Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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



[/ QUOTE ]

Who cares? It's not relevant! That's the whole damned point. Your ad hominem attack just makes you look foolish.

[Zeno]

Good read and well stated. Thanks for the response. I probably do have a slight aversion to the words “belief” "believe" that has colored my perception of the word. Thanks for pointing that out. Its use however does cut into the precise nature and strong emphatic style that I strive for in my science and technical writing. For common usage I believe its use is fine. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

By the way, the USGS Style Guide is very usually and not just for scientists. There are sections on general writing that would help anyone in efforts to produce clarity in word sense, a succinct prose style, and helpful in reducing common grammatical errors. I recommend it highly, especially to those that have to produce reports or papers of any kind.

-Zeno

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Good read and well stated. Thanks for the response. I probably do have a slight aversion to the words “belief” "believe" that has colored my perception of the word. Thanks for pointing that out. Its use however does cut into the precise nature and strong emphatic style that I strive for in my science and technical writing. For common usage I believe its use is fine. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

By the way, the USGS Style Guide is very usually and not just for scientists. There are sections on general writing that would help anyone in efforts to produce clarity in word sense, a succinct prose style, and helpful in reducing common grammatical errors. I recommend it highly, especially to those that have to produce reports or papers of any kind.

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate your response, and look forward to perusing the USGS style guide (which has already been saved to Favorites [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ). Thanks.

I don't object to your objecting to the use of "believe" on grounds of popular connotations; I just didn't think the word itself deserved to be thought of in so lowly a manner [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Good stuff and I really do look forward to the USGS Style Guide, since I have a lot of compiling and summarizing to accomplish over the next five months, so thanks again.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, posters on 2+2 have a nasty habit of making equivocation errors whenever I say I 'believe' in anything, but thats probably irrelevant.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, posters on 2+2 have a nasty habit of making equivocation errors whenever I say I 'believe' in anything, but thats probably irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is an equivocation error (I don't know what it is)? And, why is it nasty?

[1huskerfan]

[ QUOTE ]

In other words your posts are of such poor quality (e.g. global cooling, blaming the sun for the warming) that they really aren't worth responding to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, are you serious?

[1huskerfan]

[ QUOTE ]
Just how is it that this conspiracy amongst the world's top scientists came about?

[/ QUOTE ]

$$$$$

There is some serious money being made selling carbon credits.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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



[/ QUOTE ]

Who cares? It's not relevant! That's the whole damned point. Your ad hominem attack just makes you look foolish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the IR thing is a very tiny subset of the model as a whole. So it is DIRECTLY related.

Also, if I'm going to be discussing climate modeling with anyone I would expect them to be able to grasp and agree on some of the most basic of concepts. So for the purpose of discussion it's relevant as it's a pretty good test whether or not I'm wasting my time.