|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
 Posted - 02/21/2007 : 06:57:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
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.
Why do you so easily dismiss the 90% chance that they consider themselves to be right?
Well keep clinging to those small probabilities. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 07:08:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
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?
It's not even clear what you're arguing about, Bill. Rather, it seems that as your points are refuted one by one (remember when you used "global cooling" as an arument?), you grasp at others.
What is clear is that climatologists-- people who make a living studying the earth's climate past and present and who attempt to discern future trends-- are quite sure that human activity is causing global temperatures to rise. Note: they're quite sure. Not 100% sure, just quite sure. In fact, they'd peg that number at about 90% sure.
If a doctor was 90% sure you had cancer, I'm sure you'd go ahead and start asking about treatment options. You might also want more tests run to see if, in fact, the diagnosis was wrong, but if said test took months or years to complete, I am quite sure (ca. 99%) that you'd not wait for those tests to come back to at least consider your options.
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 07:49:05 [Permalink]
|
Hey Bill. Would you leave your umbrella at home if there was a 90% chance of rain today? Or do you blather on about the 10% chance that it won't rain, how the weather man is sometimes wrong and leave your umbrella at home? Which part of the prediction do you act on?
Everyone here is aware of the tentativeness of science. Research continues. It ain't like they hit the 90% mark and everyone went home.
Your argument is not about being a scientific skeptic. That's a regular thing in science. Nope. Your argument is anti science. It's just idiotic. If you don't leave your umbrella at home when there is a 90% chance of rain, your argument is also hypocritical…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 07:59:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
quote:
Why do you so easily dismiss the 90% chance that they consider themselves to be right?
You answer my question first as I asked it first. If the MMGW theorist themselves have given their prediction a 10% chance of being wrong, then why is someone who is simply skeptical of their final conclusion labeled a MMGW "denier" on a skeptics web forum? As if the MMGW theory is on the same level as the historical holocaust event in actuality.
|
"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.-
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 02/21/2007 : 08:22:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
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?
Pul-leese, Bill! This is nothing but a straw man with little to do with the topic at hand.
Of course we are skeptical of science, just as scientists themselves are skeptical, the ones not involved in "creation science," at least. The great bulk of experiments fail, some irrepairably, some worth re-doing with modifications. Most observations are incomplete or even wrong, requiring a lot more study. This is what peer review is for; to catch mistakes and, yes, even "fudging" of the results. Remember Fleisman & Pons?
I have seen the effects of global warming in my lifetime by the northern range increases in species. Fire ants, a tropical species are now well into North Carolina. When I was a child, they were restricted much farther south. Recently, roadkill nine-banded armadillos, another tropical and sub-tropical species have been found in sourthern Illinois. Coral reefs, once lush with life, are dying due warmer waters -- the warmer the water, the less oxygen it will contain, and the less CO-2 it will absorbe.
Of course, none of that is definitive proof of anything. It is merely more bits & pieces of data to be considered. And that, in a pea-pod, is how science works. Nothing is certain until all available information is given scrutiny. And even then, it is left open-ended lest more and better data comes forth that might change the results.
The question, as I see it, is not whether warming is happening; it is. The question is how much are we contributing to it. I don't know but I think quite a lot, and I'll have to see some hard data to change that thought. Thus far, all I've seen is hand-waving, empty rhetoric, and outright scumbaggery.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 02/21/2007 08:28:36 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 09:26:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
You answer my question first as I asked it first. If the MMGW theorist themselves have given their prediction a 10% chance of being wrong, then why is someone who is simply skeptical of their final conclusion labeled a MMGW "denier" on a skeptics web forum? As if the MMGW theory is on the same level as the historical holocaust event in actuality.
Because at some point, it's hard to say you're "skeptical" of something when you refuse to realistically consider it despite significant data mounted in support of it. At what point would the scientific community need to be sure of something before you'll at least be willing to entertain strategies to deal with it? When we're 90% sure an asteroid is going to hit the planet and you're posting crap from some washed-out astronomer writing in a third-rate opinion journal, are you being a skeptic or just stupid?
And trying to somehow equate the nature of global warming to that of the holocaust is so pathetic it's almost not worth commenting on. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 10:29:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
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.
The 10% figure isn't "self-imposed," but comes from the knowledge of the uncertainties within the data collected.quote:
So compiling data is pointless if it can't even be determined that the data is right to begin with.
So science is absolutely worthless is what you're saying here.quote:
quote:
Nope, since I mentioned it myself. Another failed attempt, Bill, at playing the persecution card. It's boring.
Huh?
And now you're playing dumb. Perfect.quote:
Yes, but that does not mean that it is easy either. Especially when you factor in all the unknown variables.
That's how we got to 90%!quote:
Again, even the MMGW theorists themselves have acknowledged that there is a 10% chance they are totally wrong.
What would "totally wrong" mean in terms of the MMGW hypothesis?quote:
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?
You're making a big show of your ignorance in an argument in which you attempt to convince me of your surety of your position. The irony is sweet, Bill.quote:
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.
Then what the heck is your point, Bill? It seems to have gotten lost in all the ignorance you've been tossing around like it meant something important.quote:
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.
They may not be large contributors to global warming, but they are contributing a non-zero amount of warming, if MMGW is correct.quote:
Right, the consensus being that human models can and do get built with many flaws and assumptions added right into the equation.
Name one.quote:
That is why I said MMGW skeptic.
You didn't. You said, and I quote:quote:
MMGW Denier? Oh please jr. Try GW skeptic...
You and I both agree that there's an important distinction to be made between "GW" and "MMGW," so it's particularly important that you ensure that you eliminate any typos of that nature.
Besides, you are in denial that the 90% figure has come from decades of skepticism about the data. Nobody wants MMGW to be true, so of course the science has been critiqued and re-critiqued again and again. That's how a consesnus is built, Bill, not simply by voting. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 10:41:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
If the MMGW theorist themselves have given their prediction a 10% chance of being wrong, then why is someone who is simply skeptical of their final conclusion labeled a MMGW "denier" on a skeptics web forum?
I have yet to see anyone who is "simply skeptical" of MMGW theory anywhere on this website. You certainly aren't "simply skeptical" of MMGW, but have actively tried to discredit it through ignorance and strawmen. This conclusion might be different had you simply played "Devil's Advocate" against the MMGW theory, but you went much farther than that. So now that you've gone overboard, and got nailed on it, you're once again trying to play the "poor, persecuted me" card.
Besides, in the sciences, there are no "final conclusions."quote:
As if the MMGW theory is on the same level as the historical holocaust event in actuality.
Funny you should mention that, since there are a whole bunch of different kinds of Holocaust deniers. Your "skepticism" of MMGW seems sort of like the kind of Holocaust denier who says, "Yes, millions of Jews were killed by the Nazis, but there were no gas chambers involved" in an attempt to paint Hitler and his buddies as less evil than they actually were. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 10:47:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
Why do you so easily dismiss the 90% chance that they consider themselves to be right?
You answer my question first as I asked it first. If the MMGW theorist themselves have given their prediction a 10% chance of being wrong, then why is someone who is simply skeptical of their final conclusion labeled a MMGW "denier" on a skeptics web forum? As if the MMGW theory is on the same level as the historical holocaust event in actuality.
Actually Bill MMGW denier was not my label for you. My label for you, or description, was "Intentionally obtuse".
AS a GW skeptic (your words) it seems that you have chosen to bury your head in the sand. You have a 1 in 10 chance of being right, but according to the best data and best opinions you have a 9 in 10 chance of being wrong. Yet you cling to that 1 in 10 chance of being right. You being right wouldn't be the worst thing that could happen, but being wrong does not bode well for future generations. Yours and mine. |
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 - 02/21/2007 : 12:19:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Rather, it seems that as your points are refuted one by one (remember when you used "global cooling" as an arument?), you grasp at others.
What is clear is that climatologists-- people who make a living studying the earth's climate past and present and who attempt to discern future trends-- are quite sure that human activity is causing global temperatures to rise. Note: they're quite sure. Not 100% sure, just quite sure. In fact, they'd peg that number at about 90% sure.
If a doctor was 90% sure you had cancer, I'm sure you'd go ahead and start asking about treatment options. You might also want more tests run to see if, in fact, the diagnosis was wrong, but if said test took months or years to complete, I am quite sure (ca. 99%) that you'd not wait for those tests to come back to at least consider your options.
I bet he would pray and cling to the small probablilities 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.] |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 12:38:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Bill:
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.
Bill your ignorance is showing. There is a 90% chance that global warming is a threat created by some human assistance. That conclusion was based on evidence. There is no reason to assume that GW is not a threat anymore than it is reasonable to assume all planes will crash because some do, or that it will never rain because the meteorologist created his own 75% chance of rain statistic. Meteorologist understand more about weather phenomenon than you do, and you understand little about any subject you have yet commented own in this forum or any other I personally have read your comments on.
quote:
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?
So you are an atheist now Bill. Congrats. You see because the Bible has never been right about anything testable in its claims, excluding historical placement of some cities. I guess since there is a zero percent chance that a man rose from the dead, you cling to those small numbers as well. At least you are consistent in your ignorance.
Bill the reason you are a denier and not a skeptic is because skeptics go with the evidence. Deniers simply say the evidence could be wrong, ie they deny the evidence. You have no evidence to present, you simply deny that science is right because they have been wrong before. By this logic you should never see a doctor in your life because they have all been wrong more times individually than the scientific consensus has ever been, during contemporary time periods. Also, you should never trust yourself, not even in this case, because you have been wrong more times than the previous two groups combined in your time.
quote:
You answer my question first as I asked it first. If the MMGW theorist themselves have given their prediction a 10% chance of being wrong, then why is someone who is simply skeptical of their final conclusion labeled a MMGW "denier" on a skeptics web forum? As if the MMGW theory is on the same level as the historical holocaust event in actuality.
I answered your question, now you answer ours. Why do you cling to the small percentage chance of the evidenced conclusions being wrong in this case but in no other case would you ignore a threat because it could possibly not come to pass? |
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.] |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 13:02:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You being right wouldn't be the worst thing that could happen, but being wrong does not bode well for future generations. Yours and mine.
Ah, the Pascal's wager of climetology. ;-) |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 13:18:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
You being right wouldn't be the worst thing that could happen, but being wrong does not bode well for future generations. Yours and mine.
Ah, the Pascal's wager of climetology. ;-)
Only this time there literally is only two choices. |
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 - 02/22/2007 : 13:19:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
quote:
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.
The 10% figure isn't "self-imposed," but comes from the knowledge of the uncertainties within the data collected.
Of course since their knowledge of the uncertainties, as well as the certainies, is finite the 10% figure could be a major miscalculation in and of itself.
quote:
So science is absolutely worthless is what you're saying here.
Worthless, No. Fallible, Yes.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Nope, since I mentioned it myself. Another failed attempt, Bill, at playing the persecution card. It's boring.
Huh?
And now you're playing dumb. Perfect.
How so?
quote:
quote:
Again, even the MMGW theorists themselves have acknowledged that there is a 10% chance they are totally wrong.
What would "totally wrong" mean in terms of the MMGW hypothesis?
That the current cycle of GW is not being caused by Chevy TrailBlazers
quote:
quote:
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.
Then what the heck is your point, Bill?
That their prediction that Antarctica is warming can not be validated do to the lack of information. That and the information that they do have suggests that it is not warming as they theorized.
quote:
quote:
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.
They may not be large contributors to global warming, but they are contributing a non-zero amount of warming, if MMGW is correct.
If being the key word here.
quote:
quote:
Right, the consensus being that human models can and do get built with many flaws and assumptions added right into the equation.
Name one.
Sure. The MMGW theorist's predictions that because of MMGW the 2006 North American hurricane season would be one of the most intense on record. Maybe even more major hurricanes making land fall then the record year of 2005 they predicted. They even had their CAD Models in hand to show us just how bad the 06 season was going to be. This would all be even more evidence for MMGW they said. I think they even came to a consensus with 90% of the vote concluding that there was a 90% chance that 06 would be a record breaking season for the giant storms. In reality the 10% prevailed and the 06 season was one of the quietest in recent memory. Once again, human science and their models were wrong.
quote:
You and I both agree that there's an important distinction to be made between "GW" and "MMGW," so it's particularly important that you ensure that you eliminate any typos of that nature.
I see your point. I thought I used MMGW every time but it appears I did not. Sorry for the confusion.
|
"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.-
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 13:58:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Of course since their knowledge of the uncertainties, as well as the certainies, is finite the 10% figure could be a major miscalculation in and of itself.
Is that you, Rumsfeld? |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
