Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 17 Dec 2006 10:46 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:45854EDC.BB0DC494(a)hotmail.com... >>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. It usually doesn't pay to get involved in what sales people call "overcoming objections" on the levels the objectors present them. That's a usenet prevalent difficulty. I find that usually people can find available common ground if you draw back out of the argument, take some point on which to build, and move forward with an overview of your position. The best part of that apporach seems to me to be that the opponent isn't hanging there feeling like you're forcing them to defend some position they took a virtual moment earlier. Often the minuatae argued over is more distracting than consequential. If they keep circling back into the same arguments there's no hope for progress. In the end, disagreeing on some points doesn't prevent having a great discussion as well as an agreement in general.
From: T Wake on 17 Dec 2006 11:06 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:8536b$458563f7$4fe75c5$3024(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >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. I do not disagree with this at all, however it is still a scientific discipline. It is in it's infancy, which is why some people dismiss it out of hand. > 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. This is not something I have much of an opinion on nor am I well informed enough to debate. The climatologists I know feel the available data is sufficient so, without sufficient motive to dismiss their opinions, I have no reason to disagree. > 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. Yes, I agree and I think I agree with Eeyore on this point. The problem is not the science, or it's predictions, but how people react to the data. > 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. The proposed solutions and public debates are certainly pseudoscientific, but I am not sure the actual science present by climatologists is. > 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.
From: unsettled on 17 Dec 2006 11:44 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:45852AAF.B763276F(a)hotmail.com... >>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). His views on causality are represented best by a handfull of basic electrical equations like Ohm's Law and Kirfkoff's law. Please don't confuse him with syllogisms.
From: unsettled on 17 Dec 2006 11:54 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:8536b$458563f7$4fe75c5$3024(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>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. > > > I do not disagree with this at all, however it is still a scientific > discipline. It is in it's infancy, which is why some people dismiss it out > of hand. > > >>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. > > > This is not something I have much of an opinion on nor am I well informed > enough to debate. The climatologists I know feel the available data is > sufficient so, without sufficient motive to dismiss their opinions, I have > no reason to disagree. > > >>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. > > > Yes, I agree and I think I agree with Eeyore on this point. The problem is > not the science, or it's predictions, but how people react to the data. > > >>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. > > > The proposed solutions and public debates are certainly pseudoscientific, > but I am not sure the actual science present by climatologists is. In rebuttal I give you "Piltdown Man". LOL The problem is that science, especially fledging science has enough political aspects (call it a survival instinct) to not play quite as well by the rules as the same science does when more mature. Think of your own discipline, physics, and its early history. But now for something completely different! Do you think climatology will actually progress enough in your lifetime to be able to relaibly predict a century in advance? >>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. > > >
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 17 Dec 2006 13:19
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 16:06:11 -0000, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >news:8536b$458563f7$4fe75c5$3024(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>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. > >I do not disagree with this at all, however it is still a scientific >discipline. It is in it's infancy, which is why some people dismiss it out >of hand. Some of the ideas of climate science (CO2 = greenhouse) go back perhaps a century and a half. It was within the science of the time to figure out that surface rock on Earth should be colder than it actually is -- and Tyndall was able to find some gases that appeared to "trap heat rays." Tyndall was convinced (by climbing mtns) that ice must have been much greater at some times in the past. Arrhenius later did calculations to show that cutting CO2 levels could explain the ice age question. http://physicist.org/history/climate/co2.htm But direct knowledge of the time rates of change in levels of CO2 in the atmosphere waited til late '57 for Keeling's instrument to get the precision needed. Which sets a date, probably, for quantitative discussions on the subject of human impacts on CO2 levels in the air. >> 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. > >This is not something I have much of an opinion on nor am I well informed >enough to debate. The climatologists I know feel the available data is >sufficient so, without sufficient motive to dismiss their opinions, I have >no reason to disagree. That's about my take... except. Except that I've dug into my own ignorance about CO2 levels by starting with the first peer-reviewed paper I'm aware of providing a predictive, quantitative analysis of global warming impacts by CO2 -- Rasool & Schneider, 1971. (It uses a 1D model and there were significant flaws almost immediately pointed out and quite shortly admitted by Schneider (1972 and more fully in 1975.) I've also followed through the much more detailed modeling used today (okay, I think I may understand most of it), and I've found the process of advancing this particular facet of the science to have been quite simply excellent. Flaws I could think up (and no, I'm not so imaginative as to figure out more than a few) in reading earlier papers were dealt with much more closely in later ones. Today, I just sit in awe of it. It's really darned good. And each place I've spend time (cloud impacts and cloud formation physics versus model parameterizations, for example) looking into, has only shown me, as I looked deeper into it, that every reasonable step is being taken where it is not possible to apply 1st principles physics, in detailed 3D models of an entire planet, with existing computer systems. In the case of clouds, early questions about impacts of high altitude and low altitude clouds and their impacts changed to questions about whether high altitude clouds were changed more by global warming than low altitude and that has changed still further into much more narrow questions. These things resolve better and better over time. In this particular case, "cloud parameterizations" are used but aren't just statistical curve fits. They aren't collections of mere "adjustable parameters." They use physically based theories, but targeted to describe the cloud field. By this, I mean things like fractional cloudiness or area-averaged precipitation rate, but without actually describing the individual cloud elements themselves. But that doesn't mean it produces meaningless results. The Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment (See http://gewex.org) is a physics-based approach and was set up to test parameterizations by comparing results with both observation (near Japan, for one) and the results of a cloud-resolving model (I don't recall which one.) This research has actually impacted modern models over the last 6-7 years or so. This is an example where detailed physics theory is actually applied to limited regions of the air, where it is possible for computers to actually complete some calculations, and then to compare these with actual observation. I can't speak from dipping into the entire field. I've tried, a bit, and there is just way too much to cover (breadth) and way too much detail within any particular aspect (depth) for a hobbyist to speak comprehensively about. But where I _have_ spent a lot of time digging as deeply as I could, I've seen little other than excellent motion in excellent and solid directions, with a plethora of cross-cutting and independent lines of thought to validate or undermine assumptions made in earlier work. Exactly the kinds of things you'd expect in science efforts. I have found nothing at all which gives me concern. And I've been reading for well more than a decade. >> 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. > >Yes, I agree and I think I agree with Eeyore on this point. The problem is >not the science, or it's predictions, but how people react to the data. This is a subject, I'm growing to think, where the politicians should allow the scientists to set the boundaries of what is known and to anticipate and deal broadly with questions about inherent bias. The politicians are policy makers. Their job is to keep a culture from tearing itself apart by finding and building common grounds and negotiating the rest of the middle ground by peaceful means where common ground isn't well found, and while doing that also advancing the quality of lives who represent the least within it. They should take the knowledge of climate science as granted -- they have little business turning a blind eye to it -- and work on the very proper job ahead of them on the basis of that knowledge. Period. >> 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. > >The proposed solutions and public debates are certainly pseudoscientific, yes. >but I am not sure the actual science present by climatologists is. ><snip> It's decidedly not pseudoscience. You only need dig into some one narrow subject to see that for yourself. Pick one at random. Jon |