DC Tom Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Well yeah, but you can form theories from computer models. And a theory is what anthropogenic global warming is. (i lerned a new word). Actually, no you can't. You can investigate theories from computer models. Form them...not so much. They're useful tools, but nowhere near and end-all and be-all, since they're only as good as your a priori premises underpinning them. I certainly wouldn't trust a theory derived strictly from them (not that global warming is strictly derived from computer models - my issues with it lie elsewhere.) And a "theory" is nothing more than a description of the empirically observed world. A "scientific theory" is a theory that is falsifiable (or refutable), testable (verifiable by repeatable observation, such as but not limited to experiments in a lab setting), and predictive. A good example of a "scientific theory" that isn't is intelligent design - it is completely unfalsifiable (any event that would refute it can be included in the theory with the simple statement "The designer designed it that way"), not the least bit testable (there is no observational test you can devise to demonstrate the existence of a designer), and it predicts nothing (actually, by including any event with the observation "The designer designed it that way", it predicts everything, which is fundamentally the same thing). Contrast that with evolution, which is falsifiable (axioms of such have been rewritten several times over since Darwin first wrote), testable (you can, using the theory, establish a hypothesis that can then be tested using observable evidence to examine the "robustness" of the theory - for example, antibiotic resistance in microorganisms), and predictive (again, antibiotic resistance). The first requirement - falsifiability - is my biggest problem with global warming. Anthropogenic global warming is not allowed to be questioned. Period. If you, as a researcher, have a study that would call that in to question, it will not be published unless you include a statement such as "Although this does not preclude the man-made contribution to global warming..." The very moment the scientific investigation of the theory was required to include those words, the theory was made untestable, irrefutable, and hence unscientific (with recent studies stating ridiculous things like "We're entering a period of global cooling over the next three decades, which is attributable to global warming", it's literally become more religion than science in attributing contradictory data to the theory itself). And it pisses me off, because it supresses some otherwise good research that's being done in preference for a lot of really crappy studies of a more teleological nature. And that research should be done - it NEEDS to be done - because either anthropogenic global warming is accurately predictive (note, I didn't say "true"), and the research will necessarily refine the theory. Or it's not predictive (note, not "false"), in which case it would be a good thing to know. And either way, it doesn't preclude the wisdom of living with a smaller ecological footprint (which is more than just "carbon" - how much of your garbage ends up in a landfill every year? How wasteful is your fresh water use?) Disagreeing with global warming on fundamental methodological grounds does not mean disagreeing with environmental responsibility. In my opinion, quite the contrary: the environmental movement has been so hijacked by the anti-carbon agenda that in a lot of ways it's environmentally counter-productive (e.g., do you have any idea how environmentally destructive it is to manufacture a NiMH battery for a hybrid car?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like A Mofo Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 But they weren't on his DNC handout. :blink: :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 The first requirement - falsifiability - is my biggest problem with global warming. Anthropogenic global warming is not allowed to be questioned. Period. If you, as a researcher, have a study that would call that in to question, it will not be published unless you include a statement such as "Although this does not preclude the man-made contribution to global warming..." The very moment the scientific investigation of the theory was required to include those words, the theory was made untestable, irrefutable, and hence unscientific (with recent studies stating ridiculous things like "We're entering a period of global cooling over the next three decades, which is attributable to global warming", it's literally become more religion than science in attributing contradictory data to the theory itself). And it pisses me off, because it supresses some otherwise good research that's being done in preference for a lot of really crappy studies of a more teleological nature. And that research should be done - it NEEDS to be done - because either anthropogenic global warming is accurately predictive (note, I didn't say "true"), and the research will necessarily refine the theory. Or it's not predictive (note, not "false"), in which case it would be a good thing to know. It also goes against the 4th compnent of scientific theory --- Suprisibility. This is the ability of the theory to generate surprises from previous known events. Global warming is a "crisis" that has resulted in a bunch of loser hippies deciding that government should be in charge of everything we do. Find the surprise in that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 It also goes against the 4th compnent of scientific theory --- Suprisibility. This is the ability of the theory to generate surprises from previous known events. Global warming is a "crisis" has resulted in a bunch of loser hippies deciding that government should be in charge of everything we do. Find the surprise in that. Not just hippies. There's an intergovernmental body in charge of things. So the Canadians tell us what to do, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Global warming is a "crisis" has resulted in a bunch of loser hippies deciding that government should be in charge of everything we do. Find the surprise in that. Considering how long ago the 60s were, most hippies are also elderly So the Canadians tell us what to do, too. Elderly Canadian Hippies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Not just hippies. There's an intergovernmental body in charge of things. So the Canadians tell us what to do, too. The Canadians are the least of our problems. as soon as you tell them "no more zambonis" all bets are off. The hippies have rich indulgent parents who can keep supplying them with money while they stink up the land in their unwashed tie-dyed shirts and tell everyone else what to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Go sit in front of a coal power plant and stare at it for a few hours. Then think about how there are millions of buildings polluting just as much as that or more, all over the planet. Do I have to sing a song like Coom Bye Ahhh or something when I'm sitting there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted December 2, 2008 Author Share Posted December 2, 2008 Actually, no you can't. You can investigate theories from computer models. Form them...not so much. They're useful tools, but nowhere near and end-all and be-all, since they're only as good as your a priori premises underpinning them. I certainly wouldn't trust a theory derived strictly from them (not that global warming is strictly derived from computer models - my issues with it lie elsewhere.) Talking Point Tom is at it again, this time he's pushing the "evil computer model" meme! From the May 22 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show: LIMBAUGH: Al Gore is trying -- he's got this movie coming out. It's absurd. The Antarctica ice is actually increasing. This -- just this hysteric global warming is unsupportable by facts. It's not even supported by these wacko computer models anymore. http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/2007/1...m-faith-in.html And this article, despite being old, happens to be on the subject of computer models. In the global warming debate, computer models are everything. I resonate to Botkin's skepticism of computer models. I don't know anything about climate models in particular, but I do know a fair amount about complex computer models in other domains. I've watched scientist come to firmly believe in their beloved models as if they embodied the truth about nature. It is an amazing phenomenon to behold, and I've learned that for some scientists, the allure of a complex model is almost beyond description. http://churchlayman.wordpress.com/2008/05/...warming-part-2/ Climate scientists now use computer models, but there is no evidence that modeling improves the accuracy of predictions. For example, according to the models, the Earth should be warmer than actual measurements show it to be. http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Arti...7/GW_voodoo.pdf Climate models are the “Bible” of globalwarming advocates. The problem is that these computer models aren’t real. As one leading climate modeller told me, the models “don’t use any observed temperature data directly.” Another announced that “the climate record is irrelevant.” In other words, the models are a deliberate fraud, and many people in the business of convincing the public of the “dangers” of alleged anthropogenic global warming, know that they are a fraud. http://memetrics.wordpress.com/2008/11/20/...a-bag-of-hooey/ And I’ve heard Global Warming skeptics are like holocaust deniers (comparing a historical event for which there is fast documentary evidence to predictions of future catastrophe based on flawed computer models, (and more flawed models) but I digress). http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/chapter-5-skept.html We have gotten well into this paper, and we still have not discussed what is perhaps the most problematic aspect of AGW research: the computer models. http://markkelly.wordpress.com/2008/11/08/...omputer-models/ But now large-scale computer models are seen as generating data in themselves. No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world — increasingly, models provide the data. As if they were themselves a reality. And indeed they are, when we are projecting forward. There can be no observational data about the year 2100. There are only model runs. http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/?p=454 In part II we left off with scientific consensus and climate models and we will continue with computer climate models, since it seems to be a constant mantra, along with consensus, that many do good environmentalists cling to and more often than not, misunderstand and some abuse. There is a term we use in the computer world, a four letter acronym, called GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out) and computer climate models fit well into this term. As I mentioned earlier, computers will vomit data from that which was put into it, computer climate models are no different. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.com/index.ph...view&id=408 Alarmist global warming theory is totally dependent on computer models predicting accelerating warming in the future," Burnett noted, "yet the models have predicted such warming in the past, and the predicted warming has failed to materialize. This hardly seems a reliable indicator of future warming Looks like Talking Point Tom has been saved by the 10 quotes per post limit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Looks like Talking Point Tom has been saved by the 10 quotes per post limit! I'm thinking more about how it saved SDS from the extra wasted bandwidth and server space Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted December 2, 2008 Author Share Posted December 2, 2008 I'm thinking more about how it saved SDS from the extra wasted bandwidth and server space You're right, I'd say you'd need at least a Yottabyte of storage to contain all of Tom's talking points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 You're right, I'd say you'd need at least a Yottabyte of storage to contain all of Tom's talking points. And we'd need a Lottabyte's to store all the crap you post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/2007/1...m-faith-in.html http://churchlayman.wordpress.com/2008/05/...warming-part-2/ http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Arti...7/GW_voodoo.pdf http://memetrics.wordpress.com/2008/11/20/...a-bag-of-hooey/ http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/chapter-5-skept.html http://markkelly.wordpress.com/2008/11/08/...omputer-models/ http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/?p=454 http://scienceandpublicpolicy.com/index.ph...view&id=408 Oh boy, the link master is back with a vengence! When is the humilitation of DC Tom going to start? I don't want to miss it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted December 2, 2008 Author Share Posted December 2, 2008 Oh boy, the link master is back with a vengence! When is the humilitation of DC Tom going to start? I don't want to miss it. That's disgusting. Nobody wants to hear about your fetish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 That's disgusting. Nobody wants to hear about your fetish! Is that your best 'run and hide' impression? Tom calls you out for being too fuking stupid to have an original thought and you just take it? What a chump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted December 2, 2008 Author Share Posted December 2, 2008 Is that your best 'run and hide' impression? Tom calls you out for being too fuking stupid to have an original thought and you just take it? What a chump. Looks like you've chose to ignore the fact that I just exposed your boyfriends regurgitation of the right wing "computer model" meme as his own thoughts. The truth hurts doesn't it! Now go ask El Rushbo for a witty comeback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Elliot, I ask once again, what is your background? Do you work at McD's on the fryolator drive thru window, or the grill? You have read some of mine. I have worked on Saccharomyces cerevisiae (bakers yeast), herpes, trying to develop gene therapy vectors and candida albicans (yeast infections). I have published scientific papers. What scientific background do you have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted December 2, 2008 Author Share Posted December 2, 2008 Elliot, I ask once again, what is your background? Do you work at McD's on the fryolator drive thru window, or the grill? You have read some of mine. I have worked on Saccharomyces cerevisiae (bakers yeast), herpes, trying to develop gene therapy vectors and candida albicans (yeast infections). I have published scientific papers. What scientific background do you have? Working on yeast infections gives you credibility on global warming? It's funny how many scientists there are on the politics sub-forum of a Buffalo Bills message board. Judging by your moronic intonation and idiotic political views I'd be shocked if you even made it out of the 8th grade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 As Tom and I have shown you and Conner don't know how science is done. You are right, I am not not an expert on global warming, but I do know when bad science when I see it. As I keep asking, what is your science education? What do you do for a living? Are you ashamed of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted December 2, 2008 Author Share Posted December 2, 2008 As Tom and I have shown you and Conner don't know how science is done. You are right, I am not not an expert on global warming, but I do know when bad science when I see it. As I keep asking, what is your science education? What do you do for a living? Are you ashamed of it? I bet those pesky scientists who said that cigarettes were addictive were practicing "bad science" too, right? It's not my fault that you're too retarded to realize that Big Oil is playing you for suckers just like Big Tobacco did. If you think I'm going to value the opinion of some blowhard on the politics sub-forum of a Buffalo Bills message board more than someone like Stephen Hawking you are a senile old fool! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Looks like you've chose to ignore the fact that I just exposed your boyfriends regurgitation of the right wing "computer model" meme as his own thoughts. The truth hurts doesn't it! Now go ask El Rushbo for a witty comeback. What's that LinkBoy? You "exposed" your own ignorance by once again failing to offer any original thoughts? Quick LinkBoy, google a response!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts