Page 1 of 34 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 334
Like Tree102Likes

Thread: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.[W:325]

  1. #1
    Godwin's Lawyer
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    3,199
    Likes Received
    1433 times
    Likes Given
    8195

    Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.[W:325]

    If so many climate scientists are supposedly influenced by political agendas, then the evidence should bear it out. So let's see that evidence. Now.

    Specifically, here is what I am looking for: You find a peer-reviewed study published in the last ten years that supports the theory of anthropogenic climate change and proceed to debunk it. But here is the catch: Only peer-reviewed scientific research papers shall be admitted as evidence. Also, the more recent it is, the better; the older, the worse. Hint: You don't have to limit yourself to American-based studies; climate science is studied globally. Note that if you believe that if an climate change science is just a political ploy or a conspiracy, then this allows you access to other sources of information that are not allegedly tainted.

    Since I know some people struggle with reading comprehension, let me repeat something I said earlier: ANYTHING other than a PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PAPER quality work is UNCONDITIONALLY INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE. I don't care how much you think it falsifies the theory: Inferior sources have no place in a scientific discussion. So I don't wanna see any news stories, blogs, conspiracy theories, sob stories from current or former scientists who didn't get their studies accepted, etc. You wanna take on science? Then use science. If you see anything in the study or studies that you select that you believe to be wrong, you MUST use SCIENTIFIC methods to falsify the claim. This means you must produce a refutation that is worthy of harsh peer review. Furthermore, you should EXPECT that harsh peer review to happen. You must thoroughly cite your sources and back up your claims according to graduate-level research standards.

    Even if you somehow pass all that, there is one more test your attack must survive: It must clearly imply that the anthropogenic climate change theory is completely wrong, or at the very least, highly questionable. MERELY POINTING OUT THAT THE STUDY HAS ERRORS OR FLAWS IS INSUFFICIENT to your case. You must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this well-established science is likely just a smokescreen.

    Good luck! I'll be waiting...and something tells me, for quite some time.
    "[T]he most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination." --James Madison, Federalist Paper #10

  2. #2
    Educator Earthling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Mountain hideaway, SE Spain
    Last Seen
    10-10-14 @ 05:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,073
    Likes Received
    292 times
    Likes Given
    417

    Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

    Climate change science exists, that's undeniable.
    "Denialist/denialism" is a malignant tumour that grows only inside the heads of indoctrinated catastrophists. - Climate science is a fledgling faux science. An ignorant person is one who doesn't know what you have just found out. Will Rogers

  3. #3
    Professor
    Mithrae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,738
    Likes Received
    653 times
    Likes Given
    753

    Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    Since I know some people struggle with reading comprehension, let me repeat something I said earlier: ANYTHING other than a PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PAPER quality work is UNCONDITIONALLY INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE. I don't care how much you think it falsifies the theory: Inferior sources have no place in a scientific discussion. So I don't wanna see any news stories, blogs, conspiracy theories, sob stories from current or former scientists who didn't get their studies accepted, etc. You wanna take on science? Then use science. If you see anything in the study or studies that you select that you believe to be wrong, you MUST use SCIENTIFIC methods to falsify the claim. This means you must produce a refutation that is worthy of harsh peer review. Furthermore, you should EXPECT that harsh peer review to happen. You must thoroughly cite your sources and back up your claims according to graduate-level research standards.

    Even if you somehow pass all that, there is one more test your attack must survive: It must clearly imply that the anthropogenic climate change theory is completely wrong, or at the very least, highly questionable.
    While I've found most of the sceptic's arguments on this forum and on linked pages unpersuasive - and some of them downright absurd or even dishonest - I have to wonder whether this approach is much better. When someone produces a peer-reviewed scientific paper which they claim debunks an earlier pro-AGW paper and/or AGW theory in general, do you have sufficient expertise in mathematics, atmospheric science, oceanography, solar physics and so on to evaluate both papers competently?
    Some assume that the rights to tell other people to keep out of this place or not touch that stuff are restrictions of folks' freedom which don't need to be justified by the democratic consent of the governed. The 'taxation is theft' rhetoric depends on wilful blindness either to what private property is, or to the only ethically defensible basis for it.

  4. #4
    Sage
    flogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:31 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,525
    Likes Received
    1659 times
    Likes Given
    1671

    Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    If so many climate scientists are supposedly influenced by political agendas, then the evidence should bear it out. So let's see that evidence. Now.

    Specifically, here is what I am looking for: You find a peer-reviewed study published in the last ten years that supports the theory of anthropogenic climate change and proceed to debunk it. But here is the catch: Only peer-reviewed scientific research papers shall be admitted as evidence. Also, the more recent it is, the better; the older, the worse. Hint: You don't have to limit yourself to American-based studies; climate science is studied globally. Note that if you believe that if an climate change science is just a political ploy or a conspiracy, then this allows you access to other sources of information that are not allegedly tainted.

    Since I know some people struggle with reading comprehension, let me repeat something I said earlier: ANYTHING other than a PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PAPER quality work is UNCONDITIONALLY INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE. I don't care how much you think it falsifies the theory: Inferior sources have no place in a scientific discussion. So I don't wanna see any news stories, blogs, conspiracy theories, sob stories from current or former scientists who didn't get their studies accepted, etc. You wanna take on science? Then use science. If you see anything in the study or studies that you select that you believe to be wrong, you MUST use SCIENTIFIC methods to falsify the claim. This means you must produce a refutation that is worthy of harsh peer review. Furthermore, you should EXPECT that harsh peer review to happen. You must thoroughly cite your sources and back up your claims according to graduate-level research standards.

    Even if you somehow pass all that, there is one more test your attack must survive: It must clearly imply that the anthropogenic climate change theory is completely wrong, or at the very least, highly questionable. MERELY POINTING OUT THAT THE STUDY HAS ERRORS OR FLAWS IS INSUFFICIENT to your case. You must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this well-established science is likely just a smokescreen.

    Good luck! I'll be waiting...and something tells me, for quite some time.
    Wrong way round I'm afraid .Skeptics have nothing to prove since they have no hypothesis to defend. Any burden of proof is entirely the alarmist one to establish

  5. #5
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,347
    Likes Received
    2847 times
    Likes Given
    1620

    Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by flogger View Post
    Wrong way round I'm afraid .Skeptics have nothing to prove since they have no hypothesis to defend. Any burden of proof is entirely the alarmist one to establish
    Yeah, it is generally not considered a great opener to scientific debate to demand your opponent prove a negative.

    But I will present the following anyway to as evidence that current predictions of warming are overstated:

    CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.jpg

    Furthermore, here is the IPCC scenario projections of CO2 rise:

    CO2_Emissions_IPCC_1024.jpg

    They did a pretty good job with their high prediction of CO2 increase over that time.

    Only trouble is that the actual warming didn't follow their High CO2 scenario... it actually fell below their low CO2 scenario.

    Obvious conclusion: Their CO2 forcing model is junk. They can argue, as they are now, that there were unforeseen natural drivers that are acting against the CO2 warming. At this point I would like to scream WELCOME TO THE SKEPTICS WHOLE POINT YOU NIT WITS.
    Last edited by jmotivator; 01-15-14 at 09:23 AM.
    Give a man to fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

  6. #6
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    30,223
    Likes Received
    12401 times
    Likes Given
    3642

    Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    If so many climate scientists are supposedly influenced by political agendas, then the evidence should bear it out. So let's see that evidence. Now.

    Specifically, here is what I am looking for: You find a peer-reviewed study published in the last ten years that supports the theory of anthropogenic climate change and proceed to debunk it. But here is the catch: Only peer-reviewed scientific research papers shall be admitted as evidence. Also, the more recent it is, the better; the older, the worse. Hint: You don't have to limit yourself to American-based studies; climate science is studied globally. Note that if you believe that if an climate change science is just a political ploy or a conspiracy, then this allows you access to other sources of information that are not allegedly tainted.

    Since I know some people struggle with reading comprehension, let me repeat something I said earlier: ANYTHING other than a PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PAPER quality work is UNCONDITIONALLY INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE. I don't care how much you think it falsifies the theory: Inferior sources have no place in a scientific discussion. So I don't wanna see any news stories, blogs, conspiracy theories, sob stories from current or former scientists who didn't get their studies accepted, etc. You wanna take on science? Then use science. If you see anything in the study or studies that you select that you believe to be wrong, you MUST use SCIENTIFIC methods to falsify the claim. This means you must produce a refutation that is worthy of harsh peer review. Furthermore, you should EXPECT that harsh peer review to happen. You must thoroughly cite your sources and back up your claims according to graduate-level research standards.

    Even if you somehow pass all that, there is one more test your attack must survive: It must clearly imply that the anthropogenic climate change theory is completely wrong, or at the very least, highly questionable. MERELY POINTING OUT THAT THE STUDY HAS ERRORS OR FLAWS IS INSUFFICIENT to your case. You must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this well-established science is likely just a smokescreen.

    Good luck! I'll be waiting...and something tells me, for quite some time.
    Climate changes. It is the one undeniable constant. Climate has gone through heating cycles and cooling cycles long before man and long since man and the industrial ages. Climate...changes. Its what it does.

    You know what else changes though...AGW rhetoric. When Mr Gore was whipping everyone into a panicked frenzy, the correct phrase was 'global warming' (remember that?). But then, sadly, the global warming thing turned out to be rather unreliable, so the rhetoric was abandoned and "climate change" became the phrase dujoir. And good choice too...because now people can rant and rave on about "climate change deniers" when in reality...no one doubts that the climate changes. But what DOES remain in doubt is AGW. And THAT really goes to the crux of your OP.

    Even though you cant prove AGW is the cause for client change, YOU want others to prove its NOT the cause. Sorry...doesnt work that way. You have to prove your position, not expect others to disprove your fairy tale position. You cant defend your position with the old "is it true that you are no longer still beating your wife" gimmick. You asking people to disprove the AGW theories is like me asking you to PROVE you are no longer ****ing the neighborhood pets and random farm animals. First, I theoretically...THEORETICALLY now...start of with a probably false premise (though...it COULD easily be true) that you are out violating the neighbors pets, THEN proceed as a given that you ARE and then expect you to PROVE you arent still doing it.

  7. #7
    Godwin's Lawyer
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    3,199
    Likes Received
    1433 times
    Likes Given
    8195

    Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithrae View Post
    While I've found most of the sceptic's arguments on this forum and on linked pages unpersuasive - and some of them downright absurd or even dishonest - I have to wonder whether this approach is much better. When someone produces a peer-reviewed scientific paper which they claim debunks an earlier pro-AGW paper and/or AGW theory in general, do you have sufficient expertise in mathematics, atmospheric science, oceanography, solar physics and so on to evaluate both papers competently?
    TBH, you seem to be giving the deniers too much deference. They don't realize that for most of us, scientific research is out of our league. It requires a substantial amount of knowledge, research, and understanding. That's part of why we should give scientists the respect that they deserve.
    "[T]he most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination." --James Madison, Federalist Paper #10

  8. #8
    Godwin's Lawyer
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    3,199
    Likes Received
    1433 times
    Likes Given
    8195

    Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    Yeah, it is generally not considered a great opener to scientific debate to demand your opponent prove a negative.
    Not when the opposition has taken the course and gained the power that it has. At that point, climate change denialism enters the realm of becoming a social problem as much as a scientific problem, and it deserves to be called out.

    But I will present the following anyway to as evidence that current predictions of warming are overstated:

    CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.jpg
    I'm sorry, did you read the OP? It does not ask for a drive-by posting of one's favorite study. It clearly asks for an analysis of not just the results but the methods. Where did that chart come from? How do we know its methods are reliable? Do they coincide with other studies? If they do, what are the implications, not just imagined but actual?
    "[T]he most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination." --James Madison, Federalist Paper #10

  9. #9
    Godwin's Lawyer
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    3,199
    Likes Received
    1433 times
    Likes Given
    8195

    Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Climate changes. It is the one undeniable constant. Climate has gone through heating cycles and cooling cycles long before man and long since man and the industrial ages. Climate...changes. Its what it does.

    You know what else changes though...AGW rhetoric. When Mr Gore was whipping everyone into a panicked frenzy, the correct phrase was 'global warming' (remember that?). But then, sadly, the global warming thing turned out to be rather unreliable, so the rhetoric was abandoned and "climate change" became the phrase dujoir. And good choice too...because now people can rant and rave on about "climate change deniers" when in reality...no one doubts that the climate changes. But what DOES remain in doubt is AGW. And THAT really goes to the crux of your OP.

    Even though you cant prove AGW is the cause for client change, YOU want others to prove its NOT the cause. Sorry...doesnt work that way. You have to prove your position, not expect others to disprove your fairy tale position. You cant defend your position with the old "is it true that you are no longer still beating your wife" gimmick. You asking people to disprove the AGW theories is like me asking you to PROVE you are no longer ****ing the neighborhood pets and random farm animals. First, I theoretically...THEORETICALLY now...start of with a probably false premise (though...it COULD easily be true) that you are out violating the neighbors pets, THEN proceed as a given that you ARE and then expect you to PROVE you arent still doing it.
    This is EXACTLY what the OP says will not work. Try again.
    "[T]he most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination." --James Madison, Federalist Paper #10

  10. #10
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    30,223
    Likes Received
    12401 times
    Likes Given
    3642

    Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    This is EXACTLY what the OP says will not work. Try again.
    No. I wont be attempting to disprove your failed theories. Sorry. Burden of proof is at your feet. You offer a theory, you have to support it. Its not incumbent on others to disprove what you CANNOT prove.

Page 1 of 34 12311 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •