Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...ue#Post10129525

You didn't respond to the thread again, so I'm guessing you probably didn't read it, so I'll accept that you still believed this falsehood to be true. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your statement that the Wikipedia article is incomplete on this is pure assertion. Everything I can find on the man says it's just second hand smoking he's talking about.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know anything about CFC's or the "infra-red argument," so obviously I'm not going to be convinced of anything by them. Even if you could demonstrate to me that based on these views, he's a complete fruit bat, I would still have to question why you're resorting to these ad hominems rather than addressing the actual facts. The thing about ad hominem attacks isn't that they aren't valid necessarily. Convincing me that someone's a fruit bat in general certainly discredits their views on other things. The thing is that it discredits you as well, since it shows that your own argument is too weak to support on evidence alone. Considering you're the one trying to prove a belief here, that belief better be able to stand on its own evidence if it's to be convincing.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
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"

[/ QUOTE ]

No one calls something tentative a belief. A more accurate depiction of such a statement would be:

"Scientists believe that it's possible that life might have arisen from simple precursors"

This makes the statment much different from the global warming one.

Admittedly, it would be nice if every statement were "believe with XX% certainty," but that's just not realistic.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

The article adios linked to:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/...grated_ci.html


While mankind cannot experiment on the global climate, these models can be used retroactively to see how well they "model" the past. The UN's 2001 Climate Change report distorted the historical record by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period in the famous "Hockey Stick Curve" which, by many accounts, unreasonably accentuated temperature rise in the 20th century. Such distortion of the historical data undercuts the credibility of the models themselves, since this is the only "experimental data" available for testing the fidelity of the models to the actual climate.

That statement basically claims the IPCC, NOAA, NASA, and the 21 National Academies are fraudulent. I brought this up in this post:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showth...page=0&vc=1


I've read 3 articles and all three of them have MAJOR flaws in them. It's not just about sources.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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

[/ QUOTE ]

I see your point about the word "believe" perhaps carrying connotations in the eyes of the mainstream public.

Still, "Scientists are convinced that X is true" (on the basis of evidence) might just as well be stated as "Scientists believe X to be true" (on the basis of evidence).

Even mathematical proofs require the acceptance of prior axioms. Without an effective "belief" in prior axioms, the proof won't work.

edit:

You know that 2+2=4. You also believe that 2+2=4. Both are true statements.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]


http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...ue#Post10129525

You didn't respond to the thread again, so I'm guessing you probably didn't read it, so I'll accept that you still believed this falsehood to be true. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for being civil. I'm not sure it's a falsehood but maybe Monbiot messed up or maybe I misheard the interview. It was a long time ago so I doubt he retains these views now. Singers views on global warming tend to change each year. One second it's "were not warming" then it's "we aren't causing it" then it's "it's good for us" etc etc. Will have to find the video to know for sure about the tobacco.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know anything about CFC's or the "infra-red argument," so obviously I'm not going to be convinced of anything by them. Even if you could demonstrate to me that based on these views, he's a complete fruit bat, I would still have to question why you're resorting to these ad hominems rather than addressing the actual facts. The thing about ad hominem attacks isn't that they aren't valid necessarily. Convincing me that someone's a fruit bat in general certainly discredits their views on other things. The thing is that it discredits you as well, since it shows that your own argument is too weak to support on evidence alone. Considering you're the one trying to prove a belief here, that belief better be able to stand on its own evidence if it's to be convincing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any idea how tedious it is taking on a forum full of anarchos about science? I learned a long time ago that if we can't agree on something obvious then we have no chance of agreeing on something complex.

I suggest you buy an IR heat lamp at your local hardware store and test it on a Kiddy pool while keeping a control kiddy pool.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...ue#Post10129525

You didn't respond to the thread again, so I'm guessing you probably didn't read it, so I'll accept that you still believed this falsehood to be true. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for being civil. I'm not sure it's a falsehood but maybe Monbiot messed up or maybe I misheard the interview. It was a long time ago so I doubt he retains these views now. Singers views on global warming tend to change each year. One second it's "were not warming" then it's "we aren't causing it" then it's "it's good for us" etc etc. Will have to find the video to know for sure about the tobacco.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know anything about CFC's or the "infra-red argument," so obviously I'm not going to be convinced of anything by them. Even if you could demonstrate to me that based on these views, he's a complete fruit bat, I would still have to question why you're resorting to these ad hominems rather than addressing the actual facts. The thing about ad hominem attacks isn't that they aren't valid necessarily. Convincing me that someone's a fruit bat in general certainly discredits their views on other things. The thing is that it discredits you as well, since it shows that your own argument is too weak to support on evidence alone. Considering you're the one trying to prove a belief here, that belief better be able to stand on its own evidence if it's to be convincing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any idea how tedious it is taking on a forum full of anarchos about science? I learned a long time ago that if we can't agree on something obvious then we have no chance of agreeing on something complex.

I suggest you buy an IR heat lamp at your local hardware store and test it on a Kiddy pool while keeping a control kiddy pool.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you even read my post? I made it clear that while I don't know anything about the IR thing, it simply doesn't matter!

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you even read my post? I made it clear that while <font color="red"> I don't know anything about the IR thing,</font> it simply doesn't matter!

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if I can't get someone to agree on something incredibly simple and incredibly obvious then it's probably a really really bad idea to discuss something that is even remotely complex. It would be a complete waste of time.

Until then I suggest you buy a microwave and see if you can heat anything below the top 1 mm or "skin layer" of a jug of water. Fred Singer says you can't. An infra-red heat lamp would match the wavelengths a better but the concepts are the same:



or

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
I see your point about the word "believe" perhaps carrying connotations in the eyes of the mainstream public.


[/ QUOTE ]

Good.

[ QUOTE ]
Still, "Scientists are convinced that X is true" (on the basis of evidence) might just as well be stated as "Scientists believe X to be true" (on the basis of evidence).


[/ QUOTE ]

The parenthetical part is unnecessary if simply rephrased. And is in fact more emphatic and stronger writing. So this involves style also. See my link to the USGS Style Guide.


[ QUOTE ]
Even mathematical proofs require the acceptance of prior axioms. Without an effective "belief" in prior axioms, the proof won't work.



[/ QUOTE ]

And I thought I was pedantic.

By the way, I have published or been involved in producing numerous scientific and technical reports and papers. The word belief or believe does not appear in any of them. The word opinion is also avoided (and never used when fact is meant) and the substitute is usually professional judgment, or the data suggests, etc., when dealing with concepts of a speculative nature. But again I probably should not expect those standards here.

-Zeno

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Writing about anything needs to be precise:


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]


Again you err. Unless you wish is to see all artful prose eliminate from the planet. But see Alice in Wonderland or perhaps Edward Lear's, Complete Nonsense for inspiration -Or perhaps the ambiguity of Lao Tzu.

Precise prose style is usually very dry, which is why, unless you are interested in the subject, reading science writing is a slog and boring to many people.

-Zeno

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I see your point about the word "believe" perhaps carrying connotations in the eyes of the mainstream public.


[/ QUOTE ]

Good.

[ QUOTE ]
Still, "Scientists are convinced that X is true" (on the basis of evidence) might just as well be stated as "Scientists believe X to be true" (on the basis of evidence).


[/ QUOTE ]

The parenthetical part is unnecessary if simply rephrased. And is in fact more emphatic and stronger writing. So this involves style also. See my link to the USGS Style Guide.


[ QUOTE ]
Even mathematical proofs require the acceptance of prior axioms. Without an effective "belief" in prior axioms, the proof won't work.



[/ QUOTE ]

And I thought I was pedantic.

By the way, I have published or been involved in producing numerous scientific and technical reports and papers. The word belief or believe does not appear in any of them. The word opinion is also avoided (and never used when fact is meant) and the substitute is usually professional judgment, or the data suggests, etc., when dealing with concepts of a speculative nature. But again I probably should not expect those standards here.

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it may be that your aversion to the concept of belief without proof, has colored your perception of the proper usage of the word "belief" itself. "Belief" does not require non-rational faith. It is not wrong to say that you believe in something of which you are fully convinced on entirely rational grounds. I suspect you cannot bring yourself to perceive the pure meaning of the word due to a personal aversion to faith-based belief. However, "to believe" does not always necessitate or include the suspension of reason, nor does it require some degree of uncertainty.

There would be little or no reason for scientists to use the word when discussing scientific concepts amongst themselves, and as you say, you have not found the word in scientific journals. For an outsider reporting on their discussions, though, it may be a useful shorthand and not inaccurate.

As elsewhere, it is not wrong to say that you believe that 2+2 = 4. Until the 20th century, scientists believed more comprehensively in Newton's laws than they do today.

Saying "to scientists, the data suggests" is not significantly different than saying "to scientists, it appears likely, based on the data", which is not much different than saying "scientists believe it likely to be true, based on the data, that..." or "scientists consider it likely to be true, based on the data, that..."

I think you may be hung up because you perceive "believe" to contain an inherent element of faith or uncertainty. There is nothing in the definition of the word which requires those things, though. If you KNOW something, you also by definition BELIEVE it. If you believe something, though, you may not know it. The act of knowing is a very specific subset of the act of believing.

I think you are probably slightly hung up on the connotations of the word "belief" and therefore may not be perceiving the word in its pure essence.

I'm not trying to be pedantic; I'm just defending the word "belief" and trying to keep it from being unfairly categorized, so to speak. A belief may be faith-based or scientifically-based: to believe refers to what human beings think or conclude, not to the data. Scientists believe in their conclusions, do they not?

Thanks for reading.