teo123 wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 10:12 am
Have you watched John Stossel or PragerU interview some climate scientists, to hear what the professionals (who consider their views to be rather mainstream) actually say? Most of them say global warming is probably anthropogenic, but that we don't know for sure, and that it's very unlikely anything we do can reverse it. Patrick Michaels appears to be rather reasonable and well-educated about the topic.

Ah yes, how can I forget PragerU and Stossel, both well known for their politically unbiased and objective media. Do you really not consider the possibility that these people distort the truth to fit their agenda?
Maybe you should start listening to actual scientists instead of political pundits? Or are you only interested in confirming what you want to believe?
There are gonna be loonies everywhere, even in science. You have to listen to the consensus. And after reading Patrick Michael's Wikipedia article, he does not seem reasonable at all. It's probably because his political views force him to suspend what he knows to be true.
teo123 wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 10:12 am
And it's also not fine to support policies which supposedly address issues which you don't understand. Be it against global warming or pro net neutrality (every bit is not created equally on the Internet, that's just nonsense, most of the bits on the Internet are created by malware or useless crawlers, and ISPs should have every right to slow down traffic that's probably not useful) or any other hard-to-understand topic.
You're just as bad as these politicians then.
teo123 wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 10:12 am
My friend, there are countless stories of academics being rejected from editing Wikipedia. Vaughan Bell is probably the most famous one.
You know, experts aren't always going to be someone you've heard of. If someone is banned from editing on Wikipedia, there's probably a good reason for it.
teo123 wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 10:12 am
But if it is, as you admit it, a very complicated empirical question, how can we possibly know for sure?

Right back to your flat earth ways.
Just because
you don't understand how it could possibly be doesn't mean we don't know. If you really cared about this matter, you should study it from actual experts.
teo123 wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 10:12 amWhat makes you think climate science operates differently than linguistics and computer science? Have you published peer reviewed papers about climate science?
They are all very, very different fields.
teo123 wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 10:12 am You probably haven't published peer-reviewed papers about any science at all, and you somehow have arrogance to suppose you know how different sciences work.
Well no, it's because I have the humility to know that I don't have any research worth publishing. We've already talked about how publishing scientific papers means very little.
I don't claim to know entirely how these sciences work, but I know the distinctions in terms of principle and methodology.
teo123 wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 10:12 am It would be different if you were stating some obvious facts, like that astronomy and climate science don't rely on experiments,
All science relies on experiments. The type of experiment may vary, but it's still all experimenting. It's one of the fundamental parts of the scientific method.
teo123 wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 10:12 ambut you are making claims that only somebody with lots of experience publishing papers in those sciences could make.
I can't believe you have the audacity to say this after your comment on experiments.
teo123 wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 10:12 amYou are kind of reminding me of @Sunflowers when (s)he supposed (s)he knows how physics works and what physics can or can't tell us, just because (s)he has studied some philosophy.
No buddy, that's you.
teo123 wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 10:12 amIn my experience, the information found on Wikipedia is rarely useful when it comes to linguistics,
Well yeah because linguistics isn't really science. Though I wouldn't be surprised that if the stuff about linguistics on Wikipedia is true but you just don't agree with them.
teo123 wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 10:12 am and it's hardly ever useful for computer science.
I highly doubt that.
teo123 wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 10:12 am But since you've never published a scientific paper, you probably don't see why.

You're really reminding me of Sunflowers when he constantly bragged about being a philosopher and we all just were uneducated.
Stop being like this Teo, it's so petulant, and you're embarrassing yourself.
teo123 wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 10:12 amThe information that can be found on Wikipedia is rarely the type of information you need. And when it is what you need, it's not presented in a way to be useful.
It's probably because you don't agree with it.
You've derailed this thread enough Teo. I am not going to be responding to you anymore after this, and I advise others to do the same. Don't annoy me by mentioning me in another thread to continue the discussion.