Why I stopped debating Climate Science with Science denialists...

No idea what you're talking about. I have seen many links to cherry-picked out of context graphs from peer-reviewed studies taken from science denialist pages, and many many non-peer-reviewed nonsense also from anti-science pages. I used to take a loooong (longer than it take for the denialist to cut-and-paste crap that they don't even understand) to debunk this nonsense. Hours of reading and research. Not anymore. It's a waste of time. Instead of that, I have asked for ONE quote (with reference) from the CONCLUSION of ANY peer-reviewed study in which the consensus position is questioned. Guess how many? None!

The consensus only requires a significant majority of studies. But "none" appears to be a significant number to demonstrate that the consensus position is as rock solid as Cell Theory, Evolution and Relativity.

 

Your use of such terms as, "science denialist" exposes you as nothing but an anti-fossil-fuel propagandist, and not someone who can be taken seriously in a scientific discussion of climate research.

You never debunked any of it.

Because the actual consensus is quite different from what anti-fossil-fuel hysteria mongers claim it is, and when challenged, you just switch.

As I have asked you before: what, specifically, do you claim the consensus position consists of?

 

Your claims are false and have been shown to be false.

 

No, normal folks who understand how science works understand that the scientific method determines truth through empirical experimentation, not consensus vote.

If climate science determines truth through consensus vote of supposed experts, that's even more reason to not buy what they're selling.

 

It is called “Brandolini’s Law” and I too am more than a little “over” it as time and time again the deniers “demand” I prove/disprove their points and then do not read the information I have supplied

 

No one has claimed that it does. What the consensus proves is a refutation of the disinformation being spread about “the science isn’t settled as there are lots of scientists who disagree”. The science itself is hugely and massively impressive as anyone who has even glanced at the IPCC reports will tell you

 

"The science" is merely physics denial, not in any way empirically tested.

Climate science is a fraud.

 

Oooh yes it has. When you look at the working group reports you will see each chapter has over one hundred references to peer reviewed papers

 

“Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough. [In response to the book Hundred Authors Against Einstein]”
― Albert Einstein

 

But not a single reference to an empirical experiment.

When peer reviewed papers are the currency of the realm that's the only way to pay the rent, all kinds of peers will line up to sign off on anything.

 

In reality, I call a science denialist anybody who denies science. It's easier, straightforward and clearer than your made-up interpretation.

Look! This statement is ridiculous in its face. There are scientific peer-reviewed studies that tell you the FACTS. You don't need to understand the studies themselves, but the Conclusion of those studies are written in a way that non-specialists can understand. It's the ONLY part of any scientific study that would be relevant in these discussions. Anything else is just cherry-picking. The only way to "dispute" these facts is with ANOTHER scientific peer-reviewed study. But there has been NO scientific study in almost a quarter of a century questioning the ONE basic and ONLY important premise of AGW: the consensus position. And nobody in this forum has the level of education, expertise or experience required to design one. So stop playing make-believe that you do. We all know you DON'T!

To believe that you can rebut peer-reviewed scientific studies in a Political Forum is childish and outright ridiculous. It reminds me when I was a kid and we played make-believe soldier vs make-believe cowboy arguing which would win. The only reason I use a softer term like "science denialist" is that this forum's rules would not allow the more appropriate terminology.

 

Gee, add climate change to the equation and, well, crank up the A/C.

 

Anybody who understands how science works knows that it works with peer-reviewed studies. ONLY peer-reviewed studies are science.

What "vote" are you talking about?

Look... Anybody can understand how science works. Even though you need a science degree to understand how the Climate works, you don't need a degree in Epistemology (even though I do have one) to understand how science works. There is only one relevant thing you need to know: the opinions of experts are worth nothing. Their great for op-eds in newspapers, but useless within the scientific community. The only thing that matters is what they can prove. And the only way to prove anything in science, is with a peer-reviewed study. See? It's not that difficult to understand how science works. Only when you have to accommodate your political beliefs to the facts is it that you start having difficulties.

 

I have come to the conclusion that they don't even read the information THEY supply. They just copy-paste it from any of the hundreds of anti-science websites out there and repeat the headline of the article. Numerous times I have seen them repost graphs, charts or text which, after close analysis, you find they actually contradict what they claim. I just stopped wasting my time doing a close analysis of crap they cut-and-paste, but they don't understand and, more likely, haven't even read.

 

You know less about science than just about anyone I know. Disagreeing is fundamental to science. Without disagreements, science would become a stagnant subject stuck in the middle ages.

You are not qualified to state whether they are facts. You believe because you think you are supposed to believe. I can think of no other possible reason. I have seen too many misleading statements out of the AGW crowd not to have doubts. You claim a consensus of scientists believe it is a serious problem, but you cannot produce one single study based on a random poll of scientists. Enough of them have doubts to make me suspicious.

This is why your "Peer reviewed studies proof is flawed:

1. Because of criticism, it is likely that some opposing views are not expressed because they do not want to be criticized. Note your "science denier" comments.

2. If they do write a paper, it is possible that it would not get past the peer review because the peer reviewers fear criticism.

3. Even if it is peer reviewed, that does not guarantee publication because the publishers do not want to be criticized.

4. Someone must select that study for review.

5. The study has to be reviewed and determined whether they are favoring or not favoring AGW.

That is too many chances for non-AGW believers to always overcome, so those studies or potential studies never get reviewed. No competent statistician would use such a method.

 

In Science there is only disagreement BEFORE there is a consensus of peer-reviewed studies. Once that exists it's called "settled Science". Settled Science is not a religious Truth. But if you want to challenge it, you damn well better have A LOT of evidence (which means, peer-reviewed studies) on your side. That is theoretically possible. But it just has never happened with core scientific principles like Evolution, Cell Theory, Relativity, QM, ..... AGW being one of them.

 

I notice that you are not defending your "peer reviewed consensus" method. I don't have a lot of evidence to have doubts. I have doubts because the "proof" is shoddy. Apparently, a lot of competent science also have their doubts. Otherwise, there would be a random poll of scientists supporting it.

 

The person you just responded to is a prime example. Here’s a recent example of posting links that haven’t been read, let alone understood.

 

And a 51-49 consensus is proof of nothing. And yet here you are no real knowledge of either climate or weather arguing for the alarmist religion that has yet to produce an accurate prediction of anything and constantly getting crushed by actual scientist who actually know the difference between an Isobar and a kumquat

 

Golem has.

That's not disinformation. It's a plain fact. Your claim is the disinformation.

I have done a lot more than just glance at the IPCC reports, and have found the "science" in them massively unimpressive: there is little to their "arguments" for CO2 causing harmful surface warming but post hoc fallacies, cherry picking, non sequiturs, weaseling, exaggerations, etc. Settled science it ain't.

 

That's just baldly false. You clearly have not the slightest acquaintance with actual science.

Wrong again. Settled science requires consistent confirmation by empirical observation. That most certainly does not exist with anti-CO2 hysteria.

No, evidence is empirical observation. Peer review may or may not be involved.

Nonsense. Nothing could have been more established consensus than Newtonian mechanics, but it was superseded by special relativity. Google "cold fusion" and start reading. The notion that anti-CO2 hysteria is a "core scientific principle" is laughable.

 

So who was the peer review group for Issac Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica?

 

No. It's clear that the people you call science denialists do not in fact deny science. They just don't accept your dogma of anti-fossil-fuel climate hysteria.

It is a fact.

And in climate journals, conclusions are often written to include a transparently non sequitur genuflection to AGW nonscience to mollify the anti-fossil-fuel scaremongers who control the peer review process.

Garbage. Every claim is fair game.

Garbage. Anyone can point out methodological problems in peer reviewed papers in any forum.

That claim is false, and has been proved false in this forum.

I repeat: What do you claim the "consensus position" consists of?

So, we all have to just take what you claim is the "consensus" on faith??

Don't think so.

Refutation is refutation no matter where it is done.

No, you use it to evade the issues by name-calling.

 

I don't HAVE a "peer reviewed consensus method". The only "peer reviewed consensus method" I know is called Science. And Science's results don't need me to defend them. They can defend themselves.

 

I appreciate her efforts to educate science denialists on science fact. Hell! I did it myself for many years. I just don't do it anymore.