 |
Tom it is always the same with academia, a sense of ownership of the discipline, nooneelse has any authority or any right to question their absolute authority until they decide they have been wrong, except in this case there is no discipline just a lot of computer geeks doing some modelling and very incomplete modelling at that. I just have one comment bah humbug!Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hi Tom,
Very difficult question to answer.
Is it unscientific? Could be. A scientific consensus is not necessarily arrived at via the scientific method. Yes, a scientific consensus can the result of a shared political opinion.
Falsifiability is a great idea in the scientific and political world. Popper saw his method as an epistemology. Well, in theory anyway. When it comes to politics people are not generally in the mood to consider their ideas subject to falsification ( I haven't seen it here in this forum, left or right). It seems science suffers from the same problem.
Tut
The Goracle is coming unglued. Not the first time mind you but he seems especially frustrated now that most people don't believe in his scheme, 69 percent believe scientists have falsified the research and in light of the new NASA study (aren't they the same scientists he's relied on before?) that blows a huge hole in the consensus opinion.
Mr. Gore has countered not with research but with screaming "BULLSH*T"!
Al Gore calls B.S. on climate change naysayers ...
Attaboy Al, if junk science won't convince us to follow your dream, screaming and cursing at us will.Quote:
The model they’re using in that effort was transported whole cloth into the climate debate. And some of the same people — I can go down a list of their names — are involved in this. And so what do they do? They pay pseudo-scientists to pretend to be scientists to put out the message: “This climate thing, it’s nonsense. Man-made CO2 doesn’t trap heat. It may be volcanoes.” Bullsh*t! “It may be sun spots.” Bullsh*t! “It’s not getting warmer.” Bullsh*t!
There are about ten other memes out there. When you go and talk to any audience about climate, you hear them washing back at you the same crap over and over and over again. They have polluted this — There’s no longer a shared reality on an issue like climate even though the very existence of our civilization is threatened. People have no idea! And yet our ability to actually come to a shared reality that emphasizes that this matters — It’s no longer acceptable in mixed company, meaning bipartisan company, to use the godd**n word “climate.” They have polluted it to the point where we cannot possibly come to an agreement on it.
Hello again, Steve:
Ok, then. You can continue to throw your trash into the air and be GUILT free about it. We can continue to use ever more expensive oil and send our treasury over to Arabia. And, we can let the industry that's going to BE the moneymaker in this century, GO to China.
Now, I don't know why a right winger would embrace policies like that, but I don't know why right wingers do much of anything.
Personally, I don't CARE about Gore, or about his ideas or fortunes. You see, it doesn't take scientists for me to know that throwing your trash into the air isn't a good idea. To ME, it matters NOT, who delivers the message, but whether the message is credible.. Gore's is, and I don't care if only HE and I believe it.
excon
You really need to do away with that straw man. It doesn't become any more true the more you say it, though it does follow today's Democrats' strategy, “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
And here I thought you liked science.Quote:
To ME, it matters NOT, who delivers the message, but whether the message is credible.. Gore's is, and I don't care if only HE and I believe it.
The Goracle is hot and bothered because he staked his future wealth on being on the ground floor of the carbon tax trading industry.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
What's your point? 58% of Republicans don't believe Obama is a citizen.
excon
And 72 percent of progressives thought Bush was going to install a theocracy before the 2008 election. The point was already made, such numbers depress Mr. Gore so now he's throwing tantrums.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
The numbers depress me but I'm not throwing a tantrum. Reality is, even if the "climate scientists" are right, (BIG IF) nothing we do is going to reverse the trend. So MR Gore can rant and rave all he likes, it doesn't change the fact that he has been on the B/S end of climate facts
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hi speech,
The words, "alarmist computer model" is being thrown around rather frequently in various articles. My guess is that an alarmist model is a worse case scenario model. In other words, there would be a number of competing models.
It is unlikely that this will blow a hole in the consensus simply because I think 'the consensus' at the moment is partly based on science and partly based on politics. In other words, it hard to demonstrate to any particular group that their politics is wrong.
Tut
So it is naysayers 1 Gore Nil we will just take a timeout in the game to review the state of play;
Atmosphere doesn't heat as much from CO2 emissions as predicted
Trees trap more CO2 than thought
Ocean traps more CO2 than thought
Cities vegetation trap more CO2 than thought
Data has been manipulated
Long term trends have been ignored
So it adds up to models that are not worth the time and effort to produce them. Of course Mr Gore is furious, all that lovely money is flying away.
Now perhaps we can get down to debating which technologies should be pursued on economic grounds
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Hi Clete,
If you conclusion is that computer models are limited in their prediction potential then I think this is a fair assumption. At least you have not fallen into the trap of the author of the original article, 'New NASA Data Blows Gaping Hole... '
I am sure there won't be a rethinking of the debate based on the NASA measurements for a number of reasons. Firstly, the author of the article commits the fallacy of modus tollens. In this case the absence of evidence doesn't prove the non-presence of something.
I think that any computer model based on the NASA data will suffer from the same problem as every other model. It will be just another competing model.
The problem will become, "which model to choose?". The answer will be to choose the model which best suits your political philosophy.
Tut
Hi Tut I think we have already been down that road and found that the bridge is rotten. We don't need another model or to rely on the pseudo science of computer modelling. What we need to do is stand back and take a serious look at where we are and what our capabilities are. Both you and I live in a country with some ridiculous targets; a 5% reduction in emissions by 2020 and an 80% reduction by 2050, The first target contributes nothing to reduction of world CO2 emissions and may even move production of coal/oil to countries which have no intention of making reductions and the second will cripple our economy for no result because nooneelse is doing this.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
I refuse to sign on to the ideology of climate change just as I refused to sign on to the ideology of communism
Thanks, I can certainly agree that the consensus is a mix of politics and science. If we can all agree on that much we have a starting point. Science shouldn't have a political agenda, and that's the crux of the 'deniers' message. In other words, Gore has the right word for it... but it should be aimed at him.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Why don't we get back to talking about real science, i.e. observation, hypothesis, data and not the pseudo science of computer modelling where the outcome is a set of assumptions. These assumptions have been demonstrated not to have any resemblance to the real world and should be junked. Gore presented his own line of B/S which has been shown to be a very narrow view of a vast sea of knowledge, His conclusions are flawed and should be junked.
Hi Clete,Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Unfortunately 'real science' (classical science) has shown to be inadequate when it is applied to climate change. This comes as no surprise because weather forecasting suffers from exactly the same problem.
The real world goes a lot deeper than classical science allows. It is realized that quantum effects (the extremely tiny) have implications for the world of the very large (real world). Classical predictions don't match Quantum predictions ( shown to be true using very basic experiments).
Unfortunately, quantum computer modelling is a long way off. In other words, we are stuck with what we have got.
Tut
Yeah ;hide the decline here ;forget to read that indicator there ,manipulate it until it matches a predetermined conclusion;fudge a result here and there, suppress peer review . That's what passes for 21st century science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hi Tom,
You have come up with a pretty massive generalization here. You mean 'what passes' for some scientists. It is not typical of 21century science.
I'm sorry you are disappointed in 21 st century science but science like everything else moves on. The Hockey Stick graph is now history; all be it an unfortunate part. Obviously some scientists suffered from weakness of will.
There has been and will continue to be new research and new data to crunch. Data is not from temperature alone. It can range from anything to lightning activity to shifts in ice packs. New ways of using new information is being created all the time. This is way we have so many competing models.
There doesn't seem to be a way deciding upon the best model because there seems to be a problem matching prediction with observation. No surprise here.
Tut
Do you really think that is what they suffer from Tut? I think they were all too willing to make outrageous pronostications out of ego, greed and stupidity. In any case I don't think these modellers are scientists because they didn't follow scientific disciple but worked in an opportunistic manner. They are charlatans!Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
If we cannot predict the weather with real accuracy more that a few days out what makes these idiots think they can predict the weather years in advance using statistics
The same is true in other fields so climate scientists are in "good company" .
Hi Clete,Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
If we extend anything far enough we will eventually expose its weakness. I think this is true of classical science. However, this does not stop us from trying. It is only by exploring our theories and pushing them to the limit we will eventually come to see the need for a different approach.
Actually, weather forecasters sometimes get it wrong in a two day forecast but they don't just give up and go home. Quantum computers are a long way off so all they can do is work with the knowledge they have.
When it comes to computer modelling all they have are bits, 0 or 1 , on off, true or false; whatever you want to call it. In an odd sort of way the scientific method mirrors this technology.
Naturally, any climate scientist would rather have a small quantum computer than a state of the art super computer.
At the moment, and possibly for a long time to come, we are paying the political price for being in the middle of 'a change over' so to speak.
Just my opinion
Tut
P.S. "Weakness of will". Actually I was just being polite. I think you estimation is probably closer to the mark
Hi TutQuote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Political price? There should not be a political price associated with a piece of unproven computer modelling in fact it should not be in the political arena at all. What we have here is pure political opportunism on the part of a lobby which is anti our way of life.
Hello again, clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Anti your way of life?? Really?? Do you like driving? Do you like keeping warm? How about reading at night? If we don't find another energy source, you'll be walking to work.
So, whether burning oil is damaging our environment, or NOT, is a moot point, because WHO cares? We're going to STOP burning it in any case, whether we like it or not. So, seeking an alternative energy source is, to my way of thinking, not anti our way of life at all...
excon
Well Ex perhaps you haven't examined the manifesto or the political utterings of a political party called the Greens but among other ratbag ideas they have called for the shutdown of the coal industry to be replaced by renewable technologies. These dills have taken no account of the environmental cost of extracting the rare Earths needed for these technologies, the fact that a large part of the source is in the hands of the Chinese or the environmental damage caused by the refinement of silicon used in solar cells where there is no net gain in CO2 emissions. They happen to hold the political balance of power in my nation and others at the moment and clearly are willing to destroy our way of life to reduce emissions.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Well, then if you haven't been able to convince those in your own nation, why should we believe you?
In any case, I don't carry water for any wing of any party, and they all have nutbags.
excon
There is only one way to convince them Ex and sadly that is illegal. I'm sure you know what it is like when a minority forces an issue, I think we were able to observe that in your own land recently and the outcome was a resounding GONG!Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I know you are not going to believe me, it is of no consequence.
I guess Obama really did cause the oceans to stop rising.
Weather cycles cause a drop in global sea level, scientists find
So it's just weather after all.Quote:
The global sea level this summer is a quarter of an inch lower than last summer, according to NASA scientists, in sharp contrast to the gradual rise the ocean has experienced in recent years.
The change stems from two strong weather cycles over the Pacific Ocean — El Niño and La Niña — which shifted precipitation patterns, according to scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. The two cycles brought heavy rains to Brazil and Amazon, along with drought to the southern United States.
According to the Goracle you are a racist for questioning AGW .
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Nahhh. The ocean is simply spilling off the edges of the flat earth.
excon
:p
Even though you can't hit the effin' ball, once in a while you get a real zinger. That was good, lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Here's another one we can laugh at. Apparently Greenland isn't green after all or at least not as green as climate scientists would have us believe. One more bastion of misinformation has been uncoveredQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Times Atlas of the World row: Hold on, Greenland isn't really that green | Space, Military and Medicine | News.com.au
I love this quote from the article, "The company admitted yesterday that the 15 per cent figure was incorrect, but said it stood by the accuracy of the new maps in the 13th edition of the atlas."
Ain't that rich, and typical of consensus "science" - we're wrong, but we aren't changing our minds. LOL.
Hello again:
I spose you can find scientists who disagree with the consensus, when their living depends on their disagreement... Those guys don't impress me.
But, scientists, who pursue science for the sake of science, understand that there's a downside to throwing your trash into the air..
I don't doubt, however, that you could find a private industry scientist who'll tell you that throwing your trash into the air is GOOD!
excon
Once again instead of acknowledging the point, that the publishers admitted their figure was incorrect but stood by their maps, you throw up that trash in the air straw man. No one says that's good but you.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Ok, but what's the POINT you're making?? From what I can gather, it's that global warming ISN'T a result of throwing your trash into the air... I'm left with the impression that you don't think throwing your trash into the air HAS a downside...
If you BELIEVE that throwing your trash into the air ISN'T good, which is what I THINK you're trying to say, what DO you believe it's doing?
excon
Ex you are back to that ridiculous argument put forward by your government that CO2 is trash. CO2 is a natural substance, EX, and every time you breath you throw this "trash" in the air. Stop it man before it's too late and you become overheated.
Do you know, Ex, that this global warming argument was thunk up by Margaret Thatcher to justify building nuclear reactors?
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Hi Clete,
Depends on how you define 'pollutant' or 'trash', as in the case of Ex.
Salt is a natural occurring substance and is important to the overall health of the environment. However, too much salinity results in the degradation of the environment. This doesn't make it harmless and desirable in large quantities. Every time we exercise we are putting salt into the environment.
No one would suggest this is a problem. The toxic properties only become evident when we talk about the amount being produced in a particular environment.
Tut
Now Tut that's not nice, to call Ex "trash".Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
As far as salt is concerned again another natural occurring element that causes an environmental problem and by Ex's definition "trash". Therefore the use of salt should be banned. Are we going to ban Lithium too? No we have singled out CO2 because it suits some to find something they can tax.
I wonder has anyone asked who invented the industries that cause these problems?
Yes, you are right I''m sure his sexual behaviour is just as moral as anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Is this what he is claiming? I think Ex would have have something to say on that.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:53 AM. |