Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 18 Dec 2006 17:11 "Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message news:uhudo2haqc1jbnt114m7n7mkqfp2k93ka5(a)4ax.com... > 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. It's ok. Something good is worth saying twice :-)
From: unsettled on 18 Dec 2006 18:34 T Wake 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"). We know enough to usually understand what a really good model is. Occasionally we get lucky early in the game. I don't believe we have with climatology as yet. Look at some of the diverse elements: variability of solar energy directed at us what happens enroute before that reaches us variable atmospheric considerations variable ocean currents Earth tilt/axis_wobble chaotic interactions solar eclipses
From: unsettled on 18 Dec 2006 18:36 T Wake wrote: > "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. That's a problem even here, where it shouldn't be.
From: T Wake on 18 Dec 2006 18:39 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:1ba80$458725e8$4fe77f6$13355(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> "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. > > That's a problem even here, where it shouldn't be. Very true.
From: T Wake on 18 Dec 2006 18:38
"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:d7d51$4587259a$4fe77f6$13355(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake 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"). > > We know enough to usually understand what a really good > model is. Occasionally we get lucky early in the game. > I don't believe we have with climatology as yet. > > Look at some of the diverse elements: > > variability of solar energy directed at us > what happens enroute before that reaches us > variable atmospheric considerations > variable ocean currents > Earth tilt/axis_wobble > chaotic interactions > solar eclipses Unfortunately I am no where near up to speed with climatology enough to respond to this in a meaningful manner. Hopefully a climatologist will be able to chime in and give better detail. |