Post Reply
Page 8 of 8  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8
Switch to Forum Live View Thank-goodness for Global Warming!
3 years ago  ::  Feb 03, 2011 - 6:24PM #71
christzen
Posts: 5,809
The GW scientists spotted a phenomenon,an increase in overall temps,made the decision it was probably of human origin,and have proceeded since then from that perspective.The methodology is tainted.They have decided upon the answer,and now look for evidence of that answer.And now that opposing evidence has come out that contradicts theirs and shows things like the fact of massive warming and cooling shifts throughout history,they cannot bring themselves to admit they may have jumped the gun (or the shark) and will defend to the end their POV and demonize and disparage any other in self defense.The idea that scientists readily give up their version of the truth in the face of new facts is simply false.Scientists throughout history have clung dearly to their version of the facts and attempted to demean others who contradict them.The AGW scientists today are no different.Nobody wants to be shown to have been full of baloney,not even scientists.Especially not scientists who have invested their lives in their pet project.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 03, 2011 - 6:43PM #72
amcolph
Posts: 16,275

Feb 3, 2011 -- 6:24PM, christzen wrote:

The GW scientists spotted a phenomenon,an increase in overall temps,made the decision it was probably of human origin,and have proceeded since then from that perspective.The methodology is tainted.They have decided upon the answer,and now look for evidence of that answer.And now that opposing evidence has come out that contradicts theirs and shows things like the fact of massive warming and cooling shifts throughout history,they cannot bring themselves to admit they may have jumped the gun (or the shark) and will defend to the end their POV and demonize and disparage any other in self defense.The idea that scientists readily give up their version of the truth in the face of new facts is simply false.Scientists throughout history have clung dearly to their version of the facts and attempted to demean others who contradict them.The AGW scientists today are no different.Nobody wants to be shown to have been full of baloney,not even scientists.Especially not scientists who have invested their lives in their pet project.




You left out the part about how scientists are all business-hating liberals who want to interfere with the divine right of corporate CEOs to do as they please and so have trumped up AGW and blamed it (for no scientific reason whatever) on industrial carbon emissions.

Really, if you're going to spout the party line do a complete job of it.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 03, 2011 - 6:43PM #73
Agnosticspirit
Posts: 9,253
Hi all ---- this is a worthy topic for discussion but more suitable for the Environmental Issues forum. 

Welcome to your new home!

agnosticspirit - Bnet Community cohost USNP 
Tribalism, ethnocentricism, racism, nationalism, and FEAR is the Mind Killer... >:(

For user to user support and to look up the latest glitch reports, check the Beliefnet Knowledgebase by clicking on the link below!

 Beliefnet Knowledgebase
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 04, 2011 - 9:46PM #74
christzen
Posts: 5,809

Feb 3, 2011 -- 6:43PM, amcolph wrote:

Feb 3, 2011 -- 6:24PM, christzen wrote:

The GW scientists spotted a phenomenon,an increase in overall temps,made the decision it was probably of human origin,and have proceeded since then from that perspective.The methodology is tainted.They have decided upon the answer,and now look for evidence of that answer.And now that opposing evidence has come out that contradicts theirs and shows things like the fact of massive warming and cooling shifts throughout history,they cannot bring themselves to admit they may have jumped the gun (or the shark) and will defend to the end their POV and demonize and disparage any other in self defense.The idea that scientists readily give up their version of the truth in the face of new facts is simply false.Scientists throughout history have clung dearly to their version of the facts and attempted to demean others who contradict them.The AGW scientists today are no different.Nobody wants to be shown to have been full of baloney,not even scientists.Especially not scientists who have invested their lives in their pet project.




You left out the part about how scientists are all business-hating liberals who want to interfere with the divine right of corporate CEOs to do as they please and so have trumped up AGW and blamed it (for no scientific reason whatever) on industrial carbon emissions.

Really, if you're going to spout the party line do a complete job of it.





The reason I didn't do a "complete job" of it is that I wasn't spouting any party line.Really,do you find it difficult to believe that someone can come to their own conclusions without towing any party line?How easy it must be for you to use this excuse to dismiss those who don't think like you.Lazy,but easy.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 05, 2011 - 1:57PM #75
mindis1
Posts: 7,109

Feb 3, 2011 -- 12:40PM, CharikIeia wrote:


Feb 3, 2011 -- 11:44AM, mindis1 wrote:


I haven’t been able to find any peer-reviewed study that derives that conclusion from empirical evidence.



Heya mindis!


In your case, the problem is that you're not too familiar with the practise of statistics and empirical studies in general. You always ask for tight waterproof logic that you only find in mathematics.


Why don’t you explain for dummies like me how you arrive at the conclusion that the AGW hypothesis is true?


Obviously if one does not deduce from the evidence that the AGW hypothesis is true, then one must derive some probability that it is true, a conclusion by the inductive method. I think it is perfectly acceptable to advocate conclusions that are derived inductively. One should always provide the confidence interval for all inductive conclusions. One is going to have to do the math either way.


If you know of some kind of “non-waterproof” logic that should be used in the scientific method to derive conclusions, then please inform me of these developments.


One can make deductive arguments premised on empirical facts by which one deduces the atomic composition of the sun. If the AGW hypothesis requires some different realm of logic, then what is it?


Unless, of course, the paper in question supports one of your various vegan stances - then, all of a sudden, different standards apply...



I assume that comment is just a personal swipe; you have nothing of substance to complain about anything I’ve argued. Right?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 05, 2011 - 6:05PM #76
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,303

We've been through this, mindis.


Empirical science is by its very nature non-waterproof.


I will not again walk you through a beginners' course in statistics, or philosophy of science.


When it comes to AGW evidence, you interpret the inherently probabilistic nature of empirical results to mean "there is no unequivocal evidence for AGW". When it comes to your various vegan studies, you interpret the same inherently probabilistic nature of empirical results to mean "there is unequivocal evidence against meat consumption".


It took more than a week, both times we actually dialogued, yet to no avail.


I have no desire to engage in a repetition.

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2011 - 4:25PM #77
Bodean
Posts: 8,727

Feb 5, 2011 -- 6:05PM, CharikIeia wrote:


We've been through this, mindis.


Empirical science is by its very nature non-waterproof.


I will not again walk you through a beginners' course in statistics, or philosophy of science.




And yet ... you've still refused to comment on the recent study in the Journal of Energy and Environment that shows that the alledged upward trend in 20th century temperatures is "statistically" ... not different from ZERO!  [Is there something in this beginners course for statistics that nullifies this basic statistical rule ... or is that reseved for the advanced courses?]

From any kind of Scientific perspective ... that means that one cannot even conclude that temperatures have even warmed since 1880, let alone quantify it.  So how is it that others in the literature throw out numbers like .... we've warmed by 0.8C?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 07, 2011 - 3:13AM #78
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,303

Feb 6, 2011 -- 4:25PM, Bodean wrote:

Feb 5, 2011 -- 6:05PM, CharikIeia wrote:


We've been through this, mindis.


Empirical science is by its very nature non-waterproof.


I will not again walk you through a beginners' course in statistics, or philosophy of science.



And yet ... you've still refused to comment on the recent study in the Journal of Energy and Environment that shows that the alledged upward trend in 20th century temperatures is "statistically" ... not different from ZERO!



Then let me address this now, for your pleasure.


The crucial point, where Mr. Frank changes the deck, is his claim "that an assumption of stationary noise variance in temperature time series cannot be presently justified". The aim of this is to get a variance estimator bypassing the law of large numbers. His suggested data decomposition hides mean trend in the variance part.


I'm quite confident that by consequently following his train of thought, you'd get from the same data record a significant upward trend in noise variance - you know, the "more extreme weather" predictions some have made.


The statistical carpet never is so big as to sweep all incovenient truth under it.

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 07, 2011 - 12:35PM #79
Fodaoson
Posts: 10,907

Feb 6, 2011 -- 4:25PM, Bodean wrote:

Feb 5, 2011 -- 6:05PM, CharikIeia wrote:


We've been through this, mindis.


Empirical science is by its very nature non-waterproof.


I will not again walk you through a beginners' course in statistics, or philosophy of science.




And yet ... you've still refused to comment on the recent study in the Journal of Energy and Environment that shows that the alledged upward trend in 20th century temperatures is "statistically" ... not different from ZERO!  [Is there something in this beginners course for statistics that nullifies this basic statistical rule ... or is that reseved for the advanced courses?]

From any kind of Scientific perspective ... that means that one cannot even conclude that temperatures have even warmed since 1880, let alone quantify it.  So how is it that others in the literature throw out numbers like .... we've warmed by 0.8C?





There is scientific evidence that global warming is taking place :
From Environment Illinois
 www.environmentillinois.org/reports/ener...


In   meteorology normal is over the last thirty(30) years and average is of all recorded  data:


  From the web site cited:


Overall, we found that temperatures were above normal across the country, indicating pervasive warming. Specifically:


Average Temperatures Rising

  • Between 2000 and 2005, the average temperature was above normal at 95% of the locations we studied. Alaska experienced the most warming on average, with Talkeetna reporting average temperatures 4.6° F above normal. Outside of Alaska, weather stations in Colorado, Michigan, Montana, Nevada and Wyoming reported the highest above-normal temperatures for the period.
  • During the first six months of 2006, the average temperature was above normal at 91% of the locations. The average temperature was at least 3° F above normal in 43% of the locations and at least 5° F above normal in 12 of the locations. Temperatures were particularly warm in Texas and the Great Plains states. The average temperature was nearly 5.9° F above normal, the highest in the country, in Kansas City, Missouri and 5.6° F above normal in Wichita Falls, Texas.

Nights Getting Warmer

  • Between 2000 and 2005, the average minimum (nighttime low) temperature was above normal at 92% of the locations. The average minimum temperature in Reno, Nevada was 5.2° F above normal, the highest in the United States. Albuquerque, New Mexico recorded average minimum temperatures of more than 3° F above normal.
  • During the first six months of 2006, the average minimum (nighttime low) temperature was above normal at 87% of the stations. The average minimum temperature was at least 3° F above normal in 28% of the locations and at least 5° F above normal in nine of these locations. Nighttime temperatures were particularly mild on average in the upper Midwest, with temperatures soaring to 6.7° F above normal in Sioux Falls, South Dakota and almost 6° F above normal in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Duluth, Rochester, and St. Cloud, Minnesota.

Days Getting Warmer

  • Between 2000 and 2005, the average maximum (daytime high) temperature was above normal at 80% of the locations. Alaska experienced the most daytime warming. Locations outside of Alaska experiencing the highest abovenormal average maximum temperatures include Goodland, Kansas; Alamosa and Pueblo, Colorado; Brownsville, Texas; and Rapid City, South Dakota.
  • During the first six months of 2006, the average maximum temperature was above normal at 87% of the locations. The average maximum temperature was at least 3° F above normal in 39% of the locations and least 5° F above normal in 28 of these locations. Warmer-than normal days hit Texas and the Great Plains
“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon
"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 07, 2011 - 9:09PM #80
Bodean
Posts: 8,727

Feb 7, 2011 -- 12:35PM, Fodaoson wrote:


There is scientific evidence that global warming is taking place :
From Environment Illinois
 www.environmentillinois.org/reports/ener...


In   meteorology normal is over the last thirty(30) years and average is of all recorded  data:




AND .. as the Peer Reviewed Study in E&E notes, the "data" that they are using to make these conclusions are so uncertain that you cannot reject the null hypothesis that the earth as warmed at all.

Fod .. that's what the paper says.  Peer Reviewed and all.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 8 of 8  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook