Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Mind stretching
73 views
Skip to first unread message
Jim Thompson
Apr 27, 2012, 3:41:25 PM4/27/12
to
Mind stretching....
http://wmbriggs.com/
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
http://wmbriggs.com/
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
tm
Apr 27, 2012, 4:19:54 PM4/27/12
to
"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:pgtlp71l1uocqnsh0...@4ax.com...
Thanks
Artemus
Apr 27, 2012, 4:59:09 PM4/27/12
to
"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote in message
news:pgtlp71l1uocqnsh0...@4ax.com...
Art
Jim Thompson
Apr 27, 2012, 5:19:50 PM4/27/12
to
hamilton
Apr 27, 2012, 6:02:10 PM4/27/12
to
John Fields
Apr 27, 2012, 8:22:52 PM4/27/12
to
Miracles validate the theory.
--
JF
Message has been deleted
Tom Del Rosso
Apr 27, 2012, 9:28:17 PM4/27/12
to
think the inverse is also true, so they can make people think by telling
them not to believe in God. That's completely non-sequitur. If they don't
know how to take a direct approach to teaching people how to think in the
first place and decide for themselves about God then they should shut up.
--
Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.
Message has been deleted
Les Cargill
Apr 28, 2012, 12:50:03 AM4/28/12
to
This makes very little sense. A theory is a very
humble thing. All it takes is one demonstrable
experiment against it and it vanishes.
<snip>
--
Les Cargill
humble thing. All it takes is one demonstrable
experiment against it and it vanishes.
<snip>
--
Les Cargill
Message has been deleted
Chiron
Apr 28, 2012, 3:18:10 AM4/28/12
to
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 23:50:03 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
> This makes very little sense. A theory is a very humble thing. All it
> takes is one demonstrable experiment against it and it vanishes.
True - what it's actually a theory. Unfortunately, many, MANY people use
> This makes very little sense. A theory is a very humble thing. All it
> takes is one demonstrable experiment against it and it vanishes.
the word "theory" to describe any old notion that cannot, even in
principle, be falsified. Such "theories" are immune to experiment or
observation. They sound nice - they make you feel all warm and fuzzy, or
they maybe are exciting (the world's going to end again, this time on
December 12, 2012, that sort of thing). Of course, that one's
falsifiable.
Not so the ones that describe "unknown" energies, "alien" technologies,
"forgotten" civilizations that left no traces, and so on. In order to
explain the profound lack of evidence, many turn to conspiracy theories
("they" have suppressed all the evidence), which again makes their
notions incapable of being falsified.
--
System going down at 1:45 this afternoon for disk crashing.
Bob Masta
Apr 28, 2012, 8:30:29 AM4/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 01:00:15 -0500, flipper
<fli...@fish.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 23:50:03 -0500, Les Cargill
<fli...@fish.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 23:50:03 -0500, Les Cargill
>'demonstrable' things. In fact, it never even reaches to 'theory'
>unless one proposes falsifiable and testable predictions but that
>doesn't stop people from claiming their notion is not only a 'theory'
>but 'true'. So called "Global Warming," or "Climate Change," is one
>example as proponents have never proposed falsifiable predictions and
>get quite agitated if you ask them to because, after all, it's 'true',
>so there is no need to 'test' it.
What kind of predictions are you asking for, a one-hour lab
test for climate change? Climatologists most certainly
make falsifiable predictions... it's those very predictions
that seem to get some people's panties in a bunch. The only
problem is that you can't get instant results. That's
hardly the climatologists' fault!
Best regards,
Bob Masta
DAQARTA v6.02
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
Frequency Counter, FREE Signal Generator
Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
Science with your sound card!
Message has been deleted
Les Cargill
Apr 28, 2012, 6:22:57 PM4/28/12
to
> It does unless one is so in love with their theory they reject those
> 'demonstrable' things.
So the people involved simply don't know what a theory *is*. Why
> 'demonstrable' things.
can't the person at the link ( who appears to have rented or
made a fairly fancy stage setup - that wasn't free ) simply *SAY*
that?
>-- In fact, it never even reaches to 'theory'
> unless one proposes falsifiable and testable predictions but that
> doesn't stop people from claiming their notion is not only a 'theory'
> but 'true'.
Some things are not testable right now for various reasons.
> doesn't stop people from claiming their notion is not only a 'theory'
> but 'true'.
> So called "Global Warming," or "Climate Change," is one
> example as proponents have never proposed falsifiable predictions and
> get quite agitated if you ask them to because, after all, it's 'true',
> so there is no need to 'test' it.
>
highly inconvenient...
>
>
>> <snip>
--
Les Cargill
Phil Hobbs
Apr 28, 2012, 6:26:14 PM4/28/12
to
again.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Bill Sloman
Apr 28, 2012, 9:14:29 PM4/28/12
to
On Apr 28, 3:05 am, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 12:41:25 -0700, Jim Thompson
> Einstein's Theory of Relativity *was* a "theory" precisely because it
> was falsifiable and, hence, testable. The other, so called, 'theories'
> he mentions are, in fact, *not* "theories" because they're not
> falsifiable and testable. They are speculation, conjecture or, at
> best, hypothesis but, generally, hypothesis is the stage where
> falsifiable predictions are required.
>
> The fallacy of developing 'ideas' (models) about how things work, and
> presuming they are 'right' because it appears to 'explain' what one
> thinks they observe, is precisely what the Scientific Method of
> falsifiable predictions, and the testing of same, addresses. It *is*
> what defines 'science' as science.
>
> One of the best examples is the 'crystal spheres' model of the
> universe. It was a marvel at 'explaining' the then observed movements
> of the heavenly bodies with the only flaw being it was completely
> wrong.
So far, so good.
> So called 'Climate Change' operates on the same 'logic' as the crystal
> spheres model in that proponents deliberately refuse to make
> falsifiable, testable, predictions.
There is where flipper loses it. The basic proposition of
anthropogenic global warming is that an increasing level of CO2 in the
atmosphere increases the average temperature of the earth (as measured
at sea level).
We are busily engaged in testing the hypothesis by continuing to burn
fossil carbon and dump the carbon dioxide produced in the atmosphere,
and monitoring the - rising - average temperature of the earth.
So far, the observed temperature rises are consistent with the
hypothesis. They aren't all that big when compared with the natural
noise sources, but we've been burning fossil carbon for long enough to
have made a significant difference to the temperatures measured at the
surface of the earth. No other explanation fits the data as well. The
rise became significant around 1990, and that's the point where the
scientific community was persuaded.
Flipper is thus some twenty years behind the times.
--
Bill Sloman,
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 12:41:25 -0700, Jim Thompson
>
> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
> >Mind stretching....
>
> >http://wmbriggs.com/
>
> > ...Jim Thompson
>
> I appreciate what he's trying to say but he has his terminology off.
> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
> >Mind stretching....
>
> >http://wmbriggs.com/
>
> > ...Jim Thompson
>
> Einstein's Theory of Relativity *was* a "theory" precisely because it
> was falsifiable and, hence, testable. The other, so called, 'theories'
> he mentions are, in fact, *not* "theories" because they're not
> falsifiable and testable. They are speculation, conjecture or, at
> best, hypothesis but, generally, hypothesis is the stage where
> falsifiable predictions are required.
>
> The fallacy of developing 'ideas' (models) about how things work, and
> presuming they are 'right' because it appears to 'explain' what one
> thinks they observe, is precisely what the Scientific Method of
> falsifiable predictions, and the testing of same, addresses. It *is*
> what defines 'science' as science.
>
> One of the best examples is the 'crystal spheres' model of the
> universe. It was a marvel at 'explaining' the then observed movements
> of the heavenly bodies with the only flaw being it was completely
> wrong.
So far, so good.
> So called 'Climate Change' operates on the same 'logic' as the crystal
> spheres model in that proponents deliberately refuse to make
> falsifiable, testable, predictions.
There is where flipper loses it. The basic proposition of
anthropogenic global warming is that an increasing level of CO2 in the
atmosphere increases the average temperature of the earth (as measured
at sea level).
We are busily engaged in testing the hypothesis by continuing to burn
fossil carbon and dump the carbon dioxide produced in the atmosphere,
and monitoring the - rising - average temperature of the earth.
So far, the observed temperature rises are consistent with the
hypothesis. They aren't all that big when compared with the natural
noise sources, but we've been burning fossil carbon for long enough to
have made a significant difference to the temperatures measured at the
surface of the earth. No other explanation fits the data as well. The
rise became significant around 1990, and that's the point where the
scientific community was persuaded.
Flipper is thus some twenty years behind the times.
--
Bill Sloman,
Bill Sloman
Apr 28, 2012, 9:18:03 PM4/28/12
to
On Apr 28, 8:00 am, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 23:50:03 -0500, Les Cargill
>
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 23:50:03 -0500, Les Cargill
>
> It does unless one is so in love with their theory they reject those
> 'demonstrable' things. In fact, it never even reaches to 'theory'
> unless one proposes falsifiable and testable predictions but that
> doesn't stop people from claiming their notion is not only a 'theory'
> but 'true'. So called "Global Warming," or "Climate Change," is one
> doesn't stop people from claiming their notion is not only a 'theory'
> example as proponents have never proposed falsifiable predictions and
> get quite agitated if you ask them to because, after all, it's 'true',
> so there is no need to 'test' it.
On the contrary, it is being continuously tested. The predicted
> get quite agitated if you ask them to because, after all, it's 'true',
> so there is no need to 'test' it.
warming is happening. We haven't yet made a big enough mess of the
atmosphere to create any particularly dramatic effects, but we are
working on it.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
Apr 28, 2012, 10:00:29 PM4/28/12
to
On Apr 28, 3:31 pm, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
> of falsifying the premise.
> power to ya and lets get on with the testing.
>
> The closest thing that came to a 'prediction' was the climate model's
> atmospheric temperature distribution and it's been long enough to
> test. But when it turned out observations did not match the models AGW
> proponents went on a screaming fit that was *NOT A PREDICTION!!!*
I think you have misunderstood the difference of opinion about some of
the satellite measurements, probably because the denialist propaganda
machine hasn't been reporting this isue entirely accurately
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170
> > it's those very predictions
> >that seem to get some people's panties in a bunch.
>
> Hysterics about what 'might' happen are not predictions,
The projections of what will probably happen if we keep on burning
fossil carbon at a progressively increasing rate aren't in the least
hysterical - in fact they are somewhat more conservative than is
entirely prudent. The Younger Dryas event at the end of the last ice
age was an interesting - and rapid - temperature excursion which last
for about 1300 years. The Gulf Stream seems to have turned off for the
period, then turned back on again. If a big lump of the Greenland ice
sheet managed to slide off into the ocean, it might manage to pull a
similar trick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
> and they'll
> tell you so if you bother to ask, nor are they intended to be
> testable.
Predictions are obviously testable. You'd have to be pretty stupid not
to try to prevent the anthropogenic global warming predictions from
coming true, and in that sense nobody wants them tested.
> You're supposed to scream in terror and do what they want
> long before the 'doomsday' scenario that 'might' happen.
It's not exactly a doomsday scenario. A lot of people could starve to
death if we don't take the problem seriously enough, but that won't
doom the human race, though it may well doom social institutions that
prevented the society involved from taking advantage of the
information that it had in time to save those lives.
> Which, so called, (non) 'prediction' are you favoring this week? That
> we'll burn to a crisp or a new ice age gets triggered?
Read the most recent IPCC report. It's a little too conservative to be
entirely prudent, and a couple of minor details were a bit off - the
Himalyan glaciers aren't going to vanish any time soon - in part
because the Hamalayan plateau is rising at 5mm per year
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayas
> Btw, we are *in* an ice age, the Quaternary to be precise. We just,
> fortunately, happen to be in an interglacial but, compared to the
> geological mean, the earth is damn cold right now.
Unfortunately, we evolved - as a species - while the earth was
relatively cold, and our current society is tuned to fit the current
climate. Getting back to the geological norm wouldn't be a good idea.
> > The only
> >problem is that you can't get instant results. That's
> >hardly the climatologists' fault!
>
> Einstein didn't have to create warp drive to test his theory of
> relativity but even if, for the sake of argument, we accept your
> dubious premise it's irrelevant because science does not provide an
> 'exclusion' for 'tough to test'. No falsifiable predictions is not
> science, 'excuses' notwithstanding, nor does it qualify as a theory.
Sadly for your pretensions, the hypotheses involved are testable, are
being tested, and haven't yet been falsified.
The predictions currently being tested aren't all that dramatic, but
no other plausible explanation (such as "nothing is actually
happening") fits the data as a well.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 12:30:29 GMT, N0S...@daqarta.com (Bob Masta)
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 01:00:15 -0500, flipper
> ><flip...@fish.net> wrote:
>
> >>On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 23:50:03 -0500, Les Cargill
> >><lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Jim Thompson wrote:
> >>>> Mind stretching....
>
> >>>>http://wmbriggs.com/
>
> >>>> ...Jim Thompson
>
> >>>This makes very little sense. A theory is a very
> >>>humble thing. All it takes is one demonstrable
> >>>experiment against it and it vanishes.
>
> >>It does unless one is so in love with their theory they reject those
> >>'demonstrable' things. In fact, it never even reaches to 'theory'
> >>unless one proposes falsifiable and testable predictions but that
> >>doesn't stop people from claiming their notion is not only a 'theory'
> >>but 'true'. So called "Global Warming," or "Climate Change," is one
> >>example as proponents have never proposed falsifiable predictions and
> >>get quite agitated if you ask them to because, after all, it's 'true',
> >>so there is no need to 'test' it.
>
> >What kind of predictions are you asking for,
>
> The same 'kind' required for any science: testable predictions capable
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 01:00:15 -0500, flipper
> ><flip...@fish.net> wrote:
>
> >>On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 23:50:03 -0500, Les Cargill
> >><lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Jim Thompson wrote:
> >>>> Mind stretching....
>
> >>>>http://wmbriggs.com/
>
> >>>> ...Jim Thompson
>
> >>>This makes very little sense. A theory is a very
> >>>humble thing. All it takes is one demonstrable
> >>>experiment against it and it vanishes.
>
> >>It does unless one is so in love with their theory they reject those
> >>'demonstrable' things. In fact, it never even reaches to 'theory'
> >>unless one proposes falsifiable and testable predictions but that
> >>doesn't stop people from claiming their notion is not only a 'theory'
> >>but 'true'. So called "Global Warming," or "Climate Change," is one
> >>example as proponents have never proposed falsifiable predictions and
> >>get quite agitated if you ask them to because, after all, it's 'true',
> >>so there is no need to 'test' it.
>
> >What kind of predictions are you asking for,
>
> of falsifying the premise.
>
> > a one-hour lab
> >test for climate change?
>
> If you can devise one that meets the scientific criteria then more
> > a one-hour lab
> >test for climate change?
>
> power to ya and lets get on with the testing.
>
> > Climatologists most certainly
> >make falsifiable predictions...
>
> Name one.
> > Climatologists most certainly
> >make falsifiable predictions...
>
>
> The closest thing that came to a 'prediction' was the climate model's
> atmospheric temperature distribution and it's been long enough to
> test. But when it turned out observations did not match the models AGW
> proponents went on a screaming fit that was *NOT A PREDICTION!!!*
I think you have misunderstood the difference of opinion about some of
the satellite measurements, probably because the denialist propaganda
machine hasn't been reporting this isue entirely accurately
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170
> > it's those very predictions
> >that seem to get some people's panties in a bunch.
>
The projections of what will probably happen if we keep on burning
fossil carbon at a progressively increasing rate aren't in the least
hysterical - in fact they are somewhat more conservative than is
entirely prudent. The Younger Dryas event at the end of the last ice
age was an interesting - and rapid - temperature excursion which last
for about 1300 years. The Gulf Stream seems to have turned off for the
period, then turned back on again. If a big lump of the Greenland ice
sheet managed to slide off into the ocean, it might manage to pull a
similar trick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
> and they'll
> tell you so if you bother to ask, nor are they intended to be
> testable.
Predictions are obviously testable. You'd have to be pretty stupid not
to try to prevent the anthropogenic global warming predictions from
coming true, and in that sense nobody wants them tested.
> You're supposed to scream in terror and do what they want
> long before the 'doomsday' scenario that 'might' happen.
It's not exactly a doomsday scenario. A lot of people could starve to
death if we don't take the problem seriously enough, but that won't
doom the human race, though it may well doom social institutions that
prevented the society involved from taking advantage of the
information that it had in time to save those lives.
> Which, so called, (non) 'prediction' are you favoring this week? That
> we'll burn to a crisp or a new ice age gets triggered?
Read the most recent IPCC report. It's a little too conservative to be
entirely prudent, and a couple of minor details were a bit off - the
Himalyan glaciers aren't going to vanish any time soon - in part
because the Hamalayan plateau is rising at 5mm per year
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayas
> Btw, we are *in* an ice age, the Quaternary to be precise. We just,
> fortunately, happen to be in an interglacial but, compared to the
> geological mean, the earth is damn cold right now.
Unfortunately, we evolved - as a species - while the earth was
relatively cold, and our current society is tuned to fit the current
climate. Getting back to the geological norm wouldn't be a good idea.
> > The only
> >problem is that you can't get instant results. That's
> >hardly the climatologists' fault!
>
> relativity but even if, for the sake of argument, we accept your
> dubious premise it's irrelevant because science does not provide an
> 'exclusion' for 'tough to test'. No falsifiable predictions is not
> science, 'excuses' notwithstanding, nor does it qualify as a theory.
Sadly for your pretensions, the hypotheses involved are testable, are
being tested, and haven't yet been falsified.
The predictions currently being tested aren't all that dramatic, but
no other plausible explanation (such as "nothing is actually
happening") fits the data as a well.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
Apr 28, 2012, 10:03:14 PM4/28/12
to
On Apr 29, 12:26 am, Phil Hobbs
What's current observable barely hits two standard deviations, if
that.
> Besides being longer than the time required to move the goal posts
> again.
Don't be silly.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
<pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
> Les Cargill wrote:
>
> > flipper wrote:
> > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 23:50:03 -0500, Les Cargill
> > > <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
> Les Cargill wrote:
>
> > flipper wrote:
> > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 23:50:03 -0500, Les Cargill
>
> > >> Jim Thompson wrote:
> > >>> Mind stretching....
>
> > >>>http://wmbriggs.com/
>
> > >>> ...Jim Thompson
>
> > >> This makes very little sense. A theory is a very
> > >> humble thing. All it takes is one demonstrable
> > >> experiment against it and it vanishes.
>
> > > It does unless one is so in love with their theory they reject those
> > > 'demonstrable' things.
>
> > So the people involved simply don't know what a theory *is*. Why
> > can't the person at the link ( who appears to have rented or
> > made a fairly fancy stage setup - that wasn't free ) simply *SAY*
> > that?
>
> > >-- In fact, it never even reaches to 'theory'
> > > unless one proposes falsifiable and testable predictions but that
> > > doesn't stop people from claiming their notion is not only a 'theory'
> > > but 'true'.
>
> > Some things are not testable right now for various reasons.
>
> > > So called "Global Warming," or "Climate Change," is one
> > > example as proponents have never proposed falsifiable predictions and
> > > get quite agitated if you ask them to because, after all, it's 'true',
> > > so there is no need to 'test' it.
>
> > AGW makes falsifiable predictions, but the time scales are
> > highly inconvenient...
If you want large effects with lots of statistical significance.
> > >> Jim Thompson wrote:
> > >>> Mind stretching....
>
> > >>>http://wmbriggs.com/
>
> > >>> ...Jim Thompson
>
> > >> This makes very little sense. A theory is a very
> > >> humble thing. All it takes is one demonstrable
> > >> experiment against it and it vanishes.
>
> > > It does unless one is so in love with their theory they reject those
> > > 'demonstrable' things.
>
> > So the people involved simply don't know what a theory *is*. Why
> > can't the person at the link ( who appears to have rented or
> > made a fairly fancy stage setup - that wasn't free ) simply *SAY*
> > that?
>
> > >-- In fact, it never even reaches to 'theory'
> > > unless one proposes falsifiable and testable predictions but that
> > > doesn't stop people from claiming their notion is not only a 'theory'
> > > but 'true'.
>
> > Some things are not testable right now for various reasons.
>
> > > So called "Global Warming," or "Climate Change," is one
> > > example as proponents have never proposed falsifiable predictions and
> > > get quite agitated if you ask them to because, after all, it's 'true',
> > > so there is no need to 'test' it.
>
> > AGW makes falsifiable predictions, but the time scales are
> > highly inconvenient...
What's current observable barely hits two standard deviations, if
that.
> Besides being longer than the time required to move the goal posts
> again.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Chiron
Apr 29, 2012, 12:39:20 AM4/29/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 18:14:29 -0700, Bill Sloman wrote:
> On Apr 28, 3:05 am, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
<snip>
> On Apr 28, 3:05 am, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
>
> So far, so good.
>
>> So called 'Climate Change' operates on the same 'logic' as the crystal
>> spheres model in that proponents deliberately refuse to make
>> falsifiable, testable, predictions.
>
> There is where flipper loses it. The basic proposition of anthropogenic
> global warming is that an increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere
> increases the average temperature of the earth (as measured at sea
> level).
>
> We are busily engaged in testing the hypothesis by continuing to burn
> fossil carbon and dump the carbon dioxide produced in the atmosphere,
> and monitoring the - rising - average temperature of the earth.
>
> So far, the observed temperature rises are consistent with the
> hypothesis. They aren't all that big when compared with the natural
> noise sources, but we've been burning fossil carbon for long enough to
> have made a significant difference to the temperatures measured at the
> surface of the earth. No other explanation fits the data as well. The
> rise became significant around 1990, and that's the point where the
> scientific community was persuaded.
>
> Flipper is thus some twenty years behind the times.
This whole "Global Warming" thing has become a holy war. Almost every
> So far, so good.
>
>> So called 'Climate Change' operates on the same 'logic' as the crystal
>> spheres model in that proponents deliberately refuse to make
>> falsifiable, testable, predictions.
>
> There is where flipper loses it. The basic proposition of anthropogenic
> global warming is that an increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere
> increases the average temperature of the earth (as measured at sea
> level).
>
> We are busily engaged in testing the hypothesis by continuing to burn
> fossil carbon and dump the carbon dioxide produced in the atmosphere,
> and monitoring the - rising - average temperature of the earth.
>
> So far, the observed temperature rises are consistent with the
> hypothesis. They aren't all that big when compared with the natural
> noise sources, but we've been burning fossil carbon for long enough to
> have made a significant difference to the temperatures measured at the
> surface of the earth. No other explanation fits the data as well. The
> rise became significant around 1990, and that's the point where the
> scientific community was persuaded.
>
> Flipper is thus some twenty years behind the times.
layman is arguing from a position of faith, rather than actual
knowledge. The science is complex, the trends subtle, the short-term
variations enough to swamp smaller long-term trends. We've chosen a poor
term for the phenomenon, one that adds to the confusion. Every time we
get a hot summer, the True Believers say, "See, Global Warming is true!"
And every time we get a cold winter, the Infidels say, "See, Global
Warming is false!" In the meantime we've got politicians getting onto
the bandwagon, either stirring up the Believers or the Infidels in order
to garner votes. The truth is not a matter of great concern to these
politicians, as usual.
An increase of CO2 does not necessarily cause global warming, nor will
reducing CO2 output necessarily avoid it. That is a simplistic and
useless view. There are dozens of known factors affecting climate,
ranging from solar activity (overall activity and various cycles), the
earth's relationship to the sun (distance, angle, etc.), clouds, ice,
pollution, greenhouse gases, water vapor, ocean currents, and on and on
and on. Each can enhance or reduce the effects of CO2 on global warming.
The *consensus* among climate scientists is that yes, there is global
warming that is beginning to affect the long-term climate. Even so,
there are respected skeptics among these scientists, guys who doubt it's
happening.
The *consensus* among climate scientists is that some part of global
warming is anthropogenic; but again, there are some respected skeptics
among these scientists.
As for what, if anything, we can do about it? Not such a consensus. As
far as I know a majority of climate scientists think it might be a good
idea to throttle back on CO2 and CH4 emissions, but I'm not sure it's
that much of a majority. There is some thinking that we've already
passed a point of no return, or that it's coming up very quickly. Once
we pass it, positive feedback kicks in and the process takes on a life of
its own that we won't be able to stop.
Beyond that, the consensus falters. Predictions range from the Al Gore
apocalypse, to the usual conservative head-in-the-sand attitude of
"nothing's going to happen." My guess is that like most things, the
truth lies somewhere in between. Some things will suck, some won't be so
bad, and we'll muddle through somehow. Just my own wild guess...
Unfortunately, most of the people arguing about all this aren't climate
scientists, or scientists of any kind. In fact, most of the debaters
don't understand the science behind the issues. They talk about
"believing" in global warming, as though discussing a belief in God.
They're the ones the politicians listen to.
The sad fact is that the people of the US are incapable of having an
informed discussion about global warming. We haven't had the training in
critical thinking or basic science required to understand the issues. We
don't have the tools to take it beyond the level of a holy war, a debate
based on faith.
--
"You who hate the Jews so, why did you adopt their religion?"
-- Friedrich Nietzsche, addressing anti-semitic Christians
Chiron
Apr 29, 2012, 12:53:19 AM4/29/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:31:51 -0500, flipper wrote:
<snip>
dozens of predictions. Some few have been "confirmed" - or rather, the
observations failed to falsify the theory. Most of the predictions
require decades or centuries to show a result.
The idea of widespread glacier melting, rises in sea level, changes in
weather patterns, etc., are all predictions made by the climate
scientists.
<snip>
>
See above. Pretty much anything conservatives are screaming about, is a
prediction that climate scientists made about global warming.
> The closest thing that came to a 'prediction' was the climate model's
> atmospheric temperature distribution and it's been long enough to test.
> But when it turned out observations did not match the models AGW
> proponents went on a screaming fit that was *NOT A PREDICTION!!!*
>
Yes, AGW *proponents* do scream. They are not climate scientists. The
climate scientists don't scream.
>> it's those very predictions
>>that seem to get some people's panties in a bunch.
>
> Hysterics about what 'might' happen are not predictions, and they'll
made by proponents of AGW, with those made by climate scientists. The
climate scientists *did* predict that a rise in global temperature would
cause various climate effects. Others, non-scientists, took that ball
and ran with it, until you wind up with the Al Gore apocalypse.
>
> Which, so called, (non) 'prediction' are you favoring this week? That
> we'll burn to a crisp or a new ice age gets triggered?
>
No climate scientist has made any such prediction. What AGW proponents
say cannot be considered a "prediction" since they are not climate
scientists.
> Btw, we are *in* an ice age, the Quaternary to be precise. We just,
> fortunately, happen to be in an interglacial but, compared to the
> geological mean, the earth is damn cold right now.
>
to climate. Fortunately for Einstein, he made predictions that were
readily testable. However, even he had to wait for a particular eclipse,
for one crucial test to be made.
Climate scientists have already made dozens of predictions; some of these
have failed to falsify their theories. Others require much more time to
yield measurable results, as I noted above. But yes, they've *already*
made testable predictions that could falsify their theories. Claiming
that they have not, is simply incorrect.
Again I say that you are confusing the claims by AGW proponents - non-
scientists - with the predictions made by climate scientists. This is a
mistake. Ignore what the non-scientists claim, and you wind up with some
excellent science. We just don't know where this science is taking us
yet - but that's no fault of the scientists.
--
It is very vulgar to talk like a dentist when one isn't a dentist.
It produces a false impression.
-- Oscar Wilde.
<snip>
>>>>
>>>>This makes very little sense. A theory is a very humble thing. All it
>>>>takes is one demonstrable experiment against it and it vanishes.
>>>
>>>It does unless one is so in love with their theory they reject those
>>>'demonstrable' things. In fact, it never even reaches to 'theory'
>>>unless one proposes falsifiable and testable predictions but that
>>>doesn't stop people from claiming their notion is not only a 'theory'
>>>but 'true'. So called "Global Warming," or "Climate Change," is one
>>>example as proponents have never proposed falsifiable predictions and
>>>get quite agitated if you ask them to because, after all, it's 'true',
>>>so there is no need to 'test' it.
>>
>>What kind of predictions are you asking for,
>
>>>>This makes very little sense. A theory is a very humble thing. All it
>>>>takes is one demonstrable experiment against it and it vanishes.
>>>
>>>It does unless one is so in love with their theory they reject those
>>>'demonstrable' things. In fact, it never even reaches to 'theory'
>>>unless one proposes falsifiable and testable predictions but that
>>>doesn't stop people from claiming their notion is not only a 'theory'
>>>but 'true'. So called "Global Warming," or "Climate Change," is one
>>>example as proponents have never proposed falsifiable predictions and
>>>get quite agitated if you ask them to because, after all, it's 'true',
>>>so there is no need to 'test' it.
>>
>>What kind of predictions are you asking for,
>
> The same 'kind' required for any science: testable predictions capable
> of falsifying the premise.
>
Flipper, you've got your facts wrong. Climate scientists have made
> of falsifying the premise.
>
dozens of predictions. Some few have been "confirmed" - or rather, the
observations failed to falsify the theory. Most of the predictions
require decades or centuries to show a result.
The idea of widespread glacier melting, rises in sea level, changes in
weather patterns, etc., are all predictions made by the climate
scientists.
<snip>
>
>> Climatologists most certainly
>>make falsifiable predictions...
>
> Name one.
>> Climatologists most certainly
>>make falsifiable predictions...
>
>
See above. Pretty much anything conservatives are screaming about, is a
prediction that climate scientists made about global warming.
> The closest thing that came to a 'prediction' was the climate model's
> atmospheric temperature distribution and it's been long enough to test.
> But when it turned out observations did not match the models AGW
> proponents went on a screaming fit that was *NOT A PREDICTION!!!*
>
climate scientists don't scream.
>> it's those very predictions
>>that seem to get some people's panties in a bunch.
>
> tell you so if you bother to ask, nor are they intended to be testable.
> You're supposed to scream in terror and do what they want long before
> the 'doomsday' scenario that 'might' happen.
Agreed that hysterics are not predictions. You are confusing the claims
> the 'doomsday' scenario that 'might' happen.
made by proponents of AGW, with those made by climate scientists. The
climate scientists *did* predict that a rise in global temperature would
cause various climate effects. Others, non-scientists, took that ball
and ran with it, until you wind up with the Al Gore apocalypse.
>
> Which, so called, (non) 'prediction' are you favoring this week? That
> we'll burn to a crisp or a new ice age gets triggered?
>
say cannot be considered a "prediction" since they are not climate
scientists.
> Btw, we are *in* an ice age, the Quaternary to be precise. We just,
> fortunately, happen to be in an interglacial but, compared to the
> geological mean, the earth is damn cold right now.
>
>> The only
>>problem is that you can't get instant results. That's hardly the
>>climatologists' fault!
>
>>problem is that you can't get instant results. That's hardly the
>>climatologists' fault!
>
> Einstein didn't have to create warp drive to test his theory of
> relativity but even if, for the sake of argument, we accept your dubious
> premise it's irrelevant because science does not provide an 'exclusion'
> for 'tough to test'. No falsifiable predictions is not science,
> 'excuses' notwithstanding, nor does it qualify as a theory.
>
No, but Einstein was talking about an incredibly simple system, compared
> relativity but even if, for the sake of argument, we accept your dubious
> premise it's irrelevant because science does not provide an 'exclusion'
> for 'tough to test'. No falsifiable predictions is not science,
> 'excuses' notwithstanding, nor does it qualify as a theory.
>
to climate. Fortunately for Einstein, he made predictions that were
readily testable. However, even he had to wait for a particular eclipse,
for one crucial test to be made.
Climate scientists have already made dozens of predictions; some of these
have failed to falsify their theories. Others require much more time to
yield measurable results, as I noted above. But yes, they've *already*
made testable predictions that could falsify their theories. Claiming
that they have not, is simply incorrect.
Again I say that you are confusing the claims by AGW proponents - non-
scientists - with the predictions made by climate scientists. This is a
mistake. Ignore what the non-scientists claim, and you wind up with some
excellent science. We just don't know where this science is taking us
yet - but that's no fault of the scientists.
--
It is very vulgar to talk like a dentist when one isn't a dentist.
It produces a false impression.
-- Oscar Wilde.
Message has been deleted
Bill Sloman
Apr 30, 2012, 2:15:30 PM4/30/12
to
On Apr 30, 3:41 am, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 04:53:19 GMT, Chiron
> constitutes a falsifiable prediction. It must be a new, previously
> unobserved, measurable, replicable and repeatable, phenomena that is
> inextricably derived from the core premise and for which there are no
> alternate means of explanation.
Interesting redefinition of what constitutes a falsifiable prediction.
The usual rule is that you've got to predict something that can be
measured when it happens. Replicable and repeatable are nice, but
things like the transit of Venus take a while to repeat, and don't
ever exactly replicate the last event, because all the other planets
are in different place.
> None of your alleged 'predictions' come even remotely close.
Don't be silly.
> > Some few have been "confirmed" - or rather, the
> >observations failed to falsify the theory. Most of the predictions
> >require decades or centuries to show a result.
>
> >The idea of widespread glacier melting, rises in sea level, changes in
> >weather patterns, etc., are all predictions made by the climate
> >scientists.
>
> One does not need to bring up 'man' or CO2 to know that 'warm melts
> ice' and the same lack of any connection to the premise also applies
> to the rest.
<snip>
Not exactly. We've been pushing up atmospheric CO2 levels at a
remarkable rate, and the consequent temperature rise has also been
pretty rapid - whence the famous hockey stick curve.
This is whole different ball game from "warm melts ice".
<snipped ignorant nonsense>
> You claim that, out of the multitude, 'this time' it's man but merely
> observing something similar to what's happened before has nothing to
> do with the premise. 'That time' it was natural but 'this time' it
> isn't? Really? How do you know that.
Ice core data and ocean core sediments are now giving us a pretty good
idea of what happened over the last million years or so, and why it
happened. Our burning lots of fossil carbon and dumping the consequent
CO2 in the atmosphere is something new.
> How do you know your, so called,
> 'prediction', which is conveniently 'predicting' the same thing you
> already see happening, isn't just 'coincidence'.
That's one of the hypotheses that gets tested automatically. It's been
falsified every time.
<snipped the rest>
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 04:53:19 GMT, Chiron
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <chiron613.no.sp...@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:31:51 -0500, flipper wrote:
>
> ><snip>
>
> >>>>>This makes very little sense. A theory is a very humble thing. All it
> >>>>>takes is one demonstrable experiment against it and it vanishes.
>
> >>>>It does unless one is so in love with their theory they reject those
> >>>>'demonstrable' things. In fact, it never even reaches to 'theory'
> >>>>unless one proposes falsifiable and testable predictions but that
> >>>>doesn't stop people from claiming their notion is not only a 'theory'
> >>>>but 'true'. So called "Global Warming," or "Climate Change," is one
> >>>>example as proponents have never proposed falsifiable predictions and
> >>>>get quite agitated if you ask them to because, after all, it's 'true',
> >>>>so there is no need to 'test' it.
>
> >>>What kind of predictions are you asking for,
>
> >> The same 'kind' required for any science: testable predictions capable
> >> of falsifying the premise.
>
> >Flipper, you've got your facts wrong. Climate scientists have made
> >dozens of predictions.
>
> No, but it does seem that you do not have a good handle on what
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <chiron613.no.sp...@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:31:51 -0500, flipper wrote:
>
> ><snip>
>
> >>>>>This makes very little sense. A theory is a very humble thing. All it
> >>>>>takes is one demonstrable experiment against it and it vanishes.
>
> >>>>It does unless one is so in love with their theory they reject those
> >>>>'demonstrable' things. In fact, it never even reaches to 'theory'
> >>>>unless one proposes falsifiable and testable predictions but that
> >>>>doesn't stop people from claiming their notion is not only a 'theory'
> >>>>but 'true'. So called "Global Warming," or "Climate Change," is one
> >>>>example as proponents have never proposed falsifiable predictions and
> >>>>get quite agitated if you ask them to because, after all, it's 'true',
> >>>>so there is no need to 'test' it.
>
> >>>What kind of predictions are you asking for,
>
> >> The same 'kind' required for any science: testable predictions capable
> >> of falsifying the premise.
>
> >Flipper, you've got your facts wrong. Climate scientists have made
> >dozens of predictions.
>
> constitutes a falsifiable prediction. It must be a new, previously
> unobserved, measurable, replicable and repeatable, phenomena that is
> inextricably derived from the core premise and for which there are no
> alternate means of explanation.
Interesting redefinition of what constitutes a falsifiable prediction.
The usual rule is that you've got to predict something that can be
measured when it happens. Replicable and repeatable are nice, but
things like the transit of Venus take a while to repeat, and don't
ever exactly replicate the last event, because all the other planets
are in different place.
> None of your alleged 'predictions' come even remotely close.
Don't be silly.
> > Some few have been "confirmed" - or rather, the
> >observations failed to falsify the theory. Most of the predictions
> >require decades or centuries to show a result.
>
> >The idea of widespread glacier melting, rises in sea level, changes in
> >weather patterns, etc., are all predictions made by the climate
> >scientists.
>
> ice' and the same lack of any connection to the premise also applies
> to the rest.
<snip>
Not exactly. We've been pushing up atmospheric CO2 levels at a
remarkable rate, and the consequent temperature rise has also been
pretty rapid - whence the famous hockey stick curve.
This is whole different ball game from "warm melts ice".
<snipped ignorant nonsense>
> You claim that, out of the multitude, 'this time' it's man but merely
> observing something similar to what's happened before has nothing to
> do with the premise. 'That time' it was natural but 'this time' it
> isn't? Really? How do you know that.
Ice core data and ocean core sediments are now giving us a pretty good
idea of what happened over the last million years or so, and why it
happened. Our burning lots of fossil carbon and dumping the consequent
CO2 in the atmosphere is something new.
> How do you know your, so called,
> 'prediction', which is conveniently 'predicting' the same thing you
> already see happening, isn't just 'coincidence'.
That's one of the hypotheses that gets tested automatically. It's been
falsified every time.
<snipped the rest>
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
0 new messages