you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Have you ever run your own experiments? It's easy enough. Then you could show that you're right, and you'd have science on your side.

Unfortunately, science is dispassionate. If you do it right, it supports truth. I expect that, if you do science, you'll learn that you're wrong. (If you also think this, then you think that you're wrong; if you don't think this, then why don't you? I can give you tips; obnoxious I may be, but I can do science.)

[–]HegeMoney 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

unfortunately, science is dispassionate. If you do it right, it supports truth. I expect that, if you do science, you'll learn that you're wrong.

This response is some pathetic shilling from the note cards fakery.

I don't know of any actual scientist that would dream of agreeing with your absurd premise.

Science had always been is extremely political. Scientist compete with each other. It's anything but dispassionate.

Science is also corrupted by the grant process. Money is controlled.

You only get to investigate what they will pay to look into.

Reproducible results that disagree with the well funded political interests are ignored, until the community is forced to recognize the facts, because someone is making progress in spite of them.

Al Gore won a nobel peace prize for a 2006 movie ("an inconvenient truth") that couldn't have been more incorrect.

The global climate weather is actually cooler and more cloudy in 2020 than it was in 2006, when this fake movie was made.

Trump ordered 3 additional nuclear powered ice breaker ships this year. Because the ice is not going away. It's actually increasing.

Below is a story about the censored realty of a bungled global warming expedition.

Frozen Out: 98% of Stories Ignore That Ice-bound Ship Was On Global Warming Mission

The Russian ship, Akademic Shokalskiy, was stranded in the ice while on a climate change research expedition, yet nearly 98 percent of network news reports about the stranded researchers failed to mention their mission at all. Forty out of 41 stories (97.5 percent) on the network morning and evening news shows since Dec. 25 failed to mention climate change had anything to do with the expedition.

"Global warming" is a scam to ban the use of combustible fuels, and gain control the world's energy resources forever.

Is a long term plan of global enslavement.

On top of it all, Bill Gates is already prepared for the next hoax. Using Covid to push "climate change".

"COVID-19 is awful. Climate change could be worse. | By Bill Gates | August 04, 2020"

https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/Climate-and-COVID-19

You can't make this bullshit up.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Science had always been is extremely political. Scientist compete with each other. It's anything but dispassionate.

You're thinking of academia. I'm trying to make a distinction between the process of science (based on the ideas of Popper and Bacon) and the thing academic scientists do.

You only get to investigate what they will pay to look into.

You can literally do science yourself, mate. It doesn't need fancy equipment or money. Anyone can do it.

Al Gore won a nobel peace prize

That's not even academia, is it? It's certainly not science. How is this relevant?

The global climate weather is actually cooler and more cloudy in 2020 than it was in 2006, when this fake movie was made.

Out of interest, why do you think this? Did you write down temperature readings in 2006, and again in 2020? (Did you travel around the world to make global readings, not just local ones?)

Below is a story about the censored realty of a bungled global warming expedition.

Censored? Second sentence of the first paragraph of the Wikipedia section about its use for Antarctic research.

Also, is that article just saying "winter exists, therefore climate change doesn't"? If an idea you dislike seems that unbelievable (e.g. "climate change says winter does not exist"), that suggests you don't understand the idea very well.

"Global warming" is a scam to ban the use of combustible fuels, and gain control the world's energy resources forever.

Gain control? Who's gaining control? And are you trying to find alternative sources of energy, or are you just moaning? (If I thought there was a conspiracy to take away vital resources, I'd make sure I had at least two independent, hard-to-take-away sources of it; solar seems like an obvious first choice, though the panels are made with heavy metal so they have to be disposed of carefully if they break, as to not harm the environment too much. Next, I'd go with wind; less portable, but more plentiful and I know how to repair it if it breaks. Finally, I'd get a biofuel burner, like methane; I can produce methane myself by rotting plant matter, if it all goes belly up, and that's got high enough energy density that I could probably retrofit a car for it.)

[–]HegeMoney 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

This response is so uninformed that is laughable.

It's obvious that you have no clue what you're talking about.

Did it take you 5 days to come up with this?

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No; I just only check Saidit every five days or so. If you think that's unusual, you might be experiencing selection bias.

Please keep the Pyramid of Debate in mind when replying. If it's so obvious that I have no clue what I'm talking about, then I'm sure you'd be able to be able to call out one wrong thing I wrote? (Though I'd prefer if you addressed my main points, instead of picking something like “but it's going to be winter in the northern hemisphere soon, therefore wind should be listed above solar hurr durr” – just in case you're as much of a rules lawyer as I am.)

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

If it's so obvious that I have no clue what I'm talking about, then I'm sure you'd be able to be able to call out one wrong thing I wrote?

No problem.

Me:

Science had always been is extremely political. Scientist compete with each other. It's anything but dispassionate.

Your counter claim:

You're thinking of academia. I'm trying to make a distinction between the process of science (based on the ideas of Popper and Bacon) and the thing academic scientists do.

This understating of the reality of "science" is completely uninformed.

The distinction you're suggesting is a myth.

Science is never settled. Ever.

Controversy and debate is an inherent and necessary feature of all legitimate scientific inquiry.

Unfortunately, science is dispassionate. If you do it right, it supports truth. I expect that, if you do science, you'll learn that you're wrong. (If you also think this, then you think that you're wrong; if you don't think this, then why don't you? I can give you tips; obnoxious I may be, but I can do science.)

Science is a tool that can yeild insight about interactions of nature; assuming the hypothesis is generally valid.

"Climate scientist" are scientist in name only.

They make up models, and they manufacture climate predictions with their contrived models.

Their predictions rarely occur, if ever.
They are scientific frauds.

They do not perform experiments. The models are easily testable, and regularly fail.

Their theoretical models are crap, and do not reflect reality.

"Global warming" was renamed "climate change", because the warming stopped.

Please keep the Pyramid of Debate in mind when replying.

CO2 levels continue to increase, yet the temperate has not continued to increase.

Reality thoroughly disproves their pseudoscience, which is predicated on CO2 increases raising the average global temp.

I have refuted the central thesis of your position.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Science is never settled. Ever.

Technically, yes; we can thank Karl Popper for that. But have you heard of Bayesianism? If not, I can explain it with an intuition pump:

Imagine that you've got a very big bag, and are in a dark room. You can't see what's in it, but you can stick one hand in. You feel around, and can only feel spheres around the size of your palm. Pulling one out, it looks red in the dim light. You put it back in and shake the bag. Another: looks red. Another, and another… ten or twenty looked a little orange, and you could've sworn the four hundred and seventh was blue, but another thousand or so and you haven't found one like it.

“The balls that can reach the surface are all red” isn't settled science, no; arguments vary from “the bag contains only identical red spheres” and “the top layer of the bag mostly consists of red spheres, but there might be a few rare other-coloured spheres and all we know about what's beneath is that if it's not red spheres it doesn't mix when you shake it”.

But nobody's seriously arguing that there's only one red sphere, and you keep taking out the same one even though you're shaking the bag vigorously each time. It's possible, yes, and the chances of that are way higher than you might naïvely think (conditional on it being the same one, it's far more likely that there's a process keeping that ball near the opening than that the balls are randomising each time and that's just staying there by pure fluke), but they're still so low as to not really be worth considering (at least, until future evidence suggests that might be more likely, or you run out of other things to test).

And the chances of some theory that predicts against observed reality, such that the evidence we've seen is _all flukes_… well, we take it on principle that those theories are rubbish descriptions of reality.

So, no, science is never settled, but we can still be darn sure of things.

Their predictions rarely occur, if ever.

So, “next year will be the hottest year on record, and then the year after will be the hottest year on record, and so on” didn't come true? Certainly felt like it, watching the news back in '17.
So “we'll have more hurricanes and thunderstorms and flooding” didn't come true?

Yeah, there are quacks; there are always quacks. Yeah, there are models that get falsified, as there always are in science. But even academia has made fairly consistent, testable, successful predictions.

"Global warming" was renamed "climate change", because the warming stopped.

It was actually renamed “climate change” well before the warming in my country stopped (which seems to have started again, though I've only got a few months of data to go by on that). The models always predicted more chaotic weather in general, meaning some regions would get cooler, so right from the start people were pushing for the pop-sci “global warming” name to be replaced.

The reason the warming has “stopped” where you are is, according to the models, because massive slabs of permafrost are falling into the sea and melting. That hasn't translated into “stopped” in places further from the coast. (I assume you don't live near the middle of your continental landmass.)

CO2 levels continue to increase, yet the temperate has not continued to increase.

My thermometer at my house stopped increasing sometime around late 2018, but I live near the coast. In 2017 I was told to expect this, given that the ice sheets were melting and dumping large ice cubes into the ocean. I was also told that this would result in an increase in warm rainstorms; I don't quite understand why that would happen (not being a meterologist), but it seems to have checked out so far.

Global average temperatures, however, have continued to rise. But maybe that's a fluke.

I don't want to be having this same argument in 2030, so can we agree on something that you expect to see go one way and I expect to see the other, so there's an eventual end-point where we'll know who was right? (Yes, I'm asking for a testable prediction; if we both agree on one, then we can't back out later, so even though it won't necessarily convince anyone else it'll still convince us.)

I have refuted the central thesis of your position.

If you were right, then you would've. I can't think of a non-sarcastic-sounding way of congratulating you, so I'll just point out that this is already better than many internet arguments I've had even though I'm arguing with a climate-change denier. You certainly seem to understand science better than most people.