Preamble
I see that you have chosen to not address significant parts of my post - no matter, I'll simply ask those questions again. Given that you didn't rebut my argument on thermodynamics, I'll assume your acknowledgement that this assertion is proved. Time this discussion showed some progress.
I asserted the following: "they found that the more scientifically informed one was, the less likely one was to believe that human CO2 emissions are going to cause unprecedented, catastrophic global warming".
I did not assert that they asked any sort of specific question.
You said: I'll assert to you that they key factor is that the more scientifically informed you are, the better you understand that science begins with a falsifiable hypothesis. Understanding that basic part of the scientific method naturally leads to skepticism of prophets of doom who don't have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for their assertions.
In other words, for you to be right the researchers must have enquired specifically about the scientific method
You therefore DID assert that they specifically tested for that snippet of information - if they did not (as you now seemed to be admitting), then there is no way that the study could support your assertion - and thus the assertion is disproved. Even before we get to test your assertion about the supposed problem with the hypotheses.
In which case, denialists claiming that AGW is disproved because of a (supposed) lack of a null hypothesis do so out of ignorance
You gotta put down the sauce. There is no lack of a null hypothesis - it clearly is that observed climate change in the 20th century had the same causes as observed climate change in past century - natural causes.
Yep - that is your hypothesis. Have you tested this hypothesis? And what were the results? Make specific reference to the following issues:
1. Your hypothesis assumes that our own GHG emissions have a nil or otherwise immeasurable effect on climate. Provide observational data and a falsifiable model.
2. Your hypothesis assumes that there is a variation in one the natural inputs into climate. What is causing the change in temperature? What specific forcing is varying over the timeframe in question? For clarity the timeframe in question being the period post the industrial revolution, when it was predicted that our emissions would cause a change in climate (per Tyndall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall , Arrhenius, and others) and a corresponding warming was subsequently observed. Also: How and where have you measured this variation? Please provide the observational data and describe the empirical link between the variant 'input' and the observed variation in climate.
What is lacking is a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for the proposition that human CO2 emissions are going to cause catastrophic warming, on *any* time period.
What are you blathering on about? If you think that the observed warming is due to natural variation, then by all means, elucidate your findings in detail and publish them for review. If you think there is a problem with the already published science that ascribes this warming to be the warming predicted since the early days of climatology (due to human emissions of GHGs), then by all means, propose a study that disproves the established theory, conduct the study, and publish your findings. Nobody owes you an explanation. Nobody has to, or will, describe the science in great detail or defend it, as if the burden of proof lies with anyone but you.
1. What is causing the change in temperature? What specific forcing is varying over the timeframe in question?
So just to be clear, you're asserting that if we canno
The US was mainly known as a country of merchants, of traders. Never a country of intellectuals and scientists. The space program had more to do with the cold war, with military applications, than with science or even exploration for its own sake.
Arguing for a space program because it will lead to more scientists is just a pathetic argument even if it were true, which it probably isn't. A space program should stand or fall on its own merits.
Agreed. But I would say that space exploration does have merit, and I find it dead interesting. I don't see the benefit of sending a humans, i'm no more represented by another human than a probe or robot.
If the majority of Americans don't care about space or lacks curiosity about what might be 'out there' then perhaps what's left of the US space program should be ended. Who cares about "boldly going" anywhere when American Idol or a football or baseball game is on?
I suppose they could put the money saved from NASA toward furthering the police state and security theatre. Americans may not like spending money on space exploration, but I suppose they are quite content with spending billions to be able to pretend that they are safe from bogeyman terrorists. We'll lose some astronauts, but gain more TSA agents or, if we're lucky even more invasive xray machines that will 'protect us' from body bombs. That way the majority can have the society that they so richly deserve.
Kinda pessimistic view there. But I'm not American, so I can't tell you what to do or where your country is at. I would say that there are many interesting things still to do, and these should have our focus - fusion and advance forms of fission energy, hydrogen based fuels.
I imagine that for a rover or probe, one day is like another, and they don't really care about how long it takes to do something. Which is the primary reason why they are the future of space exploration. In flight you can switch them off, and then on again when needed. They run on sunlight - or on a nuclear battery. And if we need them to move about quickly, then build a fast one. The reason we don't have fast ones is because slow ones are cheaper and still get the same work done in the end
There's a reason why every time someone wants to demonstrate that humans are superior to rovers or probes, they use Mars. It's because everywhere else, robots are the clear winners. Venus - too hot for humans, too big to land them and have them take off again. Asteroids - too small, human propulsion would fail. Outer planets - too far away, too much gravity or radiation. In every other case, machines are clearly superior.
And Mars is boring. Easily the most boring planet in the solar system. Why we should we waste time and money on Mars when we could visit the exciting places - Europa, Titan, Venus, Neptune. Sniff at comets, poke at asteroids.
I think you and a lot of people seem to think that the immediately foreseeable best result is always the best one.
I would say that I, like many people, have very narrow parameters when it comes to predictions about the future. I don't envision a return to the steam era of train travel, of horse and buggies, or of manned spaceflight. I don't envision us returning to the technology of yesteryear because the circumstances where that sort of things happen are very rare, and in that circumstance I don't imagine spaceflight will be a priority anyway.
Of course it can be cheaper if it's done with drones, but do we plan on doing everything in space with drones?
Yes - minus some tourism or historical re-enactments.
You first have to actually get established and work out all the kinks before you decide one and only one method is the best method. You can do BOTH of them at the same time. Humans with robots augmenting them and cut down on the manpower. But getting humans there, having the first hand knowledge of operating in space, of finding problems and resolving them, having the entire concept of living in space develop over time is extremely important.
I've heard this said before, but unfortunately usual result is I end up hearing some magical thinking. If you have a reason that human spaceflight is important that is not linked to magical thinking, then I'd be happy to think on it.
Unfortunately, although a good summary of possible research that could be conducted on the moon, this paper seems primarily to be a vehicle for advocating for humans to be sent back to the moon. To do this, it makes constant reference a to single paper (Crawford, 2004) which purports that human missions are superior because:
1. Mobility: humans are more mobile than probes. This ignores the fact that, for a fraction of the cost of sending a human (say 50%) a robot could be developed and sent which was far more mobile than a human. Robots also don't need to be trained or selected - astronauts have a fixed cost per unit that doesn't reduce significantly by volume - 10 astronauts cost approximately 10x as much as one astronaut. Whereas the per unit cost of a robotic probe reduces per unit at volume - building 10 probes doesn't cost 10 times as much as building a single one.
2. Presupposing that humans are better at drilling than robots. However, this fails once again to take into account that the constraint is the size of the drill - human missions require larger rockets, which coincidentally allows for a larger drill to be carried. Robotic missions launch with smaller rockets. Solution: use the big rocket. Launch a couple of probes at once, with big, capable drills. No need for the spurious meat bag attachment.
Honestly, I think the idea Dr. Tyson has is that a mission to Mars would get the American public interested in science again.
Did the last mission to mars do that? Did the one before? Or did public interest in Mars spike and then wane over time - much like public interest in the Moon spiked, and then waned post Apollo?
It's easy to forget apparently, that Apollo was cancelled because people lost interest and the benefits of sending more astronauts to the Moon could not be quantified against the quantified cost.
I don't know if you are aware that in America superstition and anti-intellectualism is winning more and more each day, among other issues highlighted by this 'evolution v. intelligent design debate'. Currently we spend more on war/defense (over 1 trillion dollars) in a single year than we have given NASA in it's entire history (somewhere around 5-600bn dollars over the course of it's 50+ year history).
I doubt very much that anti-intellectualism can be stymied by more iconoclastic anti-intellectualism, such as insisting that missions to other planets include humans in them.
These days not many Americans children dream of being astronauts or physicists or much of anything scientific. I'm sure there are some, but it's nowhere near where it was back when we were going to the moon.
I wouldn't rush to judgement about what American children dream about - although I suspect that many of them dream of having a stable home free from worry about how the mortgage might be paid. In any case, what children dream of doing career wise has little or none to do with what they actually decide to do as adults. Thus to inspire people career wise you need to appeal to young adults who are deciding what to specialise in - not children.
The idea is getting the public excited via something tangible, like being the first to put a person on Mars would increase excitement/passion for science which would hopefully then increase ingenuity and critical thinking in this country, giving us the passion to reach for greater things, as well as improving education, providing more research/project money, and any number of side benefits this excitement/passion would have.
The cost of a mission to Mars would be small in the face of results like that. At least, Dr. Tyson believes so. As do I.
Hard to see how getting the public excited about the human drama of sending a human to Mars would make them excited about something completely different, which is science. It didn't work last time. Why would it work this time?
I've an idea. Let science be science. Instead of advocating the scientific funding be spent on non - science (human space travel), advocate that it be spent on science.
Indeed. In short, the kind of thinking on space science that requires humans to be there and doing it by hand as a kind of pre-requisite to doing it at all is magical thinking. I doubt that you can fight magical thinking (e.g climate denialism) with more magical thinking.
Furthermore, I'm a bit skeptical about projects like flying to Mars, which are good PR, probably very good for engineering and technology, but not that exciting from scientific prospective.
I guess that depends on whether you think vastly more science done on the surface of Mars in real time (rather than a small amount staggered out over decades) is exciting or not.
Proportionately humans have done less than 1% of the total science done in space. To use the common anecdote - machines are currently leaving the solar system - humans are fixing the toilet on the space station. If speed is a concern then
(a) send a robot to do a robots job, they are demonstrably better at it then humans, by sheer volume of discovery.
(b) If speed at particular tasks is a concern (e.g. moving around on the surface of mars), then design a robot that does that faster. Humans can travel at a maximum of 44.72 km/h (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footspeed) - the maximum speed of a machine is only bound by the theoretical
People seem to forget the many lessons of Apollo. One of those lessons is that a knowledge person on site with relatively simple tools does a lot more and covers a lot more ground than even our best landers/rovers over the foreseeable future will do. Despite being mostly a national prestige project, Apollo got a remarkable amount of science done and radically changed our understanding of the early Solar System.
People seem to forget what actually happened which is that the actual science was done before and after Apollo by machines. Machines far less capable than what we have today. This is obvious from the transcripts from apollo - the astronauts can be heard making observations about the environs - none of which were new or unexpected.
You are gibbering on about some technicality. Either the study supports your assertion or it doesn’t.
My assertion is about what the study *observed*.
Yes, that's right. In detail: You asserted specific detail about what the study measured that is, you asserted that they asked the test subjects about whether or not climate science needed a falsifiable hypothesis. This you claim, would prove that denialists are more 'informed' than the rest of us.
Let's examine your progress on proving that assertion:
1. You failed to provide any proof that they tested for that specific element of information
2. You've failed utterly to demonstrate how it would be relevant - your little one man circle jerk about the null hypothesis is due to you own ignorance of the scientific method. In which case, denialists claiming that AGW is disproved because of a (supposed) lack of a null hypothesis do so out of ignorance - and thus your assertion is contraindicated by itself.
You fail.
Are you actually trying to say that they *didn't* observe that the more scientifically informed one was, the less likely one was to believe that human CO2 emissions are going to cause unprecedented, catastrophic global warming? Really?
That's right - I don't automatically accept something which is not proven by the methodology and results of the study. You asserted differently - you failed to prove your assertion.
So: (a) You admit that there is a greenhouse gas component of the atmosphere – and thus GHGs are climate forcing.
You've made a unsubstantiated logical leap. H2O is a greenhouse gase component of the atmosphere. Are you now going to argue that water vapor is a climate forcing, in contrast to the role it takes as a feedback in most GCMs?:)
The existence of GHGs does not mean that they *force* anything. That's an assertion, not a given:)
Has the total amount of H2O in the system changed over the period in question?
Where did this extra H2O come from? Did it come to earth in spaceships from outer space?
If the amount of H2O in the system hasn't increased how would it play a forcing role?
If we compare that to a GHG (say CO2, which has increased (from 280ppm to 392 ppm) ) how could it (the GHG) not be forcing? Explain this mechanism in detail, and show working.
Oh, and you accidentally snipped the rest of the questions, which you necessarily have to address. So I'll repeat them:
(b) Now you assert that more GHGs (by concentration) will have nil or immeasurable effect on the climate. Which raises the following questions:
1. What damping effect is counteracting the greenhouse gas effect from our emissions? Describe this effect in detail.
2. What (non GHG effect) is causing the change in climate? Describe this mechanism in detail
Hence, you imagine that you can bargain:"Give my your specific, necessary and falsifiable hypothesis statement, and I'll stop attacking straw men:)"
That's not a bargain, that's a promise:)
As I said before - your choice. Keep playing around with trolling and false premises and strawman if you so choose. It's your assertion and your credibility at stake here. If you continue with the burden of proof fallacy i.e Give my your specific, necessary and falsifiable hypothesis statement and your strawman you say that human emissions control the climate and I'll call you out on it. And you'll fail to prove your assertion since rhetoric and fallacy prove nothing. Or you can take a risk based on honesty and integrity and subject your theory to scrutiny.
Well, you'll never know unless you substantiate your claim with evidence.
I gave you direct quotes from the ACTUAL STUDY, and you ignored them with the weak sauce argument that "scientifically informed" means "scientifically informed about something specific and unstated about climate science"
You are gibbering on about some technicality. Either the study supports your assertion or it doesn’t. At the moment, the latter applies, until some actual evidence is presented from you.
Implicit in that assertion is that denialists know the correct context in which a hypothesis is used in science, and the rest of us do not.
The fact that you think that a falsifiable hypothesis has a "correct context" in science is a sure fire sign that you don't understand how *fundamental* it is:)
The science game *starts* with a falsifiable hypothesis.
Bone up on the scientific method and get back to us.
More likely then, denialists are merely ignorant of what that hypothesis is (that CO2 absorbs light in a short spectra and emits it in a longer spectra - it's a greenhouse gas),
Now you're projecting your own ignorance - skeptics don't doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
Get to grips with the rainbow of self contradictory and externally contradictory things your movement asserts and get back to us.
what skeptics doubt is that you can move from the simple proposition that CO2 is a greenhouse gas to the following unfounded leaps:
1) human CO2 emissions drive global average temperature;
Either your understanding of the theory is woefully inadequate for debating at this level, or you are attempting to burn a strawman. Get back to us with an accurate description of the theory.
2) higher global average temperatures are going to be catastrophic. If the only hypothesis you wish to defend is "CO2 is a greenhouse gas", then you'll get no argument from me.
So: (a) You admit that there is a greenhouse gas component of the atmosphere – and thus GHGs are climate forcing. (b) Now you assert that more GHGs (by concentration) will have nil or immeasurable effect on the climate. Which raises the following questions:
1. What damping effect is counteracting the greenhouse gas effect from our emissions? Describe this effect in detail.
2. What (non GHG effect) is causing the change in climate?
Just to be clear, you are not in a position to make bargains. You are free to continue to propose and then attack straw men
So you see this as some sort of negotiation?:)
Not at all. Chances are, I know what this is, and you do not. Hence, you imagine that you can bargain:Give my your specific, necessary and falsifiable hypothesis statement, and I'll stop attacking straw men:)
When you don't propose a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis you're willing to stand behind, all I have is straw men to attack - if you prefer complaining about the straw men I construct on your behalf, you're more than welcome to actually *propose* something:)
Very well, I propose we get back to the topic on hand, and discuss your alternate theory on the recent climate change phenomenon. How does that proposal grab ya?
Please elaborate on why a molecule of CO2 would behave differently in the atmosphere compared to an experimental sample.
It doesn't *behave* differently, it has a different *effect*. Yes, it absorbs the same spectra in the wild as in the test tube, but effect it has on the ambient temperature of the test tube, under simplified and controlled
I don't make a habit of "admitting" to assertions that are not supported by evidence
And apparently you can't admit to assertions that are supported by evidence either:)
Well, you'll never know unless you substantiate your claim with evidence.
As for informed => discrete information It always implies that. The difference between an informed person and an uninformed person is a discrete set of information that the informed person has and the uninformed person doesn't.
You're again failing to listen well - remember, I've specified that the discrete information in question (being "scientifically informed") is the understanding of the importance of the falsifiable hypothesis statement.
Implicit in that assertion is that denialists know the correct context in which a hypothesis is used in science, and the rest of us do not. However, available empirical data indicates the opposite. By which I mean, I understand the concept, and you do not - despite being repeatedly corrected by myself and others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis. More likely then, denialists are merely ignorant of what that hypothesis is (that CO2 absorbs light in a short spectra and emits it in a longer spectra - it's a greenhouse gas), being befuddled, as they are, by conspiracy theory and logical fallacy.
So it seems that your assertion "Denialists are better informed about the use of a hypothesis as a scientific method" is debunked - and thus the original assertion: "The difference between denialists and mainstream climatologists are that the former are better informed" is still unproven due to lack of evidence.
Give my your specific, necessary and falsifiable hypothesis statement, and I'll stop attacking straw men:)
Just to be clear, you are not in a position to make bargains. You are free to continue to propose and then attack strawmen, but your assertion won't progress until you provide some objective and measurable proof. Attempts at strawmen don't work, neither does the burden of proof fallacy, the special pleading, the false analogy. It doesn't actually phase me if you want to continue to fail. Fail as much as you like.
Please elaborate on why a molecule of CO2 would behave differently in the atmosphere compared to an experimental sample.
Please elaborate on why a molecule of CO2 will behave in an identical manner in a complex atmosphere, compared to a limited and simplified experimental model:)
You seemed to have inadvertently failed to actually address the question. Please elaborate on why a molecule of CO2 would behave differently in the atmosphere compared to an experimental sample.
1. What is causing the change in temperature?
The same natural forces that have always caused changes in temperature in the past. No reason to invoke any sort of special pleading for observations that fall well within natural variability.
What specifically is varying over the timeframe in question? How and where have you measured this variation? Please provide the observational data and describe the empirical link between the variant 'input' and the observed variation in climate.
2. If the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is from natural causes, what happened to the CO2 that we emitted?
Google "buffer solution".
It's your solution, you describe it.
3. Why would the radiative properties of CO2 change from a sample atmosphere into the actual atmosphere?
They don't.
So: CO2 in the atmosphere still absorbs a short wave spectra of light and emit
Actually it's a content driven site, and by the numbers, most of the content is not sourced in the US, and neither are the comments. Who actually cares where it is hosted?
You did it again - rushed in and contradicted yourself several times. Slow down, take a chill pill, and you might be able to construct a coherent defence of your assertion (albeit not a factual one).
Already discussed/debunked in previous reply.
No, you simply ignored it, and decided to try to make a distinction between "scientifically informed" and "scientific literacy":)
I didn't try. No try about it. In any case, you highlight the same distinction yourself further down.
Why can't you admit that the study's observations clearly support my statement "The more scientifically informed one was, the less likely one was to believe that human CO2 emissions are going to cause unprecedented, catastrophic global warming."?
I don't make a habit of "admitting" to assertions that are not supported by evidence. And noting we are now about 8 deep into this conversation and you are yet to produce any evidence for this assertion, in reference to or independent of the study.
I'll now elaborate in full (again) I'd recommend you read what I say before rushing out to shoot your mouth off.
Okay, let's take a look at your elaboration:
"You asserted that the difference between these subjects is some discrete knowledge (K) on climate change, such that:
s(l) = s(h) + K "
Now, how exactly did you come up with "more scientifically informed" == "some discrete knowledge on climate change"?
From your assertion. Would you like me to quote it back to you?
As for informed => discrete information It always implies that. The difference between an informed person and an uninformed person is a discrete set of information that the informed person has and the uninformed person doesn't.
But I accept the implicit explanation that you may not have understood the distinction between "informed" and "intelligence/ability" at the time of you first post.
"More scientifically informed" is not the same as "more scientifically informed on chemistry" or "more scientifically informed on the radiative properties of nuclear materials" or "more scientifically informed on astronomy" -> it is simply a *general* measure of scientific understanding.
You keep trying to fit my words into something you can attack, but you're arguing with your own straw men, not my position:)
Fair enough - then perhaps you actually meant to use the term in the sense that the study uses the term "scientifically literate" in that the subject denialist in question was generally intelligent, and perhaps knew a lot about other branches of science, but was in fact ignorant of the science of climate change (not "more informed") as you erroneously, but perhaps, unintentionally, stated earlier on. In which case, their view on the risks associated with climate change doesn't arise from better knowledge on the subject (as your earlier postulated).
This view would fit, I admit, fit with the outcomes of the study. I'm happy either way.
The study proposes to test the underlying assumptions of SCT. In order to do that, they use a hypothesis. This hypothesis turns out to be false. From this you draw a conclusion that was not tested for.
No, from this *they* drew a conclusion that was not tested for:) I'm simply stating their observations, and pointing out the silliness of their untested conclusion:)
Well, their conclusion was that SCT was at least partially falsified - this seems completely justified given the methodology. The postulation on CCT (an alternative theory explaining the unjustified evaluation of climate change risks) was simply postulation and they didn't claim it was proven by their study. Maybe you should read it more carefully ne
You need maybe to adopt of the discipline of reading through the whole post BEFORE you start replying - this way, you will not be re-asserting things in your reply which I have already debunked in the one you are attempting to reply to. Thus:
I did read the actual study, and apparently you didn't:)
Again, from the ACTUAL STUDY:
"Contrary to SCT predictions, higher degrees of science literacy and numeracy are associated with a small decrease in the perceived seriousness of climate change risks. "
Already discussed/debunked in previous reply.
So again You can't tell the difference between generalised scientific literacy/numerical ability and knowledge of a very specific subject?
I can absolutely tell the difference, but apparently you can't - let's try again. Here's my statement:
"The more scientifically informed one was, the less likely one was to believe that human CO2 emissions are going to cause unprecedented, catastrophic global warming."
Apparently you don't understand that "scientifically informed" == "scientific literacy":)
I understand that it doesn't. Apparently you don't. If you'd bothered at any point to actually examine what i was asking you, you would have seen that distinction was there all along. I'll now elaborate in full (again) I'd recommend you read what I say before rushing out to shoot your mouth off.
Let's simplify the findings of the study to 2 subjects:
s(l) : considers the risks of climate change to be low
s(h): considers the risks of climate change to be high
You asserted that the difference between these subjects is some discrete knowledge (K) on climate change, such that:
s(l) = s(h) + K
But in order for the study to test that, the (the authors) would have to know what K was. K would need to be discrete and known. The subject s(l) would be able to express this knowledge and s(h) would become s(l).
According to you, they couldn't have tested for K, because if they did, they would be sceptics and wouldn't have concluded as they did.
Your theory contradicts itself.
And another thing.
The study proposes to test the underlying assumptions of SCT. In order to do that, they use a hypothesis. This hypothesis turns out to be false. From this you draw a conclusion that was not tested for. Your methodology is unscientific. Go away and test your theory and get back to us.
I propose that if you are really concerned about the detail of the study and what it was testing that we contact the authors and ask them to clarify their usage of the term "scientific literacy" given that it seems to be causing grief. What do you say?
You deny previously admitting that the science was falsifiable - except below you admit it again.
You're being obtuse, yet again. You apparently cannot tell the difference between "CO2 has specific absorption properties" and "human CO2 emissions are going to cause catastrophic global warming". The two are *not* equivalent:)
Actually the baseline calculation (based on the atmosphere as a single cell and averaging the results of secondary effects (sinks and secondary forcings)) does lead to significant warming. This is simply a matter of applying the laws of thermodynamics. Hence the reason that scientists began building models as soon as this calculation was done and before any climate change was observed.
Hence also the reason that Richard Lindzen who, like you, doesn't deny the basic science, proposes a model of gravitational lensing to counteract the extra heat arising from increased greenhouse gases. If there was no heat, why would he need to postulate a counterbalance?
You assert a very precise theory: that the effects of all that CO2 will be no effect to trivial effect on global climate.
So you couldn't cite the relevant finding? Safe to assume then, that there was no such finding.
Sure I could - but it doesn't seem you had the same reading comprehension ability. Let me help you:
From the article: "A US government-funded survey has found that Americans with higher levels of scientific and mathematical knowledge are more sceptical regarding the dangers of climate change than their more poorly educated fellow citizens."
You were tricked by a poorly worded summary? More fool you. Next time read the ACTUAL STUDY before shooting your mouth off about what it says.
Read it twice, slowly. If you have problems with any words, please google them for definition.
I guess it's YOU that has trouble understanding words - see below.
From the actual nature article: "Contrary to SCT predictions, higher degrees of science literacy and numeracy are associated with a small decrease in the perceived seriousness of climate change risks. "
So again You can't tell the difference between generalised scientific literacy/numerical ability and knowledge of a very specific subject?
Again, if you cannot cite an actual finding from the study that supports your theory, what does it matter what you are asserting?
But you said previously that there is a falsifiable hypothesis. So which you should we believe?
Now you're just making stuff up.
You deny previously admitting that the science was falsifiable - except below you admit it again.
I agree entirely with your previous statements that there is a falsifiable hypothesis for the basic theory,
Now you're being obtuse again. While the specific absorption spectrum of CO2 (the "basic theory" as I would define it), clearly has falsifiability,
Who is being obtuse now??
taking that physical constant and extrapolating it to a complex system of climate without the additional falsifiable factors to chain it up to "human CO2 is going to cause catastrophic warming" is simply in your imagination.
Except that describes your assertion precisely. You assert a very precise theory: that the effects of all that CO2 will be no effect to trivial effect on global climate. The distinction between your assertions and climate science is that predictions from the latter are verified by models which are repeatable and falsifiable - and your assertions have no basis in reality or even plausibility.
They observed no such thing. If you wish to prove otherwise, kindly cite the relevant finding.
Sure they did.[snip]
So you couldn't cite the relevant finding? Safe to assume then, that there was no such finding.
Ignorant of what?
Believers are ignorant of the basic premise of the scientific method - that one must start off with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
But you said previously that there is a falsifiable hypothesis. So which you should we believe?
So again: What new information or model disproves the established science concerning the anthropogenic causes of climate change?
You're having a hard time reading, aren't you:)
Not really - what I am having is a hard time getting an answer that doesn't contradict your previous statements and our previous conversations.
You've claimed repeatedly in the past that climate science has no falsifiable hypothesis - and been refuted, by myself and others.
You're being obtuse again. Firstly, simply disagreeing with me isn't a refutation, it's simply a contradiction.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I agree entirely with your previous statements that there is a falsifiable hypothesis for the basic theory, and further, accepted and continue to accept you previous acquiescence concerning the falsifiability of climate models. Not sure why you disagree with yourself though.
You're confusing their postulation with their observed data.
So you don't actually accept the findings of the study. Gotcha.
They *observed* that the more scientifically informed you are, the less likely you are to believe that human CO2 emissions are going to cause unprecedented, catastrophic global warming.
They observed no such thing. If you wish to prove otherwise, kindly cite the relevant finding.
They postulate that the reason for this is that skeptics are in denial - they avoid addressing the obvious conclusion that believers are ignorant:)
Ignorant of what?
Again - the most obvious way for us to test your assertion that those who accept the science are ignorant is to tell us what fact(s) they are ignorant of. So again: What new information or model disproves the established science concerning the anthropogenic causes of climate change?
You're being obtuse again - I've given you the key bit of information that discriminates between the scientifically informed mind, and the scientifically ignorant one: the understanding of the falsifiable hypothesis as the basis for the scientific method. Being so in formed, you seem to be hell bent on remaining ignorant of this very basic premise:)
You've claimed repeatedly in the past that climate science has no falsifiable hypothesis - and been refuted, by myself and others. So clearly, this is not the new information you need to prove your assertion.
Now. Let's examine then, the state of your assertion:
1. You claimed your position was supported by the findings of the study - but you were demonstrated to be wrong, by a mere perusal of the studies findings.
2. When the actual conclusion of the study (which was based on testing the hypothesis stated by the authors) disagreed with your worldview, you postulated a different conclusion completely unrelated to the hypothesis for the study.
uh oh
3. You then made a specious claim that the science underpinning the theory of AGW was not falsifiable even though (a) you have previously claimed this, and been refuted (b) you have previously admitted that it does and (c) most appallingly, you have just postulated a conclusion unrelated to the hypothesis for the exact study in question!
How's my summary so far? Sound about right?
You're being obtuse - the claim I made was clearly based on the cited article.
Erroneously - you should read the article more carefully next time.
The "new information" you're asking for is on step removed from the "new information" that the study purports to have found.
Several, in fact, since I'm challenging your assertion not the conclusions of the study - which in summary, says that:
1. There is an established view that people don't accept the established science because they don't understand it, do to lack of ability and the complexity of the science.
2. The study challenges this theory by testing for a link between scientific literacy, numeracy (analytical ability) and "concern" about the risks of climate change. It finds that in fact, some scientifically literate people are also sceptical about the risks of climate change.
3. The study then proposes (paraphrasing here) that these results support an alternate theory "cultural cognition thesis" which asserts that people deny climate change because it challenges an underlying worldview - even scientifically literate, analytical people exhibit cognitive dissonance. In other words - sceptics aren't ignorant. They are in denial.
Whereas you are claiming that scepticism arises from being informed, by substituting the concept of 'literate' with the concept of 'informed'. Hence my direct challenge to your assertion based around the information. If you can't actually front up that information, then your assertion is disproved.
I'll assert to you that they key factor is that the more scientifically informed you are, the better you understand that science begins with a falsifiable hypothesis. Understanding that basic part of the scientific method naturally leads to skepticism of prophets of doom who don't have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for their assertions.
Very well. I'll ask again. What new information is there that would cause us to question the established science on anthropogenic climate change?
Why do you continue to deny natural climate change?
Strawman arguments? Really? Do you really think that such transparently fallacious rhetoric will convince anyone?
Desperate assertions of some vast conspiracy by a guy on the internet don't actually equate to new information.
Of course. But leaked emails that show scientific malfeasance do: http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php
At last we get down to some detail.
(a) What emails?
(b) How do these emails prove "scientific malfeance" - I'm going to assume you usage of that nonspecific term is a mistake and you meant "fraud" - please provide proof of this fraud?
(c) Please demonstrate how this fraud would disprove the anthropogenic cause of the current climate change
As for predictions of cataclysmic AGW, what is the earliest reference you can find in the past 150 years?
Not my job to fill you in - you asserted that you had new information disproving the established science - but it now comes to light you don't even know what it is you are disproving. Not a promising start....
It is certainly true that in the past you have attempted, via rhetorical means, to shift the burden of proof on to others
The burden of proof is in the affirmative.
Yep - which in this case, is you. You claimed The more scientifically informed you are, the less likely you are to believe that human CO2 emissions are going to cause unprecedented, catastrophic global warming. Where is this new information?
If that were the case, then logically there must be available information which suggests that the current warming is not caused by human emissions, and thus, the last 150 years of scientific research into the issue is wrong.
But I note that, despite repeated requests that this information be provided, it has yet to be forthcoming. I can't help wondering if these secret teachings about the causes of global warming somehow involve Xenu.
I'd argue that it's mostly the last 20 or so years of scientific research, with their unattributed fiddling with data, hiding declines, and so on that is wrong..
Desperate assertions of some vast conspiracy by a guy on the internet don't actually equate to new information.
the other 130 years don't contain the assertions of cataclysm.
Wrong again.
Most pertinently of course is that you, personally, have been repeatedly requested to provide proof of your assertion
And you, sir, have been repeatedly personally requested to provide your necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, so we can at least agree on what we're talking about:) So far, no such luck!
It is certainly true that in the past you have attempted, via rhetorical means, to shift the burden of proof on to others - and failed miserably. And you will continue to.
You are ascribing far too much weight to your own level of concern - the following illustrates why:
Suppose that, on your way to work, the route goes past a school and there is a crossing there. It seems a dire inconvenience to you to have to slow and even stop for kids crossing the road, so after due consideration you decide to simple drive on and mow down any kids crossing - thus avoiding the inconvenience. You pursue this strategy for several days, taking out a couple of kids on each occasion. You are then approached by the police. You refuse to admit wrongdoing because you remain unconvinced that the lives of a few children are worth you inconvenience.
But your scepticism and opinion in this case count for nothing - what matters is responsibility (you are responsible for you own decisions and the foreseeable outcomes of those decisions) and liability (you are liable for the hurt that you do to others).
The same principles apply to climate change - we are responsible for the choices we are making, and sometime in the future, will be held liable for those choices.
The more scientifically informed you are, the less likely you are to believe that human CO2 emissions are going to cause unprecedented, catastrophic global warming.
If that were the case, then logically there must be available information which suggests that the current warming is not caused by human emissions, and thus, the last 150 years of scientific research into the issue is wrong.
But I note that, despite repeated requests that this information be provided, it has yet to be forthcoming. I can't help wondering if these secret teachings about the causes of global warming somehow involve Xenu.
Most pertinently of course is that you, personally, have been repeatedly requested to provide proof of your assertion that CO2 is ineffective as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (despite being experimentally effective) whilst simultaneously, some other orthagonal effect is causing the exact same rate of warming as the models predicted from CO2. So far, no information of that kind has come to light.
Well the sun actually does shine all the time - but you are right in that it is not always practical to say, create the transmission lines that would be required to capture over an unconcentrated area of that size. Hence the reason that Germany and in fact all proponents of solar power see it as an element in a mix of solutions - providing for peak loads (which in most places happen during the day) whilst relying on other sources at night. In my country we have abundant sources of energy - huge supplies of uranium, a geological dome of hot rock sufficient in fact, to power about 75% of the country just by itself, abundant supplies of sunlight, huge swathes of undeveloped land facing the southern trade winds. What is blocking us is simply ideology.
As I understand it, Germany's Feed In Tariff on green energy is almost the retail price of power (they buy energy produced by solar panels at hugely subsidized prices and charge consumers the tariff to cover it).
As I understand it, subsidies for other forms of electricity generation are just as large, if not larger - it's just a different form of accounting. For example, the coal industry pays next to nothing for our coal which they mine from our ground, and then later on, we pay to clean up the CO2 and other pollutants that they leave lying around.
Oh, and combine this with other generation systems? Good luck with that; taking half your generating capacity offline for an hour or two (but not every day, and not always half) is a major problem.
It's fairly normal for large parts of the electricity generation system to be offline - gas fired plants are fired up to meet peak capacity and are otherwise idle, coal plants have huge, complex turbines, and frequently have one or more of these turbines offline for maintenance, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
I asserted the following: "they found that the more scientifically informed one was, the less likely one was to believe that human CO2 emissions are going to cause unprecedented, catastrophic global warming". I did not assert that they asked any sort of specific question.
You said: I'll assert to you that they key factor is that the more scientifically informed you are, the better you understand that science begins with a falsifiable hypothesis. Understanding that basic part of the scientific method naturally leads to skepticism of prophets of doom who don't have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for their assertions.
In other words, for you to be right the researchers must have enquired specifically about the scientific method
You therefore DID assert that they specifically tested for that snippet of information - if they did not (as you now seemed to be admitting), then there is no way that the study could support your assertion - and thus the assertion is disproved. Even before we get to test your assertion about the supposed problem with the hypotheses.
In which case, denialists claiming that AGW is disproved because of a (supposed) lack of a null hypothesis do so out of ignorance
You gotta put down the sauce. There is no lack of a null hypothesis - it clearly is that observed climate change in the 20th century had the same causes as observed climate change in past century - natural causes.
Yep - that is your hypothesis. Have you tested this hypothesis? And what were the results? Make specific reference to the following issues:
1. Your hypothesis assumes that our own GHG emissions have a nil or otherwise immeasurable effect on climate. Provide observational data and a falsifiable model.
2. Your hypothesis assumes that there is a variation in one the natural inputs into climate. What is causing the change in temperature? What specific forcing is varying over the timeframe in question? For clarity the timeframe in question being the period post the industrial revolution, when it was predicted that our emissions would cause a change in climate (per Tyndall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall , Arrhenius, and others) and a corresponding warming was subsequently observed. Also: How and where have you measured this variation? Please provide the observational data and describe the empirical link between the variant 'input' and the observed variation in climate.
What is lacking is a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for the proposition that human CO2 emissions are going to cause catastrophic warming, on *any* time period.
What are you blathering on about? If you think that the observed warming is due to natural variation, then by all means, elucidate your findings in detail and publish them for review. If you think there is a problem with the already published science that ascribes this warming to be the warming predicted since the early days of climatology (due to human emissions of GHGs), then by all means, propose a study that disproves the established theory, conduct the study, and publish your findings. Nobody owes you an explanation. Nobody has to, or will, describe the science in great detail or defend it, as if the burden of proof lies with anyone but you.
1. What is causing the change in temperature? What specific forcing is varying over the timeframe in question?
So just to be clear, you're asserting that if we canno
The US was mainly known as a country of merchants, of traders. Never a country of intellectuals and scientists. The space program had more to do with the cold war, with military applications, than with science or even exploration for its own sake.
Arguing for a space program because it will lead to more scientists is just a pathetic argument even if it were true, which it probably isn't. A space program should stand or fall on its own merits.
Agreed. But I would say that space exploration does have merit, and I find it dead interesting. I don't see the benefit of sending a humans, i'm no more represented by another human than a probe or robot.
If the majority of Americans don't care about space or lacks curiosity about what might be 'out there' then perhaps what's left of the US space program should be ended. Who cares about "boldly going" anywhere when American Idol or a football or baseball game is on?
I suppose they could put the money saved from NASA toward furthering the police state and security theatre. Americans may not like spending money on space exploration, but I suppose they are quite content with spending billions to be able to pretend that they are safe from bogeyman terrorists. We'll lose some astronauts, but gain more TSA agents or, if we're lucky even more invasive xray machines that will 'protect us' from body bombs. That way the majority can have the society that they so richly deserve.
Kinda pessimistic view there. But I'm not American, so I can't tell you what to do or where your country is at. I would say that there are many interesting things still to do, and these should have our focus - fusion and advance forms of fission energy, hydrogen based fuels.
There's a reason why every time someone wants to demonstrate that humans are superior to rovers or probes, they use Mars. It's because everywhere else, robots are the clear winners. Venus - too hot for humans, too big to land them and have them take off again. Asteroids - too small, human propulsion would fail. Outer planets - too far away, too much gravity or radiation. In every other case, machines are clearly superior.
And Mars is boring. Easily the most boring planet in the solar system. Why we should we waste time and money on Mars when we could visit the exciting places - Europa, Titan, Venus, Neptune. Sniff at comets, poke at asteroids.
I think you and a lot of people seem to think that the immediately foreseeable best result is always the best one.
I would say that I, like many people, have very narrow parameters when it comes to predictions about the future. I don't envision a return to the steam era of train travel, of horse and buggies, or of manned spaceflight. I don't envision us returning to the technology of yesteryear because the circumstances where that sort of things happen are very rare, and in that circumstance I don't imagine spaceflight will be a priority anyway.
Of course it can be cheaper if it's done with drones, but do we plan on doing everything in space with drones?
Yes - minus some tourism or historical re-enactments.
You first have to actually get established and work out all the kinks before you decide one and only one method is the best method. You can do BOTH of them at the same time. Humans with robots augmenting them and cut down on the manpower. But getting humans there, having the first hand knowledge of operating in space, of finding problems and resolving them, having the entire concept of living in space develop over time is extremely important.
I've heard this said before, but unfortunately usual result is I end up hearing some magical thinking. If you have a reason that human spaceflight is important that is not linked to magical thinking, then I'd be happy to think on it.
1. Mobility: humans are more mobile than probes. This ignores the fact that, for a fraction of the cost of sending a human (say 50%) a robot could be developed and sent which was far more mobile than a human. Robots also don't need to be trained or selected - astronauts have a fixed cost per unit that doesn't reduce significantly by volume - 10 astronauts cost approximately 10x as much as one astronaut. Whereas the per unit cost of a robotic probe reduces per unit at volume - building 10 probes doesn't cost 10 times as much as building a single one.
2. Presupposing that humans are better at drilling than robots. However, this fails once again to take into account that the constraint is the size of the drill - human missions require larger rockets, which coincidentally allows for a larger drill to be carried. Robotic missions launch with smaller rockets. Solution: use the big rocket. Launch a couple of probes at once, with big, capable drills. No need for the spurious meat bag attachment.
Honestly, I think the idea Dr. Tyson has is that a mission to Mars would get the American public interested in science again.
Did the last mission to mars do that? Did the one before? Or did public interest in Mars spike and then wane over time - much like public interest in the Moon spiked, and then waned post Apollo?
It's easy to forget apparently, that Apollo was cancelled because people lost interest and the benefits of sending more astronauts to the Moon could not be quantified against the quantified cost.
I don't know if you are aware that in America superstition and anti-intellectualism is winning more and more each day, among other issues highlighted by this 'evolution v. intelligent design debate'. Currently we spend more on war/defense (over 1 trillion dollars) in a single year than we have given NASA in it's entire history (somewhere around 5-600bn dollars over the course of it's 50+ year history).
I doubt very much that anti-intellectualism can be stymied by more iconoclastic anti-intellectualism, such as insisting that missions to other planets include humans in them.
These days not many Americans children dream of being astronauts or physicists or much of anything scientific. I'm sure there are some, but it's nowhere near where it was back when we were going to the moon.
I wouldn't rush to judgement about what American children dream about - although I suspect that many of them dream of having a stable home free from worry about how the mortgage might be paid. In any case, what children dream of doing career wise has little or none to do with what they actually decide to do as adults. Thus to inspire people career wise you need to appeal to young adults who are deciding what to specialise in - not children.
The idea is getting the public excited via something tangible, like being the first to put a person on Mars would increase excitement/passion for science which would hopefully then increase ingenuity and critical thinking in this country, giving us the passion to reach for greater things, as well as improving education, providing more research/project money, and any number of side benefits this excitement/passion would have.
The cost of a mission to Mars would be small in the face of results like that. At least, Dr. Tyson believes so. As do I.
Hard to see how getting the public excited about the human drama of sending a human to Mars would make them excited about something completely different, which is science. It didn't work last time. Why would it work this time?
I've an idea. Let science be science. Instead of advocating the scientific funding be spent on non - science (human space travel), advocate that it be spent on science.
Indeed. In short, the kind of thinking on space science that requires humans to be there and doing it by hand as a kind of pre-requisite to doing it at all is magical thinking. I doubt that you can fight magical thinking (e.g climate denialism) with more magical thinking.
Furthermore, I'm a bit skeptical about projects like flying to Mars, which are good PR, probably very good for engineering and technology, but not that exciting from scientific prospective.
I guess that depends on whether you think vastly more science done on the surface of Mars in real time (rather than a small amount staggered out over decades) is exciting or not.
Proportionately humans have done less than 1% of the total science done in space. To use the common anecdote - machines are currently leaving the solar system - humans are fixing the toilet on the space station. If speed is a concern then
(a) send a robot to do a robots job, they are demonstrably better at it then humans, by sheer volume of discovery.
(b) If speed at particular tasks is a concern (e.g. moving around on the surface of mars), then design a robot that does that faster. Humans can travel at a maximum of 44.72 km/h (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footspeed) - the maximum speed of a machine is only bound by the theoretical
People seem to forget the many lessons of Apollo. One of those lessons is that a knowledge person on site with relatively simple tools does a lot more and covers a lot more ground than even our best landers/rovers over the foreseeable future will do. Despite being mostly a national prestige project, Apollo got a remarkable amount of science done and radically changed our understanding of the early Solar System.
People seem to forget what actually happened which is that the actual science was done before and after Apollo by machines. Machines far less capable than what we have today. This is obvious from the transcripts from apollo - the astronauts can be heard making observations about the environs - none of which were new or unexpected.
You are gibbering on about some technicality. Either the study supports your assertion or it doesn’t.
My assertion is about what the study *observed*.
Yes, that's right. In detail: You asserted specific detail about what the study measured that is, you asserted that they asked the test subjects about whether or not climate science needed a falsifiable hypothesis. This you claim, would prove that denialists are more 'informed' than the rest of us.
Let's examine your progress on proving that assertion:
1. You failed to provide any proof that they tested for that specific element of information
2. You've failed utterly to demonstrate how it would be relevant - your little one man circle jerk about the null hypothesis is due to you own ignorance of the scientific method. In which case, denialists claiming that AGW is disproved because of a (supposed) lack of a null hypothesis do so out of ignorance - and thus your assertion is contraindicated by itself.
You fail.
Are you actually trying to say that they *didn't* observe that the more scientifically informed one was, the less likely one was to believe that human CO2 emissions are going to cause unprecedented, catastrophic global warming? Really?
That's right - I don't automatically accept something which is not proven by the methodology and results of the study. You asserted differently - you failed to prove your assertion.
So: (a) You admit that there is a greenhouse gas component of the atmosphere – and thus GHGs are climate forcing.
You've made a unsubstantiated logical leap. H2O is a greenhouse gase component of the atmosphere. Are you now going to argue that water vapor is a climate forcing, in contrast to the role it takes as a feedback in most GCMs? :)
The existence of GHGs does not mean that they *force* anything. That's an assertion, not a given :)
Has the total amount of H2O in the system changed over the period in question?
Where did this extra H2O come from? Did it come to earth in spaceships from outer space?
If the amount of H2O in the system hasn't increased how would it play a forcing role?
If we compare that to a GHG (say CO2, which has increased (from 280ppm to 392 ppm) ) how could it (the GHG) not be forcing? Explain this mechanism in detail, and show working.
Oh, and you accidentally snipped the rest of the questions, which you necessarily have to address. So I'll repeat them:
(b) Now you assert that more GHGs (by concentration) will have nil or immeasurable effect on the climate. Which raises the following questions:
1. What damping effect is counteracting the greenhouse gas effect from our emissions? Describe this effect in detail.
2. What (non GHG effect) is causing the change in climate? Describe this mechanism in detail
Hence, you imagine that you can bargain:"Give my your specific, necessary and falsifiable hypothesis statement, and I'll stop attacking straw men :)"
That's not a bargain, that's a promise :)
As I said before - your choice. Keep playing around with trolling and false premises and strawman if you so choose. It's your assertion and your credibility at stake here. If you continue with the burden of proof fallacy i.e Give my your specific, necessary and falsifiable hypothesis statement and your strawman you say that human emissions control the climate and I'll call you out on it. And you'll fail to prove your assertion since rhetoric and fallacy prove nothing. Or you can take a risk based on honesty and integrity and subject your theory to scrutiny.
Entirely your choice.
Very well, I propose we
I gave you direct quotes from the ACTUAL STUDY, and you ignored them with the weak sauce argument that "scientifically informed" means "scientifically informed about something specific and unstated about climate science"
You are gibbering on about some technicality. Either the study supports your assertion or it doesn’t. At the moment, the latter applies, until some actual evidence is presented from you.
Implicit in that assertion is that denialists know the correct context in which a hypothesis is used in science, and the rest of us do not.
The fact that you think that a falsifiable hypothesis has a "correct context" in science is a sure fire sign that you don't understand how *fundamental* it is :)
The science game *starts* with a falsifiable hypothesis.
Bone up on the scientific method and get back to us.
Now you're projecting your own ignorance - skeptics don't doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
Get to grips with the rainbow of self contradictory and externally contradictory things your movement asserts and get back to us.
what skeptics doubt is that you can move from the simple proposition that CO2 is a greenhouse gas to the following unfounded leaps:
1) human CO2 emissions drive global average temperature;
Either your understanding of the theory is woefully inadequate for debating at this level, or you are attempting to burn a strawman. Get back to us with an accurate description of the theory.
So: (a) You admit that there is a greenhouse gas component of the atmosphere – and thus GHGs are climate forcing. (b) Now you assert that more GHGs (by concentration) will have nil or immeasurable effect on the climate. Which raises the following questions:
1. What damping effect is counteracting the greenhouse gas effect from our emissions? Describe this effect in detail.
2. What (non GHG effect) is causing the change in climate?
So you see this as some sort of negotiation? :)
Not at all. Chances are, I know what this is, and you do not. Hence, you imagine that you can bargain:Give my your specific, necessary and falsifiable hypothesis statement, and I'll stop attacking straw men :)
When you don't propose a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis you're willing to stand behind, all I have is straw men to attack - if you prefer complaining about the straw men I construct on your behalf, you're more than welcome to actually *propose* something :)
Very well, I propose we get back to the topic on hand, and discuss your alternate theory on the recent climate change phenomenon. How does that proposal grab ya?
It doesn't *behave* differently, it has a different *effect*. Yes, it absorbs the same spectra in the wild as in the test tube, but effect it has on the ambient temperature of the test tube, under simplified and controlled
I don't make a habit of "admitting" to assertions that are not supported by evidence
And apparently you can't admit to assertions that are supported by evidence either :)
Well, you'll never know unless you substantiate your claim with evidence.
As for informed => discrete information It always implies that. The difference between an informed person and an uninformed person is a discrete set of information that the informed person has and the uninformed person doesn't.
You're again failing to listen well - remember, I've specified that the discrete information in question (being "scientifically informed") is the understanding of the importance of the falsifiable hypothesis statement.
Implicit in that assertion is that denialists know the correct context in which a hypothesis is used in science, and the rest of us do not. However, available empirical data indicates the opposite. By which I mean, I understand the concept, and you do not - despite being repeatedly corrected by myself and others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis. More likely then, denialists are merely ignorant of what that hypothesis is (that CO2 absorbs light in a short spectra and emits it in a longer spectra - it's a greenhouse gas), being befuddled, as they are, by conspiracy theory and logical fallacy.
So it seems that your assertion "Denialists are better informed about the use of a hypothesis as a scientific method" is debunked - and thus the original assertion: "The difference between denialists and mainstream climatologists are that the former are better informed" is still unproven due to lack of evidence.
Give my your specific, necessary and falsifiable hypothesis statement, and I'll stop attacking straw men :)
Just to be clear, you are not in a position to make bargains. You are free to continue to propose and then attack strawmen, but your assertion won't progress until you provide some objective and measurable proof. Attempts at strawmen don't work, neither does the burden of proof fallacy, the special pleading, the false analogy. It doesn't actually phase me if you want to continue to fail. Fail as much as you like.
Please elaborate on why a molecule of CO2 would behave differently in the atmosphere compared to an experimental sample.
Please elaborate on why a molecule of CO2 will behave in an identical manner in a complex atmosphere, compared to a limited and simplified experimental model :)
You seemed to have inadvertently failed to actually address the question. Please elaborate on why a molecule of CO2 would behave differently in the atmosphere compared to an experimental sample.
1. What is causing the change in temperature?
The same natural forces that have always caused changes in temperature in the past. No reason to invoke any sort of special pleading for observations that fall well within natural variability.
What specifically is varying over the timeframe in question? How and where have you measured this variation? Please provide the observational data and describe the empirical link between the variant 'input' and the observed variation in climate.
2. If the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is from natural causes, what happened to the CO2 that we emitted?
Google "buffer solution".
It's your solution, you describe it.
3. Why would the radiative properties of CO2 change from a sample atmosphere into the actual atmosphere?
They don't.
So: CO2 in the atmosphere still absorbs a short wave spectra of light and emit
Actually it's a content driven site, and by the numbers, most of the content is not sourced in the US, and neither are the comments. Who actually cares where it is hosted?
No, you simply ignored it, and decided to try to make a distinction between "scientifically informed" and "scientific literacy" :)
I didn't try. No try about it. In any case, you highlight the same distinction yourself further down.
Why can't you admit that the study's observations clearly support my statement "The more scientifically informed one was, the less likely one was to believe that human CO2 emissions are going to cause unprecedented, catastrophic global warming."?
I don't make a habit of "admitting" to assertions that are not supported by evidence. And noting we are now about 8 deep into this conversation and you are yet to produce any evidence for this assertion, in reference to or independent of the study.
I'll now elaborate in full (again) I'd recommend you read what I say before rushing out to shoot your mouth off.
Okay, let's take a look at your elaboration:
"You asserted that the difference between these subjects is some discrete knowledge (K) on climate change, such that: s(l) = s(h) + K "
Now, how exactly did you come up with "more scientifically informed" == "some discrete knowledge on climate change"?
From your assertion. Would you like me to quote it back to you?
As for informed => discrete information It always implies that. The difference between an informed person and an uninformed person is a discrete set of information that the informed person has and the uninformed person doesn't.
But I accept the implicit explanation that you may not have understood the distinction between "informed" and "intelligence/ability" at the time of you first post.
"More scientifically informed" is not the same as "more scientifically informed on chemistry" or "more scientifically informed on the radiative properties of nuclear materials" or "more scientifically informed on astronomy" -> it is simply a *general* measure of scientific understanding.
You keep trying to fit my words into something you can attack, but you're arguing with your own straw men, not my position :)
Fair enough - then perhaps you actually meant to use the term in the sense that the study uses the term "scientifically literate" in that the subject denialist in question was generally intelligent, and perhaps knew a lot about other branches of science, but was in fact ignorant of the science of climate change (not "more informed") as you erroneously, but perhaps, unintentionally, stated earlier on. In which case, their view on the risks associated with climate change doesn't arise from better knowledge on the subject (as your earlier postulated).
This view would fit, I admit, fit with the outcomes of the study. I'm happy either way.
Well, their conclusion was that SCT was at least partially falsified - this seems completely justified given the methodology. The postulation on CCT (an alternative theory explaining the unjustified evaluation of climate change risks) was simply postulation and they didn't claim it was proven by their study. Maybe you should read it more carefully ne
I did read the actual study, and apparently you didn't :)
Again, from the ACTUAL STUDY:
"Contrary to SCT predictions, higher degrees of science literacy and numeracy are associated with a small decrease in the perceived seriousness of climate change risks. "
Already discussed/debunked in previous reply.
So again You can't tell the difference between generalised scientific literacy/numerical ability and knowledge of a very specific subject?
I can absolutely tell the difference, but apparently you can't - let's try again. Here's my statement: "The more scientifically informed one was, the less likely one was to believe that human CO2 emissions are going to cause unprecedented, catastrophic global warming." Apparently you don't understand that "scientifically informed" == "scientific literacy" :)
I understand that it doesn't. Apparently you don't. If you'd bothered at any point to actually examine what i was asking you, you would have seen that distinction was there all along. I'll now elaborate in full (again) I'd recommend you read what I say before rushing out to shoot your mouth off.
Let's simplify the findings of the study to 2 subjects:
s(l) : considers the risks of climate change to be low
s(h): considers the risks of climate change to be high
You asserted that the difference between these subjects is some discrete knowledge (K) on climate change, such that:
s(l) = s(h) + K
But in order for the study to test that, the (the authors) would have to know what K was. K would need to be discrete and known. The subject s(l) would be able to express this knowledge and s(h) would become s(l).
According to you, they couldn't have tested for K, because if they did, they would be sceptics and wouldn't have concluded as they did.
Your theory contradicts itself.
And another thing.
The study proposes to test the underlying assumptions of SCT. In order to do that, they use a hypothesis. This hypothesis turns out to be false. From this you draw a conclusion that was not tested for. Your methodology is unscientific. Go away and test your theory and get back to us.
I propose that if you are really concerned about the detail of the study and what it was testing that we contact the authors and ask them to clarify their usage of the term "scientific literacy" given that it seems to be causing grief. What do you say?
You deny previously admitting that the science was falsifiable - except below you admit it again.
You're being obtuse, yet again. You apparently cannot tell the difference between "CO2 has specific absorption properties" and "human CO2 emissions are going to cause catastrophic global warming". The two are *not* equivalent :)
Actually the baseline calculation (based on the atmosphere as a single cell and averaging the results of secondary effects (sinks and secondary forcings)) does lead to significant warming. This is simply a matter of applying the laws of thermodynamics. Hence the reason that scientists began building models as soon as this calculation was done and before any climate change was observed.
Hence also the reason that Richard Lindzen who, like you, doesn't deny the basic science, proposes a model of gravitational lensing to counteract the extra heat arising from increased greenhouse gases. If there was no heat, why would he need to postulate a counterbalance?
You assert a very precise theory: that the effects of all that CO2 will be no effect to trivial effect on global climate.
Sure I could - but it doesn't seem you had the same reading comprehension ability. Let me help you:
From the article: "A US government-funded survey has found that Americans with higher levels of scientific and mathematical knowledge are more sceptical regarding the dangers of climate change than their more poorly educated fellow citizens."
You were tricked by a poorly worded summary? More fool you. Next time read the ACTUAL STUDY before shooting your mouth off about what it says.
Read it twice, slowly. If you have problems with any words, please google them for definition.
I guess it's YOU that has trouble understanding words - see below.
From the actual nature article: "Contrary to SCT predictions, higher degrees of science literacy and numeracy are associated with a small decrease in the perceived seriousness of climate change risks. "
So again You can't tell the difference between generalised scientific literacy/numerical ability and knowledge of a very specific subject?
Again, if you cannot cite an actual finding from the study that supports your theory, what does it matter what you are asserting?
Now you're just making stuff up.
You deny previously admitting that the science was falsifiable - except below you admit it again.
I agree entirely with your previous statements that there is a falsifiable hypothesis for the basic theory,
Now you're being obtuse again. While the specific absorption spectrum of CO2 (the "basic theory" as I would define it), clearly has falsifiability,
Who is being obtuse now??
taking that physical constant and extrapolating it to a complex system of climate without the additional falsifiable factors to chain it up to "human CO2 is going to cause catastrophic warming" is simply in your imagination.
Except that describes your assertion precisely. You assert a very precise theory: that the effects of all that CO2 will be no effect to trivial effect on global climate. The distinction between your assertions and climate science is that predictions from the latter are verified by models which are repeatable and falsifiable - and your assertions have no basis in reality or even plausibility.
So you couldn't cite the relevant finding? Safe to assume then, that there was no such finding.
But you said previously that there is a falsifiable hypothesis. So which you should we believe?
You're having a hard time reading, aren't you :)
Not really - what I am having is a hard time getting an answer that doesn't contradict your previous statements and our previous conversations.
You've claimed repeatedly in the past that climate science has no falsifiable hypothesis - and been refuted, by myself and others.
You're being obtuse again. Firstly, simply disagreeing with me isn't a refutation, it's simply a contradiction.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I agree entirely with your previous statements that there is a falsifiable hypothesis for the basic theory, and further, accepted and continue to accept you previous acquiescence concerning the falsifiability of climate models. Not sure why you disagree with yourself though.
You're confusing their postulation with their observed data.
So you don't actually accept the findings of the study. Gotcha.
They *observed* that the more scientifically informed you are, the less likely you are to believe that human CO2 emissions are going to cause unprecedented, catastrophic global warming.
They observed no such thing. If you wish to prove otherwise, kindly cite the relevant finding.
They postulate that the reason for this is that skeptics are in denial - they avoid addressing the obvious conclusion that believers are ignorant :)
Ignorant of what?
Again - the most obvious way for us to test your assertion that those who accept the science are ignorant is to tell us what fact(s) they are ignorant of. So again: What new information or model disproves the established science concerning the anthropogenic causes of climate change?
You're being obtuse again - I've given you the key bit of information that discriminates between the scientifically informed mind, and the scientifically ignorant one: the understanding of the falsifiable hypothesis as the basis for the scientific method. Being so in formed, you seem to be hell bent on remaining ignorant of this very basic premise :)
You've claimed repeatedly in the past that climate science has no falsifiable hypothesis - and been refuted, by myself and others. So clearly, this is not the new information you need to prove your assertion.
Now. Let's examine then, the state of your assertion:
1. You claimed your position was supported by the findings of the study - but you were demonstrated to be wrong, by a mere perusal of the studies findings.
2. When the actual conclusion of the study (which was based on testing the hypothesis stated by the authors) disagreed with your worldview, you postulated a different conclusion completely unrelated to the hypothesis for the study.
uh oh
3. You then made a specious claim that the science underpinning the theory of AGW was not falsifiable even though (a) you have previously claimed this, and been refuted (b) you have previously admitted that it does and (c) most appallingly, you have just postulated a conclusion unrelated to the hypothesis for the exact study in question! How's my summary so far? Sound about right?
You're being obtuse - the claim I made was clearly based on the cited article.
Erroneously - you should read the article more carefully next time.
The "new information" you're asking for is on step removed from the "new information" that the study purports to have found.
Several, in fact, since I'm challenging your assertion not the conclusions of the study - which in summary, says that:
1. There is an established view that people don't accept the established science because they don't understand it, do to lack of ability and the complexity of the science.
2. The study challenges this theory by testing for a link between scientific literacy, numeracy (analytical ability) and "concern" about the risks of climate change. It finds that in fact, some scientifically literate people are also sceptical about the risks of climate change.
3. The study then proposes (paraphrasing here) that these results support an alternate theory "cultural cognition thesis" which asserts that people deny climate change because it challenges an underlying worldview - even scientifically literate, analytical people exhibit cognitive dissonance. In other words - sceptics aren't ignorant. They are in denial.
Whereas you are claiming that scepticism arises from being informed, by substituting the concept of 'literate' with the concept of 'informed'. Hence my direct challenge to your assertion based around the information. If you can't actually front up that information, then your assertion is disproved.
I'll assert to you that they key factor is that the more scientifically informed you are, the better you understand that science begins with a falsifiable hypothesis. Understanding that basic part of the scientific method naturally leads to skepticism of prophets of doom who don't have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for their assertions.
Very well. I'll ask again. What new information is there that would cause us to question the established science on anthropogenic climate change?
Why do you continue to deny natural climate change?
Strawman arguments? Really? Do you really think that such transparently fallacious rhetoric will convince anyone?
Of course. But leaked emails that show scientific malfeasance do: http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php At last we get down to some detail.
(a) What emails?
(b) How do these emails prove "scientific malfeance" - I'm going to assume you usage of that nonspecific term is a mistake and you meant "fraud" - please provide proof of this fraud?
(c) Please demonstrate how this fraud would disprove the anthropogenic cause of the current climate change
As for predictions of cataclysmic AGW, what is the earliest reference you can find in the past 150 years?
Not my job to fill you in - you asserted that you had new information disproving the established science - but it now comes to light you don't even know what it is you are disproving. Not a promising start....
The burden of proof is in the affirmative.
Yep - which in this case, is you. You claimed The more scientifically informed you are, the less likely you are to believe that human CO2 emissions are going to cause unprecedented, catastrophic global warming. Where is this new information?
And why the secrecy?
Don't you want people to know the truth?
If that were the case, then logically there must be available information which suggests that the current warming is not caused by human emissions, and thus, the last 150 years of scientific research into the issue is wrong. But I note that, despite repeated requests that this information be provided, it has yet to be forthcoming. I can't help wondering if these secret teachings about the causes of global warming somehow involve Xenu.
I'd argue that it's mostly the last 20 or so years of scientific research, with their unattributed fiddling with data, hiding declines, and so on that is wrong..
Desperate assertions of some vast conspiracy by a guy on the internet don't actually equate to new information.
the other 130 years don't contain the assertions of cataclysm.
Wrong again.
Most pertinently of course is that you, personally, have been repeatedly requested to provide proof of your assertion
And you, sir, have been repeatedly personally requested to provide your necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, so we can at least agree on what we're talking about :) So far, no such luck!
It is certainly true that in the past you have attempted, via rhetorical means, to shift the burden of proof on to others - and failed miserably. And you will continue to.
But your scepticism and opinion in this case count for nothing - what matters is responsibility (you are responsible for you own decisions and the foreseeable outcomes of those decisions) and liability (you are liable for the hurt that you do to others).
The same principles apply to climate change - we are responsible for the choices we are making, and sometime in the future, will be held liable for those choices.
The more scientifically informed you are, the less likely you are to believe that human CO2 emissions are going to cause unprecedented, catastrophic global warming.
If that were the case, then logically there must be available information which suggests that the current warming is not caused by human emissions, and thus, the last 150 years of scientific research into the issue is wrong.
But I note that, despite repeated requests that this information be provided, it has yet to be forthcoming. I can't help wondering if these secret teachings about the causes of global warming somehow involve Xenu.
Most pertinently of course is that you, personally, have been repeatedly requested to provide proof of your assertion that CO2 is ineffective as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (despite being experimentally effective) whilst simultaneously, some other orthagonal effect is causing the exact same rate of warming as the models predicted from CO2. So far, no information of that kind has come to light.
Why so secretive?
Well the sun actually does shine all the time - but you are right in that it is not always practical to say, create the transmission lines that would be required to capture over an unconcentrated area of that size. Hence the reason that Germany and in fact all proponents of solar power see it as an element in a mix of solutions - providing for peak loads (which in most places happen during the day) whilst relying on other sources at night. In my country we have abundant sources of energy - huge supplies of uranium, a geological dome of hot rock sufficient in fact, to power about 75% of the country just by itself, abundant supplies of sunlight, huge swathes of undeveloped land facing the southern trade winds. What is blocking us is simply ideology.
As I understand it, Germany's Feed In Tariff on green energy is almost the retail price of power (they buy energy produced by solar panels at hugely subsidized prices and charge consumers the tariff to cover it).
As I understand it, subsidies for other forms of electricity generation are just as large, if not larger - it's just a different form of accounting. For example, the coal industry pays next to nothing for our coal which they mine from our ground, and then later on, we pay to clean up the CO2 and other pollutants that they leave lying around.
Oh, and combine this with other generation systems? Good luck with that; taking half your generating capacity offline for an hour or two (but not every day, and not always half) is a major problem.
It's fairly normal for large parts of the electricity generation system to be offline - gas fired plants are fired up to meet peak capacity and are otherwise idle, coal plants have huge, complex turbines, and frequently have one or more of these turbines offline for maintenance, etc.
dido database solutions
Dido's into database solutions now? Guess the music career was tanking.