Questions for the ‘Majority of Scientists Agree’ Climate Changers

[Weatherman2020]

What qualifies a title of scientist?

Is there any conflict of interest that disqualifies said scientist?

Throughout history every scientific understanding of the world around us today was once a minority position. So why is it scientific to discount all non majority views?

Attacking anyone for simply pointing out the economic and physical impossibility of what the majority are telling the public. Why is that good science?

 

[JoeB131]

What qualifies a title of scientist?

Is there any conflict of interest that disqualifies said scientist?

Throughout history every scientific understanding of the world around us today was once a minority position. So why is it scientific to discount all non majority views?

Attacking anyone for simply pointing out the economic and physical impossibility of what the majority are telling the public. Why is that good science?

These would be valuable questions if you were interested in actual inquiry.

The problem with you flat-earthers is that you have a vested interest in it NOT being true, so what's the point of having the conversation.

Never mind the scientists, we can see the retreating glaciers and dying coral reefs for ourselves.

 

[Donald H]

What qualifies a title of scientist?

Is there any conflict of interest that disqualifies said scientist?

Throughout history every scientific understanding of the world around us today was once a minority position. So why is it scientific to discount all non majority views?

Attacking anyone for simply pointing out the economic and physical impossibility of what the majority are telling the public. Why is that good science?

The denialist's scientist must be evaluated by the scientific community and then be castigated by the mainstream if he/she is found to be promoting denial propaganda on behalf of big oil or other big business interests.

After that has happened the remaining scientists who are denialist should be engaged in debate by the mainstream in the interest of exploring and understanding their theories.

Essentially what is already happening!

 

[Donald H]

These would be valuable questions if you were interested in actual inquiry.

The problem with you flat-earthers is that you have a vested interest in it NOT being true, so what's the point of having the conversation.

Never mind the scientists, we can see the retreating glaciers and dying coral reefs for ourselves.

Yes, the evidence is everywhere, but still their last bastion of denial must be challenged and defeated.
This is a thread that presents the opportunity to show that is already happening.

The denialist pseudo-scientists can be allowed to prey on the uninformed public laypersons. They must be nipped in the bud, swatted down, and not be permitted to retreat to the safety of big oil's closets!

 

[westwall]

Yes, the evidence is everywhere, but still their last bastion of denial must be challenged and defeated.
This is a thread that presents the opportunity to show that is already happening.

The denialist pseudo-scientists can be allowed to prey on the uninformed public laypersons. They must be nipped in the bud, swatted down, and not be permitted to retreat to the safety of big oil's closets!

No, there is NO evidence. There are computer generated stories. Stories are fiction, they are not data.

The scientifically illiterate, that would be you, don't know the difference because you are...........illiterate.


Here is a case in point. The Maldives are supposedly going to be underwater soon. So why is anyone investing billions to build international airports?

The 5 New Airports in Maldives 2020​

Last night, Transportation Minister Aishath Nahula announced the dates of the openings of new airports in Maldives in 2020.

5 airports are to be opened this year: Funadho Airport, Maavarulu Airport, Madivaru Airport, Hoarafushi Airport and Fares Maathoda Airport.

Funadhoo Airport in Shaviyani Atoll will be opening earliest in January. The runway stretches to 1,200 meters. The first airport in Shaviyani Atoll is developed at a cost of USD 5.742 million.

 

[Crick]

What qualifies a title of scientist?

Is there any conflict of interest that disqualifies said scientist?

Throughout history every scientific understanding of the world around us today was once a minority position. So why is it scientific to discount all non majority views?

Attacking anyone for simply pointing out the economic and physical impossibility of what the majority are telling the public. Why is that good science?

For the purpose of this discussion a scientist is someone with a post graduate education, preferably a doctorate, doing research in the field in which their education and experience qualifies them, who has been published in a refereed science journal. Conflicts of interest would be the same as that in any other field: a situation in which the personal interests of the researcher could tend to bias their results. Probably the most important countermeasure to the appearance or reality of such situation is complete transparency.

Your comment about past shortcomings in scientific understanding is an abuse of the history of science and human knowledge. It is also false. That the sun, the moon and the stars rise reliably in the east and set just as reliably in the west has been known for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years. That we have seasons has been known just as long. Accurate knowledge of animal behavior and, slightly later, agronomy, has been known longer than human civilization has existed. That humans of the past lacking any means of extending their perception beyond their own individual senses, possessed faulty understandings of physics, chemistry, biology and a thousand other subjects that have been corrected over time and particularly since the development of the scientific method is nothing but overwhelming verification of the value of that method.

Your conclusion requires some elucidation. To which economic and physical impossibilities, attacks and claims of good science do you refer?

 

[Wyatt earp]

The denialist's scientist must be evaluated by the scientific community and then be castigated by the mainstream if he/she is found to be promoting denial propaganda on behalf of big oil or other big business interests.

After that has happened the remaining scientists who are denialist should be engaged in debate by the mainstream in the interest of exploring and understanding their theories.

Essentially what is already happening!

You do know big oil spent billions in grants to universities right?

 

[Crick]

No, there is NO evidence. There are computer generated stories. Stories are fiction, they are not data.

The scientifically illiterate, that would be you, don't know the difference because you are...........illiterate.


Here is a case in point. The Maldives are supposedly going to be underwater soon. So why is anyone investing billions to build international airports?

The 5 New Airports in Maldives 2020​

Last night, Transportation Minister Aishath Nahula announced the dates of the openings of new airports in Maldives in 2020.

5 airports are to be opened this year: Funadho Airport, Maavarulu Airport, Madivaru Airport, Hoarafushi Airport and Fares Maathoda Airport.

Funadhoo Airport in Shaviyani Atoll will be opening earliest in January. The runway stretches to 1,200 meters. The first airport in Shaviyani Atoll is developed at a cost of USD 5.742 million.

You need a wee brush up on your math. If one of those airports cost a total of $5.742 million, it is very unlikely that the cost of all five of them totaled into the billions you claimed. I would assume that the one mentioned is the most expensive of the lot and thus it would be accurate to say the five cost less than $25 million. That would be one FORTIETH of ONE billion dollars. And, of course, you also assume that the government has given up any hope that sea level rise can be stopped before the entire archipelago has been rendered uninhabitable.

 

[westwall]

You need a wee brush up on your math. If one of those airports cost a total of $5.742 million, it is very unlikely that the cost of all five of them totaled into the billions you claimed. I would assume that the one mentioned is the most expensive of the lot and thus it would be accurate to say the five cost less than $25 million. That would be one FORTIETH of ONE billion dollars. And, of course, you also assume that the government has given up any hope that sea level rise can be stopped before the entire archipelago has been rendered uninhabitable.

learn

You need a wee brush up on your math. If one of those airports cost a total of $5.742 million, it is very unlikely that the cost of all five of them totaled into the billions you claimed. I would assume that the one mentioned is the most expensive of the lot and thus it would be accurate to say the five cost less than $25 million. That would be one FORTIETH of ONE billion dollars. And, of course, you also assume that the government has given up any hope that sea level rise can be stopped before the entire archipelago has been rendered uninhabitable.

You need to learn how to do research. Maldives spent 800 million in 2016 alone to update ONE airport.

 

[Old Rocks]

The denialist's scientist must be evaluated by the scientific community and then be castigated by the mainstream if he/she is found to be promoting denial propaganda on behalf of big oil or other big business interests.

After that has happened the remaining scientists who are denialist should be engaged in debate by the mainstream in the interest of exploring and understanding their theories.

Essentially what is already happening!

This is exactly what is happening. All the arguments of the denialists hypothesis have been falsified, and all they have left is lies. So that is what we constantly see on this board.

 

[Donald H]

This is exactly what is happening. All the arguments of the denialists hypothesis have been falsified, and all they have left is lies. So that is what we constantly see on this board.

Yeah, that's what is happening. But it's probably too late and so mainstream science could sort of fold their tents in disgust and defeat.

 

[Old Rocks]

You do know big oil spent billions in grants to universities right?

That is correct. And in spite of that, the scientists at the universities state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. And that the fossil fuel companies are the problem. So what were you trying to say? That the scientists are not that much influenced by money as the cretins that spew the lying shit about AGW on Fox news?

 

[Old Rocks]

What qualifies a title of scientist?

Is there any conflict of interest that disqualifies said scientist?

Throughout history every scientific understanding of the world around us today was once a minority position. So why is it scientific to discount all non majority views?

Attacking anyone for simply pointing out the economic and physical impossibility of what the majority are telling the public. Why is that good science?

This very much applies to your post;

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”​

― Issac Asimov

 

[Weatherman2020]

This very much applies to your post;

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”​

― Issac Asimov

That could have been an actual quote from someone grilling Galileo for his ‘ignorant views’.

 

[Weatherman2020]

These would be valuable questions if you were interested in actual inquiry.

The problem with you flat-earthers is that you have a vested interest in it NOT being true, so what's the point of having the conversation.

Never mind the scientists, we can see the retreating glaciers and dying coral reefs for ourselves.

You can’t see your own hypocrisy. Again, ‘not being true’ argument to censor ideas applies to those who said the world isn’t flat.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The denialist's scientist must be evaluated by the scientific community and then be castigated by the mainstream if he/she is found to be promoting denial propaganda on behalf of big oil or other big business interests.

After that has happened the remaining scientists who are denialist should be engaged in debate by the mainstream in the interest of exploring and understanding their theories.

Essentially what is already happening!

Again, same logic used against those who thought the earth was not the center of the universe.

 

[Weatherman2020]

For the purpose of this discussion a scientist is someone with a post graduate education, preferably a doctorate, doing research in the field in which their education and experience qualifies them, who has been published in a refereed science journal. Conflicts of interest would be the same as that in any other field: a situation in which the personal interests of the researcher could tend to bias their results. Probably the most important countermeasure to the appearance or reality of such situation is complete transparency.

Your comment about past shortcomings in scientific understanding is an abuse of the history of science and human knowledge. It is also false. That the sun, the moon and the stars rise reliably in the east and set just as reliably in the west has been known for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years. That we have seasons has been known just as long. Accurate knowledge of animal behavior and, slightly later, agronomy, has been known longer than human civilization has existed. That humans of the past lacking any means of extending their perception beyond their own individual senses, possessed faulty understandings of physics, chemistry, biology and a thousand other subjects that have been corrected over time and particularly since the development of the scientific method is nothing but overwhelming verification of the value of that method.

Your conclusion requires some elucidation. To which economic and physical impossibilities, attacks and claims of good science do you refer?

So name one qualifying scientist per your definition that has not taken money linked favorably to his/her findings.
Can you?

And you’re wrong. There is not one scientific understanding we have today that was not originally a minority position. Not one.
Censorship of any idea, no matter how seemingly crazy, because you don’t like it is anti-science.

 

[westwall]

This is exactly what is happening. All the arguments of the denialists hypothesis have been falsified, and all they have left is lies. So that is what we constantly see on this board.

You project a lot. Falsifying data is a globull warmists hallmark.

 

[Old Rocks]

That could have been an actual quote from someone grilling Galileo for his ‘ignorant views’.

No, it is meant for people like you. You probably don't even know who Isaac Asimov was.

 

[Donald H]

Again, same logic used against those who thought the earth was not the center of the universe.

Do you believe that the earth is the center of the universe?
I'm quite aware that there are a considerable number of people who believe likewise.