Several years back, the major threat was considered to be Methane gas from the digestive tracts of cattle herds. This year, it's CO2. What will be the next line the alarmists (read agenda driven liberals) ask us to believe?
Norm
DwightBranch I keep repeating myself, but I don't think many of you are familiar with the scientific method, or with scientific proof, or what a theory means (it means proven).
I keep repeating myself, but I don't think many of you are familiar with the scientific method, or with scientific proof, or what a theory means (it means proven).
: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events
: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true
: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
A more accurate defintion as related to science:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, repeatedly confirmed through observation and/or experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force. The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity. Examples of theories:
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
JT22CWIn Galileo's time, it was the government that pushed Aristotle's claim that the sun orbited the earth—and Galileo paid a heavy price for "denying" the government dogma that was taken to be "empirical science" at that time.
Sorry but you betray your "anti-government" bias. Of course it was the Catholic Church, not a secular government that opposed Galileo and Copernicus.
Norm48327 Several years back, the major threat was considered to be Methane gas from the digestive tracts of cattle herds. This year, it's CO2. What will be the next line the alarmists (read agenda driven liberals) ask us to believe?
The Myth of the Climate Change '97%':
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
Why Some Meteorologists Still Deny Global Warming
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/12/why-some-meteorologists-still-deny-climate-science
schlimm A more accurate defintion as related to science: A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, repeatedly confirmed through observation and/or experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force. The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity. Examples of theories: Biology: cell theory, germ theory, evolutionary theory Chemistry: kinetic theory of gases, molecular theory, valence bond theory Physics: atomic theory, theory of relativity, quantum field theory, Big Bang theory Other fields: climate change theory, plate tectonics theory All of the above are strongly accepted.
Strongly accepted and from time to time either revised or disproved. It is also a theory that intelligent life exists on other planets... who are we to judge ?
Climate change indeed exists - and has for billions of years.
It is a human conceit to assert that the current edition of climate change is due solely to the influence of man. That's not to say that many hasn't had an effect, but he isn't solely responsible.
One Krakatoa and all the temperature increases of the past 20+ years will be but a fond memory...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Murray Why Some Meteorologists Still Deny Global Warming http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/12/why-some-meteorologists-still-deny-climate-science
Thanks for citing an article that bolsters climate change, even if accidentally.
"And there's more bad news for skeptics who want to cite this AMS survey to bolster their case. You see, the study also showed that conservative political ideology is a big factor behind the denial of climate science by some meteorologists—ideology was a consistently bigger influence on meteorologists' views, in fact, than their level of scientific expertise."
"The irony, then, is considerable. Even as climate skeptics cite the new AMS survey to claim there's no scientific consensus on climate change, the survey itself calls into question whether disagreement among meteorologists has much to do with purely scientific considerations in the first place."
I assume you didn't actually read this article becasue you are an AGW denier, and becasue: 1) Mother Jones is a Progressive publication where among others Michael Moore got his start; 2) the article strengthens the link between human behavior and global warming. Here is the article you posted a link to::
"Far from undermining the scientific consensus on climate change, then, the new study could be said to strengthen it, by defining who's a relevant expert in the first place. "You listen to the scientists who really know the field in question," says George Mason's Neil Stenhouse, a Ph.D. student and the study's lead author. "And previous studies show that if you ask the scientists who really know climate change, there is high consensus on human causation.""
To quote another article on the topic of why Meteorologists often disagree with real scientists (i.e. those with a PhD who are peer reviewed in scientific publications), here is another story (also in a center-left pubblication)::
Meteorologists are notoriously reluctant to accept climate change. Why so? Theirs is a profession that studies the weather, which is akin to what climate scientists do by studying the weather over relatively long periods. Of course, they are not as educated as climate scientists who have PhD's in their field, while many meteorologists have college degrees unrelated to meteorology. Meteorologists know the pitfalls of being wrong when making a forecast, however, they do not seem to realize that the conclusions of climate scientists are not the same as saying there is a 50% chance of precipitation tomorrow. The International Panel on Climate Change or IPCC put a probability that it is more than 90% likely that man is causing climate change. Do meteorologists, weathermen to use a more prosaic term, just feel inferior to climate scientists or just why are they so dismissive about climate change?
That about sums it up (my red).
tree68 Climate change indeed exists - and has for billions of years. It is a human conceit to assert that the current edition of climate change is due solely to the influence of man. That's not to say that many hasn't had an effect, but he isn't solely responsible. One Krakatoa and all the temperature increases of the past 20+ years will be but a fond memory...
Larry, don't you get it that the entire history of temperature variations in the world doesn't matter? Does the entire history of fires in the world (from lightening, volcanoes, etc) mater when we are talking about YOUR house burning down?
I botched the quote.
If you go back to page seven I linked to this. Why aren't we worrying about methane from cows (or volcanoes, or asteroids, or clouds)as CO2 from burning fossil fuels? Because all of those are either roughly constant now (until the methane in the ocean is released with global warming as the article says, in which case we will be in trouble) or only occur irregularly. When there is a fire started in your kitchen that is spreading to the rest of the house you worry about putting THAT fire out, you don't worry about ALL fires, everywhere on earth, nor do you throw up your hands and say: "well, my fire department can't stop ALL fires so I won't bother calling them" (and we shouldn't bother paying for a fire department in the first place). That's how ridiculous the "we can't stop ALL sources of global warming like volcanoes or asteroids that appear every 100 million years so why bother cutting back on CO2 production" is.
DwightBranch tree68 Climate change indeed exists - and has for billions of years. It is a human conceit to assert that the current edition of climate change is due solely to the influence of man. That's not to say that many hasn't had an effect, but he isn't solely responsible. One Krakatoa and all the temperature increases of the past 20+ years will be but a fond memory... Larry, don't you get it that the entire history of temperature variations in the world doesn't matter? Does the entire history of fires in the world (from lightening, volcanoes, etc) mater when we are talking about YOUR house burning down?
Can you imagine a Krakatoa type volcanic eruption somewhere along the New Madrid fault line in middle America????? Or eruption of the Yellowstone caldera?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD DwightBranch tree68 Climate change indeed exists - and has for billions of years. It is a human conceit to assert that the current edition of climate change is due solely to the influence of man. That's not to say that many hasn't had an effect, but he isn't solely responsible. One Krakatoa and all the temperature increases of the past 20+ years will be but a fond memory... Larry, don't you get it that the entire history of temperature variations in the world doesn't matter? Does the entire history of fires in the world (from lightening, volcanoes, etc) mater when we are talking about YOUR house burning down? d Can you imagine a Krakatoa type volcanic eruption somewhere along the New Madrid fault line in middle America????? Or eruption of the Yellowstone caldera?
Yep, I can imagine it, I can also imagine an asteroid wiping out 90% of life on the planet. If so it will burn down a lot of people's houses. But I am not going to let a fire burn in my house now becasue I can't stop a volcano from erupting, and it is equally ridiculous to avoid dealing with an evil we know exists now becasue of the hypothetical possibility of an evil in the future.
Randy Stahl schlimm A more accurate defintion as related to science: A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, repeatedly confirmed through observation and/or experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force. The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity. Examples of theories: Biology: cell theory, germ theory, evolutionary theory Chemistry: kinetic theory of gases, molecular theory, valence bond theory Physics: atomic theory, theory of relativity, quantum field theory, Big Bang theory Other fields: climate change theory, plate tectonics theory All of the above are strongly accepted. Strongly accepted and from time to time either revised or disproved. It is also a theory that intelligent life exists on other planets... who are we to judge ?
Schlimm nailed it. I would add this quote on the scientific method: "The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false...Scientific inquiry is intended to be as objective as possible in order to minimize bias."
The stuff a lot of you are positing is full of political bias through a changing-of -subject.. I am biased also, but I wouldn't put my biases forward as equally valid to an objective, peer-reviewed article in a science jornal.
DwightBranchI would add this quote on the scientific method: "The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false...Scientific inquiry is intended to be as objective as possible in order to minimize bias."
That definition is okay, but that does not mean that science is infallible or “settled” in a permanent manner. Settled science might be settled one day and upset the next. It is fine to let reality speak for itself, but the message still needs to be interpreted according to human values, attitudes, beliefs, and other science that happens to be considered settled at the time. As reality speaks, it offers things that appear to be beyond intellectual reasoning such as infinity of time and space. This conundrum suggests that reality may not be exactly what it appears to be.
DwightBranch BaltACD DwightBranch tree68 Climate change indeed exists - and has for billions of years. It is a human conceit to assert that the current edition of climate change is due solely to the influence of man. That's not to say that many hasn't had an effect, but he isn't solely responsible. One Krakatoa and all the temperature increases of the past 20+ years will be but a fond memory... Larry, don't you get it that the entire history of temperature variations in the world doesn't matter? Does the entire history of fires in the world (from lightening, volcanoes, etc) mater when we are talking about YOUR house burning down? Can you imagine a Krakatoa type volcanic eruption somewhere along the New Madrid fault line in middle America????? Or eruption of the Yellowstone caldera? Yep, I can imagine it, I can also imagine an asteroid wiping out 90% of life on the planet. If so it will burn down a lot of people's houses. But I am not going to let a fire burn in my house now becasue I can't stop a volcano from erupting, and it is equally ridiculous to avoid dealing with an evil we know exists now becasue of the hypothetical possibility of an evil in the future.
BaltACD DwightBranch tree68 Climate change indeed exists - and has for billions of years. It is a human conceit to assert that the current edition of climate change is due solely to the influence of man. That's not to say that many hasn't had an effect, but he isn't solely responsible. One Krakatoa and all the temperature increases of the past 20+ years will be but a fond memory... Larry, don't you get it that the entire history of temperature variations in the world doesn't matter? Does the entire history of fires in the world (from lightening, volcanoes, etc) mater when we are talking about YOUR house burning down? Can you imagine a Krakatoa type volcanic eruption somewhere along the New Madrid fault line in middle America????? Or eruption of the Yellowstone caldera?
The arrogance of man to think Old Mom Nature can be changed one way or the other. Mom does what Mom wants to do when Mom wants to do it.
BaltACD DwightBranch BaltACD DwightBranch tree68 Climate change indeed exists - and has for billions of years. It is a human conceit to assert that the current edition of climate change is due solely to the influence of man. That's not to say that many hasn't had an effect, but he isn't solely responsible. One Krakatoa and all the temperature increases of the past 20+ years will be but a fond memory... Larry, don't you get it that the entire history of temperature variations in the world doesn't matter? Does the entire history of fires in the world (from lightening, volcanoes, etc) mater when we are talking about YOUR house burning down? Can you imagine a Krakatoa type volcanic eruption somewhere along the New Madrid fault line in middle America????? Or eruption of the Yellowstone caldera? Yep, I can imagine it, I can also imagine an asteroid wiping out 90% of life on the planet. If so it will burn down a lot of people's houses. But I am not going to let a fire burn in my house now becasue I can't stop a volcano from erupting, and it is equally ridiculous to avoid dealing with an evil we know exists now becasue of the hypothetical possibility of an evil in the future. The arrogance of man to think Old Mom Nature can be changed one way or the other. Mom does what Mom wants to do when Mom wants to do it.
Not true, and I think that you do not understand science if you believe that.
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
DwightBranch Not true, and I think that you do not understand science if you believe that.
What I believe we understand is that scientists can be corrupted and they will provide the results their benefactors wish. Data has been seriously manipulated to produce those results.
Sorry, but just because you say you are a professor doesn't make your claims gospel.
Scientific theory is all well and good, but is it possible the data can be either manipulated or certain data withheld?Look closely DwightBranch and there are very serious allegations of that occuring with Mann and others.
The entire basis of the 97% could be called into question.
I really appreciate this thread and the moderators allowing it to run. It has forced me to do a little research.
Ed
MP173 Scientific theory is all well and good, but is it possible the data can be either manipulated or certain data withheld?
Scientific theory is all well and good, but is it possible the data can be either manipulated or certain data withheld?
Its definitely being manipulated by governments and other organization with politically driven agendas.
Murray DwightBranch Not true, and I think that you do not understand science if you believe that. I will suggest to you that the decade of the 1950's was drier, hotter and had more instances of extreme weather than anything we have seen in the last 10 years. How do you explain that?
Again, the theory of AGW is not a theory of all weather at all times, it is an explanation of a specific phenomenon, the warming of the atmosphere due to increased CO2, now. An all-encompassing theory is what religions do, generally not science.
What you and others are doing here is known as "sandbagging". A classic example of sandbagging is the retort common when I was a child "what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?" to any point being made. Its purpose is to remove attention from the subject at hand.
DwightBranch Again, the theory of AGW is not a theory of all weather at all times, it is an explanation of a specific phenomenon, the warming of the atmosphere due to increased CO2, now. An all-encompassing theory is what religions do, generally not science. What you and others are doing here is known as "sandbagging". A classic example of sandbagging is the retort common when I was a child "what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?" to any point being made. Its purpose is to remove attention from the subject at hand.
You know Dwight, your arguments would possibly be received a little more positively if you weren't so condescending.
I asked a valid question and you completely sidestepped it.
Perhaps you'd like to try again.
MP173 Scientific theory is all well and good, but is it possible the data can be either manipulated or certain data withheld?Look closely DwightBranch and there are very serious allegations of that occuring with Mann and others. The entire basis of the 97% could be called into question. I really appreciate this thread and the moderators allowing it to run. It has forced me to do a little research. Ed
Conspiracy theories never hold water. I have worked in academics with other college faculty and I can tell you that most of us hate each other after being around each other for very long., and that is true of those in the physical sciences as well. There is no way any of us would let any other get credit for a theory if it could be disproved. The testing and scrutiny each new theory goes through before being accepted is absolutely intense. Add to that scientists all over the world also scrutinizing it, in different countries, that we have never met, rivalries between universities ("we're better at Physics than MIT!"), etc, and for 97% of them to come to the same conclusion is overwhelming to the point of being unshakable.
DwightBranchDoes the entire history of fires in the world (from lightning, volcanoes, etc) matter when we are talking about YOUR house burning down?
Yes, it does. The cumulative experience is what determines the outcome.
Please let me finish work and get home to print this thread before it's deleted.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.