Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 18 Dec 2006 15:20 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4586EB2C.8D8510D1(a)hotmail.com... > > > Lloyd Parker wrote: > >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >T Wake wrote: >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > >> >> 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. >> >> Typical right-wing anti-science remark. > > Not really. > > No-one fully understands what drives the weather. That isn't really what climate science is about though, and interestingly not fully understanding what drives something does not affect the quality of the science (inflation, cosmological expansion, even the propagation of gravity all remain "not fully understood").
From: T Wake on 18 Dec 2006 15:23 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4586EEBA.E4699BAA(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote >> >> > Melting of ice sheets on land (Greenland, Antarctica) will. Only >> > melting >> > of floating ice will not. >> >> In a clumsy, cack-handed manner this is the conclusion I was trying to >> work >> towards. Thank you for explaining it simply and in a single sentence. >> >> My strong suspicion regarding (at least) Eeyore's take on this, is not >> that >> he has a strong argument against human influenced global warming but he >> does >> have a strong objection to the measures some Governments are taking in an >> effort to reduce the impact. Hopefully he will be able to see the >> difference. > > You're partly right at least. > > Reducing CO2 emissions seems to be a 'good idea' (tm) from first > principles > anyway. Glad to hear it. > My objections to the political propaganda surrounding it is primarily that > (a) > taxation will have a limited effect, 'punish' western economies and just > generally annoy ppl (b) the promotin of the daft idea that we can > somehow stop > it in it's tracks and (c) a complete lack of anyone seemingly to realise > the > importane of insulation - there all maner of hi-tech nonsense going on > like the > idiotic 'hydrogen ecoonomy' that actually promotes energy use and hugely > expensive PV solar power whilst tackilng the problem at source gets > overlooked ! All three of these points are valid but are arguments with the effects taken to combat global warming (often taken by non-scientists of any discipline). In the UK we suffer quite badly (and I suspect most westernised nations do as well) from false authority fallacies. It strikes me that the reaction to the findings of climatologists is a prime example of this. It is critical (IMHO obviously) that the arguments against the reactions are differentiated from the arguments against the science.
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 18 Dec 2006 15:27 On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 19:25:32 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >Lloyd Parker wrote: > >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >T Wake wrote: >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > >> >> 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. >> >> Typical right-wing anti-science remark. > >Not really. > >No-one fully understands what drives the weather. Weather is a different subject. Not to mention that folks do not need to _fully_ understand something to be able to say a lot about it of value. Jon
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 18 Dec 2006 15:30 On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:20:36 -0000, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:4586EB2C.8D8510D1(a)hotmail.com... >> >> >> Lloyd Parker wrote: >> >>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>> >T Wake wrote: >>> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> > >>> >> 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. >>> >>> Typical right-wing anti-science remark. >> >> Not really. >> >> No-one fully understands what drives the weather. > >That isn't really what climate science is about though, and interestingly >not fully understanding what drives something does not affect the quality of >the science (inflation, cosmological expansion, even the propagation of >gravity all remain "not fully understood"). I should have refetched more news before responding. ;) Would have saved me a sentence or two. Jon
From: Lloyd Parker on 18 Dec 2006 11:07
In article <jIGdndUFHKu8ZRvYnZ2dnUVZ8se3nZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:4586EB2C.8D8510D1(a)hotmail.com... >> >> >> Lloyd Parker wrote: >> >>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>> >T Wake wrote: >>> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> > >>> >> 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. >>> >>> Typical right-wing anti-science remark. >> >> Not really. >> >> No-one fully understands what drives the weather. > >That isn't really what climate science is about though, and interestingly >not fully understanding what drives something does not affect the quality of >the science (inflation, cosmological expansion, even the propagation of >gravity all remain "not fully understood"). > > It's like atomic decay. Nobody knows what causes a particular nucleus to decay when it does (and it cannot be predicted), but we can say x number of them will decay in a year. Similarly, while weather may be hard to predict, climate is easier. |