Undrestanding Scientific Consensus

[Procrustes Stretched]

Scientific consensus - RationalWiki

Scientific consensus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Some people, mostly those who have a right wing or conservative agenda, keep saying consensus has no place in science. That is a crazy statement. Still others are trying to use the few times in history when scientific consensus was wrong as proof that consensus cannot be trusted.

Maybe people should research 'scientific consensus' before they quote obvious political talking points that only further ignorance and argument.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If NASA and the scientific consensus are wrong, most people would want to know. People like Dante have no agenda. We do not follow anything Al Gore says or ever said who cares?

What we care about is the science. When an overwhelming majority of scientists in a specialized field say one thing and their opponents engage in personal attacks and more...

well you see where this brings us. Dante has asked people to refute facts on the NASA climate science page. No one has or can. What they have done is made arguments that NASA's conclusions are either fudged or wrong. Personal attacks are the coin of the realm. It appears only the right wingers embrace this denier attitude. It comes across as political, but what the right wingers do is accuse everyone else of having a political agenda. Projection?

How is it possible to discuss climate science if a minority of people keep insisting NASA is lying or that consensus has no place in science?

 

[william the wie]

Dude you are nuts. Masssaged data by bureaucrats trying to increase their budget is anything but science.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

william the wie

Dude you are nuts. Masssaged data by bureaucrats trying to increase their budget is anything but science.

So you claim a conspiracy to massage data for funding. Where do you get this idea? where does it come from?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

7 The TCCD With An Inkling Of Scientific Knowledge

This trickster knows not all scientific discoveries were immediately accepted by mainstream science. Plate tectonics and the Earth orbiting the sun leap to mind.

While scientific mavericks are few and far between, they do exist. But simply being a maverick doesn’t make anyone right. Most of the time it just makes them wrong.

12 Ways To Deal With A Climate Change Denier The BBQ Guide IFLScience​

 

[william the wie]

Get a copy of "The Essence of Chaos" by Edward Lorenz and read it. Lorenz created the Chaos branch of math in 1961 that proved weather cannot be predicted accurately within the limits of error of computation more than about 90 days out even with stations at one meter intervals across the globe and 100 km into the atmosphere. Climate is the vector sum of global weather, so where are the 100 million weather stations per sq. km around the globe to make that computation?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Get a copy of "The Essence of Chaos" by Edward Lorenz and read it. Lorenz created the Chaos branch of math in 1961 that proved weather cannot be predicted accurately within the limits of error of computation more than about 90 days out even with stations at one meter intervals across the globe and 100 km into the atmosphere. Climate is the vector sum of global weather, so where are the 100 million weather stations per sq. km around the globe to make that computation?

again, you appear to misrepresent things. I don't know why. Do you have a belief and work from there?

When I started asking what all the climate debate was about somebody helped me understand a little bit: they told me climate is not weather and modeling is not forecasting. Do you understand that?

I have no dog in the hunt. I only ask you and others to refute facts on NASA's climate science page. No one has yet.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Why is this happening? Is the Google Chairman lying about the science too?

Climate Change Deniers Are Having A Very Bad Year

Google Chairman Eric Schmidt went on NPR recently to explain that Google made a mistake by helping to fund the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and would stop doing so, because ALEC was “literally lying” with its position that man-made climate change is not happening. Schmidt went on to say, “The facts of climate change are not in question any more… Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place."​

and do you say skeptical science http://skepticalscience.net/pdf/reb...ing-can-climate-be-predicted-intermediate.pdf is full of it? Can you explain what they are doing wrong?

 

[Old Rocks]

The March issue of the National Geographic magazine cover has in big letters "The War on Science". It is a fact that there is a definate group in this nation that are trying to turn back the clock, and remove science from our educational system. Even to the point of trying to prosecute scientists for publishing their findings.

 

[Old Rocks]

All the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, all of the major Universities in the world state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. So we have a consensus right across the political and cultural differances in the world, yet our "Conservatives" swear that it is all a fraud. An international conspiracy for what purpose? And how do you keep this conspiracy secret? And who is directing it? Seems to me what we really have is a bunch of tin hat candidates, one step from the looney bin.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Old Rocks It appears this is partly driven by the anti-regulation industry, but it has gotten out of control.

I've asked people I've met why they believe or lean towards the denial group and most all end up saying it has to do with a distrust of government regulation. I guess one has to tie all climate science to desires of faceless government

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Scientific consensus - RationalWiki

Scientific consensus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Some people, mostly those who have a right wing or conservative agenda, keep saying consensus has no place in science. That is a crazy statement. Still others are trying to use the few times in history when scientific consensus was wrong as proof that consensus cannot be trusted.

Maybe people should research 'scientific consensus' before they quote obvious political talking points that only further ignorance and argument.

For politics, religion, and science, things work much as icebergs do. What people see is only an infitesimal part of what's actually going on. Politicians have PR firms much as celebrities do painting pictures for public consumption on various issues just as religions and science does. But because so much of what's really going on is taking place behind the scenes, deviously or not, most people base their conclusions on only the visible part, not the important part they don't see.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Scientific consensus - RationalWiki

Scientific consensus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Some people, mostly those who have a right wing or conservative agenda, keep saying consensus has no place in science. That is a crazy statement. Still others are trying to use the few times in history when scientific consensus was wrong as proof that consensus cannot be trusted.

Maybe people should research 'scientific consensus' before they quote obvious political talking points that only further ignorance and argument.

For politics, religion, and science, things work much as icebergs do. What people see is only an infitesimal part of what's actually going on. Politicians have PR firms much as celebrities do painting pictures for public consumption on various issues just as religions and science does. But because so much of what's really going on is taking place behind the scenes, deviously or not, most people base their conclusions on only the visible part, not the important part they don't see.

Sounds like a lot of bullshit.

Politicians were able to push stuff like the denial thing before they ever had PR firms. Not much is going on 'behind the scenes' as you claim. Your claim sounds as nutty as the denial stuff. You also claim religion and science have PR firms and/or do things behind closed doors? Really? What science?

 

[Flopper]

All the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, all of the major Universities in the world state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. So we have a consensus right across the political and cultural differances in the world, yet our "Conservatives" swear that it is all a fraud. An international conspiracy for what purpose? And how do you keep this conspiracy secret? And who is directing it? Seems to me what we really have is a bunch of tin hat candidates, one step from the looney bin.

When you can't refute the claim, you attack the source. In the case of AGW, that means attacking the most prestigious and recognized authorizes in science.

What often passes for scientific opinion is not coming from scientists. It comes from politicians, political junkies, and vested interest groups that filter and distort real scientific discoveries to meet their own goals.

Most people seem to be unaware that there is a large climate change cottage industry on the Internet compose of pseudo scientists, political writers, and conspiracy theorists. . They are either ardent believers in AGW or deniers. They distort and mislead the public and twisted real science as they see fit. These web sites are often funded by radical left and right political groups. They create "news" to sell to other sites and hits on their website which ups their ad revenue.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

All the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, all of the major Universities in the world state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. So we have a consensus right across the political and cultural differances in the world, yet our "Conservatives" swear that it is all a fraud. An international conspiracy for what purpose? And how do you keep this conspiracy secret? And who is directing it? Seems to me what we really have is a bunch of tin hat candidates, one step from the looney bin.

When you can't refute the claim, you attack the source. In the case of AGW, that means attacking the most prestigious and recognized authorizes in science.

What often passes for scientific opinion is not coming from scientists. It comes from politicians, political junkies, and vested interest groups that filter and distort real scientific discoveries to meet their own goals.

Most people seem to be unaware that there is a large climate change cottage industry on the Internet compose of pseudo scientists, political writers, and conspiracy theorists. . They are either ardent believers in AGW or deniers. They distort and mislead the public and twisted real science as they see fit. These web sites are often funded by radical left and right political groups. They create "news" to sell to other sites and hits on their website which ups their ad revenue.

Flopper are you nuttier than the rest here?

NASA?

 

[Flopper]

All the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, all of the major Universities in the world state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. So we have a consensus right across the political and cultural differances in the world, yet our "Conservatives" swear that it is all a fraud. An international conspiracy for what purpose? And how do you keep this conspiracy secret? And who is directing it? Seems to me what we really have is a bunch of tin hat candidates, one step from the looney bin.

When you can't refute the claim, you attack the source. In the case of AGW, that means attacking the most prestigious and recognized authorizes in science.

What often passes for scientific opinion is not coming from scientists. It comes from politicians, political junkies, and vested interest groups that filter and distort real scientific discoveries to meet their own goals.

Most people seem to be unaware that there is a large climate change cottage industry on the Internet compose of pseudo scientists, political writers, and conspiracy theorists. . They are either ardent believers in AGW or deniers. They distort and mislead the public and twisted real science as they see fit. These web sites are often funded by radical left and right political groups. They create "news" to sell to other sites and hits on their website which ups their ad revenue.

Flopper are you nuttier than the rest here?

NASA?

I think what 98% of the scientist that actually work in the field believe is correct. However, I also think that their work is being twisted to reflect the believes of special interest groups both on the right and the left. You have conservatives claiming there is no climate change and if there were man would certainly not be responsible. On the Left, you have groups saying that world wide devastation is near and the only way to stop it is with huge expenditures on global programs that have not been defined.