Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 38
Send Topic Print
The Myth of the 97% consensus claim (Read 37758 times)
ImSpartacus2
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6913
Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #45 - Jul 22nd, 2015 at 1:46pm
 
Radical wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 9:38am:
ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 7:32am:
You need to understand that for Longy this is ideological.    


The climate deniers won years ago.

Any chance of limiting the warming to two degrees in an orderly sensible form is long gone.

It doesn't take much grey matter to know that for ecocidal maniacs who are so ecologically challenged that they cannot understand the most basic fundamentals about this planet's life support systems it's ideological. You cannot reason with that ideology. Especially when its response is to elect a barking mad rottweiler as its leader. Its the ideology that has got us in this mess. Now have a look around. Are they putting the brakes on? No, they are quite literally making the hole bigger.

The only way you'll get change is to get 100,000's on the street in the major capitals. That's what you need to work on.
Well I'm open to that. Anything but we need to move on this!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
ImSpartacus2
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6913
Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #46 - Jul 22nd, 2015 at 1:48pm
 
Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 10:20am:
In all honesty I've never really cared about the 97% consensus rubbish. Science has nothing to do with consensus.
The less doubt amongst the experts the more credible their contention is.  Its a simple concept really
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
double plus good
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 5693
Gender: male
Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #47 - Jul 22nd, 2015 at 1:48pm
 
When is this bunch of bored middle class progressives going to create another hysteria for us all to get caught up in? Remember the Y2K threat?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
ImSpartacus2
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6913
Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #48 - Jul 22nd, 2015 at 1:55pm
 
tickleandrose wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 12:41pm:
Ultimately, it does not really matter if there are climate change deniers, or if they are 'winning'.   Generally speaking, people take comfort in repeating what they know, and wanting to hold on to what they have.    But its the progressives, the ones who dare to challenge and change that drive the course of entire humanity.  While the rest are just servants to the ruling elite.

Assuming if climate change is untrue, but turning to renewable energy production will improve our health, our productivity, and able to keep a healthier environment for our future generations.  That in itself should already be incentive enough to change our ways.   This is the future, that I wish to have.

Assuming if climate change is true, and we continued our current way.  Then, there will be un-measurable and detrimental impact on our way of life.   Perhaps even driving us to extinction.   But then again,  mass extinction had happen before just like climate change, if we do go extinct, or near extinct, at least, other creatures can finally have a chance in thriving.   Biologist had told us, that having intelligence does not necessary mean evolutionary success. 
That's an interesting point of view.  Tell you what, if climate change is real can I be there when you say to your grandkids look we had a chance to stop climate change before the the tiping point but hey everybody dies.   
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #49 - Jul 22nd, 2015 at 3:08pm
 
Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 10:20am:
In all honesty I've never really cared about the 97% consensus rubbish. Science has nothing to do with consensus.


If you read the comments section at the end of the peer-reveiwed report, a few respondents make the same point that consensus means absolutely nothing in the pursuit of science. Scientific consensus has been wrong more often than right.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #50 - Jul 22nd, 2015 at 3:13pm
 
ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 1:48pm:
Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 10:20am:
In all honesty I've never really cared about the 97% consensus rubbish. Science has nothing to do with consensus.
The less doubt amongst the experts the more credible their contention is.  Its a simple concept really



there was 100% certainty that the sun orbited the earth and that the earth was flat. There was also 'proof' that there were 4 elements and that heavier objects fell faster than lighter ones.  Getting closer to the present, the atom was INDIVISIBLE and in fact, its meaning inthe original greek is 'indivisible'. There was also 'ether' the mysterious substance that physicists the world over believed existed to transmit EM radiation such as light. The consensus on the nature of gravity is about to be overturned as we discover gravit does not obey maxwells laws at the galactic scale hence the embarrassment that is the 'consensus' about dark matter - a susbstance we cannot see or detect.

consensus is important to lesser minds but to actual scientists, is worthless - especially the really good ones.

btw did you know that doctors beleived smoking was good for you and that 25 km/hr was the maximum speed the humn body  could endure?

Consensus... the convenient alternative to evidence.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #51 - Jul 22nd, 2015 at 3:15pm
 
ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 1:55pm:
tickleandrose wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 12:41pm:
Ultimately, it does not really matter if there are climate change deniers, or if they are 'winning'.   Generally speaking, people take comfort in repeating what they know, and wanting to hold on to what they have.    But its the progressives, the ones who dare to challenge and change that drive the course of entire humanity.  While the rest are just servants to the ruling elite.

Assuming if climate change is untrue, but turning to renewable energy production will improve our health, our productivity, and able to keep a healthier environment for our future generations.  That in itself should already be incentive enough to change our ways.   This is the future, that I wish to have.

Assuming if climate change is true, and we continued our current way.  Then, there will be un-measurable and detrimental impact on our way of life.   Perhaps even driving us to extinction.   But then again,  mass extinction had happen before just like climate change, if we do go extinct, or near extinct, at least, other creatures can finally have a chance in thriving.   Biologist had told us, that having intelligence does not necessary mean evolutionary success. 
That's an interesting point of view.  Tell you what, if climate change is real can I be there when you say to your grandkids look we had a chance to stop climate change before the the tiping point but hey everybody dies.   


and in 20 years when climate change hysteria is offically dead we can point to you (and a whole lot of others) and laugh.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
ImSpartacus2
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6913
Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #52 - Jul 22nd, 2015 at 4:00pm
 
longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 3:15pm:
ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 1:55pm:
tickleandrose wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 12:41pm:
Ultimately, it does not really matter if there are climate change deniers, or if they are 'winning'.   Generally speaking, people take comfort in repeating what they know, and wanting to hold on to what they have.    But its the progressives, the ones who dare to challenge and change that drive the course of entire humanity.  While the rest are just servants to the ruling elite.

Assuming if climate change is untrue, but turning to renewable energy production will improve our health, our productivity, and able to keep a healthier environment for our future generations.  That in itself should already be incentive enough to change our ways.   This is the future, that I wish to have.

Assuming if climate change is true, and we continued our current way.  Then, there will be un-measurable and detrimental impact on our way of life.   Perhaps even driving us to extinction.   But then again,  mass extinction had happen before just like climate change, if we do go extinct, or near extinct, at least, other creatures can finally have a chance in thriving.   Biologist had told us, that having intelligence does not necessary mean evolutionary success. 
That's an interesting point of view.  Tell you what, if climate change is real can I be there when you say to your grandkids look we had a chance to stop climate change before the the tiping point but hey everybody dies.   


and in 20 years when climate change hysteria is offically dead we can point to you (and a whole lot of others) and laugh.
There is one fundamental difference between our 2 positions.  If I'm wrong, not a lot is lost except some pride and a restructured economy. If you're wrong everything is lost.  In fact the irresponsibility of your position is so breathtaking (esp given that you lack any meaningful knowledge, skill and expertise in the field and are telling us to ignore the experts) that if I'm proved to be right, I would dread to be you.  And it's heartening to know that the internet never forgets.   
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17140
Gender: male
Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #53 - Jul 22nd, 2015 at 4:08pm
 
ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 4:00pm:
If I'm wrong, not a lot is lost except some pride and a restructured economy.


Spend billions on a failed infrastructure that could be better spent improving the lives in impoverished nations? Cheap electricity, running water, no need for dung cooking fires.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
ImSpartacus2
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6913
Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #54 - Jul 22nd, 2015 at 4:12pm
 
longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 3:13pm:
ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 1:48pm:
Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 10:20am:
In all honesty I've never really cared about the 97% consensus rubbish. Science has nothing to do with consensus.
The less doubt amongst the experts the more credible their contention is.  Its a simple concept really



there was 100% certainty that the sun orbited the earth and that the earth was flat. There was also 'proof' that there were 4 elements and that heavier objects fell faster than lighter ones.  Getting closer to the present, the atom was INDIVISIBLE and in fact, its meaning inthe original greek is 'indivisible'. There was also 'ether' the mysterious substance that physicists the world over believed existed to transmit EM radiation such as light. The consensus on the nature of gravity is about to be overturned as we discover gravit does not obey maxwells laws at the galactic scale hence the embarrassment that is the 'consensus' about dark matter - a susbstance we cannot see or detect.

consensus is important to lesser minds but to actual scientists, is worthless - especially the really good ones.

btw did you know that doctors beleived smoking was good for you and that 25 km/hr was the maximum speed the humn body  could endure?

Consensus... the convenient alternative to evidence.
Read my comment again, you will see that it is not inconsistent withthe notion that science can change its mind and that the scientific method demands that every proposition must always be subjected to scrutiny.  But what is interesting that you cannot appreciate because you fundamentally lack a logical mind is that when you confidently tell me that the atom is not INDIVISIBLE, you are doing so from a position of scientific consensus and the argument that you put (relying on that proposition about the atom) only has force because you are relying on scientific consensus.  So which is?  Consensus is totally meaningless (an absurd proposition in my view)? or has meaning?    
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Unforgiven
Gold Member
*****
Offline


I have sinned

Posts: 8879
Gender: male
Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #55 - Jul 22nd, 2015 at 4:15pm
 
lee wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 4:08pm:
ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 4:00pm:
If I'm wrong, not a lot is lost except some pride and a restructured economy.


Spend billions on a failed infrastructure that could be better spent improving the lives in impoverished nations? Cheap electricity, running water, no need for dung cooking fires.


Rich countries do little to alleviate the plight of impoverished countries. For example, much of USA's foreign aid budget goes to states such as Afghanistan, Israel and Iraq for purchase of weapons and munitions. The aid beneficiaries are actually the USA corporations which supply weapons and other goods to these countries.

There is no such thing as cheap electricity.

Global warming will reduce the availability of water, especially for impoverished nations.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 22nd, 2015 at 4:23pm by Unforgiven »  

“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours” Bob Dylan
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #56 - Jul 22nd, 2015 at 4:45pm
 
ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 4:00pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 3:15pm:
ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 1:55pm:
tickleandrose wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 12:41pm:
Ultimately, it does not really matter if there are climate change deniers, or if they are 'winning'.   Generally speaking, people take comfort in repeating what they know, and wanting to hold on to what they have.    But its the progressives, the ones who dare to challenge and change that drive the course of entire humanity.  While the rest are just servants to the ruling elite.

Assuming if climate change is untrue, but turning to renewable energy production will improve our health, our productivity, and able to keep a healthier environment for our future generations.  That in itself should already be incentive enough to change our ways.   This is the future, that I wish to have.

Assuming if climate change is true, and we continued our current way.  Then, there will be un-measurable and detrimental impact on our way of life.   Perhaps even driving us to extinction.   But then again,  mass extinction had happen before just like climate change, if we do go extinct, or near extinct, at least, other creatures can finally have a chance in thriving.   Biologist had told us, that having intelligence does not necessary mean evolutionary success. 
That's an interesting point of view.  Tell you what, if climate change is real can I be there when you say to your grandkids look we had a chance to stop climate change before the the tiping point but hey everybody dies.   


and in 20 years when climate change hysteria is offically dead we can point to you (and a whole lot of others) and laugh.
There is one fundamental difference between our 2 positions.  If I'm wrong, not a lot is lost except some pride and a restructured economy. If you're wrong everything is lost.  In fact the irresponsibility of your position is so breathtaking (esp given that you lack any meaningful knowledge, skill and expertise in the field and are telling us to ignore the experts) that if I'm proved to be right, I would dread to be you.  And it's heartening to know that the internet never forgets.   



If you are wrong tens of trillions of dollars are wasted. If I am wrong the evidence will actually appear in time to do whatever needs to be done.

Ironically, this is a version of Pascal's Wager. I dont see you giving your life to God based on the logic you employ above.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17140
Gender: male
Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #57 - Jul 22nd, 2015 at 4:56pm
 
Unforgiven wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 4:15pm:
Global warming will reduce the availability of water, especially for impoverished nations.



But global warming will result in more water vapour ( evaporation). Or do you have another explanation where global warming will reduce evaporation?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
ImSpartacus2
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6913
Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #58 - Jul 22nd, 2015 at 5:07pm
 
longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 4:45pm:
ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 4:00pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 3:15pm:
ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 1:55pm:
tickleandrose wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 12:41pm:
Ultimately, it does not really matter if there are climate change deniers, or if they are 'winning'.   Generally speaking, people take comfort in repeating what they know, and wanting to hold on to what they have.    But its the progressives, the ones who dare to challenge and change that drive the course of entire humanity.  While the rest are just servants to the ruling elite.

Assuming if climate change is untrue, but turning to renewable energy production will improve our health, our productivity, and able to keep a healthier environment for our future generations.  That in itself should already be incentive enough to change our ways.   This is the future, that I wish to have.

Assuming if climate change is true, and we continued our current way.  Then, there will be un-measurable and detrimental impact on our way of life.   Perhaps even driving us to extinction.   But then again,  mass extinction had happen before just like climate change, if we do go extinct, or near extinct, at least, other creatures can finally have a chance in thriving.   Biologist had told us, that having intelligence does not necessary mean evolutionary success. 
That's an interesting point of view.  Tell you what, if climate change is real can I be there when you say to your grandkids look we had a chance to stop climate change before the the tiping point but hey everybody dies.   


and in 20 years when climate change hysteria is offically dead we can point to you (and a whole lot of others) and laugh.
There is one fundamental difference between our 2 positions.  If I'm wrong, not a lot is lost except some pride and a restructured economy. If you're wrong everything is lost.  In fact the irresponsibility of your position is so breathtaking (esp given that you lack any meaningful knowledge, skill and expertise in the field and are telling us to ignore the experts) that if I'm proved to be right, I would dread to be you.  And it's heartening to know that the internet never forgets.   



If you are wrong tens of trillions of dollars are wasted. If I am wrong the evidence will actually appear in time to do whatever needs to be done.

Ironically, this is a version of Pascal's Wager. I dont see you giving your life to God based on the logic you employ above.
Again, I'm astonished how prepared you are to substitute your uninformed opinion for that of the experts.  What the experts are telling us is that we are at a critical juncture NOW and have already lost our chance to contain warming to a minimum of 2 degrees but you haphazardly (or rather hazardly) announce with confidence that we will have time to fix it if you're wrong. Like I said, "breathtakingly irresponsible"
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
rabbitoh08
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1528
Gender: male
Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #59 - Jul 22nd, 2015 at 5:07pm
 
lee wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 4:56pm:
Unforgiven wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 4:15pm:
Global warming will reduce the availability of water, especially for impoverished nations.



But global warming will result in more water vapour ( evaporation). Or do you have another explanation where global warming will reduce evaporation?

Seriously - you need to actually READ about this subject instead of just asking stupid questions:

How global warming impacts water
With climate change, the water cycle is expected to undergo significant change. For example, a warmer climate causes more water to evaporate from both land and oceans; in turn, a warmer atmosphere can hold more water – roughly four percent more water for every 1ºF rise in temperature. Changes like this are expected to lead to specific, and in many cases negative, consequences. Some parts of the U.S. – in particular, the Northeast and Midwest – can expect increased precipitation and runoff, especially in winter and spring, leading to increased flooding.  Other areas – notably the Southwest – can expect less precipitation, especially in the warm months, and longer, more severe droughts as storm tracks shift northward leaving arid areas increasingly dry.

Rain versus snow can make a critical difference

The form that precipitation takes is also subject to change in response to warming: climate projections for many regions of North America suggest less snow, overall, and more rain.  In areas dependent on the gradual melting of snowpack to supply surface water through the warm months, this means lower flows and greater water stress in summer – a trend already in evidence in parts of the western U.S.  While the effects of climate change on groundwater are not fully understood, rising water competition and stress at the surface are likely to drive greater use – and overuse – of this resource.

Overall, wet areas are expected to become wetter and dry areas drier, placing additional stress on the nation's over-taxed water systems as well as water-dependent sectors.

Water quality affects people and ecosystems

Declining water quality is another consequence of climate change. Water temperature, for example, will generally rise in streams, lakes, and reservoirs as air temperature rises. This tends to lead to lower levels of dissolved oxygen in water, hence more stress on the fish, insects, crustaceans and other aquatic animals that rely on oxygen. As more – and more intense – precipitation leads to increased runoff in certain regions, we can also expect more pollution to be washed into our waterways: sediments, nitrogen from agriculture, disease pathogens, pesticides, and herbicides.  Naturally, the pollution load in streams and rivers will tend to be carried to larger bodies of water downstream – lakes, estuaries, and the coastal ocean – where one of the more dramatic consequences of heavy runoff can be blooms of harmful algae and bacteria.

The tide is rising

One of the starkest effects of climate change is the anticipated rise in sea level worldwide. This occurs for two main reasons – the expansion of the ocean as it warms, and the increased melt from ice sheets, ice caps and glaciers. Along with alarming threats to coastal communities, infrastructure, economies and ecosystems, this rise has implications for available freshwater, as rising sea levels drive saltwater into freshwater aquifers. To be useful for drinking or irrigating, more water from our aquifers, then, would need to be treated, usually by energy-intensive processes. Given the wide range of human activities that depend – directly or indirectly – on water, future climate-driven changes in water resources will affect many aspects of our lives.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/water-and-clima...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 38
Send Topic Print