Quote:You don't recognize the validity of blogs. Hypocrite.

Kindly read the second sentence:

“Among abstracts [of published scientific papers] expressing a position on AGW [anthropogenic global warming], 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.” Cook and Nuccitelli, who read 11,944 climate-related abstracts, confirmed the findings of earlier studies such as a 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which came up with similar numbers that supported the expert consensus on man-made global warming.

(06-07-2013 10:05 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

Quote:You don't recognize the validity of blogs. Hypocrite.

Kindly read the second sentence:

Of your blog post?

Exactly the point.

And if you'd follow the facts, instead of cherry picking select articles, you'd know that the published study is rubbish, and is even being considered for withdrawal.

Just out of curiosity, did you actually read the journal article, or just the blog post referencing it?

(06-06-2013 01:55 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  It's hard to debunk the left when they have Photoshop on their side.

The picture at the bottom is classic. Robert makes quite the poster boy.

(06-07-2013 03:22 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Dmac, you have correctly defined theory and hypothesis. The problem with your argument is that, by the standard you have correctly defined, man-made global warming remains more hypothesis than theory. Being called a theory, even being called a theory by someone as intelligent as you on an Internet chat board, does not make something a theory. Meeting the standards you enunciated makes something a theory. And man-made global warming does not meet them.

F=ma was a scientific theory. It was displaced by the subsequent theory of relativity. But most applications are in areas where relativistic effects were immaterial. You can still build an effective bridge using f=ma, and people have done so for centuries. Man-made global warming is nowhere near f=ma on the scale of reliability, and will not be until someone produces warming models with far more predictive power than anything developed to date.

Your statements regarding theories are spot on but irrelevant. Because, for many reasons pointed out by several here as well as many others elsewhere, man-made global warming is still at the diaper stage when it comes to being a grown up theory.

But again, what really concerns me about the whole warming argument is that if things are really so dire, shouldn't the focus be on funding efforts to find cures rather than efforts to engage in ever greater semantic debates? If you are way more concerned about the problem than I am, shouldn't you be putting more time and effort into finding solutions than I am? And most warming activists are simply not doing that.

Excellent post.

One important factor in this conversation is the simple reality that predicting the environment is not something we are currently very good at doing. We can barely predict the afternoon high, much less the weather a year from now. A model taking the average number of storms over the last decade and an SD of 2 would have a 90% success rate in predicting the following year... yet scientists have these massively complex theories that provide no better capability...

and here we are not only projecting the climate 100 years from now, BUT GUESSING AT THE CLIMATE 10,000 YEARS AGO TO DO IT!

Sure, we have ice core samples and a few other indications of what certain portions of the earth MIGHT have experienced, but certainly not the entire earth... and virtually NO observations from more than a few hundred years ago, and no GLOBAL observations for more than about the past 30-50 years. To go back to DMAC's ABC comment... We're at event A^200th C, and we know A^200th A and have some indications about A^199th F and a theory about A^177th Q, and then some educated guesses about A,b and c... and trying to use that information to predict A^200th Z.... and then we get mad when people don't just "buy in".

Some would rather be sheep than utilize their brain.

(06-07-2013 03:22 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Dmac, you have correctly defined theory and hypothesis. The problem with your argument is that, by the standard you have correctly defined, man-made global warming remains more hypothesis than theory. Being called a theory, even being called a theory by someone as intelligent as you on an Internet chat board, does not make something a theory. Meeting the standards you enunciated makes something a theory. And man-made global warming does not meet them.

F=ma was a scientific theory. It was displaced by the subsequent theory of relativity. But most applications are in areas where relativistic effects were immaterial. You can still build an effective bridge using f=ma, and people have done so for centuries. Man-made global warming is nowhere near f=ma on the scale of reliability, and will not be until someone produces warming models with far more predictive power than anything developed to date.

Your statements regarding theories are spot on but irrelevant. Because, for many reasons pointed out by several here as well as many others elsewhere, man-made global warming is still at the diaper stage when it comes to being a grown up theory.

But again, what really concerns me about the whole warming argument is that if things are really so dire, shouldn't the focus be on funding efforts to find cures rather than efforts to engage in ever greater semantic debates? If you are way more concerned about the problem than I am, shouldn't you be putting more time and effort into finding solutions than I am? And most warming activists are simply not doing that.

Incorrect predictions don't make all previously published studies irrelevant or wrong. You could call it a weak theory (by the definition of theory that I posted), but the fact remains that it doesn't fit the definition of a hypothesis. The reason I say this is because every argument I've seen here is based on the fallacy of composition. People continually generalize whatever is in question to all of climate science or even science as a whole. It's like saying that A and B are wrong because C is wrong. C could be conclusively wrong, but that doesn't make A and B any less valid. As far as I can tell, nobody here has found evidence directly contradicting the established science behind AGW. There are a few well known issues that people post over and over, but they don't directly address the bulk of climate science. It's almost always climategate, the earth isn't warming as fast as we thought, scientists believed the earth was cooling, etc. Some of these arguments may have a basis in reality, but they're either exaggerated or incorrectly generalized. Most of the arguments were refuted a long time ago, but they still get used over an over as if repetition will make it true.

(06-07-2013 01:15 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  As far as I can tell, nobody here has found evidence directly contradicting the established science behind AGW.

Another category error.
The "established science" is not behind AGW. It is, as you've been told repeatedly, a hypothesis based on some science.

It is not supported by science b/c it is not thorough enough in its description, and it is certainly not supported by empirical data (which is a telling sign that the hypothesis is not thorough). It is believed to be thorough enough by some, including those who have used dishonest means to promote it.

Quote:There are a few well known issues that people post over and over, but they don't directly address the bulk of climate science.

Nor is there any need to. Finding one significant error is enough.

Quote: It's almost always climategate, the earth isn't warming as fast as we thought, scientists believed the earth was cooling, etc. Some of these arguments may have a basis in reality, but they're either exaggerated or incorrectly generalized.

Only by you.

Quote: Most of the arguments were refuted a long time ago.

Not at all. And if you refer to Skeptical Science I think it's great since all of their points are fallacious and a perfect demonstration of what "refuted" does not mean.

You clearly don't have a grasp of what mechanistic science is all about. You accept wild statements based on generalizations and misapplied experiments, and believe that their failures to match empirical data somehow gives them added credence.

Once again, yours is the viewpoint of blind faith. Of religion. Of superstition. It is why logic is a core value of liberal arts, b/c those studies liberated people from myths. As you show, if you forsake logic, you go back to being a slave to superstition.

(06-07-2013 02:14 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 01:15 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  As far as I can tell, nobody here has found evidence directly contradicting the established science behind AGW.

Another category error.
The "established science" is not behind AGW. It is, as you've been told repeatedly, a hypothesis based on some science.

It is not supported by science b/c it is not thorough enough in its description, and it is certainly not supported by empirical data (which is a telling sign that the hypothesis is not thorough). It is believed to be thorough enough by some, including those who have used dishonest means to promote it.

Quote:There are a few well known issues that people post over and over, but they don't directly address the bulk of climate science.

Nor is there any need to. Finding one significant error is enough.

Quote: It's almost always climategate, the earth isn't warming as fast as we thought, scientists believed the earth was cooling, etc. Some of these arguments may have a basis in reality, but they're either exaggerated or incorrectly generalized.

Only by you.

Quote: Most of the arguments were refuted a long time ago.

Not at all. And if you refer to Skeptical Science I think it's great since all of their points are fallacious and a perfect demonstration of what "refuted" does not mean.

You clearly don't have a grasp of what mechanistic science is all about. You accept wild statements based on generalizations and misapplied experiments, and believe that their failures to match empirical data somehow gives them added credence.

Once again, yours is the viewpoint of blind faith. Of religion. Of superstition. It is why logic is a core value of liberal arts, b/c those studies liberated people from myths. As you show, if you forsake logic, you go back to being a slave to superstition.

Honestly, I would think your post was satire if I didn't know better. It's as if you're trying to make the right wing look worse.

(06-07-2013 02:40 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Honestly, I would think your post was satire if I didn't know better.

So? You're ignorant about science and the philosophy behind it. You're ignorant about this history of science as well. You can't appreciate satire b/c you have no clue re: what is being satired.

(06-07-2013 02:43 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 02:40 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Honestly, I would think your post was satire if I didn't know better.

So? You're ignorant about science and the philosophy behind it. You're ignorant about this history of science as well. You can't appreciate satire b/c you have no clue re: what is being satired.

You should read your own posts.

(06-07-2013 02:46 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 02:43 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 02:40 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Honestly, I would think your post was satire if I didn't know better.

So? You're ignorant about science and the philosophy behind it. You're ignorant about this history of science as well. You can't appreciate satire b/c you have no clue re: what is being satired.

You should read your own posts.

Yes, we're all aware that you got a good grade in your sophomore philosophy class. Now when you actually accomplish something more rigorous than patting yourself on the back be sure to let us know.

(06-07-2013 02:46 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 02:43 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 02:40 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Honestly, I would think your post was satire if I didn't know better.

So? You're ignorant about science and the philosophy behind it. You're ignorant about this history of science as well. You can't appreciate satire b/c you have no clue re: what is being satired.

You should read your own posts.

It's pointless to argue with him, all he does is try to egg you on lol. I know this from past lessons. He's really funny when you actually start to understand his dark and twisted humor.

(06-08-2013 01:03 AM)Ole Blue Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 02:46 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 02:43 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 02:40 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Honestly, I would think your post was satire if I didn't know better.

So? You're ignorant about science and the philosophy behind it. You're ignorant about this history of science as well. You can't appreciate satire b/c you have no clue re: what is being satired.

You should read your own posts.

It's pointless to argue with him, all he does is try to egg you on lol. I know this from past lessons. He's really funny when you actually start to understand his dark and twisted humor.

True. But you know what's really funny?

I'm right.

In your own little world Torch.

(06-08-2013 10:34 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 01:03 AM)Ole Blue Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 02:46 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 02:43 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 02:40 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Honestly, I would think your post was satire if I didn't know better.

So? You're ignorant about science and the philosophy behind it. You're ignorant about this history of science as well. You can't appreciate satire b/c you have no clue re: what is being satired.

You should read your own posts.

It's pointless to argue with him, all he does is try to egg you on lol. I know this from past lessons. He's really funny when you actually start to understand his dark and twisted humor.

True. But you know what's really funny?

I'm right.

Of course you are dear, of course you are.

(06-08-2013 10:37 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  In your own little world Torch.

PUOSU mach. you were off by 2 orders of magnitude...and then you got the basic physics wrong.

You should be embarassed. But maybe I'm projecting, b/c I'd be embarassed, whereas I actually do science.

(06-08-2013 01:45 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 10:37 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  In your own little world Torch.

PUOSU mach. you were off by 2 orders of magnitude...and then you got the basic physics wrong.

You should be embarassed. But maybe I'm projecting, b/c I'd be embarassed, whereas I actually do science.

Torch, you sound like my high school friend and roommate in college. He was a physics major, received a scholarship to a prestigious Ivy when he graduated, was head of the doctoral program later at another college. However a lot of times I had to remind him he had two different colored socks on, once two different type shoes.

It was a NASA sponsored class on remote sensing. I have 20 under graduate hours in physics but that was 25 years ago. To be correct would I have to say a 60 watt light bulb every 4 sq meters?

(06-10-2013 08:07 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It was a NASA sponsored class on remote sensing.

That's funny.

Quote: I have 20 under graduate hours in physics but that was 25 years ago.

You took modern and E-M?

And passed?

Quote: To be correct would I have to say a 60 watt light bulb every 4 sq meters?

You made so many errors in your assessment, yet this is actually just one more.

(06-08-2013 03:33 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 01:45 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 10:37 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  In your own little world Torch.

PUOSU mach. you were off by 2 orders of magnitude...and then you got the basic physics wrong.

You should be embarassed. But maybe I'm projecting, b/c I'd be embarassed, whereas I actually do science.

Torch, you sound like my high school friend and roommate in college. He was a physics major, received a scholarship to a prestigious Ivy when he graduated, was head of the doctoral program later at another college. However a lot of times I had to remind him he had two different colored socks on, once two different type shoes.

Really? And how is your cute little story the least bit related to what went on here?

Oh, and did you have to remind him to do physics correctly?