Academia, leftists, hip hop

[_Tarski]

And here's your problem: science is not done by consensus,

LOL

I have forgotten more about science and the philosophy of empirical science in a day than you will ever learn.

No productive scientist would likely even utter the boring words "science is done by consensus" nor would they likely utter the converse for that matter.

Let me explain again. To mention that there are varying degrees of consensus and acknowledge the significance of that fact for the state of scientific knowledge is not anything like "saying that science is done by consenus" and I never said any such thing (It makes me giggle to have say such things as this. I can't believe I have been drawn into this innane triviality)

so how is it my problem?

Evidence leads to provisional consensus. (Ummm, duh Droopy!) If it never did so, then what would be the point?
What is scientific progress? Do we gain knowledge or not? A consensus has significance when it has been reached through scientific investigation. Try to work out what that might be without creating a strawman version to knock down.

Go to doctors much? Medicine is not done by consenus either but most rational people understand the significance of a consenus and its relation to evidence and experiment (of course, some people will blame AIDS on divine punishment or demons or even sun spots.)

Given that you barely know what a molecule is, let alone a Milankovitch cycle or a C* algebra, you should really stop pontificating about science. It is just embarrassing.

[_Droopy]

I have forgotten more about science and the philosophy of empirical science in a day than you will ever learn.

I'm sure that's true, Tarski.

No productive scientist would likely even utter the boring words "science is done by consensus" nor would they likely utter the converse for that matter.

Its been the standard argument used by numerous scientists caught up in the AGW cult and its endless streams of government money to circumvent debate for the last 10 years (not to mention journalists, political activists, and other members of the academic community).

Let me explain again. To mention that there are varying degrees of consensus and acknowledge the significance of that fact for the state of scientific knowledge is not anything like "saying that science is done by consenus" and I never said any such thing (It makes me giggle to have say such things as this. I can't believe I have been drawn into this innane triviality)

so how is it my problem?

Evidence leads to provisional consensus. (Ummm, duh Droopy!) If it never did so, then what would be the point?
What is scientific progress? Do we gain knowledge or not? A consensus has significance when it has been reached through scientific investigation. Try to work out what that might be without creating a strawman version to knock down.

Go to doctors much? Medicine is not done by consenus either but most rational people understand the significance of a consenus and its relation to evidence and experiment (of course, some people will blame AIDS on divine punishment or demons or even sun spots.)

Consensus is a vote; it is what a room full of people claim is the case through majority agreement.

Consensus decision-making is a group decision making process that seeks the consent of all participants. Consensus may be defined professionally as an acceptable resolution, one that can be supported, even if not the "favourite" of each individual. Consensus is defined by Merriam-Webster as, first, general agreement, and second, group solidarity of belief or sentiment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making

Science is done, in the first instance, by empirical observation and experiment within and upon the natural world. Its claims and conclusions must be quantifiable, verifiable, falsifiable, and open to replication by unbiased, independent researchers.

AGW fails utterly each and every one of these fundamental principles at the core of the scientific method, and each and every one of AGW's major claims has either been unambiguously refuted empirically or placed in a limbo of massive uncertainty. A vast quantity of present and ever growing peer reviewed science from a number of earth sciences directly or indirectly related to the study of climate has been tearing up the roots of the cult of climatism for many years now. The entire theory has and is being driven by ideology and taxpayer money, and was never intended to be an exercise in serious, open, intellectually honest scientific investigation.

Secondly, we have now known for years that the entire enterprise, at its center, began and grew as a massive project of intellectual fraud that the people its base knew quite clearly was scientific bosh. But too much - to much power, too much money, and too much power - was riding on the Idea to let it go and let actual empirical science filter out the chaff and self-correct, as it is, ideally, supposed to do.

Given that you barely know what a molecule is...

I'm talking to one now.

[_Tarski]

Its been the standard argument used by numerous scientists caught up in the AGW cult and its endless streams of government money to circumvent debate for the last 10 years (not to mention journalists, political activists, and other members of the academic community).

No it is not. They simply say that there is a consensus and exists for a reason.

Consensus is a vote

Look up multivalent.

Do really want a semantic argument?
Fine:
"Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method."

is the word "vote" missing here?

Science is done, in the first instance, by empirical observation and experiment within and upon the natural world. Its claims and conclusions must be quantifiable, verifiable, falsifiable, and open to replication by unbiased, independent researchers.

and significantly, can result in a scientific consensus which has significance for rational thought and public policy.

AGW fails utterly each and every one of these fundamental principles at the core of the scientific method, and each and every one of AGW's major claims has either been unambiguously refuted empirically or placed in a limbo of massive uncertainty.

[/quote]

This statement is flatly false. Even the rare qualified AGW skeptic such as Lindzen would never say such a thing. They look for reasons to rationally doubt the consensus and look for weaknesses in argument and methods but they would never claim that the case is weaker now than before. They know that there is a consensus and they know that top climate scientist are to be taken seriously.

Of course you can't seem to focus on this part: "community of scientists in a particular field of study".
You list of oddball skeptics are irrelevant.
For example, I am very skeptical of string theory but since I am not an expert in that area of physics, my skepticism is a mere curiosity in the big picture. I may even be vindicated but that too is irrelevant.
Of course, hardly anyone would claim that string theory is grounded in observation to the same extent as climate science (there is an energy barrier and so on).

It is pretty hilarious how clueless you have become (I am assuming from the selective exposure to reality that comes from reading conservative blogs and watching FOX news).
In fact, it almost seems like you are faking it for whatever reason. No one could be quite that out of the loop.

[_Droopy]

"Tarski" quote Droopy]

AGW fails utterly each and every one of these fundamental principles at the core of the scientific method, and each and every one of AGW's major claims has either been unambiguously refuted empirically or placed in a limbo of massive uncertainty.

This statement is flatly false. Even the rare qualified AGW skeptic such as Lindzen would never say such a thing.

Its empirically, factually the case, and Lindzen would agree in substance with it. Let me use language here more precisely, to make my position clear (which is, in substance, the eminent Dr. Fred Singer's et al postion): anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has probably happened, due to the rise on CO2 emissions over the last century or more, but it is so tiny relative to the vast background of natural emissions that it cannot, and has not been empirically detected. The question is dangerous, or catastrophic AGW, for which there is not a shred of direct, verifiable empirical evidence to support, never has been, and which has been progressivly falsified across virtually all of its major claims by a large corpus of peer reviewed earth science for upwards of 15 years (and serious uncertainties and doubts about the veracity of DAWG or CAGW, among large numbers of qualified scientists, go back father than that).

Those are the facts as they stand, and the science as it stands (I also note you trot out the standard ad hominem credentialist argument against the many thousands of earth scientists, natural scientists, mathematicians, engineers, statisticians, economists, computer scientists/modelers etc who are more than qualified to critique substantial portions of AGW theory, but who do not specialize in the faux discipline created by the warmists and the mainstream media called "climate science," to freeze out dissent and leave themselves unopposed. Philosophically and scientifically. This, of course, this is a massive fail, but it also renders you, a physicist with no credentials in "climate science" unqualified to pronounce one way or the other on the subject.

That is, if you wish to be logically consistent).

DAGW is an ideology; it is your ideology and the ideology of the Left, generally. It is the present Great White Hope of socialism.

I'm not even going to respond to your bizarre semantic dance with the concept of consensus. You're own quote, indeed, makes my argument for me.

[Guest]

I'm not even going to respond to your bizarre semantic dance with the concept of consensus. You're own quote, indeed, makes my argument for me.

For our lurkers who wanted to know what the fallacy of equivocation looks like, you are indebted to Droopy for his masterful demonstration.

Here's what Droopy said:

Consensus is a vote; it is what a room full of people claim is the case through majority agreement.

Consensus decision-making is a group decision making process that seeks the consent of all participants. Consensus may be defined professionally as an acceptable resolution, one that can be supported, even if not the "favourite" of each individual. Consensus is defined by Merriam-Webster as, first, general agreement, and second, group solidarity of belief or sentiment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making

Here's what Tarski is talking about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

[_Darth J]

While you're pontificating about science, Professor Droopy, tell me some more about how psychology is not a science.

My undergraduate degree is in psychology. Your degree(s) is(are) in........?

[_Darth J]

This, of course, this is a massive fail, but it also renders you, a physicist with no credentials in "climate science" unqualified to pronounce one way or the other on the subject.

If Tarski is not qualified to pronounce one way or the other on climate science, then why are you qualified to make a pronouncement on climate science? What are your scientific credentials?

[_Tarski]

DAGW is an ideology; it is your ideology and the ideology of the Left, generally. It is the present Great White Hope of socialism.
.

Conspiracy thinking at its best.
It is rather spooky.

Can you possibly explain why you listen to Singer's opinions but not other active mainstream researchers in the prime of their career that go much further in detailing their science?

Why, for example, is it that if I mention names and opinions of eminent scientists (currently active in the field), you poo poo it and accuse me of appealing to authority? Then you turn around and bring up poor old Dr. Singer lone wolf curmudgeon from another era.
To match you I should just poo poo Singer and bring up his denial of the dangers of second hand smoke and so on.

So, while you can't stand the idea of listening to expert, you nevertheless bring up this guy. Why?
It is so obvious.

Answer: He says what you want to hear.

I feel very very sorry for you.

[_Tarski]

This, of course, this is a massive fail, but it also renders you, a physicist with no credentials in "climate science" unqualified to pronounce one way or the other on the subject.

If Tarski is not qualified to pronounce one way or the other on climate science, then why are you qualified to make a pronouncement on climate science?

Because he is a conservative and so is excused (conservatives being just right you see).

[_Darth J]

Because he is a conservative and so is excused (conservatives being just right you see).

I have indeed noticed that there is no field of human endeavor in which Droopy is more knowledgeable than even people who are actually engaged in it. He truly must be a Renaissance man the likes of which has seldom been seen.