Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 17 Dec 2006 05:22 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45851079.D2420CDC(a)hotmail.com... > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > Lloyd Parker wrote: >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >Lloyd Parker wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> I love these right-wingers. Man can't damage the earth with CFCs >> >> >> or >> >> >> global warming, but a few radicals can destroy western >> >> >> civilization. >> >> > >> >> >There's a questionable presumption there that 'man' is responsible >> >> >for >> >> >global warming. >> >> > >> >> >Graham >> >> >> >> Uh, not in science, there is not. At least not among scientists not >> >> on >> >> the payroll of the oil companies or right-wing "think tanks." >> > >> > Why is it then that it's supposedly carbon dioxide that's the problem >> > and >> > not water vapour or methane for example ? >> >> Methane is also a problem, and not being a climate scientist I haven't >> read >> enough to pass comment on the water vapour issue (although vague >> recollections seem to follow that H2O has less insulating properties than >> CO2). However, your argument here seems to be "why have you singled out >> one >> of many problems?" > > Very much so actually. As if there were a desire to prove a point > regardless of > real scientific endeavour. Without heading down the road of a conspiracy theory here, I am not sure what you are going on about. Climate science is as rigourous a discipline as anything else. They have peer reviewed journals and everything. >> When you identify there is a BADTHINGT� happening, but you can only >> affect a >> subset of the problems causing the BADTHINGT�, do you advocate total >> inaction? > > Not if the 'bad thing' can be shown to be genuinely responsible. In this > case I > see an absence of proof. I think you misread my post. There is a BADTHING happening (the planet is warming). There are possibly lots of reasons contributing to this. Humanity can only affect a subset of all the reasons. Do you advocate taking no action because there are reasons which can not be affected by humanity? The BADTHING is the thing happening, it is not "self responsible." Unless you are a devout Christian (which based on other posts, I very much doubt), you dont really have the "God Did It" option. >> > I've never seen a rational explanation for this. As I see it 'science' >> > can >> > show a correlation between increasing global temperatures and >> > increasing >> > CO2 in the atmosphere but can't prove causation one jot. >> >> Then read more articles on the subject. If you have access to ATHENA >> there >> are tons of publications which explain the background to the theory and >> the >> science involved. >> >> Your implication here is now that all the climate scientist who are >> supporting global warming are doing so based on no evidence. > > I've yet to see anything other than a casual link as opposed to causal > one. Now there is a slight problem here. I dont for one second doubt that you do fail to see a causal relationship, however that does not mean it isnt there. Now, I have no idea how many published papers on climate change you have reviewed, or how many conferences you have been to but my suspicion is that you are basing this opinion on publicly available material (news papers, TV programmes and the like). If I am wrong please forgive this assumption. Have you looked at the articles on http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/landing.asp?id=1278 as a starting point? It has this a subhead reading: "International scientific consensus agrees that increasing levels of man-made greenhouse gases are leading to global climate change. " And this is important. Establishing a scientific consensus is not an easy thing to do. There are a lot of peer reviewed papers which support the theory. Can you dismiss them all? >> This strikes me >> as an egotistical way to view your own interpretation of the evidence. > > It reflects my healthy scepticism actually. That is one way of looking at it. > Once upon a time ppl said we would all die in a horrible nuclear inferno. > When > that failed they said we'd die because of poisonong from nuclear power. > When > that failed... well here we are. > > Ever heard the story of the boy who cried 'wolf' ? Lots of times, even lots of times when it hasn't been an appropriate analogy. In this one it is very appropriate though. Because you have heard the claims in the past, you dismiss the current claims. In the story, when the wolf arrives people dismiss the claims - are you doing this now? Also, it carries the implication you are dismissing these claims, not through reasoned study of the papers but mostly because "similar claims" were made in the past. Sounds a bit like a /BAH post to me. >> Unless you are climate scientist keeping up to date with the research, I >> doubt you are aware of the whole array of information. I certainly am >> not, >> but I know climate scientists who are and are convinced of the human >> driven >> global warming problem. > > And yet we hear wailing and gnashing of teeth about the loss of polar ice > sheets > and global sea level rise yet the melting of ice sheets doesn't raise the > sea > level even a millimetre. There is an interesting issue here. get a pint glass, half fill it with water and then put ice in until the water almost flows over the rim. When the ice melts, what happens to the water lever? >> As an aside, sneer quotes around the word science are pretty odd. >> Statistics shows the correlation, and science proposes theories as to why >> this is happening. > > Very flawed theories. Really? I am not a climatologist so I can not comment properly, but generally few "very flawed" theories survive the scientific process. I am not sure which papers you think are this badly flawed, but if you let me know I can have a look if there are any faults consistent with physics. >> Science does not prove things in the manner you demand >> here, as the scientific method is one of falsification. Scientific >> theories >> which imply the human causation of global warming are sound and >> experimentally verified. As with everything in science, tomorrow we may >> find >> a flaw but until then the theory is sound. >> >> > It's a bit like the 'apples are green so green tomatoes must be apples' >> > argument. >> >> No it isn't. > > Then prove it ! I'm simply not convinced it's not just normal variation in > global weather. And you will be unconvinceable. Your belief it is a normal variation is based on nothing more than an assumption. There is less evidence to suggest it is "normal" than to say it is human driven. Coincidences do happen but they are normally detectable with statistical analysis of the information. This analysis does not imply that the increase in global mean temperatures is _not_ linked to human activity. > We're quite powerless to stop it anyway so fretting about it and > taxing ppl more is totally pointless. I suspect this is the issue more than anything else. You object to the taxation issue. Saying we are powerless to stop it "anyway" is incorrect, if you are wrong (for example) humans are able to prevent it. Even if you are mostly correct, and human activity is not the causal agent, but a contributory agent, then humans can still influence it.
From: Eeyore on 17 Dec 2006 06:15 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> > > >> > Why is it then that it's supposedly carbon dioxide that's the problem > >> > and not water vapour or methane for example ? > >> > >> Methane is also a problem, and not being a climate scientist I haven't > >> read enough to pass comment on the water vapour issue (although vague > >> recollections seem to follow that H2O has less insulating properties than > >> CO2). However, your argument here seems to be "why have you singled out > >> one of many problems?" > > > > Very much so actually. As if there were a desire to prove a point > > regardless of real scientific endeavour. > > Without heading down the road of a conspiracy theory here, I am not sure > what you are going on about. Climate science is as rigourous a discipline as > anything else. They have peer reviewed journals and everything. And they have been consistently wrong about the future. Why would anyone in their right mind believe them now ? It's not even possible to forecast accurately 7 days ahead never mind 7 or 70 *years* ! Graham
From: T Wake on 17 Dec 2006 06:29 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:458526D1.378451F8(a)hotmail.com... > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > T Wake wrote: >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> > >> >> > Why is it then that it's supposedly carbon dioxide that's the >> >> > problem >> >> > and not water vapour or methane for example ? >> >> >> >> Methane is also a problem, and not being a climate scientist I haven't >> >> read enough to pass comment on the water vapour issue (although vague >> >> recollections seem to follow that H2O has less insulating properties >> >> than >> >> CO2). However, your argument here seems to be "why have you singled >> >> out >> >> one of many problems?" >> > >> > Very much so actually. As if there were a desire to prove a point >> > regardless of real scientific endeavour. >> >> Without heading down the road of a conspiracy theory here, I am not sure >> what you are going on about. Climate science is as rigourous a discipline >> as >> anything else. They have peer reviewed journals and everything. > > And they have been consistently wrong about the future. Well, it is a young enough science that this is a strong conclusion to draw. > Why would anyone in their right mind believe them now ? It's not even > possible > to forecast accurately 7 days ahead never mind 7 or 70 *years* ! Weather forecasts are inherently inaccurate, climate science is not really the same thing. It seems the predictions of 2001 (that each year would, on average, be warmer than the previous) has matched reality. But, I suspect this is not good enough for you as it is not an "accurate enough" prediction and you can possibly argue it is part of a "natural cycle." The nature of weather means accuracy will pretty much always evade predictions, so demanding that a climate model meets the exact temperature rise (even given wide error bars is fraught with problems) is a bit unrealistic - and often not required in other disciplines. The natural cycle argument is equally fallacious. Prior to the anti-global warming camp coming up with this idea (post global warming predictions by climate scientists), there were no predictions that the temperature would rise as it has. For the natural cycle argument to be scientifically valid it will need to establish testable predictions - such as being able to predict previous cycles from first principles and predict when the current cycle will end. Even if the natural cycle is correct, the fact remains that human activity is contributing to the problem. So it is possible that we are in a 500 year long natural cycle of increased temperatures, which will (naturally) increase the global average by 10K by the time it ends. However, human activity is increasing both the maximum temperature and the duration of the cycle. Nothing in the "natural cycle" argument contradicts this and it is not possible for it to explain away the observed evidence in its current form. It strikes me that you are willing to accept the "natural cycle" argument with less evidential support than you demand of the "human driven global warming" argument. If this really is the case, and it is not a false assumption I have made, then it may be time to question the basis on which you decide which argument you want to back.
From: Eeyore on 17 Dec 2006 06:31 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > T Wake wrote: > > > >> Your implication here is now that all the climate scientist who are > >> supporting global warming are doing so based on no evidence. > > > > I've yet to see anything other than a casual link as opposed to causal > > one. > > Now there is a slight problem here. I dont for one second doubt that you do > fail to see a causal relationship, however that does not mean it isnt there. So prove it is ! I don't believe the evidence is there. > Now, I have no idea how many published papers on climate change you have > reviewed, or how many conferences you have been to but my suspicion is that > you are basing this opinion on publicly available material (news papers, TV > programmes and the like). If I am wrong please forgive this assumption. > > Have you looked at the articles on > http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/landing.asp?id=1278 as a starting point? > > It has this a subhead reading: > > "International scientific consensus agrees that increasing levels of > man-made greenhouse gases are leading to global climate change. " What good is consensus if they still can't explain what they mean ? I've heard all manner of scary drivel about rising ocean levels because of melting ice sheets and the like - right down to noting an entirely mischeivious BBC news article that attributed coastal erosion in East Anglia to global warming whereas it's well know and has been for centuries that the UK is 'sinking' on that side and supposed sea level rise has absolutely zilch to do with it. And anyway, the sea level rise argument is mainly a lie as the ice sheets were floating to begin with. There nothing but a tissue of lies holding this propaganda togther. OTOH I've actually heard of ice elsewhere growing *thicker* ! > And this is important. Establishing a scientific consensus is not an easy > thing to do. There are a lot of peer reviewed papers which support the > theory. > > Can you dismiss them all? If they're all wrong of course I can. > > Ever heard the story of the boy who cried 'wolf' ? > > Lots of times, even lots of times when it hasn't been an appropriate > analogy. In this one it is very appropriate though. Why ? What different is it from every other supposed global disaster we're supposed to fork out our money for ? > Because you have heard the claims in the past, you dismiss the current > claims. In the story, when the wolf arrives people dismiss the claims - are > you doing this now? Why would 'they' be right now ? > Also, it carries the implication you are dismissing these claims, not > through reasoned study of the papers but mostly because "similar claims" > were made in the past. Which were wrong too. I've heard too many claims of incipient disaster before and in any case reducing CO2 emissions by say 10 or 20 % ( if we were that lucky ) would be far too late anyway. Furthermore taxing ppl isn't the way to deal with it even if you're prepared to accept ( as I do ) that reducing the CO2 load on the planet is on balance a 'good thing' anyway. Do you seriously think China is going to stop industrialising ? Hysteria isn't going to change anything. Graham
From: Eeyore on 17 Dec 2006 06:56
T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > And yet we hear wailing and gnashing of teeth about the loss of polar ice > > sheets and global sea level rise yet the melting of ice sheets doesn't raise > the > > sea level even a millimetre. > > There is an interesting issue here. get a pint glass, half fill it with > water and then put ice in until the water almost flows over the rim. > > When the ice melts, what happens to the water lever? It stays the same of course ! Have you actually tried it ? > >> As an aside, sneer quotes around the word science are pretty odd. > >> Statistics shows the correlation, and science proposes theories as to why > >> this is happening. > > > > Very flawed theories. > > Really? I am not a climatologist so I can not comment properly, but > generally few "very flawed" theories survive the scientific process. Really ????? How about practical breeder reactors ? They were once the darling of the nuclear industry and *everyone* 'scientific' believed in them. Not a single one has been a success. > >> > It's a bit like the 'apples are green so green tomatoes must be apples' > >> > argument. > >> > >> No it isn't. > > > > Then prove it ! I'm simply not convinced it's not just normal variation in > > global weather. > > And you will be unconvinceable. Your belief it is a normal variation is > based on nothing more than an assumption. As is the idea that CO2 alone is responsible. There is absolutely no proven causal relationship ! > There is less evidence to suggest > it is "normal" than to say it is human driven. Coincidences do happen but > they are normally detectable with statistical analysis of the information. > This analysis does not imply that the increase in global mean temperatures > is _not_ linked to human activity. Have you ever looked at a timetable of global temperatures ? Why did the River Thames freeze over in the 1800s for example ? Maybe they weren't burning enough fossil fuels ? > > We're quite powerless to stop it anyway so fretting about it and > > taxing ppl more is totally pointless. > > I suspect this is the issue more than anything else. You object to the > taxation issue. Taxation is a plain stupid 'remedy' anyway. The very best way to conserve energy ( which I wholeheartedly accept is a very good idea from first principles ) is insulation and ppl who are overtaxed are less likely to have the spare cash to pay for proper insulation goddammit ! Talk about stupid squared ! > Saying we are powerless to stop it "anyway" is incorrect, if > you are wrong (for example) humans are able to prevent it. There is quite simply no hope that economic activity will cease to the extent that we can ever make more than a scratch on the surface and it's wholly disingenuous to suggest otherwise. > Even if you are mostly correct, and human activity is not the causal agent, > but a contributory agent, then humans can still influence it. By a minute amount at best. A large volcanic eruption would totally dwarf human efforts for example. Graham |