Bill Nye the Minitrue Guy

Italians who think the Earth orbits the sun?

Climate change is real and provable. It's the 'anthropogenic' part that acts like religion. I thought you lot believed in separation of church and state. I guess you get around it by making a church of the state.

Ur sort of um... special. Arent u

General reminder: Galileo wasn't in trouble with the Church because he disagreed with the scientific consensus. The scientific consensus at the time was that the Earth revolved around the Sun, which is what Galileo believed. Galileo was in trouble with the political powers of his time who denied the empirical source of the scientific consensus because it seemed convenient to do so for the propaganda that kept them in power, and in the money.

Unfortunately, it isn't funny at all. :-(

You forgot to post a link to that excerpt.

Also, ... Michael Crichton, the Jurassic Park guy?

I like his books and movies, but he is not on the same level as Bill Nye.

This is idiocy, and it's dangerous.

The tests of science are logical clarity of argument and empirical repeatability of results. Scientific disagreement with any hypothesis, in order to be scientific, needs to be clear or empirically grounded. Reactions to such disagreement, within science, will by definition accept such criticism and take it seriously. Science works because everyone who is involved in it constantly welcomes every kind of scientific objection to their beliefs. It works because everyone assumes that they might be wrong, and the best way to eventually become less wrong is for as many people as possible to constantly check and double-check your thinking and your experiments. Every additional scientist's brain considering your theory is another test of that theory.

A scientist who sticks to his beliefs in the face of overwhelming odds is only to be applauded if those overwhelming odds are non-scientific. If you stick to your beliefs in the face of overwhelming odds of scientists pointing out overwhelming numbers of logical mistakes in your thinking and overwhelming amounts of empirical data contradicting your theories, you're not a scientist; you're a fundamentalist, or possibly a madman.

Ur so full of shit ur on sale at Lowe's for $14.99 a pound.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism#Galileo_Galilei

And the results which have actually been repeated, from 1970 to date, have repeatedly falsified the predictions of anthropogenic climate change. The predictions from 1970 to date have repeatedly failed to prove out.

Yeah, and you know what happens when you reproduce results?
Consensus.

I see some disagree with that. So for whoever disagreed, tell me where the man made ice age predicted in 1970 materialized.

Never mind, here's the real: Don't be fucking stupid. There wasn't any man-made ice age post-1970, u retards. U just defended ur idiotic quasi-religious orthodoxy against the obvious and overwhelming contradiction posed by reality itself. Do u even understand that? Do u even see the window licking retarded u just pulled there?

And u know what else results in consensus? Offering a shitload of people a shitload of money to all say what u want them to say.

Again with the facepalm, Diacanu? Okay, fine: show us evidence of a man-made ice age post 1970.

No serious scientist predicted a man-made ice age, that was bad sensationalist science reporting by Time Magazine.
This was debunked ages ago.

And again....are you 7 years old?

In fact, let me shortcut this whole thing for all of u: Point to JUST ONE prediction about climate change that EVER came true. Just ONE.

When you make a positive claim, you're the one who has to prove it.
Find proof of the tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, and I'll listen.
Until then, you're writing science fiction.
Like Crichton.

"No serious scientist predicted a man-made ice age"?

Try again, pudding-brain.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

Ur absolutely right! Global warming is the positive claim, and its proponents have spent 30 years failing to prove it.

We're back in Castleland (Castlevania?), where you are faced with so many mistakes at once it's difficult to know which one to correct first.

Indeed, scientists did not predict a man-made ice age in the 70s.

Having said that, if they had, and had then learned that this was false, and thus corrected their theory, that would not be an argument against their theory, or against science, or against scientific consensus. Sticking to your beliefs indefinitely is a virtue only among priests. Scientists expect, look for, hope for, and the religious ones pray for, the next opportunity to correct their theory. Bit by bit, we become less wrong, always remembering that we are definitely always still mostly wrong.

'You completely changed your mind as soon as you saw the new data!' is a commendation. It means you're doing it right: That is exactly what you should be doing when you get new data.

A simpler process of forming graphine was discovered by a high school student by accident.
He's rich now.
There goes your "evil elites", narrative.
Yes, if Jethro discovers something with his moonshine still, the community will listen.
Take the tinfoil off.

Shitty source.
Next.

Haarrrr, yer wrong!

No, wait, yerright!

So, "They know their theory was wrong, but don't U dare point out that their theory was wrong, you plebes!"

Yes. It is. Because the consensus that held up a theory they supported turned out to be wrong. Which means that consensuses (consensii?) can be, and in this cased PROVED to be, worthless.

Then, in light of the continued failure of computer model after computer model, they should have done that. They haven't.

And being mostly wrong is not a basis for trampling on the economy or on individual rights, which is why government needs to get yanked away from climate science by the neck.

And what are multiple confirmations?
Consensus.

And there you have it.
There's the crackpot paranoia narrative.
And we're done with you.

Yes; the level needed to provide a conceptually clear investigation of existing theories, and valid empirical results.

Not an absolute requirement, but a Ph D in a field is usually a good basis for clearly understanding the concepts and being able to conduct appropriate experiments.

No, it isn't 'assumed wrong'. If it isn't scientific, it is wrong, because a claim can't be true if its concepts aren't clear, and it can't be true if it disagrees with empirical reality. So what happens is that claims are tested for truth; and those that turn out to be provably false get put to the side.

On the contrary, you -- or at least Crichton in your quotes -- paints a picture of a person heroically insulating themselves from inquiry. Scientists don't do that. Hence, scientific consensus.

If he holds an opinion that differs from logic and empirical reality, then he is wrong. If he does so knowingly, he isn't a scientist. If he does so willingly and considers that to be scientific, he's mad.

U want credibility in this discussion? Do u? Then don't be lazy. Don't u dare be intellectually lazy. U read that source, u analyze that source material, and if u have genuine, actual, reason-based objections, I want to hear them. But don't u dare be a lazy sack of ass and just dismiss the source like a window licking retard. I expect u to be better than that.

Go back, do the problem over, and show ur work.

IOW, "No, it's not an assumption, it's an assumption."

Sort ur shit, idiot.

Nope. Like all fundamentalists, you fail to understand doubt. A scientific consensus isn't a consensus of religious convicts. It is a consensus that says, 'here is the set of claims we have up to this point failed to conclusively falsify; we expect most of it to turn out to be false in interesting and edifying ways, only we don't know the exact ways yet'.

"The theory might be wrong." isn't a challenge to the scientific consensus; it is included in it. "The theory is wrong because Aristotelian mechanics rules the world." is a challenge to the scientific consensus, because that claim has already been falsified.