Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Science Returns

Page 4 of 6 [ 89 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

21 Feb 2019, 3:47 pm

EzraS wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
Ironic, considering you yourself argue that others cannot possibly posses abc or xyz knowledge because they don’t have a specific credential.


Isn't it? It's almost like he's constantly moving the goalposts in any conversation you have with him. Or something. :lol:


No that's goldfish objecting to the fact that I've pointed out he has no degree in science, medicine, psychology etc to back up his claim that he discovered the cause of autism and discovered the ultimate treatment for it based on his amateur self diagnosis.


You act as if I’m the first human to figure out how to treat what ails him. I suppose I should be flattered.


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.


karathraceandherspecialdestiny
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Jan 2017
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,857

21 Feb 2019, 4:47 pm

EzraS wrote:
You are displaying being very much in the dark as to who the climate change scientists are. Even if the list I provided is inaccurate, you should still have some comprehensive knowledge of who does and doesn't belong on a list of the top climate scientists.

https://thebestschools.org/features/top ... scientists.

Nonetheless parroting usually means copying and repeating what others say.


There is no reason I would know off-hand who the top climate scientists are in the world without looking that up. I'm not a climate scientist so there is no reason for me to know that. I trust scientists that when they say 97% of them agree on something they are telling me the truth, because why would they lie about a consensus on the information they have gathered and analyzed? Your idea that anyone who knows anything about anything also would know off-hand the names of all the top scientists in any field they know even the remotest facts about is ridiculous and unreasonable, but you know that already and that's why you are arguing it.

I see that the list you provided came from a source where they explain in detail how the person has studied climate science for years, what aspects of it they specialize in, and that they have been extensively published in peer-reviewed journals, so now I can trust that this list is a good representative list of climate scientists. This is how you check sources, which everyone should do on the information they take in. So now I can trust that these 10 scientists are a good informed source about climate change, and of course they agree with the consensus that climate change is anthropogenic and a serious problem the world needs to address. All that squirming you did so I could be confirmed in my belief in climate change and that informed specialists believe in it too because of the extensive evidence they have studied.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

21 Feb 2019, 10:21 pm

What I'm saying is that if one is going to argue a scientific theory, they're not going to have much credibility when they're arguing it with someone who appears to know more about it than they do. I think if someone is going to talk about what climate change scientists say, they should at least know who some of the most well known climate scientists are. If they don't, it seems pretty obvious that they haven't actually read or listened to anything they have to say. It seems more likely they've just skimmed a few magazine articles written by non-scientist journalists.

Then there's the part where you seemed to discredit a scientist because he had a degree in physics rather than climate science, when it turns out some of those recognized as the top climate scientists also have a degree in physics and other non climate science related fields. It all points to, you don't really know what you're talking about when it comes to climate science.

In addition to going a little extra step in learning a little bit about who some of the most well known consensus climate change scientists are, you should also be a little bit familiar with who the some of the most well known skeptical climate change scientists are, so that you can have at least a basic understanding of the spectrum of that science. Those scientists are also on that list.

And that list isn't exclusive to that source I linked. It's actually pretty common knowledge to those who actually know something about climate science. Just like the names of the most well know political figures are known to those who discuss politics. Can you imagine someone arguing politics without even knowing the names of any politicians?



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

21 Feb 2019, 10:33 pm

goldfish21 wrote:
EzraS wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
Ironic, considering you yourself argue that others cannot possibly posses abc or xyz knowledge because they don’t have a specific credential.


Isn't it? It's almost like he's constantly moving the goalposts in any conversation you have with him. Or something. :lol:


No that's goldfish objecting to the fact that I've pointed out he has no degree in science, medicine, psychology etc to back up his claim that he discovered the cause of autism and discovered the ultimate treatment for it based on his amateur self diagnosis.


You act as if I’m the first human to figure out how to treat what ails him. I suppose I should be flattered.


You flatter yourself by claiming that you discovered the cause of autism and discovered the ultimate treatment for autism.



karathraceandherspecialdestiny
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Jan 2017
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,857

21 Feb 2019, 11:40 pm

EzraS wrote:
What I'm saying is that if one is going to argue a scientific theory, they're not going to have much credibility when they're arguing it with someone who appears to know more about it than they do. I think if someone is going to talk about what climate change scientists say, they should at least know who some of the most well known climate scientists are. If they don't, it seems pretty obvious that they haven't actually read or listened to anything they have to say. It seems more likely they've just skimmed a few magazine articles written by non-scientist journalists.

Then there's the part where you seemed to discredit a scientist because he had a degree in physics rather than climate science, when it turns out some of those recognized as the top climate scientists also have a degree in physics and other non climate science related fields. It all points to, you don't really know what you're talking about when it comes to climate science.

In addition to going a little extra step in learning a little bit about who some of the most well known consensus climate change scientists are, you should also be a little bit familiar with who the some of the most well known skeptical climate change scientists are, so that you can have at least a basic understanding of the spectrum of that science. Those scientists are also on that list.

And that list isn't exclusive to that source I linked. It's actually pretty common knowledge to those who actually know something about climate science. Just like the names of the most well know political figures are known to those who discuss politics. Can you imagine someone arguing politics without even knowing the names of any politicians?


:roll:

I didn't discredit him, I simply pointed out he hasn't published anything on climate science in any reputable peer reviewed journals so you can't assume he is knowledgeable about climate science just because he has a degree in another (unrelated--superconductivity has nothing to do with climate science and no application therein, as far as I am aware) science field.

I don't care to learn about climate deniers and there is no reason for me to research them when they are such a tiny minority. I'll go with what the experts have a consensus on. You can keep making up arguments that don't make any sense if you like just to keep nattering at me, but I'm done proving you wrong now.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

22 Feb 2019, 12:55 am

Since you apparently don't know who any of the top climate scientists are how could you know who has published what? Since several climate scientists have degrees in unrelated fields, that's obviously irrelevant.

You don't even know who the climate scientists are, so it's unlikely you know how many of them there are. All of these scientists pro and con have a mixed bag of degrees and all of them have studied climate change. Piers Corbyn has studied weather and climate patterns for about 65 years. That doesn't make him right, but it does indicate he has extensive knowledge of climate science. How long have the climate scientists you favor, whom you don't even know the names of, studied climate science? That's a rhetorical question of course.

Suit yourself and stay in the dark while asserting arbitrary and anecdotal arguments regarding climate change.



Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

22 Feb 2019, 1:27 am

karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
EzraS wrote:
What I'm saying is that if one is going to argue a scientific theory, they're not going to have much credibility when they're arguing it with someone who appears to know more about it than they do. I think if someone is going to talk about what climate change scientists say, they should at least know who some of the most well known climate scientists are. If they don't, it seems pretty obvious that they haven't actually read or listened to anything they have to say. It seems more likely they've just skimmed a few magazine articles written by non-scientist journalists.

Then there's the part where you seemed to discredit a scientist because he had a degree in physics rather than climate science, when it turns out some of those recognized as the top climate scientists also have a degree in physics and other non climate science related fields. It all points to, you don't really know what you're talking about when it comes to climate science.

In addition to going a little extra step in learning a little bit about who some of the most well known consensus climate change scientists are, you should also be a little bit familiar with who the some of the most well known skeptical climate change scientists are, so that you can have at least a basic understanding of the spectrum of that science. Those scientists are also on that list.

And that list isn't exclusive to that source I linked. It's actually pretty common knowledge to those who actually know something about climate science. Just like the names of the most well know political figures are known to those who discuss politics. Can you imagine someone arguing politics without even knowing the names of any politicians?


:roll:

I didn't discredit him, I simply pointed out he hasn't published anything on climate science in any reputable peer reviewed journals so you can't assume he is knowledgeable about climate science just because he has a degree in another (unrelated--superconductivity has nothing to do with climate science and no application therein, as far as I am aware) science field.

I don't care to learn about climate deniers and there is no reason for me to research them when they are such a tiny minority. I'll go with what the experts have a consensus on. You can keep making up arguments that don't make any sense if you like just to keep nattering at me, but I'm done proving you wrong now.

Considering that he pretend to be able to forecast weather months in advance, I certainly wouldn't give credit to him.


_________________
Down with speculators!! !


karathraceandherspecialdestiny
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Jan 2017
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,857

22 Feb 2019, 1:31 am

EzraS wrote:
Since you apparently don't know who any of the top climate scientists are how could you know who has published what? Since several climate scientists have degrees in unrelated fields, that's obviously irrelevant.

You don't even know who the climate scientists are, so it's unlikely you know how many of them there are. All of these scientists pro and con have a mixed bag of degrees and all of them have studied climate change. Piers Corbyn has studied weather and climate patterns for about 65 years. That doesn't make him right, but it does indicate he has extensive knowledge of climate science. How long have the climate scientists you favor, whom you don't even know the names of, studied climate science? That's a rhetorical question of course.

Suit yourself and stay in the dark while asserting arbitrary and anecdotal arguments regarding climate change.


Because I looked him up when the other commenter posted the video with him in it. I check sources, like I said. And like I said, you can keep inventing arguments that don't make sense and have little to nothing to do with what I'm talking about, but I'm not going to keep participating. Have a good evening.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

22 Feb 2019, 1:37 am

Tollorin wrote:
Considering that he pretend to be able to forecast weather months in advance, I certainly wouldn't give credit to him.


What are you talking about? Climate scientists make forecasts years in advance. If you are really seeking the truth, you won't come up with excuses to not listen to what you don't want to hear.

If I was as interested in climate science as you seem to be, I'd listen to everything he has to say and weigh it against everything numerous other climate scientists, both pro and con have to say.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

22 Feb 2019, 1:50 am

karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Since you apparently don't know who any of the top climate scientists are how could you know who has published what? Since several climate scientists have degrees in unrelated fields, that's obviously irrelevant.

You don't even know who the climate scientists are, so it's unlikely you know how many of them there are. All of these scientists pro and con have a mixed bag of degrees and all of them have studied climate change. Piers Corbyn has studied weather and climate patterns for about 65 years. That doesn't make him right, but it does indicate he has extensive knowledge of climate science. How long have the climate scientists you favor, whom you don't even know the names of, studied climate science? That's a rhetorical question of course.

Suit yourself and stay in the dark while asserting arbitrary and anecdotal arguments regarding climate change.


Because I looked him up when the other commenter posted the video with him in it. I check sources, like I said. And like I said, you can keep inventing arguments that don't make sense and have little to nothing to do with what I'm talking about, but I'm not going to keep participating. Have a good evening.


You say you check sources, but you didn't know the names of any of the best known climate scientists. Which means you haven't read or listened to what they have to say. Which means you don't really know anything about climate science and therefor what you're talking about, which is probably why logic isn't making any sense to you.



karathraceandherspecialdestiny
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Jan 2017
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,857

22 Feb 2019, 3:21 am

EzraS wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Since you apparently don't know who any of the top climate scientists are how could you know who has published what? Since several climate scientists have degrees in unrelated fields, that's obviously irrelevant.

You don't even know who the climate scientists are, so it's unlikely you know how many of them there are. All of these scientists pro and con have a mixed bag of degrees and all of them have studied climate change. Piers Corbyn has studied weather and climate patterns for about 65 years. That doesn't make him right, but it does indicate he has extensive knowledge of climate science. How long have the climate scientists you favor, whom you don't even know the names of, studied climate science? That's a rhetorical question of course.

Suit yourself and stay in the dark while asserting arbitrary and anecdotal arguments regarding climate change.


Because I looked him up when the other commenter posted the video with him in it. I check sources, like I said. And like I said, you can keep inventing arguments that don't make sense and have little to nothing to do with what I'm talking about, but I'm not going to keep participating. Have a good evening.


You say you check sources, but you didn't know the names of any of the best known climate scientists. Which means you haven't read or listened to what they have to say. Which means you don't really know anything about climate science and therefor what you're talking about, which is probably why logic isn't making any sense to you.


Have a good evening.



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

22 Feb 2019, 3:24 am

EzraS wrote:
I don't have much to say against climate scientists at this point in time. It's the laypeople going around proclaiming we're all going to die in a few years.

I also very much distrust journalists using phrase "scientists say".

I don't really know who the "climate scientists" are. Not really my field. I do have some personal and professional connections to atmosphere physics researchers - I guess this is close enough. They are mostly working on figuring out what factors play key roles in observed phenomenons. The whole atmosphere with lithosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere together is way too complex system, no one knows everything on this, no one can conclusively simulate it when simulations of even a single cloud need serious simplifications to be possible.

I don't say we shouldn't try our best to protect the environment. We should. But most likely we are not doomed, as humans are incredibly adaptive species, think of ot, an African ape to colonize High Arctic.
Wars and brutal regimes are still a bigger threat for humans than climate change.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

22 Feb 2019, 3:37 am

karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
Have a good evening.


What do you mean? Do you wish me a good evening, or mean that it is a good evening whether I want it or not; or that you feel good this evening; or that it is a evening to be good on?



karathraceandherspecialdestiny
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Jan 2017
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,857

22 Feb 2019, 3:43 am

8)

EzraS wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
Have a good evening.


What do you mean? Do you wish me a good evening, or mean that it is a good evening whether I want it or not; or that you feel good this evening; or that it is a evening to be good on?


*pats Ezra's head* Sure, buddy. Have a good evening.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

22 Feb 2019, 3:48 am

karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
8)
EzraS wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
Have a good evening.


What do you mean? Do you wish me a good evening, or mean that it is a good evening whether I want it or not; or that you feel good this evening; or that it is a evening to be good on?


*pats Ezra's head* Sure, buddy. Have a good evening.


That was a line I borrowed from The Hobbit, but changed "morning" to "evening". Clever huh?



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

22 Feb 2019, 3:54 am

magz wrote:
EzraS wrote:
I don't have much to say against climate scientists at this point in time. It's the laypeople going around proclaiming we're all going to die in a few years.

I also very much distrust journalists using phrase "scientists say".

I don't really know who the "climate scientists" are. Not really my field. I do have some personal and professional connections to atmosphere physics researchers - I guess this is close enough. They are mostly working on figuring out what factors play key roles in observed phenomenons. The whole atmosphere with lithosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere together is way too complex system, no one knows everything on this, no one can conclusively simulate it when simulations of even a single cloud need serious simplifications to be possible.

I don't say we shouldn't try our best to protect the environment. We should. But most likely we are not doomed, as humans are incredibly adaptive species, think of ot, an African ape to colonize High Arctic.
Wars and brutal regimes are still a bigger threat for humans than climate change.


It seems fairly simple to me; look up who's considered foremost in climate science, both pro and con, and read or listen to what they have to say. Probably the truth lies somewhere in the muddy middle between pro and con.

I agree, both humans and nature are very adaptive.