From travel insurance to fraud protection, AARP has you covered. Take a closer look at your member benefits.

 

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
203
Views

Re: Fresh Congressional Probe into Flawed Karl “Pausebuster” Scandal

203 Views
Message 11 of 70

@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

nothappening wrote: "In scientific terms; A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors."

 

This is the definition of theory and climate change fits its rigorous definition:

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, predefined, protocol of observations and experiments."


So we are in agreement that we are at the hypothesis level "at best" while others have their hypothesis!


No, unless you have some other hypothesis that fits the fact of the rapid rise in CO2.  Agan, show us some research from other scientists that say this is not happening with rising CO2 levels.


Give me a break.  Increase in burning fossil fuels means more CO2.  Increased people means more CO2.  Increased animals means more CO2.  This doesn't even include methane which is far worse.  CO2 also comes naturally from volcanoes and the ocean.  As far as how much our increase vs naturally occuring affecting warming is conjecture at best.  Again you are welcome to your OPINION or your hypothesis as others are theirs!

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
203
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
200
Views

Re: Fresh Congressional Probe into Flawed Karl “Pausebuster” Scandal

200 Views
Message 12 of 70

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

nothappening wrote: "In scientific terms; A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors."

 

This is the definition of theory and climate change fits its rigorous definition:

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, predefined, protocol of observations and experiments."


So we are in agreement that we are at the hypothesis level "at best" while others have their hypothesis!


No, unless you have some other hypothesis that fits the fact of the rapid rise in CO2.  Agan, show us some research from other scientists that say this is not happening with rising CO2 levels.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
200
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
202
Views

Re: Fresh Congressional Probe into Flawed Karl “Pausebuster” Scandal

202 Views
Message 13 of 70

@sp362 wrote:

nothappening wrote: "In scientific terms; A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors."

 

This is the definition of theory and climate change fits its rigorous definition:

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, predefined, protocol of observations and experiments."


So we are in agreement that we are at the hypothesis level "at best" while others have their hypothesis!

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
202
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
195
Views

Re: Fresh Congressional Probe into Flawed Karl “Pausebuster” Scandal

195 Views
Message 14 of 70

@jimc91 wrote:

The bright side is that we are likely to get to the bottom of this sooner than later since the "Stone Wall" is no longer in place...


I gave you  KUDOS because you are starting to realize that we will "get to the bottom of this" and find out that there there is no "scandal".


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
195
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
194
Views

Re: Fresh Congressional Probe into Flawed Karl “Pausebuster” Scandal

194 Views
Message 15 of 70

@jimc91 wrote:

 

Why are democrats so opposed to others that have differing opinions?

 

 


Why are those on the Right so opposed to others that have differing opinions?

 

This is a 'fake scandal'.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
194
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
195
Views

Re: Fresh Congressional Probe into Flawed Karl “Pausebuster” Scandal

195 Views
Message 16 of 70

nothappening wrote: "In scientific terms; A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors."

 

This is the definition of theory and climate change fits its rigorous definition:

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, predefined, protocol of observations and experiments."

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
195
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
189
Views

Re: Fresh Congressional Probe into Flawed Karl “Pausebuster” Scandal

189 Views
Message 17 of 70

Ten years ago, the Republicans were attacking Global Warming because it was Al Gore who alerted the World to this coming catastrophy. GOPers could not stand seeing how President Gore was given the Nobel Peace Prize while Usurper jrGeorge II was being indited for War Crimes, so they tried to discredit the winner of the 2000 election.

 

Next they claimed there was no rise in temperature. That became impossible even for GOPers to support, so they shifted to there being no rise in sea level.

 

Miami and numerous small islands began to experience the undeniable effects of a rising sea level, so they shifted to pseudo-science and claimed it was a normal 400,000 year cycle.

 

That was totally debunked, and the "hockey-stick" temperature graph was proven beyond all doubt in the scinetific community, so they shifted to their current position: GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING BUT ITS NOT OUR FAULT!

 

This is their "Alamo" - there's no even vaguely plausible denials left, so they ADMIT the Earth is warming, and just DENY people have anything to do with it, so people should not be required to do anything about it...ESPECIALLY not people with all the resources needed to DO something about it.

 

THAT is the Republican end-game for climate change denial - They will deny because that way they won't have to tax their owners to fix the problem UNTIL ITS TOO LATE, and then they'll tell us there's no point in doing anything, the disaster is upon us and no amount of clean energy or pollution control will stop the inevidable.

 

VOTE DEMOCRATIC - OUR FUTURE DEPENDS ON IT.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
189
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
179
Views

Re: Fresh Congressional Probe into Flawed Karl “Pausebuster” Scandal

179 Views
Message 18 of 70

@sp362 wrote:

Not Happening,

 

This is in reply to your article from Forbes as to how the 97% consensus was developed:

 

cience achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing.  When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science).  Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.

But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory.

So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them.

Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi OreskesPeter DoranWilliam AndereggBart VerheggenEd MaibachJ. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:

1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.

consensus vs expertise

Scientific consensus on human-caused global warming as compared to the expertise of the surveyed sample. There’s a strong correlation between consensus and climate science expertise. Illustration: John Cook. Available on the SkS Graphics page

Expert consensus is a powerful thing. People know we don’t have the time or capacity to learn about everything, and so we frequently defer to the conclusions of experts. It’s why we visit doctors when we’re ill. The same is true of climate change: most people defer to the expert consensus of climate scientists. Crucially, as we note in our paper:

Public perception of the scientific consensus has been found to be a gateway belief, affecting other climate beliefs and attitudes including policy support.

That’s why those who oppose taking action to curb climate change have engaged in a misinformation campaign to deny the existence of the expert consensus. They’ve been largely successful, as the public badly underestimate the expert consensus, in what we call the “consensus gap.” Only 16% of Americans realize that the consensus is above 90%.

 

For your 31,000 "scientists"

 

There are several claims that large numbers of scientists do not agree with the theory of climate change, the best known of which is a petition organised by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (the OISM petition). This petition now appears to be signed by over 32,000 people with a BSc or higher qualification. The signatories agree with these statements:

  • The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
  • There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.

No evidence has ever been offered to support the first statement, and the second statement is in flat contradiction with the scientists who study climate change. There are also valid issues regarding the methodology:

  • The organisers have never revealed how many people they canvassed (so the response rate is unknown) nor have they revealed the sampling methodology, an ironic omission considering how much fuss is made about scientists being candid and making public their methods and data.
  • The petition is, in terms of climate change science, rather out of date.

In the professional field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change and additional anthropogenic CO2 may cause great disruption to the climate.

 

32,000 Sounds Like A Lot

In fact, OISM signatories represent a tiny fraction (~0.3%) of all US science graduates (petition cards were only sent to individuals within the U.S)

According to figures from the US Department of Education Digest of Education Statistics: 2008, 10.6 million science graduates have gained qualifications consistent with the OISM polling criteria since the 1970-71 school year. 32,000 out of 10 million is not a very compelling figure, but a tiny minority - approximately 0.3 per cent.

There are many issues casting doubt on the validity of this petition. On investigation, attempts to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change often appear to have ideological roots, vested business interests or political sponsors. The claims made for the OISM petition do not withstand objective scrutiny, and the assertions made in the petition are not supported by evidence, data or scientific research.

Several studies conducted independently (Oreskes 2004, Oreskes 2007, Doran and Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010), Cook et. al., 2013) have shown that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing the climate to change, and that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing global changes to the climate. These views form the scientific consensus on climate change.


In scientific terms; A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
179
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
190
Views

Re: Fresh Congressional Probe into Flawed Karl “Pausebuster” Scandal

190 Views
Message 19 of 70

@jimc91 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

There are only one or two posters here that deny Climate Change and Global Warming, along with the need to address it as aggressively as we can.

 

That is representative of the public in general, and also the science community. Those in denial are the minority. When will the Republicans in Washington 'get' that? Or will they continue to bow to their Corporate and Elite (Koch) masters?


@ChasKy53 who on this board is denying that the climate is changes?  I have not read any post that said that.

 


I never medntioned you, why did you respond? But since you did:

 

You used just part of a complete sentence. You forgot the last part " along with the need to address it as aggressively as we can."

 

As far as the topic ....................... what is your point ???????   There's a "scandal"  Really? How about the scandal of Trump himself?

 

Your link takes me to a long blog that contains another link to 'The Daily Mail'.  When are you going to realize that sources such as that are not soing to promte serious factual discussion?

 

 


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
190
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
215
Views

Re: Fresh Congressional Probe into Flawed Karl “Pausebuster” Scandal

215 Views
Message 20 of 70

To even have these discussions, much less have Congressmen making political hay out of them, is irrational. If you want to argue with the scientific method, go for it. Magic is always the ultimate alternate fact. 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
215
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have a question about AARP membership or benefits? Ask it in the AARP Help Membership forum, Benefits & Discounts forum, or General forum.


multiple white question marks with center red question mark

Top Authors