Like eugenics?
Like gravity. Like any number of scientific principles proven and widely accepted once they were proven.
Tell me. Why is the thermometer readings the only one that
sharply rises after 1970? Why do they all start leveling off
at about 1990 except the thermometer readings?
I miss the 1/2 hr News hour...
Pretty sure all rise sharply
You REALLY think AGW is proven?
The word "consenus" is ONLY brought up when the science is not strong enough.
Would anyone really think to say that there is a consensus that the boiling point of water is 100 degrees Celsius?
Science progresses by:
Either data supports a given hypothesis or it doesn't.
Replication and retesting is done and either something works out or it doesn't.
That you want to argue about "consensus" or not misses the point.
Sometimes there is broad consensus, especially when the data is fairly clear, other times there isn't.
For your assertion to work, you would have to "shatter the consensus" that Planks Constant is 6.626068 × 10-34 m2 kg / s as is generally held.
Do you think science will advance by "shattering this consensus", Darrin?
And yet there is a consensus that the boiling point of water is 100. So, as I said, the ultimate end in the scientific process is consensus.You REALLY think AGW is proven?
The word "consenus" is ONLY brought up when the science is not strong enough.
Would anyone really think to say that there is a consensus that the boiling point of water is 100 degrees Celsius?
Seems to me that this model of solar activity fits the temperature reconstructions used by the IPCC very good:
Ah... satire. Ok, Withdrawn. Satire is fair game for political forums.(mean that very good-naturedly)
BUT
AGW does not hold that CO2 is the primary cause of warming, merely that warming trends would be lower without our emissions.
If you can't properly state the theory you are attempting to discredit, another eerie similarity with 9-11 truthers, you aren't helping your case. It shows you don't really understand the underlying science or what is being put forth.
I'll use something related to AGW.
What's the climate sensitivity to CO2? Is there a consensus about that?
Declaring victory and going home is another trait in common with Truthers who think they got the shills with their probing insights. Keep digging.
That figure is produced by a person who thinks the IPCC ignores cloud albedo. They don't.
True, but lacks specificity. There is ample evidence that CO2 levels wouldn't be much difference if we emitted no CO2. The AGW crowd completely ignores Henry's Law. I see only one factor that if we could keep all other factors equal, we would be able to see measurable results from. That is the particulate pollution we emit. Things like the sulfurs blocking sunlight, causing cooling. Black carbon causing warming. I honestly believe from everything I have seen, that CO2 is only a weak greenhouse gas. It causes some warming. However, if the oceans didn't warm from solar changes, there would be only a very small addition in the air from the extra CO2, as the oceans would sink about 98% of it. The same goes with other well mixed greenhouse gasses.
A good read.
In Support of Skepticism
"Most institutions demand unqualified faith;
but the institution of science makes skepticism a virtue." (Merton, 1962)
Most scientists acknowledge the importance of making science relevant and useful in policy making, while recognizing that policy is not, and should not be, based on science alone.
In recent decades, investigations of major environmental issues such as climate change, acid rain, smog, and hypoxia have resulted in the conduct of complex integrated assessments. Such assessments organize information for the purpose of improving the effectiveness of policy making.
In policy making, especially in a political arena, consensus building is a key ingredient. In attempts to make science relevant and useful, the politics of democracy tend to promote, even in some cases demand "scientific consensus." However, as a "community of belief" develops, skepticism is no longer regarded as a virtue. In a civilization that is founded on science, this is an unfortunate state of affairs and detrimental to our future.
In order to appreciate this concern, it is necessary to revisit the central role of skepticism in science. Let us start with a dictionary definition of skepticism. Webster's Dictionary defines skepticism as: "A critical attitude towards any theory, statement, experiment, or phenomenon, doubting the certainty of all things until adequate proof has been produced; the scientific spirit." The Greek root of skepticism is identified as "skepticos", which means "thoughtful, inquiring."
For centuries, science has been founded on well-established methods of scientific investigation, which include recognition that "A scientific theory must be tentative and always subject to revision or abandonment in light of facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the theory. A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist and never subject to revision is not a scientific theory" (Judge William R. Overton, in Science, 1982). Thus, a basic tenet of science is for scientists to posit and test hypotheses and theories. Scientific progress is made by accepting or rejecting hypotheses at specified levels of confidence, thus embodying skepticism in the heart of scientific methodology.
There are two dominant and somewhat opposing philosophies on testing hypothesis and theories. One philosophy is that the purpose of hypothesis testing is to validate - to support or corroborate - a hypothesis. The other philosophy is that the purpose of hypothesis testing is to attempt to invalidate a hypothesis. And the same applies to model testing; there are scientists who attempt only to validate models, and others who state that the true application of the scientific method includes attempts to invalidate models and to show the limits of applicability of models. In science, attempts to invalidate hypotheses and models - hard-core skepticism, by any definition - should be viewed as a necessary positive step in the pursuit of truth. Rigorous hypotheses and models will emerge as triumphant - at least for the time being. In a problem-solving and policy-development mode, healthy skepticism is needed to ensure the rigor and effectiveness of proposed solutions. Another way of expressing the difference between these two philosophies is to state that "Blind commitment to a theory is not an intellectual virtue; it is an intellectual crime" (Lakatos, 1978).
This is why I regard consensus science and the demise of scientific skepticism as an unhealthy combination. Without the boldness and perseverance of earlier skeptics, who risked ridicule and being branded as heretics, we would still believe Earth to be the center of the Universe and continents to be motionless.
Taking the issue of climate change as an example, there are healthy signs of increasing recognition of the importance of dealing with important methodological uncertainties. Petersen (1999), in an inspiring article entitled "Philosophy of Climate Science", states that, "Climate science has to deal with important methodological problems concerning climate simulation. Among these are methodological problems related to climate model hierarchy and complexity, tuning and falsifiability, and uncertainty. All these subjects have only recently become topics of discussion within the climate science community." He finds that uncertainties are currently not thoroughly and methodologically assessed for the purposes of policy usefulness of climate science. Barnett et al. (1999), in a scholarly article summarizing the status of detection and attribution of an anthropogenic climate signal, also find that "Only recently has detection work paid serious attention to the variety of uncertainties that attend the observations and model projections of an anthropogenic signal."
We must find improved ways of preserving and strengthening the time-honored method of scientific investigation, which includes promoting skepticism in the search for truth. We must do this at the same time that we find improved ways of making science more useful in policy making. A stronger culture of critical debate and organized skepticism needs to be fostered.
One way of achieving these goals is for those who organize and conduct integrated assessment, and those who will use their results, to ensure that the assessments rigorously test multiple working hypotheses, identify clearly what we know and do not know, include minority (or seemingly external) views, and express confidence levels on the findings. In a political system that is based on checks and balances, substantial constituency input to and strong external oversight of the assessment process are needed to ensure the integrity of science. An Office of Science and Technology in Congress could provide the needed oversight.
The crux of the problem is how science is taught and practiced. To protect science in the long term, "a healthy dose of skepticism" should be introduced into every young scientist's education, and more training should be provided for studying and expressing uncertainty at all levels of professional development. The scientific community should raise the standards of peer review and the demands of "adequate proof."
If science is not to be subsumed by policy, and scientists are not to be turned into politicians, then, as Jacob Bronowski recognized, science ".... must protect independence. The safeguards which it must offer are patent: free enquiry, free thought, free speech, tolerance" (Bronowski, 1958). While Bronowski went too far when he called for the "disestablishment of science" - the separation, as complete as possible, between science and government - science today needs increased safeguards.
For your assertion [that science only progresses by shattering consensus] to work, you would have to "shatter the consensus" that Planks Constant is 6.626068 × 10-34 m2 kg / s as is generally held.
Do you think science will advance by "shattering this consensus", Darrin?
You did not answer that question.
You stated
"science only progresses by shattering consensus"
A only if B.
I presented an example showing where "B" only works if you knock-down a long standing consensus regarding a physical constant, i.e. "not B".
You realizing that I have shown "not B", have avoided answering the question, because answering it definitively either forces you to admit that either the consensus of scientists regarding a widely known physical constant needs to be shattered (proving your assertion correct), or they are right in their consensus and you are wrong in your assertion.
I will re-state the question then, and assume any evasion of a simple yes or no question to be an admission that your assertion was incorrect.
For your assertion [that science only progresses by shattering consensus] to work, you would have to "shatter the consensus" that Planks Constant is 6.626068 × 10-34 m2 kg / s as is generally held.
Do you think science will advance only by "shattering this consensus", Darrin?
This is the stuff WC thinks is correct.On the scale of the instrumental record of Earth's surface temperature over the last 160 years, humans have had no effect, and the Solar Global Warming model advanced here would predict none. To the extent that IPCC might presume that human activities have altered Earth's temperature record, the effect is imaginary, absent some sentient extraterrestrial force that managed to keep the Sun synchronized with Earth's average surface temperature.
IPCC claims to have evidence of the fingerprint of man on Earthly gas and temperature processes are unsubstantiated. Each has a basis in graphical trickery. Two of these claims falsely demonstrate relationships known mathematically: the rate of CO2 increase compared to the rate of O2 decrease, and the rate of fossil fuel emissions compared to the rate of decrease in the isotopic weight of atmospheric CO2 based on mass balance principles. Other claims rely on investigator-manufactured data from ancient records blended into modern records, where the former are averages by a process requiring a year to centuries, while the latter are relatively instantaneous. The records requiring a year are tree ring reductions, while the others are measurements from ice cores that average gas concentrations over a range of couple of decades to a millennium and a half.
-> Contents …
E. Greenhouse Gases Do Not Cause Climate Change.
Just as the Earth's temperature record following the Sun eliminates humans from the climate equation, so is the fate of the greenhouse effect. To the extent that the greenhouse effect is correlated with Earth's temperature history, the cause must link from the Sun to the greenhouse gases. The alternative is the silly proposition that solar radiation variations might be caused by changes in greenhouse gas concentrations.
-> Contents …
F. AGW post-mortem.
AGW is dead. Here are some topics for the post-mortem. Forensic analysis of proxy reductions for correlations caused by data set sharing, and subjective smoothing into the instrument record. Forensic analysis of whether proxy temperature reductions have any validity. An à priori model for the tapped delay line representation of climate based on ocean currents. An à priori model for cloudiness as it responds to short wave radiation.
Thats from his link above.
Well, it's pretty pitiful when I keep bring up facts and theories, and Manny is incapable of producing anything of substance. there is no point if he is above his head in this matter. I feel as bad as if I'm stealing candy from a baby, because he in incapable of the same level of intellectual recourse.
No, there's not. The oceans haven't lost any CO2 to the air or we'd measure it. I'm open to proof that the CO2 content in the oceans is measurably lower, however.
What does it tell you that people who consider themselves generally, truly skeptical, lump most deniers in with pseudoscientists?
I don't recall what you are referring too. I think it would be more correct to say he disagrees with how the IPCC applies it.
Show me please. Which of his six articles. Which paragraph.
From what i just searched and read, he claims the IPCC uses a static model for albedo rather than a dynamic one. He never says the IPCC ignores albedo.
My God...
You can't even read without applying you bias.
And yet you mock them when anything is revised. I'd say you're talking out of both sides of your mouth Darrin but at this point you have more than two sides to that mouth.
I do not know the exact sensitivity off the top of my head, but I believe there is a general consensus as to the approximate value involved, yes.
That is my understanding.
I was going to point that out, but backspaced over it.
And yet you mock them when anything is revised. I'd say you're talking out of both sides of your mouth Darrin but at this point you have more than two sides to that mouth.
Lunch time over. sigh.
Newton's model of the world worked great for everyone until Einstein shattered it.
Give me the links and I will go over his articles, if you would be so kind.
That should be fairly easy to verify.
And yet you mock them when anything is revised. I'd say you're talking out of both sides of your mouth Darrin but at this point you have more than two sides to that mouth.
What are you talking about?
I never said I agree with the man 100%.
You fail again.
I have repeated pointed out our contribution to warming in the form of Black Carbon. When will you stop with your lying?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
