And the Earth warmers sobbed

In article ,
Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 12:13:33 GMT, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:

Wasn't the heliocentric THEORY questioned already in 1918 by Harlow
Shapley? ...

Well, Paul, my little jab at Rich wasn't really intended to provoke any
serious discussion, but thanks anyway for the history lesson. g

Seriously, on the subject of science, the real problem with what he said
was in calling "earth warming" a theory. This is the same fallacy
involved in calling evolution a theory. Of course, both are actually
observations.

If so, why does e.g. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ refer to "evolutionary
theory" but not to "evolutionary observations" ???

Theories are used to explain these observations, so it would be proper to
talk about a theory of warming caused by greenhouse gasses (or of evolution
by natural selection).

Natural selection isn't sufficient to explain evolution. You'll also need
some kind of source for random variations. And here genetics is another
theory which helps us understand how this works: while mutations does
provide a source of random variations, most mutations are destructive.
Another source of random variations with a much higher success rate is
sexual reproduction.

Natural selection isn't even necessary for evolution. One example of that
are the pets and cattle which have been breeded by humans for tens of
thousands of years; here natural selection has been replaced by artificial
selection. And today these animals are quite different from those animals
which originaly were captured while living free.


The rethorical trick performed by adherents of the religious right etc
is the use of the word "theory": in a scientific context, a "theory"
is a quite solid framework, and a theory isn't "just a theory" -- it's
quite an accomplishment to have built a successful theory. In everyday
language the word "theory" can have a quite different meaning: something
detached from reality. It is this semantic difference which is exploited
by some fundamentalist christians.

A scientist may well risk his career by denying the existence of global
warming- it would be difficult to refute the vast body of physical
evidence supporting that observation.

.....unless he's able to provide an even more convincing body of
empirical data for his case, that is. Denying a generally accepted body
of evidence is an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary evidence.

But there are competing theories
used to explain the warming, and proposing those theories isn't
jeopardizing anybody's career, even in cases where the theories are not
widely accepted. A theory can be viewed as improbable (for instance,
that there is no man-made component to global warming) without
discrediting the proposer, as long as it (1) explains the observations,
and (2) isn't significantly contradicted by observations.

Doesn't your (1) imply your (2) here? I mean, how can a theory possibly
explain observations which contradict that same theory?

Of course, sticking to a theory that doesn't meet those requirements
rightly _should_ jeopardize a scientist's credibility.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

Paul Schlyter wrote:
In article ,
Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 12:13:33 GMT, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:

Wasn't the heliocentric THEORY questioned already in 1918 by Harlow
Shapley? ...

Well, Paul, my little jab at Rich wasn't really intended to provoke any
serious discussion, but thanks anyway for the history lesson. g

Seriously, on the subject of science, the real problem with what he said
was in calling "earth warming" a theory. This is the same fallacy
involved in calling evolution a theory. Of course, both are actually
observations.

If so, why does e.g. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ refer to "evolutionary
theory" but not to "evolutionary observations" ???

Theories are used to explain these observations, so it would be proper to
talk about a theory of warming caused by greenhouse gasses (or of evolution
by natural selection).

Natural selection isn't sufficient to explain evolution. You'll also need
some kind of source for random variations. And here genetics is another
theory which helps us understand how this works: while mutations does
provide a source of random variations, most mutations are destructive.
Another source of random variations with a much higher success rate is
sexual reproduction.

Natural selection isn't even necessary for evolution. One example of that
are the pets and cattle which have been breeded by humans for tens of
thousands of years; here natural selection has been replaced by artificial
selection. And today these animals are quite different from those animals
which originaly were captured while living free.


The rethorical trick performed by adherents of the religious right etc
is the use of the word "theory": in a scientific context, a "theory"
is a quite solid framework, and a theory isn't "just a theory" -- it's
quite an accomplishment to have built a successful theory. In everyday
language the word "theory" can have a quite different meaning: something
detached from reality. It is this semantic difference which is exploited
by some fundamentalist christians.

A scientist may well risk his career by denying the existence of global
warming- it would be difficult to refute the vast body of physical
evidence supporting that observation.

....unless he's able to provide an even more convincing body of
empirical data for his case, that is. Denying a generally accepted body
of evidence is an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary evidence.

But there are competing theories
used to explain the warming, and proposing those theories isn't
jeopardizing anybody's career, even in cases where the theories are not
widely accepted. A theory can be viewed as improbable (for instance,
that there is no man-made component to global warming) without
discrediting the proposer, as long as it (1) explains the observations,
and (2) isn't significantly contradicted by observations.

Doesn't your (1) imply your (2) here? I mean, how can a theory possibly
explain observations which contradict that same theory?

Of course, sticking to a theory that doesn't meet those requirements
rightly _should_ jeopardize a scientist's credibility.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/


Schylter wrote -
" Another source of random variations with a much higher success rate
is
sexual reproduction. "

This is just so funny that if I had been drinking coffee,the monitor
would be awash with it.

Wait until the creationists get a hold of epigenetics and see the mess
unfold,again,you deserve each other.I was right all these years ago
when I seen the creationists roll you and they are about to do it
again.

Too slow and no room to adapt,no wonder every new discovery makes you
more mediocre with each passing day,at least where
astronomical,geological and climatological aspects are concerned.In
fact,you are a testament to Darwinism where scavengers survive for a
while but they are not the prime movers of life.

edited

A scientist may well risk his career by denying the existence of global
warming- it would be difficult to refute the vast body of physical
evidence supporting that observation.

....unless he's able to provide an even more convincing body of
empirical data for his case, that is. Denying a generally accepted body
of evidence is an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary evidence.

All of this reminds me of something that Mark Twain wrote in his book,
Life On The Mississippi:

"There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."

http://www.twainquotes.com/Scientists.html


edited

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 13:15:28 GMT, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:

If so, why does e.g. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ refer to "evolutionary
theory" but not to "evolutionary observations" ???

I read that as "theories that explain evolution", not "evolution is a
theory".


Natural selection isn't sufficient to explain evolution...

Agreed. But it is a component of a valid theory to explain evolution. My
intent was not to debate details of the various theories that have been
developed to explain evolution, only that we should take some care to
distinguish between observations and theories. By and large, evolution
is an observation that we develop theories to explain.


A theory can be viewed as improbable (for instance,
that there is no man-made component to global warming) without
discrediting the proposer, as long as it (1) explains the observations,
and (2) isn't significantly contradicted by observations.

Doesn't your (1) imply your (2) here? I mean, how can a theory possibly
explain observations which contradict that same theory?

No. Perhaps I should have said "...contradicted by _other_
observations". A bad theory can explain some observations while being
firmly contradicted by others. Creationists have built theories this
way- selectively choosing supporting data and ignoring any contradictory
observations. Of course, the existence of contradictory data is a
serious problem for any theory- usually enough to kill it or force a
major revision.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Rich wrote:

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:49:00 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

You are wasting your time. This has been explained to him many times
before. He is wilfully ignorant of the science and cannot be educated.

He doesn't *want* to know the scientific answers he repeatedly parrots
his corrosive dittohead smears and innuendo against the science.

Rest deleted.

One thing is for sure; If you are a scientist and you dare to
question earth warming THEORY, you are risking your career.
-Rich

Not at all. Iff the question or objection is scientifically based.

Incidentally you are misusing THEORY in exactly the same derogatory way
as the religious right and Young Earth Creationists.

Does this mean Rich is a closet YEC? Enquiring minds want to know!

There are excellent GW sceptical *scientists* who provide very important
and useful challenges to help refine the theoretical models. Richard
Lindzen for instance commands great respect because his main arguments
are scientifically founded and testable.

The ones who risk their scientific careers are those who deny anything
and everything including all the observational data on the basis of
their political and/or religious affiliations. They will not starve - US
fossil fuel lobby groups have plenty of well paid jobs for those
prepared to prostitute their science to keep oil dollars flowing freely.
They are no longer scientists though since they cherry pick the data to
fit their political agenda just like the Bush administration.

The number of times the US government has in the past tried to have
Keelings long term CO2 monitoring project on Hawaii shut down by
starving it of funds speaks volumes about how they view inconvenient
experimental data.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Yes, an intellectual retort indeed. No, I am not a Marxist (though
being illiterate, you doubtless have no clue what that term means
anyway). I will consider you vanquished, and any more posts mere
snivelling and whigning.

Ah, big surprise that you are in the same astrology camp as oriel36
(mini-min) and Daniel Min himself.

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:32:52 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

Rich wrote:

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:49:00 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

You are wasting your time. This has been explained to him many times
before. He is wilfully ignorant of the science and cannot be educated.

He doesn't *want* to know the scientific answers he repeatedly parrots
his corrosive dittohead smears and innuendo against the science.

Rest deleted.

One thing is for sure; If you are a scientist and you dare to
question earth warming THEORY, you are risking your career.
-Rich

Not at all. Iff the question or objection is scientifically based.

Incidentally you are misusing THEORY in exactly the same derogatory way
as the religious right and Young Earth Creationists.

Does this mean Rich is a closet YEC? Enquiring minds want to know!

Quack "science" is quack science, no matter where it comes from.
Earth warmers and creationalists have alot in common.


There are excellent GW sceptical *scientists* who provide very important
and useful challenges to help refine the theoretical models. Richard
Lindzen for instance commands great respect because his main arguments
are scientifically founded and testable.

The ones who risk their scientific careers are those who deny anything
and everything including all the observational data on the basis of
their political and/or religious affiliations. They will not starve - US
fossil fuel lobby groups have plenty of well paid jobs for those
prepared to prostitute their science to keep oil dollars flowing freely.

Seems fair. Considering the credulous media works for the left and
the earth warmers. Since people clearly only respond to what they are
told over and over, there should be some balance.

They are no longer scientists though since they cherry pick the data to
fit their political agenda just like the Bush administration.

Much as the earth warmers do.
-Rich

If Blu-Ray and HD-DVD require players to be hooked-up to
the internet to obtain "permission" for playback (like the
DIVX horror of the late 1990s) people shouldn't buy or rent
the players OR any of the disks. That incarnation of a high
definition format MUST die.

Rich wrote:
[snip]
The ones who risk their scientific careers are those who deny anything
and everything including all the observational data on the basis of
their political and/or religious affiliations. They will not starve - US
fossil fuel lobby groups have plenty of well paid jobs for those
prepared to prostitute their science to keep oil dollars flowing freely.

Seems fair. Considering the credulous media works for the left and
the earth warmers. Since people clearly only respond to what they are
told over and over, there should be some balance.

They are no longer scientists though since they cherry pick the data to
fit their political agenda just like the Bush administration.

Much as the earth warmers do.
-Rich


Rich,

I hope that my editing of the above has been judicious, and not
mischaracterized your position. Regarding your assertion that the
"earth warmers" "cherry pick their data to fit their political agenda,"
would you provide an example that we could discuss?

If Blu-Ray and HD-DVD require players to be hooked-up to
the internet to obtain "permission" for playback (like the
DIVX horror of the late 1990s) people shouldn't buy or rent
the players OR any of the disks. That incarnation of a high
definition format MUST die.

Now THIS I agree with you 100% on. I had not heard this before, and I
as well hope for the demise of this abomination.

Erik
socalsw