Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 17 Dec 2006 07:16 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45852AAF.B763276F(a)hotmail.com... > > 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. There is a problem with this. Your predetermined belief means you will neither look for data which conflicts with your opinion and you will (probably) not accept any which is given to you. Certainly no explaination which is given to you by me as a physicist (and not even a very good one at that). Is there a reason why, in this instance, you demand the ability to verify each and every bit of data arguing for human influcen on global warming, but appear to accept contradictory arguments at face value? >> 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 ? Now we hit a totally different problem. Do you understand how certain supernovae indicate how long ago the big bang took place? Have you verified each and every measurement taken and the theory which supports their usage? Or do you accept it when cosmologists say the universe is about 15 billion years old? > 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. So, news paper articles full of nonsense scare stories mean that the valid science must be non-existent? You are conflating popular media interpretations of scientific results with the scientific results. In this respect you are identical to someone who watches the TV telling them how Islamic terrorists are about to kick their door down and actually worry about it. > And anyway, the sea level rise argument is mainly a lie as the ice sheets > were > floating to begin with. Which paper put forward this argument? > There nothing but a tissue of lies holding this > propaganda togther. Not at all. You have based this on reading media stories as if they were scientific journals. > OTOH I've actually heard of ice elsewhere growing *thicker*! So what? You do understand what global warming is about dont you? The global mean temperature can rise, while in some places it is getting colder. You are making knee jerk reactions to try and dismiss something because you dont like the measures taken to prevent it. Can you see how this is a total logical fallacy? >> 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. If they are all wrong, then yes you can. However, you certainly havent read them all (and I suspect you havent read a statistically relevant subset of them all) so dismissing them all is foolish at this stage. Critically, what gives you the knowledge and background to make the judgement call that they are wrong? It is false to believe all science is intuitive enough to be accurately assessed by the lay viewer. >> > 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 ? You proposed the analogy not I. It isn't different from every global disaster and generally the choice is yours if you wish to pay for it (obviously not with taxes). I get the feeling your whole objection to human influenced global warming is because you dont want to have to pay for it. >> 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 ? Interesting one. Without external data there is no way to verify this. However, the moral of the story was not that you should keep ignoring the boy it was that sometime the boy is crying wolf because the wolf is there. You are arguing that because science was wrong in the past - it *must* be wrong again. This is pretty much a nonsense argument. >> 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. Yet, in the analogy *you* put forward, the boy is right in the end. What evidence do *you* have that this theory and its predictions are wrong? Your argument is *you* dont accept the scientific consensus that human induced global warming is happening because in the past scientific consensus was wrong. Can you not see how insane that is? In the past, scientific consensus was that the Sun orbited the Earth. We now know this is wrong but being wrong in the past does not invalidate the current theories. You have to evaluate each theory based on its own merits, not a prejudice based on objection to taxation and previous mistakes. Part of the problem is you demand more evidence of global warming than you require to dismiss it. > 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. Make your mind up. Either it isnt happening or we are too late. You are arguing two conflicting points in your desire to dismiss the theory. > 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. A third, conflicting point and the one I think is the most relevant. I agree that taxation is not the solution, but that does not invalidate the theory. > Do you seriously think China is going to stop industrialising ? Hysteria > isn't > going to change anything. Which again is irrelevant. China not giving up on industrialisation does not falsify human induced global warming. You are arguing against a theory because you don't like the way politicians have reacted to it. Calling what you are doing poor science is an understatement.
From: T Wake on 17 Dec 2006 07:42 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4585305E.680489E3(a)hotmail.com... > > 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 ? If your water level remains the same, I suspect you either mistook the experiment I was describing or I didn't explain it very well. In hindsight, I suspect the latter. However, the point I was making is that *you* are demanding the sea level rise to support the theory that the ice is melting. In the experiment we see this does not happen. Now if you change the experiment so that there is a column of ice which rises 10" above the rim of the glass, what happens when that melts? This brings in the concept of a tipping point. There is a while, where ice is melting and nothing happens to the water level, eventually as more ice melts, the level goes up. >> >> 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. You cite *one* flawed idea as an example, this supports my statement that few flawed theories survive the scientific process. Also, you massively confuse the difference between a theory and its implementation in technology. We know the theory behind fusion is sound and we see it in practice every day thanks to nature, but mankind can not to this day recreate it. Does that mean the theory is flawed? No, it means the technology is not able to match the theory. Same with fast breeders. In the case of global warming, the theory is sound. How people react to it is where the flaw will come in - and is your fundamental objection to the theory. >> >> > 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 ! Who says CO2 alone is responsible? Are you creating a strawman to support your argument? There is a fully proven causal relationship between CO2 levels and temperature rise. This is an experiment which can be carried out in a lab let alone looking at global data. You have added the "alone" to try and undermine the theory. I have not read any papers on global warming which say CO2 alone is the cause - although admittedly I have not read many papers on it. >> 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 ? Yes. The links I sent you had some in as well. > Why did the River > Thames freeze over in the 1800s for example ? Maybe they weren't burning > enough > fossil fuels ? You are creating a diversion argument here. For a start human influence in global warming was only starting up. As with most things, it takes time before the effects become apparent. Having this waiting period does not mean the cause and effect is broken - or do you think syphillis does not cause insanity? More importantly you continue to ignore the nature of a "global mean temperature." Which global warming paper says that because of human influence there is no point from the very start of the industrial revolution where the temperature can drop below a billion degrees every single day of the year? >> > 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 ! Taxation being stupid is a different argument. The responses but in place by greedy governments and foolish people is a world of difference from the science behind it. Dont let your opinion cloud your viewpoint. >> 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. Make your mind up. After saying it isn't happening, now you say there is nothing we can do to change it. Responses are driven by many factors and rarely reverse affect the underlying science. Here you imply that a large scale cessation of human industry _would_ have a positive effect on global warming. This carries the implication that you accept human activity *does* have an effect but the counter measures required are too great. Can I assume that you agree humanity _has_ influenced global warming in a manner which is a badthing for life on the planet but to reverse this influence it would take more than we can ever achieve? That is very different from your previous stance that nothing was happeing. >> 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. So what?
From: Eeyore on 17 Dec 2006 09:06 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > T Wake wrote: > > > >> 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 ? > > If your water level remains the same, I suspect you either mistook the > experiment I was describing or I didn't explain it very well. In hindsight, > I suspect the latter. > > However, the point I was making is that *you* are demanding the sea level > rise to support the theory that the ice is melting. > > In the experiment we see this does not happen. > > Now if you change the experiment so that there is a column of ice which > rises 10" above the rim of the glass, what happens when that melts? > > This brings in the concept of a tipping point. There is a while, where ice > is melting and nothing happens to the water level, eventually as more ice > melts, the level goes up. I do hope you're not really this stupid. Until now I thought you were quite smart. Graham
From: T Wake on 17 Dec 2006 09:19 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45854EDC.BB0DC494(a)hotmail.com... > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > T Wake wrote: >> > >> >> 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 ? >> >> If your water level remains the same, I suspect you either mistook the >> experiment I was describing or I didn't explain it very well. In >> hindsight, >> I suspect the latter. >> >> However, the point I was making is that *you* are demanding the sea level >> rise to support the theory that the ice is melting. >> >> In the experiment we see this does not happen. >> >> Now if you change the experiment so that there is a column of ice which >> rises 10" above the rim of the glass, what happens when that melts? >> >> This brings in the concept of a tipping point. There is a while, where >> ice >> is melting and nothing happens to the water level, eventually as more ice >> melts, the level goes up. > > I do hope you're not really this stupid. Until now I thought you were > quite > smart. Oh well. There is nothing I can do to affect your opinion of me or my intelligence level. It is possible that I am not explaining myself very well, but I doubt that is the issue here. There are a significant number of people who are much, much smarter than I am, so being called stupid on USENET is fairly meaningless. Your objection to crazy ideas such as carbon taxes has blinded you to the possibility that human influenced global warming exists although you do acknowledge it but then cry there is nothing people can do to prevent it now. I am sure it seems logical to you. You are using a shotgun approach to deny something - you don't care which argument is correct you just object to extra taxation so it must all be wrong.
From: unsettled on 17 Dec 2006 10:36
T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:45851079.D2420CDC(a)hotmail.com... > 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. Climate science is barely off the ground flapping its wings as hard as it can to get airborne, but still needing an occasional hard placed kick to get as far as it has. Weather, its sister science, discovered and submitted the first formalization of Chaos theory. Note especially the butterfly effect. I suggest that climate is a long term serial study of weather. I don't think we can combine enough data from weather to see any reasonable long term forecast for climate. Do a google search for (use the quotes) "mini ice age". I'll stick my neck out here again and state that politicians and the rest of the great unwashed don't begin to contemplate nonlinearity, let alone its place in causality. The problem is that every time politicians get together to fix something it invariably takes more money out of the public pocket one way or another, and usually the goals are not achieved so another even more expensive round of fixes is called for. In primitive societies, the strongest got to rule. In earlier times leadership was arranged "by the grace of God" LOL. Today it is supposed to have some relationship to the capacity of the leaders to take us in the right direction, perhaps based on mental prowess, however it seems to be the best liars who usually get into office these days. These things being said, I don't have any faith in the so called solutions will ever actually have anything to do with global warming if the problem itself 1) really exists and 2) is solvable by combined human action. What we have is a pseudoscientific political argument about a pseudoscientific issue. Business as usual, I say. What makes personal economic sense, regardless of worldwide implications, is to reduce consumption. We've done that in my lifetime. Compare the most commonly owned automobiles today to those of 50 years ago both in materials used in manufacture as well as fuel consumption and replacement period. 50 years ago I don't recall many cars getting over 100,000 miles of use before they were recycled. Today folks pay good money for cars exceeding 100K because we're heading for 200K life. The above is generally true for most manufactured durable goods. The main problem is, of course, too many humans/consumers. That moves the discussion into another realm. |