|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 02/22/2007 : 14:05:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
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?
No. |
"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.-
|
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 14:28:28 [Permalink]
|
Bill, since there were uncertainties that Iraq possessed WMDs prior to the war, I take it you were against the invasion? Or at the time did you consider the risk too great to wait for absolute certainty before taking direct action?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/22/2007 14:28:45 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 14:59:37 [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.
And what would that mean?quote:
quote:
So science is absolutely worthless is what you're saying here.
Worthless, No. Fallible, Yes.
No, you said that collecting data without being able to ensure its accuracy was "pointless." Since that's the very first step in the scientific method - making observations - you've assured us all that you think that science itself is "pointless." Pointless things have no value, from a scientific viewpoint.quote:
quote:
And now you're playing dumb. Perfect.
How so?
Oh, good grief. You claimed that anyone who mentions the 10% gets tarred as an MMGW denier, which I pointed out is untrue (because I pointed out the 10%) and so correctly concluded that your statement was just another way for you to feel persecuted, and I know you're not really so dumb as to not know that you're just trying to portray yourself as persecuted. But now you're trying to play dumb about playing dumb, by asking "how so?"quote:
quote:
What would "totally wrong" mean in terms of the MMGW hypothesis?
That the current cycle of GW is not being caused by Chevy TrailBlazers
Well, since that's not what the MMGW hypothesis says in the first place, you've made it even more abundantly clear that you're arguing only in favor of your own ignorance, Bill.quote:
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.
And yet,Bromwich said the disagreement between climate model predictions and the snowfall and temperature records doesn't necessarily mean that the models are wrong. Besides, the prediction is that the whole globe is warming, and it is. That one part isn't doesn't make much of a dent in the average.quote:
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.
I asked you to give me a "flaw" or "assumption" that you claimed was "added right into the equation." All you've done is show the model was wrong, overall. Could be the model was wrong because the data were incorrect, while the equations were perfect. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 16:25:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I asked you to give me a "flaw" or "assumption" that you claimed was "added right into the equation." All you've done is show the model was wrong, overall. Could be the model was wrong because the data were incorrect, while the equations were perfect.
Actually, this is quite interesting. The culprit behind the lower-than-expected hurricanes turns out to have been dust. More specifically, dust from the Sahara blowing off the coast of Africa and limiting to an extend the ability of storms to form there.
But that's not the point. The point, actually, is Bill's strawman. He claimed that "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." But is that true? Nope. In fact, quote:
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) predicts there will be 13-16 named storms, four of which will be 'major storms'.
But it says 2006 will be less active than last year's record-breaking season which saw Hurricane Katrina cause widespread devastation.[Emph. added]
Oops.
And besides, weather isn't the same thing as climate. A warming climte can suggest more intense weather, but if the weather isn't as intense as predicted, other factors of climate which weren't otherwise taken into account (e.g. dust storms off the coast of Africa) may be the cause. But it doesn't mean that the climate isn't still changing as the data suggest.
It also doesn't mean you'll understand any of this, but that's why real scientists study climate and you read third-rate on-line opinion papers and pray to sky gods. |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 02/22/2007 18:08:19 |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 16:41:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It also doesn't mean you'll understand any of this, but that's why real scientists study climate and you read third-rate on-line opinion papers and pray to sky gods.
BURN! Wow, that was harsh. |
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 : 19:50:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
quote:
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.
And what would that mean?
That they we're wrong.
quote:
No, you said that collecting data without being able to ensure its accuracy was "pointless."
In relation to making a truth claim is what I was referring to. The MMGW theorist themselves say there is a 10% chance they are wrong, therefore, no truth claim can be made, was my point. Yet, anyone who even dares to speculate on the theory of MMGW is simply in denial, according to the MMGW crowd.
quote:
Since that's the very first step in the scientific method - making observations - you've assured us all that you think that science itself is "pointless."
Maybe I choose the wrong word, I apologize. What I was trying to convey was that it is fallible, therefore, it is not the end all be all of truth.
quote:
Pointless things have no value, from a scientific viewpoint.
I agree.
quote:
Oh, good grief. You claimed that anyone who mentions the 10% gets tarred as an MMGW denier,
I thought I said anyone who was just even skeptical of MMGW is called a denier?
quote:
which I pointed out is untrue (because I pointed out the 10%)
Fine, you pointed it out.
quote:
and so correctly concluded that your statement was just another way for you to feel persecuted,
Oh good grief. Are you going to start your little technicality games again?
quote:
and I know you're not really so dumb
Thank you.
quote:
as to not know that you're just trying to portray yourself as persecuted.
Persecuted? I don't feel persecuted or claim persecution. I just wanted to know why anyone who was skeptical of MMGW was labeled a d |
"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 02/22/2007 19:58:41 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 19:52:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
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.-
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 20:29:44 [Permalink]
|
Bill...
Consider this scenario:
You're jumping off a very high bridge.
There's a 10% chance you'll make it without a parachute.
It's inconvenient to use the parachute, but it's 90% chance you'll be doing the right thing taking it.
Do you take the chance of 10% and jump without? |
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. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 02/22/2007 20:30:47 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 20:34:25 [Permalink]
|
| Maybe they are wrong about the 10%, perhaps it is closer to 1%... |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 21:14:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, you said that collecting data without being able to ensure its accuracy was "pointless."
In relation to making a truth claim is what I was referring to. The MMGW theorist themselves say there is a 10% chance they are wrong, therefore, no truth claim can be made, was my point. Yet, anyone who even dares to speculate on the theory of MMGW is simply in denial, according to the MMGW crowd.
I disagree. This is certainly a truth claim, not to the faithful certainty of a religious assertion, but a truth claim never the less. It is the best evaluation of our impact on the climate in accordance with the facts, available data. It also honestly assesses the possibility that there may be data, as yet unknown, that could change their models. Relying on unknown data or a reinterpretation of existing data seems short sighted and naive.
edited to fix quotes |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
| Edited by - moakley on 02/22/2007 21:15:45 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 22:43:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
quote:
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.
And what would that mean?
That they we're wrong.
That they were wrong would mean that they were wrong. Then who the hell cares if it doesn't mean anything other than someone was wrong? Good grief, this isn't some beer-driven tavern argument over how many Star Trek episodes there were. What are the consequences, Bill, of this alleged "major miscalculation?" You accuse me of playing dumb regarding a joke you tried to make, but here you are, playing absolutely stupid when it comes to the main issue of the whole MMGW debate.quote:
In relation to making a truth claim is what I was referring to. The MMGW theorist themselves say there is a 10% chance they are wrong, therefore, no truth claim can be made, was my point.
At what percentage do you think a "truth claim" can be made? If it's only at 100%, then you are saying that no truth claims can ever be made about anything.quote:
Yet, anyone who even dares to speculate on the theory of MMGW is simply in denial, according to the MMGW crowd.
No, you're in denial of what "speculate" and "skepticism" really mean.quote:
Maybe I choose the wrong word, I apologize.
Thanks.quote:
What I was trying to convey was that it is fallible, therefore, it is not the end all be all of truth.
We know that. Thanks for arguing for the obvious in such a bizarre way that it takes many posts before you finally spat it out.
Now, do you have a more-reliable replacement method for getting close to the truth in mind?quote:
quote:
Oh, good grief. You claimed that anyone who mentions the 10% gets tarred as an MMGW denier,
I thought I said anyone who was just even skeptical of MMGW is called a denier?
You said, and again I 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. Your memory lapses worry me, Bill. You should see a doctor about that.quot |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 02/23/2007 : 05:01:57 [Permalink]
|
Just tossin' another fish head into the stew:quote:
WILMINGTON, Del. — Gov. Ruth Ann Minner has directed Delaware's state climatologist to stop using his title in public statements on climate change, citing a clash of views on global warming and confusion over the position's ties to the administration.
Minner, who made the directive in a letter, described the move as a way to "clarify" the role of David R. Legates, a prominent skeptic of views that human activities are warming the planet and triggering climate shifts.
I wonder; what are the qualifications required for state climatalogist offices? Is some sort of degree required, or is the local, TV weather man qualified? Do they vary a lot from state to state -- I'm sure they must. After all, Legates seems to be mainly a professor of Geography. quote:
Legates, who could not be reached Wednesday, has not returned phone calls since The News Journal published articles about his position on climate change. His title was accepted by the American Association of State Climatologists and the National Climatic Data Center, and acknowledged by Minner and the university's provost in 2005. But Legates received no appointment or state money to support his office at the University of Delaware, where he is also a professor of geography. His position as climatologist carries no state authority.
Last year, however, Legates used the "State Climatologist" title when he co-wrote a friend-of-the-court legal brief opposing an attempt by Delaware and other states to force federal regulation of greenhouse gases.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute, linked by some environmental groups to an Exxon-Mobil-funded "misinformation" campaign, filed the brief. Exxon-Mobil has disputed the alleged connections as "deeply offensive and wrong," but one environmental group branded Legates as "a favorite scientist of the global warming denial machine."
And so forth..
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2007 : 06:49:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Actually, this is quite interesting. The culprit behind the lower-than-expected hurricanes turns out to have been dust. More specifically, dust from the Sahara blowing off the coast of Africa and limiting to an extend the ability of storms to form there.
I wonder why the scientific models did not figure this into the equation when they were constructing their predictions for the 06 season? One little bit of information left out and the model was off. Just think of all the other pieces of missing information on the climate out there that we don't even know about that go missing from the CAD model and it's predictions.
quote:
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) predicts there will be 13-16 named storms, four of which will be 'major storms'.
But it says 2006 will be less active than last year's record-breaking season which saw Hurricane Katrina cause widespread devastation.[Emph. added]
Oops.
Even with these numbers the 2006 predictions were off. And in fact if you look at the 2005 predictions they predicted a slower season then the 2004 season. In reality we had 28 storms and a record year in 2005. So in 2005 they predict a slower season and we have a record year. In 2006 they predict and more active year and we have one of the calmest in recent memory. My point being human CAD models and their calculated predictions using all the lasted scientific means and data can still be wrong. And in some cases a lot wrong.
quote:
And besides, weather isn't the same thing as climate. A warming climte can suggest more intense weather, but if the weather isn't as intense as predicted, other factors of climate which weren't otherwise taken into account (e.g. dust storms off the coast of Africa) may be the cause.
Why were the dust storms not figured into the equation to begin with?
quote:
But it doesn't mean that the climate isn't still changing as the data suggest.
But it does suggest that most of the time we don't even have all the data in hand when the prediction or conclusion is made. Case in point the surprise dust storms. How many other unknown factors are left missing in all of these predictions and human constructed models? I purpose a lot.
quote:
It also doesn't mean you'll understand any of this, but that's why real scientists study climate
They can study it all they want. They still can't predict what it's going to do and they have proven that fact.
quote:
and you read third-rate on-line opinion papers and pray to sky gods.
And your a *clown*.
|
"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 - 02/23/2007 : 09:43:37 [Permalink]
|
| I wish I could say that I was surprised that you'd totally miss the point, Bill, but I'm not. Weather is not the same thing as climate. That you continue to claim that discussions of climate change are invalid because weather predictions are off demonstrates again that you don't know what you're talking about. Tragically, you seem unwilling to bother to learn and are all too happy to remain ignorant. |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2007 : 10:01:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
I wish I could say that I was surprised that you'd totally miss the point, Bill, but I'm not. Weather is not the same thing as climate. That you continue to claim that discussions of climate change are invalid because weather predictions are off demonstrates again that you don't know what you're talking about. Tragically, you seem unwilling to bother to learn and are all too happy to remain ignorant.
Ahh Cune, my psychic powers predict that Bill will reply with either *yawn* or "blah blah blah".
By the way, has anyone noticed that this thread (Global Warming) has a "HOT!" label next to it, courtesy of the Skeptic Friends-o-meter. Yes, it is the little humorous little ironies that get us through the day. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
