GuySmiley
Well-known member
Heavy breathing of the Vikings rowing across the Atlantic?
Top physicist on climate change....
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Dude... quit while you are behind. Your making an *** of yourself in this thread.
Quetzal
New member
In regards to the OP, there is such a large consensus among scientists (from various disciplines, from all around the world) that climate change is a genuine concern, that is enough for me to put stock into their theory and listen to what they have to say. A few outlier perspectives would not be enough to change my mind.
ClimateSanity
New member
Why don't you think for yourself instead of deciding you will believe a particular viewpoint simply because a consensus of scientists supports it? If you close your mind to alternative viewpoints, you are guilty of having a closed mind. The whole issue of catastrophic man made global warming is built on several claims and subclaims. You need to think each one of these through without bias or leaning on the understanding of others and then determine if one viewpoint falls apart upon learning one of its claims is unworkable logically or has a paucity of evidence.
If you had thought ulcers were caused by stress a few decades ago, you would have been part of a large consensus and you and the consensus would have been proven wrong years later.
ClimateSanity
New member
Also, the so called 97 % consensus is a myth. It is due to publication bias among other things. It is very difficult to get a paper published that shows a negative result. Very often, scientists don't even try, because it's a waste of effort.
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein relatively unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate.
ClimateSanity
New member
What point are you trying to make? How does it affect my point about not letting consensus determine your thinking?
Every global warming theory has failed, so resort to the 97% consensus hoax.
Man-made climate change isn't the only occasion in history where a majority of scientists had it wrong.
Tyrathca
New member
That's not just a consensus, it's a consensus of people far smarter than you who know more about the subject than you. That you think you can figure things out better than those scientists despite a lack of adequate training and study of the relevant data is an example of the Dunning-Kruger affect (you vastly overestimate your competence)
ClimateSanity
New member
So you will believe something just because an expert on the subject believ
es it? I still think for myself even if an expert tells me something, especially if other experts poke glaring holes in your experts analysis. If the one poking the holes is not part of the consensus, it doesn't affect me.
gcthomas
New member
Come on Knight. The National Maritime Museum at Greenwich has this on the passage :
*In his diary, he famously wrote:
..........
The North-West Passage was done. My boyhood dream—at that moment it was accomplished. A strange feeling welled up in my throat; I was somewhat over-strained and worn—it was weakness in me—but I felt tears in my eyes.
Due to water as shallow as a metre, a larger ship could never have used Amundsen’s route.
Amundsen had achieved in a small boat what could not be accomplished in a larger vessel. But while his achievement ranks as one of the key milestones in the exploration of the Arctic, the discovery of a passage for commercial shipping (the original motivation for finding the North-West Passage) was still out of reach.
............
But Tel claims without evidence that the my 3ft depth claim was wrong. Should I let the deception go simply because he is indirectly supporting your claims? Here is a photo of the Gjøa: does it look like it has a ten foot draft?
Last edited:
Tyrathca
New member
If I'm not going to educate myself will on the matter then yes. And even then if I end up disagreeing in going to have a high index of suspicion that I'm the one who is wrong if most such experts all agree.
I doubt cherry pick the expert who ages with me.
If there is a disagreeing in a field and you pick the dissenters not the consensus you should have a good understanding of each sides arguments (in this case an understanding of statistics and relevant physics) to say so with any confidence.
If you had a tumour would you listen to the consensus opinion on how to treat it or the rare dissenter?
Quetzal
New member
This train of thought only works if I have enough knowledge to create an informed opinion. I don't. I do not have access to the raw data. I do not see the peer review sessions. I do not get to go to panels and conventions that discuss these things. There is an element of faith when you begin to deal with sciences if you are not a subject matter expert. I read publications and see the refined data. Needless to say, the data sets I see support their conclusions.
The issue is there is no substantive data to support the contrary. The scientists have the burden of proof, right? They have data to support themselves. Deniers do not.
Quetzal
New member
True, but there are also a large number of examples where the majority of scientists have been correct. If you have data that contradicts theirs, please share it.
Yes, the ship has a 10 foot draft.
Go to google, type "Gjoa Dimensions", and you will find the following on the right side of the page:
Gjøa
Vessel
Gjøa was the first vessel to transit the Northwest Passage. With a crew of six, Roald Amundsen traversed the passage in a three-year journey, finishing in 1906. Wikipedia
Launched: 1872
Length: 69'
Draft: 9' 10"
Beam: 23' 0"
In the following picture, compare the size of the men (who are about 6 feet) with the ship:
I can guarantee you that ship could not go through water one meter deep.
Now you're being deceptive.
Only the first paragraph is from his diary. The next two paragraphs are not from Amundsen's diary. You added them to make them look like it was from his diary.
People don't generally refer to themselves in the third person when they write diaries. If you are going to be deceitful, don't be stupid about it.
Why are you adding to what Amundsen wrote, and trying to make it look like he said something he did not?
It is wrong.
No ship carrying a crew of 6 men with a 13 horsepower engine and fuel that has a 45 net register tonnage is going to go through 3 feet of water.
Knight is right, you are really embarrassing yourself. You should have quit when you were behind. Now you're just making yourself look even more embarrassing.
Yes, it does.
Last edited:
Over 99.9% of theologians believe and agree there is a God. That is a consensus.
That's a consensus of people far smarter than you, who know more about the subject than you.
Yet you think you can figure out things better than those theologians despite your lack of adequate training and study in theology.
Your atheist claim is an example of the Dunning-Kruger affect (you vastly overestimate your competence)
Quetzal
New member
Science and Theology are not comparable. One uses empirical evidence and the other doesn't.
genuineoriginal
New member
You are claiming that Climate Scientists are suffering from the Dunning–Kruger effect?
Or is it the consensus scientists?
genuineoriginal
New member
Unproven supposition.
On the contrary, most of the "consensus" (including you) have done no research, have not verified the data nor the results, and don't know what they are agreeing to other than it is an official report from people that they have no reason to suspect of fraud.
The people that suspect the IPCC of fraud have looked much more closely at the evidence than the "consensus" and know much more about the subject.