Socratic. Your first link is bunk. The author should be using hypothesis when he is using theory.

Then the coup de grace. From YOUR second link.


Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.


Now you tell me. Could the way your using Theory and Prediction be true using my bolder point from "your" 2nd link?

I read an interesting article last week in (I think PopSci)... and need to follow up by reading the whole report...

But the gist of it (from memory) was that a few decades ago, our major concern was the Ozone layer... because of CFCs... so we passed a law eliminating the first 'C' of the CFC's and replaced it with something else.... Although the Ozone is 'recovering' and now on a path to be back to 1980's levels by 2050, the thing we replaced the 'C' with is one of the things we're blaming for global warming.

THAT is the major problem with this debate. We don't have a 'real' solution other than as most of us have suggested, simply being good stewards of the earth.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially.


Do you understand why I typed what I did when you read this sentence Socratic? I hope you didn't take any offense to my argument. I also have trouble when people say Well established Theories graduate into Laws. No such thing. Laws are observed natural phenomena. We have Theories that try to explain Laws. Maybe 5% of the population understands this and it is a problem.

(10-10-2015 03:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I read an interesting article last week in (I think PopSci)... and need to follow up by reading the whole report...

But the gist of it (from memory) was that a few decades ago, our major concern was the Ozone layer... because of CFCs... so we passed a law eliminating the first 'C' of the CFC's and replaced it with something else.... Although the Ozone is 'recovering' and now on a path to be back to 1980's levels by 2050, the thing we replaced the 'C' with is one of the things we're blaming for global warming.

THAT is the major problem with this debate. We don't have a 'real' solution other than as most of us have suggested, simply being good stewards of the earth.

Agree, but sadly, nothing is simple when $$ is involved -- and there's quite a profit to be made in not being good stewards.

(10-12-2015 10:53 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  

(10-10-2015 03:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I read an interesting article last week in (I think PopSci)... and need to follow up by reading the whole report...
But the gist of it (from memory) was that a few decades ago, our major concern was the Ozone layer... because of CFCs... so we passed a law eliminating the first 'C' of the CFC's and replaced it with something else.... Although the Ozone is 'recovering' and now on a path to be back to 1980's levels by 2050, the thing we replaced the 'C' with is one of the things we're blaming for global warming.
THAT is the major problem with this debate. We don't have a 'real' solution other than as most of us have suggested, simply being good stewards of the earth.

Agree, but sadly, nothing is simple when $$ is involved -- and there's quite a profit to be made in not being good stewards.

More to Hambone's point, there's quite a lot that passes for "good stewardship" that is not in fact good stewardship. This is something we need to consider very carefully before adopting radical steps to deal with any problem.

Quote: Your first link is bunk. The author should be using hypothesis when he is using theory.

So you're more knowledgeable than a PhD in Chemistry.

I took no offense. I just had decided it was a waste of time trying to reason with you.

You do bring up an interesting point. I think some of the physical sciences take more of a mathematical approach. In math you do have proofs and absolutes, but we are talking about geology and and climate. In geology and life sciences you won't see absolutes or proofs.


My 2 cents.

Simpleton question here: What is the ideal Global Climate?

As to the Tyson story, What if the road to the park has hills? Should residents try to flatten them raise the dips so every thing is even?

Personally I'm a fan of clean air and water. So I'm all good being a good steward Like keeping rivers clean and the air as smog free as possible. As for climate change et al, until I can find a good answer to what is an admittedly simpleton question I asked above and what relationship solar activity plays in it, I will just keep on keeping on

(10-12-2015 11:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 10:53 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  

(10-10-2015 03:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I read an interesting article last week in (I think PopSci)... and need to follow up by reading the whole report...
But the gist of it (from memory) was that a few decades ago, our major concern was the Ozone layer... because of CFCs... so we passed a law eliminating the first 'C' of the CFC's and replaced it with something else.... Although the Ozone is 'recovering' and now on a path to be back to 1980's levels by 2050, the thing we replaced the 'C' with is one of the things we're blaming for global warming.
THAT is the major problem with this debate. We don't have a 'real' solution other than as most of us have suggested, simply being good stewards of the earth.

Agree, but sadly, nothing is simple when $$ is involved -- and there's quite a profit to be made in not being good stewards.

More to Hambone's point, there's quite a lot that passes for "good stewardship" that is not in fact good stewardship. This is something we need to consider very carefully before adopting radical steps to deal with any problem.

This is very true. There are very rare plant eco-systems that have been severely damaged over the past couple of decades due to fire suppresion, because certain groups have prevented prescribed burns from happening. These prescribed burns were needed because human development encroached close enough that natural fires, which occur every several years, are quickly extinguished due to the prxomity to development. Without the prescribed burns, woody plant matieral quickly overtakes an area, and can overrun other plants that rely upon those fires to clear the area every few years.

But the tree huggers (who believe they are for nature, but dont usually have a clue) will file lawsuit after lawsuit to prevent the prescribed burns from happening. You end up with an infestation of woody plant material, and then when there is a fire started by lightning, out grows out of control as a superheated furnace due to the over abundance of woody material, which wipes the area out. It takes years for the ecosystem to recover. Whereas a natural or prescribed fast burning fall fire that occurs every few years does little damage to the natural plants in the system, and will also usually signal them to flower more heavily since the area has been opened up and cleared of competing woody material.

(10-12-2015 11:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 10:53 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  

(10-10-2015 03:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I read an interesting article last week in (I think PopSci)... and need to follow up by reading the whole report...
But the gist of it (from memory) was that a few decades ago, our major concern was the Ozone layer... because of CFCs... so we passed a law eliminating the first 'C' of the CFC's and replaced it with something else.... Although the Ozone is 'recovering' and now on a path to be back to 1980's levels by 2050, the thing we replaced the 'C' with is one of the things we're blaming for global warming.
THAT is the major problem with this debate. We don't have a 'real' solution other than as most of us have suggested, simply being good stewards of the earth.

Agree, but sadly, nothing is simple when $$ is involved -- and there's quite a profit to be made in not being good stewards.

More to Hambone's point, there's quite a lot that passes for "good stewardship" that is not in fact good stewardship. This is something we need to consider very carefully before adopting radical steps to deal with any problem.

yep. We were all convinced that getting rid of CFCs was a 'must', and now the solution to that is creating another problem.

I believe that the climate models are largely correct. They have been refined to remove a lot of the exaggerated claims in the 90s. Question becomes is what are we going to do about it? We need a serious alternative to hydrocarbons in order for our economies and technologies to continue to flourish. You cannot just simply cut hydrocarbon use without viable alternatives. And let's face it, the alternative energy sources people have been trying to go all in on are poor substitutes to hydrocarbons. We've discussed this in other threads, and the bottom line is that if we "go organic", utilize "only natural" farming methods, and rely solely on solar, wind and water power to fuel our planet... expect to see (IMHO) a mass loss of human population in the 100s of millions if not billions if we go 100% green tomorrow. While the earth is undoubtedly warming because of human activity, if we "Go Green" tomorrow and stop the use of all hydrocarbons within a a very short period of time we will see a great loss of life and economic hardships globally. Question is thus: Is global warming serious enough of a threat to sacrifice 100s of millions of people to combat it quickly for maximum effect? Or do economic and technological development (ties back to economics) trump global warming? I know what the world consensus would be if push comes to shove.

BTW...build a fvck load of nuke plants. That is the most effective way - by far - to greatly curtail the hydrocarbon.

(10-12-2015 12:14 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You do bring up an interesting point. I think some of the physical sciences take more of a mathematical approach. In math you do have proofs and absolutes, but we are talking about geology and and climate. In geology and life sciences you won't see absolutes or proofs.


My 2 cents.

I'll leave with one final post. Leonard Susskind, theoretical physicist at Stanford once said "Everything we think we know is probably wrong."

(10-12-2015 01:12 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I believe that the climate models are largely correct. They have been refined to remove a lot of the exaggerated claims in the 90s. Question becomes is what are we going to do about it? We need a serious alternative to hydrocarbons in order for our economies and technologies to continue to flourish. You cannot just simply cut hydrocarbon use without viable alternatives. And let's face it, the alternative energy sources people have been trying to go all in on are poor substitutes to hydrocarbons. We've discussed this in other threads, and the bottom line is that if we "go organic", utilize "only natural" farming methods, and rely solely on solar, wind and water power to fuel our planet... expect to see (IMHO) a mass loss of human population in the 100s of millions if not billions if we go 100% green tomorrow. While the earth is undoubtedly warming because of human activity, if we "Go Green" tomorrow and stop the use of all hydrocarbons within a a very short period of time we will see a great loss of life and economic hardships globally. Question is thus: Is global warming serious enough of a threat to sacrifice 100s of millions of people to combat it quickly for maximum effect? Or do economic and technological development (ties back to economics) trump global warming? I know what the world consensus would be if push comes to shove.
BTW...build a fvck load of nuke plants. That is the most effective way - by far - to greatly curtail the hydrocarbon.

I'm not as convinced of the correctness of the climate models. Otherwise pretty much agree.

This is the point I keep making to the AGW alarmists. If it's really going to be that bad, why aren't you working harder to develop alternatives? The problem, as you correctly state, is that we still have no viable alternative to hydrocarbons, specifically oil. We simply don't. Without a viable alternative, all the posturing is simply moving deck chairs around on the Titanic.

(10-12-2015 10:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 01:12 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I believe that the climate models are largely correct.

I'm not as convinced of the correctness of the climate models. Otherwise pretty much agree.

I'm somewhere in the middle... really i think I may simply be agreeing with you both using different words....

I believe they are largely correct, but we are discussing such minute changes over such long periods and things that multiply upon themselves rather than add that they don't have to be off by much to make a huge difference over 50 or 100 or 500 years.

Murdoch owned paper. Paranoid crank with a financial position in the commodites boom. Looks like he might be financed by Heartland. Affiliated with the loons at Ludwig von Mises.

Has never published anything peer reviewed on climate change.

Wife looks like a loon too. She's a skeptic too.

----

(10-13-2015 05:01 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Murdoch owned paper. Paranoid crank with a financial position in the commodites boom. Looks like he might be financed by Heartland. Affiliated with the loons at Ludwig von Mises.

Has never published anything peer reviewed on climate change.

Wife looks like a loon too. She's a skeptic too.

----

Conapiracy theorist

(10-13-2015 05:01 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Wife looks like a loon too.
----

Wow. If she looked like a man, I suspect you'd support her.

That was intentionally sardonic to point out that you were judging someone based on their physical appearance, yet you fight like a dog with a bone whenever anyone else does.

(10-13-2015 05:01 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Wife looks like a loon too.

----

Just 45 minutes earlier:

(10-13-2015 04:13 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  To insult their looks is also hateful.

Hater.

(10-13-2015 09:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 05:01 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Wife looks like a loon too.
----

Wow. If she looked like a man, I suspect you'd support her.

That was intentionally sardonic to point out that you were judging someone based on their physical appearance, yet you fight like a dog with a bone whenever anyone else does.

Looks like a loon, after viewing her pro coal blog. I have no idea what she looks like.

(10-13-2015 10:49 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 09:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 05:01 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Wife looks like a loon too.
----

Wow. If she looked like a man, I suspect you'd support her.

That was intentionally sardonic to point out that you were judging someone based on their physical appearance, yet you fight like a dog with a bone whenever anyone else does.

Looks like a loon, after viewing her pro coal blog. I have no idea what she looks like.

Mugshot online makes her look, well, sort of tight-arsed and judgemental and smarter than us common folk.