[Sivad]

I'd be quite happy for people to stop claiming changes in solar activity are a significant factor in global warming.

I'd be happy if people would just stop erroneously claiming there's a high degree of certainty as to whether and how much solar activity is contributing to climate change. Science doesn't fully understand the sun or the climate or the relationship between the two and it can't accurately measure solar activity or the global average temperature anyway. It's all highly uncertain approximations and conjecture.

All science has is the state of the art and if the state of the art is rudimentary then science just can't tell us much.

[Sivad]

[Pants-of-dog]

We are coming off a record solar maximum, and the minimum will plunge dramatically over the coming decades lowering global temps.

No. You do it.

So if you have no evidence, then why do you believe this?

@Sivad apparently believes that there is not enough evidence for anyone to make any claims whatsoever about sun and climate.

[Stormsmith]

Well, science may be arguable but stats usually arent. There is abundant evidence in the stats to say it's worthy of proactivity, same as seatbelts. You might not concede seat belts save lives but the stats suggest we should use them.

[Sivad]

So if you have no evidence, then why do you believe this?

@Sivad apparently believes that there is not enough evidence for anyone to make any claims whatsoever about sun and climate.

You can make all the claims you want, proving them is another matter. You apparently believe that science is just a matter of collecting the evidence and deducing the facts, that's not the reality. That's a laughably naive conception of science. What your dealing with in real world science is ambiguous indirect evidence that can be interpreted in any number of ways depending on the assumptions you bring to it. And so all theories are underdetermined and with most of them it's unclear if they're even empirically adequate. Science isn't about truth, it's just best guesses based on available evidence and there's no guarantee that the evidence available is sufficient to reach a conclusion so more often than not the guesses turn out to be wrong.


If scientists were honest they'd say 'based on these assumptions and according to the available evidence we think x might be a possibility but we really don't know'. The bullshit that comes out of climatology like "97% consensus" and "incontrovertible fact" and "rock solid evidence" is just blatant mendacity. Those fuckers do not know and any of them that claim to know are either deluded or lying.

[Pants-of-dog]

You can make all the claims you want, proving them is another matter.

You have yet to provide evidence for any of your claims.

And you seem confused about the difference between proof and evidence.

You apparently believe that science is just a matter of collecting the evidence and deducing the facts, that's not the reality. That's a laughably naive conception of science. What your dealing with in real world science is ambiguous indirect evidence that can be interpreted in any number of ways depending on the assumptions you bring to it. And so all theories are underdetermined and with most of them it's unclear if they're even empirically adequate. Science isn't about truth, it's just best guesses based on available evidence and there's no guarantee that the evidence available is sufficient to reach a conclusion so more often than not the guesses turn out to be wrong.

If scientists were honest they'd say 'based on these assumptions and according to the available evidence we think x might be a possibility but we really don't know'. The bullshit that comes out of climatology like "97% consensus" and "incontrovertible fact" and "rock solid evidence" is just blatant mendacity. Those fuckers do not know and any of them that claim to know are either deluded or lying.

I am ignoring your whining about how newspapers write articles about scientific topics.

Now, unless there is evidence for climate change being caused by the sun, I will continue to regard this claim as unsupported speculation.

[Sivad]

Well, science may be arguable but stats usually arent.

What?

Controversies may arise when statistical methods are applied to real problems. The reasons vary, but some possible sources are (1) the user fails to appreciate the limitations of the methods and makes claims that are not justified, (2) the use of statistical methods is affected by non-statistical considerations, and (3) researchers disagree on the appropriate statistical methods to use.
https://link.springer.com/referencework ... 4898-2_557

[Sivad]

You have yet to provide evidence for any of your claims.

Obtuse denial is not an argument. I've provided more than enough evidence, Noemon edit: rule 2

I am ignoring your whining about how newspapers write articles about scientific topics.

I just listened to two Lindzen debates with two big shot climatologists from major research universities and all of those exact phrases were used by those bullshitters. So it's not just the media. Go listen to a Gavin Schmidt interview, it's ludicrous.

Now, unless there is evidence for climate change being caused by the sun, I will continue to regard this claim as unsupported speculation.

You don't know the evidence but you do have a strong opinion on it, that pretty much says it all about your mentality.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yet another post completely devoid of argument or evidence.

Do you have an actual argument as to whether or not global warming is real?

[Sivad]

starts @4:35

For anyone who's actually interested in understanding this controversy this is the lecture to watch.

[Pants-of-dog]

Is there an argument in there somewhere?

[Sivad]

Is there an argument in there somewhere?

Yeah, a good one, and more and more people are hearing it and catching on to it...Noemon edit: Rule 2

[Pants-of-dog]

But you do not know what it is?