Stacking Up “Scientific Consensus” For Policies

Back in the early to late 70’s scientific consensus was that of the earth was cooling down, so much in fact, they believed a return of some sort of ice-age. Until the 80’s came along where man-made climate change became the prevailing viewpoint among the so-called, “scientific consensus” and anyone who questioned it, were in denial in fact some have suggested it’s the same as being a holocaust denier or someone who just doesn’t believe in science.

There is a similarity between how evolution which used to be questioned within the framework until 1998, where it was declared a declaration of fact that was beyond question, and a new focus was put in place that involved rescuing explanations from falsifications which often times happens in the framework of evolution.

The belief in man-made climate change has a more profound effect on economies on various governments including the United States than does many research projects on evolution. Computer models without knowing an array of compensating factors became a form of popular evidence for man-made climate changes during the 80’s and it still is, today! Computer models are based on assumptions about the present or future reality, but is absolutely not reality itself.

Scientific Consensus and critics alike do agree that the earth’s temperature hit a peak in 1998, and has not shown any warming trend in the last 15 years or so. In temperate pattern in the last 50 years has been lower than what the computer models had predicted yet the UN climate chief continues to sound the alarm, claiming that the earth is running out of time! Just like in evolution when an assumption is falsified, they go into rescuing mode which sounds better in science fiction than reality.

Like the UN climate chief, Nature News continues to sound the alarm by calling this trend “a pause” and then tries to explain why the earth warming trend has pulled back. Science Daily is even alarmed by the impact the pause will have on public opinion which says is lacking because they believe the public is greedy…So they propose strategic conversations or in other words re-education camps. Other supporters have turned their focus elsewhere from the data to the skeptics themselves and are trying to demonize them in particular.

Like evolution, governments take sides by creating mandates that are agreement with man-made climate change or fund researchers that only agree with one side thus stacking  “scientific consensus” with a particular viewpoint.

“Would you rather have €40 (about $55 US) or save the climate? When the question is put in such stark terms, the common sense answer is obviously: “stop climate change!” After all, we are well-informed individuals who act for the common good and, more particularly, for the good of future generations. Or at least that’s how we like to think of ourselves.”

They like to think of their selves as rulers over the weather, but in reality there has been historical climate change long before the industrial era. It’s not denying science at all, this pause could last for years to come or not, but how do they know it’s man-made rather than historical? They have yet to define the difference. One thing is for sure man cannot control the weather, the earth does go through warming and cooling trends just like it did before the industrial era as well in the seventies and eighties till the present.

Advertisements

15 thoughts on “Stacking Up “Scientific Consensus” For Policies

  1. So, in other words, the fact that science get’s better, corrects earlier mistakes, learns new things, etc. is a point against it… Yes, that totally makes sense, as we should know the truth from the start and never admit if we’re wrong. Honestly? This is what you want to build your worldview on?

  2. “Like evolution, governments take sides by creating mandates that are agreement with man-made climate change or fund researchers that only agree with one side thus stacking “scientific consensus” with a particular viewpoint.”

    Utter nonsense, as usual.

  3. >blockquote>
    Like evolution, governments take sides by creating mandates that are agreement with man-made climate change or fund researchers that only agree with one side thus stacking “scientific consensus” with a particular viewpoint.

    And it’s not the first time that scientific consensus has informed public policy.

    In the ’60’s John F. Kennedy mandated a public policy of traveling to the moon. The government funded only those scientists who believed in Newtonian gravity, thus agreeing with only one side, and aligning themselves with the scientific consensus. In this way, they stacked scientific consensus with a particular viewpoint.

    Even before that, the government instituted a public policy of vaccinating against smallpox. Only scientists who believed in Lister’s germ theory were funded, thus slamming the door on all other theories. In this way, they stacked scientific consensus with a particular viewpoint.

    And we could go on with examples that would churn your blood with indignation about how public policies have followed scientific consensus . Rather than seeking, out, say, moon-rocket scientists who adhered to the Ptolemaic theory, or the theory that bad air caused disease.

    Michael, the question I have about your paragraph above is whether you are relying upon you vast ignorance, or whether you are deliberately lying. I mist admit to leaning toward the latter, because no one could be quite that thick.

    Please confine yourself to subjects that you know something about, such as …..
    Well, I can’t think of any. Certainly not English grammar/[1]

    ====================

    [1] “Like evolution, governments …” Please tell us in what way evolution is like a government. I thought not.

  4. Scientific Consensus and critics alike do agree that the earth’s temperature hit a peak in 1998, and has not shown any warming trend in the last 15 years or so.

    It’s 10 years, Michael, not 15. In fact the last 700 years[1] of overall warming have shown almost a dozen 10-year periods where the earth’s temperature has cooled. If you knew anything about statistics, you might know that this is about what would be expected for random fluctuations in an overall rising trend.

    Yet another instance of glaring ignorance.

    =================

    [1] “Aha!” Michael gloats The industrial revolution occurred only 250 years ago. No, Michael. Man-made global warming started 8,000 years ago, with the introduction of agriculture. Bu the “hockey stick” era of very large changes started about 250 years ago. As shown by ice-core evidence.

  5. Would you rather have €40 (about $55 US) or save the climate? When the question is put in such stark terms, the common sense answer is obviously: “stop climate change!” After all, we are well-informed individuals who act for the common good and, more particularly, for the good of future generations. Or at least that’s how we like to think of ourselves.”

    Where did you get that little gem? It’s ridiculously false.

    The “social (or generational) discount rate” is a measure that economists employ to measure how much a person would spend today in order to benefit future generations. Experiments have shown that this rate can be as high as 40%. That is a person living now would spend only $60 to avert$100 worth of damage to his children, and only about $35 to avert $100 of expense to his grandchildren.[1] Sad, but true. What people say they would do is wildly inaccurate when they are faced with an real-world choice that costs them their own actual coin of the realm..

    This is the problem with climate change. No one is willing to invest now in ameliorating climate climate-change damage in 2950, To prevent, e.g.,2/3 of the entire State of Florida disappearing under the Atlantic Ocean.[3] Or 128 million people left homeless in the Nile delta. Or hundred-year wildfires, droughts, and floods every couple of years–which is what we are facing now.

    Ironically enough, it is cities that are in the forefront of projects to mitigate damage from climate change.[2] Some of these were the subject of a Scientific American article in the last year or two. ..

    And this is why, Michael, your grandchildren will curse your name for denying climate change.

    =======================

    [1] One such experiment was written up in Nature about a year ago, if you’d care to look it up.. But I’m sure you won’t, because ignorance is always more comfortable that truth.

    [2] London, Amsterdam, a couple of cities along the Mississippi, for example. Manhattan is considering an array of breakwaters in Long Island Sound to hold back flooding which will submerge the city’s subway system if the sea level were to rise only four feet.

    [3] Even today, there are streets in Miami that are under enough water at high tide that drivers must find alternative routes.

  6. Hey Atomic Mutant,

    You say…“So, in other words, the fact that science get’s better, corrects earlier mistakes, learns new things, etc. is a point against it…”

    Operational science and the science in which your trying to defend are too different issues. Ever hear of climategate where leaked emails over a span of 13 years from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) went public? This is where scientists who are hardcore believers in made-man climate change were trying to hide the decline by using exaggerated warming data in order to shape public opinion because they feared the public would loose interest in global warming thus policies wouldn’t be implemented. This my friend, is not science but rather making tons of money using a political agenda all in the name of science.

    New leaked information has come out just recently, it’s been dubbed as “Climategate II” and this time some governments are involved. Germany for example, called “slow down” in the earth’s temp to be deleted from the IPCC report, claiming the term is misleading even though there has been a decline in the earth’s temp from the last 15 years despite the fact that man-made emissions have gone up! Belgium protested using data from 1998. Because temps since then have gone down. Hungary displayed their concern that the report would provide ammunition for skeptics. So do you think these governments are going to find fault with scientists who fudge the data when it’s not going their way? This is not science! It would hurt their public image, they are hurting how science is conducted and hurt how people trust them because they are only trying to use the end to justify the means. You have to be honest with the data no matter where it leads. As far as governments, if you are you going to fund one side, you also should fund the other side on researching global warming or global cooling. This is how you come up with the best conclusions.

    The next report the IPCC will make on this issue, will go from “extreme likely” to “factual”(so other papers showing research with another viewpoint will not be acceptable into peer review, thus stacking consensus once again) and then predicting such things as major increases in hurricane disasters like it has been doing for years and other things like the end of the world (and then adjust it when it doesn’t happen claiming it’s a gap and then create more predictions that say the same thing) even if there is a cooling trend with increased man-made emissions. And that would be purely political rather than science!

  7. Honestly, if you had arguments, you wouldn’t have to bring up that quote-mined manufactroversy. The 2nd wasn’t even good enough to be hyped anymore.

  8. Operational science and the science in which your trying to defend are too different issues.

    But they are both scientific, and employ the same methods of observation, analysis, and theory construction. The only difference is that one gathers its observations in a laboratory, and the other in a natural setting. It’d way past time to lay this creationist security blanket aside and to stop sucking your thumb.

    {Climategate] is where scientists who are hardcore believers in made-man climate change were trying to hide the decline by using exaggerated warming data in order to shape public opinion because they feared the public would loose interest in global warming thus policies wouldn’t be implemented.

    No. It has been shown conclusively that no data were fudged or misinterpreted in this report.. The concern was only that laymen would falsely interpret a statistical fluctuation as a falsification of a trend. In other words, the researchers tried to negate a false public perception.

    This my friend, is not science but rather making tons of money using a political agenda all in the name of science

    Have you ever seen a climate scientist rolling g in tons of money? Go clean your glasses and start over.

    New leaked information has come out just recently, it’s been dubbed as “Climategate II” and this time some governments are involved. Germany for example, called “slow down” in the earth’s temp to be deleted from the IPCC report, claiming the term is misleading even though there has been a decline in the earth’s temp from the last 15 years despite the fact that man-made emissions have gone up! Belgium protested using data from 1998. Because temps since then have gone down. Hungary displayed their concern that the report would provide ammunition for skeptics.

    Michael lives on a diet of canards. All tax dollars are “hard-earned”‘ all liberals are evil; all evolutionists are in a conspiracy. Here is a new one: “leaked information” is apparently to be believed unquestioningly (as opposed to scientific data, which is dismissed unquestioningly if it does not accord with a preconceived belief.

    Here again, no data was harmed in this report, and the sole purpose was to make clear to the unsophisticated public that we are in a statistical fluctuation, rather than the reversal of a trend. Denialists can be so selective! When the preceding decade undeniably showed increasing temperatures, did any climate denialists take this as any evidence that global warming was real? Nooooo. We call that cherry-picking the data. It is a favorite tool of denialists, conspiracy theorists, and charlatans in every field.

    The next report the IPCC will make on this issue, will go from “extreme likely” to “factual” ”(so other papers showing research with another viewpoint will not be acceptable into peer review

    So when have such “other papers” been denied publication? Please point out a specific example. Michael’s denialism is in plain view again.

    Once more: Your grandchildren will curse you for the economic and social load you place upon their backs by not alleviating climate change when you could.

  9. If I wear black clothes my body will experience global warming. If I wear light colored clothes it will experience global cooling. This is basic thermodynamics. All of the smog and smoke that comes out of power plants and factories and refineries and metal mills and so on has a similar effect on the thermodynamic properties of our atmosphere, because it really doesn’t matter if it’s black opaque smog or if it’s dispersed invisibly over a continent, it is still blocking and absorbing the same amount of solar radiation and keeping it from being reflected into space. Ever been to a city that doesn’t have a lot of green in the summer? It’s a LOT hotter than ones that promotes plants, trees, gardens, nearby forests etc. While it can be debated the degree to which global warming is man-made it can’t be debated that it’s happening because unlike those anonymous opinions you alleged from the 70’s, we now have four decades of sensor and sattelite data and can statistically confirm that it’s a trend, not a fluctuation or a blip. Every decade (solar cycle) that goes by amounts to a significant statistical increase in the odds of it being a one-way trend.

    The greenhouse effect isn’t hypothetical, that’s why we have green houses.

  10. Michael may in interested in a recent news article in Science. A meeting of the Royal Society in London concerned origin of the moon

    Better computer models and more rock samples seem to show that the current simple theory — that the moon resulted from a simple impact — is not correct.[1] Several more complex impact scenarios were put forward, as well as a couple of non-impact models. But the old theory seems definitely to be in need of serious repair or replacement.

    Of course, much of the evidence against a simple impact comes from computer models, which Michael claims are not worth the electrons they’re written on. So, Michael, whom do you trust? The scientists who hold to an impact 4 billion years ago, or the scientists who rely on your disfavored computer models to overturn that theory?

    Never mind, I know the answer. Michel will rely upon whichever scientists tend to support his faith, regardless of any scientific merit or lack thereof.

    ================================

    [1] “Impact Theory Gets Whacked,” Science 342:183-185 (11 Oc t. 2013)

  11. ore articles about the inadequacy of current moon-origin theories:
    >Halliday, “The Origin of the Moon” Science 448:1040 (23 Nov 2012)\
    > Cik & Stewart, “Making the Moon from a Fast-pinning Earth” Science 338:1047 (23 Nov 2102?
    > Canup, “Fprming a Moon with an Earth-Like Composition” Science 338:1052 (23 Nov 2012)

  12. More grist for the mill. It turns out that the earth’s core has larger thermal conductivity that previously thought. This casts doubt on current theories of how the geodynamo could have been generated. “The Core Paradox,” Science 342:431-432 *26 Oct 2913),

    But, before crowing that this demonstrates a young earth, please give us the creationist theory of how the earth/s magnetic field came to be, “God did it” is not a sufficient answer, because it explains nothing.

    Now all you have to do is to look up “thermal conductivity,” and figure out how to hold a technical paper right side up. (If you hold it upside down, the graphs go the wrong way.)

  13. <blockquote
    Ever hear of climategate where leaked emails over a span of 13 years from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) went public? This is where scientists who are hardcore believers in made-man climate change were trying to hide the decline by using exaggerated warming data in order to shape public opinion because they feared the public would loose interest in global warming thus policies wouldn’t be implemented.

    This is false. It has been shown to be factually not true, and, by this time, everyone accepts that conclusion.

    Therefore anyone who still promulgates this falsehood IS A DELIBERATE LIAR.

    Of course, we already know that truth does not matter to Michael, as long as his beliefs can be propped up.

  14. Operational science and the science in which your trying to defend are too [sic] different issues.

    Michael continues to wrap himself in his desperate belief that “historical” science provides no evidence for a scientific theory, and differs from “operational science,”

    But reflect for a moment.

    Creationists bend ever effort to show that special creation can be shown by evidence. Since creations are not—and cannot be—replicated in a lab by “operational” science, then by definition all of the evidence for special creation comes from “historical” science: Polonium halos, magnetic reversals,dinosaur death poses, and so forth.,

    Yet this is the kind of science they say cannot be employed to to confirm a scientific theory, such as evolution

    Is Michael even aware of this logical contradiction? He needs to retake Basic Remedial Thinking 001.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s