• 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!

Early 2019 UK weather: coldest day in seven years as mercury drops to -14.4C

F

Sure they are. What revolutionary science do you know that has not been approved through the peer review process?

We can start with general and special relativity. And then there are these.

Aliens Cause Global Warming

Thursday, January 31st, 2019

. . . In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.
In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.
There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor — southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result — despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.
Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology — until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.
And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2 . Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. . . .
 
Didnt you read the title? It says coldest day in seven years. If all the manmade CO2 is causing global warming, then why are cold records still being broken?

Did you know in the far larger US landmass in the last 25 years more record cold state temperature records have been set than record warm ones ?

U.S. state temperature extremes - Wikipedia

I guess they haven't gotten around to 'fiddling' those yet :wink:
 
We can start with general and special relativity. And then there are these.

Aliens Cause Global Warming

Thursday, January 31st, 2019

. . . In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.
In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.
There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor — southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result — despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.
Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology — until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.
And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2 . Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. . . .

General and special relativity were both approved only through the peer review process. So were all the other things you listed.

Got any other examples?

It never occurs to anyone to speak about consensus that way because in no other field is the consensus questioned so aggressively that way by an uneducated public.

This is the uneducated mobs hijacking the science because they just don’t like what it says.
 
Last edited:
General and special relativity were both approved only through the peer review process. So were all the other things you listed.

Got any other examples?

It never occurs to anyone to speak about consensus that way because in no other field is the consensus questioned so aggressively that way by an uneducated public.

This is the uneducated mobs hijacking the science because they just don’t like what it says.

Your ignorance of history is exposed. You're laughably off about Einstein, and wrong about the others too. Where there was (in some cases, eventually) peer review, it came only after a lengthy period of stiff-arming. You really don't know this material.

[FONT=&quot]". . . The first part of Einstein’s career was in the German-speaking world. The German physics journals, in which Einstein published his breakthrough work, didn’t have the same peer-review system we use today.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For instance, the Annalen der Physik, in which Einstein published his four famous papers in 1905, did not subject those papers to the same review process. The journal had a remarkably high acceptance rate (of about 90-95%). The identifiable editors were making the final decisions about what to publish. It is the storied editor Max Planck who described his editorial philosophy as:[/FONT]
To shun much more the reproach of having suppressed strange opinions than that of having been too gentle in evaluating them.
[FONT=&quot]Many of the core scientific discoveries were not peer reviewed to modern standards. For example, the publication of the foundational paper describing the double helical structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953 would have been jeopardised in the context of the classic review system as we know it, because of its speculative nature.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]At the prestigious journal Nature, the peer-review system was only formally introduced in 1967. More recently, the discovery of distortion in gravitational waves by a telescope at Harvard – which has crucial consequences for our understanding of the formation of the universe – was presented as preliminary and treated with extreme caution and even sometimes with denigration, because it had not been peer-reviewed. . . . "[/FONT]



Hate the peer-review process? Einstein did too - The Conversation



theconversation.com/hate-the-peer-review-process-einstein-did-too-27405



Jun 2, 2014 - The German physics journals, in which Einstein published his breakthrough work, didn't have the same peer-review system we use today. For instance, the Annalen der Physik, in which Einstein published his four famous papers in 1905, did not subject those papers to the same review process.
 
General and special relativity were both approved only through the peer review process. So were all the other things you listed.

Got any other examples?

It never occurs to anyone to speak about consensus that way because in no other field is the consensus questioned so aggressively that way by an uneducated public.

This is the uneducated mobs hijacking the science because they just don’t like what it says.

Educate yourself.

Three myths about scientific peer review | Michael Nielsen



michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/



Jan 8, 2009 - According to the physicist and historian of science Daniel Kennefick, it may well be that only a single paper of Einstein's was ever subject to peer review. That was a paper about gravitational waves, jointly authored with Nathan Rosen, and submitted to the journal Physical Review in 1936.
 
Educate yourself.

Three myths about scientific peer review | Michael Nielsen



michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/



Jan 8, 2009 - According to the physicist and historian of science Daniel Kennefick, it may well be that only a single paper of Einstein's was ever subject to peer review. That was a paper about gravitational waves, jointly authored with Nathan Rosen, and submitted to the journal Physical Review in 1936.

The formal process of peer review as practiced today was not done in the past. But that is just a formal procedure. There is no instance of any new idea in science being considered “science” until the consensus of experts in that field were convinced.

If you know of any, let us know. Still waiting.
 
The formal process of peer review as practiced today was not done in the past. But that is just a formal procedure. There is no instance of any new idea in science being considered “science” until the consensus of experts in that field were convinced.

If you know of any, let us know. Still waiting.

Einstein. General and special relativity. QED
You don't know the topic. Amusing for someone so pretentious.
 
Your ignorance of history is exposed. You're laughably off about Einstein, and wrong about the others too. Where there was (in some cases, eventually) peer review, it came only after a lengthy period of stiff-arming.

Sure. That is the crucible all real science has to pass through. Until it does, it’s not real science.

If you know of any historical example where that does not hold, let us know.

Isaac Newton wrote more on alchemy than he ever did on his laws of motion. And yet his alchemy is not considered science while his laws of motion are.

Why?
 
Einstein. General and special relativity. QED
You don't know the topic. Amusing for someone so pretentious.


Those made it through the crucible of eventually gaining acceptance in the scientific community. It may take a while. But until it does, it’s not science.

So still waiting for an example of science not accepted by the scientific community.
 
Einstein. General and special relativity. QED
You don't know the topic. Amusing for someone so pretentious.

The general and special relativity PAPERS may not have been peer reviewed, but the ideas certainly were. In conferences, and critiques in the literature.

Because the peer review process you are talking about is not just a review of individual papers, but the consensus peer review in science which takes place at scientific conferences and long discussions in the literature over years.

That’s the part you cant seem (or pretend not to) grasp.

Scientific truth is basically defined by consensus.
 
Sure. That is the crucible all real science has to pass through. Until it does, it’s not real science.

If you know of any historical example where that does not hold, let us know.

Isaac Newton wrote more on alchemy than he ever did on his laws of motion. And yet his alchemy is not considered science while his laws of motion are.

Why?

Stop trying to change the subject. I only now realize that you are so blithering ignorant of the history of science as to be incapable of discussing this. And you had the gall to open a condescending thread. I don't know whether to be angry or sad. Regardless, you are unfit for this discussion. You do not qualify as an interlocuteur valable.
 
The general and special relativity PAPERS may not have been peer reviewed, but the ideas certainly were. In conferences, and critiques in the literature.

Because the peer review process you are talking about is not just a review of individual papers, but the consensus peer review in science which takes place at scientific conferences and long discussions in the literature over years.

That’s the part you cant seem (or pretend not to) grasp.

Scientific truth is basically defined by consensus.

Laughable ignorance on display, just like the last time you were embarrassed in a discussion of Einstein.
 
Stop trying to change the subject. I only now realize that you are so blithering ignorant of the history of science as to be incapable of discussing this. And you had the gall to open a condescending thread. I don't know whether to be angry or sad. Regardless, you are unfit for this discussion. You do not qualify as an interlocuteur valable.

How am I changing the topic? We were discussing the historical role of expert consensus in separating science from pseudoscience.

I asked you, as a supposed historian, if you knew of any science that was considered science until it won the consensus of experts in that field. I never got an answer, and am now getting accused of changing the topic. Odd.

Say, you’re not just feigning anger and indignation just because you can’t answer, are you?
 
Because I am no expert on the subject. And neither are you. This is like two first graders trying to teach each other physics.

If you’re interested in a topic and don’t agree with the experts on it, you need to go get yourself educated, see what it is you’re not understanding, where are you are going wrong in your thinking, and remedy it- not ask my thoughts on it.

I do agree with the experts.

The experts say that the glaciers have retreated to a point that they had been at about 5000 to 7000 years ago when a general cooling trend was ongoing.

They also say that the glaciers that are melting today in Glacier National Park started to form about 7000 years ago.

They also say that the global climate temperature peaks were warmer in all of the previous interglacials over the last half million years than our current warming.

They also say that the warmest point of this interglacial, the Holocene, occurred about 8000 years ago. This pre-dates industrialization.

The experts say one thing. The propagandists say something else.

Who do YOU believe?
 
:roll:

No, the sad thing here is your deliberate choice not to understand basic scientific terms.



Oh look, a conspiracy theorist denier website. Hard pass.

Oh, look!

Another person that prefers propaganda to data.

You are concerned about propaganda that was contrived and framed by agenda driven zealots.

Look at the real data and you'll understand that we are warming to a point that we cooled from about 5000 to 7000 years ago.

Ice Ages are caused by extraterrestrial events.

Mankind does not have the ability to control and direct the climate of the planet.
 
Please, spare us your lies, kthx.



1) Lose the scare quotes. Those temperatures were in fact recorded, using instruments. Again! We distinguish this from proxy measurements.

2) You have it backwards. Earlier instrumental temperature measurements were adjusted higher, and more recent adjustments are minimal. And of course, both the raw data, adjusted data, and adjustment methodologies are all publicly available. This is the exact opposite of what you'd want to do, if you were engineering some Top Sekrit Conspiracy to Fake Warming!!!

View attachment 67262205



Tell that to your fellow deniers, kthx.



Epic fail. The warming we are experiencing is unusual and unprecedented, which is one of the numerous reasons why we know it is anthropic in origin.

For example, it took around 6,000 years for temperatures to rise 3.5C at the end of the last Ice Age. In comparison, temperatures have risen about 0.85C since 1880. For the *cough* record, that means temperatures are rising ten times faster during the Industrial Era than at the end of the last Ice Age. Unsurprisingly, both were caused by increases in CO2. Hmmmmm.

Oh, and temperatures were falling for a few thousand years, before shooting up rapidly at the start of the Common Era. Hmmmm.

View attachment 67262207



And that deserves another eyeroll :roll:

The planet hasn't been this warm in 120,000 years -- and hasn't had this much CO2 in the atmosphere in 900,000 years or more. (By the way, that means we've already locked in significant amounts of warming.) And again, CO2 concentrations did increase before temperatures at the end of the last Ice Age:

View attachment 67262208


And hey, guess what? No, guess! Okay, I'll tell you. 120,000 years ago, there weren't 7 billion humans on the planet, nearly half of whom live in coastal areas, which are highly vulnerable to climate change -- as is most of our agricultural capacity. Not to mention that areas not on the coast are still subject to more frequent and worse droughts; larger and more intense heat waves; more frequent and worse forest fires; more erratic storms with higher volumes of precipitation... the list goes on.

(We should also note that it is entirely plausible that those significantly gradual changes in climate did, in fact, disrupt hominid and human development; e.g. it most likely encouraged thousands of years of migration from Africa to Asia around 120,000 years ago.)

So yeah. Climate change is due to human activity. What we are experiencing now is not normal. It's already having a negative impact on the planet, and will only get worse. And if we don't act now, it's going to be even worse in the future. We know this. There is no genuine doubt about it anymore.

The graph you presented last is interesting as it demonstrates the natural relationship between CO2 and temperature. Higher temperatures cause higher CO2 concentrations in the period of Ice Age/Interglacial cycling.

You present the Hockey Stick? Seriously?

The excitement incited by the propagandists is over a warming of less than one degree from the coldest point of the Holocene in about 9000 years. We are now warming but are well within a normal range.

Here'a web site that you may use to construct your own comparisons. It's really kind of fun. Here's the really interesting thing about doing this:

The various data assemblers DISAGREE, and always have, by about that much on what the actual climate actually is at any particular point in the temperature's INSTRUMENT record.

Incidentally, Gistemp is routinely at the higher end of the range.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

none
 
Last edited:
How am I changing the topic? We were discussing the historical role of expert consensus in separating science from pseudoscience.

I asked you, as a supposed historian, if you knew of any science that was considered science until it won the consensus of experts in that field. I never got an answer, and am now getting accused of changing the topic. Odd.

Say, you’re not just feigning anger and indignation just because you can’t answer, are you?

You have been answered, and thoroughly refuted, and now you're just denying. Learn the topic before you continue.
 
You have been answered, and thoroughly refuted, and now you're just denying. Learn the topic before you continue.

It sounds like what you mean by “learning the topic” is this (correct me if I’m wrong):

In the past, some scientists had trouble obtaining the consensus of their peers for a while for their new ideas. So that means that now every crazy new thing should be the next big thing, especially if we laymen like it. And if it has not yet gained any widespread acceptance in the scientific community, that’s just a sign of their closed-mindedness. We should therefore dismiss their overwhelming consensus, and base actions and policy on just the ideas of whomever has the most newfangled idea.

Is that the lesson you want us to learn? If I am misunderstanding this lesson, please correct it. I am open to learning.
 
Last edited:
It sounds like what you mean by “learning the topic” is this (correct me if I’m wrong):

In the past, some scientists had trouble obtaining the consensus of their peers for a while for their new ideas. So that means that now every crazy new thing should be the next big thing, especially if we laymen like it. And if it has not yet gained any widespread acceptance in the scientific community, that’s just a sign of their closed-mindedness. We should therefore dismiss their overwhelming consensus, and base actions and policy on just the ideas of whomever has the most newfangled idea.

Is that the lesson you want us to learn? If I am misunderstanding this lesson, please correct it. I am open to learning.

Sorry, but I'm done with your ignorance-based strawman arguments.
 
I do agree with the experts.

The experts say that the glaciers have retreated to a point that they had been at about 5000 to 7000 years ago when a general cooling trend was ongoing.

They also say that the glaciers that are melting today in Glacier National Park started to form about 7000 years ago.

They also say that the global climate temperature peaks were warmer in all of the previous interglacials over the last half million years than our current warming.

They also say that the warmest point of this interglacial, the Holocene, occurred about 8000 years ago. This pre-dates industrialization.

The experts say one thing. The propagandists say something else.

Who do YOU believe?

I don’t know where you’re getting this from. It sounds like these are the same “experts” that tell us that the earth is only 6000 years old and vaccines don’t work.

Because everything I have seen from any scientific organization or textbook on the subject says stuff like this:

”Earth's changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century. Although the magnitudes of future effects are uncertain, human influences on the climate are growing. The potential consequences of climate change are great and the actions taken over the next few decades will determine human influences on the climate for centuries.”
-American Physical Society
 
It sounds like what you mean by “learning the topic” is this (correct me if I’m wrong):

In the past, some scientists had trouble obtaining the consensus of their peers for a while for their new ideas. So that means that now every crazy new thing should be the next big thing, especially if we laymen like it. And if it has not yet gained any widespread acceptance in the scientific community, that’s just a sign of their closed-mindedness. We should therefore dismiss their overwhelming consensus, and base actions and policy on just the ideas of whomever has the most newfangled idea.

Is that the lesson you want us to learn? If I am misunderstanding this lesson, please correct it. I am open to learning.

Oh that’s too bad, because I thought I was just asking a question and wanting to be educated, not making any strawman argument.
 
Oh that’s too bad, because I thought I was just asking a question and wanting to be educated, not making any strawman argument.

I have already explained multiple times, and you have (I now understand) purposely misinterpreted the explanation multiple times. I'm no longer going to respond as if you are posting in good faith. Moreover, I now understand that you just don't know the material.
 
Oh that’s too bad, because I thought I was just asking a question and wanting to be educated, not making any strawman argument.

Running when put into the position of actually having to explain his position is just.... what he does.
 
Back
Top Bottom