• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The psychology of climate change denial

Jack Hays said:
"Consensus" is invoked only in those cases where the evidence (reproducible results) is not strong enough to stand on its own.
Click to expand...

That’s absurd.

Look at medicine- consensus statements are issued all the time on many issues and all are considered the cutting edge of medical opinion based upon data.
 
ataraxia said:
If you don't have any formal educational background or experience in the field, your questions are just questions. They show that you just have a lot of things you don't understand. If you have such questions, you should find a friendly professor or even graduate student in the department at your local university and ask them. Better yet, if you are that interested, you should enroll in some courses or even work towards a degree in the field. Have you?
Click to expand...
I have the background and formal education, I ran the science and engineering labs at a University for a decade.
Part of my role was assisting graduate students in proper research methods.
The models use assumptions that are not realistic.
 
Buzz said:
Longview always chooses to use the lower end of the uncertainty range. Oftentimes he even uses below the uncertainty range.

And Hansen's ghost forcing is just a hypothetical forcing used to test the models. This has been pointed out to longview several times but he likes to use it to support his denialist fantasies.
Click to expand...
I use the lower end of the range, because that is all that can be supported by the empirical data.
An Hansen used a number he called ghost forcing as an input for his models.
 
Threegoofs said:
That’s absurd.

Look at medicine- consensus statements are issued all the time on many issues and all are considered the cutting edge of medical opinion based upon data.
Click to expand...

The practice of medicine is more comparable to engineering than to science. The research on which medicine is based is another matter.
 
Jack Hays said:
The practice of medicine is more comparable to engineering than to science. The research on which medicine is based is another matter.
Click to expand...

Consensus is the standard by which science is accepted
 
longview said:
I use the lower end of the range, because that is all that can be supported by the empirical data.
Click to expand...

That is just not true. Your problem is that you regularly ignore much of the empirical evidence.

longview said:
An Hansen used a number he called ghost forcing as an input for his models.
Click to expand...

Yes... an input... a hypothetical input used to test the model. Hansen never used ghost forcing to come to any conclusions about global warming. Just that the model was working.

Why you keep ignoring these facts... I don't know.
 
Jack Hays said:
"Consensus" is invoked only in those cases where the evidence (reproducible results) is not strong enough to stand on its own.
Click to expand...

I’m still waiting for an example of something considered science that is not, or did not become, the consensus of the experts in that field. If you think this is the only time that has ever happened in the history of science, that would be a little odd, don’t you think?
 
longview said:
I have the background and formal education, I ran the science and engineering labs at a University for a decade.
Part of my role was assisting graduate students in proper research methods.
The models use assumptions that are not realistic.
Click to expand...

Is this your field? Most people who work at university departments quickly learn to stay in their lane. If they have questions on something outside of their field, they usually go and ask their friendly colleagues actually in the field in the department next-door, rather than post online in an internet chat site. The various fields of science have grown way too specialized for someone to make judgments on things outside of their field, just because they teach graduate students research methods.
 
ataraxia said:
I’m still waiting for an example of something considered science that is not, or did not become, the consensus of the experts in that field. If you think this is the only time that has ever happened in the history of science, that would be a little odd, don’t you think?
Click to expand...

Monday, March 23, 2020

Are dark energy and dark matter scientific?

I have noticed that each time I talk or write about dark energy or dark matter, I get a lot of comments from people saying, oh that stuff doesn’t exist, you can’t just invent something invisible each time there’s an inconvenient measurement. Physicists have totally lost it. This is such a common misunderstanding that I thought I will dedicate a video to sorting this out. Dark energy and dark matter are entirely normal, and perfectly scientific hypotheses. They may turn out to be wrong, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong to consider them in the first place.

Before I say anything else, here is a brief reminder what dark energy and dark matter are. Dark energy is what speeds up the expansion of the universe; it does not behave like normal energy. Dark matter has a gravitational pull like normal matter, but you can’t see it. Dark energy and dark matter are two different things. They may be related, but currently we have no good reason to think that they are related.

Why have physicists come up with this dark stuff? Well, we have two theories to describe the behavior of matter. The one is the standard model of particle physics, which describes the elementary particles and the forces between them, except gravity. The other is Einstein’s theory of general relativity, which describes the gravitational force that is generated by all types of matter and energy. The problem is, if you use Einstein’s theory for the matter that is in the standard model only, this does not describe what we see. The predictions you get from combining those two theories do not fit to the observations. . . .


 
ataraxia said:
I’m still waiting for an example of something considered science that is not, or did not become, the consensus of the experts in that field. If you think this is the only time that has ever happened in the history of science, that would be a little odd, don’t you think?
Click to expand...

[h=2]Saturday, November 30, 2019[/h][h=3]Dark energy might not exist after all[/h]

Last week I told you what dark energy is and why astrophysicists believe it exists. This week I want to tell you about a recent paper that claims dark energy does not exist.


To briefly remind you, dark energy is what speeds up the expansion of the universe. In contrast to all other types of matter and energy, dark energy does not dilute if the universe expands. This means that eventually all the other stuff is more dilute than dark energy and, therefore, it’s the dark energy that determines the ultimate fate of our universe. If dark energy is real, the universe will expand faster and faster until all eternity. If there’s no dark energy, the expansion will slow down instead and it might even reverse, in which case the universe will collapse back to a point.

I don’t know about you, but I would like to know what is going to happen with our universe.

So what do we know about dark energy. The most important evidence we have for the existence of dark energy comes from supernova redshifts. Saul Perlmutter and Adam Riess won a Nobel Prize for this observation in 2011. It’s this Nobel-prize winning discovery which the new paper calls into question. . . .


 
ataraxia said:
I’m still waiting for an example of something considered science that is not, or did not become, the consensus of the experts in that field. If you think this is the only time that has ever happened in the history of science, that would be a little odd, don’t you think?
Click to expand...

This will be ignored, as it always is.

They seem to never want to discuss this...even the ones that ‘read all the science papers’.
 
Jack Hays said:
Monday, March 23, 2020

Are dark energy and dark matter scientific?

I have noticed that each time I talk or write about dark energy or dark matter, I get a lot of comments from people saying, oh that stuff doesn’t exist, you can’t just invent something invisible each time there’s an inconvenient measurement. Physicists have totally lost it. This is such a common misunderstanding that I thought I will dedicate a video to sorting this out. Dark energy and dark matter are entirely normal, and perfectly scientific hypotheses. They may turn out to be wrong, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong to consider them in the first place.

Before I say anything else, here is a brief reminder what dark energy and dark matter are. Dark energy is what speeds up the expansion of the universe; it does not behave like normal energy. Dark matter has a gravitational pull like normal matter, but you can’t see it. Dark energy and dark matter are two different things. They may be related, but currently we have no good reason to think that they are related.

Why have physicists come up with this dark stuff? Well, we have two theories to describe the behavior of matter. The one is the standard model of particle physics, which describes the elementary particles and the forces between them, except gravity. The other is Einstein’s theory of general relativity, which describes the gravitational force that is generated by all types of matter and energy. The problem is, if you use Einstein’s theory for the matter that is in the standard model only, this does not describe what we see. The predictions you get from combining those two theories do not fit to the observations. . . .


Click to expand...

No one has any clue what dark energy or dark matter really are. There are just certain observations. No scientist has claimed they know what they are. These are just names for certain phenomena we are seeing which we cannot explain. They are not a scientific model or an explanation of anything like climate change. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson has said, you can call them “Fred” if you want. So I’m not sure what you are trying to say here.

Scientists agree on the observations. No one has any explanation or model for it yet though. The only consensus we have on them is that we don’t know what they are.

So how is that refuting the idea of consensus among the experts in the field?
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
No one has any clue what dark energy or dark matter really are. No scientist has claimed they know. These are just names for certain phenomena we are seeing which we cannot explain. They are not a scientific model or explanation like climate change. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson has said, you can call them “Fred” if you want. So I’m not sure what you are trying to say here.
Click to expand...

You asked. I answered. Next question.
 
Jack Hays said:
You asked. I answered. Next question.
Click to expand...

Because you did not answer the question.

There is consensus on the observation of the phenomenon of dark matter/energy. No one knows what they are. They could be particles. They could be gravitational effects from parallel universes. Any attempts to explain them are just pure conjecture at this point, not science. There is consensus on that as well.

So how does that undermine the idea of consensus in the scientific community as the standard of what is considered science?
 
Originally Posted by Threegoofs View Post
What’s with engineers all being deniers, anyway?
Click to expand...

Buzz said:
Good question. I often wonder if their employers have monetary interests in fossil fuels so they pay for the propaganda.
Click to expand...

Engineering of any sort is the application of science tothe real world to solve problems and achieve things.

When people do this sucessfully it creates confidence and the ability to asses the degree of risk and trouble from stuff. So taking scientific ideas and being able to understand them enough to use them is a skill that is developed. And obviously you have to start with aptitude in both of these things.

So when you lot, the panicers, see some graph showing a steep scary looking line shooting up we look at the scale first then spot where the data stops and the projection starts and see that really it is drivel.
 
ataraxia said:
I’m still waiting for an example of something considered science that is not, or did not become, the consensus of the experts in that field. If you think this is the only time that has ever happened in the history of science, that would be a little odd, don’t you think?
Click to expand...

You will wait forever
 
Buzz said:
That is just not true. Your problem is that you regularly ignore much of the empirical evidence.



Yes... an input... a hypothetical input used to test the model. Hansen never used ghost forcing to come to any conclusions about global warming. Just that the model was working.

Why you keep ignoring these facts... I don't know.
Click to expand...
Please tell me what empirical evidence you think I am ignoring?
The bottom line is that the feedback factors required for higher ECS levels, cannot be shown in the instrument record.

As to Hansen, the ghost forcing was the feedback factor they applied to the models.
Thus the 2xCO 2 forcing is almost as large as for +2% So, and in both cases the expected surface temperature change in the absence of climate feedbacks is 1.2-1.3•C. However, the quantity of most interest is •T•, the surface temperature response when climate feedbacks are allowed to operate. The classical 2xCO2: and 2% solar irradiance GCM experiments yielded a global mean of T ~ 3C for ether forcing.
Click to expand...
Hansen says that feedbacks resulting from 2xCO 2 forcing would be equal to a +2% in solar output (WOW TOA 27 W/m2).
We have earlier warming perturbation, that would have produced feedbacks, yet when we exclude the known forcing from the observed temperature increase,
there is almost no feedback after 70 years. The work of Hansen and others say that the latency between feedback input and output should be between 10 and 50 years
for at least 60% of the feedback, yet the temperature record shows almost nothing to less than nothing.
So Again, What facts am I ignoring?
 
ataraxia said:
Is this your field? Most people who work at university departments quickly learn to stay in their lane. If they have questions on something outside of their field, they usually go and ask their friendly colleagues actually in the field in the department next-door, rather than post online in an internet chat site. The various fields of science have grown way too specialized for someone to make judgments on things outside of their field, just because they teach graduate students research methods.
Click to expand...
At some level, yes! Physics and quantum energy states. It was one of the reasons I was originally skeptical of AGW.
CO2 is quite picky about what optical wavelengths it absorbs, to excite CO2, usually requires a two step process with nitrogen.
To keep the CO2 from hitting a population inversion at 667 cm-1, usually requires the addition of helium.
Since there is little atmospheric helium, the CO2 would quickly saturate.
Yes there would be some pressure broadening, but the energy passed would be greatly reduced.
Research methods are about taking steps to not fool yourself, it is very easy to see something you want to see, or expect to see.
At a chemical level, the brain likes to find order, even where none appears to exists.
In many people the serotonin levels increase when looking at abstract art, because the brain finds order in the abstract.
These concepts of how to research a topic without bias, extend to all the sciences, it is the core of the scientific method!
 
Tim the plumber said:
Engineering of any sort is the application of science tothe real world to solve problems and achieve things.

When people do this sucessfully it creates confidence and the ability to asses the degree of risk and trouble from stuff. So taking scientific ideas and being able to understand them enough to use them is a skill that is developed. And obviously you have to start with aptitude in both of these things.

So when you lot, the panicers, see some graph showing a steep scary looking line shooting up we look at the scale first then spot where the data stops and the projection starts and see that really it is drivel.
Click to expand...

Dunning Kruger is a better explanation

But you wouldn’t understand because you’re on the far left of the DK curve.
 
ataraxia said:
Because you did not answer the question.

There is consensus on the observation of the phenomenon of dark matter/energy. No one knows what they are. They could be particles. They could be gravitational effects from parallel universes. Any attempts to explain them are just pure conjecture at this point, not science. There is consensus on that as well.

So how does that undermine the idea of consensus in the scientific community as the standard of what is considered science?
Click to expand...

There is no consensus about either dark matter or dark energy. Even the existence of the latter is now questioned. That answers your question. Next.
 
longview said:
At some level, yes! Physics and quantum energy states. It was one of the reasons I was originally skeptical of AGW.
CO2 is quite picky about what optical wavelengths it absorbs, to excite CO2, usually requires a two step process with nitrogen.
To keep the CO2 from hitting a population inversion at 667 cm-1, usually requires the addition of helium.
Since there is little atmospheric helium, the CO2 would quickly saturate.
Yes there would be some pressure broadening, but the energy passed would be greatly reduced.
Research methods are about taking steps to not fool yourself, it is very easy to see something you want to see, or expect to see.
At a chemical level, the brain likes to find order, even where none appears to exists.
In many people the serotonin levels increase when looking at abstract art, because the brain finds order in the abstract.
These concepts of how to research a topic without bias, extend to all the sciences, it is the core of the scientific method!
Click to expand...

If you have a question you don’t understand in a particular scientific field, you go and ask the experts working in the field, rather than posting on an Internet chat site.

I work in science as well, and the rest of your post is gobbledygook- it sounds very much like someone who wants to throw around “sciency” sounding terms without really understanding what they’re talking about- just to impress other people just as scientifically illiterate.
 
Last edited:
[FONT=&quot]By Yonoson Rosenblum, Mishpacha, May 13, 2020 [H/t GWPF][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Science Can’t Solve the Toughest Tasks – Mishpacha Magazine[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“Much of what is called “science” today does not fit the definition, in particular the mathematical modeling to predict the future. That modeling inevitably depends on multiple assumptions or approximations and often relies on data that is itself highly suspect. A full picture of climate systems depends on knowledge of 20 or more sub-specialties, and no modeler possesses that. Not surprisingly, neither the global warming models nor those developed during the current plague have proven to have much predictive value.”[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
There is no consensus about either dark matter or dark energy. Even the existence of the latter is now questioned. That answers your question. Next.
Click to expand...

You gave us the example of dark matter and dark energy As supposedly being examples of real science which does not have consensus, just to tell us that we have no scientific model or consensus of those things in the first place. So you gave an example and refuted it yourself. So I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to prove here.
 
ataraxia said:
If you have a question you don’t understand in a particular scientific field, you go and ask the experts working in the field, rather than posting on an Internet chat site.

I work in science as well, and the rest of your post is gobbledygook- it sounds very much like someone who wants to throw around “sciency” sounding terms without really understanding what they’re talking about- just to impress other people just as scientifically illiterate.
Click to expand...

The danger is these guys know a little science.....so that means they feel they can figure it out when they cant
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT="]By Yonoson Rosenblum, Mishpacha, May 13, 2020 [H/t GWPF][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT="]Science Can’t Solve the Toughest Tasks – Mishpacha Magazine[/FONT]
[FONT="]“Much of what is called “science” today does not fit the definition, in particular the mathematical modeling to predict the future. That modeling inevitably depends on multiple assumptions or approximations and often relies on data that is itself highly suspect. A full picture of climate systems depends on knowledge of 20 or more sub-specialties, and no modeler possesses that. Not surprisingly, neither the global warming models nor those developed during the current plague have proven to have much predictive value.”[/FONT]
Click to expand...

“Jewish Family Weekly”? Seriously? That’s your source to refute the unanimous consensus of every scientific organization on the planet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom