Originally posted by twhiteheadIt has quite often been the case that scientists are the last ones to alter their views to minority data. From Pasteur to Einstein their peers jeered them for not going along with the majority who were wrong.
Being in the majority in science makes one far more likely to be correct. In economics, it doesn't.
If you wish to use scientific opinion to back up a claim, it better be the majority opinion or it doesn't hold much weight.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by QuarlIf you think that out of context phrases taken from emails between four scientists presents a problem for the scientific community at large - or that it reflects poorly on how science is done, you clearly don't understand the scientific process. Smear campaigns like that have only one purpose, to confuse non-scientists - make it harder for them to trust science - which is really never a very good idea. It leads to bad ideas like not vaccinating your child, or refusal to help lower co2 emissions in the world - the kind of things that will only cost more (one way or the other) in the end. Not helpful, and completely counter-productive.
"All The Collected Scientific Evidence."
East Anglia disagrees with your statement. They believe scientific consensus will occur when you fabricate the evidence you bring to the table.
Read the emails.
Originally posted by C HessEast Anglia isn't the only case. The clear message we get from climate change chicken littles is that they will do anything to promote their agenda which has little to do with climatology.
If you think that out of context phrases taken from emails between four scientists presents a problem for the scientific community at large - or that it reflects poorly on how science is done, you clearly don't understand the scientific process. Smear campaigns like that have only one purpose, to confuse non-scientists - make it harder for them to trust scien ...[text shortened]... nly cost more (one way or the other) in the end. Not helpful, and completely counter-productive.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by normbenignEast anglia is not even a case, as I explained. If you have any examples of climatologists fabricating data (for real) and not being exposed by the rest of the scientific community, do tell.
East Anglia isn't the only case. The clear message we get from climate change chicken littles is that they will do anything to promote their agenda which has little to do with climatology.
07 Oct 14
1 edit
Originally posted by C HessAnyone who reads for themselves the emails ,un-edited, as written by the individuals at East Anglia themselves there is no possibility of them being "out of context." I invite anyone and everyone to do themselves a favour and read the emails for themselves and not base their opinion on anything you or I write in these posts.
If you think that out of context phrases taken from emails between four scientists presents a problem for the scientific community at large - or that it reflects poorly on how science is done, you clearly don't understand the scientific process.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
08 Oct 14
Originally posted by QuarlAw, this is cute, however weak of you, since you know that few will have time to read all the emails, and most don't really understand the scientific jargon used in them. By vocally proclaiming that you're certain anyone who reads the emails in full will surely see how it's all a fraud, you think you escape the need to demonstrate yourself how the emails illuminate a scientific fraud.
Anyone who reads for themselves the emails [b],un-edited, as written by the individuals at East Anglia themselves there is no possibility of them being "out of context." I invite anyone and everyone to do themselves a favour and read the emails for themselves and not base their opinion on anything you or I write in these posts.[/b]
I can only assume that the reason you don't want to talk about specifics is that you've realised that there are quite a few among us who do understand the science and jargon used, so you will have your proverbial fingers slapped if you indeed try to propagate this smear campaign in present reader company.
Is that it? You unwittingly walked into a forum of scientifically literate people with your baseless accusations against the scientific community? Aw, you poor thing.
If indeed you have actual evidence that human accelerated climate change is a sham, do present them. In fact, why not release them somewhere where the entire world can enjoy them? You'll no doubt change the nature of this entire conversation, and I for one will be greatful to you - greet you as a hero even, because if there is one thing I hate, it's being wrong longer than necessary.
08 Oct 14
Originally posted by normbenignSorry, but that doesn't support your claim. Your claim was that scientists were the last ones to alter their views. You need to provide an example of a scientific finding for which the general public changed their views before the majority of scientists did.
http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html
09 Oct 14
Originally posted by C HessSo – “I have unwittingly walked into a forum of scientifically literate people” have I? 😀 Am I safe to assume you consider yourself the biggest fish in this small pond? I have written nothing that should have prompted you to impugn my intelligence not to mention your insult of every person on this site, asserting your superiority by saying "most don't really understand the scientific jargon" inferring they should rely on your interpretation of same.
Aw, this is cute, however weak of you, since you know that few will have time to read all the emails, and most don't really understand the scientific jargon used in them. By vocally proclaiming that you're certain anyone who reads the emails in full will surely see how it's all a fraud, you think you escape the need to demonstrate yourself how the emails illu ...[text shortened]... ou as a hero even, because if there is one thing I hate, it's being wrong longer than necessary.
I could retaliate by saying you present yourself as a self absorbed, pompous snollygloster, but I shall not because I’m sure all others on this site are fully aware of your obvious character traits.
I will close with this: I stand by my statement that others read for themselves and not rely on you. Anyone who has followed anthropogenic global warming, now having morphed into climate change, will have realized it is a religion to the converts.
I have long since realized there is a better chance of arguing religion with a Jihadist Muslim than trying to argue causes of temperature changes with a wild-eyed acolyte of the religion of anthropogenic global warming.
09 Oct 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou misrepresent my claim. It was that the majority of scientists were resistant to change. The general public went along with the majority just as it does today.
Sorry, but that doesn't support your claim. Your claim was that scientists were the last ones to alter their views. You need to provide an example of a scientific finding for which the general public changed their views before the majority of scientists did.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
09 Oct 14
Originally posted by QuarlSnollygloster? I'm the snollygloster? That's a wonderful word, by the way. 🙂
So – “I have unwittingly walked into a forum of scientifically literate people” have I? 😀 Am I safe to assume you consider yourself the biggest fish in this small pond? I have written nothing that should have prompted you to impugn my intelligence not to mention your insult of every person on this site, asserting your superiority by saying [i]"most don't rea ...[text shortened]... of temperature changes with a wild-eyed acolyte of the religion of anthropogenic global warming.
Anyway, no I don't consider myself the biggest fish. Far from it. I do know my way around scientific litterature however. And most who are not scientifically literate (your audience) do in fact not understand some of the jargon used in those letters. But no one need trust me when it took eight (I think) independent investigations into these letters to clear these four scientist's names.
You calling it anthropogenic global warming morphing into climate change says everything. One has not morphed into the other. It is an anthropogenic global warming/climate change going on, as all collected data supports. Global warming is an accurate description. And climate change also captures this same process. You've no doubt heard, on a cold winter's day: "so much for global warming". That's a prime example of not getting what global warming implies. And that's the most explained and obvious term used, so how do you think normal people react to scientists saying they're using Mike's Nature trick and things like that? Sounds fishy, unless you put it in context and know what it refers to.
The fact that you've retaliated with no examples demonstrating scientific fraud I think says it all. Implying that I'm a devout follower of a religion for demanding that you provide examples is rich, when all you do is refer to emails that have already been demonstrated by several independent investigations to not contain any damning evidence against climate change, as though none of those investigations took place. Talk about religious dedication. And to get an idea of the insignificance of those emails in the larger context, I think Jay Gulledge put it best:
...the fact remains that the CRU emails center on such a small sliver of the many independent lines of evidence for human-induced global warming that losing it would be about as consequential as a mosquito bite on a bull moose.
You are far more eloquent than me though, so in that respect I be but your humble admirer. And while you hardly come across as pompous (unlike me I guess), I think it's perfectly clear who the snollygloster is.
Man, I love that word: snollygloster. 🙂