UN: Global warming 95% likely to be manmade

[Tecumsehsbones]

In that case 2+2=4 is a scientific law.

Um. . . no, it's a mathematical law. Science is not mathematics, and mathematics is not science.

 

[Zipperfish]

Um. . . no, it isn't. As you prove in your next paragraph.


That's not "a" difference. It's the antithesis of religion. Religion asserts that it has the sole, invariable, and inviolable truth. Science knows that a theory is only good until the data show otherwise.

Well in science you have to accept things on faith. That's the context I was using. Even in logic and mathematics you have to accept things on faith. See, for example, Hume's problem of induction. Problem of induction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Induction is ultimately self-referential. And all logical deduction is set upon axioms which, by definition, are accepted without proof. In other words, you can't find the truth with logic unless you've already found teh truth without it. :lol:

 

[darkbeaver]

Um. . . no, it's a mathematical law. Science is not mathematics, and mathematics is not science.

Much of the astrophysical crowd would disagree with you.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Well in science you have to accept things on faith.

No, you don't. You accept things on data and repeatable, falsifiable theory. That's the precise opposite of faith.

That's the context I was using. Even in logic and mathematics you have to accept things on faith. See, for example, Hume's problem of induction. Problem of induction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Induction is ultimately self-referential. And all logical deduction is set upon axioms which, by definition, are accepted without proof. In other words, you can't find the truth with logic unless you've already found teh truth without it. :lol:

Logic and mathematics aren't science. That's why they're called logic and mathematics, and not science.

 

[darkbeaver]

I thought science first and foremost was described by the simple method.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I thought science first and foremost was described by the simple method.

I'm sure you did.

 

[darkbeaver]

I would not lie to you.

 

[PoliticalNick]

No that isn't how it works at all. See "Fallibilism." Or "Falsifiability." Or "null hypothesis."



No, that isn't how it works at all.



No that isn't how it works at all.

It doesn't matter how many times you say 'that isn't how it works', that is how it really works in the real world. It may be different in your theoretical, imagined world but we deal in reality.

The Theory of Relativity is unproven. The Theory of Evolution is unproven. The Theory of Gravity is unproven(This one is funny because it is proven). Quantum Mechanics is a theory. All theories that are well known and used in science.

So let me see....Theory = Unproven....so not a fact. Here, let me help you....

the·o·ry [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

fact [fakt]
something that actually exists; reality; truth

Can you name me something in science that isn't a theory?

You bet your little titties I can!

There are 3 states of matter -gas, liquid & solid
Water freezes at 0c at sea level
Water boils at 100c at sea level
Hydrogen and helium are lighter than air
Propane wont burn unless mixed with oxygen

All are FACTS. Tried tested and true. Results will be replicated every time the parameters are met.

Do you want me to go on or do you feel stupid enough already?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

There are 3 states of matter -gas, liquid & solid
Water freezes at 0c at sea level
Water boils at 100c at sea level
Hydrogen and helium are lighter than air
Propane wont burn unless mixed with oxygen

All are FACTS. Tried tested and true. Results will be replicated every time the parameters are met.

Do you want me to go on or do you feel stupid enough already?

Um. . . there are four states of matter that we know of: solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. Note the phrase "that we know of."

And the dividing lines between solid, liquid, and gas are not as firm as you may believe.

Here's a pop quiz for extra credit. Can you define solid, liquid, and gas?

 

[Zipperfish]

No, you don't. You accept things on data and repeatable, falsifiable theory. That's the precise opposite of faith.


Logic and mathematics aren't science. That's why they're called logic and mathematics, and not science.

We accept certain truths about the universe in science without proof. We assume it is theree for example, and that is also there for external observers. We don't actually know that. We assume that it is rational, accessible, contingent. If the universe were not these things, repeatability and falsifiability would be meaningless.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Science cannot operate with logical induction and deduction. Why, for example, would it matter if a result were repeatable if there were no such thing as logical deduction. Without induction, you could not apply the speciufic to the general, so repeated similar observations would mean nothing.

Yes, they are valuable tools. As is a hammer. But a hammer is not carpentry and carpentry is not a hammer. Logic is a way of organising information. Its formulation considerably pre-dates science.

Ironically, logic was used in an unscientific manner for a long, long time. Back in the Middle Ages, if you posed the question "If you have a bucket that's full, and another bucket that's 1/4 full, and you connect them with a tube, will water flow from one to the other?" the philosophic laddies would sit around and logic away on the "nature" of water, the "nature" of buckets, and the "nature" of tubes, and philosophise at great length using undefined terms and unproven facts.

Then a rather unpleasant fellow named Galileo Galilei said "Here's a brainstorm. How 'bout we get two buckets and a tube and find out?" Thus began a revolution that shows no signs of ending.

We also accept certain truths about the universe in science without proof. We assume it is theree for example, and that is also there for external observers. We don't actually know that. We assume that it is rational, accessible, contingent. If the universe were not these things, repeatability and falsifiability would be meaningless.

That's not science, that's philosophy of the mental masturbation variety.

 

[Zipperfish]

It doesn't matter how many times you say 'that isn't how it works', that is how it really works in the real world. It may be different in your theoretical, imagined world but we deal in reality.

No, the reason I say "That's not the way it works" is because you're just making stuff up. You actually have no idea what you're talking about, but this doesn't seem to stop you. As I've said before, the problem is not that there are stupid people. The problem is that the stupid people don't know they're stupid.

So let me see....Theory = Unproven....so not a fact. Here, let me help
you....
the·o·ry [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to
experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded
as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis,
postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

fact [fakt]
something that actually exists; reality; truth

There really is no need to help me, Nick. When you've read some introductory texts on scientific epistemology--maybe Karl Popper, or Thomas Kuhn--then maybe you can come back and make your case. I've read and written a lot on the subject of the nature of science and scientific epistemology.

You bet your little titties I can!

There are 3 states of matter -gas, liquid & solid
Water freezes at 0c at sea level
Water boils at 100c at sea level
Hydrogen and helium are lighter than air
Propane wont burn unless mixed with oxygen

All are FACTS. Tried tested and true. Results will be replicated every time the parameters are met.

Do you want me to go on or do you feel stupid enough already?

Tecumseh pointed out that m ost of your facts are not, in fact, facts. I'll add that propane will burn without oxygen in a suffficiently hot nuclear fusion furnace like the Sun.

Yes, they are valuable tools. As is a hammer. But a hammer is not carpentry and carpentry is not a hammer. Logic is a way of organising information. Its formulation considerably pre-dates science.

Ironically, logic was used in an unscientific manner for a long, long time. Back in the Middle Ages, if you posed the question "If you have a bucket that's full, and another bucket that's 1/4 full, and you connect them with a tube, will water flow from one to the other?" the philosophic laddies would sit around and logic away on the "nature" of water, the "nature" of buckets, and the "nature" of tubes, and philosophise at great length using undefined terms and unproven facts.

Then a rather unpleasant fellow named Galileo Galilei said "Here's a brainstorm. How 'bout we get two buckets and a tube and find out?" Thus began a revolution that shows no signs of ending.

I think the point I was trying to make is that repeatability would be a useless exercise without logical induction. If the sun rises every morning then we apply a general rule (the sun rises) based on specific information (every time I've been around the sun has risen). That's induction. In fact, we have absolutely no idea if the sun will rise tomorrow.

That's not science, that's philosophy of the mental masturbation variety.

Well, when you get into epistemology, that's where you inevitably end up. Take Bertrand Russel, who wrote Principia Mathematics. It took him and Whitehead 387 pages to get to 1 + 1 = 2. Here's what Russel said in his memoirs:

I wanted certainty in the kind of way in which
people want religious faith. I thought that certainty is more likely to be found
in mathematics than elsewhere. But I discovered that many mathematical
demonstrations, which my teachers wanted me to accept, were full of fallacies
... I was continually reminded of the fable about the elephant and the tortoise.
Having constructed an elephant upon which the mathematical world could rest, I
found the elephant tottering, and proceeded to construct a tortoise to keep the
elephant from falling. But the tortoise was no more secure than the elephant,
and after some twenty years of arduous toil, I came to the conclusion that there
was nothing more that I could do in the way of making mathematical knowledge
indubitable.

 

[PoliticalNick]

No, the reason I say "That's not the way it works" is because you're just making stuff up.

I deal in facts and the real world and real world applications. You deal in hypothesis and conjecture in a theoretical world. Now how am I the one making sh*t up?

You actually have no idea what you're talking about, but this doesn't seem to stop you.

You still can't understand the difference between a theory and a fact yet you keep prattling on about how smart you are.

As I've said before, the problem is not that there are stupid people. The problem is that the stupid people don't know they're stupid.

The ideal example of this would be you! Glad to put my tested IQ up against yours any day pal.

There really is no need to help me, Nick. When you've read some introductory texts on scientific epistemology--maybe Karl Popper, or Thomas Kuhn--then maybe you can come back and make your case. I've read and written a lot on the subject of the nature of science and scientific epistemology.

Oh, you need help. There is a huge difference between reading and writing about a topic and actually going out and doing it in the real world. I have met many engineers and architects who believe because they can make it work with paper & pen it is possible in a real world application. Well here's a news flash, the real world is different from the theoretical. I have run into more than a couple of people that can teach a subject without having the ability to actually do it.

Tecumseh pointed out that m ost of your facts are not, in fact, facts. I'll add that propane will burn without oxygen in a suffficiently hot nuclear fusion furnace like the Sun.

They are facts. There may be a different set of facts on different planets (or stars) but here on real planet earth they are indeed facts. Remember a scientific fact requires you repeatedly get the same results of a test using the same parameters. If I mix alcohol with water it won't freeze at 0c but it won't be water either.

I think the point I was trying to make is that repeatability would be a useless exercise without logical induction. If the sun rises every morning then we apply a general rule (the sun rises) based on specific information (every time I've been around the sun has risen). That's induction. In fact, we have absolutely no idea if the sun will rise tomorrow.

The sun is stationary in relation to earth. It doesn't rise or set. The earth revolves on an axis exposing different regions to the sun in a cyclical fashion. You can't even get that right.

Well, when you get into epistemology, that's where you inevitably end up. Take Bertrand Russel, who wrote Principia Mathematics. It took him and Whitehead 387 pages to get to 1 + 1 = 2. Here's what Russel said in his memoirs:

That explains a lot about your intelligence and lack of reality. I get to 1+1+2 in less than one line. In only 5 characters in fact. If you deal in a world that requires 387 pages to reach the conclusion that 1+1=2 you need serious help.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I think the point I was trying to make is that repeatability would be a useless exercise without logical induction. If the sun rises every morning then we apply a general rule (the sun rises) based on specific information (every time I've been around the sun has risen). That's induction. In fact, we have absolutely no idea if the sun will rise tomorrow.



Well, when you get into epistemology, that's where you inevitably end up. Take Bertrand Russel, who wrote Principia Mathematics. It took him and Whitehead 387 pages to get to 1 + 1 = 2. Here's what Russel said in his memoirs:

Yes, and where will you find epistemology in a university catalog? Under philosophy. And Russell is what? A scientist? I think not.

 

[Tonington]

By conclusive, I mean no longer a THEORY.

Sigh, and this is where you show true ignorance. A scientific theory means very strong evidence, as in we don't need to run multiple studies and tests to reliably predict what will happen if you push an apple off the edge of your dining room table. Neither do we need to run multiple studies to determine the difference if you did the same on the moon. Or if you tried it on the International Space Station. We have a theory that works very well, though of course it's not complete, not 100%. Yet I bet you probably wouldn't argue with the application of that theory.

I suppose it's not entirely your fault, many people in this world are unable to distinguish contextually between a scientific theory, and the lay version of what bests translates into an educated guess. It's not an educated guess what will happen to the apple on your table, and it's not an educated guess as to what happens when you increase the opacity of our atmosphere to infrared radiation. It traps more heat.

Yes, more big words...but you ought to know that a scientific theory is only a theory because there is a great deal of evidence, because the evidence is robust so that multiple methods of investigation yield repeatable results.

I don't expect any of this to sink in though, so far the only sketpical person on this forum with an open mind on this subject is Bear. He's shown himself to be a cut above the rest, as in he's a skeptic that changes his view when you provide him with evidence.

Is is made up to collect tax dollars.

Yes, that damn Arrhenius, you're onto the conspiracy :roll:

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I suppose it's not entirely your fault, many people in this world are unable to distinguish contextually between a scientific theory, and the lay version of what bests translates into an educated guess. It's not an educated guess what will happen to the apple on your table, and it's not an educated guess as to what happens when you increase the opacity of our atmosphere to infrared radiation. It traps more heat.

Yes, more big words...but you ought to know that a scientific theory is only a theory because there is a great deal of evidence, because the evidence is robust so that multiple methods of investigation yield repeatable results.

I don't expect any of this to sink in though, so far the only sketpical person on this forum with an open mind on this subject is Bear. He's shown himself to be a cut above the rest, as in he's a skeptic that changes his view when you provide him with evidence.

Roger that. I think this is an example of science education by the public schools and Star Trek. I do have to quibble with your exposition of "theory," though. All theories are theories. A theory is any explanation of phenomena that is supported by the data. As a theory proves correct more and more often, it becomes more and more reliable, to the point where the dullards call it a "law," i.e., gravity. Other theories, with only a few trials and relatively little data, are not as reliable.

And of course any theory can be exploded by contrary data.

 

[Tonington]

In fact, it's so bad that some scientists think we need to change the words we use, because the public gets it so horribly wrong. I disagree, with the name change that is.
"Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words: Scientific American

Also, the title of this piece is horrible!

 

[petros]

The Aluminatti is winning!

 

[Locutus]

Who gives a sh!t how many syllables some words have? Man...get a grip. :lol:

via zip:

Top MIT Scientist: Latest UN Global Warming Report Is “Hilariously” Flawed…


I’m beginning to think the science isn’t settled.

Via Daily Caller:

Not all scientists are panicking about global warming — one of them finds the alarmism “hilarious.”

A top climate scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology lambasted a new report by the UN’s climate bureaucracy that blamed mankind as the main cause of global warming and whitewashed the fact that there has been a hiatus in warming for the last 15 years.

“I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence,” Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot, a global warming skeptic news site. “They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claimed it was 95 percent sure that global warming was mainly driven by human burning of fossil fuels that produce greenhouse gases. The I.P.C.C. also glossed over the fact that the Earth has not warmed in the past 15 years, arguing that the heat was absorbed by the ocean.

“Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean,” Lindzen added. “However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans.”

Keep reading…


Top MIT Scientist: Latest UN Global Warming Report Is “Hilariously” Flawed… | Weasel Zippers


'HILARIOUS": Top MIT scientist mocks newest UN climate report | The Daily Caller
​

 

[PoliticalNick]

Sigh, and this is where you show true ignorance. A scientific theory means very strong evidence, as in we don't need to run multiple studies and tests to reliably predict what will happen if you push an apple off the edge of your dining room table. Neither do we need to run multiple studies to determine the difference if you did the same on the moon. Or if you tried it on the International Space Station. We have a theory that works very well, though of course it's not complete, not 100%. Yet I bet you probably wouldn't argue with the application of that theory.

I suppose it's not entirely your fault, many people in this world are unable to distinguish contextually between a scientific theory, and the lay version of what bests translates into an educated guess. It's not an educated guess what will happen to the apple on your table, and it's not an educated guess as to what happens when you increase the opacity of our atmosphere to infrared radiation. It traps more heat.

Yes, more big words...but you ought to know that a scientific theory is only a theory because there is a great deal of evidence, because the evidence is robust so that multiple methods of investigation yield repeatable results.

This is where you show your true ignorance! Not ignorance as in you don't understand (though that could be applied too) but ignorance as in you are an ignorant SOB. If you think talking down to people will ever get your point across you are sadly mistaken, and well, ignorant. You don't even grasp the definition of a word you wish to bandy about and you make all kinds of psuedo-intellectual claims based upon your misinterpretation of it. Once again I will try to help you because you continue to make a fool of yourself and while it is slightly humorous for a short period it is now reaching the level of deserving more sympathy than anything else.

the·o·ry [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

Please note the antonyms of theory are synonymous with fact. Now you wish to say that it is only a theory of what will happen if an apple rolls off a table but it isn't. Due to the law of gravity which is a proven fact we know the apple will fall down. Are there some theories that are more likely to be true than others? Of course. Are some theories absolutely far-fetched and highly implausible? Of course. String theory and quantum physics are just wild guesses with little to no proof of anything within them. The theory I could shove a whole 12 pound watermelon up your a$$ is not very probable (though I might find trying to prove it amusing) but it is still a theory. If I were to succeed in placing said watermelon in the aforementioned place it would no longer be a theory but a fact.

So where does all this leave us? The theory surrounding AGW may have some points with some scientific merit but as an overall theory there are far too many unknowns and far too many variables to hit the realm of reality much above my watermelon theory. So much of the science is disputed and different explanations of it being real seem to be available for a reasonable sum of money paid to whichever facility or team you want to agree with your position. Until independent evidence is presented far above the level of postulation we get now I will remain a doubting Thomas and on the fence. I don't even require absolute proof. Bring me a theory with basis in historical facts and proven science and I might join your side but I doubt you will get anywhere close to a hypothesis with fewer holes than 100lbs of Swiss cheese.