Matthew W writes in WUWT Tips and Notes:
Today’s “Fun Challenge:”
I dare anyone to go to this blog/website and get an intelligent, coherent reply posted:
Excerpt:
This is just the sort of metaphorical setting into which the climate change denial lobby is trying to place the debate over climate change without the public or even most policymakers realizing it. The deniers in the fossil fuel industry and elsewhere are attempting by sleight-of-hand to get both the public and policymakers to abandon the preponderance of evidence standard used primarily in civil trials–and which is similar to evidence-based public policymaking–in favor of another judicial standard designed for criminal trials, namely, beyond a reasonable doubt.
So long as the deniers get to claim the role of defense attorney in this public fight, their task will be much easier. The reason that the deniers want to change the standard of proof, of course, is because climate scientists have already shown through an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that human activities are a major cause of climate change. The deniers have no hope of winning the intellectual argument if this standard of proof is used.
Typical of the Cultist, there is no dissent allowed !! The article is being featured on the Yahoo homepage
The reason we have court trials in the first place is precisely because that which seems obvious may not be true at all. Courtrooms exist to allow for all sides of an argument to present their evidence, something AGW supporters freely admit they don’t want to allow.
We probably just gave them a few months worth of hits. I’d be laughing at what I saw there, if it weren’t so… actually, I don’t have the words…
Agree Alan. I read quite a bit and couldn’t stop my convulsive laughter…however, I must say, they all sounded real polite in their comments to one another.
I do not see a preponderance of alarmist evidence just a lot of shrill vapid rhetoric. But as with everything on the left shouting louder and parroting the loud shouters is the evidence. There you have it. It’s like trying to reason with two year olds.
The truth is alarmists want any standard as long as reality is not one of them.
Humor for the day:
Just did an Alexa for http://www.resilience.org – result: “We don’t have enough data to rank this website”.
Geez, even with gratuitous pings from WUWT they don’t move the needle.
Yes, I understand how those blogs can really irritate, but Anthony Watts was just doing the site a SERVICE by directing traffic to it. Anthony should take his own advice. I first saw this cartoon on
“Watts Up With That”
https://xkcd.com/386/
The difference between scientist true to Theories of Science and CO2-beliving so called Scientist is hugh. The later haven’t understood what’s been known in form of demands when “proof” is put forward. Demands the Old Greek were familiar with. Retoric and sound argumentation is one thing – Theories of Science need both but also scientists understanding that: Consensus is a political term – not a scientific.
Where have all the money gone?
“climate scientists have already shown through an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that human activities are a major cause of climate change.”
That’s the way to win a scientific debate!
Make a claim that is the exact opposite of the truth, as if it is a proven and conclusive fact!
Every sound scientific refutation that proves that claim to be false is ignored, denigrated, messenger insulted, and plain and simply lied about.
Who do the general public believe?
The general, prostituting press that brainwashes us, the corrupt or ignorant education system that criminally injects false information into our young. The proven-to-be corrupt scientific journals who reject sound evidence because of political pressure. The list goes on.
The lie is so big and so ingrained, that even a total Ice Age future would be blamed on global warming, and the public and the logically challenged and financially corrupted scientists will still “believe”it.
The evidence of political agenda bias and influence is so overwhelming, yet exists only in the world of the realists. The warmists are completely immune to logic and commonsense!
“Make a claim that is the exact opposite of the truth, as if it is a proven and conclusive fact!”
And then ban anyone who disagrees with you.
I just posted this at TheRelgionOfWarmism.com AKA: Resilence.org
Alfred Wegener’s theory of plate tectonics was believed by 1% of scientists for 50 years. It’s now the accepted theory that the scientific method has not been able to disprove.
Galileo was persecuted by the church and forced to recant his heresy of a heliocentric solar system on lain of death.
Murray Salby has excellent data to prove that increases in atmospheric CO2 follow, not lag temperature.
NOAA’s troperspheric satellites have shown no increase in the Earths temperature in 18 years and 4 months (as of last week).
I further agree that the earth is not flat. (which was why the blogger at Resilence.org said they post no dissent from the GOD of Warmism)
Mis posted “lead not lag” in reference to Dr. Salby……my bad
Pardon, have you seen Dr. Murray Salby’s data?
What was/were the blocked comment(s)?
Ah. Hmm, well I saw plenty of that being posted there: http://www.resilience.org/stories/2015-04-12/how-the-climate-change-debate-got-hijacked-by-the-wrong-standard-of-proof#comment-1962512438
Theo: “This is a community site and the discussion is moderated. The rules in brief: no personal abuse and no climate denial.”
Please define “Climate Denial”.
Please explain why opposing argument is forbidden.
Thank you.
Man after my own heart for his first question.
The author’s argument could have been so much stronger had he only pointed out how the “deniers” arguments would have fared in a De Torquemada trial.
If only they meant what the said. The preponderance of evidence is that:
o sensitivity is low
o consequent warming is for the most part benevolent
o the proposed measures to “combat” the warming are a cure orders of magnitude worse than the disease
The Climate Change political solution is similar to Prohibition. The solutions are far worse than even the most dire predicted effects of the problem. Another similarity is that it requires massive taxation and for everyone to lose some freedom and liberty.
The difference between the two is that there doesn’t appear to be an actual CC problem. At least with drug use, there are verifiable problems.
Reminds me of the days when they used to bleed people to cure them. When they died they were no longer sick.
The author of the linked article doesn’t comprehend The Scientific Method which doesn’t use judicial standards of evidence, “preponderance of evidence standard” or “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
The standards of evidence in Science are much higher than these two “legal” “standards”. Why? Because these two legal standards of evidence would and have produced many false positives in science as well as many false negatives.
The trash can history of science is littered with failed conclusions, failed claims, failed dreams, failed theories, failed hypotheses based upon “preponderance of evidence standard” or “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
The non-scientists are attempting to argue their political case using legal and political standards rather than providing the hard objective empirical evidence that supports their claims of CO2 Climate Doomsday Rapture but their failing is based in how Nature is actually unfolding the climate of Earth.
Not a single doomsday claim made by the prognosticators of human caused climate doomsday has come true, not a one. This presents them with a problem, they can’t argue the science because of that horrific nasty Mother Nature isn’t complying with their dark visions of climate doomsday thus they argue using lessor standards of evidence which is an anti-scientific approach.
I love that they’re saying “it’s happening now” (on top of the “global” term) because if it’s happening “now” they have to accept photos that show gorgeous normal weather. They’re not going to be able to have their cake and eat it too. It’s not global, and in fact, our climate/weather is pretty doggone normal. Trees budding, flowers blooming, bees buzzing, birds migrating, sun shining, etc.
“Philosophers are as free as others to use any method in searching for
truth. There is no method peculiar to philosophy.
A second thesis which I should like to propound here is this.
The central problem of epistemology has always been and still is the
problem of the growth of knowledge. And the growth of knowledge can be
studied best by studying the growth of scientific knowledge.
I do not think that the study of the growth of knowledge can be
replaced by the study of linguistic usages, or of language systems.
And yet, I am quite ready to admit that there is a method which
might be described as ‘the one method of philosophy’. But it is not
characteristic of philosophy alone; it is, rather, the one method of all
rational discussion, and therefore of the natural sciences as well as of philosophy.
The method I have in mind is that of stating one’s problem
clearly and of examining its various proposed solutions critically.
I have italicized the words ‘rational discussion’ and ‘critically’ in order to
stress that I equate the rational attitude and the critical attitude. The
point is that, whenever we propose a solution to a problem, we ought
to try as hard as we can to overthrow our solution, rather than defend
it. Few of us, unfortunately, practise this precept; but other people,
fortunately, will supply the criticism for us if we fail to supply it
ourselves. Yet criticism will be fruitful only if we state our problem as
clearly as we can and put our solution in a sufficiently definite form—a
form in which it can be critically discussed.” – Karl Popper, http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/popper-logic-scientific-discovery.pdf, page xix.
Science is the process of attempting to overthrow or falsify ones pet hypotheses or letting others do so.
It is evident that those proposing CO2 Climate Doomsday Raptures aka CAGW have forgotten that they are, according to the scientific method, actually attempt to falsify their pet hypothesis. That they fail at this most basic aspect of science indicates that they are not following the scientific method, but some other method of inventing knowledge that isn’t based in objective reality of Nature.
Kurt Cobb writes:
The precautionary principle states that we must pay any price, no matter how large, to avoid any risk, no matter how small.
The principle is false.
Well stated.
Now you’d better lawyer-up because they come for wise people first.
In a court, it must first be proven a crime occurred.
I have been in court many times. I once was taking on a crown prosecutor. I was dancing with another at the time. The one I was taking on was trying to “INVENT” a lane for cars to park in. I was charged with the crime. But I was 9,000 miles away.
My son was in Grade 10 then. My daughter was in uni. Don’t underestimate these delusional people. There was a sign. Kids are not allowed to get out of a car in front of the school. So the police had everyone waiting while they wrote tickets to people like my daughter who was taking my son to school.
Don’t expect logic to prevail. Its not there.
The court case analogy fails badly.
Science is a method where the individual, in theory, can repeat the work and judge for themselves if the evidence is sufficient. There is no jury. Only when we outsource our thinking do we need a jury for something like science.
There is no final verdict that a postulate is true. Its always provisional. You can never convict but only stop the court case because there is a clear lack of evidence to pursue it.
In a court case, the consequences of getting it wrong is a crime. Even in a civil case, its theft. Hence the need for onus of proof on the accuser. In science it is nothing unless people want to treat the conclusions as divine. Then its like a court case and the onus of proof is on the person making the postulate. Sceptics need only poke a single hole in the argument.
How can Yahoo take this twit seriously when our actual geniuses were adamant that no amount of experiment can prove them right beyond doubt, but only one experiment can prove them wrong.
when it comes to predicting data on an interval, I would have thought 95% confidence was the default? (though studies have shown that it perhaps should be 99% or even 99.9% confidence due to bad assumptions about normal distributions…).
For you lawyers out there, that’s 19/20 on a jury, or maybe a 95% preponderance of the evidence…
Popper is rolling in his grave…
http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/popper-logic-scientific-discovery.pdf
Science is not a legal argument. It only takes one contrary validated observation (data point) that violates a prediction of a hypothesis to disprove that hypothesis.
If Newton’s G constant was found to vary from place to place, then Newton’s Law would (will) have been dashed in an instant. If Einstein’s prediction of light bending by massive objects was found not to occur as predicted, it would have dashed his hypothesis, no matter what other predictions it made had been verified.
Same with AGW theory of CO2 forcing, it has many falsifications now demanding it being rejected, yet Climate Science now is in the hands of pseudo-scientists with supporters like Matthew W. If we simply used “preponderance of evidence” standard, 51%, as he suggests then we’d have all sorts of mayhem in science. It would be the pseudo-science of cults, and mysticism, of tarot cards and astrology. Every quack claim would be able to find some set of data that randomly met a 51% threshold, and falsification would be impossible under that sham standard of “science.” Many people would die in pharmaceutical malpractice like of ages past of snake oil salesmen selling toxic potions, than unfortunately does today at very low rates. Thankfully science demands much more, and a hypothesis can be falsified in an instant
Matthew W, the Major League Turd, that wrote that piece has utterly no scientific understanding. He is just another pseudoClimate Science hack-fraud. Let him try and publish that piece of hacktivist crap in a journal Letter to Science mag, or something and watch the outcry happen from honest scientists..
I don’t think you completely followed the posts !!!
Matthew W.
Oh I followed the posts. Both here at WUWT and your post at Reslience.com. I went there and read through many of the posts and moderator comments on Resilience.com. My conclusion: It is a website for 3 year olds, or those with the mentality of a 3 yr old, who buy into flashy pseudo science, like climate change, holistic healing, anti-Vax’ers, crystal healing, and other pseudoscience garbage. The spectrum of commenters allowed at that website ranged from alarmist bedwetters and foot stomping tantrum-throwers to condescending liberals (who are really fascists in disguise), with a few know-nothing cult-minded pseudoscientists thrown-in who are ignoring real world data for reputation and admiration by Climate Change cult followers.
I don’t have time to argue using facts and data with 3 year-olds who think science is a legal argument of “because that what scientists mostly concluded in the 1990’s” unwilling to realize their position on CO2 has failed the real world tests. All that exists at Resilience.com is closed-minded ideologic zealots, not scientists.
And you are a major league turd if you think that “preponderance of evidence” is what makes a sound scientific conclusion for policy decisions that would send many millions to NK like poverty around the world for decades to come.
Joel O’Bryan, Ph.D.
No, you don’t get it.
I have no connection to anyone or any post at Reslience.com.
mods – a reply of mine to Matthew W. is stuck somewhere in spam or moderation. comment # 1906581.
Thanks. J.
– I must have used too many “offending” words for the filters to describe my disgust at resilence.com
The way of thinking and expected thinking I learned there isn’t fascism. It isn’t communism. It isn’t the Inquisition. It is far worse than that all together. I am convinced that this man, he seems to consider himself godlike and omniscient, would trigger a thermonuclear war just to “save the earth”. Disgusting.
Hey everyone,
The Australian Government is actually asking for submissions as to what the 2020 emissions targets should be.
There is an online portal here …
http://www.dpmc.gov.au/forms/unfccc-submissions
The more observant ones among you will notice the following links on the banner at the top of the web page …
Office of Deregulation
Office of Best Practice Regulation
A perfect circle of bureaucratic activity to achieve nothing …
via JoNova.
“The deniers have no hope of winning the intellectual argument if this standard of proof is used” — In science, it needs a a proof. In the case of global warming — climate change is not global warming but global warming is one component of climate change only — like in all other climate study, you must first show the standard relationship between anthropogenic greenhouse gases versus global warming. The second one is you must have a data without interpolations and extrapolations or manipulations to verify the relationship at global level. Neither of them are available. Because of this the models predict widely differing forecasts on future rise. Also, 90% of the so called “climate scientists” and not really climate scientists. Also “Climate scientists have already shown through an overwhelming preponderence of evidence that human activities are a major cause of climate change” — no not at all, the major component is natural variations in which extremes are part.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
The Warmistas see their beliefs being challenged on all fronts by science but maintain their spirits with their fundamental belief in Original Sin. They know that mankind is fundamentally corrupted and all his works are evil. Unusual and bad weather just must be caused by Man’s evil works. Belief in Global Warming and Climate change are modern religious beliefs and bear their adherents aloft over all reason, fact and debate.
“How the climate change debate …” What “debate”? How can there be a debate when there is no evidence to support the scam?
When I pointed out that their models are always proven wrong in time, I was called a fool and told that of course they’re wrong over short time frames because the climate works on a longer time scale. But that’s total nonsense. Adding up errors can never amount to correct results.
This reminds me of the old SNL First Citywide Bank commercial skit in which a manager explains how they make money when all they do is make change for free. “The answer is simple–volume.”
Not bothering to log into that site. It’s too dumb for words. But…
The issue here is about the burden of proof required to take action.
Surely it is obvious that the burden of proof that’s required is very low if the action has no cost.
And if the action has a high cost the burden of proof that’s required must be higher.
Required action to stop climate change impact = upgrade infrastructure for wear and tear as planned: No cost.
OK, not much evidence required to accept that as plausible.
Required action to stop climate change impact = raise energy costs for the 3rd world and so commit mass murder by starvation: High cost.
Yes, we need a lot of evidence that killing is worthwhile.
Look (this will get me in moderation), if the Protocols of Zion were not to be questioned then we would know that the Jews caused WW1 and so a Final Solution is the lesser of two evils.
That is the Warmists argument – except on a bigger scale of murder.
But if we ask for a higher level of evidence than unquestioned authority then we find that the Protocols of Zion were not authoritative and the Holocaust was a bad thing, after all.
The same will happen with the Warmist murderous agenda, eventually.
Dear Bed Wetters (persons who swallowed the Albert Gore / Mann hockey stick),
Here is a short, true story based upon another true story. You obviously enjoy a good story.
Don’t try telling us what to do; we’ve had enough of it AND we now want our money back. The only apology acceptable will be in writing, on paper, directly from the “qualified railway engineer” who wasted all our money.
🙂