Climate change: July set to be world's warmest month on record

[Tippaporn]

11 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

<snip>

Unfortunately, our political overlords - who generally speaking have no scientific training, poor critical thinking skills, and their own political careers at the forefront of their thinking -  always tend to believe the most alarmist worst-case scenarios and act on those.

<snip>

 

"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.

[Danderman123]

40 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

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.

Nope. 

 

Until and unless someone disproves the scientific consensus, a reasonable person should assume the consensus is the best explanation available.

 

Just ranting about a consensus being bad WITH ZERO EVIDENCE is just demonstrating a psychological issue.

 

Attacking the consensus on the basis that the data is faulty is okay - if you can prove the data is faulty. 

 

Attacking the consensus because you don't like the idea of a consensus is just  a symptom of a deeper problem.

 

You have made many posts - zero disproving the data underlying the scientific consensus. That's pathological.

 

I don't even recall you specifically stating that the consensus about Global Warming is wrong, only that you don't believe in the idea of a scientific consensus.

 

is there a scientific consensus in another field you abject to? 

[Tippaporn]

12 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

<snip> data that proves that Global Warming is real.
<snip>

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.

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, Tippaporn said:

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.

You are being pedantic yet again. Previously you were focusing on the term Consensus. So to please you, her is an alternative to both that and the hypothesis distraction that you have now focused on:

 

"The vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities primarily the human burning of fossil fuels have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s climate. This is based on over a century of scientific evidence forming the structural backbone of today's civilization."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tippaporn]

6 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Nope. 

 

Until and unless someone disproves the scientific consensus, a reasonable person should assume the consensus is the best explanation available.

 

Just ranting about a consensus being bad WITH ZERO EVIDENCE is just demonstrating a psychological issue.

 

Attacking the consensus on the basis that the data is faulty is okay - if you can prove the data is faulty. 

 

Attacking the consensus because you don't like the idea of a consensus is just  a symptom of a deeper problem.

 

You have made many posts - zero disproving the data underlying the scientific consensus. That's pathological.

 

I don't even recall you specifically stating that the consensus about Global Warming is wrong, only that you don't believe in the idea of a scientific consensus.

 

is there a scientific consensus in another field you abject to? 

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.

[Tippaporn]

Double post.

[Tippaporn]

5 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

You are being pedantic yet again. Previously you were focusing on the term Consensus. So to please you, her is an alternative to both that and the hypothesis distraction that you have now focused on:

 

"The vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities primarily the human burning of fossil fuels have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s climate. This is based on over a century of scientific evidence forming the structural backbone of today's civilization."

Oh my, another dead horse.

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Oh my, another dead horse.

Numerous links have been provided to the above. I've asked you to back up your beliefs numerous times too. You have nothing aside from deflection and trolling.

[Tippaporn]

7 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Numerous links have been provided to the above. I've asked you to back up your beliefs numerous times too. You have nothing aside from deflection and trolling.

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.

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, Tippaporn said:

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.

 You asked me if consensus = truth? Can't remember that. But if you did and I missed it then the simple answer to that is, of course not. As an example of that the vast majority of MAGA are of the consensus that Trump won the previous election. However all evidence is that is not the case.

 

Whereas the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. This is based on over a century of scientific evidence

 

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions.

 

See the difference? No probably not, I'm sure it will revert back to word games rather than you providing peer reviewed studies that dispute the facts already provided.

[Yellowtail]

53 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Trolling.

 

I asked about what is causing the recent additional warming, but you gave an unresponsive answer.

 

It's almost as if you know that human caused pollution is causing the planet to warm, and you can't deny it, so instead you troll.

 

Sad. Why would anyone do that?

I have stated any number of times and told you specifically at least a few times that I believe the Earth is warming, and that I further believe the warming is due at least in large part to human activities that include burning fossil fuels. 

 

What is sad is that you and others continue to call me a denier and hold me up as some kind of fool, while you seem to think yourself brilliant.

 

[Yellowtail]

7 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

 You asked me if consensus = truth? Can't remember that. But if you did and I missed it then the simple answer to that is, of course not. As an example of that the vast majority of MAGA are of the consensus that Trump won the previous election. However all evidence is that is not the case.

 

Whereas the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. This is based on over a century of scientific evidence

 

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions.

 

See the difference? No probably not, I'm sure it will revert back to word games rather than you providing peer reviewed studies that dispute the facts already provided.

That's hilarious. 

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

That's hilarious. 

Put a laughing emoji on it then if that all you've got.

[Tippaporn]

27 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

 You asked me if consensus = truth? Can't remember that. But if you did and I missed it then the simple answer to that is, of course not. As an example of that the vast majority of MAGA are of the consensus that Trump won the previous election. However all evidence is that is not the case.

 

Whereas the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. This is based on over a century of scientific evidence

 

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions.

 

See the difference? No probably not, I'm sure it will revert back to word games rather than you providing peer reviewed studies that dispute the facts already provided.

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.

[Bkk Brian]

23 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

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.

Quote these numerous posts where you have actually asked me that before in a straight questions?

 

I'll ignore your nonsense remarks about dead horses and whether I'm a serious poster, its serves nothing to deflect from the facts I provide.

 

 

[Danderman123]

3 hours ago, Eleftheros said:

For the second time, define what you mean by the "Global Warming Hypothesis", because otherwise it is a meaninglessly broad and vague question.

Google is your friend:

 

"Global warming is the current rise in temperature of the air and oceans. It is happening mainly because humans burn coal, oil, and natural gas; and cut down forests."

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

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.

I've got it!

 

I will take a cue from the movie Ragnarok, where the Grandmaster got bent out of shape whenever someone called his captives "slaves". So they were called "people who work for free", and he was okay with that.

 

No more "scientific consensus" about Global Warming. Instead, we will just say "the best explanation for the current global warming".

 

I would be thrilled if someone were to claim that the Global Warming hypothesis/theory is not the best explanation (or that there isn't any warming).

 

Remember - no more talk of consensus, it triggers some posters here. It's "the best explanation for the current global warming".

 

TBECGW is the acronym. 

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

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.

Do you have anything to comment about this topic, which is about Global Warming?

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

Put a laughing emoji on it then if that all you've got.

A laughing emoji would not let me highlight the line I thought was hilarious.

 

You have nothing. 

 

[Yellowtail]

35 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Google is your friend:

 

"Global warming is the current rise in temperature of the air and oceans. It is happening mainly because humans burn coal, oil, and natural gas; and cut down forests."

Google is only a friend to the Left. 

[Danderman123]

Global warming is devastating the southern California table grape industry, as warmer winters cause grapes to lose their sweetness. As a result, farmers are forced to either exit the business, or tear out their old grapes and replace them with different vareties of grape that don't require cold winters.

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

A laughing emoji would not let me highlight the line I thought was hilarious.

 

You have nothing. 

 

That was a quote from NASA what do you find so amusing about it?

 

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

[Tippaporn]

9 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Quote the post where you have actually asked me that before in a straight question?

 

I'll ignore your nonsense remarks about dead horses and whether I'm a serious poster, its serves nothing to deflect from the facts I provide.

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.

[Bkk Brian]

21 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

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.

Your claim:

 

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?
 

So you didn't ask me directly numerous times, as I thought. Now back to the topic at hand which is something you'd rather avoid I know. Guess what I'm waiting from and have asked you directly for?

 

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.

 

Still waiting for some credible peer reviewed scientific studies if you want to debate.

 

And all you have is belief and prayer since you have no credible sources that you've posted, at least not yet, still waiting.

[Danderman123]

10 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

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.

Yeah, no more "scientific consensus", it's "the best explanation for the current global warming".

[Tippaporn]

37 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Do you have anything to comment about this topic, which is about Global Warming?

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. 

[Tippaporn]

11 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Your claim:

 

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?
 

So you didn't ask me directly numerous times, as I thought. Now back to the topic at hand which is something you'd rather avoid I know. Guess what I'm waiting from and and have asked you directly for?

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.

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

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.

Off topic nonsense again. But happy to hear your speechless, perhaps less now of the waffle you sprout every time your asked for a link to back up your beliefs

[Yellowtail]

43 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Global warming is devastating the southern California table grape industry, as warmer winters cause grapes to lose their sweetness. As a result, farmers are forced to either exit the business, or tear out their old grapes and replace them with different vareties of grape that don't require cold winters.

Do you have anything that supports this? 

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

Back on topic:

 

This chart provides estimates on current policies to reduce, or at least slow down growth, in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions will have some impact on reducing future warming.

 

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions