|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 02/19/2007 : 07:43:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
So then, by default, you just declare the "scientific" models to be the end all be all of truth. (sigh)
Sigh is right, Bill: you've completely twisted his position, as is usual for you.quote:
At least until someone comes along with some over riding truth.
Like what?quote:
Right, and another way of saying that we are not correct is that we are wrong.
Science requires that we admit the possibility that we are wrong, Bill.quote:
quote:
We must go with the data we have now,
Even though it might be wrong.
That will always be a possibility, Bill. If we wait until we know it's correct, we will wait forever.quote:
That is the data you choose to accept as plenty of competing data is out there...
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php
That's not even "competing data." It's insane that you decided to copy-and-paste the whole thing, despite the article itself demonstrating that it doesn't support your contention that it is "competing data." You've just jumped on the MMGW-denier's bandwagon without actually reading what you've posted. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2007 : 08:39:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Sigh is right, Bill: you've completely twisted his position, as is usual for you.
Twisted it, highlighted it, let's not split hairs here.
quote:
quote:
At least until someone comes along with some over riding truth.
Like what?
Good question. Who knows where the next bandwagon will take us?
quote:
Science requires that we admit the possibility that we are wrong, Bill.
Which was/is my point.
quote:
That will always be a possibility, Bill. If we wait until we know it's correct, we will wait forever.
Which is why I am surprised the whole MMGW story has skated by with so little skepticism.
quote:
That's not even "competing data
Sorry for confusing you but that was not supposed to be data.
quote:
It's insane that you decided to copy-and-paste the whole thing, despite the article itself demonstrating that it doesn't support your contention that it is "competing data." You've just jumped on the MMGW-denier's bandwagon without actually reading what you've posted.
The article was just to demonstrate for the poster that these man made global models are not the end all be all of reality! How could they be? There is so much missing info that we don't even have, or we must assume, that all we end up with is an assumption based on more assumptions that all have the possibility of being wrong themselves. The consensus is then agreed upon, by a majority vote I assume, that the possibility that they are wrong is 10% and anybody who even mentions this fact at a later date will be labeled a MMGW denier and then will be ostracized forever.
"It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now," he said. "Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there" |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2007 : 08:50:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
You've just jumped on the MMGW-denier's bandwagon...
MMGW Denier? Oh please jr. Try GW skeptic...
I guess my overriding question is, "Why is a MMGW skeptic labeled a MMGW denier for his skepticism, when even the theorist themselves have given a 10% nod to the notion that they could be totally wrong here?" The holocaust is a proven event, MMGW is not. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 02/19/2007 09:05:06 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2007 : 09:17:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Twisted it, highlighted it, let's not split hairs here.
Okay, I'll agree that every time you "highlight" something, you're actively misrepresenting it. No need to split hairs.quote:
Good question. Who knows where the next bandwagon will take us?
So the process of science is just a "bandwagon?"quote:
quote:
Science requires that we admit the possibility that we are wrong, Bill.
Which was/is my point.
Nonsense: you've been arguing that it is wrong to establish a consensus - that there's not enough data and/or the models aren't good enough. That's a very far cry indeed from admitting the possibility that anything we might consider to be a fact is wrong, which is what science requires.quote:
Which is why I am surprised the whole MMGW story has skated by with so little skepticism.
You're simply in denial of the skepticism it has received over the past decades.quote:
Sorry for confusing you but that was not supposed to be data.
That article doesn't even suggest that there are any competing data.quote:
The article was just to demonstrate for the poster that these man made global models are not the end all be all of reality!
Duh.quote:
How could they be? There is so much missing info that we don't even have, or we must assume, that all we end up with is an assumption based on more assumptions that all have the possibility of being wrong themselves.
"So much?" How much? You've made a claim about the quantity of missing data and assumptions made, Bill. Why don't you actually quantify it for us? How much more data do we need before it will meet your personal standards?quote:
The consensus is then agreed upon, by a majority vote I assume...
Your assumption is incorrect.quote:
...that the possibility that they are wrong is 10% and anybody who even mentions this fact at a later date will be labeled a MMGW denier and then will be ostracized forever.
Nope, since I mentioned it myself. Another failed attempt, Bill, at playing the persecution card. It's boring.quote:
"It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now," he said. "Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there"
Yes, but that doesn't mean it's difficult to see a global warming signal for the rest of the world. As the article states, it's difficult to see the signal in Antarctica because of the paucity of data and other known effects. That also doesn't mean that Antarctica is not warming like the rest of the world. You're simply "highlighting" the hell out of an article written by someone who doesn't deny the consensus.
And then:quote:
MMGW Denier? Oh please jr. Try GW skeptic...
You're just trying to split hairs, there. Plus, I was under the impression that you are not skeptical of global warming itself, but only skeptical that it's due in large part to human causes. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2007 : 11:29:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Okay, I'll agree that every time you "highlight" something, you're actively misrepresenting it.
Suit yourself.
quote:
So the process of science is just a "bandwagon?"
No, but on occasion it creates bandwagons.
quote:
Nonsense: you've been arguing that it is wrong to establish a consensus
I don't believe that it is wrong to establish a consensus.
quote:
- that there's not enough data and/or the models aren't good enough.
Only to highlight that the models can and have been wrong.
quote:
That's a very far cry indeed from admitting the possibility that anything we might consider to be a fact is wrong, which is what science requires.
There is no debate on admitting it. I am just waiting for it to be acted upon. That is what skepticism requires.
quote:
You're simply in denial of the skepticism it has received over the past decades.
As are you.
quote:
That article doesn't even suggest that there are any competing data.
Please show me where I said that it did?
quote:
"So much?" How much? You've made a claim about the quantity of missing data and assumptions made, Bill. Why don't you actually quantify it for us? How much more data do we need before it will meet your personal standards?
Again, that's my point, Dave. The article, and you, demonstrate that scientific data can and has been wrong. In this case about a 10% self-imposed chance of it. So compiling data is pointless if it can't even be determined that the data is right to begin with.
quote:
Nope, since I mentioned it myself. Another failed attempt, Bill, at playing the persecution card. It's boring.
Huh?
quote:
Yes, but that doesn't mean it's difficult to see a global warming signal for the rest of the world.
Yes, but that does not mean that it is easy either. Especially when you factor in all the unknown variables. Again, even the MMGW theorists themselves have acknowledged that there is a 10% chance they are totally wrong. Hardly a slam dunk case even in light of their odds. I wonder what the consensus % was on the agreeing consensus and was this consensus % agreeded upon the first consensus, or did they have to debate to come to the majority concensus?
quote:
As the article states, it's difficult to see the signal in Antarctica because of the paucity of data and other known effects.
My point exactly.
quote:
That also doesn't mean that Antarctica is not warming like the rest of the world.
That also doesn't mean that it is warming because soccer moms in Vermont are driving their kids to the game in a Trail Blazer as opposed to a Prius, either.
quote:
You're simply "highlighting" the hell out of an article written by someone who doesn't deny the consensus.
Right, the consensus being that human models can and do get built with many flaws and assumptions added right into the equation.
quote:
You're just trying to split hairs, there.
How so? Are you saying there is no difference between a denier and a skeptic?
quote:
Plus, I was under the impression that you are not skeptical of global warming itself,
Why should I be? The Earth's temp has warmed and cooled as far back as we can see.
quote:
but only skeptical that it's due in large part to human causes.
That's right. That is why I said MMGW skeptic. So drop the denier facade.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2007 : 14:00:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So then, by default, you just declare the "scientific" models to be the end all be all of truth. (sigh) At least until someone comes along with some over riding truth.
No Bill that is your best move, claiming something is truth without any evidence. Science, however, uses its best evidence to form theories and then alters them as new evidence becomes known.
quote:
quote:
We must go with the data we have now,
Even though it might be wrong.
Of course Bill. What else would we go with? Got some more data the rest of the world doesn't know about? Bill, you are just a nay sayer with no knowledge of the subject you are talking about. You bring nothing to the discussion. If I had a track record like that, I would just shut up.
quote:
Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions
A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.
This comes soon after the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that strongly supports the conclusion that the Earth's climate as a whole is warming, largely due to human activity.
It also follows a similar finding from last summer by the same research group that showed no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.
"It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now," he said. "Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there.
It's very hard in these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal. This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth."
Bromwich says that the problem rises from several complications. The continent is vast, as large as the United States and Mexico combined. Only a small amount of detailed data is available - there are perhaps only 100 weather stations on that continent compared to the thousands spread across the U.S. and Europe . And the records that we have only date back a half-century.
"The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica .
"We're looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment," he said.
Some researchers are suggesting that the strengthening of the westerlies may be playing a role in the collapse of ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula.
"The peninsula is the most northern point of Antarctica and it sticks out into the westerlies," Bromwich says. "If there is an increase in the westerly winds, it will have a warming impact on that part of the continent, thus helping to break up the ice shelves, he said.
"Farther south, the impact would be modest, or even non-existent."
"It isn't surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn't be expected to be equally exact for all locations," he said.
Here is your argument Bill:
The bomb was calculated to be able to level 100 square feet with a maximum casualty count of 100 personnel in a crowded area, but since the bomb only killed 35 people, it is no threat to anyone.
Of course the models are going to change Bill. We do not have all the data, and as more data comes in, we will alter our models along with the conclusions it leads to. Unlike your crazy word of hope will make it happen, the real world works off evidence. What you are missing here is that even if GW is not threat to us, it very much appears to be one now and smart people take precausions in accordance with what we know may be the worst case scenario before just hoping for the best. Right now, in the USA, we are not even properly prepring for the mildest case scenario, actually |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2007 : 18:03:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
quote:
quote:
We must go with the data we have now,
Even though it might be wrong.
Of course Bill. What else would we go with? Got some more data the rest of the world doesn't know about?
That's how the religious mind works. It's either - or, no middle ground. Either Jesus saves, or he doesn't. There's no room for probability. Either the Bible is the Word of God, or it's a Lie. If parts of the Bible is uncertain, say 10% chance of being false, then some of the words of God is false. In such case, God cannot be trusted. So it's an all-or-nothing deal.
The foundation needs to be rock solid (and not built on sand), or the structure will crumble when the storm comes. In this case, we need a rock solid evidence Global Warming or the theory of Global Warming will crumble.
And if it does, then they don't have to worry about it anymore.
In fact, since they all get raptured any day soon, there's no reason to bother with Global Warmin anyway.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2007 : 19:08:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
"So much?" How much? You've made a claim about the quantity of missing data and assumptions made, Bill. Why don't you actually quantify it for us? How much more data do we need before it will meet your personal standards?
Again, that's my point, Dave. The article, and you, demonstrate that scientific data can and has been wrong. In this case about a 10% self-imposed chance of it. So compiling data is pointless if it can't even be determined that the data is right to begin with.
Intentionally obtuse. What's your point Bill. That there is a probability you lack a credible argument and have been backpeddling soon after your OP. As a skeptic you should know that it is OK to admit, in light of overwhelming evidence, that you are wrong. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2007 : 22:33:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
"So much?" How much? You've made a claim about the quantity of missing data and assumptions made, Bill. Why don't you actually quantify it for us? How much more data do we need before it will meet your personal standards?
Again, that's my point, Dave. The article, and you, demonstrate that scientific data can and has been wrong. In this case about a 10% self-imposed chance of it. So compiling data is pointless if it can't even be determined that the data is right to begin with.
Intentionally obtuse. What's your point Bill. That there is a probability you lack a credible argument and have been backpeddling soon after your OP. As a skeptic you should know that it is OK to admit, in light of overwhelming evidence, that you are wrong.
Wait, Bill is a skeptic? |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2007 : 22:55:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Wait, Bill is a skeptic?
If, by "skeptic", you mean a willfully ignorant rube who jumps on the fundie-political bandwagon and buys everything his preacher tells him in those after-church sessions where they meet to discuss ballot measures, intelligent design, and the republican talking points of the week.... then yeah, he's a "skeptic".
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2007 : 05:54:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
Wait, Bill is a skeptic?
My mistake. He called himself a GW skeptic. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2007 : 10:21:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
Wait, Bill is a skeptic?
My mistake. He called himself a GW skeptic.
Yea and creationist are science skeptics. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 06:09:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
That's how the religious mind works. It's either - or, no middle ground.
And here is how the pseudo skeptics mind works: They hand wave off their own self-imposed 10% chance of being completely wrong on the matter and rubber stamp MMGW as a scientifically observed phenomena. So much so that anyone who dare shows any skepticism towards the final conclusion is labeled a MMGW "denier", as if MMGW is as much of a slam dunk, case closed situation as the holocaust. (sigh) If the "skeptic" mind can hand wave off the remaining 10% and rubber stamp MMGW to the point that any of it's opponents are labeled "deniers" then obviously it has already been demonstrated that they are not interested in true science, but have clearly justified their ends by their means. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 06:10:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
quote:
Yea and creationist are science skeptics.
Everyone should be a science skeptic. Science has been wrong on things in the past and it will be wrong on things in the future. One more time, it is not the end all be all of truth. As I have said on this thread that being skeptical is not the same thing as being a denier. If you blindly except all that is lumped under the banner of science then your going to be wrong much more then 10% of the time as the MMGW theorist predict. If you do not accept all that is passed off under the banner of science without some skepticism first then you are in fact a science skeptic. So, are you a science skeptic? |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 06:12:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
Blah, blah, blah...
*yawn* |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
