it both ways?

Leftists say they are intelligent and then everything they say afterwards proves they're not.

Do they really think they can have it both ways?

I don't know what a leftist says.

But I know what Republicans aren't.

That describes you to a "T".

 

[Flopper]

Has it been bench tested in the context of an infinitely dynamic ecosystem?

Can you, with any kind of accuracy, determine that; X amount of CO2 = Y amount of ambient temperature increase?

Nope.

infinitely dynamic ecosystem?
Real bull shit this time.

 

[Texanmike]

Here's my theory, this is before reading the thread by the way.

Most people in this thread have invested their belief system in science. They believe they have done significant research (which 99% of them haven't because they lack either a) the intellectual capacity b) the funds c) the time d) some combination of a, b and c) and ignore the fact that most of the research they accept is based on whether the researcher's point agrees with them.

"Peer review" doesn't mean anything. Neither does scientifically proven or accredited by... You have no idea who the peers that reviewed something are and you know jack squat about the references, backgrounds or character of the people whose articles you're reading. I'm not against science, I am against the scientific community. I do believe that they are for sale and I have a close personal friend in the research community who has, on multiple occasions, demonstrated how the scientific community works. It is driven by money and ideology. Many scientists are like politicians in that they get into the business with pure motives but over time they are corrupted by the need for funding for their projects.

With all of that, I will make a suggestion. Instead of quoting scientists, why not look at the journals/articles look at the questions that you are trying to answer. Next, try to find holes in the theory. Stop advocating this study and not that one and look at the actual data because there is absolutely nothing scientific about "scientists say so".

Mike

 

[konradv]

Here's my theory, this is before reading the thread by the way.

Most people in this thread have invested their belief system in science. They believe they have done significant research (which 99% of them haven't because they lack either a) the intellectual capacity b) the funds c) the time d) some combination of a, b and c) and ignore the fact that most of the research they accept is based on whether the researcher's point agrees with them.

"Peer review" doesn't mean anything. Neither does scientifically proven or accredited by... You have no idea who the peers that reviewed something are and you know jack squat about the references, backgrounds or character of the people whose articles you're reading. I'm not against science, I am against the scientific community. I do believe that they are for sale and I have a close personal friend in the research community who has, on multiple occasions, demonstrated how the scientific community works. It is driven by money and ideology. Many scientists are like politicians in that they get into the business with pure motives but over time they are corrupted by the need for funding for their projects.

With all of that, I will make a suggestion. Instead of quoting scientists, why not look at the journals/articles look at the questions that you are trying to answer. Next, try to find holes in the theory. Stop advocating this study and not that one and look at the actual data because there is absolutely nothing scientific about "scientists say so"...

Mike

... or you could use plain old logic and deductive reasoning.

The infra-red absorption properties of CO2 and other gases are scientifically well-documented.

The concentration of those gases in the atmosphere has been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, more infra-red energy and, therefore, more heat will be reflected back towards earth.

 

[Oddball]

Has it been bench tested in the context of an infinitely dynamic ecosystem?

Can you, with any kind of accuracy, determine that; X amount of CO2 = Y amount of ambient temperature increase?

Nope.

infinitely dynamic ecosystem?
Real bull shit this time.

Really?

You mean to say that millions upon millions of different flora, fauna, the land masses, microclimates and weather systems (at the very least), interacting with the various atmospheric elements and conditions, interacting with varying inputs like solar radiation, the magnetosphere, cloud cover, cosmic rays, planetary wobble, elliptical orbital paths, the moon and numerous other variables add up to a definitely numerable total of possible outputs?

Now, this I'd like to hear.

 

[Oddball]

Here's my theory, this is before reading the thread by the way.

Most people in this thread have invested their belief system in science. They believe they have done significant research (which 99% of them haven't because they lack either a) the intellectual capacity b) the funds c) the time d) some combination of a, b and c) and ignore the fact that most of the research they accept is based on whether the researcher's point agrees with them.

"Peer review" doesn't mean anything. Neither does scientifically proven or accredited by... You have no idea who the peers that reviewed something are and you know jack squat about the references, backgrounds or character of the people whose articles you're reading. I'm not against science, I am against the scientific community. I do believe that they are for sale and I have a close personal friend in the research community who has, on multiple occasions, demonstrated how the scientific community works. It is driven by money and ideology. Many scientists are like politicians in that they get into the business with pure motives but over time they are corrupted by the need for funding for their projects.

With all of that, I will make a suggestion. Instead of quoting scientists, why not look at the journals/articles look at the questions that you are trying to answer. Next, try to find holes in the theory. Stop advocating this study and not that one and look at the actual data because there is absolutely nothing scientific about "scientists say so"...

Mike

... or you could use plain old logic and deductive reasoning.

The infra-red absorption properties of CO2 and other gases are scientifically well-documented.

The concentration of those gases in the atmosphere has been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, more infra-red energy and, therefore, more heat will be reflected back towards earth.

That's not deductive reasoning...That's the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, along with the deletion of uncountable other input/output relationships.

 

[Oddball]

I moved no goalposts...You assumed.

An airfoil doesn't create lift in a vacuum...I needs to be in a proper environmental context to do so and be tested.

But that's a diversion from the fact that you also cannot quantify the phenomenon.

I get it, airfoil=knowledge and vacuum=your brain!!!

You get absolutely nothing, let alone the concept of bench testing in proper context.

But if I couldn't come up with the numbers to fill in the very simple equation that you've been presented with, I'd be itching to deflect and change the subject, too.