Recommended Posts
mnealtx 0
Until a few hundred years ago, the 'consensus' was that the Earth was the center of the universe.
All you did was pretty up Riddler's quote, and lawrocket's response applies equally to you.
All you did was pretty up Riddler's quote, and lawrocket's response applies equally to you.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Unless you think that the scientific investigative methods of the 1700's and the 2000's are equals, then its apples and oranges.
mnealtx 0
QuoteUnless you think that the scientific investigative methods of the 1700's and the 2000's are equals, then its apples and oranges.
Consensus is still consensus - and *still* isn't science.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
kallend 1,623
QuoteQuoteUnless you think that the scientific investigative methods of the 1700's and the 2000's are equals, then its apples and oranges.
Consensus is still consensus - and *still* isn't science.
Given your dismal showing on scientific and math related topics like thermodynamics, heat and mass transfer, and statistics, your opinion on what is and what is not science is not very credible.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
skinnay 0
QuoteUntil a few hundred years ago, the 'consensus' was that the Earth was the center of the universe.
All you did was pretty up Riddler's quote, and lawrocket's response applies equally to you.
well at least your grandchildren will be proud when you become the next galileo. or maybe not
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteUnless you think that the scientific investigative methods of the 1700's and the 2000's are equals, then its apples and oranges.
Consensus is still consensus - and *still* isn't science.
Given your dismal showing on scientific and math related topics like thermodynamics, heat and mass transfer, and statistics, your opinion on what is and what is not science is not very credible.
Luckily, YOU aren't the arbiter, either, not that I give a rat's ass what YOUR opinion is either.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
rushmc 18
Now even more??
http://greenhellblog.com/2010/02/03/penn-state-climategate-investigation-to-continue/
QuoteIn looking at four possible allegations of research misconduct, the committee determined that further investigation is warranted for one of those allegations. The recommended investigation will focus on determining if Mann “engaged in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities.”
http://greenhellblog.com/2010/02/03/penn-state-climategate-investigation-to-continue/
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
QuoteLook, from all your posts on here it seems to me like you are a pretty smart guy who is capable of looking at facts and coming to conclusions.
Yes. Not bad for a blonde, eh? [Cool]
[Reply] So let me explain why [Riddler] is right and you are wrong
Okay. Joking aside. There is not an objective "right" or "wrong." It is "what do I believe based on the evidence presented?" Reasonable minds can differ!
I do not challenge the mechanism of greenhouse gases or aerosols. If it was that simple then I'd be more easily convinced. My problem is that the evidence shows that it is not that simple.
The lab can fairly easily demonstrate that we could expect in excess of .2 degrees celsius increase in mean golobal temperature over the last decade. We haven't. We don't kniw why.
Just last week, Solomon et al published a paper that shows a potential correlation between the identified pause in warming and the concentration of stratospheric water vapor (the most important greenhouse gas - and not just important in the stratosphere). If the findings prove correct then the models would then be chanhed to give greater weight to water vapor in the stratisphere. Note - reduction in methane will reduce stratospheric water vapor concentrations because CH4 mixing with O2 produces H2O as as result).
So the science is evolving. Paradigms change. Predicting 100 years out on the basis of present understanding of consistently evolving understanding seems more like soothsaying to me. You and others may disagree. Both viewpoints are reasonable and minds may differ.
[Reply]In the AGW debate, one might remove themself from relevent discussion if they stated "CO2 is not a greenhouse gas" or "There is no way that man could have an impact on our atmosphere".
Congrats. We are in agreement.
[Reply]However, relevent is more than black and white. There are shades of gray.
Absolutely. Individual perspective determines whether the gray is more black than white or white than black.
You may lean toward black and I may lean toward white. Neither is wrong.
[Reply]The vast majority of expert scientists believe that man is causing the plant to warm and the atmosphere to change in ways that are not beneficial to our survival (AGW).
Right.
[Reply] A few scientists (and a lot of people without expertise in climate science, who seem to think their opinions are just as important
) dissent from the findings of the majority. Not necessarily crazy. It spurs the debate and exchange of ideas. Pride of authorship sets in, and checks are required. Without Copernicus and Galileo and Kepler asking unpopular questions and observing, there would be a different present understanding.
[Reply] A reasonable third party would not give the same level of relevence to a few as to many.
I disagree. A few thousand people protesting the Iraq War are as relevant as the generals in terms of the exchange of ideas. Teabaggers receive relevance.
One of the biggest issues with the e-mails was the appearance that certain scientists were seeking to prevent contrary views from being peer reviewed or published. And another who was seemingly begging others to help him find a reason or a way to ensure something didn't get published.
It was the latter that showed the [I]human nature of science. Clearly, the paper interfered with ideas and notions of the scientist and he was resistan to the change. He had beliefs, and science itself was a challenge to the scientist. This is natural. It is human. I think it should be acknowledged that these peoples' lives and livelihood depend on this stuff.
[Reply] A vocal minority should not enjoy the same consideration as the scientific majority.
Um, that's how science evolves. New ideas. New paradigms. If they do not pass muster then they move to the next challenge. It's how we moved from a static universe to an expanding universe.
[Reply]There has been a few notable times in scientific history where the majority has been wrong.
Yes. It'd be swell if we did not endeavor to foreclose that from happening again. I like challenges.
[Reply]This has happened a lot less in the last 100 years than the last 300 years.
I'd think it has happened more often, what with medical, technological, material, etc. There are far more ideas to change. And far more numerous paradigms to challenge is far more numerous fields.
[Reply]Probability is against the minority coming up with a break thru that negates the entire position of the majority, although they may occasionally ding their credibility.
Yes. It's why I find it marvelous that people will challenge the establishment.
[Reply]So, Riddler is not defining relevent as only those that agree with him, he is recognizing that the overwhelming scientific consensus should be giving a lot more relevence than a dissenting minority.
If riddler said, "I think people should put more weight to the side that has the most supporters in the scientific community" then there is little room to argue. He has a viewpoint. I have mine. The viewpoint of the weight of thst opinion is good. In fact, I favir such an approach.
Nevertheless, my own study has revealed many unanswered questions. It also reveals a massive amount of political advocacy. Readily admitted by some like Hansen.
[Reply]My personal prediction: AGW skeptics are about 50 years away from having the same level of credibility as flat- earthers.
An acknowledgment of the issues related to the level of proof. And if you are right, then I'll tip my hat and say I'm wrong.
[Reply]Disclaimer: I have a degree in Environmental Engineering, so I must have drank the kool-ade from all those edumacated univeristy types
No. I'm not saying that. Nevertheless, there is a certain thought process that comes from the educational process.
Who goes into environmental engineering? Did you enter the major with any idea about AGW? Did your professors, by and large, ask you to question any of these beliefs? Etc.
I'm not saying you drank the Kool Aid. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it. All I'm saying is that it is what it is. You're human, too.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: I have a degree in Environmental Engineering, so I must have drank the kool-ade from all those edumacated univeristy types
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. I'm not saying that. Nevertheless, there is a certain thought process that comes from the educational process.
Who goes into environmental engineering? Did you enter the major with any idea about AGW? Did your professors, by and large, ask you to question any of these beliefs? Etc.
I'm not saying you drank the Kool Aid. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it. All I'm saying is that it is what it is. You're human, too.
I origionally went into civil engineering because I thought I wanted to make bridges. Well, the first job that came my way was in water treatment, and my career and degree ended up moving towards environmental issues. I wasn't really paying enough attention before that to have a solid opinion either way on AGW. I have an undergrad degree and also 6 graduate level credits on air quality engineering and meterorology. Yes, that instructor was a big proponent of AGW. With 30 years in the field and dozens of published papersI bet she knows a thing or two and its so unfortunate that many would dismiss her knowledge as "religious following"
(not referring to you). Furthermore, my post is in no way meant to discourage reasonable scientific dessent, and I think you understood that. What I am saying is that you can't give an auidence to every dude with a theory because then you get a ton of people like the Obama birthers and flat earthers who want their ludacris crackpotted ideas to get equal time and the debate goes down the toilet and nobody knows whats going on.
AGW skeptics aren't quite on the same level of ridicousleness as flat- eathers but my personal opinion remains that it will be that way within my lifetime.
riddler 0
Quotethere have been 3 articles out of the UK THIS week
That many?? Wow, three articles, written by not-scientist reporters in a week, all saying the same thing about one guy. I had no idea ... If I had only known, the evidence is clearly overwhelming. It must negate all the work done by thousands of scientists across the globe for the last three decades.
OK, so sarcasm aside, Penn State University ran an internal investigation into Michael Mann, and the hacked emails and concluded the following:
QuoteMann did not "participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data".
Nor did he "delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data" relating to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report.
The report can be found here.
But hey, could be another conspiracy - we all know how institutions of learning love to cover up facts to promote ... ummm ... hey, what exactly do you think the climate change science is trying to accomplish, anyway? I fail to see profit in it, in fact, it's very unprofitable to reduce our energy consumption.
Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD
mnealtx 0
QuoteI fail to see profit in it, in fact, it's very unprofitable to reduce our energy consumption.
Carbon credit trading.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
ROK 0
QuoteQuoteI fail to see profit in it, in fact, it's very unprofitable to reduce our energy consumption.
Carbon credit trading.
He who has the most
Cap & Trade baby! Support your leaders who push it, and all of your problems will go away
kallend 1,623
QuoteQuoteI fail to see profit in it, in fact, it's very unprofitable to reduce our energy consumption.
Carbon credit trading.
Indeed. Think of all the $Millions people made trading SO2 credits under Saint Ronald Reagan's cap and trade scheme.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
yep.
And think of the billions that dirty coal producers made by supporting S)2 scrubbers on all coal-fired power plants. If you don't think that dirty-coal producers lobbied for that one, think again.
A great way to ensure the use of cheap, high sulfur coal.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
And think of the billions that dirty coal producers made by supporting S)2 scrubbers on all coal-fired power plants. If you don't think that dirty-coal producers lobbied for that one, think again.
A great way to ensure the use of cheap, high sulfur coal.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
India pulled out of talks on a global climate change accord, citing that they could no longer trust the science in the wake of the glacier error + the leaked e-mails.
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"
kallend 1,623
QuoteIndia pulled out of talks on a global climate change accord, citing that they could no longer trust the science in the wake of the glacier error + the leaked e-mails.
How convenient for the world's 4th biggest polluter (and rapidly overtaking #3) to have a scapegoat.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rushmc 18
QuoteQuoteIndia pulled out of talks on a global climate change accord, citing that they could no longer trust the science in the wake of the glacier error + the leaked e-mails.
How convenient for the world's 4th biggest polluter (and rapidly overtaking #3) to have a scapegoat.
All the CRU and the UN had to do was treat the topic honestly. They didnt hence, here we are
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 18
QuoteQuoteIndia pulled out of talks on a global climate change accord, citing that they could no longer trust the science in the wake of the glacier error + the leaked e-mails.
How convenient for the world's 4th biggest polluter (and rapidly overtaking #3) to have a scapegoat.
Now to follow up. Yet another "embarasing" error for the UN. Scapegoat my ass
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
QuoteThe U.N.'s controversial climate report is coming under fire -- again -- this time by one of its own scientists, who admits he can't find any evidence to support a warning about a climate-caused North African food shortage.
The statement comes from a key 2007 report to the U.N., and asserts that by 2020 yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50% in some African countries thanks to climate change.
But this weekend, a key author of the team behind that report told The Sunday Times that he could find no evidence to support his own group's claim. The revelation follows the retraction by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of a claim that the Himalayan glaciers might all melt by 2035, dubbed 'Glaciergate' by commentators.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/08/british-scientist-says-panel-losing-credibility/
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Look, from all your posts on here it seems to me like you are a pretty smart guy who is capable of looking at facts and coming to conclusions. So let me explain why [Riddler] is right and you are wrong
) dissent from the findings of the majority. A reasonable third party would not give the same level of relevence to a few as to many. A vocal minority should not enjoy the same consideration as the scientific majority.
Riddler says that he would change his position if the majority of relevent scientists changed theirs. Scientists do that from time to time, it is part of the scientific process and we all know that. You claim that he is defining "relevent" as only those that agree with him.
Let's examine what the term relevent means for an old debate that we can all agree on, then extend that to the AGW debate in specific.
Certainly, if someone says that the Earth is the center of the universe, they have removed them self from relevence in topics dealing with astronomy and the layout of the planets. We could rightly call this person a crackpot. It might be said that they are irrevelent. This is because it is not worth the time or energy to discuss a theory that has virtually no possibility of being true.
In the AGW debate, one might remove themself from relevent discussion if they stated "CO2 is not a greenhouse gas" or "There is no way that man could have an impact on our atmosphere".
However, relevent is more than black and white. There are shades of gray. Obama MIGHT have been born in Kenya, the CIA MIGHT have blown up the WTC and Elvis MIGHT still be alive. These things are not easily proven to be physically impossible, but no reasonable person believes that they deserve equal time in the debate spotlight and should enjoy the same consideration by policy makers as their much more likely counter theories.
The vast majority of expert scientists believe that man is causing the plant to warm and the atmosphere to change in ways that are not beneficial to our survival (AGW). A few scientists (and a lot of people without expertise in climate science, who seem to think their opinions are just as important
There has been a few notable times in scientific history where the majority has been wrong. This has happened a lot less in the last 100 years than the last 300 years. Probability is against the minority coming up with a break thru that negates the entire position of the majority, although they may occasionally ding their credibility.
The error here was a "door ding" and the AGW skeptics (notice I did not use the deragatory "deniers") want to call the car totaled.
So, Riddler is not defining relevent as only those that agree with him, he is recognizing that the overwhelming scientific consensus should be giving a lot more relevence than a dissenting minority.
My personal prediction: AGW skeptics are about 50 years away from having the same level of credibility as flat- earthers.
Disclaimer: I have a degree in Environmental Engineering, so I must have drank the kool-ade from all those edumacated univeristy types
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites