Tippaporn

". . . thought to have been accelerated by climate change." Everyone understands the scam of the phrasing. What "thought to be" really means is "due to climate change unless otherwise proven not to be." So much is "thought to be" due to climate change yet no empirical proof tying the two together exists. empirical - derived from or guided by direct experience or by experiment, rather than abstract principles or theory All of these "thought to be" statements are derived from abstract principles or theories yet they're deceptively repeated again and again for the sole purpose of implying that there is a connection between event "X" and climate change. News flash: when people understand the scam they can no longer be fooled and recognise all of the deceptive mechanism used immediately. Why do climate change believers need to resort to deceptive practices? When people resort to deceptive practices what statement does it make about them?

You've a bad habit of sticking words in peoples' mouths, placeholder. My claim about earlier science being overturned? Where? When? This is what you're replying to. Let me ask you this question. Can you name me a single instance in the modern age of science in which there was unanimous or near unanimous consensus of some established scientific fact or evidence which at some point in the future was overturned? I admit I lost interest after the third sentence. I don't need a history lesson on science, nor am I looking to be impressed by your great scientific knowledge. You could have just said that no scientific findings have ever been wrong (at least completely). Or something like that. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sometimes-science-is-wrong/

Well, go take your complaint to Danderman123. He's the one who made a post about it. I just replied. Whyya pickin' on little ol' me?

Unfortunately your energy bills will be unaffordable. Many agree more renewable energy is indeed worth striving for. But there are barriers stopping more renewable energy from being produced. One of those major barriers is cost. According to a U.S.-based organization, the bulk of renewable energy costs come from building the technology in the first place. A new natural gas plant might have costs around $1,000/kW (kilowatts are a measure of power capacity). While the average cost to install a solar system ranges from $2,000/kW to almost $3,700 for residential systems. Wind costs around $1,200 to $1,700/kW, according to the organization. Cost is also an issue when it comes to transmission of the electricity—the power lines and infrastructure needed to move electricity from where it’s generated to where it’s consumed. Wind and solar farms aren’t all sited near old non-renewable power plants. This means that new systems need to be set up. Other barriers to renewable energy include market entry and political/government support. https://naturespath.com/blogs/posts/cost-renewable-energy-versus-fossil-fuels In case anyone's thinking that their energy cost will be kept affordable via government grants and subsidies best keep in mind that any government grants and subsides come from tax dollars. As your energy costs go down via grants and subsidies your taxes go up in a revised version of stealing from Peter to pay Paul. In this version it's stealing from Peter to pay Peter. I know it doesn't make sense but it does to politicians Also keep in mind that green energy such as solar and wind is intermittent, which means that service would be non-existent if no sun or wind. That would not work for businesses which require round the clock service. To fill the gap energy must then be stored, another huge and costly expense. 1. The 2020 Cost and Performance Assessment provided installed costs for six energy storage technologies: lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries, lead-acid batteries, vanadium redox flow batteries, pumped storage hydro, compressed-air energy storage, and hydrogen energy storage. The assessment adds zinc batteries, thermal energy storage, and gravitational energy storage. https://www.energy.gov/eere/analysis/2022-grid-energy-storage-technology-cost-and-performance-assessment Then consider the damage to the earth to produce whatever type of storage required, depending on MW. And the cost and damage for depleted batteries? And BTW, what on poor ol' earth will we do with all of those unrecyclable depleted wind turbines? is it possible to recycle them? At what cost? Why has no one gotten ninto the business yet? What's the cost of dumping them somewhere? Will that be a hidden cost, again borne by taxpayers? What happens to all the old wind turbines? https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51325101 How about depleted batteries? On and on and on. Are we trying to go green without possessing the technology to do it efficiently and safely yet? I know y'all hate those greedy oil companies. Of course green energy will solve that problem because there won't be any greedy green energy companies, right? At least in an ideal world, which is what green energy is all about creating. Good people coming together holding hands singing kumbaya to save dear old earth.

Works for everyone else. Just not the Africans. Stunning logic.

I thought liberals didn't post anything until it was fact checked. The first decisive National Academy of Science study of carbon dioxide's impact on climate, published in 1979, abandoned "inadvertent climate modification." Often called the Charney Report for its chairman, Jule Charney of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, declared: "if carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we find] no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible."3 In place of inadvertent climate modification, Charney adopted Broecker's usage. When referring to surface temperature change, Charney used "global warming." When discussing the many other changes that would be induced by increasing carbon dioxide, Charney used "climate change." 3 National Academy of Science, Carbon Dioxide and Climate, Washington, D.C., 1979, p. vii. https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html What else might you be wrong about? I shudder to think.

WOW!!! The chutzpah is outta this world. For someone who tends to be verbose and is adept at expressing myself I'm utterly speechless. You've left not a shred of doubt as to who I'm dealing with.

You're confusing me. It was Global Warming but that was changed to Climate Change when global warming was shown not to be happening. They changed it so that Climate Change could mean damn near anything anyone wanted. Too much hot weather is due Climate Change. Too much cold weather is due to Climate Change. Too much rain is due to Climate Change. Drought is due to Climate Change. Disease is due to Climate Change. Forest fires, especially Maui, are due to Climate Change. Hurricanes off LA are due to Climate Change. My failed marriage is due to Climate Change. When did it get changed back? Global Warming is such a limited concept. There are many aspects to whatever you want to call it today. The fact that articles, such as the OP, use consensus abundantly makes it part of the Climate Change issue. Not the nitty gritty "science" aspects of it but it's directly related via it's inference that consensus amongst scientists makes it all true. It's a centerpiece of the claim that "the science is settled." Ah, your just pulling my leg and I fell for it by replying.

Posts. Plural. I will even though it should be incumbent upon you to double check your own "faulty" memory. Or maybe you're hoping I'm too lazy and we'll just move on, leaving doubt amongst everyone else whether or not your memory lapse was real or not. So here's the full exchange that proves that it's not possible to have had a memory lapse. Granted, the initial posts did not straight up ask you but made you aware of the issue I raised. After I did ask "in a straight question" it is then undeniable that you were aware of the "straight question" but never answered after my repeatedly asking you. So do tell what's really going on. My first mention on the issue of consensus in a reply to placeholder. No ask but neither did you bother to address the issue: "Another piece of evidence which exposes the disingenuous nature of the climate change cultists is the constant touting of the consensus line "scientists agree," or "the majority of scientists agree" (90% is a favourite number used because it's psychologically closest to 100% agreement; and 100% agreement would represent proof positive). Everyone knows that consensus does not equate to proof. Yet again and again you hear this worthless, and highly debatable, factoid being passed off falsely as proof that the climate hoax is in fact real. Following the purest definition of democracy, or mob rule as it is commonly known, the majority now gets to define what fact, proof and truth is via consensus. No one who is even remotely interested in honesty and truth should ever even mention the word consensus in any of their arguments." I included a linked notification to you that you were mentioned. "I'll let this post be my single response to other's who have replied to me in recent days. @ Danderman123 @ heybruce @ Bkk Brian This was a reply to you, but no ask and you did not address the point: And finally, as I had mentioned in my previous post, in which I linked a notification specifically to you, I'll requote myself on my stance regarding the endless loop of data, studies, graphs, etc. which is offered by the climate change believers here. You obviously didn't read it or you would have saved yourself the time and effort to post more data, studies, graphs, etc. which I simply ignore after so many circular trips to nowhere on this bizarre merry-go-round. This also a reply to you. And the first time I asked you directly: I don't mean to step on Red Phoenix's toes by butting in here but I couldn't help but notice that you made zero mention of Crichton's absolutely spot on critique of the fictitious, deceptive, and fallacious logic of "consensus science." Do you agree with Crichton? I must warn you in advance that if you do agree and in the future you reference the "overwhelming consensus of scientists agree . . ." or some such similar phrasing then you can be sure that I'll dig this post up again. And if you don't agree then what would be your rationale and logic for disagreeing? And if you decide not to reply either way and ignore this post, well, we'll just have to conclude the obvious. This is where things get interesting as you begin deflecting: "I tend never to ignore posts but I do point out the facts and provided the links to debunk Crichton essays. All the info is there if you care to read, you obviously haven't otherwise why ask me?" My reply, hitting you over the head for not answering (ouch): But I did read both of them. The word "consensus" appears in only one article and once only: [Quote from article] In challenging the scientific consensus, Crichton rehashes points familiar to those who follow such issues. That single reference does not at all relate to the Crichton material supplied by Red Phoenix, which was solely dedicated to the topic of consensus specifically as it is used to insinuate something as fact and true merely due to the agreement of parties. Regardless of the fact that you point to those articles with the implication that your answer to consensus is contained within them, though it obviously is not, you should still be able to answer whether or not you believe that consensus equals fact, truth and proof. Why don't you then? You may very well not ignore posts but in acknowledging them yet at the same time not addressing their content then you may as well be ignoring them. The result is the same, is it not? No answer. Sad to say bu so far I think we are left no option but to conclude the obvious. Your reply, in which you directly acknowledged the issue of consensus: [Quoting me] That single reference does not at all relate to the Crichton material supplied by Red Phoenix, which was solely dedicated to the topic of consensus specifically as it is used to insinuate something as fact and true merely due to the agreement of parties. So tell me, why on earth would I debate a critical piece on Scientific Consensus written by a well known fiction writer where the article uses NASA as his link to disparage and fails miserably. The facts are all in the link https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ He has not in any way debunked any of those facts contained. Michael Crichton, world’s most famous global warming denier, dies Then he used his fame in the most destructive way possible — to cast doubt on the overwhelming scientific understanding of global warming, to urge people not to take action against the gravest preventable threat to the health and well-being of future generations. In 2004, he published State of Fear, a deeply flawed novel that attacks climate science and climate scientists. Although a work of fiction, the book had a clear political agenda, as evidenced by Crichton’s December 7, 2004 press release: https://archive.thinkprogress.org/michael-crichton-worlds-most-famous-global-warming-denier-dies-147caec78b70/ If you want to debate, link to credible peer reviewed studies from climate scientists that have sources attached and I'll be more than happy to do so. My reply, again hammering you on the head and requesting an answer: No, I'm not going to let you back out of answering, excusing yourself via deflection by raising and moving to an unrelated issue; that of Crichton's qualifications in weighing in on climate change. Whether he is correct or incorrect in any of his views has zero bearing on the issue of whether or not consensus equates to fact, truth or proof of a theory. In fact, I had raised the issue directly previous to Red Phoenix's post, which I'm sure he posted purely in support of what I had said. And the issue of consensus is one of the central points to the article which this topic is about. [Quote for the OP] Scientists agree the extra heat is mainly linked to fossil fuel use. [Requoting myself] Another piece of evidence which exposes the disingenuous nature of the climate change cultists is the constant touting of the consensus line "scientists agree," or "the majority of scientists agree" (90% is a favourite number used because it's psychologically closest to 100% agreement; and 100% agreement would represent proof positive). Everyone knows that consensus does not equate to proof. Yet again and again you hear this worthless, and highly debatable, factoid being passed off falsely as proof that the climate hoax is in fact real. Following the purest definition of democracy, or mob rule as it is commonly known, the majority now gets to define what fact, proof and truth is via consensus. No one who is even remotely interested in honesty and truth should ever even mention the word consensus in any of their arguments. Not only is consensus central to the article, ii is central to the entire debate over climate change. The use of consensus by the climate change movement is not only disingenuous and uses deceptive logic, it is flat out false. Article after article after article about climate change makes mention of consensus to mislead people into believing that it equates to climate change being real. "Scientists agree" and all of the variations in phrasing is meant purely to deceive for they are empty, irrelevant statements. In fact, the argument of consensus is a recognised formal argumentative fallacy. It's termed Argumentum ad populum and per Wiki: Argumentum ad populum is a type of informal fallacy,[1][14] specifically a fallacy of relevance,[15][16] and is similar to an argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam).[14][4][9] It uses an appeal to the beliefs, tastes, or values of a group of people,[12] stating that because a certain opinion or attitude is held by a majority, it is therefore correct. BTW, you can throw in argumentum ad verecundiam as another logical fallacy which is, how shall I say it, liberally used in climate change articles and debates. I will also mention that until climate change is definitively and incontrovertibly proven fact it is to that point mere belief. Granted, that belief may have evidence to support the conclusion upon which the belief is based. But regardless of the quantity of evidence nonetheless it is still only a belief. For there always exists countering evidence. So I'll ask you once more, Bkk Brian, do you agree that consensus does not equate to fact nor truth nor proof? And if not then state your case. And if you still refuse to answer then, as I've said, we can all assume the obvious. Understand that I am in no way attempting to put you on the spot nor am I presenting this with any singular malicious intent to expose you but by failing to answer you must also understand that you will automatically expose yourself. Now I will say that any climate change article that uses argumentum ad populum or argumentum ad verecundiam to sway the public's opinion is an article that is not to be trusted. For if it knowingly relies on fallacious logic, with full awareness that it is false, then what other information may the article be conveying which might be false yet slipped in as the odds are gamed such that the uninformed public may not be perceptive enough to recognise the falsity of the information? And when people do not have access to the full information it is very easy to dupe them. Imagine now that the climate change movement would forever be denied the use of this deceptive argumentative tool. They would then have to rely purely on their evidence and studies but they would no longer be able to make the claim that their evidence and studies are true and correct because "scientists agree." Other information and theories, though they may not be in the majority, would then have equal standing. After that the truth is determined strictly on the basis of merit. Your reply, where it appears you've understood nothing I had written: [Quoting me] "No, I'm not going to let you back out of answering" Where does Crichton's short article debunk https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ You know, the one referenced in the link were his article is and that Red Phoenix's post left out? It was the whole point of placing Crichton's fiction there to debunk it by the author Mark J. Perry. So explain how is it debunked? My final reply in this exchange, expressing my frustration as it seemed no matter how clearly I expressed the issue you seemed lost in space: This is pointless, Brian. What has Crichton to do with the subject of whether or not consensus has any validity? Nothing. You're totally off the wall. But you have exposed yourself. Your final reply which, given that the issue was clearly defined, was unintelligible to me as it was totally unrelated to the question I posed to you: Yes totally pointless Crichton's article was placed there by the author Mark J. Perry to debunk the NASA link and failed on all scores. Still waiting for some credible peer reviewed scientific studies if you want to debate. The exchange picks up again. My reply to Danderman123: This much is established: [Quoting myself] In fact, the argument of consensus is a recognised formal argumentative fallacy. It's termed Argumentum ad populum and per Wiki: Argumentum ad populum is a type of informal fallacy,[1][14] specifically a fallacy of relevance,[15][16] and is similar to an argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam).[14][4][9] It uses an appeal to the beliefs, tastes, or values of a group of people,[12] stating that because a certain opinion or attitude is held by a majority, it is therefore correct. If you understand that the argumentative use of consensus is a fallacy of relevance, and therefore false, why do you continue to use it to bolster your argument? Would you agree that it's use, being that it's false, is therefore dishonest? And if anyone purposely uses a known falsity then what might one conclude from that? You chime in: [Quoting me] Would you agree that it's use, being that it's false, is therefore dishonest? No I deduce you are the one posting false information. Do scientists agree on climate change? Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here. https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change My reply: I'm posting information from Wiki on long established and accepted fallacies of argument. Consensus being one of them. To say that I'm posting false information is to say that Wiki's page on fallacies of argument is false information since I simply copied and pasted it. So saying that I'm posting false information is patently false. And BOOM!! you immediately post an article on scientific consensus which suggests that consensus makes something true. I mean, what does the above say? Well, it's more than obvious. BTW, neither @ Danderman123 nor @ placeholder have offered to address this issue. Hmmmm . . . I wonder why? You reply back: You place a lot on wiki based on Consensus, in which case here's something else from Wiki for you: [Screenshot of Wiki article on Scientific Consensus] Oh and here's another wiki entry for you. [Another screenshot and a link to Wiki's Scientific Consensus On Climate Change] One further reply from me and another from you but I think we have enough.

You can't remember me asking numerous times? You can't recall me beating you over the head about not answering? You think I'm going to believe that you can't remember me asking? I will give you kudos for answering correctly. Give credit when deserved. And healthy criticism when deserved, too. Goes both ways, to be fair. The rest of your post is nonsense, just like your memory lapse is nonsense. Now you're either a serious poster or I will quit beating the dead horses you toss at me. You can then go ahead and keep talking to yourself, aka some of the other posters here.

From the guy who refused to give a straight up yes or no answer to the simplest of questions, "Does consensus equal truth?" BTW, very little gets by me, Bkk Brian. ". . . back up your beliefs . . ." Your evidence is truth. My evidence is belief. So deceptive. So shallow.

Oh my, another dead horse.

Double post.

I don't think there's anything I could abject to. I wouldn't even know how to abject. I will only repeat myself so many times, Danderman123. But at some point I do stop beating a dead horse. “I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand it.” ― R. Gaston That's the problem in a nutshell, Danderman123. Everything you wrote is proof of Gaston's quote. Had you understood anything I've written you would never have been able to write the nonsense you did. I'm ready to write you off as a basket case.

First it's proven, then it a hypothesis, and now it's proven again. Danderman123, I don't think you know whether you're coming or going. Accuracy matters. You want accuracy in data, do you not? This is sloppy.

"Never let a good crisis go to waste." - Winston Churchill Famously reprised by Rahm Emanuel during the Obama administration in response to the 2008 financial crisis "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." As I said, I wish we lived in a world where devious people did not exist.

Sorry, Danderman123, but you're not very good at what you do. You're not much of a challenge.

I thought it was fact. The science is settled, isn't it? I thought you got the memo.

Thanks you for that admission, placeholder. Truly. And I am not at all being facetious. Let me ask you this question. Can you name me a single instance in the modern age of science in which there was unanimous or near unanimous consensus of some established scientific fact or evidence which at some point in the future was overturned? Any such instance you can find would serve as a poster child example of why consensus, or agreement, no matter the degree of it, does not make something true. Or false. Only proof can do this. And even then it will always be open to the possibility that one day it may be disproved. That is the true nature of science. Science is not about "Hey, everybody, here's what we found to be true so everybody else shut the f up." That is what we have here on this thread now. Another question. Is that what you want to be part of? The reason I have so focused on consensus is, as I've stated several times, it is used maliciously and deceptively to give the illusion to an ill-informed and thus susceptible public that consensus makes something true. It affords the ability to create studies about this, that, and the other - on any issue someone may wish to benefit from - tout the consensus line that "the majority of scientists agree" and thus God has spoken. Once God has spoken then anyone who speaks against God is a heretic, an idiot - you're well aware of what is done to dissenters so I don't have to make a complete list. And then the policy makers take over to implement exactly what they want to do. And they have "the science" to back them. Now I wish we lived in a world in which devious people did not exist. But ours is not such a world So I do not fool myself in the least and therefore look with a very discerning eye whenever policies are driven and backed by "science." Especially . . . especially when you are not allowed to even question the "science." Now either I'm conspiratorial or I'm just making an accurate assessment of the real world but I have noticed that there are great sums of money involved in all issues. Climate change is most certainly, most definitely one of those issues. Eleftheros gets it. Many others here get it, too. Because the idea of a consensus is used, always, to create some single fixed and sacred unchallengable narrative (as with global warming and many other topics), and is thus the opposite of science.

Hypothesis? Did you just admit it's all hypothesis? It's the closest I've seen you come to any truth thus far, Danderman123. Congratulations! Better late to the party than never.

Eleftheros explains it perfectly. Twist it anyway you like via the creation of categories, or by made up exemptions, or any other rubbish logic you prefer to use for the sole and simple purpose of you being correct, placeholder. Here's the definition of consensus: 1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month. 2. general agreement or concord; harmony. Consensus, or agreement about anything, whether it's on evidence, conclusions, opinions, etc. does not make anything true or false.

Can you pick out which fallacy relates to the use of your example? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Eleftheros, how is it that you understand my posts yet the climate change believers can't seem to? Come on, tell us your secret to understanding plain English and logic.

You forgot the punchline: "So we believe."

Well said as well.