2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I find this interesting:

"As Thomas Kuhn noted. a scientific revolution isn't complete until the older generation of scientists dies off."

What is Thomas Kuhn suggesting here?  That "group think" is operative within the science community?  And not until the last of that group has died off can we move on to . . . to . . . a new generation of "group think?"  That's something to consider, isn't it?

"And if they are lying about it, it would have to be on a mass basis."

Would it have anything to do with the new "group think?"

BTW, are there no older generation scientists who are ardent believers of climate change?  If there are then doesn't that fact kinda play havoc with Kuhn's conclusion?

Or perhaps there's more in play which would account for so many like-minded scientist on climate change.  Tell me, placeholder, what happens to a scientist whose conclusions are counter to the conclusions of climate change scientists?

Nobel Prize Winner Who Doesn't Believe Climate Crisis Has Speech Canceled

"Nobel Laureate (Physics 2022) Dr. John Clauser was to present a seminar on climate models to the IMF on Thursday and now his talk has been summarily cancelled," the Co2 Coalition said in a statement. "According to an email he received last evening, the Director of the Independent Evaluation Office of the International Monetary Fund, Pablo Moreno, had read the flyer for John's July 25 zoom talk and summarily and immediately canceled the talk. Technically, it was 'postponed,'" the statement added.

 

Again, is it a matter of naiveté on your part that you would pretend that pressure to conform to the "consensus" scientists doesn't exist?

This article rather sums it up nicely in a single sentence.

The four types of climate denier, and why you should ignore them all

But the deniers are not all the same. They tend to fit into one of four different categories: the shill, the grifter, the egomaniac and the ideological fool.

Judgment Day:

The science is clear, the severity understood at the highest levels everywhere, and serious debates about what to do are turning into action. The deniers have nothing to contribute to this.

What is this?  Mob rule?  Blowing off contrary views ain't science.  It's mob rule.  And you're all for it!! 

What can be said to someone who believes either in mass conspiracy or mass hypnosis? The fact is that the climate change model has proven to be wildly successful. And your silly misrepresentation of Thomas Kuhn's work not worth responding to in detail. When Copernicus declard that the earth orbited around the sun, it met with lots of opposition from the old guard. As I pointed out earlier, Louis Agassiz, a justly eminent scientist, rejected the theory of evolution. It's not a matter of groupthink when a new theory enjoys massive confirmatory success and the opposition to it repeatedly comes up empty.

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I know that sea level rise where I live is measured in millimeters per year, and I can see for myself that the rise is insignificant in 60 years.

Is it your contention that sea level rises higher in certain parts of the planet from other parts of the planet?

Wow. You're really showing how little you know about the issues. Sea level does rise at different levels in different parts of the planet.

 

Another factor that makes sea level rise complex is that it’s not uniform around the globe. If you look at a global map of sea level rise, you’ll find it’s happening rapidly in some places and more slowly in others. This means that although sea level rise affects coastal areas all over our ocean planet, some regions feel its effects sooner and more severely than others

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3002/sea-level-101-part-two-all-sea-level-is-local/

10 minutes ago, placeholder said:

It's still ridiculous. They were talking about teaching computers how to judge information. Why would  you even bring that up. And what you thought was evidence that supported your case actually undermined it. You're the one who keeps on claiming that the climatologists' work is based on statistical trends and not on real science. As per usual, you've got it backwards.

Am I going to have another Bkk Brian moment, only this time with you?  Is the old saying, third time's the charm, going to play out with you.  Or will you be suffering from memory loss as well?

 

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Yet for people like you and me, those of us who are not privy to any of the raw data, or the actual source of the raw data, and can never validate it's true authenticity, we are left in a singular position.  One of trust.  Are you in disagreement here?  I cannot conceive that you would not be as you are not a climatologist, you are not engaged in research, and you do not have access to the raw data or can validate it's authenticity yourself.

Well?  Is your entire climate change position built upon trusting what you've been told, which includes the "science?"  Because let's face it, you have no first hand knowledge of any of it.

 

". . . real science."

What is real science, placeholder?  The science that East Anglia produced to gin up that global warming was real?  It's a simple point, placeholder.  You trust what you're told without the slightest questioning or without investigating all of the evidence and theories yourself.  You've accepted the "science" which has been explained to you as God's word.  Sure, the "science" you've been fed appears sensical and comes with it's own logic and evidence.  If you can trust the evidence.  We don't trust the "science" as science has been exposed, especially in recent years on a number of different issues, for corrupt practices.  Sorry, dude, we ain't whitewashing like you are.

And just one last point.

"You're the one who keeps on claiming that the climatologists' work is based on statistical trends and not on real science."

I've never made such a claim.  Ever.  Again you're making things up out of whole cloth and accusing me of whatever fantasies you create.  Which is something I've been harping on throughout this thread.  The outright deceptive tactics used by the climate believers.  If you've gotta make things up and make use of a lot of logical fallacies in your arguments then why would anyone trust what you say?

I had the thought earlier to do a short recap of all of these different tactics and entitle the recap "The Disingenuous Indicator."  Kinda on par with WaPo's Pinocchio ratings.  This one will just focus on all of the deceptive tactics used and create a comprehensive list of them.

Nothing to see here because, you know, it gets hot in summer. One of the anti climate change warriors here thinks that's all there is to it.

 

Earth has sweltered through its hottest Northern Hemisphere summer ever measured, with a record warm August capping a season of brutal and deadly temperatures, according to the World Meteorological Organization.

Last month was not only the hottest August scientists ever recorded by far with modern equipment, it was also the second hottest month measured, behind only July 2023, WMO and the European climate service Copernicus announced Wednesday.

 

https://apnews.com/article/un-hottest-summer-climate-change-b7c7936070952da781af01288607b1f1

31 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

The flatness of the Earth was massively supported by evidence for thousands of years before it wasn't. 

 

 

Scientific evidence?

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Scientific evidence?

I think the scientific evidence was that it was flat. That's not to suggest that all scientific evidence is wrong which is the far right rationale. Unfortunately, some of our number haven't updated their scientific knowledge from that time. I guess they consider that science doesn't get better over time.

23 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Am I going to have another Bkk Brian moment, only this time with you?  Is the old saying, third time's the charm, going to play out with you.  Or will you be suffering from memory loss as well?

 

Well?  Is your entire climate change position built upon trusting what you've been told, which includes the "science?"  Because let's face it, you have no first hand knowledge of any of it.

 

". . . real science."

What is real science, placeholder?  The science that East Anglia produced to gin up that global warming was real?  It's a simple point, placeholder.  You trust what you're told without the slightest questioning or without investigating all of the evidence and theories yourself.  You've accepted the "science" which has been explained to you as God's word.  Sure, the "science" you've been fed appears sensical and comes with it's own logic and evidence.  If you can trust the evidence.  We don't trust the "science" as science has been exposed, especially in recent years on a number of different issues, for corrupt practices.  Sorry, dude, we ain't whitewashing like you are.

And just one last point.

"You're the one who keeps on claiming that the climatologists' work is based on statistical trends and not on real science."

I've never made such a claim.  Ever.  Again you're making things up out of whole cloth and accusing me of whatever fantasies you create.  Which is something I've been harping on throughout this thread.  The outright deceptive tactics used by the climate believers.  If you've gotta make things up and make use of a lot of logical fallacies in your arguments then why would anyone trust what you say?

I had the thought earlier to do a short recap of all of these different tactics and entitle the recap "The Disingenuous Indicator."  Kinda on par with WaPo's Pinocchio ratings.  This one will just focus on all of the deceptive tactics used and create a comprehensive list of them.

I don't have the patience to keep on addressing your logorrhea. It shows how unbalanced your expectations are that you actually think it's reasonable to expect someone to read a 17 page treatise on problems with machine learning! If you have any specific science-based objections to actual climatology research, as opposed to broad claims about conspiracy, groupthink, and and various malign influences, I will be happy to engage. Otherwise not. I won't be holding my breath.

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I think the scientific evidence was that it was flat. That's not to suggest that all scientific evidence is wrong which is the far right rationale. Unfortunately, some of our number haven't updated their scientific knowledge from that time. I guess they consider that science doesn't get better over time.

Really? The first evidence we have of recognizable science being practiced is from the ancient Greeks. They believed the earth was round. Apparently, they came to this conclusion from observing that during an eclipse the shadow of the earth on the moon was round .

Just now, placeholder said:

Really? The first evidence we have of recognizable science being practiced is from the ancient Greeks. They believed the earth was round. Apparently, they came to this conclusion from observing that during an eclipse the shadow of the earth on the moon was round .

My view of science is that it has existed since Adam was a cadet. In other words, there has never been a time in the human era before science. Early folks must have concluded that since the moon revolved around the Earth then the sun must as well. This obvious misconception had a clear logical rationale. That was science, in my view. The extent of our literary history does not define the bounds of science.

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

My view of science is that it has existed since Adam was a cadet. In other words, there has never been a time in the human era before science. Early folks must have concluded that since the moon revolved around the Earth then the sun must as well. This obvious misconception had a clear logical rationale. That was science, in my view. The extent of our literary history does not define the bounds of science.

Thanks for sharing your view. You got any actual evidence to back up your take on this? Do you even have evidence that ancient people believed that the moon revolved around the earth. To have believed that, they would have had to believe that the earth is spherical. Do you have any evidence to support that?

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Thanks for sharing your view. You got any actual evidence to back up your take on this? Do you even have evidence that ancient people believed that the moon revolved around the earth. To have believed that, they would have had to believe that the earth is spherical. Do you have any evidence to support that?

Regardless of evidence which might be difficult to procure for pre literate times, your conclusion that if they believed that the moon revolved around the Earth (we know that was believed quite long ago) it doesn't mean they necessary believed the planet was spherical. That's a non-sequitur to my mind.

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Regardless of evidence which might be difficult to procure for pre literate times, your conclusion that if they believed that the moon revolved around the Earth (we know that was believed quite long ago) it doesn't mean they necessary believed the planet was spherical. That's a non-sequitur to my mind.

When you come with a thing called actual evidence, let me know.

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.html

Sea levels have indeed risen, but some isolated spots have geological processes causing them to rise. Very few places have those processes working to make them rise.

 

 

20 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

My view of science is that it has existed since Adam was a cadet. In other words, there has never been a time in the human era before science. Early folks must have concluded that since the moon revolved around the Earth then the sun must as well. This obvious misconception had a clear logical rationale. That was science, in my view. The extent of our literary history does not define the bounds of science.

Science is a process.

 

It's not the same as knowledge. You are describing knowledge, not science.

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.html

Thanks for the link!

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Am I going to have another Bkk Brian moment, only this time with you?  Is the old saying, third time's the charm, going to play out with you.  Or will you be suffering from memory loss as well?

 

Well?  Is your entire climate change position built upon trusting what you've been told, which includes the "science?"  Because let's face it, you have no first hand knowledge of any of it.

 

". . . real science."

What is real science, placeholder?  The science that East Anglia produced to gin up that global warming was real?  It's a simple point, placeholder.  You trust what you're told without the slightest questioning or without investigating all of the evidence and theories yourself.  You've accepted the "science" which has been explained to you as God's word.  Sure, the "science" you've been fed appears sensical and comes with it's own logic and evidence.  If you can trust the evidence.  We don't trust the "science" as science has been exposed, especially in recent years on a number of different issues, for corrupt practices.  Sorry, dude, we ain't whitewashing like you are.

And just one last point.

"You're the one who keeps on claiming that the climatologists' work is based on statistical trends and not on real science."

I've never made such a claim.  Ever.  Again you're making things up out of whole cloth and accusing me of whatever fantasies you create.  Which is something I've been harping on throughout this thread.  The outright deceptive tactics used by the climate believers.  If you've gotta make things up and make use of a lot of logical fallacies in your arguments then why would anyone trust what you say?

I had the thought earlier to do a short recap of all of these different tactics and entitle the recap "The Disingenuous Indicator."  Kinda on par with WaPo's Pinocchio ratings.  This one will just focus on all of the deceptive tactics used and create a comprehensive list of them.

The planet is warming.

 

Do you disagree?

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

The flatness of the Earth was massively supported by evidence for thousands of years before it wasn't. 

 

 

Except that the Greeks demonstrated via science that the Earth was round.

 

To this day, there are deadenders who think that Climate Change isn't real.

17 minutes ago, placeholder said:

When you come with a thing called actual evidence, let me know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model

12 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Science is a process.

 

It's not the same as knowledge. You are describing knowledge, not science.

Knowledge is a memory of experiences. Science is a deduction from observation. That's a process. Philosophy and science are intertwined.

 

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model

This links to evidence supporting your speculations about pre-history? Can you point out to me what specific reference in the article specifies this?

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

 

This links to evidence supporting your speculations about pre-history? Can you point out to me what specific reference in the article specifies this?

It's reasonable to consider that what was believed at the earliest time we have literary recordings was also believed before that. Long before that.

39 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I don't have the patience to keep on addressing your logorrhea. It shows how unbalanced your expectations are that you actually think it's reasonable to expect someone to read a 17 page treatise on problems with machine learning! If you have any specific science-based objections to actual climatology research, as opposed to broad claims about conspiracy, groupthink, and and various malign influences, I will be happy to engage. Otherwise not. I won't be holding my breath.

Gee, the post you replied to has no mention of the 17 page paper I cited earlier.  But you did refuse to answer a simple question for the third time.

Again you're being disingenuous because it's not at all a lack of patience on your part.  It's because I've raised so many issues which you cannot contend with in an honest fashion.  So in typical fashion of someone who cannot answer questions you just flat out refuse, make some plausible but bogus excuse for doing so, and then step away.  I've seen politicians do it hundreds of times.  You're no different.  You truly do believe you're fooling people, eh? 

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Gee, the post you replied to has no mention of the 17 page paper I cited earlier.  But you did refuse to answer a simple question for the third time.

Again you're being disingenuous because it's not at all a lack of patience on your part.  It's because I've raised so many issues which you cannot contend with in an honest fashion.  So in typical fashion of someone who cannot answer questions you just flat out refuse, make some plausible but bogus excuse for doing so, and then step away.  I've seen politicians do it hundreds of times.  You're no different.  You truly do believe you're fooling people, eh? 

I think I missed it too. Was the paper about climate change?

I have no idea what any of you guys are talking about.

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Scientific evidence?

Sure

Please provide a link to a credible source to back up your assertion.

9 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

I have no idea what any of you guys are talking about.

We were talking about you falsely claiming CO2 is trapping water vapor in the atmosphere, and we were wondering when you were going to support it, or admit you were wrong. 

 

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Please provide a link to a credible source to back up your assertion.

Flat Earth - Wikipedia

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Please provide a link to a credible source to back up your assertion.

Please provide a link to a credible source to back up your assertion the firearms producers have very little enviromental impact. 

8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Flat Earth - Wikipedia

You claimed that there was scientific evidence to support this belief. I never disputed that it was believed.