However it's the AGW mob that has coined the words "denier" "believer" and the ones in between (really sceptics) "agnostics" ...... is this still science we're talking about? .... does the word "consensus" have any place in the world of science? Is there a consensus with Einstein's theory of relativity or does the scientific community believe it because it fits observation. AGW does not fit observation.
Skeptics are hardly going to call themselves "deniers" are they .... how would that engender their cause?
"Are you sure about that?" .... are you saying that "consensus" is a scientific platform? If you are you are no scientist .... unless you're a social scientist.
I'm not saying that and I think the appeal to authority "consensus" shouldn't be used as primary evidence of climate change. The reason I compare climate change deniers (I shouldn't have said skeptics and lumped them in with deniers in the video because skepticism is a negative belief, perfectly respectable, while denial is a positive belief) to creationists is because I think in general their motivations for belief are the same.
Right, so 3 guys who all have the same perspective on "climategate" don't go in to any detail about it, while the rest of the world is going mental.
" Global warming" google : 11,600,000 returns. Concept: Over a decade old.
"Climategate" google: 32,500,000 returns Concept: Three weeks old.
You need to critically analyse this concept, beyond your closeted and presupposed angle. Quite surprised about this from you Funky .... thought you were more open minded.
I certainly agree that we didn't make any arguments in this video rigorous enough that they should sway anybody on the subject of the climate. I'm very open-minded. Are you?
I'm open minded enough to be taught it, buy it for a decade and then question it to the point of no longer believing it, so yes I suppose I am ..... if you are suggesting that I don't make my mind up .... Should I think .... oh I'm not sure, so we must go along with the centralised banking carbon credit scheme ...... come on funky, it smells to high heaven.
but the cap and trade thing is a politician's solution, not a scientist's... I agree that it's not only unlikely to help, but like most of what's coming from politicians these days, a big fat corporate cash cow, like war and health care reform
"consensus" is meaningful because the reason there is a consensus is that no fossil fuel industry-independent study has disproven the widely accepted theory of anthropogenic climate change... and there's nothing in those emails that changes that
I think I'm going to do a video on the whole climate change thing explaining why I predict climate change/destabilization despite the apparent shenanigans surrounding its propagation as a meme.
Funkalunitic:"Skeptics are like creationists"
However it's the AGW mob that has coined the words "denier" "believer" and the ones in between (really sceptics) "agnostics" ...... is this still science we're talking about? .... does the word "consensus" have any place in the world of science? Is there a consensus with Einstein's theory of relativity or does the scientific community believe it because it fits observation. AGW does not fit observation.
IridescentEye 2 years ago
Are you quite sure about that?
funkalunatic 2 years ago
Skeptics are hardly going to call themselves "deniers" are they .... how would that engender their cause?
"Are you sure about that?" .... are you saying that "consensus" is a scientific platform? If you are you are no scientist .... unless you're a social scientist.
IridescentEye 2 years ago
I'm not saying that and I think the appeal to authority "consensus" shouldn't be used as primary evidence of climate change. The reason I compare climate change deniers (I shouldn't have said skeptics and lumped them in with deniers in the video because skepticism is a negative belief, perfectly respectable, while denial is a positive belief) to creationists is because I think in general their motivations for belief are the same.
funkalunatic 2 years ago
WRT social science, I would say that in most cases, consensus is necessarily wrong due to reflexivity, but that's off-topic.
funkalunatic 2 years ago
Right, so 3 guys who all have the same perspective on "climategate" don't go in to any detail about it, while the rest of the world is going mental.
" Global warming" google : 11,600,000 returns. Concept: Over a decade old.
"Climategate" google: 32,500,000 returns Concept: Three weeks old.
You need to critically analyse this concept, beyond your closeted and presupposed angle. Quite surprised about this from you Funky .... thought you were more open minded.
IridescentEye 2 years ago
I certainly agree that we didn't make any arguments in this video rigorous enough that they should sway anybody on the subject of the climate. I'm very open-minded. Are you?
funkalunatic 2 years ago
I'm open minded enough to be taught it, buy it for a decade and then question it to the point of no longer believing it, so yes I suppose I am ..... if you are suggesting that I don't make my mind up .... Should I think .... oh I'm not sure, so we must go along with the centralised banking carbon credit scheme ...... come on funky, it smells to high heaven.
IridescentEye 2 years ago
but the cap and trade thing is a politician's solution, not a scientist's... I agree that it's not only unlikely to help, but like most of what's coming from politicians these days, a big fat corporate cash cow, like war and health care reform
"consensus" is meaningful because the reason there is a consensus is that no fossil fuel industry-independent study has disproven the widely accepted theory of anthropogenic climate change... and there's nothing in those emails that changes that
Capitalocracy 2 years ago
I think I'm going to do a video on the whole climate change thing explaining why I predict climate change/destabilization despite the apparent shenanigans surrounding its propagation as a meme.
funkalunatic 2 years ago
Please do, I'll look forward to it.
IridescentEye 2 years ago