Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[Penguin]

Not to make me sound immature, but why?  His point was on semantics, and I only responded in kind.

Moray told me to look to you for a point of reference in the debate, so why is quoting a dictionary wrong?  Are there some other unwritten rules?  I suppose that I must have been living under a rock .

-Penguin

[CAP1]

A theory is most certainly not a hypothesis, do your research on the scientific method;

1.Problem
2.Hypothesis
3.Experiment
4.Conclusion/Theory

You completely ignore the first part of the defenition of theory, it is from http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=theory

•S: (n) theory (a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena) "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
•S: (n) hypothesis, possibility, theory (a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena) "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

You can see that a theory is most certainly not a hypothesis.  If it was, why don't we call e=mc², part of the hypothesis of relativity?  Or do you ignore this fact on principle?

His point is contradictory, he says that he said that earth's climate changes, and then it does not.  He then says that man can have 0.00000000% effect on the climate.  To say yes or no is a trick question.

-Penguin

-Penguin

 the weather is the climate, and the climate is the weather. it really IS that simple. 

[Bodhi]

Penguin,
Moray is promoting exactly what Singer said is the issue with science.  Procession with a show of hands.

The data does not show anything to prove or even support man made global warming theories.  All it is, is a show of hands amongst alarmists, politicians, and businessmen hoping to make a statement, get reelected, or make a buck.  The CRU's cooking of data and many governments turning a blind eye to that fact should be raising warnings to anyone with common sense.

[Anaxogoras]

Not to make me sound immature, but why?  His point was on semantics, and I only responded in kind.

Moray told me to look to you for a point of reference in the debate, so why is quoting a dictionary wrong?  Are there some other unwritten rules?  I suppose that I must have been living under a rock .

-Penguin

Looking in the dictionary to settle a debate in semantics is comparable to citing an encyclopedia when your English teacher asks you to research a paper topic.  It's not that the encyclopedias or dictionaries are bad, but their articles or entries tend to lack the requisite substance and depth for a true intellectual dispute.  Maybe look up some philosophers of science, e.g. Karl Popper, and see what they have to say.

[CAP1]

Looking in the dictionary to settle a debate in semantics is comparable to citing an encyclopedia when your English teacher asks you to research a paper topic.  It's not that the encyclopedias or dictionaries are bad, but their articles or entries tend to lack the requisite substance and depth for a true intellectual dispute.  Maybe look up some philosophers of science, e.g. Karl Popper, and see what they have to say.

the problem is, that they are running out of reasonable arguments. they both continue to go back to "massaged" data, and charts. one of them continues to try to change the topic.

 i do not mean the above to sound derogatory. i've been enjoying this, as i'm sure most in here have been. i generally find moray's posts well laid out, and very informative....in pretty much any topic he posts in.
 penguin has been laying his posts out very nicely too.

 the entire problem, is that common sense would dictate a look out the window. then, presuming you've lived in the area you're presently in.......remember back 20 or 30 years.
 i live in south jersey. i've lived here for my whole life....well.....9 years in northeast philly....but that's still close enough. the weather patterns have cycled here.
 sometimes the cold weather starts early in the fall/winter, sometimes late. a couple of years ago, i was able to be out on my shadow, riding comfortably in nov.
 since that time, i haven't been able to do that. this past summer was a little cooler than normal for this area.....the year before was a little warmer than normal.

 what i'm trying to say, is that the weather systems that hit us here, come across the us. these weather systems are a small part of the climate.
 when you take and put all of the weather systems together, you get the climate. thus, they are one and the same.

 kind of like trying to say that the spindle isn't part of your car. or the index finger on your left hand isn't part of your body.

[Anaxogoras]

I don't think anything I said in the above quote was for or against AGW.  The point was just supposed to be that you can't employ meta-arguments about scientific theory making simply by pulling out a dictionary.

In the end, one of two results are likely:  The evidence for AGW will keep piling up until the skeptics are even more marginalized than they are today, and the AGW proponents will act like triumphant dicks with "I told you so!"  Or, AGW turns out to be a huge sham, thousands of careers go down the toilet, and some names even become infamous in the history books (and the skeptics act like triumphant dicks with "I told you so!").  Only time will tell.

[EskimoJoe]

or the index finger on your left hand isn't part of your body.

Well, it isn't if you've lost your left index finger. Just sayin 

[cpxxx]

skeptics are even more marginalized than they are today,

I think you'll find the skeptics are pretty much in the majority and probably growing as the wheels of the AGW juggernaut get more and more wobbly.  I don't think there'll be a sudden ending of the AGW scare. It will simply fade away as the evidence against it becomes more obvious. A few years of cooling and bad winters, which is forecast due to a natural variation will reduce enthusiasm for it. The public will become more and more skeptical and the politicians will want to stay onside for their political careers. Eventually, if you live long enough there'll be books and TV programs dissecting what went wrong. The self justifying conclusion will be that although they got it wrong in terms of the timescale and consequences but they were right all along about man's contribution to climate change. It's was just a lot smaller than they forecast.

No one will apologise or take responsibility for the damage being done today or the people who have died and will die thanks over zealous scare tactics on this issue.

[batch]

I think you'll find the skeptics are pretty much in the majority and probably growing as the wheels of the AGW juggernaut get more and more wobbly.  I don't think there'll be a sudden ending of the AGW scare. It will simply fade away as the evidence against it becomes more obvious. A few years of cooling and bad winters, which is forecast due to a natural variation will reduce enthusiasm for it. The public will become more and more skeptical and the politicians will want to stay onside for their political careers. Eventually, if you live long enough there'll be books and TV programs dissecting what went wrong. The self justifying conclusion will be that although they got it wrong in terms of the timescale and consequences but they were right all along about man's contribution to climate change. It's was just a lot smaller than they forecast.

No one will apologise or take responsibility for the damage being done today or the people who have died and will die thanks over zealous scare tactics on this issue.

while this sounds like a reasonable expectation of what will happen..... early signs indicate the opposite

instead of backpeddling and trying to minimize the damage theyve brought........ these chicken littles are once again changing their stance......... now its climate change instead of global warming.......... and they fully expected a long period of cold.........despite the fact that their models indicate rising temperatures until our flesh melts off our bones

youre definitely right about the politicians though..... they will quickly change their views to reflect whatever keeps them in office.......

my prediction is that someday in the future when the people have fully grasped reality and the whole scam has become taboo......... then they will need a scapegoat to absolve of his sins

that scapegoat will be Al Gore who will then be the laughing stock of the world and live the rest of his days secluded in shame........ theyll dig up so much dirt...... theyll amazingly find some new obscure evidence of some violation of some crime ........ its just the way things are done........ they will no longer need him so they will bury him.......

and if you need proof I can quickly provide you with some modeling which verifies my theory (just need to borrow some of those alarmists to fudge me some data)

[Angus]

Anaxo, how can we know those stars behave this way, like expanding and popping or whatever, we have only been watching them for a very short time, and can draw no conclusion for the next million years when we have more data...

Hehe, that's what you hear about GCL or GW. Couldn't resist.

Anyway, regarding "data being manipulated", or rather cherrypicked, that is what recently has been seen done in the alarmist camp (if I can put that so), however it was no big news when proved upon the other camp. This data is surface temp data I belive, and that is just a part of the picture, since you nead ocean temp, sl rise, glacial area shrinks, weather pattern, different plant growing, migration changes and altitude residence changes of species. All those point their fingers into the same direction. Warming pattern. And the change is big enough for both creating problems. Cities in the tropical being built over mosquite level are there no longer, ocean fish adapted for a certain temperature moves north/south to stay in the same level, Agriculture takes changes so herbs that need warmth can be grown further into cooler zones, and glaciers indeed are shrinking.

I can grow wheat today, which was not possible only 20 years ago, say alone 100, and was not even done in the medieval warming period. Say it's manipulation of data and I'll laugh very hard, for for me it is a complete and absolute fact. I have several mountains that collect snow right in sight. What they are today is....nothing. Goes fast in 30 years of recollection.
Was fishing on the ocean every now and then, got hooked on the tales my grand-dad told me from his days in the N-Atlantic in the 1920's and 1930's, - which in fact were in our zone some warm years. The migration pattern since then indicates that the ocean is warming. While our south coast fish now runs northbound to the country we are however getting new species from the warm south seas into our area. Yummy perhaps...or not. Win some, loose some....but if anyone tells me it's data manipulation I'll have to hold my stomach.
How do you expect a January day in S-Iceland to be anyway....

[Penguin]

I think you'll find the skeptics are pretty much in the majority and probably growing as the wheels of the AGW juggernaut get more and more wobbly.  I don't think there'll be a sudden ending of the AGW scare. It will simply fade away as the evidence against it becomes more obvious. A few years of cooling and bad winters, which is forecast due to a natural variation will reduce enthusiasm for it. The public will become more and more skeptical and the politicians will want to stay onside for their political careers. Eventually, if you live long enough there'll be books and TV programs dissecting what went wrong. The self justifying conclusion will be that although they got it wrong in terms of the timescale and consequences but they were right all along about man's contribution to climate change. It's was just a lot smaller than they forecast.

No one will apologise or take responsibility for the damage being done today or the people who have died and will die thanks over zealous scare tactics on this issue.

Ok, you took the quote so far out of context that it isn't even funny.  He was describing one of the possible outcomes.

(Not to sound condescending, just telling you how it is) Angus, we know that stars go BOOM! because we've seen other, older stars do it.  It's like a population of people, if you were only observing for a day, aging would be negligble.  Yet, you can see that some will die, and some are old (some are both). Therefore you can make the connection that old people die.  The same goes for stars.  We can tell that they are old from our models of fusion and spectrometric equipment, and that they die, well, when they go BA-BOOM! 

Again, you see the earth warm for 200 or so years, and cool for 10 out of 200.  That's a 5% error rate.  You have made a prediction that we will cool, yet the earth has seen warming for 190 years.  Only time will tell.

Just one question guys, what would prove to you that AGW is real?  Or did you guys just decide beforehand?

-Penguin
 

[CAP1]

I don't think anything I said in the above quote was for or against AGW.  The point was just supposed to be that you can't employ meta-arguments about scientific theory making simply by pulling out a dictionary.

In the end, one of two results are likely:  The evidence for AGW will keep piling up until the skeptics are even more marginalized than they are today, and the AGW proponents will act like triumphant dicks with "I told you so!"  Or, AGW turns out to be a huge sham, thousands of careers go down the toilet, and some names even become infamous in the history books (and the skeptics act like triumphant dicks with "I told you so!").  Only time will tell.

 i had only quoted your post, partly because it made me think of why penguin was running to the dictionary(running out of steam) and partly because i was reading your post when the thoughts i posted popped into my head.

 you also just hit the nail on the head above. the highlighted part is why this issue will never be allowed to die.

 and finally, you are right, unfortunately, that whomever turns out to be correct willl act no better than an 8 year old saying "told ya so told ya so!!"

[CAP1]

Well, it isn't if you've lost your left index finger. Just sayin 

i'm seriously hoping you're not gonna say you lost yours. 

quick almost funny story.......down at atco raceway a few years ago. we were fueling the camaro, and hooking up the charger to the car. well, on the previous run, someone had poured the last of the fuel into the tank and didn't say anything.

 my friend yells "who the hell emptied the jug and didn't say anything?!"  i go "it wasn't me, it was the one armed man!"

 alex went white, and his eye had that "i can't believe you just said that" look to them, as he was looking right past me.


 i turned around, and sure enough......there was a guy standing right behind me with his right arm amputated. i cannot even begin to say how bad i felt. the only thing that helped, was that the guy laughed his bellybutton off as i stumbled all over myself trying to apologize.

[CAP1]

Ok, you took the quote so far out of context that it isn't even funny.  He was describing one of the possible outcomes.

(Not to sound condescending, just telling you how it is) Angus, we know that stars go BOOM! because we've seen other, older stars do it.  It's like a population of people, if you were only observing for a day, aging would be negligble.  Yet, you can see that some will die, and some are old (some are both). Therefore you can make the connection that old people die.  The same goes for stars.  We can tell that they are old from our models of fusion and spectrometric equipment, and that they die, well, when they go BA-BOOM! 

Again, you see the earth warm for 200 or so years, and cool for 10 out of 200.  That's a 5% error rate.  You have made a prediction that we will cool, yet the earth has seen warming for 190 years.  Only time will tell.

Just one question guys, what would prove to you that AGW is real?  Or did you guys just decide beforehand?

-Penguin
 

so, you do realize that you are simply reinforcing mine, and others arguments, right?

 

[Penguin]

Not really, the first part of my post was about the lifetime of a star.

Number two, you misread it, I said that we have seen 200 years of warming, and 10 of cooling, which is the anomaly of which?  If the past is any indication of the future, we will see more warming.

Number three, my quoting a dictionary was in response to an attack on semantics.

Number four, the last part of my post was a question.

How does that reinforce your point, exactly?

-Penguin