Author Topic: Climate change  (Read 38190 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Greg

  • General Member
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #600 on: Saturday 20 July 2019, 01:25:41 PM »
A good initiative from New York:

Quote
Yesterday, New York governor Andrew Cuomo signed a bill that's been described as the state's Green New Deal. Unlike the one that's been floated in Congress, this one isn't a grab-bag collection of social and energy programs. Instead, there's a strong focus on energy, with assurances that changes will be made in a way that benefits underprivileged communities.

The bill was passed by both houses of the New York legislature last month, but Cuomo held off on signing it so he could pair it with an announcement that suggests the new plan's goals are realistic. The state has now signed contracts for two wind farms that will have a combined capacity of 1.7 GW. If they open as planned in under five years, they will turn New York into the US's leading producer of offshore wind power.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/new-york-passes-its-green-new-deal-announces-massive-offshore-wind-push/

The expertise and hardware for the project is being provided by a Norwegian and a Danish company which is illustrative of how the US (and the UK?) are falling behind a bit on the renewable energy technology front.

With any luck this could inspire the other states to take a similar path and promote investment in the blossoming renewable economy.

The UK is the world leader in the offshore wind market, there is no doubt and without the UK the global offshore wind market would not be where it is now. The world looks to the UK as the leader here. There will continue to be a pipeline of future projects going forward in the UK. Govt is committed to 30GW by 2030 and the Climate Change Committee recently recommended a number of potential scenarios to the UK govt including a target of 75GW offshore wind by 2050. There is currently a leasing round ongoing for Extensions to existing offshore wind farms and the 4th major leasing round of offshore wind in the UK will launch after the summer this year.

Those companies you refer to are big players in the UK market (one is the market leader and the UK is their main business area). It's taken time for the supply chain to catch up and the recent Offshore Wind Sector Deal will help this, but we've seen improvements with the Siemens Gamesa on the Humber and MHI Vestas on the Isle of Wight.

Offline Greg

  • General Member
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #601 on: Saturday 20 July 2019, 01:26:10 PM »
The UK are up there,s Scotland which is basically powering itself most of the time via wind.

Is there much investment in renewables over there?  Plans to develop the industry?

I'm not really up on the state of UK tech tbh, most of the stuff I go over is about China or the US.

See above. The world leader in offshore wind.

Onshore wind is dead due to government policy.

More innovation is needed on the wave and tidal side and also moving forward floating wind technology.

Offline loki679

  • General Member
  • 中国
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #602 on: Saturday 20 July 2019, 01:28:55 PM »
Cheers, Greg :thup:
Comfy chairs, beer, and doom. Humanity's future is an early 90s LAN party.

Offline sadnesstan

  • General Member
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #603 on: Saturday 20 July 2019, 01:45:25 PM »
We could do with a Gus Gorman, looing after the fractions. We should be capturing energy as we use it. Solar panel lamp bases. Use the heat that comes out of the back of the fridge freezer, to power the stand-by light on the TV. We waste so many tiny little pieces of energy, every second. And that's before we get onto the [wholly necessary, due to lifestyle] labour saving devices. Just chop the carrots yourself man, you waste more personal energy getting the processor out of the cupboard.

Offline neesy111

  • General Member
  • Madrid, ES
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #604 on: Saturday 20 July 2019, 06:46:26 PM »
We could do with a Gus Gorman, looing after the fractions. We should be capturing energy as we use it. Solar panel lamp bases. Use the heat that comes out of the back of the fridge freezer, to power the stand-by light on the TV. We waste so many tiny little pieces of energy, every second. And that's before we get onto the [wholly necessary, due to lifestyle] labour saving devices. Just chop the carrots yourself man, you waste more personal energy getting the processor out of the cupboard.

That will be done eventually, we need smart meters, capture storage etc for smart/dynamic power grid.

Offline loki679

  • General Member
  • 中国
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #605 on: Friday 26 July 2019, 01:02:36 AM »
A good article on research into past changes in the climate.  The researchers findings put to bed the nonsense about climate change being ‘natural variations’.

Quote
Some people who reject climate science seem to think climate scientists have never heard that the climate has changed in the past—as if scientists weren’t the ones who discovered those events in the first place. In reality, researchers are intensely interested in past climates because there is a lot to learn from them. You can see how sensitive Earth’s climate is to changes, for example, or how variable things can be even when the long-term average temperature is steady.

(“Climate has changed without humans before, so humans can’t be changing it now” is not a logically valid argument, FYI. It's the equivalent to arguing that we can't cause forest fires, since they occurred before we were around.)

Quote
The results showed that only one period was a truly global event—the modern warming caused by human activities. More than 98% of the globe experienced the warmest temperatures of the last 2,000 years during the 20th century. The Little Ice Age comes closest, but there were clearly significant regional forces at work. The Eastern Equatorial Pacific saw the coldest temperatures in the 1400s, while much of Western Europe and the United States were coldest in the 1600s. Everywhere else around the planet, it was the early 1800s that were coolest.

Using climate model simulations, the researchers find that the regional patterns in all these events—except the human-caused warming trend—are consistent with natural variability. (A separate study published at the same time, by the way, demonstrates that climate models seem to simulate the same magnitude of natural variability that the paleoclimate records show happens in the real world.)

It could be that these are simply variations caused by things like oscillating ocean currents, or it could be that these are regional responses to outside factors like solar activity or volcanic eruptions. But there were no outside factors strong enough to cause planet-wide change—which also helps explain why it has been hard to settle on start and end dates for these periods.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/the-only-global-climate-event-of-last-2000-years-was-ours/
Comfy chairs, beer, and doom. Humanity's future is an early 90s LAN party.

Offline sadnesstan

  • General Member
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #606 on: Friday 26 July 2019, 09:35:46 AM »
They also discovered a lot of illness and disease. Admirable work which is to be applauded. However their initial solutions were later discovered to be incorrect, and even dangerous. Although Larry's Leeches made a killing.

For a long time,scientists arrogantly opposed the notion that a Dr. washing his hands, after performing an autopsy, might cut down the number of deaths in childbirth, perfored directly after.

Science is fantastic, but we should never be afraid to challenge consensus.




Offline Adam^

  • General Member
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #607 on: Friday 26 July 2019, 08:19:08 PM »
Refusing to act on climate change and global emissions because people in the past have been wrong is idiotic.

Offline sadnesstan

  • General Member
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #608 on: Friday 26 July 2019, 09:08:10 PM »
Refusing to act on climate change and global emissions because people in the past have been wrong is idiotic.

Who's refusing to act?

Offline Adam^

  • General Member
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #609 on: Friday 26 July 2019, 09:16:26 PM »
Refusing to act on climate change and global emissions because people in the past have been wrong is idiotic.

Who's refusing to act?


Far too many people. You see it at all levels of society people casting doubt on the science so they dont have to change how they currently live.

Online QuakesMag

  • General Member
  • Carmel, California
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #610 on: Friday 26 July 2019, 09:18:01 PM »
They also discovered a lot of illness and disease. Admirable work which is to be applauded. However their initial solutions were later discovered to be incorrect, and even dangerous. Although Larry's Leeches made a killing.

For a long time,scientists arrogantly opposed the notion that a Dr. washing his hands, after performing an autopsy, might cut down the number of deaths in childbirth, perfored directly after.

Science is fantastic, but we should never be afraid to challenge consensus.





To properly challenge consensus, it requires a fundamental understanding of the scientific method, and the purpose of peer reviewing. It also requires being well-versed in the field. If these criteria don't apply, that challenging people trained in their field is just patently absurd. The uninitiated are just highly unlikely to be able to challenge consensus critically, and using the same methodology that got us here. Planck's solution to the ultraviolet catastrophe challenged classical physics, specifically because he understood classical physics to his very core, and also was aware of the glaring inconsistency with the model when dealing with blackbody radiation. The Michelson-Morley experiment put a speed limit on light, which would lead to Special Relativity. It also put to bed a prevailing idea about an aether in space. This was done by physicists well-trained in their field.

You should approach people who challenge consensus with healthy skepticism, and before you do anything else, sufficiently research the claimant. This lack of rigor is a fundamental problem with many "consensus challengers". Given some of your posts on gravity, I suggest that you make sure you understand the fundamental science before going toe to toe with an established theory.
Not one of the cool kids, and really insecure about it.

Online QuakesMag

  • General Member
  • Carmel, California
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #611 on: Friday 26 July 2019, 09:18:34 PM »
Refusing to act on climate change and global emissions because people in the past have been wrong is idiotic.

Who's refusing to act?


pretty much the whole Republican party and their shady donors.
Not one of the cool kids, and really insecure about it.

Offline sadnesstan

  • General Member
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #612 on: Friday 26 July 2019, 09:50:05 PM »
Refusing to act on climate change and global emissions because people in the past have been wrong is idiotic.

Who's refusing to act?


Far too many people. You see it at all levels of society people casting doubt on the science so they dont have to change how they currently live.

Ah, thought you were making assumptions about my lifestyle. Yeah, I agree there are people like that. But I don't know how many. It's like how many seymours support Newcastle. Nobody knows, but if we amplify a few voices enough, it will seem like a significant number.

I don't think people refusing to change is the problem. That's just politics to determine who pays for the inevitable. I mean solar power is inevitable so why are we dragging our heels? Money? Tax those who value their lifestyle more than their life, and I mean beyond the pale. If Elton John doesn't want to fly with people, then charge him the f***ing earth. And save it in the meantime.

Admittedly, I know nothing about the capabilities of solar energy, but I'm sure if we could eliminate 7billion users from the fossil fuel market I'm sure it would go a long way. But hang on then we are denying the energy companies 7 billion customers, and the economy won't manage that. We need a strong economy to save the earth.

I do everything I can do, and I take the problem very seriously, maybe those who are in a position should match my efforts.

Offline sadnesstan

  • General Member
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #613 on: Friday 26 July 2019, 11:08:43 PM »
They also discovered a lot of illness and disease. Admirable work which is to be applauded. However their initial solutions were later discovered to be incorrect, and even dangerous. Although Larry's Leeches made a killing.

For a long time,scientists arrogantly opposed the notion that a Dr. washing his hands, after performing an autopsy, might cut down the number of deaths in childbirth, perfored directly after.

Science is fantastic, but we should never be afraid to challenge consensus.





To properly challenge consensus, it requires a fundamental understanding of the scientific method, and the purpose of peer reviewing. It also requires being well-versed in the field. If these criteria don't apply, that challenging people trained in their field is just patently absurd. The uninitiated are just highly unlikely to be able to challenge consensus critically, and using the same methodology that got us here. Planck's solution to the ultraviolet catastrophe challenged classical physics, specifically because he understood classical physics to his very core, and also was aware of the glaring inconsistency with the model when dealing with blackbody radiation. The Michelson-Morley experiment put a speed limit on light, which would lead to Special Relativity. It also put to bed a prevailing idea about an aether in space. This was done by physicists well-trained in their field.

You should approach people who challenge consensus with healthy skepticism, and before you do anything else, sufficiently research the claimant. This lack of rigor is a fundamental problem with many "consensus challengers". Given some of your posts on gravity, I suggest that you make sure you understand the fundamental science before going toe to toe with an established theory.

Can't disagree with any of that.

Except the notion that I'm going toe to toe with gravity. I'm not, I just want to know about the clamps.

Also, I believe it's 97% of scientists who agree on climate change (I'm not sure if the same percentage agree on the solution). Which means that 3% of scientists are challenging the consensus.Or at the very least they don't agree 100%.



Offline sadnesstan

  • General Member
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #614 on: Saturday 27 July 2019, 12:06:17 AM »
Refusing to act on climate change and global emissions because people in the past have been wrong is idiotic.

Anyway, It's not an issue of science being wrong. Science would never learn anything if it was never allowed to be wrong. It's an issue of human ego. And that's not to say the ego is a bad thing. Again science would have learned very little without the drive of the human ego.



Online QuakesMag

  • General Member
  • Carmel, California
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #615 on: Saturday 27 July 2019, 01:04:35 AM »
They also discovered a lot of illness and disease. Admirable work which is to be applauded. However their initial solutions were later discovered to be incorrect, and even dangerous. Although Larry's Leeches made a killing.

For a long time,scientists arrogantly opposed the notion that a Dr. washing his hands, after performing an autopsy, might cut down the number of deaths in childbirth, perfored directly after.

Science is fantastic, but we should never be afraid to challenge consensus.





To properly challenge consensus, it requires a fundamental understanding of the scientific method, and the purpose of peer reviewing. It also requires being well-versed in the field. If these criteria don't apply, that challenging people trained in their field is just patently absurd. The uninitiated are just highly unlikely to be able to challenge consensus critically, and using the same methodology that got us here. Planck's solution to the ultraviolet catastrophe challenged classical physics, specifically because he understood classical physics to his very core, and also was aware of the glaring inconsistency with the model when dealing with blackbody radiation. The Michelson-Morley experiment put a speed limit on light, which would lead to Special Relativity. It also put to bed a prevailing idea about an aether in space. This was done by physicists well-trained in their field.

You should approach people who challenge consensus with healthy skepticism, and before you do anything else, sufficiently research the claimant. This lack of rigor is a fundamental problem with many "consensus challengers". Given some of your posts on gravity, I suggest that you make sure you understand the fundamental science before going toe to toe with an established theory.

Can't disagree with any of that.

Except the notion that I'm going toe to toe with gravity. I'm not, I just want to know about the clamps.

Also, I believe it's 97% of scientists who agree on climate change (I'm not sure if the same percentage agree on the solution). Which means that 3% of scientists are challenging the consensus.Or at the very least they don't agree 100%.




Not quite true about the 97% comment. 97% of all papers written about climate change support the idea of anthropogenic climate change. Virtually all of the 3% that challenge the consensus have not met the standard of peer review, due to some major flaws in methodology. Not to mention that a great many of those 3% have backing from Big Oil, who have used Big Tobacco's tactics of throwing questionable scientific studies in the mix to confuse, and to sow doubt. It's not challenging consensus in any meaningful way. When actual studies come out that cannot be quickly refuted, and that have used proper scientific methodology, then we'll talk about a proper challenging of consensus. As it stands now, we are not there.

Not to be pedantic, but science is just a methodology that is pretty effective at filtering out bad explanations and producing accurate results. It in and of itself is not right or wrong. Too often people treat it as if it were a religion when they say science is doing this or that, which is fundamentally misunderstanding what the method is about.
Not one of the cool kids, and really insecure about it.

Offline sadnesstan

  • General Member
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #616 on: Saturday 27 July 2019, 01:18:39 AM »
They also discovered a lot of illness and disease. Admirable work which is to be applauded. However their initial solutions were later discovered to be incorrect, and even dangerous. Although Larry's Leeches made a killing.

For a long time,scientists arrogantly opposed the notion that a Dr. washing his hands, after performing an autopsy, might cut down the number of deaths in childbirth, perfored directly after.

Science is fantastic, but we should never be afraid to challenge consensus.





To properly challenge consensus, it requires a fundamental understanding of the scientific method, and the purpose of peer reviewing. It also requires being well-versed in the field. If these criteria don't apply, that challenging people trained in their field is just patently absurd. The uninitiated are just highly unlikely to be able to challenge consensus critically, and using the same methodology that got us here. Planck's solution to the ultraviolet catastrophe challenged classical physics, specifically because he understood classical physics to his very core, and also was aware of the glaring inconsistency with the model when dealing with blackbody radiation. The Michelson-Morley experiment put a speed limit on light, which would lead to Special Relativity. It also put to bed a prevailing idea about an aether in space. This was done by physicists well-trained in their field.

You should approach people who challenge consensus with healthy skepticism, and before you do anything else, sufficiently research the claimant. This lack of rigor is a fundamental problem with many "consensus challengers". Given some of your posts on gravity, I suggest that you make sure you understand the fundamental science before going toe to toe with an established theory.

Can't disagree with any of that.

Except the notion that I'm going toe to toe with gravity. I'm not, I just want to know about the clamps.

Also, I believe it's 97% of scientists who agree on climate change (I'm not sure if the same percentage agree on the solution). Which means that 3% of scientists are challenging the consensus.Or at the very least they don't agree 100%.




Not quite true about the 97% comment. 97% of all papers written about climate change support the idea of anthropogenic climate change. Virtually all of the 3% that challenge the consensus have not met the standard of peer review, due to some major flaws in methodology. Not to mention that a great many of those 3% have backing from Big Oil, who have used Big Tobacco's tactics of throwing questionable scientific studies in the mix to confuse, and to sow doubt. It's not challenging consensus in any meaningful way. When actual studies come out that cannot be quickly refuted, and that have used proper scientific methodology, then we'll talk about a proper challenging of consensus. As it stands now, we are not there.

Not to be pedantic, but science is just a methodology that is pretty effective at filtering out bad explanations and producing accurate results. It in and of itself is not right or wrong. Too often people treat it as if it were a religion when they say science is doing this or that, which is fundamentally misunderstanding what the method is about.

I honestly don't think I'm re-writing physics by asking you to account for the clamps.

You raise the identity of the backers of the 3% as evidence that they should be treated with scepticism. That's fair enough. But I'm not asking for reasons to be sceptical about the 3%, I'm asking for evidence as to why I should not be sceptical of the 97%. Let's start with the same argument. Who funds the 97%? Is there anything about them that might raise questions as to their motive?
« Last Edit: Saturday 27 July 2019, 05:10:44 AM by sadnesstan »

Online QuakesMag

  • General Member
  • Carmel, California
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #617 on: Saturday 27 July 2019, 07:38:34 AM »
They also discovered a lot of illness and disease. Admirable work which is to be applauded. However their initial solutions were later discovered to be incorrect, and even dangerous. Although Larry's Leeches made a killing.

For a long time,scientists arrogantly opposed the notion that a Dr. washing his hands, after performing an autopsy, might cut down the number of deaths in childbirth, perfored directly after.

Science is fantastic, but we should never be afraid to challenge consensus.





To properly challenge consensus, it requires a fundamental understanding of the scientific method, and the purpose of peer reviewing. It also requires being well-versed in the field. If these criteria don't apply, that challenging people trained in their field is just patently absurd. The uninitiated are just highly unlikely to be able to challenge consensus critically, and using the same methodology that got us here. Planck's solution to the ultraviolet catastrophe challenged classical physics, specifically because he understood classical physics to his very core, and also was aware of the glaring inconsistency with the model when dealing with blackbody radiation. The Michelson-Morley experiment put a speed limit on light, which would lead to Special Relativity. It also put to bed a prevailing idea about an aether in space. This was done by physicists well-trained in their field.

You should approach people who challenge consensus with healthy skepticism, and before you do anything else, sufficiently research the claimant. This lack of rigor is a fundamental problem with many "consensus challengers". Given some of your posts on gravity, I suggest that you make sure you understand the fundamental science before going toe to toe with an established theory.

Can't disagree with any of that.

Except the notion that I'm going toe to toe with gravity. I'm not, I just want to know about the clamps.

Also, I believe it's 97% of scientists who agree on climate change (I'm not sure if the same percentage agree on the solution). Which means that 3% of scientists are challenging the consensus.Or at the very least they don't agree 100%.




Not quite true about the 97% comment. 97% of all papers written about climate change support the idea of anthropogenic climate change. Virtually all of the 3% that challenge the consensus have not met the standard of peer review, due to some major flaws in methodology. Not to mention that a great many of those 3% have backing from Big Oil, who have used Big Tobacco's tactics of throwing questionable scientific studies in the mix to confuse, and to sow doubt. It's not challenging consensus in any meaningful way. When actual studies come out that cannot be quickly refuted, and that have used proper scientific methodology, then we'll talk about a proper challenging of consensus. As it stands now, we are not there.

Not to be pedantic, but science is just a methodology that is pretty effective at filtering out bad explanations and producing accurate results. It in and of itself is not right or wrong. Too often people treat it as if it were a religion when they say science is doing this or that, which is fundamentally misunderstanding what the method is about.

I honestly don't think I'm re-writing physics by asking you to account for the clamps.

You raise the identity of the backers of the 3% as evidence that they should be treated with scepticism. That's fair enough. But I'm not asking for reasons to be sceptical about the 3%, I'm asking for evidence as to why I should not be sceptical of the 97%. Let's start with the same argument. Who funds the 97%? Is there anything about them that might raise questions as to their motive?


Your fundamental misunderstanding that you appeared to demonstrate of how Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation, and how General Relativity works in the beginning leads me to believe that you should probably dust off the old physics text if you want ot explore further into the machinations of gravity. Otherwise you are just creating word salads.

The 97% are generally funded by organizations such as the NSF. It's usually pretty transparent where they get their funding from. By that reasoning, you could possibly go down the path of saying that my sister is part of a cabal of corrupt scientists who have made up, or have exaggerated the problem that cosmic radiation wreaks on instrumentation. They made this up clearly to fund their specious research. You could use this same reasoning about evolutionary biologists, biochemists, other astrophysicists, etc. Being skeptical about 1 paper here and there is of course healthy, but without anything to indicate so, being skeptical about a consensus from peer-reviewed research because you are not aware of where the generally transparent funding comes from is a bit rich. My sister got her funding from the NSF. I am sure you could figure out. Start by looking at specific papers. Any reputable journal usually requires the researcher to submit where they got their funding, and it is listed in the paper. And on that note, reputable journals are absolutely ruthless about what they publish. s*** can slip through the cracks, but it doesn't often happen, and certainly not a level where nearly a whole body of scientific research is doctored. If that was the case, then at some point in the future that journal would have a destroyed reputation.

It's in essence proposing that there is a vast conspiracy of scientists who are taking us all for a ride while living the high life, which is some bold claim, and at least deserves evidence. Now if in the future it turns out that the models weren't that great or were incomplete, then fair enough. But that is wildly different than assuming a conspiracy of scientists. Sadly, many of the models look like they were too conservative at the moment.

This is essentially the argument that climate deniers use, even though that the vast sums of money being thrown about by Big Oil to gaslight the population. On the other side, the flaws in the reasoning and methodology of nearly all of the remaining 3% of studies are generally so glaring that it makes me wonder if they are aimed specifically at friendly politicians for a few bullet points. Because it is pretty damn embarrassing if some of them swear by their methodology when they know pretty much any asshole with a reasonable climate science background will immediately poke holes in their models.

And I would like to remind you that there is a vast difference between informed skepticism, and ignorant skepticism, or just outright denial. Instead of expressing skepticism about source of funding, go and look some papers up form reputable journals.
Not one of the cool kids, and really insecure about it.

Offline loki679

  • General Member
  • 中国
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #618 on: Saturday 27 July 2019, 07:53:19 AM »
It's just more disingenuous bullshit. Pretty sure we all know where NASA's funding comes from along with any other number of respectable scientific institutions.

Trolling for a response as usual.
Comfy chairs, beer, and doom. Humanity's future is an early 90s LAN party.

Offline sadnesstan

  • General Member
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #619 on: Saturday 27 July 2019, 10:14:30 AM »
It's just more disingenuous bullshit. Pretty sure we all know where NASA's funding comes from along with any other number of respectable scientific institutions.

Trolling for a response as usual.


If that isn't a disengenuous response  I don't know what is. It certainly isn't representative of the scientific method.




Offline sadnesstan

  • General Member
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #620 on: Saturday 27 July 2019, 10:19:17 AM »
They also discovered a lot of illness and disease. Admirable work which is to be applauded. However their initial solutions were later discovered to be incorrect, and even dangerous. Although Larry's Leeches made a killing.

For a long time,scientists arrogantly opposed the notion that a Dr. washing his hands, after performing an autopsy, might cut down the number of deaths in childbirth, perfored directly after.

Science is fantastic, but we should never be afraid to challenge consensus.





To properly challenge consensus, it requires a fundamental understanding of the scientific method, and the purpose of peer reviewing. It also requires being well-versed in the field. If these criteria don't apply, that challenging people trained in their field is just patently absurd. The uninitiated are just highly unlikely to be able to challenge consensus critically, and using the same methodology that got us here. Planck's solution to the ultraviolet catastrophe challenged classical physics, specifically because he understood classical physics to his very core, and also was aware of the glaring inconsistency with the model when dealing with blackbody radiation. The Michelson-Morley experiment put a speed limit on light, which would lead to Special Relativity. It also put to bed a prevailing idea about an aether in space. This was done by physicists well-trained in their field.

You should approach people who challenge consensus with healthy skepticism, and before you do anything else, sufficiently research the claimant. This lack of rigor is a fundamental problem with many "consensus challengers". Given some of your posts on gravity, I suggest that you make sure you understand the fundamental science before going toe to toe with an established theory.

Can't disagree with any of that.

Except the notion that I'm going toe to toe with gravity. I'm not, I just want to know about the clamps.

Also, I believe it's 97% of scientists who agree on climate change (I'm not sure if the same percentage agree on the solution). Which means that 3% of scientists are challenging the consensus.Or at the very least they don't agree 100%.




Not quite true about the 97% comment. 97% of all papers written about climate change support the idea of anthropogenic climate change. Virtually all of the 3% that challenge the consensus have not met the standard of peer review, due to some major flaws in methodology. Not to mention that a great many of those 3% have backing from Big Oil, who have used Big Tobacco's tactics of throwing questionable scientific studies in the mix to confuse, and to sow doubt. It's not challenging consensus in any meaningful way. When actual studies come out that cannot be quickly refuted, and that have used proper scientific methodology, then we'll talk about a proper challenging of consensus. As it stands now, we are not there.

Not to be pedantic, but science is just a methodology that is pretty effective at filtering out bad explanations and producing accurate results. It in and of itself is not right or wrong. Too often people treat it as if it were a religion when they say science is doing this or that, which is fundamentally misunderstanding what the method is about.

I honestly don't think I'm re-writing physics by asking you to account for the clamps.

You raise the identity of the backers of the 3% as evidence that they should be treated with scepticism. That's fair enough. But I'm not asking for reasons to be sceptical about the 3%, I'm asking for evidence as to why I should not be sceptical of the 97%. Let's start with the same argument. Who funds the 97%? Is there anything about them that might raise questions as to their motive?


Your fundamental misunderstanding that you appeared to demonstrate of how Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation, and how General Relativity works in the beginning leads me to believe that you should probably dust off the old physics text if you want ot explore further into the machinations of gravity. Otherwise you are just creating word salads.

The 97% are generally funded by organizations such as the NSF. It's usually pretty transparent where they get their funding from. By that reasoning, you could possibly go down the path of saying that my sister is part of a cabal of corrupt scientists who have made up, or have exaggerated the problem that cosmic radiation wreaks on instrumentation. They made this up clearly to fund their specious research. You could use this same reasoning about evolutionary biologists, biochemists, other astrophysicists, etc. Being skeptical about 1 paper here and there is of course healthy, but without anything to indicate so, being skeptical about a consensus from peer-reviewed research because you are not aware of where the generally transparent funding comes from is a bit rich. My sister got her funding from the NSF. I am sure you could figure out. Start by looking at specific papers. Any reputable journal usually requires the researcher to submit where they got their funding, and it is listed in the paper. And on that note, reputable journals are absolutely ruthless about what they publish. s*** can slip through the cracks, but it doesn't often happen, and certainly not a level where nearly a whole body of scientific research is doctored. If that was the case, then at some point in the future that journal would have a destroyed reputation.

It's in essence proposing that there is a vast conspiracy of scientists who are taking us all for a ride while living the high life, which is some bold claim, and at least deserves evidence. Now if in the future it turns out that the models weren't that great or were incomplete, then fair enough. But that is wildly different than assuming a conspiracy of scientists. Sadly, many of the models look like they were too conservative at the moment.

This is essentially the argument that climate deniers use, even though that the vast sums of money being thrown about by Big Oil to gaslight the population. On the other side, the flaws in the reasoning and methodology of nearly all of the remaining 3% of studies are generally so glaring that it makes me wonder if they are aimed specifically at friendly politicians for a few bullet points. Because it is pretty damn embarrassing if some of them swear by their methodology when they know pretty much any asshole with a reasonable climate science background will immediately poke holes in their models.

And I would like to remind you that there is a vast difference between informed skepticism, and ignorant skepticism, or just outright denial. Instead of expressing skepticism about source of funding, go and look some papers up form reputable journals.

Just giving you the opportunit to demonstrate that your rigorous scepticism is applied universally. You've wasted that opportunity to siply re-iterate you superior knowledge. Well done.

Offline Disco

  • General Member
  • Newcastle
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #621 on: Saturday 27 July 2019, 10:20:04 AM »
Sigh.

Offline gbandit

  • General Member
  • Brighton
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #622 on: Saturday 27 July 2019, 10:46:35 AM »
silentstan has a nice ring to it

Online thomas

  • NO's Best Foreigner - Participant
  • General Member
  • my role model is this cartoon milkshake

Offline sadnesstan

  • General Member
Re: Global Warming (Now rebranded climate change)
« Reply #624 on: Saturday 27 July 2019, 11:16:38 AM »
f*** this. I'm away to make my own video that demonstrates levitation, by suspending a brick on a string.