you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (27 children)

It is easy to evaluate predictions that were made decades ago, and then compare these predictions with what occured in the real world; in the predicted time periods.
That is actually easy to do.

Watch the video in the link. Their predictions were completely wrong. The seas didn't rise above New York or DC, at all..

[–]endopassing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (26 children)

The video is essentially an antivax hoax just against climate research. Do you also promote antivaxxer or flatearth videos?

You know I trust the scientists in all three cases - and many others.

And you still didn't answer my question: are climate scientists different from other experts? Are truths they promote more wrong than the truths of other experts?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

The video is essentially an antivax hoax just against climate research.

I don't see the connection you are attempting to create.
Why are you attempting to convolude this issue, by introducing unrelated issues? Please explain what you mean by this statement?

are climate scientists different from other experts?

This is a completely different, and less interesting question.
I have already unambiguously answered your other question.
Interpret it as you will.

[–]endopassing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

I know you answered, and you apparently misunderstood my question. What I'm getting at (and where my questioning started) is this: are climate scientists in your mind different from other scientists? Are their findings less trustworthy than the findings by scientists in other fields?

The reason for my asking is this, you seem to argue that there is a social gate keeping process in the scientific community that forces scientists to report things that are not true. I agree, from years of personal experience, that there are mechanisms at play leading to such things from time to time.

But what have me wondering about your arguments is this: What you describe is a general mechanism not specific to climate science and one that in my experience is much more prevalent in fields closer related to industry (when you cooperate with industry there is a lot of pressure to report results that will sell products).

So, from a logic standpoint: either all scientists are corrupted (unknowingly or otherwise) and are all equally untrustworthy - or you specifically picked climate science as a particularly corrupt field (unknowingly by scientists) for some reason.

And therefore the question: does climate science, in your mind, differ from other sciences? If so why? If not, why do you specifically not trust climate science if it's just like any other science.

To add: your argument about gate keeping does in my mind point in the exact opposite direction: strong industry interests have systematically intimidated climate scientists into under reporting the seriousness of climate change.

It is, to me very clear that you have been tricked into promoting the agenda of a fossil fuel business alliance that feel seriously threatened by sustainable energy technologies. Some of the strongest opponents to global action against climate change are Saudi Arabia, Russia and US, the biggest oil producers.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

It is, to me very clear that you have been tricked into promoting the agenda of a fossil fuel business alliance that feel seriously threatened by sustainable energy technologies.

You could not be more wrong. I'm completely in favor of renewable energy. Any, and all of it.

Renewable energy should be pursued for it's own axiomatic merits.

Bogus man made global warming science should have nothing at all to do with implementation of much needed renewable energy.

These topics are convoluted by the energy cartels.

[–]endopassing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

Please answer my question: is it only climate science you distrust or is it all science? If it's only climate science, in what way does it differ from other sciences?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

I have a significant degree of confidence in the hard sciences. Meterology resides under the umbrella of the hard science of the physics department.
Meterology is a hard science.

Climate science is it's own discipline; outside of the physics dept (where it belongs). Climate science does not fall under the umbrella of the physics department. Climate science deals with their own set of esoteric "climate models".

They closely guard access to their "climate" models, and "climate" data, to avoid academic scrutiny. This prevents academic review by interested parties in other hard science disciplines.

Climate science is a distant coisin of economics, or sociology.

Climate science is not a hard science.

[–]endopassing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

So basically, you randomly picked one specific field and chose to believe the fossil fuel industry's narrative over the scientists. And to defend this you invented some categories you call "the physics dept" and "hard science" whatever they mean.

They closely guard access to their "climate" models, and "climate" data

No they don't, a lot of it is even publicly available for download, in some cases you need to make agreements with the institution to get it or you may have to pay, but it is quite readily available. Don't trust people who say it isn't. The problem for someone like you is that the data is humongous (many Tb big) and very hard to analyze, that's why I wondered how you analyzed it. Unfortunately you mentioned a couple of small desktop statistics programs that are mostly used by students (used to be as they're not used much anymore). There's no way you could estimate a climate model on a desktop computer.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

There's no way you could estimate a climate model on a desktop computer.

You are missing the point. I don't ever need to run their model. Ever.

The point I am making is the fact that their models aren't generating predictions that come remotely close to the climate that actually exists. That is easy to check. It is basic arithmetic. Anyone can do this.

You continue to change the terms of the conversation.

They the climate scientists need to prove that their models work. The onus is in them.

Man made global warming, was renamed to man made climate change, because the climate wasn't warming, and their predictions were disgraceful failures..

Can your explain why they changed the name form global warming? It's obvious. The game is up, but the fraud continues.

Next: I didn't invent any terms. Look them up. Climate science is not in the physics department.
Physics depts realize that this is a joke. It's propaganda.

They like to bandy the word physics around (theoretical physics, physics models, etc, but it's bogus).

[–]endopassing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

their predictions were disgraceful failures..

Says who?

I see no one, literally not a single person with insight or relevant knowledge who would agree with you on that.

So, you picked some random scientific field and decided that you know more than every single scientist in that field.

Well done.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I selected the most relevant feild for comparison with bogus climate modeling nonsense.

Meterology resides within the physics discipline.

Meteorologists are physicists.

[–]endopassing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I selected the most relevant feild for comparison with bogus climate modeling nonsense.

Not following you completely, are you saying that the video you posted is an example of bogus climate research? I agree it's full of obvious bogus claims but it doesn't represent climate research.