Slashdot Mirror
Science By Democracy Doesn't Work
StartsWithABang writes The US Senate just voted on whether climate change is a hoax, knowing full well that debates or votes don't change what is or isn't scientifically true or valid. Nevertheless, debates have always been a thing in science, and they do have their place: in raising what points would be needed to validate, robustly confirm or refute competing explanations, theories or ideas. The greatest scientific debate in all of history — along with its conclusions — illustrates exactly this.
In science nothing ever gets 'fully resolved'. It's not religion where babies burn in hell, then go to limbo to get more believers then they go to heaven to get even more believers. It's driven by understanding and improving that understanding.
The point of "this is perfect and certainly true" does not exist.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
By 98 to 1, U.S. Senate passes amendment saying climate change is real, not a hoax
Personally, when "the senate just voted" is linked to something in the summary, I would expect the link to tell me more about the outcome.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
The data from the last decade fits the rising trend perfectly.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2...
Have you ever written a simulation? I have. You have to use simplification of calculations and use predetermined result tables to avoid doing the calculations to get any kind of speed in result return. This causes deviance from true simulation. The only way to accurately simulate the real thing is to build the real thing.
As someone who has written a number of simulations, you are full of shit. You certainly don't use lookup tables to determine results of the thing that you are calculating; if you have a well behaved submodel that is part of the larger simulation, you can use precomputed results but that is completely different. Further, you can get the simulations that they are running; here's one: GISS GCM E. They are 'true simulations' in any meaningful definition of the word; they are not using "predetermined result tables" to determine the results of the simulation.
The US Senate just voted on whether climate change is a hoax
Especially since (1) he doesn't tell us the result of the vote, and (2) he links back to yesterday's article on slashdot that covered the same thing, and to the same article on his web site as yesterday. Nothing - nothing - whatsoever to see here.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The mean temperature may rise 0.6C.
Current state-of-the-art climate models span a range of 2.6–4.1 C, most clustering around 3 C, according to http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~ste...
None. When science hasn't fully resolved a question based on the evidence, none of the competing theories should be used as a basis for public policy.
Bogus. Science is not about "fully resolving" but about "models that work". Yes you could back the "wrong" scientifc theory when making policy, but in most cases they will differ only in corner cases. And even better, you can choose a response that addresses the problem, no matter which theory is correct. Even if global warming today was mainly caused by volcanoes, would it make sense to pump out even more CO2?
However, if there's a debate like there is in the US with climate change, with opinions 180 degrees the opposite, you can be sure that one side is only spouting complete bollocks and propaganda. Especially when you notice that one side has most of the scientists on its side, and the other mostly politicians.
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
First of all, we haven't doubled CO2 yet. We've only added about 35%. Secondly, the 3C sensitivity is the steady state number. Right now, we're still in flux, as the oceans take considerable time to warm up. So, even if we stopped adding CO2 now, the temperature would continue to rise for decades.
That's what 95% of the climate scientists believe we have done.
I don't know why you think that. All climate scientists who are not in a coma (or on vacation in Aruba collecting temperature data) are aware that the models are wrong. The hypothesis is wrong and needs to be adjusted. And scientists aren't stupid, that is exactly what they are doing, thinking of different ways to adjust the hypothesis. But it takes time.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."