Wednesday, July 23, 2014

krischel's crazy making and “consensus”

I'm playing a little catch up here since I've been out of wifi range for days and am only within range for a short while, so this will remain slightly behind the conversation at where K's taken the conversation from "null hypothesis" to "consensus".

krischel Says: July 21, 2014 at 02:21 
Yes, “consensus” is a political idea, not a scientific one. Science doesn’t work through consensus, it works through the strict application of skepticism to necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statements. 
#1 – the verification of experiments, or observation of data, is not subject to consensus. CO2 has risen steadily for the past 17 years, while global average temperatures have had no statistically significant warming, no matter how many people wish to deny that. 
#2 – Medical “science” is a lot more primitive than you would believe. A sad amount of focus is put on epidemiological studies (observational studies), which leads to all kinds of false flags, causing treatment and medical advice that is actually *damaging* to humanity. Hormone replacement therapy and low-fat nutrition advice come immediately to mind. 
#3 – A “consensus” is poll of people where their opinions align. 
#4 – I’ll be a bit more specific -> in all fields of science, blindly accepting the “common understanding” is a negative. We should always be brutally skeptical of even our most cherished and deeply held beliefs. Without challenges to the “common understanding”, science simply does not progress.That being said, having a common understanding of the scientific method is *crucial* to the proper practice of science. Sadly, this isn’t generally the case in the AGW debate.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
krischel Says: July 21, 2014 at 02:21 -  
"Yes, “consensus” is a political idea, not a scientific one. "
~ ~ ~ 

Do you actually believe that?
What's the point of designing reproducible experiments - 
if not a desire to find support in "consensus"?
~ ~ ~ 

Don't you appreciate that the "consensus" is nothing more than the "general agreement" among informed experts.

And that the consensus is always provisional in light of new and better information?

Ironically you denialist types turning this principle of "consensus" into some tar baby - is nothing but another ruthless profoundly cynical political strategy that has stonewalling as it's goal rather than good-faith learning.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  

#1 Has nothing to do with consensus, because you refuse to acknowledge the warming of polar regions and ocean depths. - you have presented a cheap Argument from Ignorance.

#2 Why did you ignore the "consensus" question?  Merely complaining that medical sciences aren't perfect, get's no one anywhere.

Tell me, if you suffered severe bodily injury, would want to be taken to your favorite mechanic or your PhD philosophy sparing mates - or would you prefer to be dropped off in a certified Emergency Room?
Think the principle of "consensus" might have something to do with that choice?

#3 Is an example of the pure cynicism that is the lifeblood of the contrarian.  Trying to compare the process of learned folks who have expert level understanding and the conclusions they draw from their experiments and experiences - with the flakey civilian population who can be swayed by any well scripted soundbite, since they appear too mesmerized by Hollywood expectations to have any interest in actually understanding the fundamental of our planet's climate system.

#4 There's a big difference between "brutally honest" (which is a necessary and good thing when done in good-faith) and being a malicious vandal who uses lies of convenience (such as your #1) to confuse and stonewall - rather than to learn and move forward in our understanding.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
krischel Says: - July 17, 2014 at 08:02 
Did you actually read the climategate emails? The dirty tricks, lies, and attacks on reputable scientists came from the warmists :)
~ ~ ~
CC:  I already answered in the affirmative - yes I have read many of those emails.
Now, how about you sharing which of those emails you find most heinous?
Can you support that opinion with any facts?
Oh, and exactly who are these "reputable" scientists that were "attacked" and what did those "attacks" consist of?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Krischel does a great job of avoiding direct responses, instead constantly layering in ever more layers of misrepresentation and avoidance.  So I invite anyone to respond to these simple questions I raise.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

No comments: