I liked the visual, though. I can honestly say that I don't know how cows fit into the carbon cycle and was relying purely on "common sense" — very dangerous, of course. What I've read about them mainly focuses on the relative amount of land, water, and other resources required per food calorie for cows vs. fruits and vegetables.
Anything you find you can say either "evolution did it", or if it doesn't look like a "transitional fossil", you can claim that we just haven't found the other transitional pieces yet.
As with many theories, it's partly a statistical thing. If you had more "exceptions" than "rules", then you'd have a strong argument. As it is, you don't, since almost everything we find fits into categories pre-defined by evolution. Let me ask you this: can you think of an alternative theory that would have predicted the discoveries that have been made since Darwin's version of evolution was first postulated?
When you get down to specific enough questions and predictions that you eliminate that bias, then you have genetic theory.
That's an interesting argument, but I think you might have things backwards. Are you familiar with Lamarckian evolution? Lamarckian and Darwinian evolution made separate, testable predictions about how genes were transferred from parent to child. Darwinian evolution is a theory that modern genetic theory is partly based on. Yes, Mendel's experiments are a separate component. However, if you consider Lamarckian evolution, you'll realize that Mendel's experiments by themselves do not lead to a complete picture of modern genetic theory.
Notice that a theory stands on its own, independent of the theories on which it is based.
I suggest that you let Webster/OED/etc. know that so they can update their dictionary. Thermodynamics does pretty much stand on its own as it actually predates statistical mechanics. However, would you argue that quantum chromodynamics isn't a proper theory because it is dependent on quantum mechanics Most theories in science are dependent on other theories. Sure, perhaps many of the more "lay-person theories" aren't, but that's probably why they are "lap-person theories" (those relatively easy to explain).
If the theory is still making predictions repeatable by other scientists, it's still valid.
Did you look at the link I gave you? Global warming does make predictions that can be measured by independent scientists. Would you say that most theories in astrophysics are not "real theories" because we can't use "control" stars to verify them? You have a fairly narrow view of science if you would say that.
But close. I'd point you to an article from today's front page, but that'd definitely be disingenuous because I'd be the first to point out that no single day or even season can be definitively linked to global warming. It's kind of like parenting in that way. A certain style of parenting tends to lead to ill-behaved kids, whereas another style tends to lead to well-behaved kids. However, the best parents can have an ill-behaved kid, and the worst parents can have a well-behaved kid. No single kid reflects which style of parenting is the best, and pointing out a particularly well-behaved kid being raised the right way is just as imperfect an indicator that that style is correct as pointing out a particular ill-behaved kid being raised the right way as an indicator that it's incorrect.
Anyways, if you're one of those people who only care about Americans, you're mostly right. Americans, in general, will not be hit as hard as the rest of the world. (Poetic injustice, if you will.) Of course, once those regions that are hit hard start getting desperate and/or upset, I wouldn't be surprised if we need to increase our budget on defense.
Evolution is not testable in any kind of practical way, either.
It is testable in several ways.
First, it predicts what things we will discover in future digs. One of the complaints early on in the evolution/creationism debate was a lack of transitional fossils. These fossils hadn't been discovered yet. Evolution predicted that we would find them, and we did. Creationists then pointed out that there were new transitional fossils that hadn't been discovered (any time you fill a gap between one point and another, you're creating two new, smaller gaps). Evolution predicted that we would find those, and we did. Those were testable predictions. You're probably going to say it didn't predict anything because the fossils were already buried, waiting to be discovered. That same argument could be made for electrons before they were discovered. What it predicted was the result of future experiments (digs).
Secondly, and far less importantly, it predicts a useful technique — one that I use on a regular basis in computer science. Specifically, it led to evolutionary algorithms (of which genetic algorithms are one type).
I think anyone who says they "believe in evolution" is seriously confused about science. Does anyone "believe in F=MA"?
If your point is that evolution is no more exact than F=ma, then I'll concede that point. I believe in evolution only to the same extent that I believe in quantum mechanics. It's an imperfect theory, but the best we've got.
So you don't "believe" in science, you use science to develop theories that are useful and stand up to experimentation to arrive at conclusions.
I believe in a lot of things, and science is definitely one of them. I believe in the scientific method as sure as I believe in myself.
Thermodynamics and fluid dynamics are a couple of the theories on which Global Warming conclusions are based, but Global Warming itself isn't a theory.
Global warming is definitely based on several other theories, if that's what you're after. By your reckoning, it sounds like thermodynamics isn't a proper theory since it's based on statistical mechanics. The reason that global warming and thermodynamics are theories is that they make predictions, and these predictions have been verified.
Do you understand that the left wing MSM have a vested interest in reporting and talking up all conclusions that indicate man made global warming is occuring?
No, I don't understand that. Please tell me which left wing MSM you're referring to (I wouldn't exactly call Air America "main-stream"), and then tell me what their vested interest is. (I'm guessing you're not from the US, based on your spelling of "defence", so perhaps you're referring to media over there.)
And that Hansen has indeed strayed into the MSM with his almost hysterical defence of his position.
Nope, don't understand that either. Perhaps it's my lack of understanding, but I suspect it's really because it hasn't happened.
Also do you understand that your posting is incredibly condescending.
Now, that I do understand. When someone starts using "Church of Global Warming" phrases and then makes ridiculous assertions, I do sometimes get condescending. I'll admit that being condescending is rarely a good strategy, but do you honestly think that he didn't deserve that after all of his "Church" references?
The true test for whether you should believe something or not is the question, "Is it useful?"
Sure. Who said otherwise? I was talking about the definition of hypothesis.
Does belief in the God hypothesis have an effect? Yes, it does - many people believe that it does, and feel better because of it. You may not, but that does not change what others feel.
Why don't you just change that first question to "Does belief in God have an effect?" It's not a hypothesis unless it's testable, and as I recall, the New Testament has some very harsh words about testing God.
Sometimes believing in something you can't prove is a good idea.
Absolutely. There are a lot of things I believe in that I can't prove. (God isn't one of them, but that's not your point, right?) Some of them I can't prove because I lack the wherewithal, and others because they just can't be proven. The first category includes hypotheses. The second does not. It's a definition thing, not a value judgment.
Because despite what we read, it seems more than 10% of scientists either disagree entirely, or at best, remain unconvinced.
Who are you calling scientists - people who merely claim to be a scientist (like the Oregon Petition), or people doing active research in the field? I do not know of a single climate scientist who disagrees completely, and only a very few who remain unconvinced (e.g., possibly Lindzen and Michaels).
I would point to some interesting theories being proposed which point towards solar activity playing a large role in climate change. You asked if the parent of the thread had "read any papers" on the subject...I would invite you to look at some which challenge your valued beliefs. In the spirit of science.
I've read a few of these, and they might contribute to global warming. You should note that the authors of these papers are not climate scientists, to the best of my knowledge. The ones I'm aware of are astrophysicists. Legitimate scientists, but possibly out of their league in interpreting the atmospheric effects of cosmic radiation. (In fact, they're also out of the mainstream in their own field, but that's OK.) Read some papers by Lindzen and Michaels - these are two climatologists that are often touted by the "skeptic" camp. You'll notice that they do not dispute that humans are contributing to global warming. The closest they come is saying that they're not sure that humans are the dominant factor. Most climate scientists are sure. I do not know of any that are sure we are not the dominant factor, but if you do, please let me know.
Skeptics know that NASA just had to revise the warmest year on record to 1934 instead of 1998 because their software had a Y2K bug.
Scientists (i.e., real skeptics) know that NASA just had to revise the warmest year in the US on record to 1934 instead of 1998 because of a software bug that had nothing to do with Y2K errors, although it did occur in 2000. Scientists also know that 1934 was already a very close second (in the US), and happened during the US dust bowl. Scientists know the difference between local climate and global climate.
Skeptics know that climate models don't account for solar variation, especially sunspot activity which affects precipitation.
Scientists know that climate models do account for solar variation, and that despite having just come out of a sunspot minimum, we were still setting temperature records.
Skeptics know that the rate of global warming is falling.
Scientists know that "skeptics" were claiming that 10 years ago, too. Interesting thing is that 9 of the hottest 10 years on record for the Earth (even after the NASA correction) happened in the last decade.
Skeptics know that that the economic costs of reducing CO2 emissions far outweigh the benefits.
Scientists know that the reverse is true.
Skeptics know that global warming alarmists are funded to the tune of 1000x the skeptics.
Scientists know that the alarmists are hardly funded at all, but that most climatologists are funded to do their research regardless of its outcome, whereas some researchers are paid by "think tanks" only if they get the "right research" (cf. the recent "bounty" announced by AEI).
Don't attack people when you really have no clue. Almost half the climatologists are skeptics and the other half gets big research grants because they aren't.
You had me until that last line. Now I know you're just being funny. Go to a climatology journal and see how many "skeptics" you can find. (By "skeptic", I assume you mean someone who thinks that AGW isn't real.)
I'm not sure if everyone becoming vegetarian would have a real impact on carbon footprint. not like you have to pump carbon out of the ground to feed your cows.
It's exactly like that: grass (carbon) in, methane (carbon) out. As far as solar efficiency goes, eating vegetables and fruit is the most efficient way to move solar energy into your body. Just like with any system, adding a middleman (or cow), increases overhead.
If it's not testable, it's just a conjecture. If you want to argue that just because no one hasn't found a test yet that doesn't mean it's not testable, then I'll be forced to argue that you might not even exist. I'd rather not go there.:)
So strong that you don't want to ask the candidates about their stance on global warming directly?
No, not that strong.
Me, I expect the government to ask scientific community to nominate experts in each area - such as Earth climate, economy, sociology - based on peer review process.
Me, I expect you'll be disappointed, regardless of who gets elected (Republican or Democrat). Do you really want to set yourself up for disappointment like that?:)
I would hate to have a politician declare him/herself an expert in science and implement policy based on his personal opinions.
I'd mention something about a president we once had who had a degree in nuclear engineering, but I'm afraid that'd start a real flame war. Interestingly enough, even he didn't pronounce the word correctly.:)
Aren't you missing a few groups there? In addition to "bright lazy kids and hard-working slower kids" you also have hard-working bright kids, and lazy slower kids, as well as hard-working average kids and lazy average kids. Part of the problem with 2-way tracking is that you end up with hard-working average kids, hard-working bright kids, and bright lazy kids in one group, with hard-working slower kids, lazy slower kids, and lazy average kids in the other group. Notice something? The "lower" group has more lazy kids than the "higher group". A problem is this leads to a feedback loop. It now becomes cool to be lazy in the lower group. I'm over-simplifying it, but this type of thing does happen. Of course, there is no perfect solution to this problem.
Furthermore, in addition to the quality of the teacher being important (and the poster who said the best teachers get the best groups is right, in general), the quality of the parent(s) is vital. A large number of the parents that I called about the disappointing performance of their children just didn't care. (I'm not saying parents are the only ones to blame, either.)
I'm bet a pretty penny that you'd find a strong correlation between not believing in evolution and not believing in global warming. How they defend not believing in evolution could be very instructive towards their opinions on science in general. If I had my druthers, I'd have Neil deGrasse Tyson asking the question. He would do it in a polite, non-offensive way (mostly).
Absolutely. There is obviously a correlation between the two, but there are plenty of lazy bright kids in the advanced classes and plenty of hard-working not-so-bright kids in the general/remedial level classes.
As a former public high school teacher, I speak from experience. I taught physics and AP chemistry (both classes composed of advanced 11th and 12th graders) and physical science (composed of general/remedial 9th graders). I felt really bad for the few really hard working kids in my physical science class who had to put up with the disruptions of their fellow students. (Yes, I disciplined those kids, but you can only do so much in certain school systems.) I fought to put one student who I thought was of average intelligence but very hard-working in an advanced class for the following year. Unfortunately, that didn't work out as the advanced class was too far ahead of her. I had another student who was mildly mentally retarded, but was such a hard-worker that he outperformed almost everyone else in that class.
Obviously, a far greater percentage of Firefox users use Ad Block, however. I have installed, but use it sparingly for the reasons you mention. I only disable advertisement sites that are particularly egregious in one way or the other (e.g., hovering over what I'm trying to read or making sounds). I'll allow you to try to subliminally influence me as long as you keep it subliminal.
There are legitimate scientists on both sides of the climate debate.
That really depends on what you mean by "both" sides. Almost (but not quite) all climate scientists have arrived at the conclusion that man is responsible for the majority of global warming. That's one perspective (or side, if you prefer). A few climate scientists (e.g., possibly Lindzen and Michaels) aren't sure if man is responsible for the majority of global warming, but won't rule it out, either. These climate scientists will acknowledge that man is reponsible for some of global warming — they're just not sure how much. That's a second perspective. I don't know of any climate scientists (or even other "legitimate" scientist) that thinks we aren't contributing anything to global warming. The idea that we aren't contributing anything to global warming is a third perspective.
There are legitimate debates going on but no one wants to discuss it openly.
There are legitimate debates going on openly. For example, how significant are the ice streams in Greenland and Antarctica? How will the discovery of this new ocean current affect the models? The problem is that a certain segment (and I'm not saying you're in this segment) tends to shift the debate towards making fun of Al Gore (oh, I love the endless South Park references), equating uncertainty of magnitude with uncertainty of existence, editing content out of official documents to create/elevate uncertainty, etc. I.e., they're exaggerating the uncertainty. That is not scientific.
They want to quantify their mistake to say, "We made a mistake but we're still right!"
They're doing no such thing. They're saying, "We made a mistake and have now fixed it. These people are misrepresenting the mistake to make you think that this mistake means that the 9 hottest years ever recorded for this planet didn't happen in the last decade." That last bit is the typical uncertainty and doubt coming from the anti-science side in this debate. (The fear part of the equation comes into play when they try to make you think that doing anything to fight global warming will destroy the economy.) When it comes to science and prestidigitation, I will make a choice, and that choice is science.
Since I got branded "flamebait", I want to make it clear that I wasn't painting all IE users with that brush — I was merely pointing out that they're typically less sophisticated. I'll put it another way, the less sophisticated user is much more likely to use IE, as it is the default browser on the operating system that most people use.
The direction of the change in global warming will not necessarily affect a particular region in the same direction.
Sure, not necessarily. However, there will definitely be that tendency. Nevertheless, your point is valid. One would expect global temperatures to contribute significantly to US climate, but not necessarily to increase its temperatures. (I.e., it's hard to imagine a situation where a significantly warmer world wouldn't have some effect on US climate, but one can imagine a situation where it has conflicting effects on US temperature.)
There is uncertainty about the uncertainty.
For sure. One thing I remember hearing that the recent IPCC report left out was the effect of ice streams. These streams are expect to increase the rate of melting in Greenland and Antarctica, but since they're still poorly understood, they chose to leave them out altogether. This makes the estimate for sea-level rise most likely an underestimate - although I suppose there could be another factor (unknown unknowns, as it were), that would have the reverse effect.
I guess nobody's showed them AdBlock for Opera (or even Opera's built-in "content blocker", admittedly not quite as good as the real thing since it lacks regexps, though), or Ad Muncher for IE.
Yes, but is the typical IE user... sophisticated enough to use Ad Muncher, or rather to even know it exists? (I'll make no such comment about Opera.)
I cannot "fuzz out" a can of Mountain Dew (tm) in a movie.
But you could wear special glasses that filtered the movie through a real-time AI such that you never saw that can, right?* As long as you don't redistribute, copyright law doesn't have any kind of "integrity" protection for the original piece.
And so much for which side in this debate is really trying to be scientific about it.
Oh, no. You've convinced me. You are obviously well-versed in science.
It's really damned easy to sit at your energy-sucking computer sipping your fucking $5 latte that took a few million joules of energy to heat before you drive your oh-so-fucking-energy-efficient-hybrid to your office that consumes multiple megawatts of power a day and rant about how we need to stop using fossil fuels by not exploring for it or drilling for it.
Although I admire your way with colorful adjectives, I am sipping neither $5 latte nor kool-aid. I'm drinking $0 water (not including municipal costs). As for my energy-efficient-hybrid (which I do own), I didn't use it to drive to work today - I walked. I suppose someone such as yourself who loves the terrorists enough to fund them by buying exorbitant amounts of fuel to fill up your gas-guzzling SUV, however, would find the idea of walking anywhere extremely bizarre. Too bad you can't or won't THINK about the consequences of your desires.
Starve a few million more people in Africa?
I'm interested in where you pulled that one from, but I won't ask. I've seen more than enough disturbing images to last a life-time.
Slashdot Mirror
I liked the visual, though. I can honestly say that I don't know how cows fit into the carbon cycle and was relying purely on "common sense" — very dangerous, of course. What I've read about them mainly focuses on the relative amount of land, water, and other resources required per food calorie for cows vs. fruits and vegetables.
As with many theories, it's partly a statistical thing. If you had more "exceptions" than "rules", then you'd have a strong argument. As it is, you don't, since almost everything we find fits into categories pre-defined by evolution. Let me ask you this: can you think of an alternative theory that would have predicted the discoveries that have been made since Darwin's version of evolution was first postulated?
That's an interesting argument, but I think you might have things backwards. Are you familiar with Lamarckian evolution? Lamarckian and Darwinian evolution made separate, testable predictions about how genes were transferred from parent to child. Darwinian evolution is a theory that modern genetic theory is partly based on. Yes, Mendel's experiments are a separate component. However, if you consider Lamarckian evolution, you'll realize that Mendel's experiments by themselves do not lead to a complete picture of modern genetic theory. I suggest that you let Webster/OED/etc. know that so they can update their dictionary. Thermodynamics does pretty much stand on its own as it actually predates statistical mechanics. However, would you argue that quantum chromodynamics isn't a proper theory because it is dependent on quantum mechanics Most theories in science are dependent on other theories. Sure, perhaps many of the more "lay-person theories" aren't, but that's probably why they are "lap-person theories" (those relatively easy to explain). Did you look at the link I gave you? Global warming does make predictions that can be measured by independent scientists. Would you say that most theories in astrophysics are not "real theories" because we can't use "control" stars to verify them? You have a fairly narrow view of science if you would say that.But close. I'd point you to an article from today's front page, but that'd definitely be disingenuous because I'd be the first to point out that no single day or even season can be definitively linked to global warming. It's kind of like parenting in that way. A certain style of parenting tends to lead to ill-behaved kids, whereas another style tends to lead to well-behaved kids. However, the best parents can have an ill-behaved kid, and the worst parents can have a well-behaved kid. No single kid reflects which style of parenting is the best, and pointing out a particularly well-behaved kid being raised the right way is just as imperfect an indicator that that style is correct as pointing out a particular ill-behaved kid being raised the right way as an indicator that it's incorrect.
Anyways, if you're one of those people who only care about Americans, you're mostly right. Americans, in general, will not be hit as hard as the rest of the world. (Poetic injustice, if you will.) Of course, once those regions that are hit hard start getting desperate and/or upset, I wouldn't be surprised if we need to increase our budget on defense.
It is testable in several ways.
First, it predicts what things we will discover in future digs. One of the complaints early on in the evolution/creationism debate was a lack of transitional fossils. These fossils hadn't been discovered yet. Evolution predicted that we would find them, and we did. Creationists then pointed out that there were new transitional fossils that hadn't been discovered (any time you fill a gap between one point and another, you're creating two new, smaller gaps). Evolution predicted that we would find those, and we did. Those were testable predictions. You're probably going to say it didn't predict anything because the fossils were already buried, waiting to be discovered. That same argument could be made for electrons before they were discovered. What it predicted was the result of future experiments (digs).
Secondly, and far less importantly, it predicts a useful technique — one that I use on a regular basis in computer science. Specifically, it led to evolutionary algorithms (of which genetic algorithms are one type).
If your point is that evolution is no more exact than F=ma, then I'll concede that point. I believe in evolution only to the same extent that I believe in quantum mechanics. It's an imperfect theory, but the best we've got.I believe in a lot of things, and science is definitely one of them. I believe in the scientific method as sure as I believe in myself.
Global warming is definitely based on several other theories, if that's what you're after. By your reckoning, it sounds like thermodynamics isn't a proper theory since it's based on statistical mechanics. The reason that global warming and thermodynamics are theories is that they make predictions, and these predictions have been verified.It seems that there is a rift in the space-time continuum somewhere, because I didn't mention proofs. I said testable, which is not the same thing.
You obviously don't know Captain Splendid... :D
(Just kidding, Captain!)
If it's not testable, it's just a conjecture. If you want to argue that just because no one hasn't found a test yet that doesn't mean it's not testable, then I'll be forced to argue that you might not even exist. I'd rather not go there. :)
Aren't you missing a few groups there? In addition to "bright lazy kids and hard-working slower kids" you also have hard-working bright kids, and lazy slower kids, as well as hard-working average kids and lazy average kids. Part of the problem with 2-way tracking is that you end up with hard-working average kids, hard-working bright kids, and bright lazy kids in one group, with hard-working slower kids, lazy slower kids, and lazy average kids in the other group. Notice something? The "lower" group has more lazy kids than the "higher group". A problem is this leads to a feedback loop. It now becomes cool to be lazy in the lower group. I'm over-simplifying it, but this type of thing does happen. Of course, there is no perfect solution to this problem.
Furthermore, in addition to the quality of the teacher being important (and the poster who said the best teachers get the best groups is right, in general), the quality of the parent(s) is vital. A large number of the parents that I called about the disappointing performance of their children just didn't care. (I'm not saying parents are the only ones to blame, either.)
Absolutely. There is obviously a correlation between the two, but there are plenty of lazy bright kids in the advanced classes and plenty of hard-working not-so-bright kids in the general/remedial level classes.
As a former public high school teacher, I speak from experience. I taught physics and AP chemistry (both classes composed of advanced 11th and 12th graders) and physical science (composed of general/remedial 9th graders). I felt really bad for the few really hard working kids in my physical science class who had to put up with the disruptions of their fellow students. (Yes, I disciplined those kids, but you can only do so much in certain school systems.) I fought to put one student who I thought was of average intelligence but very hard-working in an advanced class for the following year. Unfortunately, that didn't work out as the advanced class was too far ahead of her. I had another student who was mildly mentally retarded, but was such a hard-worker that he outperformed almost everyone else in that class.
Obviously, a far greater percentage of Firefox users use Ad Block, however. I have installed, but use it sparingly for the reasons you mention. I only disable advertisement sites that are particularly egregious in one way or the other (e.g., hovering over what I'm trying to read or making sounds). I'll allow you to try to subliminally influence me as long as you keep it subliminal.
Since I got branded "flamebait", I want to make it clear that I wasn't painting all IE users with that brush — I was merely pointing out that they're typically less sophisticated. I'll put it another way, the less sophisticated user is much more likely to use IE, as it is the default browser on the operating system that most people use.
For sure. One thing I remember hearing that the recent IPCC report left out was the effect of ice streams. These streams are expect to increase the rate of melting in Greenland and Antarctica, but since they're still poorly understood, they chose to leave them out altogether. This makes the estimate for sea-level rise most likely an underestimate - although I suppose there could be another factor (unknown unknowns, as it were), that would have the reverse effect.
But you could wear special glasses that filtered the movie through a real-time AI such that you never saw that can, right?* As long as you don't redistribute, copyright law doesn't have any kind of "integrity" protection for the original piece.
*Assuming such technology existed.