Australian Politics Forum - The Myth of the 97% consensus claim

rabbitoh08

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1528
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #60 - Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 5:09pm

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 5:07pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 4:45pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 4:00pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 3:15pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 1:55pm:

tickleandrose wrote on Jul 22^nd, 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"

Remember - this is the bloke that tells us that NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming" - but runs away when asked to show evidence of this.

Back to top

IP Logged

Rider

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2669
OnTheRoad
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #61 - Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 5:10pm

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 1:48pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 22^nd, 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

Which is simply not the case as the debunking has shown. Try again another day, we need more humour.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17311
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #62 - Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 5:17pm

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 5:07pm:

The tide is rising

According to the Argo buoys 0.023C/decade. There's a lot of warming to be done before the water expands.

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 5:07pm:

With climate change, the water cycle is expected to undergo significant change.

Tell us how much and in which direction.

Back to top

IP Logged

Rider

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2669
OnTheRoad
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #63 - Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 5:21pm

Unforgiven wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 4:15pm:

lee wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 4:08pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 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.

Wow. Socialism and Dumbism. You really are a fact free zone aren't you?

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #64 - Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 5:21pm

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 5:07pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 4:45pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 4:00pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 3:15pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 1:55pm:

tickleandrose wrote on Jul 22^nd, 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"

we should have a discussion on the mythological existence of 'experts'. these same experts predicted a whole host of events which failed to materialise which essentially strips them of the right to be called 'experts'.

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 #65 - Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 5:25pm

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 5:09pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 5:07pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 4:45pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 4:00pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 3:15pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 1:55pm:

tickleandrose wrote on Jul 22^nd, 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"

Remember - this is the bloke that tells us that NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming" - but runs away when asked to show evidence of this.

Well he's run away again. And he also has not answered this point to his argument that scientific consensus is meaningless (see below)
ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 1:48pm:

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?

Well Longy, you gonna answer.

Back to top

IP Logged

Rider

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2669
OnTheRoad
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #66 - Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 5:25pm

lee wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 5:17pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 5:07pm:

The tide is rising

According to the Argo buoys 0.023C/decade. There's a lot of warming to be done before the water expands.

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 5:07pm:

With climate change, the water cycle is expected to undergo significant change.

Tell us how much and in which direction.

It's the vibe......

Billions of tax payers money blown for absolutely nothing.

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #67 - Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 5:29pm

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 5:25pm: