Cyclists seem to be that way in most cities (including where I live; Calgary, Canada - although they tend to where helmets a little more often than not). I think the best cyclists I've seen were in Vienna, Austria.
The 'climate science' part of deals with things so complex we can't reduce it to single experiments. Does that relegate it outside the realm of science because it isn't 'hard science'?
I agree with you, I don't think there are 'falsifiable hypothesis' for 'climate science' of models and errors bars and "predictions" as you quote them. I think climate scientists are looking for that 'cohesive theory'. I think it is too complex at this point to prove one way or the other, just like we can't prove abstract reasoning in the brain - doesn't mean we can't act on what seem to be very good indications:-)
Anyway, I think we've both demonstrated that there are at least two groups with valid points who demand different levels of 'proof'.
You give a title "Back to actual Science...", and then you quote a Wikipedia article that talks about random percentages.
That much is true.
Also, I'll always rather listen to 2 people from Oxford and Cambridge, than 489 randomly selected 'members' of random American societies and organizations, who mostly "agree" and "believe", and are a part of a survey.
So your attacking his 'appeal to consensus' with...
Seems like surveys and polls are new scientific experiments.
Nope, they're still surveys and polls. Surveys of educated people from institutions like Oxford and Cambridge (research universities) who live in America (for you Europeans, the USA).
Science was never about survey/poll percentages
Right, but those being polled are scientists. Scientists who have studied and said things to credit their opinion in the survey. While it isn't as useful as a paper or raw data, it does have use in providing a quick overview of a field assuming the survey isn't biased or misleading, which I don't think it is. It is fairly straightforward about who was asked, what was asked, and what their similar responses were.
What is wrong with that, and why would you not see the value in what he said?
"Well enough people have voted this is right, so that's the situation. Can't argue, we have a consensus." While that doesn't make it wrong, it sure does set off a warning bell. So why is it done that way?
Please note before you go off on me, I am deliberately not stating my views on the matter of global warming. Don't think you can correctly infer them.
By telling people not to reply, invoking fallacy (appeal to consensus) and telling people they they can't correctly infer what you think, you've violated all three rules for getting people not to argue with you on the Internet.
That comment is funny. But as a pro-AGW person, I think the video was pretty tasteless and missed the potential to have a good campaign - hence why they withdrew it and had a more positive campaign afterwards.
However, those comparing the children in this video to al-Qaeda terrorists in training (read the YouTube comments if you want to lower your IQ a few points) I think are missing the point entirely. If you can't make the distinction between religious fundamentalists who can and do kill people and (as the GP said, "radicals") environmentalists with poor marketing sense then there is something with your social perceptions.
Wait a minute. 97% of those scientists have facts to back up what they say. You're making it like sound like it's a public survey of people who are guessing.
If 97% of those scientists had facts, they should've polled them for citations of those facts, not their opinions. You make it sound like the 3% of scientists couldn't possibly have had facts to back up what they say, leading us to essentially judge this as a popularity contest, or a statistical guess that 97% of people will always be more right than 3% of people.
Grr.. I was typing a reply then lost it...
Anyway, that's a little unfair to require scientists to provide citations every time they are asked a question. They weren't asked for citations, which are present in their papers and discussions, they were asked 'given your experience and expertise in the field, what is your opinion that; climate change is occuring? humans have a significant impact and can mitigate that impact? that climate change will be a problem?'
While I didn't say that the 3% could not have data, they could, and their data does have the possibility to blow the other side out of the water and disprove all their models and theories and so forth. I also didn't mention that side, so you're correct I didn't mention what I thought. However, you didn't mention that it's not a yes/no answer. That 3% didn't say, no it doesn't exist, it is a group consisting of people who either say no or who are non-committed.
The "heads I win, tails you lose" of AGW "predictions" doesn't count as science until it can be stated as a falsifiable hypothesis, and scientists aren't doing science unless they're actively trying to falsify their own closely held beliefs as best as they can.
(Just re-read your comment, it seems we agree about the survey in that the question didn't ask for citations). They do present areas where further study is needed, where error exists, and confidence intervals. The 'falsifiable hypothesis' side of it is proven and rarely disputed. That's physics and chemistry. The 'climate science' part of deals with things so complex we can't reduce it to single experiments. Does that relegate it outside the realm of science because it isn't 'hard science'?
While you are one of the most reasonable people I've been reading 'on the other side', it's not about heat retention (the atmosphere doesn't conduct to space). It's about radiation to space. Carbon dioxide is reasonably good at absorbing radiation and re-radiating back to the ground, called the greenhouse effect.
Water vapour is a much better greenhouse gas, but water doesn't get 'locked up' in great quantities for long periods of time. Carbon (dioxide) does, and the problem is the rate at which we're releasing it -> all at once.
Percentages of scientists is not science, that is an opinion poll.
Science is about facts.
Right. It is about facts.
Not about what 97% of scientists say.
Wait a minute. 97% of those scientists have facts to back up what they say. You're making it like sound like it's a public survey of people who are guessing.
Science is not an opinion poll. It is about learning and making our lives better. What if the 3% are right? Thats real science. Question yourself.
Go for it. However, as much as people who deny AGW say this over and over, have you constructed your own models. Do you accept criticism of them, have you collected raw data, etc.? (You being the group that you seem to identify with, not you you).
Today's xkcd was a good example of that for me. http://www.xkcd.com/803/ Yet that is the way air lift is taught and it is wrong.
That is the way lift is taught to children. Children you can't do line integrals and partial differential equations, not engineers.
We should love the fringe dudes. They make real science come to the front. 'but its a waste of time'. Why? You have to defend your position oh and explain it to the commoners? Well boo freeking hoo.
Scientists love explaining their position and backing it up with facts. They have done so. Repeatedly. Over and over and over. In courts, in papers, in speaking engagements, in movies to make it easier to understand. Yet people endlessly accuse them - not presenting dissenting evidence - of conspiracy. They expected challenges, but didn't expect this.
What really puzzles me, and I would love to talk to some CEOs in the oil industry about this, is Why don't they invest in huge solar arrays and sell the electricity?
Because while it may make them a lot of money, it's not as much of a lot of money as they could make in other ways.
Electronics is easy. You take it to the electronics shop and they take care of it for you. I'm not sure exactly what they do, but I'm assuming it's fairly rigorous. Japan just doesn't have any landfill space...
Slashdot Mirror
?! At some concentrations it can be : Hypercapnia
I don't think so. As the Prius converts fossil fuel into electricity (and cracking to get gasoline isn't free either) at a big loss. A bigger loss.
Electric motors can be more than 90% efficient. ICE motors are less than half.
Cyclists seem to be that way in most cities (including where I live; Calgary, Canada - although they tend to where helmets a little more often than not). I think the best cyclists I've seen were in Vienna, Austria.
Canada? Really?
CSIS making one of the most sophisticated worms out there, I doubt it.
And if you count all years, I bet more people have died from coal than from nuclear, period (including Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
Maybe he means a Squircle?
Only 76 comments... this story must be not having much of... an impact!
YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
Damn you, I nose-sprayed coffee over my keyboard. You have no idea how much that hurts!
I don't know why, but this response is just goddamn hilarious.
Not cool? Not cool?! Fox Mulder often drives a Ford Taurus!
I knew I'd find you on /. again, you're just heavily invested in nuclear physics, NeutronCowboy!
But as a pro-AGW person,
Does that mean you burn as much fossil fuels as possible in an attempt to warm the earth?
Yes, yes it does. Good job picking up on that :)
Further edit: while I enjoyed this discussion with you, I think we've exhausted this line of conversation for the moment.
The 'climate science' part of deals with things so complex we can't reduce it to single experiments. Does that relegate it outside the realm of science because it isn't 'hard science'?
I agree with you, I don't think there are 'falsifiable hypothesis' for 'climate science' of models and errors bars and "predictions" as you quote them. I think climate scientists are looking for that 'cohesive theory'. I think it is too complex at this point to prove one way or the other, just like we can't prove abstract reasoning in the brain - doesn't mean we can't act on what seem to be very good indications :-)
Anyway, I think we've both demonstrated that there are at least two groups with valid points who demand different levels of 'proof'.
You give a title "Back to actual Science...", and then you quote a Wikipedia article that talks about random percentages.
That much is true.
Also, I'll always rather listen to 2 people from Oxford and Cambridge, than 489 randomly selected 'members' of random American societies and organizations, who mostly "agree" and "believe", and are a part of a survey.
So your attacking his 'appeal to consensus' with...
Seems like surveys and polls are new scientific experiments.
Nope, they're still surveys and polls. Surveys of educated people from institutions like Oxford and Cambridge (research universities) who live in America (for you Europeans, the USA).
Science was never about survey/poll percentages
Right, but those being polled are scientists. Scientists who have studied and said things to credit their opinion in the survey. While it isn't as useful as a paper or raw data, it does have use in providing a quick overview of a field assuming the survey isn't biased or misleading, which I don't think it is. It is fairly straightforward about who was asked, what was asked, and what their similar responses were.
What is wrong with that, and why would you not see the value in what he said?
, you stupid fuck.
Oh, right.
"Well enough people have voted this is right, so that's the situation. Can't argue, we have a consensus." While that doesn't make it wrong, it sure does set off a warning bell. So why is it done that way?
Please note before you go off on me, I am deliberately not stating my views on the matter of global warming. Don't think you can correctly infer them.
By telling people not to reply, invoking fallacy (appeal to consensus) and telling people they they can't correctly infer what you think, you've violated all three rules for getting people not to argue with you on the Internet.
That comment is funny. But as a pro-AGW person, I think the video was pretty tasteless and missed the potential to have a good campaign - hence why they withdrew it and had a more positive campaign afterwards.
However, those comparing the children in this video to al-Qaeda terrorists in training (read the YouTube comments if you want to lower your IQ a few points) I think are missing the point entirely. If you can't make the distinction between religious fundamentalists who can and do kill people and (as the GP said, "radicals") environmentalists with poor marketing sense then there is something with your social perceptions.
If 97% of those scientists had facts, they should've polled them for citations of those facts, not their opinions. You make it sound like the 3% of scientists couldn't possibly have had facts to back up what they say, leading us to essentially judge this as a popularity contest, or a statistical guess that 97% of people will always be more right than 3% of people.
Grr.. I was typing a reply then lost it... Anyway, that's a little unfair to require scientists to provide citations every time they are asked a question. They weren't asked for citations, which are present in their papers and discussions, they were asked 'given your experience and expertise in the field, what is your opinion that; climate change is occuring? humans have a significant impact and can mitigate that impact? that climate change will be a problem?'
While I didn't say that the 3% could not have data, they could, and their data does have the possibility to blow the other side out of the water and disprove all their models and theories and so forth. I also didn't mention that side, so you're correct I didn't mention what I thought. However, you didn't mention that it's not a yes/no answer. That 3% didn't say, no it doesn't exist, it is a group consisting of people who either say no or who are non-committed.
The "heads I win, tails you lose" of AGW "predictions" doesn't count as science until it can be stated as a falsifiable hypothesis, and scientists aren't doing science unless they're actively trying to falsify their own closely held beliefs as best as they can.
(Just re-read your comment, it seems we agree about the survey in that the question didn't ask for citations). They do present areas where further study is needed, where error exists, and confidence intervals. The 'falsifiable hypothesis' side of it is proven and rarely disputed. That's physics and chemistry. The 'climate science' part of deals with things so complex we can't reduce it to single experiments. Does that relegate it outside the realm of science because it isn't 'hard science'?
Which still doesn't say very much :P
While you are one of the most reasonable people I've been reading 'on the other side', it's not about heat retention (the atmosphere doesn't conduct to space). It's about radiation to space. Carbon dioxide is reasonably good at absorbing radiation and re-radiating back to the ground, called the greenhouse effect.
Water vapour is a much better greenhouse gas, but water doesn't get 'locked up' in great quantities for long periods of time. Carbon (dioxide) does, and the problem is the rate at which we're releasing it -> all at once.
Agree with you on the nukes, btw.
Percentages of scientists is not science, that is an opinion poll.
Science is about facts.
Right. It is about facts.
Not about what 97% of scientists say.
Wait a minute. 97% of those scientists have facts to back up what they say. You're making it like sound like it's a public survey of people who are guessing.
Science is not an opinion poll. It is about learning and making our lives better. What if the 3% are right? Thats real science. Question yourself.
Go for it. However, as much as people who deny AGW say this over and over, have you constructed your own models. Do you accept criticism of them, have you collected raw data, etc.? (You being the group that you seem to identify with, not you you).
Today's xkcd was a good example of that for me. http://www.xkcd.com/803/ Yet that is the way air lift is taught and it is wrong.
That is the way lift is taught to children. Children you can't do line integrals and partial differential equations, not engineers.
We should love the fringe dudes. They make real science come to the front. 'but its a waste of time'. Why? You have to defend your position oh and explain it to the commoners? Well boo freeking hoo.
Scientists love explaining their position and backing it up with facts. They have done so. Repeatedly. Over and over and over. In courts, in papers, in speaking engagements, in movies to make it easier to understand. Yet people endlessly accuse them - not presenting dissenting evidence - of conspiracy. They expected challenges, but didn't expect this.
At least he said we could start in the Upper Paleolithic which gives us a huge jump start time-wise.
It was great for heating.
What really puzzles me, and I would love to talk to some CEOs in the oil industry about this, is Why don't they invest in huge solar arrays and sell the electricity?
Because while it may make them a lot of money, it's not as much of a lot of money as they could make in other ways.
Too bad you posted as AC, that's probably the best comment on this discussion.
Electronics is easy. You take it to the electronics shop and they take care of it for you. I'm not sure exactly what they do, but I'm assuming it's fairly rigorous. Japan just doesn't have any landfill space...
Often, it is sent to China http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/10/video-chinas-toxic-wastelands-of-consumer-electronics-revealed/ . It is supposed to be illegal now, and presumably regulations are being enforced http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basel_Convention