‘Climate Change’ Is No More Credible than Magic Says Top Physicist

[JonnyRingo84]

Now that I have taken you to the woodshed, you are reduced to ad hominem of insinuating I am unqualified to discuss climate science.

I entered the discussion in response to your post. By your own metric, you were unqualified to start things off with your catastrophic pronouncements about apple trees.

Engaging in logical fallacies, such as ad hominem, is a departure from scientific discussion and an embrace of sophistry.

lol

it wasnt meant as an insult. maybe some insecurity there on your part?

you may have taken physiology and biology in school, but if i explained that you may not be qualified to diagnose someone with bell's palsy....would that be an ad hominem insult? no, it would just be the truth, intelligent and educated as you may be. it isnt your field.

for the 3rd time.....i was explaining to that poster about why people are fearful of climate change. its not because people fear theyre going to burn alive, or have or have to live underground. its because of very plausible effects on plants and animals that we rely on to live. along with the potential impacts of sea level rise.

 

[gatchaman]

lol

it wasnt meant as an insult. maybe some insecurity there on your part?

you may have taken physiology and biology in school, but if i explained that you may not be qualified to diagnose someone with bell's palsy....would that be an ad hominem insult? no, it would just be the truth, intelligent and educated as you may be. it isnt your field.

for the 3rd time.....i was explaining to that poster about why people are fearful of climate change. its not because people fear theyre going to burn alive, or have or have to live underground. its because of very plausible effects on plants and animals that we rely on to live. along with the potential impacts of sea level rise.

You are continuing to depart from scientific discussion by defending your sophistry of ad hominem. The reason that science is published is to convince others. It is the content of the publication that should do the convincing, not the cover of the journal.

In medicine, the standard of practice is for a physician to obtained your informed consent to his intervention. A physician may just post his degree on the wall and appeal to his own status as an authority, but some patients may desire more information. If an opinion is doubted, I have no objection to someone seeking more information or even a second opinion.

You state that your apple example is illustration of why people fear climate change, but it is really illustration of why you fear climate change. Can you link me to examples of people crying out, "Won't someone please think of the apples!" Your apple example was of fear based on speculation, and speculation is ultimately pointless; I speculate that the apple trees will one day grow where there is now arctic tundra, equally pointless. I am trying to enlighten you on the difference between sophistry by ad hominem, unfounded speculation, etc and actual scientific discussion based on empiricism, falsification, replication, etc.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

The reason that science is published is to convince others.

mehhhhh idk about that one.

id say the bigger reason is replication, and as a control for empiricism. publication is now a part of the process of science, not the end game of it.

It is the content of the publication that should do the convincing, not the cover of the journal.

right. why are you telling me this?

In medicine, the standard of practice is for a physician to obtained your informed consent to his intervention. A physician may just post his degree on the wall and appeal to his own status as an authority, but some patients may desire more information. If an opinion is doubted, I have no objection to someone seeking more information or even a second opinion.

one should be skeptical and make informed decisions, and many are qualified to do so. but cherrypicking random data and interpreting it for yourself is dumb. thats been my experience with climate change debates on internet forums. and then there is the shilling aspect to it.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

looks like youve debunked it all. alert the media.

To be fair, disproving the current theory of man made climate change isn't exactly some monumental brain-feat. It happens all the time, it's just that proponents of the theory of man made climate change refuse to listen.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

ive been in these climate science debates before, and i know what it turns into.

Yes, yes you have.

two or more people unqualified to interpret the data theyre mining and pasting,

This is not one of those instances. @gatchaman made an excellent argument and backed it up with solid, irrefutable data. You may be talking about yourself, but certainly not gatchaman in this debate.

going on and on and on and on only to convince the other person of nothing.

Actually, gatchaman's data was quite convincing.

and with the presence of shilling on both sides of issues like this,

What was the point of bringing up "both sides"? This is an instance where one side is correct, and the other side is incorrect.

i limit the effort that i put into forum posting these days.

This is as close as I've ever seen Johnny Ringo just waving the white flag. Congrats gatchaman.

 

[gatchaman]

mehhhhh idk about that one.

id say the bigger reason is replication, and as a control for empiricism. publication is now a part of the process of science, not the end game of it.

right. why are you telling me this?

one should be skeptical and make informed decisions, and many are qualified to do so. but cherrypicking random data and interpreting it for yourself is dumb. thats been my experience with climate change debates on internet forums. and then there is the shilling aspect to it.

Scientific journals are a form of media although not the form that first comes to mind when the word "media" is used. I maintain that a journal article is published (Perhaps I should clarify that to "submitted for publication") to convince others of a scientific conclusion. Of course, humility dictates acceptance that a better conclusion may come along, but scientific publication itself is not immune to sophistry. An interesting example would be the difference in opinion between Semmelweis and Virchow on the importance of hand washing before delivering babies.

I am telling you this because of your post recommending someone to tell the media about my observations. I guess I could also be telling Helden who uses ad hominem to attack information because it comes from a blog. Sherdog forums are media, and I am posting here to convince others of my views (Farmer Br0wn may have already been favorably disposed to my arguments, but perhaps I have convinced him of some new line of argument that he will spread elsewhere. Thanks @Farmer Br0wn for the congratulations by the way.). And what are Sherdog forums but a series of blog posts? I ask you not to judge the information as inferior entirely because it is not on CNN or in Nature.

What dumb cherry-picking have I engaged in? How would you characterize your own presentation of information (Perhaps we will invent a new term, "apple-picking".)?

 

[JonnyRingo84]

To be fair, disproving the current theory of man made climate change isn't exactly some monumental brain-feat. It happens all the time, it's just that proponents of the theory of man made climate change refuse to listen.

thats gotta be what it is. no other plausible explanation.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

irrefutable data.

what was it that i was saying about people who are unqualified to speak on and interpret this type of data? you've proven my point with these two words.

duning kruger effect

 

[JonnyRingo84]

Scientific journals are a form of media although not the form that first comes to mind when the word "media" is used. I maintain that a journal article is published (Perhaps I should clarify that to "submitted for publication") to convince others of a scientific conclusion. Of course, humility dictates acceptance that a better conclusion may come along, but scientific publication itself is not immune to sophistry. An interesting example would be the difference in opinion between Semmelweis and Virchow on the importance of hand washing before delivering babies.

again, id claim that its main importance is a type of quality control. sure, try to convince us on your research conclusions, but above all post your methodology and procedures.

I am telling you this because of your post recommending someone to tell the media about my observations. I guess I could also be telling Helden who uses ad hominem to attack information because it comes from a blog. Sherdog forums are media, and I am posting here to convince others of my views (Farmer Br0wn may have already been favorably disposed to my arguments, but perhaps I have convinced him of some new line of argument that he will spread elsewhere. Thanks @Farmer Br0wn for the congratulations by the way.). And what are Sherdog forums but a series of blog posts? I ask you not to judge the information as inferior entirely because it is not on CNN or in Nature.

ok.

What dumb cherry-picking have I engaged in? How would you characterize your own presentation of information (Perhaps we will invent a new term, "apple-picking".)?

you win.

 

[Huked on foniks]

If you do not have enough science literacy to discuss the science itself then you are vulnerable to manipulation by propaganda.

When I press others on their views of scientific discoveries, I find that their opinions often come down to just parroting the opinion they heard on TV; this form of appeal to authority is unconvincing to me.

Pretty much this.

 

[Prefect]

...Guess this guy doesn't have enough feels for those poor polar bears. He should be protested. Better get on that Antifa, chop chop. Fascist weather denier obviously calling for a beat down.

Well, he should publish a study then. It will receive peer review and if it is as true as he says, it should be able to overturn the hundreds of other studies that say otherwise. That is how science works. The system doesn't just change its stance on things because someone says they 'doubt' something.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

what was it that i was saying about people who are unqualified to speak on and interpret this type of data? you've proven my point with these two words.

duning kruger effect

If @gatchaman 's data is so lacking, and so easily refutable, why are you unable to refute it?

You've lost this debate Jonny.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

If @gatchaman 's data is so lacking, and so easily refutable, why are you unable to refute it?

already explained.

You've lost this debate Jonny.

youre right.

 

[skold]

If @gatchaman 's data is so lacking, and so easily refutable, why are you unable to refute it?

You've lost this debate Jonny.

It's been already refuted earlier

 

[Stitches4snitches]

@KONE does this mean that this physicist and the conservatives that don't believe in climate change in this thread are dumber than liberals?

Curious how this works.

 

[peytonlucy]

Just tell us what the sea level measured in a finite place on a finite date will be. Then we will take your models seriously.

 

[FIMN]

Just tell us what the sea level measured in a finite place on a finite date will be. Then we will take your models seriously.

All models are wrong, but some are useful.

 

[djacobox372]

Richard Lindzen used to agree with man-made global warming, but switched his views when it became mainstream. He also doesn't believe that smoking is linked to cancer.

Basically he's a contrarian that always seems to adopt the controversial stance.

People like him are an important thing to have in science, as skeptics are what help refine and perfect theories. But that doesn't mean you should take him, or any other single person, at their word.

 

[Bagatur]

for every "top physicist" like that there are thousands of others who say otherwise. but of course the idiots will believe this one.