(05-29-2012 05:13 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(05-29-2012 02:06 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-29-2012 01:55 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I'm satisfied that you're wrong if 97% of your colleagues disagree with you,

They don't. You just don't understand the statistics you cited.
Maybe they don't teach basic math in IQ school.

But it wouldn't matter. Phlogiston was a bad idea. Lister was right. History is replete with examples of the consensus being wrong.

It is amusing to watch you make a fool of yourself with your posts, but alas, you are a one-trick pony.

So you agree humans are causing global warming?

Phlogiston was pre Enlightenment and basically a wild guess by people who had few reliable observational tools at their disposal and no understanding of the basic elements of our world. Today we have computer modeling and a fuller understanding of the atom and how to manipulate even the smallest building blocks. It isn't perfect but to ignore a consensus because the consensus has been wrong before (and how often? 2% maybe?) is asinine. That's hardly reason not to adopt and recognize what are our best guesses at the time.

Science isn't about guessing. That's why climate science isn't any more science than astrology. But for someone w/ a low IQ, I can see where science looks like guessing, or possibly magic. You're quite the superstitious primitive.

Once again max, it does not say what you claim it says

97-98% of the climate researchers who most active publish on the topic support the tenants outlined in the report is not in any way the same thing as "settled science". I mean, the people who publish the most on tobacco (likely funded by the tobacco companies) probably don't support the surgeon generals warning... 2 pretty important qualifiers. Why us it just those that publish the most? Maybe because that is where the money is?

Of course those who write the most believe in it. There isn't much money for research in NOT believing in it. I mean seriously. We're not talking about the EPA here. Who exactly would fund research to disprove manmade global warming? I'm sure you will try and argue that the oil companies would fund it... And you may eventually be right... But as there is neither a solution nor a viable alternative to oil, they currently don't really care. They don't make you burn gasoline, and you aren't going to stop any time soon. And if they raise their costs, they just pass them on to consumers

Science is absolutely about our best guess at that particular time. Someday in the future some of our best guesses will be modified. Don't know which one's will be modified. But science absolutely positively never proves anything. Proofs are more in the line of math. You've NEVER studied a scientific proof. We have Scientific Laws. We have sets of hypotheses that graduate into Theory that try to understand these Laws. It's my guess that Torch's line of work deals more in Physics or Physical Sciences arena. He's more of a mathematical guy than a scientist. I would love to read some of the things he has published.

Hambone-

How can you disprove CO2 trapping long wave radiation? That's like disproving the temperature at which water boils. Do physical laws cease to exist? CO2 traps heat. We are putting more and more and more CO2 in the atmosphere year by year by year. To deny this is as foolish as denying the sun will rise tomorrow. Take all the politics out. Seek the truth. You would become an instant gazillionaire if you could show how the earth is counterbalancing the increase in greenhouse gasses.

(05-29-2012 08:58 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Hambone-

How can you disprove CO2 trapping long wave radiation? That's like disproving the temperature at which water boils. Do physical laws cease to exist? CO2 traps heat. We are putting more and more and more CO2 in the atmosphere year by year by year. To deny this is as foolish as denying the sun will rise tomorrow. Take all the politics out. Seek the truth. You would become an instant gazillionaire if you could show how the earth is counterbalancing the increase in greenhouse gasses.

IVe never once denied this. Read my earlier posts. I said I doubt anyone believes man doesn't contribute to global warming, and to be fair, we also limit global cooling I suspect

What I have said is that climate alarmists can't tell me
A) specifically or even theoretically what impact man is having... Be it an additional fraction of a degree or ten degrees over 100 years or 1000
B) what we should do about it, including estimates of how much it will cost and what the impact will be... So that we can do an appropriate cost/benefit analysis. I mean, if it means spending trillions of dollars to change the temperature by 2 tents of a degree, maybe it's not worth the fuss??
C) that if the US were to ban all fossil fuels that the ret if the world wouldn't do things to completely eliminate the benefit we produced... After all, we're talking about global warming, but not imposing stricter controls on emerging/dirty countries

The third item is a bit of a wild card. When you can talk about the first two, you'll have my attention. Until the , I believe we should be good stewards of the planet that don't require alarmist projections to make points

(05-29-2012 09:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-29-2012 08:58 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Hambone-

How can you disprove CO2 trapping long wave radiation? That's like disproving the temperature at which water boils. Do physical laws cease to exist? CO2 traps heat. We are putting more and more and more CO2 in the atmosphere year by year by year. To deny this is as foolish as denying the sun will rise tomorrow. Take all the politics out. Seek the truth. You would become an instant gazillionaire if you could show how the earth is counterbalancing the increase in greenhouse gasses.

IVe never once denied this. Read my earlier posts. I said I doubt anyone believes man doesn't contribute to global warming, and to be fair, we also limit global cooling I suspect

What I have said is that climate alarmists can't tell me
A) specifically or even theoretically what impact man is having... Be it an additional fraction of a degree or ten degrees over 100 years or 1000
B) what we should do about it, including estimates of how much it will cost and what the impact will be... So that we can do an appropriate cost/benefit analysis. I mean, if it means spending trillions of dollars to change the temperature by 2 tents of a degree, maybe it's not worth the fuss??
C) that if the US were to ban all fossil fuels that the ret if the world wouldn't do things to completely eliminate the benefit we produced... After all, we're talking about global warming, but not imposing stricter controls on emerging/dirty countries

The third item is a bit of a wild card. When you can talk about the first two, you'll have my attention. Until the , I believe we should be good stewards of the planet that don't require alarmist projections to make points

Actually, many on here doubt man contributes to global warming. Do you not read the multitude of Torchy's threads on this subject?

Man certainly impacts the environment. To what degree, I have no idea. To hear many from the left, Robert, we need to,kill half the population and get rid of all cows. Or give a trillion dollars to other countries as punishment, but get nothing back in terms of improving the situation. I dontt think torch denies impact... He merely denies the hype and questions the manipulated science behind the claims. LOTSnof people share that skepticism.

(05-29-2012 08:58 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You would become an instant gazillionaire if you could show how the earth is counterbalancing the increase in greenhouse gasses.

Really? How? You're making claims now Mach, so back them up.

Anyway, it's not hard to see how the Earth is counterbalancing increased greenhouse gases. There are various mechanisms:

Look at the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

Increased cloud activity.

Changes in polar reflectivity/emissivity.

And let's not forget that the "climate scientists" admit up front they don't know how to model #2. And they don't spend a lot of time discussing #1 adn 3.

(05-29-2012 08:49 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Science is absolutely about our best guess at that particular time.

Ridiculous.

Quote: Someday in the future some of our best guesses will be modified. Don't know which one's will be modified. But science absolutely positively never proves anything.

I've already disproven this to you at least once. Philosophy profs make this claim, and try to wow students w/ the complexities of epistemology, and how smart they are for being able to teach it. But this claim is nonsense.

Quote:Proofs are more in the line of math. You've NEVER studied a scientific proof. We have Scientific Laws.

There are also all sorts of theorems in science. Jahn-Teller distortion comes to mind quickly.

But, you also don't understand "proofs". You're talking about deductive logic, but inductive logic is also a valid tack for knowledge.

Quote: You We have sets of hypotheses that graduate into Theory that try to understand these Laws.

Not so much. Laws are descriptions of physical phenomena. They are validated inductively, and rarely change except in precision.

Theories are models of the systems we're interested in. Descriptions, that are usually a mix of quantitative and qualitative, and they follow the laws. Yes they change w/ new discoveries, sometimes dramatically sometimes again at a level of precision.

Theories don't graduate into laws. You can talk about Higgs Bosons or Einstein's warping of space by mass, but in the end, the law of gravity doesn't change. In fact, that's a good example b/c you see how the studies are phrased (understanding mass) in order to stay in line w/ the law.

Quote:It's my guess that Torch's line of work deals more in Physics or Physical Sciences arena. He's more of a mathematical guy than a scientist.

Not at all. I hit the Peter Principle when it comes to the high math for cutting edge science. I do experiments, and analyze them usually w/ algebra. Sometimes 1st-order differential equations, but complex, multivariate systems? Effective Hamiltonians? I use other people's models.

Torch. Asking a question to make a point. I am not asking you to go beyond the very basic... But do you deny that mans presence and his actions have an impact on the environment? I'm not asking you about degrees or directions... Much less the reactions of and by the earth that might mitigate or counterbalance that impact.

I ask because the left likes to claim that the science is irrefutable on the impact, so if you deny the science, you must be denying the impact. Sort of the idea that you can die of pneumonia, and you can get pneumonia if you have aids... So if you die of pneumonia, you must have been gay theory in reverse.

Quote:Theories are models of the systems we're interested in. Descriptions, that are usually a mix of quantitative and qualitative, and they follow the laws. Yes they change w/ new discoveries, sometimes dramatically sometimes again at a level of precision.

Theories don't graduate into laws. You can talk about Higgs Bosons or Einstein's warping of space by mass, but in the end, the law of gravity doesn't change. In fact, that's a good example b/c you see how the studies are phrased (understanding mass) in order to stay in line w/ the law.

The law of gravity doesn't change, even if we find a better model to explain the inconsistencies we have with the current model?

I see the GW issue as not a single question but a series of questions:

1) Is the earth getting warmer?
2) Are whatever changes are occurring a steady trend or a phase in a cycle?
3) To what extent is human activity responsible?
4) What are the costs and impacts of doing a) nothing or b) something?
5) What should be done?

And the answers as I see them:

1) There seems to be some debate, and there have clearly been instances where data were admittedly fudged, but let us assume that when the smoke all clears the answer is yes.
2) IMO this question has received far too little attention, and this is where the "settled science" starts to fall apart for me. I haven't seen anything that settles this question conclusively. If you have, please provide link or reference.
3) What we have here are lots of models showing how CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming, but the models don't agree and AFAIK none of the models has yet proved to be an accurate predictor. Again if you are aware of one that I am not, please provide link or reference. This is where climate science is different from gravity. If I drop something it falls. I can calculate how fast it falls and how far it will fall in X seconds. That's because gravity is predictive. And that's the test for settled science. Science becomes settled when it achieves predictability, and climate science is not there yet.
4) Here's where the lack of predictability manifests itself prominently. This is also a step that gets overlooked by the climate change proponents. Let's create a crisis and make sure it doesnt go to waste, so let's jump over the step of analysis to come up with appropriate actions. For something this big, we'd better make sure that we're going to do more good than harm. I can get to this point without the global warming hysteria, because I don't think there can be much doubt that too much CO2 in the atmosphere is a bad thing. But without the hysteria there is time and need to do reasoned analysis rather than simply screaming that the sky is falling.
5) So let's see, the big proposal from the GW crowd is that the developed world will impose extremely expensive limitations on itself, but give the developing world a free pass, and by the way the developed world will pay the developing world reparations for the privilege. Exactly how is that going to reduce GW? Isn't it actually going to make GW worse, as future development tilts away from the regulated north and toward the unregulated south? And oh, by the way, those limits that the developed world placed on itself in Kyoto--looks like none of them are hitting their targets.

What I say do is to recognize that increasing greenhouse gases are almost certainly problematic, come up with reasonable rational solutions, and implement them, without all the sky-is-falling rhetoric.

(05-30-2012 09:58 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Torch. Asking a question to make a point. I am not asking you to go beyond the very basic... But do you deny that mans presence and his actions have an impact on the environment? I'm not asking you about degrees or directions... Much less the reactions of and by the earth that might mitigate or counterbalance that impact.

Not at all. I don't deny that. There are plenty of examples to show that is true.

Quote:I ask because the left likes to claim that the science is irrefutable on the impact, so if you deny the science, you must be denying the impact.

Right, then they make a leap and say that if you believe in some impact, it must be the impact they're evangelizing about. That's one of many logical fallacies they subscribe to.

(05-30-2012 11:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I see the GW issue as not a single question but a series of questions:

1) Is the earth getting warmer?
2) Are whatever changes are occurring a steady trend or a phase in a cycle?
3) To what extent is human activity responsible?
4) What are the costs and impacts of doing a) nothing or b) something?
5) What should be done?

As usual, a sensible approach. One underlying question that you don't state explicitly is, "How do we know the answers to these questions?"

And that's where the catastrophists have been caught lying repeatedly.

1) Is the earth getting warmer? Dunno, given the uncertainties in the measurements, and the use of proxy measurements when convenient. Furthermore, their statistical treatment of the data has been shown to be inappropriate. That's what McIntyre has been pointing out for many years now.

2) I'm not sure we have enough info to answer this completely. Certainly some observations have been criticized b/c they didn't match the AGW narrative. That's not honest.

3) Tough to get at since we don't even know 1&2. Atmospheric CO2 levels do seem to be rising. What is the impact of that? We don't know.

4) Costs of doing something or nothing? Tough to estimate costs when we don't even know consequences. Will sea levels rise? Will food be more abundant? Will health improve or decline? I dunno (although the MWP offers some possibilities). Then getting to costs...well that's a whole different set of opinions.

5) Again, we have so many loose ends before this, we're not even close to answering it. Other than this: if it saves money by saving resources...do it. I use gray water, clotheslines, carpools etc. If it "saves resources" but costs more money (e.g. photovoltaics) then I'd suggest individuals should approach w/ caution, and insist that gov't stay completely away in terms of policy.

Seems to me that the left has once again completely mischaracterized the opinions and goals of their skeptics. I generally agree with owl, who generally agrees with torch, who generally agree with even these wildest predictors.. Man impacts thE environment... Settled science... To what degree, and what we can do about it is VERY unclear. Until THAT science is settled, or at the very least, predictable via various simulations, you have nothing but an opinion. As an analogy, we are at the point where scientists say that when you drop something... Something happens.

Owls description of Kyoto is spot on. So far, it's a money grab, not an environmental issue

Quote:Machiavelli Wrote:
Science is absolutely about our best guess at that particular time.

Ridiculous.

Elaborate. This is the 1st chapter in darn near every scientific textbook. It's the very fabric of science.

Quote:There are also all sorts of theorems in science

EXACTLY. That's why they are not called proofs. They are all theories. That's the GOLD standard. A theory has NEVER been disproven. That's why you would be set for life if you could disprove the greenhouse theory. We are putting more and more CO2 into our atmosphere every year. Yes there are mechanisms that counter balance the trapping of heat. You hit on a couple. But they are trampled over by the magnitude of CO2 we are trapping. That CO2 saturation hypothesis you mentioned a couple of years back holds no weight in any articles that I have researched. Give me ONE scientific journal that publishes an article backing your claims. You need to find a credible source for your citations. WATTSS up with the weather doesn't cut the mustard.

(05-30-2012 12:29 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

Quote:Machiavelli Wrote:
Science is absolutely about our best guess at that particular time.

Ridiculous.

Elaborate. This is the 1st chapter in darn near every scientific textbook. It's the very fabric of science.

That's nonsense. And I don't care if it's in middle school textbooks. That means nothing, other than the schools are filled w/ people who learn little and even that is often wrong.

If it's just a guess, then how does anything work? How do you do engineering based on scientific principles?

Your problem Mach is you're too ready to believe authority figures who spout off nonsense.

Quote:There are also all sorts of theorems in science

EXACTLY. That's why they are not called proofs. [/quote]

Theorems are proven.

Quote: A theory has NEVER been disproven.

Many, many have.

Quote: That's why you would be set for life if you could disprove the greenhouse theory.

1. I don't see how that could make money.

2. No one is arguing against that, so you've set up a strawman:

Quote:We are putting more and more CO2 into our atmosphere every year. Yes there are mechanisms that counter balance the trapping of heat. You hit on a couple. But they are trampled over by the magnitude of CO2 we are trapping.

Prove it.

Because they aren't. And that simple proof to my claim is that temps aren't going up.

BTW, the cloud issue has been discussed a lot. That's no secret.

Quote: WATTSS up with the weather doesn't cut the mustard.

I disagree, since McIntyre was one of the early founders of the site. And the climategate emails conceded he was right.

Too many doing "climate science" aren't even doing science. It's a farce. Might as well buy a deck of tarot cards.

(05-30-2012 10:32 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote:Theories are models of the systems we're interested in. Descriptions, that are usually a mix of quantitative and qualitative, and they follow the laws. Yes they change w/ new discoveries, sometimes dramatically sometimes again at a level of precision.

Theories don't graduate into laws. You can talk about Higgs Bosons or Einstein's warping of space by mass, but in the end, the law of gravity doesn't change. In fact, that's a good example b/c you see how the studies are phrased (understanding mass) in order to stay in line w/ the law.

The law of gravity doesn't change, even if we find a better model to explain the inconsistencies we have with the current model?

A. Give me one theorem that's proven.


B. Give me a scientific theory that has been disproven in the last two centuries.

I want to clarify B. Once a theory is disproven it is modified or is no longer considered a theory.