Page 1 of 161 123451151101 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 4001
  1. #1
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Pseudoscience is any belief system or methodology which tries to gain legitimacy by wearing the trappings of science, but fails to abide by the rigorous methodology and standards of evidence that demarcate true science. Pseudoscience is designed to have the appearance of being scientific, but lacks any of the substance of science.
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

    UPDATE:
    This exchange is, in my opinion, probably *the* most clear example of the kinds of arguments made against the actual science that supports the theory that mankind is affecting our overall climate. Thank you DarrinS

    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=877



    From Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
    1.The pseudo-scientist considers himself a genius.

    2.He regards other researchers as stupid, dishonest or both. By choice or necessity he operates outside the peer review system (hence the le of the original Antioch Review article, "The Hermit Scientist").

    3.He believes there is a campaign against his ideas, a campaign compared with the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur.

    4.Instead of side-stepping the mainstream, the pseudo-scientist attacks it head-on: The most revered scientist is Einstein so Gardner writes that Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked.

    5.He coins neologisms. ["new words", in this case meant to sound as scientific as possible-RG]
    In reading through numerous climate change threads, and websites, I have found many of the traits rampant within the Denier movement.

    While I would not lump all people who doubt the current scientific consensus regarding man's effect on our climate into this category, I can say what I see quoted often by people making the argument almost invariably fits rather well into this.

    Quite frankly the most damning thing in my mind is that Deniers tend to eschew the peer-review process entirely. Something shared in common with people putting forth theories about healing properties of some "energetically treated water" and so forth.

    I will in this thread attempt to delve into the pseudo-science underpinning the Denier movement. I am sure it will attract the usual suspects with the usual arguments, but since I am here to make MY case regarding this, I will first do that over the next week or two, and then get around to responding to posted material.

    What I will do to support my case is twofold. I will first answer questions honestly, to the best of my abilities, and in good faith. I expect the same in return.

    Dogmatics tend to be unable to answer honest, fair questions plainly. This is one of *THE* hallmarks of pseudoscience. At the end of this post, I will keep a scoreboard of the number of times I ask honest, direct questions that are not answered by anybody who wants to pick up the gauntlet. I will source this scoreboard for reference in the second follow-up post.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    #Questions asked without direct intellectually honest answers:

    Yonivore:
    One question asked. Completely ignored.
    One logical fallacy.

    Obstructed view:
    Five questions asked.
    Two questions dodged without honest answers.
    Two questions answered fairly.
    One ignored.

    DarrinS:
    twelve logical fallacies
    One false assertion
    One question pending, probable second false assertion
    Cherry-picking data

    Wild Cobra:
    Five logical fallacies
    Four unproven assertions
    Putting forth a scientific sounding but untestable hypothesis
    Three instances of confirmation bias
    First direct comparison of climate scientists to Nazis in the thread

    Tyson Chandler:
    One logical fallacy

    PopTech:
    One case of refusing to answer a fair question.
    Failure to provide evidence when asked.
    Strawman logical fallacy


    (edit)
    Here is a good bit on the differences between honest skepticism and irrational denial of human caused climate change.

    http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/...redux-edition/

    Here is a link to the skeptics society, a group dedicated to fighting pseudo-science of all kinds, and what honest skeptics think of deniers:
    http://www.skeptic.com/tag/global-warming/

    A skeptic is one who prefers beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid to ones that are comforting or convenient, and therefore rigorously and openly applies the methods of science and reason to all empirical claims, especially their own. A skeptic provisionally proportions acceptance of any claim to valid logic and a fair and thorough assessment of available evidence, and studies the pitfalls of human reason and the mechanisms of deception so as to avoid being deceived by others or themselves. Skepticism values method over any particular conclusion.
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-10-2012 at 12:01 PM. Reason: Tallying up bad logic in support of my thesis as conversation progresses
    RandomGuy is offline

  2. #2
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Scoreboared Reference post. Links to follow over the course of the dialogue.


    Yonivore:
    First logical fallacy (ad hominem):
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=405
    Questions asked of Yonivore, Yoni ignored:
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...82&postcount=7

    Questions asked of Obstructed View:



    DarrinS:
    First illogical statement (illogical because it assumes the premise):
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...9&postcount=58
    Second illogical statement (ad hominem)
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=237
    Third illogical statement (ad hominem)
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=275
    Fourth illogical statement (strawman)
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=278
    Fifth illogical statement (appeal to popularity)
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=286
    Sixth illogical statement (strawman)
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=323
    Seventh illogical statement (slippery slope)
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=332
    Eighth illogical statement (ad hominem):
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=389
    Ninth illogical statement (ad hominem)
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=364
    Tenth illogical statement (strawman)
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=563
    Eleventh illogical statement (strawman)
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=643
    Twelfth illogical statement (strawman)
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=713

    Fair question concerning DarrinS' assertion asked:
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=338
    Question ignored:
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=342
    Question restated:
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=347
    Question ignored
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=357
    One failed question, discarding DarrinS false assertion, final post in series:
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=361

    Second fair question regarding an assertion:
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=412

    Cherry-picking data:
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=560


    Wild Cobra:
    One logical fallacy, 4 unproven assertions:
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=454
    Second logical fallacy, strawman argument:
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=524
    Third logical fallacy, appeal to belief:
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=622
    Fourth logical fallacy, ad hominem:
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=677
    Fifth logical fallacy, strawman argument.
    http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...postcount=1202

    Failure to answer a direct question about a concrete asserted hypothesis:
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=1018
    Confirmation bias: (dismissing scientific work without reading it, because he just *knows* its wrong, sight unseen)
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=1059
    (also see where this confirmation bias leads him to an erroneous conclusion based on a provably wrong starting assumption:
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=1120
    More confirmation bias (Experts with PhDs and decades worth of research and studies can't possibly have considered enough factors to make reasonable claims in their fields of study, even when these factors are readily recognizable by someone with no credentials in that field because he disagrees with the ultimate conclusion):
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=1075
    DING DING DING!! First direct comparison of climate scientists who think that human are affecting climate to Nazis in the thread.
    http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...postcount=1335


    Tyson Chandler:



    PopTech:
    Strawman logical fallacy, proved:
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=3541
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-03-2012 at 10:42 PM.
    RandomGuy is offline

  3. #3
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    It's always useful to shift up a level and try to see the big picture.

    As with the VRWC and politics, the deniers have successfully fogged up the science with the bull and lies.

    We know that the people vested in carbon energy have $Bs in profits to buy scientists, think tanks, papers, bogus studies, and they've been paying the s for decades, including capturing regulatory agencies. eg, fracking fluids are exempted, I think uniquely, from EPA water quality rules as defined under the dubya/ head/Repug/carbon-loving WH. The carbon energy industry knows their 100s of $Bs are in play if they can't keep suppressing the world's attempts to switch away from carbon energy.

    On the other side, it's really hard to imagine that scientists from all over the world have been conspiring for decades, as the deniers accuse, to fake climate/geological data. The giveaway is that these scientists don't have 100s of $Bs to lose or gain from their research being used a guide to anti-warming/anti-pollution policies.
    boutons_deux is offline

  4. #4
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    It's always useful to shift up a level and try to see the big picture.

    As with the VRWC and politics, the deniers have successfully fogged up the science with the bull and lies.

    We know that the people vested in carbon energy have $Bs in profits to buy scientists, think tanks, papers, bogus studies, and they've been paying the s for decades, including capturing regulatory agencies. eg, fracking fluids are exempted, I think uniquely, from EPA water quality rules as defined under the dubya/ head/Repug/carbon-loving WH. The carbon energy industry knows their 100s of $Bs are in play if they can't keep suppressing the world's attempts to switch away from carbon energy.

    On the other side, it's really hard to imagine that scientists from all over the world have been conspiring for decades, as the deniers accuse, to fake climate/geological data. The giveaway is that these scientists don't have 100s of $Bs to lose or gain from their research being used a guide to anti-warming/anti-pollution policies.
    If you actually follow this link:
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

    One of the main hallmarks of pseudoscience is that there is a Big Conspiracy. As outlined rather plainly by many deniers here and elsewhere, the conspiracy is of climate scientists who want more grant money to study climate.


    Lack of peer review, and claims of vast establishment conspiracies

    One of the single most important aspects of true science is replication and verification, particularly from third parties not involved in the original experiments. This is the heart of peer review, where new ideas are laid out before fellow scientists with all the details of how to replicate and extend the research.
    While the social dynamics of peer review are not foolproof, and many interesting issues can emerge, there is still nothing better for advancing human knowledge. It is, of course, not surprising that people who promote pseudoscience want to avoid peer review like a plague.
    "Denier" science is suppressed because it threatens that.

    Of course, when you press deniers on what percentage of the thousands of climate scientists who are acting in bad faith, you get a big load of "ignore".
    RandomGuy is offline

  5. #5
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    And then, just when you thought it safe to start calling people "deniers" again, you have things like this that undermine your position...

    Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society

    Global warming is the pseudo-science. Not a single forecast of doom by global warming adherents in the last quarter century has come true.

    Not one.
    Yonivore is offline

  6. #6
    Out with the old... Obstructed_View's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    40,383
    I normally don't post for long in the political forum because people have a tendency not to listen to each other, but I'll throw in my two cents because I think I'm a reasonable person who is witnessing mass insanity. I'll be interested to see the responses.

    Since some of the most prominent people, scientists and otherwise, involved have been outed for faking data, since a number of prominent and respected scientists have removed themselves from the process you mentioned, and since the vast majority of the peers in the review process have a vested interest in the outcome to keep the huge amounts of grant money coming in (which is how universities get funding), I'm not sure why you'd be surprised that people are skeptical. Seems like you'd spend more time trying to convice people of your position rather than making a thread with the exact same accusations that have been lobbed at the man-made global warming crowd for years. There are trillions of dollars at stake, there are emerging markets, governments, the UN are all coming up with ways to fund this issue. This is the gold rush of the twenty-first century, and it's all going to anybody that claims to be an environmental scientist, and with all those people involved, the one thing that would end the debate and secure their position, hard evidence, still hasn't been found.

    By the way, if you ask "deniers" what percentage of scientists are acting in bad faith, you don't really expect an answer, do you? How does one answer a question like that? Is an exact percentage even relevant? Sounds like something you ask someone because you don't actually want to have a debate. You should know as well as anyone else that the frauds follow the money. If you really believe in your position it seems like you'd want those people removed from the conversation.

    I know you think this transferrence tactic is really clever, if not original, but how about making a case? Obviously if it's so simple that humans are causing the temperature of the planet to increase, there should be loads and loads of very simple evidence to support that. You might spend the effort trying to explain the position. CO2 levels have mirrored global temperatures for thousands of years, yet it seems awfully hard to make the case of humankind's impact on global temperature. There is an increase in CO2 levels, about 2 parts per million per year. The case for the link between the relatively tiny changes in global temperature and the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit seems much easier to make and explain, and the theory that CO2 levels are the result of global temperature change rather than the cause seems to fit with that as well.

    Michael Mann cited climate change's "near-certain link to human activity" in the Washington Post this week, meaning after all the money and time and effort spent trying to find a link, it still doesn't exist. Mann is busy writing political op-eds to prevent politicians from investigating the fraud he helped perpetrate. If he didn't do anything wrong, why would he care? He mentioned the psuedo science questioning the link between smoking and cancer, not realizing that in the analogy he cited, he's the tobacco company with the financial stake in preventing the truth from coming out.

    And again, let's make sure we've got our terminology correct. I'm all for punishing companies that pollute and for trying not to be wasteful. I'm all for recycling, alternative energy sources and working to end reliance on foreign oil. , I still think Obama was correct when he pointed out how much gas people would save if they'd just make sure their tire pressure was correct. But when people make up lies about how dire the future is or just spend time and effort shouting down the opposition, all that does is causes people to tune it out, and turning off Americans to the idea isn't going to help get control of China as they emerge further and further into the industrialized world.
    Obstructed_View is offline

  7. #7
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Not a single forecast of doom by global warming adherents in the last quarter century has come true.

    Not one.
    The very first example of logical fallacy in the thread.

    No single human being has ever accomplished powered heavier than air flight.

    Not one.
    No single human being has ever walked on the moon.

    Not one.
    Human history is littered with such statements.

    As noted in my OP:

    [The pseudo-scientist] believes there is a campaign against his ideas, a campaign compared with the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur.

    the global warming scam

    Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

    In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics

    This is not science; other forces are at work.

    APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims

    you have formed still another secret and stacked committee
    Yoni, does that letter of resignation imply that the author believes there is a conspiracy against his idea, and/or a persecution of him personally?
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 09-19-2011 at 11:02 AM. Reason: clarified question.
    RandomGuy is offline

  8. #8
    Take the fcking keys away baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    93,154
    Not a single forecast of doom by global warming adherents in the last quarter century has come true.

    Not one.
    1938


    1981


    1998


    2005


    2009
    baseline bum is online now

  9. #9
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    By the way, if you ask "deniers" what percentage of scientists are acting in bad faith, you don't really expect an answer, do you? How does one answer a question like that? Is an exact percentage even relevant? Sounds like something you ask someone because you don't actually want to have a debate.
    The point of the question was to get a general idea as to how many people would have to collude to "fake" the data involved. It was not to get at any real exact figure.

    The problem with accusing tens of thousands of people of committing a purposeful conspiracy, such as climate scientists are generally accused of being guilty of, is that it is hard to keep such a vast conspiracy secret. Someone usually steps forward to admit "yeah, I faked data" or some such.

    If the answer to that question is "100% of them" then, I know I am dealing with someone with whom I probably can't really have a meaningful conversation.
    RandomGuy is offline

  10. #10
    Out with the old... Obstructed_View's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    40,383
    1938


    1981


    1998


    2005


    2009
    Sorry, but I don't really know what we're looking at here. Could you put a big red circle around the predicted doom?
    Obstructed_View is offline

  11. #11
    Take the fcking keys away baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    93,154
    Sorry, but I don't really know what we're looking at here. Could you put a big red circle around the predicted doom?
    Such a snarky comment from someone who is acting like he's taking the high road. The picture obviously shoots down Yonivore's contention that no global warming prediction has come true. It's one thing to act like it's not man-made, but Yonivore's contention that it isn't happening at all is comical.
    baseline bum is online now

  12. #12
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    I know you think this transferrence tactic is really clever, if not original, but how about making a case? Obviously if it's so simple that humans are causing the temperature of the planet to increase, there should be loads and loads of very simple evidence to support that. You might spend the effort trying to explain the position. CO2 levels have mirrored global temperatures for thousands of years, yet it seems awfully hard to make the case of humankind's impact on global temperature. There is an increase in CO2 levels, about 2 parts per million per year. The case for the link between the relatively tiny changes in global temperature and the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit seems much easier to make and explain, and the theory that CO2 levels are the result of global temperature change rather than the cause seems to fit with that as well.
    There are plenty of threads for making cases for against the theory. This isn't one of them. I am simply outlining my own reasons for being rather skeptical of the people who tell me "human beings are absolutely not responsible for any changes in earths climate".

    I find the tone of most "denier" websites to be pseudo-scientific. I will point out how most deniers tend to fall into that catagory. Indeed we have been given a rather good example in Yoni's first post.

    The gentleman's letter showed the individual in question obviously had made his mind up. He was convinced that the big money conspiracy was the entire reason that his society endorsed the "global warming scam".

    Hardly the stuff of science, from where I sit.
    RandomGuy is offline

  13. #13
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Michael Mann cited climate change's "near-certain link to human activity" in the Washington Post this week, meaning after all the money and time and effort spent trying to find a link, it still doesn't exist.
    Interesting statement. Let's see if we can examine "nearly certain" and "the link doesn't exist".

    I am nearly certain you are a human being, not a clever computer program.

    If I use your implied logic, i.e. being "nearly certain" means that it is incorrect or non-existant" does that mean that you are a computer program?

    Or is the fact that you are a human being independent of whether I am nearly certain about it?

    In science, is one ever 100% certain about anything?

    You stated rather clearly that there is no link between human activity and climate change.

    Is there a chance you are wrong about that?

    Is it possible to make reasonable decisions based on incomplete information?
    RandomGuy is offline

  14. #14
    Out with the old... Obstructed_View's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    40,383
    Such a snarky comment from someone who is acting like he's taking the high road. The picture obviously shoots down Yonivore's contention that no global warming prediction has come true. It's one thing to act like it's not man-made, but Yonivore's contention that it isn't happening at all is comical.
    If you're going to reply to a statement like that with a series of pictures with no explanation and no caption then you're really telling everyone that you have any interest in debating facts, muchless coming to a scientific conclusion.

    There appears to be more ice on the 2009 picture than the 1938 picture, even though, judging by the snow on the mountains in the back, the 1938 picture is taken in a colder season than the 2009 picture. If that's all the more scientific standard you require for evidence, it's no wonder people question those on your side of the debate. You're welcome to write me off as "snarky" but you might, at some point, start to make the connection between responses like yours and people questioning your motives.

    I'm not on the "nothing is happening" boat, but it would be nice if you included some explanation of what it is. Glaciers come and go, and always have. There's certainly not any prediction that it confirms. In the 1970s the prediction was of an approaching ice age. Again, if there's actually a melting glacier in that series of photos, it fits with the global temperature change, which conforms with the CO2 fluctuations, which conforms with the cycle of the orbit of the Earth around the sun.
    Obstructed_View is offline

  15. #15
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    Yoni needs to list all the predictions that were wrong. Certainly some expensive carbon-industry-financed "researchers" have made such a list. It will be a big lie, but let's see it anyway.

    definition: wrong prediction means "white was predicted, but black happened"

    "white was predicted, but almost white, and white with some off-white happened" isn't "wrong". It's inaccurate, and is simply the way science goes, esp something as complex as climate science.

    Demanding absolute accuracy from climate scientists is a bad-faith tactic by the denier business. Extremely vague predictions of oil and gas reserves (those that aren't kept secret) is acceptable.
    boutons_deux is offline

  16. #16
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Such a snarky comment from someone who is acting like he's taking the high road. The picture obviously shoots down Yonivore's contention that no global warming prediction has come true. It's one thing to act like it's not man-made, but Yonivore's contention that it isn't happening at all is comical.
    He made a fair point. Your post was simply regarding the shrinking snowcap in one place, but that did not address a prediction of "doom and gloom".

    Good science makes predictions.

    Most of the predictions about climate change concern rises in ocean level, and things like "hurricanes will become both more numerous and powerful".

    To adequately address his statement you would have to supply something where a prediction had actually come to fruition.

    I would point out that our understanding of the earth's climate has advanced by huge strides in the last 40 years.

    2010 is not 1970.

    The problem with such statements as his, is that our understanding of the system gets better each year, and if the sum of that understanding leads to fairly conclusive statements, even if not certain, then current statements would have a bit more validity than something said of the earth's probable future climate in 1970, such as the "big freeze" trotted out often.
    RandomGuy is offline

  17. #17
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    If you're going to reply to a statement like that with a series of pictures with no explanation and no caption then you're really telling everyone that you have any interest in debating facts, muchless coming to a scientific conclusion.

    There appears to be more ice on the 2009 picture than the 1938 picture, even though, judging by the snow on the mountains in the back, the 1938 picture is taken in a colder season than the 2009 picture. If that's all the more scientific standard you require for evidence, it's no wonder people question those on your side of the debate. You're welcome to write me off as "snarky" but you might, at some point, start to make the connection between responses like yours and people questioning your motives.

    I'm not on the "nothing is happening" boat, but it would be nice if you included some explanation of what it is. Glaciers come and go, and always have. There's certainly not any prediction that it confirms. In the 1970s the prediction was of an approaching ice age. Again, if there's actually a melting glacier in that series of photos, it fits with the global temperature change, which conforms with the CO2 fluctuations, which conforms with the cycle of the orbit of the Earth around the sun.
    Correlation and causality.

    Your theory is that observed CO2 changes are the result of temperature changes, not the other way around?
    RandomGuy is offline

  18. #18
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Yoni needs to list all the predictions that were wrong. Certainly some expensive carbon-industry-financed "researchers" have made such a list. It will be a big lie, but let's see it anyway.

    definition: wrong prediction means "white was predicted, but black happened"

    "white was predicted, but almost white, and white with some off-white happened" isn't "wrong". It's inaccurate, and is simply the way science goes, esp something as complex as climate science.

    Demanding absolute accuracy from climate scientists is a bad-faith tactic by the denier business. Extremely vague predictions of oil and gas reserves (those that aren't kept secret) is acceptable.
    Good points.

    Such "it has to be 100% iron clad otherwise I don't think it's a valid theory" schtick is also used rather extensively by creationists in their "God in the gaps" arguments, speaking of pseudoscience.
    RandomGuy is offline

  19. #19
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    RG, flattery will get you nowhere, and you're gonna mess up my reputation. GFY
    boutons_deux is offline

  20. #20
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    If you're going to reply to a statement like that with a series of pictures with no explanation and no caption then you're really telling everyone that you have any interest in debating facts, muchless coming to a scientific conclusion.

    There appears to be more ice on the 2009 picture than the 1938 picture, even though, judging by the snow on the mountains in the back, the 1938 picture is taken in a colder season than the 2009 picture.
    Fair points. One would have to ensure that each picture was taken on the same day of the year to allow for variability in seasons, although one could use the pictures to generally show that area is warming over a long period of time if the glacier shrunk enough to eliminate seasonal variability.
    RandomGuy is offline

  21. #21
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    RG, flattery will get you nowhere, and you're gonna mess up my reputation. GFY


    What I really meant was:

    "Horrible post, you illogical head."

    Better?
    RandomGuy is offline

  22. #22
    Out with the old... Obstructed_View's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    40,383
    Interesting statement. Let's see if we can examine "nearly certain" and "the link doesn't exist".

    I am nearly certain you are a human being, not a clever computer program.

    If I use your implied logic, i.e. being "nearly certain" means that it is incorrect or non-existant" does that mean that you are a computer program?
    You are exactly right. Your statement is 100 percent as scientific as the one made by one of the leading climategate scientists. "Nearly certain" is not a scientific term. Thank you for pointing that out for me. Are you wondering why someone claiming to be a scientist would use a term like that? If not, why aren't you?

    Or is the fact that you are a human being independent of whether I am nearly certain about it?
    So by implication, someone can believe that it is a fact that global warming is caused by human activities even though nobody is certain of it and act on that information. The word for that is "faith", which is religion, not science. If you'd like to start an environmentalist religion and begin prosthelytizing I will certainly do my best not to stand in the way of your beliefs.

    In science, is one ever 100% certain about anything?

    You stated rather clearly that there is no link between human activity and climate change.

    Is there a chance you are wrong about that?
    Actually, I stated rather clearly that a link still hasn't been found, which is not saying there is no link. If you're going to characterize what I say, I'd appreciate if you'd do it properly. And no, I'm not incorrect about that, of that I am 100 percent certain. The link still hasn't been found. If it had, people wouldn't have to resort to "nearly certain".

    Is it possible to make reasonable decisions based on incomplete information?
    If the environmental movement is any indication? No, it isn't possible. I think, by definition, it has more in common with religion than science.
    Obstructed_View is offline

  23. #23
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    "Nearly certain" is not a scientific term.
    Actually it is.

    Real scientists use phrases like "it is more probable than not" all the time.
    RandomGuy is offline

  24. #24
    Out with the old... Obstructed_View's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    40,383
    Fair points. One would have to ensure that each picture was taken on the same day of the year to allow for variability in seasons, although one could use the pictures to generally show that area is warming over a long period of time if the glacier shrunk enough to eliminate seasonal variability.
    I'm more than willing to stipulate that the climate changes, it always has and always will. There are a number of temperature cycles that the planet goes through. Without looking it up, I'm able to accept the reality that global temperature has changed in the last one hundred years. All that, in and of itself, amounts to irrelevant information and is often improperly used to muddy up a debate.
    Obstructed_View is offline

  25. #25
    Out with the old... Obstructed_View's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    40,383
    Correlation and causality.

    Your theory is that observed CO2 changes are the result of temperature changes, not the other way around?
    I have no theory. Correlation has been adequately proven, causality has not.
    Obstructed_View is offline

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •