19 Jul 07
Originally posted by SpastiGovThe weather is not the climate. For weather prediction you require a time and place for rainfall and so on. For a climate prediction you need an average. They've validated the models against historical data and control errors by Monte Carlo simulation - so their results are all expressed in terms of confidence intervals. Really it's up to the climate skeptics to come up with some real data rather than wittering on about religion. There was almost an argument in terms of solar output variation, but that possibility has been eliminated (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6290228.stm). Computer models are used for a large range of things and, for example, the US government uses one to validate it's nuclear weapons stockpile, if they did not have a high degree of confidence in them then they wouldn't use them since the safety any effectiveness of the arsenal is somewhat important to them.
Oh yes the climate models. Where do I begin? The weather cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty two weeks in advance, let alone years, so why are climate models that attempt to do so held in such high regard? The atmosphere is so hugely complicated, any attempt to model it is a futile excercise and bound to result in a primitively crude and unrel ...[text shortened]... bject of global warming and religion:
http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2007/03/page/2/
Your understanding of science leads you to think that just because something is complicated it means that we can't understand it or hope to predict its behaviour. If that were the case then, frankly we'd still be using stone tools (with no danger of a greenhouse effect...). All scientific measurements come with a degree of uncertainty due to the limitations of the measuring equipment and at the fundamental physics end the limitations on being able to measure any quantity exactly even with perfect equipment. Even the total number of particles in a box has some uncertainty associated with it due to quantum effects. So there is no such thing as a hard fact, or rather all scientific "facts" come with a degree of uncertainty. Because of this humans are able to argue about science. If you think about science as a debate an experiment is an appeal to authority, someone who believes that the results are wrong will try to undermine that authority by either doing one of their own or by disputing the methodology of the rival group's experiment. This stuff about religion is just an appeal to insult.
The first reference you gave is to a right wing magazine, they support the oil industry and have a strong interest in avoiding cuts in emissions and by implication profits. The science journal reference is the only one worth discussing. I am surprised at Bjarne Andresen's statement that it is impossible to define a temperature for a non-equilibrium system, and that an arithmetic average is meaningless. The statistical definition of temperature depends on a system being in thermal equilibrium and isolated, which is clearly an idealization, however since we do measure temperatures and they are useful in non-equilibrium systems something is wrong with their argument. Consider the case of the thermally isolated block of material, with a uniform temperature gradient along it. Let's say one end is at 100 Kelvin and the other at 300 Kelvin. The system will come into equilibrium and when it has the temperature will be 200 Kelvin, which is the average over the whole system in it's non-equilibrium state. Now in the case of the atmosphere there are the additional complications that the system is not thermally isolated and that there are density fluctuations. However this does not prevent one from calculating the average temperature. The question then is whether it is a useful quantity. Clearly it is going to be since it gives you the total amount of energy in the system. Unfortunately you have to subscribe to an online repository to read the paper the article you quoted was based on so we can't discuss its merits further.
The global warming debate mirrors the smoking causes lung cancer debate from half a century ago. When the results were first published, and ever since, the tobacco companies used arguments just like the ones that are being used now to try to avoid restrictions on their product. Now, fortunately, the only people who are trying to claim that smoking does not cause lung cancer are the tobacco manufacturers and people at least get some warning before taking up the stuff.
This notion of a grand conspiracy of scientists lying to get research grants really is quite silly. It may well happen in individual cases, but not on the scale that you are claiming. Climate research does not depend on getting a specific result. In fact they'd be more likely to get funding if they could prove that there is no particular problem with business as usual.
19 Jul 07
Originally posted by mrstabbyNo, they have their place of course. All I'm saying is there is way too much dependence placed upon 'models' and that they have an undeserved respectability because of their prestige. It seems to me that if something can be "modelled", regardless of how accurately, the outcome is always considered unquestionably authentic. It is as though whatever a computer model spits out is more valid than the actual real world which must therefore be wrong. This seems to be true for the global warming debate where the models that predict a certain climate and weather pattern twenty years ahead are held as unquestionably accurate and valid regardless of how many assumptions were required to fill the gaps left by the infinity of variables in the atmosphere that cannot be accounted for.
Is your argument against computer models that we're not allowed to process data any more? Are you just naturally untrusting of technology?
Or is your argument that the data processing is flawed? If so, precisely how?
Science never deals in absolute facts, that's religion. Science deals with probabilities, tendencies and theories that can be proven or disproven. It, unlike religion, responds to new evidence.
20 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by SpastiGovWould you stop being a religious person if someone of your religion sinned?
But even if you really believed this nonsense, why should anyone go out of their way to reduce their so-called "carbon footprint" when hypocrites like Al Gore don't practise what they preach?
Would you have become a drunk if your father had been a drunk but discouraged you from it?
For that matter, would you jump off a building if someone else jumped off but told you not to?
Just because someone says one thing but does another doesn't always make what they "preach" any less accurate. I would have thought that was obvious...
Edit -- I just realized this had been explained earlier, but for folks like Spasti it never hurts to repeat the message. Maybe after the 10,000th time it will all click. 😉
20 Jul 07
Originally posted by wittywonkaNo but it certainly lessens the value of their message!
Would you stop being a religious person if someone of your religion sinned?
Would you have become a drunk if your father had been a drunk but discouraged you from it?
For that matter, would you jump off a building if someone else jumped off but told you not to?
Just because someone says one thing but does another doesn't always make what they "pr ...[text shortened]... i it never hurts to repeat the message. Maybe after the 10,000th time it will all click. 😉
As for not getting the message when it's been spelt out numerous times, it's the fashionably ignorant lefties like yourself who fit that description. But then what can you expect of sheep? They are meant only to follow and not think for themselves. People like you will always go where the winds of fashion blow them so have fun being forever afraid of hobgoblins like globull warming and climate change. But don't worry because when everyone wakes up and realises it's a load of hogwash after all, there'll be another hobgoblin just around the corner waiting to scare them.
20 Jul 07
Originally posted by SpastiGovSo, just because someone jumps off a building, even though they said I shouldn't, means that the logic behind not jumping diminishes? Interesting logic.
No but it certainly lessens the value of their message!
As for not getting the message when it's been spelt out numerous times, it's the fashionably ignorant lefties like yourself who fit that description. But then what can you expect of sheep? They are meant only to follow and not think for themselves. People like you will always go where the winds of ...[text shortened]... wash after all, there'll be another hobgoblin just around the corner waiting to scare them.
As for this freaking age old debate, there is plenty of evidence pointing in both directions. I choose to believe the planet is warming, with a large portion of the responsibility falling on humans, according to the evidence provided. I am not saying that evdience against it does not exist; until additional evdience comes out that doesn't support the theory of global warming, I am choosing to believe that global warming is happening, just as you are choosing to believe that it isn't happening. Similarly, when additional evidence comes out that does support the theory of global warming, I would expect you to do the same.
But then again, maybe I shouldn't expect that much of you...
20 Jul 07
Originally posted by DeepThoughtCome the revoluion will SUV driving Mcdonalds eating zero physical activity couchhogs be the first against the wall? I can see all the anemic ectomorphs polishing up on their committe of public safety speeches ala Robbespiere while they get their veggie minions to bring on the mobile guilotines. Let the blood run free...........
That's easy - buy a bicycle and become a vegetarian.
20 Jul 07
Originally posted by kmax87Come the revolution the vegetarians will be starving while the fat McDonald's fed American trash survives the famine.
Come the revoluion will SUV driving Mcdonalds eating zero physical activity couchhogs be the first against the wall? I can see all the anemic ectomorphs polishing up on their committe of public safety speeches ala Robbespiere while they get their veggie minions to bring on the mobile guilotines. Let the blood run free...........
However they won't be able to get around because they won't have bicycles.