4 ms·

It is a pesky little fact that all the climate models have thus far been wrong and there is still no scientific proof that CO2 drives temperatures. The best re

by edoo 8y ago

It is a pesky little fact that all the climate models have thus far been wrong and there is still no scientific proof that CO2 drives temperatures. The best research on the table at the moment shows we may be facing a super maunder minimum and possible mini ice age. This research will pan out or not in the next 2-5 years as it is actually falsifiable. No falsifiable claim = no science

vertexFarm 8y ago
Your foolish fringe-science delusions and intellectual arrogance are going to drive your descendants to despair and death. But I have no doubt you'll go to your grave unconvinced no matter what the evidence points to, blissfully leaving the outcome of your decisions to future generations. It's ironic that you mention falsifiable claims, since literally no amount of overwhelming evidence can ever convince deniers that their claims are false. Climate models are not "wrong" or "right," they are models based on finite variables which resemble reality within an expected margin of error. Thus they will always have slight but expected variance from actual measurements in the future. Science doesn't reveal absolute truth, it gets us fractionally closer to absolute truth. Right now 97% of scientists have reached a consensus that even based on the most conservative extremes of the margin of error of our climate models that anthropogenic climate change is real and is marching towards catastrophe. That's a higher degree of certainty than plenty of other scientific concepts that we have put into practice. You are claiming to have better knowledge than the utterly overwhelming majority of evidence and expert observation. Is it because you are miraculously the smartest person on earth, or is it because you are a deluded crank? It's pretty obvious which it is to everyone but yourself and other conspiracy peddlers.
- edoo 8y ago
  Ad hominem attacks are the sign you have left logic at the wayside and are running on emotion. It is often a sign that your belief, true or not, has been reinforced with false logic, as when confronted with true logic you are unable to appropriately respond. Don't worry, we all get better with practice.
  - chillwaves 8y ago
    Falacy Falacy. It's not nice that the meanie head called you names, but where is your actual citation? Where are actual studies to back up your claims? You just repeat yourself here, as elsewhere, that somehow an "ad hominem" by your opponite supports your view? That's not how this works and is in fact, ironically, an ad hominem attack.
  - normal_man 8y ago
    I actually have a theory about debate club weenies like yourself - you act in such an annoying and objectionable way to force people to roast you, because saying "ah, adhominem, therefore I win" is the only way you can win since your arguments can never withstand scrutiny
  - vertexFarm 8y ago
    Condescending, gets hung up on form and image instead of substance. Pretty obvious deflection. Everybody runs on emotion as well as reason, and there are perfectly reasonable situations to get emotional. Maybe you get a lot of ad-hominem attacks because you deserve it. Want the debate club response? Just endless, endless sources and studies and data. They are out there and they are overwhelming and conclusive. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2995507/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2995507/ https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ Be sure to click through and check out all the individual citations. I wonder if you'll actually live up to your supposed principles and care about the evidence.
andruby 8y ago
* citation needed
- edoo 8y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_yqIj38UmY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_yqIj38UmY The solar physicist community has the current most accurate climate models and they only crunch sun data and not C02 data in any way. Those models show lowering temperatures as we now enter a maunder minimum. Those models will pan out or not in the next few years. Their claim is falsifiable.
  - rhcom2 8y ago
    A talk by a climate change denial lobbying group isn't going to convince anyone.
    - edoo 8y ago
      They are doing real science. Their models will be proven wrong or not. All the CO2 based climate models have already been proven wrong. Odd that you would be so against finding out the truth.
      - rhcom2 8y ago
        I look forward to reading their peer reviewed work then. Otherwise I'm going to take any organization with such an obvious conflict of interest with a giant grain of salt.
      - b_tterc_p 8y ago
        I have a model that says you’re a shill. It’d be weird if you contested that because my model is scientific.
        edoo 8y ago
        If you have a falsifiable claim let's test it. Otherwise I win, you devolved to ad hominem attacks in the face of logic.
PhasmaFelis 8y ago
> The best research on the table at the moment shows we may be facing a super maunder minimum and possible mini ice age. That's not "the best research," that's the research that fits your worldview most comfortably. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/09/the-imminent-mini-ice-age-myth-is-back-and-its-still-wrong https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
- edoo 8y ago
  It is the research with the most accurate models at the moment. It used to be consensus that the world was flat. Consensus is not science. Only falsifiable claims are science.
  - normal_man 8y ago
    A lot of people who share your view on climate change still think the world is flat. Something to think about.
    - edoo 8y ago
      I'm not sure what you mean about my view. Perhaps you can explain? It is a fact all atmospheric climate models have failed. The temperature rise predictions based on atmospheric CO2 have not materialized. It is a fact there are other models that are more accurate than atmospheric models. It is a fact we will find out in a few years if those models are tracking or not. Are you against performance scientific inquiry if it conflicts with your assumptions? Isn't that the entire point of science, to find out the truth?
      - rhcom2 8y ago
        > It is a fact all atmospheric climate models have failed. That isn't a fact.

by edoo 8y ago

vertexFarm 8y ago

Your foolish fringe-science delusions and intellectual arrogance are going to drive your descendants to despair and death. But I have no doubt you'll go to your grave unconvinced no matter what the evidence points to, blissfully leaving the outcome of your decisions to future generations. It's ironic that you mention falsifiable claims, since literally no amount of overwhelming evidence can ever convince deniers that their claims are false. Climate models are not "wrong" or "right," they are models based on finite variables which resemble reality within an expected margin of error. Thus they will always have slight but expected variance from actual measurements in the future. Science doesn't reveal absolute truth, it gets us fractionally closer to absolute truth. Right now 97% of scientists have reached a consensus that even based on the most conservative extremes of the margin of error of our climate models that anthropogenic climate change is real and is marching towards catastrophe. That's a higher degree of certainty than plenty of other scientific concepts that we have put into practice. You are claiming to have better knowledge than the utterly overwhelming majority of evidence and expert observation. Is it because you are miraculously the smartest person on earth, or is it because you are a deluded crank? It's pretty obvious which it is to everyone but yourself and other conspiracy peddlers.

edoo 8y ago
Ad hominem attacks are the sign you have left logic at the wayside and are running on emotion. It is often a sign that your belief, true or not, has been reinforced with false logic, as when confronted with true logic you are unable to appropriately respond. Don't worry, we all get better with practice.
- chillwaves 8y ago
  Falacy Falacy. It's not nice that the meanie head called you names, but where is your actual citation? Where are actual studies to back up your claims? You just repeat yourself here, as elsewhere, that somehow an "ad hominem" by your opponite supports your view? That's not how this works and is in fact, ironically, an ad hominem attack.
- normal_man 8y ago
  I actually have a theory about debate club weenies like yourself - you act in such an annoying and objectionable way to force people to roast you, because saying "ah, adhominem, therefore I win" is the only way you can win since your arguments can never withstand scrutiny
- vertexFarm 8y ago
  Condescending, gets hung up on form and image instead of substance. Pretty obvious deflection. Everybody runs on emotion as well as reason, and there are perfectly reasonable situations to get emotional. Maybe you get a lot of ad-hominem attacks because you deserve it. Want the debate club response? Just endless, endless sources and studies and data. They are out there and they are overwhelming and conclusive. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2995507/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2995507/ https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ Be sure to click through and check out all the individual citations. I wonder if you'll actually live up to your supposed principles and care about the evidence.

andruby 8y ago

* citation needed

edoo 8y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_yqIj38UmY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_yqIj38UmY The solar physicist community has the current most accurate climate models and they only crunch sun data and not C02 data in any way. Those models show lowering temperatures as we now enter a maunder minimum. Those models will pan out or not in the next few years. Their claim is falsifiable.
- rhcom2 8y ago
  A talk by a climate change denial lobbying group isn't going to convince anyone.
  - edoo 8y ago
    They are doing real science. Their models will be proven wrong or not. All the CO2 based climate models have already been proven wrong. Odd that you would be so against finding out the truth.
    - rhcom2 8y ago
      I look forward to reading their peer reviewed work then. Otherwise I'm going to take any organization with such an obvious conflict of interest with a giant grain of salt.
    - b_tterc_p 8y ago
      I have a model that says you’re a shill. It’d be weird if you contested that because my model is scientific.
      - edoo 8y ago
        If you have a falsifiable claim let's test it. Otherwise I win, you devolved to ad hominem attacks in the face of logic.

PhasmaFelis 8y ago

> The best research on the table at the moment shows we may be facing a super maunder minimum and possible mini ice age. That's not "the best research," that's the research that fits your worldview most comfortably. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/09/the-imminent-mini-ice-age-myth-is-back-and-its-still-wrong https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...

edoo 8y ago
It is the research with the most accurate models at the moment. It used to be consensus that the world was flat. Consensus is not science. Only falsifiable claims are science.
- normal_man 8y ago
  A lot of people who share your view on climate change still think the world is flat. Something to think about.
  - edoo 8y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean about my view. Perhaps you can explain? It is a fact all atmospheric climate models have failed. The temperature rise predictions based on atmospheric CO2 have not materialized. It is a fact there are other models that are more accurate than atmospheric models. It is a fact we will find out in a few years if those models are tracking or not. Are you against performance scientific inquiry if it conflicts with your assumptions? Isn't that the entire point of science, to find out the truth?
    - rhcom2 8y ago
      > It is a fact all atmospheric climate models have failed. That isn't a fact.