 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/30/2011 1:18 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 12/30/2011 01:52 PM, Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> Warp<war### [at] tag povrayorg> writes:
>>
>>> And man has never went to the Moon, 9/11 was an inside job, Kennedy was
>>> killed by the FBI and the Bavarian Illuminati is trying to establish the
>>
>> Kennedy was killed by the CIA, not the FBI. Get your facts straight.
>>
> you are most likely correct ... but J Edgar and Robert weren't exactly
> buddies either ;-)
Did they just release a new piece of, previously held, film, that
conclusively killed this one? Snort.. What I am saying, the conspiracy
nuts probably just figure it took until now to properly CG a grainy film
strip, showing the shooting.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:31:06 -0500, John VanSickle wrote:
> I see no *conclusive* evidence that the world's climate will behave any
> differently in the next fifty years than it has in the previous fifty.
There's something of a fallacy here - that science has to provide
'conclusive' proof of anything before it's taken seriously.
There's overwhelming evidence to support the idea that the world is
warming. Even studies funded by climate change deniers (the recent one
funded by the Koch bros. for example) show that the world is warming.
*Absolute* proof is not the standard in scientific research. A
preponderance of the evidence is, but in actual scientific research, it's
also common to provide counter-evidence.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/31/2011 4:29 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:31:06 -0500, John VanSickle wrote:
>
>> I see no *conclusive* evidence that the world's climate will behave any
>> differently in the next fifty years than it has in the previous fifty.
>
> There's something of a fallacy here - that science has to provide
> 'conclusive' proof of anything before it's taken seriously.
>
> There's overwhelming evidence to support the idea that the world is
> warming. Even studies funded by climate change deniers (the recent one
> funded by the Koch bros. for example) show that the world is warming.
>
> *Absolute* proof is not the standard in scientific research. A
> preponderance of the evidence is, but in actual scientific research, it's
> also common to provide counter-evidence.
I did not say that the planet is not getting warmer. I said that the
climate will not behave any differently. One is not the other.
It is now a documented fact that much of the research purported to
support AGW was falsified and/or misrepresented, and claiming that this
puts me into the moon-landing denier camp is mere ad hominem.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 09:04:35 -0500, John VanSickle wrote:
> I did not say that the planet is not getting warmer. I said that the
> climate will not behave any differently. One is not the other.
That's not particularly logical, John. If one changes a variable, then
the outcome changes. If the planet is getting warmer, then there are
effects caused by that - and we're seeing that. Have you read the
reports about water shortages in (I think it was) Peru, where the glacial
melt has accelerated (demonstrated fact) and is causing a drought?
> It is now a documented fact that much of the research purported to
> support AGW was falsified and/or misrepresented,
"Much" is an exaggeration, and the data that was 'exaggerated' has been
removed from the data set, and the trends still show pretty clearly. In
fact, that study that was funded by the Koch bros. used all of the
validated data and was intended to actually answer the question one way
or the other - and the person doing the research reportedly didn't care
what the outcome was.
And the outcome was that it's real.
> and claiming that this
> puts me into the moon-landing denier camp is mere ad hominem.
I didn't put you in that camp - in fact, I was pretty careful *not* to do
so. So lumping this statement in with the rest makes it sound like I
did. I'd appreciate it if you didn't do that.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 01/01/2012 20:53, Jim Henderson nous fit lire :
> On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 09:04:35 -0500, John VanSickle wrote:
>
>> > I did not say that the planet is not getting warmer. I said that the
>> > climate will not behave any differently. One is not the other.
> That's not particularly logical, John. If one changes a variable, then
> the outcome changes.
I think you both agree... somehow.
John states that the climate's rules are not changed (the reactions
remain the same, the rules of physics are not updated).
Jim states that the outcome will be different because the input
variables are differents.
To simplify, assume climate is a function f(x):= 3*x.
John states: f(x) remains unchanged.
Jim states: x was pi, next it is 4.
Both are corrects. old f(x) was 3 pi. new f(x) will be 12.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/1/2012 7:04 AM, John VanSickle wrote:
> It is now a documented fact that much of the research purported to
> support AGW was falsified and/or misrepresented, and claiming that this
> puts me into the moon-landing denier camp is mere ad hominem.
>
No it wasn't. There where multiple data sources, including "actual
measurements". One bloody set of data, specific to a species of tree
whose rings where used, as one data point, to verify the trend, showed
an odd skew in the data, which contradicted the trend. The supposedly
"falsified" data was a chart that excluded the trees, for a very small
period of time, as used other data sources *instead*, to fill in the gap
that resulted. The exact reason for the disparity isn't certain, but a)
its a damn life form, and b) there where increases in drought conditions
in the region they where in, which might have had an impact on the data
produced. All other sources of data, including *live* recordings of
actual temperatures, all showed the expected trend. A few living
organisms, which belonged to one species, and might thus have been prey
to anything from bugs, to water contamination, to not enough water, to..
who knows, was the sole cause of the complaints about "falsified data".
But, this makes no damn sense at all. If, to give an example, you are
baking cookies, but they burn, and the oven says its 350, but a) other
things burn too, b) your cooking thermometer says its 450, c) other
means of testing the temperature says its too high as well, etc., do you
insist that the oven is right, or do you ignore the oven, and make down
on your recipe, "Set at 250, to compensate for the error."? That's
bloody making sure your data is right, not "faking it". now, if
everything, including the cookies, said its was 350, but your
thermometer said something else, but you sided with it, that would be a
completely different matter, but that was the exact opposite of what
happened with the tree ring data.
As for other claims of misrepresentation, etc... Those mostly came out
of denialist intentional misinterpretation of emails. Emails that
involved internal discussion as to which data was valid, why some of it
might be a bit quirky, and how trustworthy it was, what means should be
used to correct for these minor errors, in order to present the most
accurate assessment possible, and a fair number of emails about how
pissed off they where at people that liked to only point out things
that, for one reason or other, didn't show the expected results, in
order to undermine their research. Most of the reason for the small
problems where averaged out, not excluded, by tracking *multiple* data
sources, which produce an inexact, but never the less clear, pattern,
for those periods where we have no direct measurements.
But, for more recent measurements, the data includes satellite records,
better measurements, more accurate analysis of other data types, etc.,
and they all show, even without ignoring clear evidence, like melting
ice caps, communities vanishing to permafrost melting, rising tide
levels, in places like Texas, where the anti-AGW people actually
released the paper that was written there only *after* editing out all
mention of the tide levels, and all the charts showing it had increased,
and other things that supported the idea that sea levels where rising.
Every single scientist that had their name on the thing immediately
protested, and asked to be removed as an author.
There has been no legitimate case made for any data being falsified, or
misinterpreted, save by those people that either don't want it to be
true, or the companies that would need to change practices, and the
think tanks, which those same companies *pay* to say that the evidence
doesn't support AGW (as well as paying to claim all sort of other things
that are fishy, invalid, and/or strangely convenient for their benefactors).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/1/2012 2:14 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 01/01/2012 20:53, Jim Henderson nous fit lire :
>> On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 09:04:35 -0500, John VanSickle wrote:
>>
>>>> I did not say that the planet is not getting warmer. I said that the
>>>> climate will not behave any differently. One is not the other.
>> That's not particularly logical, John. If one changes a variable, then
>> the outcome changes.
>
> I think you both agree... somehow.
> John states that the climate's rules are not changed (the reactions
> remain the same, the rules of physics are not updated).
> Jim states that the outcome will be different because the input
> variables are differents.
>
> To simplify, assume climate is a function f(x):= 3*x.
>
> John states: f(x) remains unchanged.
> Jim states: x was pi, next it is 4.
>
> Both are corrects. old f(x) was 3 pi. new f(x) will be 12.
Yeah, but, we are talking about something more complex than that.
Something that, within certain constraints, has a stable result, but
which can get far more complex, and seemingly chaotic, if you change the
variables too much. Its not like we don't know of, or see, types of
whether that is unusual any place. For example, from what I understand
there is a certain kind if high altitude cloud that is very rare, and so
high that, at night it is visible, due to reflecting sunlight from
around the curvature of the earth (where its not obviously visible from
the ground). This is, supposedly becoming more common in the last decade
or so. While it may be true that the fundamental laws stay the same, you
have two major problems. The first one is, certain uncommon results can
become more common. The second one is, if those uncommon events have
secondary effects, such as disturbing other nearby weather systems,
which they wouldn't normally, or as much, the resulting change is no
longer predictable, given *expected* results from such proximities.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/28/2011 3:18, Warp wrote:
> And humanity is doing little to help
> this, even though it's a very well known problem.
The best thing to do about this is to have fewer children. I don't see that
going down well anywhere except maybe China.
> doing all this *on purpose*.
Probably, yes.
> are not doing anything about it.
I disagree. Alternate sources and battery tech improves tremendously.
> namely the United States, seems to be going down hard in politics,
> science and education. It's showing troubling signs of turning into a
> theocracy-like totalitarian state in the near future.
Sucks hard, yes.
> - Large companies, especially those ones having intellectual properties,
> and especially the American ones, are slowly trying to take over the world.
It's helped along by the fact that the governments don't want users having
such freedoms either.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 12/28/2011 3:18, Warp wrote:
> > And humanity is doing little to help
> > this, even though it's a very well known problem.
>
> The best thing to do about this is to have fewer children. I don't see that
> going down well anywhere except maybe China.
Problem is: nutjobs have children at a far higher rate than people who value
reason. It's the same as in voting: if you abstain, you merely let others
decide your future. You're not doing your job in improving mankind. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/01/2012 08:11 PM, nemesis wrote:
> Problem is: nutjobs have children at a far higher rate than people who value
> reason.
Required XKCD quote: http://www.xkcd.com/603/
(This took me an absurd amount of time to find, BTW. Unfortunately
Google can't search images...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
