Why are some people still skeptical about climate change?

[Spendulus]

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/in-praise-of-the-gilets-jaunes/


For years we have lived in a climate of ‘You can’t say that’. You can’t criticise mass immigration — that’s xenophobia. You can’t oppose the EU — that’s Europhobia. You can’t raise concerns about radical Islam — that’s Islamophobia. You can’t agitate against climate-change policy — that’s climate-change denialism, on a par with Holocaust denialism, and anyone who dares to bristle against eco-orthodoxy deserves to be cast out of polite society. And yet now, in this populist moment, people are daring to say precisely these unsayable things. They’re standing up to the EU. They’re demanding that immigration become a democratic concern rather than something worked out for us by unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels. And now they’re even grating against the hitherto unquestionable religious-style diktat that we must all drive less, shop less and do less in order to ‘save the planet’.

[mOgliE]

Just to remind you you're a bit alone here.
http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/

94% of scientists agree that global warming is real and 84% that it's human based.

How does it feel to be in the same bag as people claiming Earth is flat or evolution is a lie?

[TECSHARE]

Just to remind you you're a bit alone here.
http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/

94% of scientists agree that global warming is real and 84% that it's human based.

How does it feel to be in the same bag as people claiming Earth is flat or evolution is a lie?

You are a fucking moron, this has already been repeatedly addressed in this thread, and this is not how science works.

[mOgliE]

You are a fucking moron, this has already been repeatedly addressed in this thread, and this is not how science works.

Oh sorryyyyyyyy I didn't know science didn't work as a cooperative peer to peer consensus. Oh silly me who forgot that science is only 100% hard proofs or nothing!

I can be dumb sometimes right?

I mean we obviously only have a binary system in science: proved and not proved.

That's how things work  

EDIT: I might be a fucking moron but at least I'm not in the same bag as Flat Earthers or Evolution denyers. Funny you're the one claiming to be a "logical and scientific" fellas. I guess the 94% of scientists of the planet are as dumb as me?

[mOgliE]

Now if you would please present the empirical data showing that global warming is a result of anthropogenic climate change, as a direct result of human C02 output. Not theories. Not opinions. Not simulations. Not projections. Empirical data.

Oh my god I forgot that xD

TECSHARE you're really a funny guy!

Well the bad side is that you actually have the right to vote... That's one of the problems of democracy, even people without the slightest insight of how science or logic work can vote.

Still it's funny! So i guess you gonna come back all grumpy asking for some "SOLID EMPIRICAL DATA" right?

[TECSHARE]

You are a fucking moron, this has already been repeatedly addressed in this thread, and this is not how science works.

Oh sorryyyyyyyy I didn't know science didn't work as a cooperative peer to peer consensus. Oh silly me who forgot that science is only 100% hard proofs or nothing!

I can be dumb sometimes right?

I mean we obviously only have a binary system in science: proved and not proved.

That's how things work 

EDIT: I might be a fucking moron but at least I'm not in the same bag as Flat Earthers or Evolution denyers. Funny you're the one claiming to be a "logical and scientific" fellas. I guess the 94% of scientists of the planet are as dumb as me?

Before you have consensus you need to produce empirical data, none of which you are able to present. You don't get to skip the most critical step of the scientific method then still claim you are representing science.

"94% of the scientists on the planet" I reiterate - you are a moron.

Now if you would please present the empirical data showing that global warming is a result of anthropogenic climate change, as a direct result of human C02 output. Not theories. Not opinions. Not simulations. Not projections. Empirical data.

Oh my god I forgot that xD

TECSHARE you're really a funny guy!

Well the bad side is that you actually have the right to vote... That's one of the problems of democracy, even people without the slightest insight of how science or logic work can vote.

Still it's funny! So i guess you gonna come back all grumpy asking for some "SOLID EMPIRICAL DATA" right?

Yeah, everyone knows empirical data is meaningless in science.

[Spendulus]

Just to remind you you're a bit alone here.
http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/

94% of scientists agree that global warming is real and 84% that it's human based.

How does it feel to be in the same bag as people claiming Earth is flat or evolution is a lie?

You know, I would hope, that you have really presented a very unscientific viewpoint here.

(Go along with what I/we say the majority says on a subject.)

How does it feel to be in the same bag as people claiming Earth is flat or evolution is a lie?


Argument by ridicule.

You are smarter than this and can do better.

[TECSHARE]

Just to remind you you're a bit alone here.
http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/

94% of scientists agree that global warming is real and 84% that it's human based.

How does it feel to be in the same bag as people claiming Earth is flat or evolution is a lie?

You know, I would hope, that you have really presented a very unscientific viewpoint here.

(Go along with what I/we say the majority says on a subject.)

How does it feel to be in the same bag as people claiming Earth is flat or evolution is a lie?


Argument by ridicule.

You are smarter than this and can do better.

No, he's not, and he can't. He already thinks he is preaching from a position of intellectual superiority as you can tell from his flat earth comments as if these subjects have any relation.

[mOgliE]

Of course I can't.

There is nothing that can be answered to you, you can't be proven wrong.

Using ridiculous comparison is a tool to try to make you think a little bit but it doesn't seem it has worked.


You are asking for empirical data linking temperature rise, CO2 levels and human activity.
This doesn't exist, cannot exist, will never exist. That's all.


But if like TECSHARE you believe that's how science work, then you just need to go back to school. This is not how science work, this has never been and will never be.

[TECSHARE]

Of course I can't.

There is nothing that can be answered to you, you can't be proven wrong.

Using ridiculous comparison is a tool to try to make you think a little bit but it doesn't seem it has worked.


You are asking for empirical data linking temperature rise, CO2 levels and human activity.
This doesn't exist, cannot exist, will never exist. That's all.


But if like TECSHARE you believe that's how science work, then you just need to go back to school. This is not how science work, this has never been and will never be.

No, I will admit when I am wrong, but you aren't smart enough to be the guy to put me in that position in the overwhelming majority of cases. At least you can admit your global warming cult has no empirical data backing it, and therefore has no science backing it.

[mOgliE]

Before you have consensus you need to produce empirical data, none of which you are able to present. You don't get to skip the most critical step of the scientific method then still claim you are representing science.
[...]
Yeah, everyone knows empirical data is meaningless in science.

This is simply false.

Serious question coming.

I got my degree in computer science so I don't do much research. But I think I know about 30 to 35 people working in research currently or having worked in research in the last 10 years. From numerous background: Chemistry, Photonic, Quantum Physics and 3 in "soft science" such as psychology.

I don't know anyone working like that. Science isn't all about empirical data at all contrary to what you think... Have you ever talked to someone working as a scientific? Actually making some research?

[mOgliE]

No, I will admit when I am wrong, but you aren't smart enough to be the guy to put me in that position in the overwhelming majority of cases. At least you can admit your global warming cult has no empirical data backing it, and therefore no science backing it.

Absolutely not.

I'll admit there is no scientifical data linking temperature rise, CO2 levels and human activities. That's COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from saying there is no empirical data backing global warming theories.

I'll try to turn the table a bit.

What would you consider a reasonnable proof?

[TECSHARE]

Before you have consensus you need to produce empirical data, none of which you are able to present. You don't get to skip the most critical step of the scientific method then still claim you are representing science.
[...]
Yeah, everyone knows empirical data is meaningless in science.

This is simply false.

Serious question coming.

I got my degree in computer science so I don't do much research. But I think I know about 30 to 35 people working in research currently or having worked in research in the last 10 years. From numerous background: Chemistry, Photonic, Quantum Physics and 3 in "soft science" such as psychology.

I don't know anyone working like that. Science isn't all about empirical data at all contrary to what you think... Have you ever talked to someone working as a scientific? Actually making some research?

Lets review scientific method:




Hmm... looks like you are skipping the most critical step which is where the actual evidence comes from and substituting more theories instead.




You don't get scientific knowledge thru osmosis (look it up), so mentioning you know people who do research is meaningless. Every statement you make gives me ever more examples of your total inability to comprehend science and scientific method.

[mOgliE]

-snip-

Ok well I did my best but you really don't want to try and read. You just build your own walls and I can't do much against that...

Do you agree on the fact that matter is made of atoms?

How do you think this theory was created? Where do you think it comes from? Empirical data?
Absolutely not.
Because there was no data... The technical means of the 19th century didn't allow John Dalton to imagine experiments. There was no experiments! He just imagined a theory and it answered some good questions, seemed logical, had no counter examples.

You seem to believe science is either "proven" or "not proven" but that's not the case... I don't know how to tell you otherwise: it doesn't work that way. That's all.


EDIT: To be clear.
If there is an experiment to test your theory then empirical data is essential.
If there is no experiment to test your theory, then empirical data is meaningless but it doesn't mean the theory is.

Is it easy enough to understand like this?

[Astargath]

-snip-

Ok well I did my best but you really don't want to try and read. You just build your own walls and I can't do much against that...

Do you agree on the fact that matter is made of atoms?

How do you think this theory was created? Where do you think it comes from? Empirical data?
Absolutely not.
Because there was no data... The technical means of the 19th century didn't allow John Dalton to imagine experiments. There was no experiments! He just imagined a theory and it answered some good questions, seemed logical, had no counter examples.

You seem to believe science is either "proven" or "not proven" but that's not the case... I don't know how to tell you otherwise: it doesn't work that way. That's all.

Oh yeah, I remember what it is to debate with TECSHARE. He just throws a bunch of studies or statistics around and thinks he is clever. He never makes his own assumptions about anything, probably unable to.

[TECSHARE]

-snip-

EDIT: To be clear.
If there is an experiment to test your theory then empirical data is essential.
If there is no experiment to test your theory, then empirical data is meaningless but it doesn't mean the theory is.

Is it easy enough to understand like this?

Once again, that's not how it works, as anyone with a high school level science education knows. Empirical data doesn't become "meaningless", and neither do theories. The fact is they are simply not interchangable even under these circumstances.

TL;DR

STOP PRETENDING YOUR THEORIES ARE SCIENCE

Oh yeah, I remember what it is to debate with TECSHARE. He just throws a bunch of studies or statistics around and thinks he is clever. He never makes his own assumptions about anything, probably unable to.

So what part of the topic does this have to do with? I know you are obsessed with me, but please try to contribute something.

[mOgliE]

Once again, that's not how it works, as anyone with a high school level science education knows. Empirical data doesn't become "meaningless", and neither do theories. The fact is they are simply not interchangable even under these circumstances.

Damn, seems my engineering degree is false then.

Let's do some revert thinking then. What would you accept as a reasonnable evidence of climate change proof?

I KNOW that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, but the fact is that pretty much everyone agrees that the provided evidences are, by large, enough to prove the claim. You're saying it's not the case.

Please then what would be a solid proof?

[coins4commies]

I'll admit there is no scientifical data linking temperature rise, CO2 levels and human activities.

What?

No data supporting the greenhouse effect?

No data showing how much carbon humans have released into the atmosphere?

Maybe you meant there is no deductive proof but the association of combustion--->CO2----> warming is solid

[mOgliE]

Maybe you meant there is no deductive proof but the association of combustion--->CO2----> warming is solid

Of course but TECSHARE is simply denying that.
There are proof for temperature rise, CO2 levels and human activity producing CO2. There aren't any data for the link between the two simply because such data can't possibly exist. And all his argumentation is to say that the linked aren't proven because there is no data which is a complete logical fallacy of course.

But I already tried this way so I'm trying another right now. I have few hopes but well...

[TECSHARE]

Once again, that's not how it works, as anyone with a high school level science education knows. Empirical data doesn't become "meaningless", and neither do theories. The fact is they are simply not interchangable even under these circumstances.

Damn, seems my engineering degree is false then.

Let's do some revert thinking then. What would you accept as a reasonnable evidence of climate change proof?

I KNOW that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, but the fact is that pretty much everyone agrees that the provided evidences are, by large, enough to prove the claim. You're saying it's not the case.

Please then what would be a solid proof?

If you are an engineer I hope to Christ you don't engineer anything people's lives depend on. Either way engineers are not research scientists. Engineers are trained to be told what a data-set and tolerances are and follow that, they aren't trained in research science, so the fact you have an engineering degree is meaningless.

Lets not do some "revert thinking" where you try to pawn off the burden of proof upon me when it is yours as the one presenting the premise. "pretty much everyone" does not agree, and your supposed support of that claim has been thoroughly demonstrated to be garbage already in previous analysis of your "94% of all scientists" figure.


Instead of solid proof, how about you start with some empirical data, ANY EMPIRICAL DATA... AT ALL.

Maybe you meant there is no deductive proof but the association of combustion--->CO2----> warming is solid

Of course but TECSHARE is simply denying that.
There are proof for temperature rise, CO2 levels and human activity producing CO2. There aren't any data for the link between the two simply because such data can't possibly exist. And all his argumentation is to say that the linked aren't proven because there is no data which is a complete logical fallacy of course.

But I already tried this way so I'm trying another right now. I have few hopes but well...

You don't even know the definitions of the words you use and you are trying to lecture me on scientific theory. There is no link between climate change and human activity proven. End of story. There is no fallacy here, except you trying to claim it is a fallacy.

I'll admit there is no scientifical data linking temperature rise, CO2 levels and human activities.

What?

No data supporting the greenhouse effect?

No data showing how much carbon humans have released into the atmosphere?

Maybe you meant there is no deductive proof but the association of combustion--->CO2----> warming is solid

Oh look, its Captain Postmodern with his astounding powers of poor reading comprehension just to round this all off.