Fraudcurrents - NOAA just proved you were a fool

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
[Crichton gave a number of examples where the scientific consensus was completely wrong for many years.]
“… Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”


Source: Crichton, Michael, Aliens cause Global Warming, 17 January 2003 speech at the California Institute of Technology (http://s8int.com/crichton.html or http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB122603134258207975 or http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf)






futurecurrents said:
Yes moron, science is decided by the consensus of the scientists. Not the deluded crazed Tea Bagger sheep like you. The debate is over among the scientists.

Try using common sense and think for yourself instead of for the Koch bros for once. Try not being such a good little pawn.
More...
 
jem said:
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
[Crichton gave a number of examples where the scientific consensus was completely wrong for many years.]
“… Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”


Source: Crichton, Michael, Aliens cause Global Warming, 17 January 2003 speech at the California Institute of Technology (http://s8int.com/crichton.html or http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB122603134258207975 or http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf)
More...

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world."

So... other scientists would be doing that verification, right?
 
Ricter said:
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world."

So... other scientists would be doing that verification, right?
More...

How about actual observed results providing verification. The actual observed results show that all the climate models are wrong. Why are the IPCC Climate Models wrong you ask? Because they are politically-driven "science" that are driven by politics and not reality.
 
Ricter said:
Observed by who, scientists?
More...

As measured by NOAA, HADCRUT4, and every other scientific temperature measuring service on the face of the earth. The NOAA data indicates that the U.S. COOLED by 0.4 degrees C over the past 10 years.
 
what? frequently you don't need a "scientist" to verify the data.... or the science speaks for itself.
the issue for you agw nutters is you don't have any science which indicates man made co2 is warming the earth.
if you had the science you could produce it and we could examine it and debate it.

if after producing data or science you were to say that I can't understand this particular bit of science or this data without a degree... we perhaps would have an interesting debate about which scientists are truly experts on the data. But you don't even have an science or data to produce.







Ricter said:
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world."

So... other scientists would be doing that verification, right?
More...
 
gwb-trading said:
How about actual observed results providing verification. The actual observed results show that all the climate models are wrong. Why are the IPCC Climate Models wrong you ask? Because they are politically-driven "science" that are driven by politics and not reality.
More...


Once again your ignorance and delusion is showing. The models are NOT wrong nor are they politically driven. You are very confused.
 
Ricter said:
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world."

So... other scientists would be doing that verification, right?
More...

Yes. There is a consensus among the scientists that the science is correct. Why this is so confusing to the right wing nut jobs here is a mystery. Maybe because they are listening to Crichton. Who was what again? Oh yeah, a GW denying pinhead author, LOL.
 
futurecurrents said:
Once again your ignorance and delusion is showing. The models are NOT wrong nor are they politically driven. You are very confused.
More...

Yeah right, whatever.

Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/06/25/government-data-show-u-s-in-decade-long-cooling/


Let's take a look at what happens to scientific charts after the politicians get involved...

gissustampering1999-20132.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top