Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree that they vary a lot. The all go in the same direction and are within a fairly narrow range.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong.

[wacki]

ok adios, i just finished reviewing that article.

The comparison of climate models to chemical vapor deposition is simply outside of my expertise. But I know some people that would be able to comment.

The article you linked to referenced an article that appears only to exist in google cache:
http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:dyf...te_science.html

That article references Mr. Fred "smoking doesn't cause cancer and light can't heat water" Singer.

If you are referencing experts (directly or indirectly) that claim smoking doesn't cause cancer then there is some major credibility problems.

And my previous comments still stand. So 3 out of 3 articles I've read/scanned have serious credibility problems with at least some parts of their text. That doesn't mean his comparison to CVD is wrong, just that he has been incredibly sloppy with checking the credibility of some of his sources.

If you want a more informed response about CVD vs climate models then I can e-mail this article to a few friends. I'm actually a bit curious about this one as well as I know very little about CVD simulations.

off to pick up some leinenkugels....

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
ok adios, i just finished reviewing that article.

The comparison of climate models to chemical vapor deposition is simply outside of my expertise. But I know some people that would be able to comment.

The article you linked to referenced an article that appears only to exist in google cache:
http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:dyf...te_science.html

That article references Mr. Fred "smoking doesn't cause cancer and light can't heat water" Singer.

If you are referencing experts (directly or indirectly) that claim smoking doesn't cause cancer then there is some major credibility problems.

And my previous comments still stand. So 3 out of 3 articles I've read/scanned have serious credibility problems with at least some parts of their text. That doesn't mean his comparison to CVD is wrong, just that he has been incredibly sloppy with checking the credibility of some of his sources.

If you want a more informed response about CVD vs climate models then I can e-mail this article to a few friends. I'm actually a bit curious about this one as well as I know very little about CVD simulations.

off to pick up some leinenkugels....

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont see any reference to Singer in the cache article you linked, and even if it did, you'd be called for ad hominen.

You also claim that 3 out of 3 articles have credibility problems, but a reference to another article that may have referenced Singer is far from a credibility problem for the first article unless it is directly using the Singer portion of that article.

your evasiveness throughout this thread has the stench of desperation, despite your attempt in this thread to show interest in complex modeling. While the CVD models article may be well presented, you surely didnt need it to realize the potential for error in any sim with as many variables and unknowns as a climate model.

[oe39]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
scientists believe that climate change will occur on human time frames, have postulated a mechanism for such a change, and have methods to relate that mechanism to a result.

[/ QUOTE ]

Belief has nothing to do with it. You should have started your above statement with: Scientists have substantial evidence that.....

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

this is silly nitpicking (and, furthermore, not even good nitpicking). how about: scientists believe, based on examination of the evidence, that... (which i think was implied in what i wrote)

"believe" doesn't always mean assume without evidence.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
scientists believe that climate change will occur on human time frames, have postulated a mechanism for such a change, and have methods to relate that mechanism to a result.

[/ QUOTE ]

Belief has nothing to do with it. You should have started your above statement with: Scientists have substantial evidence that.....

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

this is silly nitpicking (and, furthermore, not even good nitpicking). how about: scientists believe, based on examination of the evidence, that... (which i think was implied in what i wrote)

"believe" doesn't always mean assume without evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]



I disagree. It is neither silly nor nit-picking. The term believe should be avoided in discussions of science because of not only the definition, but mainly because of the connotation and public perception of believe or belief with religious convictions. This is almost universal with most people and empirical evidence is not mentioned in any definition of believe.

Good science sometimes consists of being a nitpicker.

From Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Believe

1 : to have religious convictions
2 : to have a firm conviction about something : accept as true [this does not me it is true]
3 : to hold as an opinion : SUPPOSE

-Zeno, Nitpicker

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
scientists believe that climate change will occur on human time frames, have postulated a mechanism for such a change, and have methods to relate that mechanism to a result.

[/ QUOTE ]

Belief has nothing to do with it. You should have started your above statement with: Scientists have substantial evidence that.....

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

this is silly nitpicking (and, furthermore, not even good nitpicking). how about: scientists believe, based on examination of the evidence, that... (which i think was implied in what i wrote)

"believe" doesn't always mean assume without evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]



I disagree. It is neither silly nor nit-picking. The term believe should be avoided in discussions of science because of not only the definition, but mainly because of the connotation and public perception of believe or belief with religious convictions. This is almost universal with most people and empirical evidence is not mentioned in any definition of believe.

Good science sometimes consists of being a nitpicker.

From Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Believe

1 : to have religious convictions
2 : to have a firm conviction about something : accept as true [this does not me it is true]
3 : to hold as an opinion : SUPPOSE

-Zeno, Nitpicker

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, but I am perhaps a little confused, yet I always find discussions of words interesting.

Would it be wrong to state that scientists believe the Earth is approximately Spherical (as opposed to being Flat)? If not "believe", then what verb?

Alternatively, would not scientists "have firm convictions" that the Earth is approximately spherical, or at least "hold as an opinion" that the Earth is roughly spherical? Wouldn't either of those qualify as "belief" under the dictionary definition?

Thanks.

[Copernicus]

In a rigorous scientific treatment (eg a peer reviewed journal article) "believe" would never be used with regard to something that has been proven. It would definitely indicate speculation about something ("we believe heightened sunspot activity led to inconsistencies in the data...."

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
In a rigorous scientific treatment (eg a peer reviewed journal article) "believe" would never be used with regard to something that has been proven. It would definitely indicate speculation about something ("we believe heightened sunspot activity led to inconsistencies in the data...."

[/ QUOTE ]

OK...well, the dictionary definition that was cited has "believe" as both 2. "having a firm conviction" (that something is true) and 3. SUPPOSE. Scientists may have either 2. or 3., so why would "believe" be wrong? ("considers it proven" encompasses "having a firm conviction that it is true").

You are very likely correct that scientists never use the verb in a journal, but...to my way of thinking, it cannot be improper English to say that scientists believe the Earth is spherical (rather than flat). Whether scientists have an absolute conviction of that matter or merely think it highly likely, is immaterial for this choice of verb, since both levels of giving credence or assigning high likelihood are encompassed by the word "believe" (according to the dictionary definition).

If scientists consider something proven, they have a firm conviction of its veracity. If scientists think it very highly likely, they may suppose it to be so (while yet consciously retaining some reservation of doubt). The definition of the word "believe" covers both cases, does it not?

"To know" is a subset of "to believe" (to know is to hold a fully certain belief that also is objectively correct. This of course excepts delusional conviction wherein the deluded person is merely correct by luck).

Thanks for reading.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Mr. Fred "smoking doesn't cause cancer <snip>" Singer.

If you are referencing experts (directly or indirectly) that claim smoking doesn't cause cancer then there is some major credibility problems.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to actually convince people of things, you should probably avoid blatant lies like this. I'm fairly certain that I saw you post this lie before and that I corrected you at the time, so there's no excuse for you doing it again. Fred Singer is skeptical about the connection between cancer and second hand smoke, not smoking. The fact that you use such underhanded misrepresentation of his beliefs in an effort to discredit him just goes even further towards making me more and more skeptical of your beliefs in global warming. If your arguments were good and valid, you wouldn't need to resort to such shadiness to back them up.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
scientists believe that climate change will occur on human time frames, have postulated a mechanism for such a change, and have methods to relate that mechanism to a result.

[/ QUOTE ]

Belief has nothing to do with it. You should have started your above statement with: Scientists have substantial evidence that.....

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

You obviously don't know what the word "believe" means. Everything is a "belief." The fact that we exist on the planet Earth is a "belief." Perhaps you're confusing it with the word "faith?"