Originally posted by Leonhard
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
More Warming News!
Collapse
X
-
Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostYou mean cow farts don't find their ways out of a cow one way or the other?The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostNo Len, I'm sorry these guys are saying that the main driver of the warming in those years was not man - that is in direct contradiction to what the warmists claimed. Well perhaps most of the warning over the last century wasn't driven by man either.
Originally posted by http://www.nature.com/srep/2015/150421/srep09957/pdf/srep09957.pdfWe find that the empirical EUN is wide enough so that the interdecadal variability in the rate of global warming over the 20th century does not necessarily require corresponding variability in the rate-of-increase of the forced signal. The empirical EUN also indicates that the reduced GMT warming over the past decade or so is still consistent with a middle emission scenario’s forced signal, but is likely inconsistent with the steepest emission scenario’s forced signal.
“Our model shows these wiggles can be big enough that they could have accounted for a reasonable portion of the accelerated warming we experienced from 1975 to 2000, as well as the reduced rate in warming that occurred from 2002 to 2013.”Last edited by Leonhard; 04-24-2015, 01:30 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostYeah, I should have said PREMATURELY venting cow farts to atmosphere. But if we did NOT relieve these cows of their gastrointestinal flatuational distress, we'd have the Animal Rights people down our throats. You just can't win!
Its not a fight worth fighting.
What we need is solar power and some wind turbines, lots of electrical cars, an electrical exchange so that people can sell electricity, and since at any given times there will be a huge number of electrical cars plugged in, 5% of their batteries can go to stabalising the national powergrid. Distributed, free market, superior to gas, long lasting, cheaper than coal in the long run... and I kinda wanna see gem blue fields silicon photovoltaics among the fields of gold.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostAt least they admit that there was a hiatus in warming
All scientific research-programmes may be characterised by their ‘hard core‘. The negative heuristic of the programme forbids us to direct the modus tollens at this ‘hard core': it bids us to articulate or even invent with great ingenuity touchstone theories ‘auxiliary hypotheses’, which build up a protective belt around this core, and redirect the modus tollens on to these. It is this protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses which has to bear the brunt of tests and get adjusted and readjusted, or even completely replaced in the defence of the thus hardened core.
In this instance the core of AGW is protected from falsification by the auxiliary hypotheses such as 'natural variation', 'we didn't model the heat absorption of the oceans properly in prior models' or the like.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostNote how the core theory will not be exposed to falsification by data, in line with Imre Lakatos' observations:
All scientific research-programmes may be characterised by their ‘hard core‘. The negative heuristic of the programme forbids us to direct the modus tollens at this ‘hard core': it bids us to articulate or even invent with great ingenuity touchstone theories ‘auxiliary hypotheses’, which build up a protective belt around this core, and redirect the modus tollens on to these. It is this protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses which has to bear the brunt of tests and get adjusted and readjusted, or even completely replaced in the defence of the thus hardened core.
In this instance the core of AGW is protected from falsification by the auxiliary hypotheses such as 'natural variation', 'we didn't model the heat absorption of the oceans properly in prior models' or the like.
Even the notion that the Earth is getting warmer, which is well attested now could be disproved by say... three straight decades with no indication of warming.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostThis is not true, it would be possible to falsify the theory of anthropogenic global warming, if say one identified a greater cause of CO2 in the atmosphere, if one disproved the water content positive feedback cycle
Even the notion that the Earth is getting warmer, which is well attested now could be disproved by say... three straight decades with no indication of warming.
The consequence is not that research programmes cannot fail due to abandonment, but that within the programme all data contradictory to the core will be explained away; to deny the core wholly is to abandon the programme.Last edited by Paprika; 04-25-2015, 08:10 AM.
Comment
-
...as they have been doing - and come up with more reasons (eg. 'natural variation', 'we didn't model the heat absorption of the oceans properly in prior models' etc) to explain away the findings.
If you read the article you'd see that they're genuinely comparing the data to the predictions, and finding that this might not be consistent with the worst case scenario. So I think you're reading way too much into what's happening here, or you don't quite understand what they're doing.
Originally posted by Paprika View PostAs Lakatos would say, these critical parts of the core will not be easily attacked as auxiliary hypothesis will be formulated to explain away. The consequence is not that research programmes cannot fail due to abandonment, but that within the programme all data contradictory to the core will be explained away; to deny the core wholly is to abandon the programme.
To not do this wouldn't make for good science. Then we'd be throwing out the theory of electromagnetics the moment someone had a glitch in a detector.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI'm not sure what you're getting at. What findings are being "denied" by scientists here?
If you read the article you'd see that they're genuinely comparing the data to the predictions, and finding that this might not be consistent with the worst case scenario. So I think you're reading way too much into what's happening here, or you don't quite understand what they're doing.
It makes sense, and that's the current view of the science of philosophy, when contradictory evidence to a given model comes in you don't automatically dismiss the model, as there's a whole number of reasons why you have such evidence. Could be simple that some variable is off somewhere, some auxiliary assumption is wrong, rather than the core principles themselves.
To not do this wouldn't make for good science. Then we'd be throwing out the theory of electromagnetics the moment someone had a glitch in a detector.
But what the core-protecting phenomena he describes can also lead to, for example, is ossified group-think where the core is to be protected in spite of varied contraindicating or contradictory evidence.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostI didn't say "denied". Don't put words in my mouth.
The greatly reduced rate of warming is being explained by 'natural variations', as I said.
As for the pause, most scientists that I know of have held that its mostly due, if not entirely, due to random fluctuation.
Indeed. Lakatos wasn't endeavouring a negative critique but a description of how science works; no one is saying it is all bad. ... But what the core-protecting phenomena he describes can also lead to, for example, is ossified group-think where the core is to be protected in spite of varied contraindicating or contradictory evidence.
Historically it makes sense, but I don't think its productive to disagree with them on the issue of global warming. So far it means that the liberals in the US gets to look like the scientifically suave platform.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostAs Lakatos would say, these critical parts of the core will not be easily attacked as auxiliary hypothesis will be formulated to explain away the data.
It could. It would be much more likely that the scientists would double-down - precisely as they have been doing - and come up with more reasons (eg. 'natural variation', 'we didn't model the heat absorption of the oceans properly in prior models' etc) to explain away the findings.
The consequence is not that research programmes cannot fail due to abandonment, but that within the programme all data contradictory to the core will be explained away; to deny the core wholly is to abandon the programme.Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostBut as they say, "the science is settled."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostYou can actually be fairly well justified in this..."Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jesse View PostNo, you actually can't. That is not how science works. There has never been, nor will there ever be such a thing as "settled science". All science is variable. The only thing you can be sure of in science is that it will change as new data and hypotheses are introduced.
And sure I don't think science will ever get everything 100% certain, and there will always be finer points to fiddle with. However fundamental revolutions in science are extremely rare once things have been settled for a while.
Is it possible that the theory of anthropogenic global warming is fundamentally flawed and that its main conclusion is false? Yes, and I can imagine the evidence that would show this, but at this point its really unlikely.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostThat depends on whether you dismiss the notion of objective truth, if you do, nothing can ever really be settled and will always merely be a question of political narrative.
And sure I don't think science will ever get everything 100% certain, and there will always be finer points to fiddle with. However fundamental revolutions in science are extremely rare once things have been settled for a while.
Is it possible that the theory of anthropogenic global warming is fundamentally flawed and that its main conclusion is false? Yes, and I can imagine the evidence that would show this, but at this point its really unlikely.
Is there global warming? I personally believe there is since we should be naturally warming from the last ice age. Does that mean it's man made? No. The jury is still out on that part of it. There is no "settled science" here."Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by rogue06, Today, 09:33 AM
|
8 responses
77 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Today, 03:41 PM
|
||
Started by whag, Yesterday, 10:43 PM
|
51 responses
287 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Today, 04:42 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 09:38 AM
|
0 responses
27 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 09:38 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Yesterday, 06:47 AM
|
83 responses
354 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 01:46 PM
|
||
Started by carpedm9587, 04-14-2024, 02:07 PM
|
57 responses
359 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Today, 07:12 PM
|
Comment