Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement

[AlexM]

[ 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 ]

Thanks for posting the definition, of which part 2 completely disproves your point.

[oe39]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Thanks for posting the definition, of which part 2 completely disproves your point.

[/ QUOTE ]

thank you!

i would call this kind of silliness "poor semantics" rather than "good science"

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]


Definition two does not mean what is believed is true. And my main point is one of connotation and public perception and how science is presented and also the internal writings. The majority of the public almost universally associates believe with definition 1 (to have religious convictions). Thus avoiding this term is proactive and wise in discussions and written statements about Science. This is important. If you wish to state that everything is a belief then obviously there is no point to further the discussion. Besides, this is becoming completely off track from the thread.

I will add that I rankle some when an article in the media begins with “Scientists believe”. Perhaps others have no problem with this. I would much prefer to see: The evidence provides proof, or the data establishes evidence for conclusion x by disproving hypothesis A and supporting hypothesis B. But perhaps this is too much to ask of most mainstream writing.

-Zeno

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
would call this kind of silliness "poor semantics" rather than "good science"

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Writing about science needs to be precise:

USGS Style Guide

But again this is somewhat off topic. And these standards probably do not apply to a public forum discussion. But people should be made aware of the attempts of the scientific community to be precise, especially in presenting material. And many problems do occur simply because those that usually do the presentation of science to the public, mainstream journalists for example, do a very poor job. This just adds confusion and misunderstanding to important discussions or debates.

-Zeno

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
The majority of the public almost universally associates believe with definition 1 (to have religious convictions). Thus avoiding this term is proactive and wise in discussions and written statements about Science.

[/ QUOTE ]

I accept the possibility that this might be true simply because the majority of the public happens to be religious. Even then I question whether they're actually using defintion 1 over defintion 2 or if it just seems like they are since they so often happen to be talking about religious belief. After all, defintion 1 is included in defintion 2.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Writing about anything needs to be precise:


[/ QUOTE ]

[Phil153]

I think Zeno's issues is that 'believe' is so imprecise as to be meaningless. For example,

"Scientists believe that life arose from simple precursors" is a very different statement to

"Scientists believe that global warming is underway"

In the first one, believe means: "we tentatively think this might be the case", the second one is "we think they're overwhelming evidence that this is the case"

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you did I'd like to see it. Link me please. George Monbiot did a short video through the BBC called the denial industry that talked about Fred Singers connection to the tobacco industry. It was on youtube but his entire series have been removed. Guessing copyright reasons. It seems only second hand smoke is on wikipedia but the wikipedia article is incomplete. So until I can find a copy of monbiots video we are at a standstill.

As for Singers claim that EM radiation can't heat water well there's a copy of his report on real climate. Check out the entry "Why greenhouse gases heat the ocean". That's not on wikipedia and his bio page on wiki is missing a lot. They actually had to send a boat out in the water proving that long wave radiation can heat water. Ever heard of a heat lamp? lol He also attacks the CFC-ozone link.

If CFC's and especially the infra-red argument aren't enough for you to question his judgment and credibility then we have a real problem. If he gets something published through the AGU fine, but I would take anything published through SEPP or the Tobacco Institute with a big grain of salt. This is a line straight out of "thankyou for smoking" after all.

[wacki]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
look for the text

Mann's statistical methodology was soon exposed as flawed, if not downright fraudulent, by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick

and click on the word "exposed".


[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. Either your sources are legit or they aren't. You can't have it both ways.

[ QUOTE ]
your evasiveness throughout this thread has the stench of desperation, despite your attempt in this thread to show interest in complex modeling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I work for a living. I gave the best answer I could in 24 hours. If you want a faster answer you will have to not only pay me, but the people I e-mail. A more thorough answer is on the way but it will take time. I've already admitted I don't understand the finer details of manufacturing Intel chips.

As for the uncertainties well even some very simple math used with a home calculator gives you 288K for average ground temp which is what our readings are. The models line up so well with the past and the present it's freaky. Go to realclimate and read "learning from a simple model".

Hansens models have shown to be really accurate in the past, present, and 20 years into the future. Simple math models reproduce the present well. So if you want me to throw all of this evidence away due to some abstract words by a man that's displayed incompetence at fact checking his sources then you are in for a disappointment. Vague abstract concepts aren't enough to trump something thats withstood empirical falsifiability. They can raise red flags but not trump. I will look into what he says but I'm sure as hell not going to trust somebody that can't get his sources and facts right.

[Copernicus]

ahh, so you're critical of an article because it refers to an article that happens to have a link to another article. sorry, that doesn't make the third article a "source". <sniff sniff> yup desperation