That is not an answer to my question.
The answer to the question as asked is:
The truth is independent of my belief.
That is not a good faith attempt to answer my question.
Very interested in Climate Science, Not at all interested in debating climate science. The political situation with climate science is nothing like the scientific situation and most people are only familiar with the political version.
As far as the politics are concerned the deniers have won. Why? Because its easy as to muddy the waters as opposed to actually addressing the situation. Yonivore can make claims that no predictions have come true (which is outlandish as it gets) and people read them and take it as fact. Obstructed view can make a claim that there has been a falsified information and data and people accept it as fact.
They've won, thee is not going to be any political action taken regarding climate change.
The military, however, seems to be taken climate change very seriously. Pretty ionic, actually.
Enjoy the thread.
That is not an answer to my question.
The answer to the question as asked is:
The truth is independent of my belief.
That is not a good faith attempt to answer my question.
Fair enough. You stated the link has "not been found." My charactorization of your post was in error.
What would qualify, in your view, finding that link?
The answer is:
Yes, it is possible to make decisions based on incomplete information.
I would offer decisions by CEOs and military leaders every day as evidence.
That was not a good faith answer to my question.
Actually , it was completely a good faith attempt to answer your question.
You suggest that there's an underlying fact that exists whether or not you, as the scientist, can prove it. The implication seems quite clear to me that you want to accept a fact even though science can't prove it.
Looking at it scientifically, in your analogy, I could be a clever computer program. You don't know, and cannot state with any degree of certainty either way, but you picked what is most likely to you, that I am a human being, and have married yourself to that position. There is nothing scientific about that. The fact that you know that I am actually a human being in real life is completely irrelevant. From a scientific standpoint, you have not been able to prove anything. You just assumed that one of your choices is correct and have convinced yourself that you were scientific about it.
I thought we were talking about science. CEOs and military leaders aren't scientists.
This is the second time you've implied that I'm somehow being dishonest in my answers. It's funny that I came in here trying to give you exactly what you want but you seem to be more interested in playing word games and changing the rules as you go. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Have fun with your debate.
Fair answer.
Is it possible then, to make the following statement about causation:
Cause must proceed effect.
???
My questions have been rather simple.
They have definite answers, and I seek no explanations beyond a simple attempt to get to mutually agreed precepts. If I ask what color the sky is, there is only one real answer to that question.
I have not attempted to "prove" anything, merely restate the logical argument you seemed to be attempting to make, in order to see if it is logical.
If I can think of an instance in which the same logical form is false then it is safe to discard it.
Is it really hard to figure out a series of pictures of a melting glacier refers to predictions of glaciers melting due to global warming?
In what world is there more ice in the 2009 picture? You can't be serious here. Stick with the insults I guess.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.
You're moving the goalposts. Yonivore specifically said none of the doom and gloom predictions have come true, even though the continued melting of glaciers all over the northern hemisphere is exactly what has been predicted and observed all over the Rockies, in California, and in Greenland.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.
You are correct. I cannot really know for certain you are not a program.
I can though, decide to act on the "nearly certain" assumption that you are human enough to bother talking to. I base this on nothing more than my knowledge that computer programs currently do not have the sophistication to produce the kinds of answers you have given so far.
In this case, I can act on incomplete information. I do no have to know for certain you exist to respond to your posts.
The question was not:
"Is it possible for scientists to make decisions based on incomplete information?"
You answered the question you wanted to, not the question I asked. That is a rather standard evasive tactic used by people who do not like the implications of questions posed to them.
'Doom and gloom' is the sarcastic reaction from Yonivore to anything negative that goes against his political religion. And one place? I could post pictures of Lyell Glacier in the Sierras, the Grasshopper Glaciers in the Beartooths, Schoolroom Glacier in Grand Teton, and tons of others, but I figured showing a series of pics of Grinnell Glacier's massive retreat was a pretty simple reminder of the general fact that our glaciers are retreating (and quickly) as a result of global warming.
Seems like you do.
I want to predict the rest of this thread:
Such evidence does indeed point to warming trends. I find that people who tend to claim "there is no warming, not nohow, no way" tend to be the ones who adhere most closely to the "Denier" dogma.
Ceding any point of contention for a dogmatic is tantamount, in their minds, to ceding the entire debate.
That is why Yoni et al. tend to ignore my questions.
Touche.
Well played, sir.
Don't forget the inevitable reference to Hitler.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Actually it is very much indeed scientific. A good scientist is going to be skeptic and is not going to make statements of certainty when it comes to causation.
If there is a very strong correlation of data to observations then a good scientist is going to say that things are nearly certain and be right.
Actually, a scientist would, at that point, pose a theory, which then would be scrutinized by his/her peers.
But onto the topic at hand, I think it's very important to understand the scope of the problem domain. We're obviously talking mostly statistics and probability at this time when it comes to this topic simply because the problem domain is incredibly large (I would say it's realistically intractable with the current dataset, the quality of it and what we really know and don't know that affects climate).
I personally don't discard a connection to man, as I wouldn't discard some explanation from a burst of gamma rays from two stars colliding 200 years ago, far far away.
I just don't think we've enough information to make informed decisions about this topic yet. I think as we go along, and more scientists pose more theories on the subject, and back it up with more data, and some other scientists debunk those theories and pose their own, and we get a better understanding of the problem domain, we're going to eventually reach some workable, usable information.
To me, the worst part is to see the natural scientific process being bas ized with political mud (from both ends), instead of letting it evolve as it should. It actually hinders advancement in this very interesting field.
I think we can all agree that science does not mean something has to be known, 100%. This is nearly impossible when you're dealing with activities that can have a wide variety of factors, or occurred over a long span of time.
I mean, if I say I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, that's based off known evidence, historical data, etc etc. Just because I won't know for certain if the sun will rise until I actually see it tomorrow does not mean that my guess is based off faith alone, as OV implies.
For the Repugs, it's all about obeying their carbon-industry paymasters.
How Did an Entire Political Party Decide to Reject Climate Change Science
http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/...aign=alternet#
So a key tactic of the carbon-industry and Repugs is to fog up the discussion, by saying it's the science, which is really a red herring, when in fact the "discussion" is really about protecting and increasing the carbon industry's profits.
Texas' Valero and Tesoro are pouring $Ms into CA to defeat environmental regs, because of the "science".
And their campaign $Ms are a tiny percentage of their current and future profits. As with buying cheap Congresscritters, defeating environmental regs provides a huge return on investment.
The oil industry debates climate science? GMAFB
Last edited by boutons_deux; 10-11-2010 at 06:18 AM.
That is the AGW scientists right there.However, in pseudoscience there is no real honest attempt to follow the scientific method, provide falsifiable predictions, or develop double blind experiments. Pseudoscientists often use the tactic of cheating the scientific method.
I'm feel left out. Where's the questions asked of me?
Looks like to me the soot, or what ever airborne aerosol has make the snow black is collecting sunlight and downward IR from the greenhouse effect, melting the snow and ice faster than if it were clean. Clean ice reflects most of the spectra, while dirty snow and ice absorbs something like 5+ times more of this heat.1938
1981
1998
2005
2009
Not many. How many people have access to the raw data?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
