Global Warming: The science is settled

[Guest lostpass]

You obviously have a definition of "scientific theory" that's different than any I've ever heard. Somehow you've been convinced that something is theory unless everything that can be known about it, is known about it. According to your definition, the existence of the elements is theory , the concept of weight is theory as well as simple axioms such as water is wet and sunshine gives light.

Time to end this insipid discussion.

Water is wet is not a theory because it is self defined. Yes, the existence of elements are, in fact, a theory. The concept of weight is, of course, theory.

Oddly, just because you've never heard of the actual definition of theory in the scientific sense does not mean you are correct. Some folks actually spend time with science and the epistemology.

While you call this discussion insipid, I would disagree. You've stated that there are facts and there are theories. Theories are apparently bad and facts are apparently good. But all I see is that theories you agree with are good and theories you disagree with are bad. So you could teach, say, the germ theory of disease but not global climate change.

The idea, as I take it, is that somehow you feel that the germ theory of disease is not widely accepted enough to be taught in schools.

Which is an interesting view. Not actually an adherent to the global warming thing so I don't really care. But let's get back to the elements existing thing. Okay, so there is the plum pudding model wherein the neutrons, electrons and protons are frozen, You slice through an atom and you get raison bread. Then you have the orbital model. Just another theory but one you are probably familiar with. This is where the electrons orbit around a hard core.

AS far as we know right know, both the theories are wrong. Quantum mechanics and and all. Right now, well ten years ago, we are talking about clouds and probabilities.

Exactly how do you define the difference between theory and fact? I f you can come up with a good definition you'll get the next nobel prize.

[Guest lostpass]

His definition of scientific theory is pretty much THE definition of scientific theory. As lostpass stated, you seem to be having trouble grasping the great differences between scientific theory, and common theory.

Classy.

thsnks

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Am misunderstanding this dispute about theory vs fact. Philip K Dick's famous quote seems relevant-- "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

I earlier expressed a preference for classical skepticism over the similar but more formulaic scientific method. But the philosophy of science is not universally interpreted the same way. Some of my old perfessors seemed of the opinion that there are no absolute facts and no absolute proofs. Other perfessors knew all the facts, except for "trivial details" which remain to be easily resolved.

One interpretation of philosophy of science-- You can never prove anything. The best you can do is attempt to rule out the null hypothesis to some arbitrary level of confidence. The reasoning goes that eventually if you can consistently rule out the null hypothesis over numerous experiments, then you may eventually gain slight confidence that a theory has at least some slight basis in reality.

The rule is inconsistently applied by some practitioners. Ask Hansen or Gore (who is a fanboy and not smart enough to be a practitioner) and they will tell you that AGW is a fact jack-- Definitively proven for all time. They teach the gospel of AGW and teach that any person who harbors doubt about AGW is a knuckle-dragging moron with a pencheant for mating with close relatives. Hansen has publicly stated that doubters should be arrested and charged for crimes against humanity. It is especially laughable when Hansen's nasa dept releases annual detailed explanations why they were correct despite wrong predictions. Every year they would have been completely correct except that Mother Nature's dog ate their homework (again).

That seems what PapaB is getting at, which seems reality. It is especially egregious when poorly-educated journalists and public school teachers who are insufficiently trained to understand the evidence, merely accept ON FAITH that Hansen and friends are correct, and then join the bandwagon of preaching theory as fact. Is this not a textbook example of blind authoritarianism?

If it is impossible to definitively prove anything then the teaching of AGW as fact is an unscientific oxymoron.

Edited September 8, 2011 by Lester Weevils

[Guest lostpass]

Am misunderstanding this dispute about theory vs fact. Philip K Dick's famous quote seems relevant-- "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

I earlier expressed a preference for classical skepticism over the similar but more formulaic scientific method. But the philosophy of science is not universally interpreted the same way. Some of my old perfessors seemed of the opinion that there are no absolute facts and no absolute proofs. Other perfessors knew all the facts, except for "trivial details" which remain to be easily resolved.

One interpretation of philosophy of science-- You can never prove anything. The best you can do is attempt to rule out the null hypothesis to some arbitrary level of confidence. The reasoning goes that eventually if you can consistently rule out the null hypothesis over numerous experiments, then you may eventually gain slight confidence that a theory has at least some slight basis in reality.

The rule is inconsistently applied by some practitioners. Ask Hansen or Gore (who is a fanboy and not smart enough to be a practitioner) and they will tell you that AGW is a fact jack-- Definitively proven for all time. They teach the gospel of AGW and teach that any person who harbors doubt about AGW is a knuckle-dragging moron with a pencheant for mating with close relatives. Hansen has publicly stated that doubters should be arrested and charged for crimes against humanity. It is especially laughable when Hansen's nasa dept releases annual detailed explanations why they were correct despite wrong predictions. Every year they would have been completely correct except that Mother Nature's dog ate their homework (again).

That seems what PapaB is getting at, which seems reality. It is especially egregious when poorly-educated journalists and public school teachers who are insufficiently trained to understand the evidence, merely accept ON FAITH that Hansen and friends are correct, and then join the bandwagon of preaching theory as fact. Is this not a textbook example of blind authoritarianism?

If it is impossible to definitively prove anything then the teaching of AGW as fact is an unscientific oxymoron.

I pretty much go with you can never know anything, better science, better measurements will come along.

I would argue that most people take theory on faith. Not everyone has the time or inclination to measure the speed of light. I have done it. Most people don't have the time or inclination to measure the the scattering from a crystal lattice. I've done that as well.

If I am presented with something a lot of scientists believe I am probably going to go with that. If I was a school teacher, interested in teaching kids, I would certainly go with what the scientists said. Cause my job is to teach kids, not to decide whether or not the scientists were right. That would be asking a lot of a grade school teacher.

[1gewehr]

If it were jsut a matter of teaching 'science', it wouldn't be an issue. Sadly, it isn't taught that way to young children. In elementary school, it is pure indoctrination. Watch the methods used and compare them to how school-kids in totalitarian countries are taught to revere 'Dear Leader', the Party, or the Revolution. Same methods, eerily similar message. Each year, our kids are taught less about how to read, write, and do arithmetic, and more about how to have 'correct thoughts'.

Even if the science were not against it, the above reason would be enough for me to seriously doubt 'global warming'.

[Guest PapaB]

I return to my original statement.

It used to be that scientific theory was considered something to study and scientific fact was what you relied on. Now it seems even the scientists confuse theory with fact. Global warming is a theory and should be treated as such. It's time to take the politics out of it and stop teaching our young people that it's fact.

Several decades ago they taught that there were scientific facts and axioms and also scientific theories. I'm aware that many scientists now teach that it's all theory. That, however, has nothing to do with my original statement. Now they teach certain politically correct theories as being factual. Climate change is one such theory being taught as fact to school children. I stand by my original statement.

[Mark@Sea]

There's an old joke about hypothetical versus actual...

Opposing views aren't taught in schools. AGW is held out as the final word in climate science.

AGW isn't science, it is propaganda brought to the fever pitch of a cult.

[E4 No More]

There's an old joke about hypothetical versus actual...

Opposing views aren't taught in schools. AGW is held out as the final word in climate science.

AGW isn't science, it is propaganda brought to the fever pitch of a cult.

And based on a model no less. Models demonstrate their inaccuracy every day.

[Guest lostpass]

Yes, I see. You're like the child who doesn't know about sex. You don't understand what it is but you know it exists and you have very strong opinions about it. And the aspects of science you don't like are necessarily not true.

[Guest lostpass]

If it were jsut a matter of teaching 'science', it wouldn't be an issue. Sadly, it isn't taught that way to young children. In elementary school, it is pure indoctrination. Watch the methods used and compare them to how school-kids in totalitarian countries are taught to revere 'Dear Leader', the Party, or the Revolution. Same methods, eerily similar message. Each year, our kids are taught less about how to read, write, and do arithmetic, and more about how to have 'correct thoughts'.

Even if the science were not against it, the above reason would be enough for me to seriously doubt 'global warming'.

Oh I wouldn't bother to doubt man made global warming. That much, I would argue, is near certain. I would, and do, have trouble with the projected outcomes of said warming. There is the notion that somehow this is unnatural. I see it as the necessary result of human habitation.

[1gewehr]

Oh I wouldn't bother to doubt man made global warming.

Oh, I wouldn't bother to doubt that Obama can make the economy boom.

Oh, everyone knows guns cause crime.

Oh, I'm certain that passing ObamaCare is a good thing.

Since you don't bother to doubt a 'fact' based on lies and deceit, what DO you really know? You do know that the science of AGW was so settled that several prominent scientists altered and made up data to help prove it? You do know that unaltered data is actually showing global cooling? You do know that the primary factor in whether the Earth warms or cools in a given year is linked to solar activity? Are you starting to see how ignorant you sound?

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I pretty much go with you can never know anything, better science, better measurements will come along.

I would argue that most people take theory on faith. Not everyone has the time or inclination to measure the speed of light. I have done it. Most people don't have the time or inclination to measure the the scattering from a crystal lattice. I've done that as well.

If I am presented with something a lot of scientists believe I am probably going to go with that. If I was a school teacher, interested in teaching kids, I would certainly go with what the scientists said. Cause my job is to teach kids, not to decide whether or not the scientists were right. That would be asking a lot of a grade school teacher.

It doesn't matter to me the extent of AGW. Perhaps it is certain that man's activities impact the climate. If algae can affect climate then surely man can affect climate. At least a little bit. Maybe a lot. We may eventually find out.

Maybe I'm too "picky" about trivialities but it seems desirable to teach a "gut feel" for science. Teaching hearsay authoritarian "facts" doesn't do it well regardless of how intelligent is the originating authority. Many facts taught in grade school in the 1950's or university in the 1960's are no longer fact. Teaching science is not so much about specific facts. The facts are somewhat transient.

Maybe grade-schoolers are too dumb to learn epistemology, but would hope not.

Poor--

"The speed of light is about 186,000 miles per second."

Test question: "What is the approximate speed of light?"

Better--

"The speed of light has been repeatedly measured in the ballpark of 186,000 miles per second."

Test question: "What is the approximate currently accepted measured speed of light?"

Poor--

"If your daddy doesn't buy a prius we will all burn up if we don't drown or choke first."

Test question: "Why should your daddy buy a prius?"

Better--

"Al Gore believes that unless your daddy buys a prius we will all burn up if we don't drown or choke first."

Test question: "Why does Al Gore want your daddy to buy a prius?"

====

Phil Dick was only a SF writer but was onto something with "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

Regardless whether Newton had the last word on gravity-- On the earth virtually every time you drop something heavier than air, it will fall. MOST astrogation problems within the solar system could be solved "close enough for rock'n'roll" using Newton's incomplete formulations. It is close enough to get to mars and back if we have enough delta-v to try.

It seems unnecessary to teach Newton literally. Drag out the marked roller boards and the steel balls, do the experiments and point out how certain equations seem to fit the measurements in "ordinary terrestrial" conditions.

The map is not the territory. The menu is not the food.

Some science is reliable enough to engineer with. Reliable enough to make decent predictions. Even some poorly-understood things can be reliably engineered or predicted. Utility is not the only measure of science and it is worthy to study poorly understood and currently-useless topics. However, the science which is developed enough to prove actual utility seems "more factual" than science which hasn't yet reached that level?

Some non-predictive science imposes order on chaos by finding associations in events which already occurred. For instance I don't seriously doubt that evolution has happened in the past and will happen in the future. But until we can somewhat predict what will evolve in the future, there remains a lot of un-testable conjecture about how it happened in the past. Merely because evolution is incomplete is no reason to avoid teaching it. Just don't make untestable claims.

If an economist creates a computer model which perfectly simulates every daily price in the stock market from the East India Company to the present, then the acid test is whether the computer model can also correctly simulate the future.

Ditto with climate models. It is worthy to study models. It does not seem worthy to act on their predictions until they are proven. Only time can (im)prove them.

[Guest lostpass]

Oh, I wouldn't bother to doubt that Obama can make the economy boom.

Oh, everyone knows guns cause crime.

Oh, I'm certain that passing ObamaCare is a good thing.

Since you don't bother to doubt a 'fact' based on lies and deceit, what DO you really know? You do know that the science of AGW was so settled that several prominent scientists altered and made up data to help prove it? You do know that unaltered data is actually showing global cooling? You do know that the primary factor in whether the Earth warms or cools in a given year is linked to solar activity? Are you starting to see how ignorant you sound?

Yeah, get me that list. I'm pretty sure that you have no actual understanding of what I am saying.

Let me be more precise: I actually understand how science works. You almost understand how argumentation works. You are more interested in being right than being factual. Good for you.

One of us is ignorant. It isn't me.

[1gewehr]

Yeah, get me that list. I'm pretty sure that you have no actual understanding of what I am saying.

Let me be more precise: I actually understand how science works. You almost understand how argumentation works. You are more interested in being right than being factual. Good for you.

One of us is ignorant. It isn't me.

You're right, I have no idea what you are saying. What 'list'?

Show me convincing evidence showing that 1) The Earth is actually warming significantly. and 2) That warming is somehow linked to human activity. I haven't seen it yet. The only substantial evidence that purported to show that was part of the faked evidence from East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit. Did I miss something? Show me. I find it difficult to place confidence in scientists who send emails like this; "I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

You've said you aren't ignorant; prove it.

[E4 No More]

It doesn't matter to me the extent of AGW. Perhaps it is certain that man's activities impact the climate. If algae can affect climate then surely man can affect climate. At least a little bit. Maybe a lot. We may eventually find out.

Maybe I'm too "picky" about trivialities but it seems desirable to teach a "gut feel" for science. Teaching hearsay authoritarian "facts" doesn't do it well regardless of how intelligent is the originating authority. Many facts taught in grade school in the 1950's or university in the 1960's are no longer fact. Teaching science is not so much about specific facts. The facts are somewhat transient.

Maybe grade-schoolers are too dumb to learn epistemology, but would hope not.

Poor--

"The speed of light is about 186,000 miles per second."

Test question: "What is the approximate speed of light?"

Better--

"The speed of light has been repeatedly measured in the ballpark of 186,000 miles per second."

Test question: "What is the approximate currently accepted measured speed of light?"

Poor--

"If your daddy doesn't buy a prius we will all burn up if we don't drown or choke first."

Test question: "Why should your daddy buy a prius?"

Better--

"Al Gore believes that unless your daddy buys a prius we will all burn up if we don't drown or choke first."

Test question: "Why does Al Gore want your daddy to buy a prius?"

====

Phil Dick was only a SF writer but was onto something with "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

Regardless whether Newton had the last word on gravity-- On the earth virtually every time you drop something heavier than air, it will fall. MOST astrogation problems within the solar system could be solved "close enough for rock'n'roll" using Newton's incomplete formulations. It is close enough to get to mars and back if we have enough delta-v to try.

It seems unnecessary to teach Newton literally. Drag out the marked roller boards and the steel balls, do the experiments and point out how certain equations seem to fit the measurements in "ordinary terrestrial" conditions.

The map is not the territory. The menu is not the food.

Some science is reliable enough to engineer with. Reliable enough to make decent predictions. Even some poorly-understood things can be reliably engineered or predicted. Utility is not the only measure of science and it is worthy to study poorly understood and currently-useless topics. However, the science which is developed enough to prove actual utility seems "more factual" than science which hasn't yet reached that level?

Some non-predictive science imposes order on chaos by finding associations in events which already occurred. For instance I don't seriously doubt that evolution has happened in the past and will happen in the future. But until we can somewhat predict what will evolve in the future, there remains a lot of un-testable conjecture about how it happened in the past. Merely because evolution is incomplete is no reason to avoid teaching it. Just don't make untestable claims.

If an economist creates a computer model which perfectly simulates every daily price in the stock market from the East India Company to the present, then the acid test is whether the computer model can also correctly simulate the future.

Ditto with climate models. It is worthy to study models. It does not seem worthy to act on their predictions until they are proven. Only time can (im)prove them.

Lester:

You know, I like reading your replies. I may not agree with them all of the time, but you give due consideration to what you are writing and I appreciate that. Unfortunately work prevents me from doing the same all of the time, and sometimes I just don't have the inclination to do so on a forum since we are using only 7% of our communication skills when we write, but I do appreciate it when others try to be thorough.

I have collegiate level education in numerous disciplines of science, (geology, physics, inorganic/organic/bio chemistries, biology, human biology, and a whole lot more), and what has bothered me is the amount of assumptive conclusions that are accepted as fact in the scientific field - which translates into the laymen accepting them even more strongly because, after all, scientists said it was so after all. Science is supposed to be laden with skeptics, but it seems now days that is just a term used as a defense for when someone presents an idea to which they are not open. It's sad to see how many laymen hold on to this crap.

[Guest nicemac]

…Science is supposed to be laden with skeptics, but it seems now days that is just a term used as a defense for when someone presents an idea to which they are not open.

All scientists should be skeptics. The word skeptic has become a pejorative.

[E4 No More]

All scientists should be skeptics. The word skeptic has become a pejorative.

I somewhat about the skepticism: however, they also need to have an open mind to any results. They don't. If anything threatens their belief system they reject it.

[Guest lostpass]

You're right, I have no idea what you are saying. What 'list'?

Show me convincing evidence showing that 1) The Earth is actually warming significantly. and 2) That warming is somehow linked to human activity. I haven't seen it yet. The only substantial evidence that purported to show that was part of the faked evidence from East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit. Did I miss something? Show me. I find it difficult to place confidence in scientists who send emails like this; "I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

You've said you aren't ignorant; prove it.

Hey, no problem. What would you consider an acceptable level of evidence? I mean there's enough evidence for just about every climatologist in the world but since you demand more, since you're smarter and more learned than all those people tell me what you require and I will be happy to oblige to the best of my ability.

That said it could be that there is not enough evidence to satisfy you, you might be only looking for data that reinforces your preconceived beliefs. Which I'm fine with. Believe whatever you want, it doesn't matter to me.

So, specifically, what data would you like to see to prove the theory to your satisfaction?

You have an R value in mind?

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Lester:

You know, I like reading your replies. I may not agree with them all of the time, but you give due consideration to what you are writing and I appreciate that. Unfortunately work prevents me from doing the same all of the time, and sometimes I just don't have the inclination to do so on a forum since we are using only 7% of our communication skills when we write, but I do appreciate it when others try to be thorough.

I have collegiate level education in numerous disciplines of science, (geology, physics, inorganic/organic/bio chemistries, biology, human biology, and a whole lot more), and what has bothered me is the amount of assumptive conclusions that are accepted as fact in the scientific field - which translates into the laymen accepting them even more strongly because, after all, scientists said it was so after all. Science is supposed to be laden with skeptics, but it seems now days that is just a term used as a defense for when someone presents an idea to which they are not open. It's sad to see how many laymen hold on to this crap.

Thanks SWJewellTN

Sounds like you know a lot more about it than me. I'm lazy, undisciplined and did not enjoy school. Just barely could stand it long enough to get a BS after numerous majors and dropouts. I only like the "interesting topics" and there are numerous dull topics required in order to properly understand the interesting parts. The endeavor was 99 percent terminal boredom with an occasional flash of interesting. Maybe the ratio would improve in grad school if a person could stand it that long.

The fav perfessors in the 1960's and 1970's did not believe in much of anything and warned not to draw general conclusions from research and moreover avoid drawing conclusions at all except in context of the limited scope of the experiment. Dunno if it has changed nowadays.

Maybe even very edumacated people tend to selectively apply rules of evidence to justify what they are pre-inclined to believe? Everyone operates on unexamined assumptions and people tend to be blind to their own unexamined assumptions though they can easily detect other people's unexamined assumptions.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I kept meaning to talk about the originating thread post-- Sunspots/Magnetic Field/Cosmic Ray Shielding/Clouds/Climate.

The idea has been around awhile (as noted in the article) and is one of those ideas that seems on the surface too logical not to be true. A seductive idea. I liked it the first time I read about it. Which guarantees nothing regarding the idea fitting reality.

Haven't had time to hunt up papers describing the latest CERN experiment in deeper detail. Am curious what new we learn from the latest CERN experiment. Traditional cloud chambers are not configured exactly like the upper atmosphere but have been basic tools in particle research for many decades, so it is intuitively obvious that energetic particles ought to encourage atmospheric cloud formation to some degree.

They keep learning surprising new stuff about the solar magnetic field. Solar wind variability according to the sunspot cycle has been known for awhile. Magnetic field dependent on solar wind flux has been known for awhile. Cosmic ray shielding according to solar magnetic field has been known for awhile. But theories about the solar magnetic field keep getting "slightly trashed" with new information. Dunno if they will learn new stuff which would somehow invalidate a possible sunspot/climate mechanism but the solar magnetic field appears "less well understood" today than ten years ago.

A few years ago thought I had an intuitive understanding about the solar magnetic field but the more I think about it the less I understand. Moving charges create a magnetic field. The solar wind is a spiral of moving charges. Like a giant electromagnet. Then thinking about it more, imagining a spiraling disc of diffuse plasma containing both negatively and positively charged particles, holding one's hands in various positions to imagine the left-hand-rule or right-hand-rule of how the particles should behave in a magnetic field and also the kind of magnetic field they "ought to" generate. Haven't found an online reference that explains how it REALLY behaves in enough detail while simultaneously explaining it simple enough to understand without an advanced degree. There seems disagreement and confusion among edumacated folks studying the matter.

It is interesting as a "big electromagnet" or "big electric motor" the same way particle accelerators are interesting as being "big vacuum tubes".

Here are a few links--

==== Sunspots and Solar Minimum and Cosmic Rays ===

NASA - Cosmic Rays Hit Space Age High

http://gong.nso.edu/news/solarmystery/

Deep Solar Minimum - NASA Science

Starburst galaxy sheds light on longstanding cosmic mystery

==== Solar Magnetic Field ====

Voyager 2 reaches termination shock - Planetary News | The Planetary Society

07.02.2008 - First images of solar system's invisible frontier

Voyager Set to Enter Interstellar Space - NASA Science

A Big Surprise from the Edge of the Solar System - NASA Science

NASA - Voyager Seeks the Answer Blowin' in the Wind

[DaveTN]

Can somebody please point to a "green" initiative that has actually saved us money - or for that matter, energy?

No, being “Green†is now a multibillion dollar industry that you are expected to pay for in the products that you buy. The fact that it is unnecessary will not be accepted any more than the fact that we control our economy.

After being called a "Denier" for years, threatened with all sorts of dire consequences, ridiculed, insulted and slandered - take your green platitudes and attitudes and shove it.

+1

[tnhawk]

Close this thread before it wakes up A Gore!

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Close this thread before it wakes up A Gore!

No danger. He refuses to debate the details of "settled science". I suspect it is because he doesn't know enough to debate the details, but it is only a suspicion.

[1gewehr]

I mean there's enough evidence for just about every climatologist in the world but since you demand more, since you're smarter and more learned than all those people tell me what you require and I will be happy to oblige to the best of my ability.

A consensus among climatologists would be great! Sadly, there isn't one. Show me an article from after 2009 (since the great fraud exposure) showing such a 'consensus' among climatologists. You spout a lot of things, but have yet to back a single one up. I'm still waiting.

In Denial | The Weekly Standard

Global Warming Consensus Falling Apart

'Warming' meltdown - NYPOST.com

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: The 97% "Consensus" is only 75 Self-Selected Climatologists

31,000 Signatures Prove ‘No Consensus’ About Global Warming

Edited September 19, 2011 by 1gewehr
spelling