Climate change risk to 'one in six species'

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
V

Viligant_Warrior

Guest
#21
#21
Percepi said:
Scientific consensus isn't always correct, but it's always the best answer we have at the moment.
Click to expand...
If that was true, then the "flat-Earthers" of the Dark Ages had a better answer than the Bible, which states the Earth is not flat?

I'm guessing the reason political operatives rewrote a "fact sheet" summarizing the IPCC's 2013 "new report on 'climate change' " wasn't because the original summary needed tweaking nearly so much as it was because it didn't make "climate change" sound dire enough for the third-worlders and enviro-nuts. Political manipulation of a scientific document –- or pages upon pages of newly-discovered scientific errors? You decide.

I won't hold my breathe over you changing your mind. Zealots rarely hear or see truth even when it is overwhelmingly against their belief system. Instead, they tend to screech louder and more obnoxiously their logical fallacies of appeals to authority and ad hominem attacks, which are all they really have left at this point.
 
maxwel

maxwel

Senior Member
#22
Apr 18, 2013
9,372
2,448
113
#22
Percepi said:
Scientific consensus isn't always correct, but it's always the best answer we have at the moment. Over time, scientific consensus changes to become more correct. To dismiss science because people are fallible begs the question, if not science then who? The fact studied professionals might be wrong about things means you should automatically assume people who aren't studied are correct? This doesn't make any sense what-so-ever. That's exactly like saying professional football players sometimes make errors, therefore it's better to put your money on the team that's never played football before.
Click to expand...

The REALITY about CONSENSUS


I'm not going to comment about climate change,
but rather on one piece of TERRIBLY FLAWED logic.

There is a common, but horribly flawed mantra from scientists.
"Consensus isn't always correct, but it's always the best answer we have at the moment."
Scientist say this all the time.
There's only one problem.
This statement ISN'T SCIENTIFIC!
This statement is unscientific, and provably false.

The statement just isn't a scientific statement.
This statement is neither DERIVED from science, nor SUPPORTED by science.
It's not a scientific statement, it is a PHILOSOPHICAL statement.

There is a further problem,
not only is the statement philosophical rather than scientific,
but it's NOT EVEN A VALID PHILOSOPHICAL STATEMENT!
It isn't logical.
It defies the simplest rules of logic.
It's essentially absurd.

Every part of the statement is utterly absurd.


1. Consensus doesn't mean "fact". It means nothing more than "majority vote".
Consensus actually has NOTHING to do with presence of truth, or facts.
Consensus only means a "majority has agreed".
That's all it means.
Consensus doesn't mean "factually proven", consensus means ONLY "majority agreement".
You know, it's agreement of the majority... like voting.
VOTING!
That's all it is.
Consensus is nothing more than a "majority vote".

2. How can VOTING on anything make it FACTUAL ?
This isn't even logical.
FACTS are establish by OTHER FACTS.. not by voting.
Voting is nothing but opinion.
FACTS are not established, or created, by voting...
FACTS are established by OTHER FACTS.

Consensus (just voting) has no power to turn ANYTHING into a FACT.
AGREEMENT DOESN'T CREATE TRUTH.

If you can't see that, examine the issues of ANY ELECTION CYCLE.
AGREEMENT DOESN'T CREATE TRUTH.

A majority can agree on ANYTHING... that doesn't make it true.

3. So, for establishing science, the concept of "consensus" is utterly meaningless.
Consensus is nothing but "majority opinion"...
and that has nothing to do with fact or truth.
Consensus isn't science.
It's not part of the scientific method.
VOTING ON SOMETHING DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE.

4. Let's look at the next issue, that consensus is
"the best answer we have at the moment."

a.) Having an answer "at the moment" has NOTHING to with the answer being "best" or even "plausible".
It might be a TERRIBLE answer.
It might be an answer that gets everybody KILLED!
When did "time", the positioning of a fact in "time",
EVER have anything to do with whether or not the fact is any good!

It doesn't matter if your consensus answer is given "at the moment",
or tomorrow, or a thousand years from now... it is either RIGHT or WRONG!
Having an answer "right now" doesn't make it a good answer at all!
It might be a terrible answer; it might get everyone killed!

THE BEST ANSWER ISN'T THE ANSWER YOU HAVE RIGHT NOW.
THE BEST ANSWER IS THE ONE THAT'S RIGHT!!!

THE BEST ANSWER IS NEVER TO SPECULATE ON SOMETHING RIGHT NOW;
THE BEST ANSWER IS TO KEEP LOOKING TILL YOU CAN PROVE THE ANSWER IS RIGHT!


b.) It's ridiculous to assume a "majority vote" creates a "best answer".
When a majority agrees on an answer...
it's ridiculous to assume that's the best answer.

Let's take a simple example.
Let's say we're in a room of 10 scientists, and we're building a cannon.

We are trying to decide the thickness of the barrel, so it won't explode.
7 scientists say it should be 1 inch thick, and the rest say it should be 2 inches.
In reality it needs to be 2 inches thick, but the majority has agreed on 1 inch.

We build the cannon; the barrel is 1 inch thick...
that was the "majority consensus".
We fire the cannon, and guess what happens?
IT EXPLODES AND WE ALL DIE!

How good was the "consensus"?
Did that consensus vote work for us?

Was the consensus ACTUALLY "the best answer we had at the moment"?
Was it the best current answer?
No.
We had a MUCH better answer,
but that answer was in the minority, and ignored.

Consensus has NOTHING to do with the "best answer".
Nothing.

FACTS must be established by OTHER FACTS... never by opinion...
not even opinion of the majority.
FACTS ARE FACTS AND OPINION IS NOT.
PERIOD.


5. Conclusion:
No matter how we view this initial statement, it always comes up illogical and false.
It doesn't work.
It doesn't even make sense.
It's illogical, and it's bad science.

A consensus does NOT establish the best answer we have at the moment.

Consensus CANNOT measure science... it can only measure opinion.
 
V

Viligant_Warrior

Guest
#23
#23
And another think ...
Percepi said:
Scientific consensus isn't always correct, but it's always the best answer we have at the moment.
Click to expand...
Care to tell me how the opinions of "97%" of 79 respondents a biased survey represent a consensus? University of Illinois MS candidate in ecoscience Maggie K. Zimmerman, in 2009, invited about 83 professionals to take an online poll. These scientists listed climate science as an area of expertise and who said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists -- of the 3,146 who responded to the survey -- does not a consensus make. That's the only valid "97% consensus" figure that can be found, and the puny sampling doesn't make for a "consensus" in any way shape or form, other than it represents a consensus of the carefully selected, hand-picked surveyants of the grad students politically, scientifically, and professionally biased work.

There's more.

The masters candidate erroneously, even falsely, claimed in her work that "97 percent of climate scientists agree" global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor. The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem.

Nor did it include a single one of the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists, or astronomers who also responded. They are are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change, an issue Zimmerman disingenously ignored in her "paper."

And still more.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers -- 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent -- had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso,Nicola Scafetta,Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

So much for consensus. It doesn't exist, despite yours and other's claims to the contrary.

The information I've posted here was printed in May of last year in The Wall Street Journal.
 
T

Tintin

Guest
#24
#24
Last edited by a moderator:
royalscot

royalscot

Banned
#25
Jan 27, 2013
4,769
18
0
#25
the simple truth, is we are animals too, according to science. the major problem is a dying planet kills all.
putting things in to prolong, a dying planet, may help for a small time. but it dose not fix the problem.

and who said talk is cheap or helpless to combat, something that mankind cant fix.

but give science some credit too, they pointed out the problem, and tried to make awareness to the problem. etc
 
TheAristocat

TheAristocat

Senior Member
#27
Oct 4, 2011
2,150
26
0
#27
GodIsSalvation said:
It is simple, you don't need a pretentious scientist or questionable institution to prove climate change exists. It is even self-evident. It is not as supernatural as some theories touted as "science" claim it to be. It is not unreal like the deniers claim though. Bible says bluntly in Genesis, both before the Flood and afterwards, that man was given dominion by God over the animals and plants. That means man can effect climate change.

Think simple.

Over-hunting animals = Climate change

Animal husbandry = Climate change

Cutting down a forest = Climate change

Planting a garden = Climate change
Click to expand...
A climate: the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period of time.

People who tout climate change as something being caused by humans believe we can substantially alter the planet's weather conditions. I'm a little skeptical of this, because 1. I have to rely upon statistical analysis by those who support this idea, and 2. because those statistics have been doctored before.

If we're talking about places like China that have enormous clouds of pollutants that waft into South Korea every Spring, then sure we might be able to alter some prevailing weather conditions in that region... if our efforts in producing that pollution are constant. But let's not forget the mini ice age that occurred in England during the Medieval Ages that was... what? No doubt caused by rural peasants burning cow patties. And let's understand that the world does go through cycles regardless of what we do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.