|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Climate science denialism - the remarkable inconsistency of
On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 8:57:55 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 07:23:11 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote: On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 7:41:28 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 04:37:09 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote: Yep, Peterson has a hermetically-sealed mind. And he's nasty :-)) Yes, another marker of science denialists (like conspiracy theorists, which are closely related) is to treat being called out as irrational as "nasty". As you well know, it is not irrational to ask for confirmation of the evidence... No. But it is irrational to ask for confirmation and refuse to accept that confirmation when it is provided, which is what you and all science deniers do. YOU are the one refusing to even consider contrary evidence. The fact of that is your snipping of this: particularly when actual experimental data cannot be obtained and where models are fitted to observations by adjustable parameters. Several recent work has demonstrated that the models are incomplete and even wrong. Have you conveniently forgotten about all this evidence? Do you need another reminder? |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Climate science denialism - the remarkable inconsistency of
On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 08:22:45 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote: As you well know, it is not irrational to ask for confirmation of the evidence... No. But it is irrational to ask for confirmation and refuse to accept that confirmation when it is provided, which is what you and all science deniers do. YOU are the one refusing to even consider contrary evidence. The fact of that is your snipping of this: I have already looked at the evidence. It is irrational to keep going back over things which have been analyzed by experts. particularly when actual experimental data cannot be obtained and where models are fitted to observations by adjustable parameters. Several recent work has demonstrated that the models are incomplete and even wrong. Have you conveniently forgotten about all this evidence? Do you need another reminder? Actual experimental data has been obtained. Actual models do fit observations. And while everybody understands that models are not complete, that does not make them wrong, and no recent work has demonstrated that any important models are producing substantially incorrect results. Again, you dredge up discredited arguments, the nonsense that is repeated only on denial sites. You ignore consensus, which is one of the most important components of the scientific process. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Climate science denialism - the remarkable inconsistency of
Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 12:40:20 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote: Gary Harnagel wrote: On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 11:41:02 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote: Gary Harnagel wrote: http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/ "The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 gigatonnes of ice per year since 2002" and compare it with this: http://phys.org/news/2015-10-mass-ga...ice-sheet.html "According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008." "The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away," .... And if anyone asserts that we have to rush to "save the planet" RIGHT NOW OR WE'RE DOOMED, he is selling a bill of goods and likely has a hidden agenda. Or they are just a science denier. .... The earth is definitely in a warming trend. It's been going on for hundreds of years, much longer than humans have been producing significant atmospheric CO2. Furthermore, water vapor is a MUCH more significant greenhouse gas than CO2. But when presented with this evidence, Peterson digs in his heels and starts hurling ad homs. I dot think you are a science denier but you seem to have a pair of Zaphod Beeblebrox - like AGW sensitive sunglasses which cloud your mind when it is presented with facts. I see people advocating AGW as having ZB sunglasses that turn black when contradictory data is presented :-) You keep on coming up with the "water is a much more significant greenhouse gas" meme when you have been told and can easily research that the water vapour content of the atmosphere and is dependent on temperature. Sure it is, and the hotter it is, the more goes into the atmosphere and the bigger effect it has. Temperature is much more sensitive to fluctuations in CO2. Increased CO2 increases temperature and the increased temperature increases water vapour which in turn increases temperature more. This sounds like an attempt to dethrone the major contributor by pretending that CO2 is the controlling factor. No! This has been known for over a century. Not exactly: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...r_warming.html "Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated." It's not a runaway effect but it means that increasing CO2 also increases water vapour. There are lots of models but little actual experimental data, which is the only thing that really counts in science. Fitting parameters of a model to match observation doesn't mean that the parameters are right. We are experimenting with a whole planet but unfortunately there's no control available. Then it's not REAL science. REAL science uses the scientific method, which uses controls and actual experiments. We are just getting to the point where we have other planets to play with. There's already some interesting things, like: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says" Just like stellar evolution we can't perform controlled experiments on a planetary scale. However if you purchase the right equipment or do a chemistry degree you will be able to do practical work on IR spectroscopy to demonstrate the greenhouse effect. Sure, but when you start talking about "amplifying effects" you really need to do experiments. This nonsense about water vapor greenhouse effect being due to CO2 is a case in point. By that argument, the effect of methane, etc., is also due to CO2, so why is methane, etc., mentioned by the EPA but not water vapor? Don't you see the dishonesty in this? Are you suggesting that stellar evolution is not science because we can't put stars in a test tube? Ever heard of the red Sirius problem? Maybe we don't know as much as we think we do about stellar evolution. Remember the Greeks had no word for blue. Hence the "wine dark sea". .... Doesn't clearing forests increase CO2 levels from decay of the trees? Why weren't CO2 levels high when Amazonia began clearing land for agriculture? Yes a slow increase in CO2 (medieval warm period) followed by a very large decrease when most of the Amazonian population died (of disease). You seem to be implying a VERY large pre-disease population. Generally considered to have dropped by 90%. Look up the fall in CO2. This is a VERY complex subject and "the powers that be" have already made some giant goofs. Given the fact that present rates allow time for deeper study, and given that alternative technologies exist, rushing into serious change may be foolhardy, particularly if the warming trend peters out in a few years. Its not the powers that be but the experts you should be trusting. “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” -- Richard P. Feynman These experts tell the truth, yes, as they see it. But they are people, and people aren't omniscient, nor are they free of bias. These predictions came from "experts": http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/u...acularly-wrong the newspaper's lie and cherry pick, governments can lie to keep their support. And who pays the salaries of the "experts"? Universities generally. However outside the USA the oil industry generally acknowledges AGW. In the US many politicians have to be financed by interest groups. Why do you only trust the politicians who are supported by the fossil fuel industry? I don't trust ANY of them. Why do you trust the "experts" who are supported by politicians? I don't. I trust genuine scientists to some extent. I live in a country where the distribution of most government funds to science are not controlled by politicians. My experience of research is that publicly funded projects are more soundly grounded in science than privately funded ones. I have been involved in hundreds of clinical trials. Those funded by drug companies were generally sound but it eventually became evident that some trials of failing drugs were unnecessary prolonged. Those same politicians who have to pretend they are stupid enough to reject evolution. I have to admit some of them don't pretend - they are stupid enough to reject evolution. You will note that most politicians are gung ho about AGW. By your argument, maybe they're stupid enough to believe in it :-) My limited experience of politicians in science - talking to a science minister - was that he was interested and willing to learn. But we don't have a religious right threatening to remove politicians who don't publicly share their beliefs. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Climate science denialism - the remarkable inconsistency of
On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 4:43:08 PM UTC+1, Razzmatazz wrote:
Ok, I see your point. My function is not to antagonize anyone, regardless of belief. I just want to point to scientific evidence regardless where it falls. My time on earth is limited to the next few years, so for me it should not matter. However I would like future generations to enjoy a natural world that is benign and favorable for our survival as a species. Only a few years and yet you saw fit to introduce a wandering Sun which obscures the ability to appreciate the motions of the inner planets as they run their circuits around a central Sun . You should know that as you pass out of existence that others have actually captured something of the true motions of the planets as they loop a central Sun thereby obliterating the stupid notion that the Sun wanders North and South to the observer - http://www.popastro.com/images/plane...ary%202012.jpg Do you not know that the inner planets are fairly close to the central Sun at all times however that period around twilight into darkness opens up the vista of the inner planetary motions with the Sun always out of sight - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdFrE7hWj0A Everyone dies but not everyone lives and this is why those who are spiritual never fear death as they draw from that well of life within the greater Life of the Universe. Part of this is coming to know our motion and position within the solar system and the effects on terrestrial sciences yet you would pass on while knowing you did nothing to advance understanding or rather provided an obstacle to those who could get behind the pretense and discover astronomy that contemporary tools provide. I wouldn't trade one second of existence to appear superior as individual life is a testament to the greatness of the physical Universe and the only way to answer that greatness is to make the effort to pass it on to others. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Climate science denialism - the remarkable inconsistency of
On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 12:37:38 PM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:
Gary Harnagel wrote: Ever heard of the red Sirius problem? Maybe we don't know as much as we think we do about stellar evolution. Remember the Greeks had no word for blue. Hence the "wine dark sea". Really? With half the environment blue they didn't have a word for it? Pure baloney: https://translate.google.com/?tl=el#en/el/blue Yes a slow increase in CO2 (medieval warm period) followed by a very large decrease when most of the Amazonian population died (of disease). You seem to be implying a VERY large pre-disease population. Generally considered to have dropped by 90%. Look up the fall in CO2. Yes, that appears to be about right. “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” -- Richard P. Feynman These predictions came from "experts": http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/u...acularly-wrong And who pays the salaries of the "experts"? Universities generally. Universities get grants from governments. However outside the USA the oil industry generally acknowledges AGW. Irrelevant. I don't trust ANY of them. Why do you trust the "experts" who are supported by politicians? I don't. I trust genuine scientists to some extent. I trust "genuine" scientists to some extent, too. When considering fields where the scientific method is weak or absent, my skepticism strengthens. And when the results affect me personally, I require a very high degree of confirmation. I live in a country where the distribution of most government funds to science are not controlled by politicians. They're controlled by bureaucrats who owe their jobs to governments, hence politicians are involved. My experience of research is that publicly funded projects are more soundly grounded in science than privately funded ones. I have seen just the opposite. I have been involved in hundreds of clinical trials. Those funded by drug companies were generally sound but it eventually became evident that some trials of failing drugs were unnecessary prolonged. That's merely human nature. One doesn't like to see one's resources and energies wasted. It happens everywhere, even to climate "scientists.". Those same politicians who have to pretend they are stupid enough to reject evolution. I have to admit some of them don't pretend - they are stupid enough to reject evolution. You will note that most politicians are gung ho about AGW. By your argument, maybe they're stupid enough to believe in it :-) My limited experience of politicians in science - talking to a science minister - was that he was interested and willing to learn. But we don't have a religious right threatening to remove politicians who don't publicly share their beliefs. Which has nothing at all to do with the topic. It is just obfuscation. Neither you nor I nor Peterson have any effect whatsoever on the debate. You can believe what you want and it doesn't matter. I just came back from a family reunion. Some of my cousins are farmers; you know, those who grow the stuff that keeps you and everyone else alive? They don't believe in AGW. So why don't you argue AGW with them? Well, not a good idea, they'd just run over you with their tractors :-) |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Climate science denialism - the remarkable inconsistency of
Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 12:37:38 PM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote: Gary Harnagel wrote: Ever heard of the red Sirius problem? Maybe we don't know as much as we think we do about stellar evolution. Remember the Greeks had no word for blue. Hence the "wine dark sea". Really? With half the environment blue they didn't have a word for it? Pure baloney: https://translate.google.com/?tl=el#en/el/blue That's modern Greek. https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...-guy-deutscher Yes a slow increase in CO2 (medieval warm period) followed by a very large decrease when most of the Amazonian population died (of disease). You seem to be implying a VERY large pre-disease population. Generally considered to have dropped by 90%. Look up the fall in CO2. Yes, that appears to be about right. “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” -- Richard P. Feynman These predictions came from "experts": http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/u...acularly-wrong And who pays the salaries of the "experts"? Universities generally. Universities get grants from governments. But in the UK the government does control the research done.The hospital I worked in had government funds which depended mostly on the quality of the published research. My own unit was funded by earnings from clinical trials. However outside the USA the oil industry generally acknowledges AGW. Irrelevant. It's not irrelevant. It shows the intensity of industry propaganda and misinformation generated by industry in North America.This is directly comparable to the propaganda used to deny the link between smoking and cancer. I don't trust ANY of them. Why do you trust the "experts" who are supported by politicians? I don't. I trust genuine scientists to some extent. I trust "genuine" scientists to some extent, too. When considering fields where the scientific method is weak or absent, my skepticism strengthens. And when the results affect me personally, I require a very high degree of confirmation. I live in a country where the distribution of most government funds to science are not controlled by politicians. They're controlled by bureaucrats who owe their jobs to governments, hence politicians are involved. No they are controlled by representative of the sciences. My experience of research is that publicly funded projects are more soundly grounded in science than privately funded ones. I have seen just the opposite. I have been involved in hundreds of clinical trials. Those funded by drug companies were generally sound but it eventually became evident that some trials of failing drugs were unnecessary prolonged. That's merely human nature. One doesn't like to see one's resources and energies wasted. It happens everywhere, even to climate "scientists.". It shows insufficient control by the companies. It became easy to spot the dubious drug trials. For instance a drug with suspected liver toxicity would have extra liver function tests . Internal hospital projects were closed when they failed to produce results and the funds diverted to other projects. Those same politicians who have to pretend they are stupid enough to reject evolution. I have to admit some of them don't pretend - they are stupid enough to reject evolution. You will note that most politicians are gung ho about AGW. By your argument, maybe they're stupid enough to believe in it :-) My limited experience of politicians in science - talking to a science minister - was that he was interested and willing to learn. But we don't have a religious right threatening to remove politicians who don't publicly share their beliefs. Which has nothing at all to do with the topic. It is just obfuscation. Neither you nor I nor Peterson have any effect whatsoever on the debate. You can believe what you want and it doesn't matter. It always matters. The public is made up of individuals. We all need to do our bit to combat public ignorance especially when so many lives depend in it. Every small reduction in CO2 is a gain. I just came back from a family reunion. Some of my cousins are farmers; you know, those who grow the stuff that keeps you and everyone else alive? They don't believe in AGW. So why don't you argue AGW with them? Well, not a good idea, they'd just run over you with their tractors :-) Most farmers in the USA reject evolution despite having to deal with its consequences like insecticide and pesticide resistance. Farmers in the UK generally have the same level of AGW acceptance as the rest of the public. They also experience the increasingly extreme weather and are more affected by flooding and storms. (River management often needs the authorities to decide which area is flooded and areas with low population are sacrificed first.) |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Climate science denialism - the remarkable inconsistency of
On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 3:05:55 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:
Gary Harnagel wrote: On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 12:37:38 PM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote: Gary Harnagel wrote: Ever heard of the red Sirius problem? Maybe we don't know as much as we think we do about stellar evolution. Remember the Greeks had no word for blue. Hence the "wine dark sea". Really? With half the environment blue they didn't have a word for it? Pure baloney: https://translate.google.com/?tl=el#en/el/blue That's modern Greek. https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...-guy-deutscher This seems rather asinine to me, particularly when it comes to the color of stars. Certainly, different forms of color blindness are evident. My father had difficulty distinguishing blue from green and some people see in black and white, or with BW plus reddish ... but EVERYONE? And only 2000 years ago? And then suddenly everyone saw in full color? Furthermore, if they saw Sirius as red, then they would have seen ALL stars as red and wouldn't have singled out Sirius. I thought Burnham wasn't very smart to include that in his discussion of the red Sirius problem. Universities get grants from governments. But in the UK the government does control the research done. The hospital I worked in had government funds which depended mostly on the quality of the published research. My own unit was funded by earnings from clinical trials. And "quality" is determined by peers who also get government funds? However outside the USA the oil industry generally acknowledges AGW. Irrelevant. It's not irrelevant. It shows the intensity of industry propaganda and misinformation generated by industry in North America. This is directly comparable to the propaganda used to deny the link between smoking and cancer. Or it shows that commercial industries outside NA are weak and cave in to government pressures. I don't trust ANY of them. Why do you trust the "experts" who are supported by politicians? I don't. I trust genuine scientists to some extent. I trust "genuine" scientists to some extent, too. When considering fields where the scientific method is weak or absent, my skepticism strengthens. And when the results affect me personally, I require a very high degree of confirmation. I live in a country where the distribution of most government funds to science are not controlled by politicians. They're controlled by bureaucrats who owe their jobs to governments, hence politicians are involved. No they are controlled by representative of the sciences. And where do they get their funds? Science is not independent. I have been involved in hundreds of clinical trials. Those funded by drug companies were generally sound but it eventually became evident that some trials of failing drugs were unnecessary prolonged. That's merely human nature. One doesn't like to see one's resources and energies wasted. It happens everywhere, even to climate "scientists.". It shows insufficient control by the companies. Companies controlled by bureaucrats who don't understand the science involved. Many years ago I worked on a technology that was considered crucial to an important product that the company was trying to sell to the government. Serious problems came up and suddenly everyone was wanting to know what was going on and why are we having this problem. I lectured them for many hours explaining the entire process, which no one cared about previously. They went away thinking that we were working the problem in an intelligent way and forgot about it again. It became easy to spot the dubious drug trials. For instance a drug with suspected liver toxicity would have extra liver function tests . Internal hospital projects were closed when they failed to produce results and the funds diverted to other projects. "Tests" is the operative word. That's a crucial part of the scientific method, which is weakened in astronomy and AGW. Neither you nor I nor Peterson have any effect whatsoever on the debate. You can believe what you want and it doesn't matter. It always matters. No, it doesn't. We have no effect on the worst polluters. The public is made up of individuals. The public doesn't matter. You'd do better lecturing those in China and India and other developing countries. They'd surely appreciate your telling them to return to groveling in the mud. We all need to do our bit to combat public ignorance especially when so many lives depend in it. But do they really? Is it moral to use scare tactics? Does the supposed end justify such means? If you believe it does then YOU are the real problem. Every small reduction in CO2 is a gain. Baloney. Every small reduction in CO2 just means that Al Gore can use that many more kilowatts. I just came back from a family reunion. Some of my cousins are farmers; you know, those who grow the stuff that keeps you and everyone else alive? They don't believe in AGW. So why don't you argue AGW with them? Well, not a good idea, they'd just run over you with their tractors :-) Most farmers in the USA reject evolution despite having to deal with its consequences like insecticide and pesticide resistance. That's not evolution. That's (un)natural selection. That's why green moths virtually disappeared in England and gray moths became dominate during the industrial revolution. There were always a small fraction of gray moths, but they had a clear advantage near the cities. I imagine there are still some green moths in the countryside. Farmers in the UK generally have the same level of AGW acceptance as the rest of the public. They also experience the increasingly extreme weather and are more affected by flooding and storms. (River management often needs the authorities to decide which area is flooded and areas with low population are sacrificed first.) Areas with low population include farms. Sounds to me like you advocate biting the hand that feeds you :-) |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Climate science denialism - the remarkable inconsistency of
On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 8:03:57 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
This seems rather asinine to me, particularly when it comes to the color of stars. Certainly, different forms of color blindness are evident. My father had difficulty distinguishing blue from green and some people see in black and white, or with BW plus reddish ... but EVERYONE? And only 2000 years ago? And then suddenly everyone saw in full color? Wikipedia claims The ancient Greeks classified colours by whether they were light or dark, rather than by their hue. The Greek word for dark blue, kyaneos, could also mean dark green, violet, black or brown. The ancient Greek word for a light blue, glaukos, also could mean light green, grey, or yellow. ....citing one French book, "Blue, the history of a color". Then there's this article: http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/hoffman_01_13/ It is true that some societies in the present day have a limited vocabulary for naming different colors. Therefore, this is not impossible, although it may not necessarily be the consensus of historians at this time. John Savard |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Climate science denialism - the remarkable inconsistency of
On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 8:50:22 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 8:03:57 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote: This seems rather asinine to me, particularly when it comes to the color of stars. Certainly, different forms of color blindness are evident. My father had difficulty distinguishing blue from green and some people see in black and white, or with BW plus reddish ... but EVERYONE? And only 2000 years ago? And then suddenly everyone saw in full color? Wikipedia claims The ancient Greeks classified colours by whether they were light or dark, rather than by their hue. The Greek word for dark blue, kyaneos, could also mean dark green, violet, black or brown. The ancient Greek word for a light blue, glaukos, also could mean light green, grey, or yellow. ...citing one French book, "Blue, the history of a color". Then there's this article: http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/hoffman_01_13/ It is true that some societies in the present day have a limited vocabulary for naming different colors. Therefore, this is not impossible, although it may not necessarily be the consensus of historians at this time. And something else to consider: the term "ancient Greek" is ambiguous. Maybe Homeric Greeks had no word for blue, but by the time of, oh, say Socrates, the ancient Greeks did. John Savard |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Denialism and crankery | Andrew Usher | Astronomy Misc | 14 | July 23rd 09 03:29 AM |
One of most remarkable feats in computer science ? | Michael A. Covington | UK Astronomy | 6 | September 26th 03 11:28 PM |
One of most remarkable feats in computer science ? | AndyK | Misc | 6 | September 26th 03 11:28 PM |
One of most remarkable feats in computer science ? | Michael A. Covington | Misc | 4 | September 22nd 03 10:05 AM |