You don't understand the scientific method if you think science is ever *settled*, read my post again. I outlined a perfect example in it.

(02-09-2015 10:45 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  You don't understand the scientific method if you think science is ever *settled*, read my post again. I outlined a perfect example in it.

I wrote three relatively simple sentences which you totally misinterpreted. However, in rereading my post, I can see how you might have been confused.

So let me be clear:

1. Science is never settled
2. the so called "97% of the scientists" who accepted global warming as "settled science" were either lying or don't understand the scientific method
3. several of us have been posting for some time that the science is never settled

Did they ask why the numbers were changed? Or do they just immediately consider it a conspiracy?

(02-08-2015 07:11 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  It's not that you're disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing from literally every respected scientific institution.

Let me tell you something about "scientific consensus". When I was in elementary school back in the 90s we were taught the food pyramid that advocated eating lots of grains and avoiding all fats. All that was based on a consensus achieved from epidemiological data up to that point, and since then that whole paradigm for healthy eating has been all but turned upside down, and it's very possible that the old pyramid has contributed too obesity and diabetes from people eating low fat but high calorie diets.

The problem with climate science is that it's a non-experimental science about a non-deterministic system with a sample size of 1. It does not have the same level of rigor as sciences that have the luxury of experiments and saying that denying anthropogenic global warming is just as validity as gravitation laws is just ignorant or being dishonest.

But that aside, I don't think anyone here has a problem with investing money for more renewable energy and going on the precautionary principle. What I and many others do have a problem with is characterizing "deniers" as being no different than flat Earthers while telling us that wind and solar energy can save us when there's no way in hell they can make the emissions reductions at the pace the IPCC says is necessary. Not only that, but these same people don't utter a peep of protest at nuclear reactors getting shut down or at the governments not doing to try and get more reactors and infrastructure. You're basically accusing people of ignoring scientific realities while ignoring mathematical ones. Don't tell me the Titanic has a huge gash in its hull and that I need to go get some duct tape and buckets.

(02-09-2015 04:12 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(02-08-2015 07:11 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  It's not that you're disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing from literally every respected scientific institution.

Let me tell you something about "scientific consensus". When I was in elementary school back in the 90s we were taught the food pyramid that advocated eating lots of grains and avoiding all fats. All that was based on a consensus achieved from epidemiological data up to that point, and since then that whole paradigm for healthy eating has been all but turned upside down, and it's very possible that the old pyramid has contributed too obesity and diabetes from people eating low fat but high calorie diets.

The problem with climate science is that it's a non-experimental science about a non-deterministic system with a sample size of 1. It does not have the same level of rigor as sciences that have the luxury of experiments and saying that denying anthropogenic global warming is just as validity as gravitation laws is just ignorant or being dishonest.

But that aside, I don't think anyone here has a problem with investing money for more renewable energy and going on the precautionary principle. What I and many others do have a problem with is characterizing "deniers" as being no different than flat Earthers while telling us that wind and solar energy can save us when there's no way in hell they can make the emissions reductions at the pace the IPCC says is necessary. Not only that, but these same people don't utter a peep of protest at nuclear reactors getting shut down or at the governments not doing to try and get more reactors and infrastructure. You're basically accusing people of ignoring scientific realities while ignoring mathematical ones. Don't tell me the Titanic has a huge gash in its hull and that I need to go get some duct tape and buckets.

Some on here do.

(02-09-2015 04:17 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 04:12 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(02-08-2015 07:11 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  It's not that you're disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing from literally every respected scientific institution.

Let me tell you something about "scientific consensus". When I was in elementary school back in the 90s we were taught the food pyramid that advocated eating lots of grains and avoiding all fats. All that was based on a consensus achieved from epidemiological data up to that point, and since then that whole paradigm for healthy eating has been all but turned upside down, and it's very possible that the old pyramid has contributed too obesity and diabetes from people eating low fat but high calorie diets.

The problem with climate science is that it's a non-experimental science about a non-deterministic system with a sample size of 1. It does not have the same level of rigor as sciences that have the luxury of experiments and saying that denying anthropogenic global warming is just as validity as gravitation laws is just ignorant or being dishonest.

But that aside, I don't think anyone here has a problem with investing money for more renewable energy and going on the precautionary principle. What I and many others do have a problem with is characterizing "deniers" as being no different than flat Earthers while telling us that wind and solar energy can save us when there's no way in hell they can make the emissions reductions at the pace the IPCC says is necessary. Not only that, but these same people don't utter a peep of protest at nuclear reactors getting shut down or at the governments not doing to try and get more reactors and infrastructure. You're basically accusing people of ignoring scientific realities while ignoring mathematical ones. Don't tell me the Titanic has a huge gash in its hull and that I need to go get some duct tape and buckets.

Some on here do.

I suspect that the "some on here" are those who have a problem with the government participating in crony capitalism that gave us the Solyndra debacle. There is nothing wrong with government funding basic research as long as it is not driven by an ideological agenda or is a direct benefit to a bundler.

And actually, the applied research that needs to happen is in battery capacities that need to be increased exponentially in order to provide a storage for the electricity that isn't being generated when the sun ain't shining and the wind ain't blowing.

Most on here do support the "everything on the table" approach unlike the administration that delivers lots of meaningless words. The administration tells us that "everything is on the table", except of course fracking, Keystone, off-shore drilling, drilling on federal land, yada, yada, yada.

(02-08-2015 05:52 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  I'll believe this when Brian Williams reports it on NBC Slightly News.

in the world of this board???.....that was almost pretentiously funny.....

(02-09-2015 06:27 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 04:17 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 04:12 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(02-08-2015 07:11 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  It's not that you're disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing from literally every respected scientific institution.

Let me tell you something about "scientific consensus". When I was in elementary school back in the 90s we were taught the food pyramid that advocated eating lots of grains and avoiding all fats. All that was based on a consensus achieved from epidemiological data up to that point, and since then that whole paradigm for healthy eating has been all but turned upside down, and it's very possible that the old pyramid has contributed too obesity and diabetes from people eating low fat but high calorie diets.

The problem with climate science is that it's a non-experimental science about a non-deterministic system with a sample size of 1. It does not have the same level of rigor as sciences that have the luxury of experiments and saying that denying anthropogenic global warming is just as validity as gravitation laws is just ignorant or being dishonest.

But that aside, I don't think anyone here has a problem with investing money for more renewable energy and going on the precautionary principle. What I and many others do have a problem with is characterizing "deniers" as being no different than flat Earthers while telling us that wind and solar energy can save us when there's no way in hell they can make the emissions reductions at the pace the IPCC says is necessary. Not only that, but these same people don't utter a peep of protest at nuclear reactors getting shut down or at the governments not doing to try and get more reactors and infrastructure. You're basically accusing people of ignoring scientific realities while ignoring mathematical ones. Don't tell me the Titanic has a huge gash in its hull and that I need to go get some duct tape and buckets.

Some on here do.

I suspect that the "some on here" are those who have a problem with the government participating in crony capitalism that gave us the Solyndra debacle. There is nothing wrong with government funding basic research as long as it is not driven by an ideological agenda or is a direct benefit to a bundler.

And actually, the applied research that needs to happen is in battery capacities that need to be increased exponentially in order to provide a storage for the electricity that isn't being generated when the sun ain't shining and the wind ain't blowing.

Most on here do support the "everything on the table" approach unlike the administration that delivers lots of meaningless words. The administration tells us that "everything is on the table", except of course fracking, Keystone, off-shore drilling, drilling on federal land, yada, yada, yada.

They are doing research on batteries and have been for quite a while.

The "some on here" seem to think that we shouldn't bother with these other methods because it would require essentially a subsidy since in general they are more expensive still. Not to be confused with tax breaks for high margin companies like oil companies. Let's make sure we drill everywhere the oil companies want to so they can make their shareholders and executives and board of directors happy, never mind what happens to anyone else. And then of course the other methods, since they are 100+ years behind oil in terms of infrastructure, aren't totally competitive yet.

If we left it to Republicans, we wouldn't have Yellowstone Park, or Yosemite, or any of the other National Parks. They'd be quarries, or mines, or oil-soaked swamps. But hey, as long as somebody is getting rich off of it and 50 people have a temporary job drilling it's all okay.

We have Yellowstone because of a Republican...

What ever happened to all those scientific institutions that claimed for decades that we were headed towards another ice age?

This global warming science didn't seem to go mainstream until the 1990s if I remember correctly. How do we all of a suddens switch from one extreme to the other?

Additionally, "Science" says we're in a global warming. Caused by, get this, scientific innovations over the years to make our lives easier (automobiles, factories, etc).

I blame, science.

We have deniers here that claim the "global cooling" push never happened. The Time magazine cover is a figment of our imaginations.

(02-09-2015 04:12 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(02-08-2015 07:11 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  It's not that you're disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing from literally every respected scientific institution.

Let me tell you something about "scientific consensus". When I was in elementary school back in the 90s we were taught the food pyramid that advocated eating lots of grains and avoiding all fats. All that was based on a consensus achieved from epidemiological data up to that point, and since then that whole paradigm for healthy eating has been all but turned upside down, and it's very possible that the old pyramid has contributed too obesity and diabetes from people eating low fat but high calorie diets.

The problem with climate science is that it's a non-experimental science about a non-deterministic system with a sample size of 1. It does not have the same level of rigor as sciences that have the luxury of experiments and saying that denying anthropogenic global warming is just as validity as gravitation laws is just ignorant or being dishonest.

But that aside, I don't think anyone here has a problem with investing money for more renewable energy and going on the precautionary principle. What I and many others do have a problem with is characterizing "deniers" as being no different than flat Earthers while telling us that wind and solar energy can save us when there's no way in hell they can make the emissions reductions at the pace the IPCC says is necessary. Not only that, but these same people don't utter a peep of protest at nuclear reactors getting shut down or at the governments not doing to try and get more reactors and infrastructure. You're basically accusing people of ignoring scientific realities while ignoring mathematical ones. Don't tell me the Titanic has a huge gash in its hull and that I need to go get some duct tape and buckets.

Well said!

WaPo Blames Boston’s Record Breaking Snowfall On “Global Warming”…



Head, meet desk. Unreal...

Quote: The snowfall in Boston lately is simply insane. The local bureau of the National Weather Service has tallied up the data and here’s how it looks — with all time records for snow within a 14-, 20-, and 30-day period.

ou could treat this as ordinary weather, or, you could think about it in a climate context. Counter-intuitive though it may sound, the fact remains that — as I have noted previously — some kinds of winter precipitation could indeed be more intense because we’re in a warming world.

Consider, for instance, that sea surface temperatures off the coast of New England are flashing red, showing an extreme warm anomaly. That’s highly relevant — because warmer oceans have atmospheric consequences.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energ...?tid=sm_tw

You do realize that snowfall isn't a measurement of temperature, right?

Usually doesn't fall on warm days.

No, yeah, you're right. You guys cracked the case. Regional outliers in fact cannot exist without entirely ruining the entire theory and decades of research.

(02-10-2015 10:05 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  No, yeah, you're right. You guys cracked the case. Regional outliers in fact cannot exist without entirely ruining the entire theory and decades of research.

"Settled science" doesn't exist. You'd be well advised to drop that from your argument.

That's simply because science is a continuous process, that doesn't mean that a reasonable person would construe that our social policies should never consider overwhelming scientific evidence. I mean, what the hell kind of nonsense is that?

(02-10-2015 10:05 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  No, yeah, you're right. You guys cracked the case. Regional outliers in fact cannot exist without entirely ruining the entire theory and decades of research.

Does this nullify the decades of research from previous generations that said we were heading for another ice age? Or did all of a sudden in the 1990s some sort of drastic scientific change occurred that pushed as not just back to center, but in the complete opposite direction and headed towards a global fireball?

Additionally, I won't be in SoCal very much longer but if global warming means the ocean temperature would warm a bit, that would be nice. The water is freezing here.

(02-10-2015 11:37 PM)CoastGuardHawk06 Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 10:05 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  No, yeah, you're right. You guys cracked the case. Regional outliers in fact cannot exist without entirely ruining the entire theory and decades of research.

Does this nullify the decades of research from previous generations that said we were heading for another ice age? Or did all of a sudden in the 1990s some sort of drastic scientific change occurred that pushed as not just back to center, but in the complete opposite direction and headed towards a global fireball?

Additionally, I won't be in SoCal very much longer but if global warming means the ocean temperature would warm a bit, that would be nice. The water is freezing here.

Yes, science changes based on the best evidence, and right now a very compelling amount of evidence points to the fact we're playing a significant role in the warming of the earth. At least, if you ask the majority of those best educated in those sciences. I don't see any compelling evidence of some vague worldwide scientific cabal controlling the data to push their politics, that's simply not how these things work, especially when you consider those directly opposing those policies are among the wealthiest businesses in the world.

This is no different than cigarette companies when science started pointing in one distinct direction when it came to their safety, and history will remember it that way. And as for cheering for the rise in worldwide ocean temperatures, that might be the most shortsighted and idiotic sentiments I've ever read on this messageboard. That's saying something.