JeffDG
Touchdown! Greaser!
No, they're wrong on multiple fronts. The fact that these errors are not apparent except in high-gravity situations doesn't mean they're "correct but incomplete".
One in four Americans don't know...
- Thread starter steingar
- Start date
No, they're wrong on multiple fronts. The fact that these errors are not apparent except in high-gravity situations doesn't mean they're "correct but incomplete".
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Making incorrect conclusions about observations is...well....incorrect.
You observe 2 red balls. You observe 2 more red balls. You conclude there are 5 red balls. You are incorrect. Someone comes along and says, whoa, there's only 4. That doesn't suddenly make you correct. Your observations were correct, your statement wasn't. That's what has happened numerous times.
Off the top of my head, the life cycle of stars, the existence of black holes, the age of the universe, the size of the universe have all been stated as one thing, and have been revised numerous times. The original posit was incorrect.
Or we can get into atomic/sub-atomic structure. The smallest particle is _____, has changed how many times since the 1900s?
Last edited:
steingar
Taxi to Parking
They describe a subset of general relativity. Doesn't make them wrong, just incomplete.
FastEddieB
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2013
- Messages
- 11,420
- Location
- Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Fast Eddie B
Woo Hoo!
Yay science!
Oh, and this fellow was once thought to be extinct:
(the fishy looking thing, not the grey haired guy)
Therefore...
...what, exactly???
And please dumb it down for me. As much as possible.
JeffDG
Touchdown! Greaser!
No...if you complete calculations to sufficient accuracy, Newton's laws will disagree with observations in all instances. They're wrong.
It's just that the accuracy of observations required are beyond normal instrumentation.
Just because we don't measure something accurately enough doesn't make a theory correct.
ChrisK
En-Route
Science is by definition the best information available gleaned from a changing process. No scientist could ever make a statement like "the science is settled" to his or her peers without getting laughed out of the room. Statements like this are made by, to, and on behalf of politicians and the political minded public to justify things that are quite non-scientific.
If accepted scientific principles ever stopped needing to be refined, expanded, corrected or replaced, we would have no need for scientists. The real problem is that the public, having heard politicians use science as a hammer, no longer have any stomach for scientific revision. Since revision is the core of incremental scientific study, it has had the effect of causing those on the other side of the political argument to react violently against "revisionist science". Laughably, that is akin to mocking weather balloons for being at high altitude or cars for driving on roads. Science is continuous revision, and I have to shake my head and walk away when I hear people mock scientists for not knowing everything. These folks - and I dare say some here - are showing their ignorance in the same fashion as the "science is settled" folks. I have to put you both in the same category of the clueless.
It doesn't stop there either. Proving that science is dangerous because it is continuously revised, anti-scientists go on to claim that other wild pet theories might be true because after all scientists keep changing their minds. If you don't want to dedicate the time and energy to introducing some critical thinking and perhaps integrate the criticism of others into your pet hypotheses, be prepared to be made fun of. It is ok to be wrong. It is not ok to KEEP being wrong.
On to JeffDG's graph. I looked at it. I drew some conclusions, notably that the graph of actual temperatures does not say that our climate is not changing. It just points out that the models did not appear to match measurements recently. It is likely I don't understand the graph. It is also likely that I don't understand the models or the methods by which temperatures were measured. I can, however, use my assumptions to draw conclusions (that further data should be gathered to predict the depth of the local minimum) which I can use as a basis for further study to add to or detract from my hypotheses. I'm probably wrong. That's ok.
That, friends, is more like science than the politics of "nuh uhh".
If accepted scientific principles ever stopped needing to be refined, expanded, corrected or replaced, we would have no need for scientists. The real problem is that the public, having heard politicians use science as a hammer, no longer have any stomach for scientific revision. Since revision is the core of incremental scientific study, it has had the effect of causing those on the other side of the political argument to react violently against "revisionist science". Laughably, that is akin to mocking weather balloons for being at high altitude or cars for driving on roads. Science is continuous revision, and I have to shake my head and walk away when I hear people mock scientists for not knowing everything. These folks - and I dare say some here - are showing their ignorance in the same fashion as the "science is settled" folks. I have to put you both in the same category of the clueless.
It doesn't stop there either. Proving that science is dangerous because it is continuously revised, anti-scientists go on to claim that other wild pet theories might be true because after all scientists keep changing their minds. If you don't want to dedicate the time and energy to introducing some critical thinking and perhaps integrate the criticism of others into your pet hypotheses, be prepared to be made fun of. It is ok to be wrong. It is not ok to KEEP being wrong.
On to JeffDG's graph. I looked at it. I drew some conclusions, notably that the graph of actual temperatures does not say that our climate is not changing. It just points out that the models did not appear to match measurements recently. It is likely I don't understand the graph. It is also likely that I don't understand the models or the methods by which temperatures were measured. I can, however, use my assumptions to draw conclusions (that further data should be gathered to predict the depth of the local minimum) which I can use as a basis for further study to add to or detract from my hypotheses. I'm probably wrong. That's ok.
That, friends, is more like science than the politics of "nuh uhh".
write-stuff
En-Route
Ah, my favorite crossopterygian. We studied them in Zoology class when I was in school.
FastEddieB
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2013
- Messages
- 11,420
- Location
- Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Fast Eddie B
I learned a new word!
Science skeptics will say "Scientists said the Coelacanth was extinct, and they were wrong. Therefore they may be wrong about Global Warming."
Total non sequitur.
More accurate was that scientists had never found a living Coelacanth and felt like the evidence warranted provisionally accepting the hypothesis that they were extinct. Once a fisherman stumbled upon one, they gladly revised their working hypothesis based on the new evidence. And threw a Coelacanth party!!!.
Again, yay science!
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Except it's not. You want to dismiss it because it hurts your stance, which is fine, but don't try and play it off. You can only cry wolf so many times before people stop listening.
And I'm not a science skeptic. I have an issue with absolutes.
This is basically what it comes down to.
AGW proponent: "The Earth is getting warmer and it's all our fault"
Me: "Why should I believe that?"
AGW: "Because I am a scientist, and it's an absolute fact that's not to be argued with because [blah blah blah]!"
Me: "What about all these other examples of scientists saying x is a fact when it turned out to be not the case?"
AGW: "That doesn't matter, because I am saying this is fact."
Me: "And what's to say that you might not be proven incorrect in a few years and that I should believe what you say now?"
AGW: "So what? I am saying this is the way it is, and you should trust me because I'm a scientist."
Me: "OK, but when I have examples of incorrect conclusions being drawn by other scientists in the past based on data what makes yours special that I should believe you at face value?"
AGW: "That's a non-sequitor, it doesn't matter, I'm right, listen to me."
Me: Walks away because they don't realize they are no different than creationists.
Last edited:
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
I've spent a lot of time reading stuff written by climatologists, and I've never seen them say those things. On the contrary, they explain why they believe what they do, and they cite their sources so that those with the time and the inclination can read the evidence for themselves and make up their own minds.
write-stuff
En-Route
Oh, there is one difference. Creationists work backwards, i.e. they start out with the premise, then start looking for evidence to support it, none of which has ever been found.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Whatever words you choose to describe it, it's far more important to determine whether they can be relied on as a basis for decision making within their range of applicability. I seriously doubt that automobile and bridge designers, for example, are using the equations of General Relativity in their work. And yet we trust our lives to their designs every day, and it's safe to say that there has never been an auto accident or bridge collapse that was caused by using Newton's equations instead of Einstein's.
ChrisK
En-Route
IMO that is only backwards if you discard evidence that refutes the premise.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Well, that's not what's getting put out to the non-science community. What the general populous gets told is "We are right, listen to us, the sea levels will rise 1000meters in 3 years if you don't get rid of your car, and there's no arguing it."
OK, so I hyperbolize slightly, but what we are getting told is that they are absolutely correct, and it's not even up for debate. Maybe they need a new PR group.
ChrisK
En-Route
It is because non scientists or scientific minded say silly things like "boil it down for me" and "what do you think?" No one wants to be arsed to learn something for themselves.
JeffDG
Touchdown! Greaser!
Just because it is a decent approximation doesn't make it correct.
If I say pi equals 3.14, that's not correct. It is approximately that, but is most certainly not that.
Newton was wrong about other things, like instantaneous effect of gravity. Newton's law is an approximation, but is neither correct, nor incomplete.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
I think it's a mistake to expect climate modeling to meet the accuracy standards needed in a manufacturing production line. What we really need to know is whether the trend is significant enough to justify taking action, and whether it is likely to continue to be.
It's also worth noting that some model predictions have been too optimistic. I believe the predictions of sea ice extent have been in that category, for example.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
I would have no problem with them saying, "Based on the data we think that x will happen." But instead they it comes out as "We know x will happen." and follow it up with "the debate is over," "the science is settled," or any other number of other things which is the equivalent of a four year old putting their hands over their ears stomping their feet and screaming "lalalalalalalalala."
All I am asking is, is there another possibility, or is it possible your conclusions are wrong? And if there is that possibility, why waste a bunch of money and resources on what may be a faulty premise? But because I ask that, I suddenly hate science and believe the earth is flat and 6000 years old.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
The best place to find out what climatologists are saying is by getting it directly from climatologists, not from Web forums or the popular press. That's why I recommend sources like Realclimate.org, and the IPCC reports.
FastEddieB
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2013
- Messages
- 11,420
- Location
- Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Fast Eddie B
Thank you for that.
I am copying and pasting it into "Pages" to bring up in the future as an example of a "Straw Man" argument.
One of the best I've seen - bordering on caricature but usable nonetheless.
Thanks again!
write-stuff
En-Route
Creationists discard evidence that refutes their premise. Regarding evidence that supports it, there is none.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 22,936
- Display Name
Display name:
Bob Noel
You are using "correct" as a binary, it's completely correct or it's incorrect.
In the real world, good enough is good enough.
When you calculate a fuel burn or ETE for a trip, your calculation will almost never be correct. But if you estimate a burn of 24.3 gallons and you only burn 24.2 gallons, your calculation was good enough, hence correct for the intended purpose.
Newtonian physics, especially the Newtonian Laws of Motion, is good enough for use in the non-relativistic, macro world.
When calculating the circumference of a circle, using pi to 5,000 digits isn't necessary. 3.1414 is good enough for most uses.
ChrisK
En-Route
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
When it comes to the physical world, all equations, models, etc., are approximations. In any proposed application, it's necessary to determine how accurate they need to be in order to use them in our decision making.
When General Relativity was experimentally confirmed, the confirmations were not perfectly accurate, nor were they required to be. They were only required to be more accurate than those of previous theories.
When the U.S. spent huge amounts of money developing the atom bomb, scientists couldn't say with precision how large the energy release would be. Would that have been sufficient justification for refusing to spend the money?
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
I can't guarantee that no scientist has ever said those things, but the climatologists whose stuff I read don't say that.
I think I recall seeing a statement in an IPCC report that 'the evidence is unequivocal." (I don't remember if that was in reference to the existence of a warming trend, or the influence of human activity.) I think equating that with "the science is settled" would be an exaggeration.
There is ALWAYS the possibility that new evidence will change scientists' thinking. Given the historical record, using that as the sole reason for inaction would be foolish, IMO. The issue SHOULD be, "Is the evidence strong enough to justify taking action?"
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
I don't think you know what an actual strawman argument is. But based on your posts on here, it's not surprising.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
I don't think it is an exaggeration for me to equate that to "the science is settled."
unequivocal
1. not equivocal; unambiguous; clear; having only one possible meaning or interpretation: an unequivocal indication of assent; unequivocal proof.
2. absolute; unqualified; not subject to conditions or exceptions:
That pretty much says, "don't argue with my findings."
ClimbnSink
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,997
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg
You don't believe, you are anti-science. You anti-science heathen you. Poor you, if only your mother hadn't dropped you on your head you'd be smart enough to believe in science. And even though you are anti-science and perhaps daft if you choose to believe anyway we will be your friends. Just like a cult, only science. So it is real, if you believe, just like Santa.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
The reason I consider a lot of this anti-science is because of the insistence that those doing the science are hopelessly corrupt and are reporting not the truth, but instead some party line designed by some nefarious individual or organization. The creationists take a similar tone, accusing the scientific community of brainwashing America's youth into ignoring superstition-based cosmology.
DaleB
Final Approach
Here's my prediction. 50 years from now, with no disaster having occurred and the end of life on the planet not imminent, we'll have two camps of people:
"See, we were right! Global warming was a bunch of hooey, and now we know better. Climate change happens, and is not caused by human activity."
vs.
"See, we were right! We only narrowly averted disaster from man-made climate change because we made changes early enough to stem the tide."
Kind of reminds me of the Y2K panic.
Do I think the global climate is changing? Sure. It happens all the time, always has, always will (for an unknown value of "always").
Are humans contributing to it? Hmm. Probably, to some degree, and I would hope that contribution is shrinking as we become more aware of it. I try to do my part.
Do we have the information we need to assess how much contribution human activity is making, or even how much change is actually occurring over time? I'm not an expert, but I rather doubt it. I wonder, for example, how much measurement error has been eliminated (or introduced) over the many years we've been collecting data. I am also concerned by how easy it seems to be to find data collection installations in extremely poor locations. The climate guys say they take that into account. How? And how well?
Don't call me a climate change "denier", but I will gladly accept the label of "skeptic" with regards to some of the things that are sometimes held forth as "settled" issues. Do the climate scientists say they're "fact" and "settled"? Obviously not all of them, but too many people claiming to be scientists seem to, and there seems to be a general air of dismissiveness toward anyone who questions the predictions du jour. If you're skeptical of the current model's predictions, well, you're obviously just not very bight, or should go back to watching Duck Dynasty. That was a good one.
"See, we were right! Global warming was a bunch of hooey, and now we know better. Climate change happens, and is not caused by human activity."
vs.
"See, we were right! We only narrowly averted disaster from man-made climate change because we made changes early enough to stem the tide."
Kind of reminds me of the Y2K panic.
Do I think the global climate is changing? Sure. It happens all the time, always has, always will (for an unknown value of "always").
Are humans contributing to it? Hmm. Probably, to some degree, and I would hope that contribution is shrinking as we become more aware of it. I try to do my part.
Do we have the information we need to assess how much contribution human activity is making, or even how much change is actually occurring over time? I'm not an expert, but I rather doubt it. I wonder, for example, how much measurement error has been eliminated (or introduced) over the many years we've been collecting data. I am also concerned by how easy it seems to be to find data collection installations in extremely poor locations. The climate guys say they take that into account. How? And how well?
Don't call me a climate change "denier", but I will gladly accept the label of "skeptic" with regards to some of the things that are sometimes held forth as "settled" issues. Do the climate scientists say they're "fact" and "settled"? Obviously not all of them, but too many people claiming to be scientists seem to, and there seems to be a general air of dismissiveness toward anyone who questions the predictions du jour. If you're skeptical of the current model's predictions, well, you're obviously just not very bight, or should go back to watching Duck Dynasty. That was a good one.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
The apparent pause in the rise of surface temperatures of the past decade is not unprecedented, but in each case, warming eventually resumed. The current pause appears to be due to more heat going into the oceans, and there is reason to believe that the effect may only be temporary.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/02/going-with-the-wind/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/02/going-with-the-wind/
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
The difference between skeptics and deniers:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/10/the-real-difference-between-skeptics-and-deniers/
Excerpt:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/10/the-real-difference-between-skeptics-and-deniers/
Excerpt:
When scientists who are genuinely skeptical see something they don’t understand, they try to understand it. When deniers see something scientists don’t understand, they use it as an excuse to claim that "natural variation has been in control, not CO2."
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
In this article, and in the comments that follow it, some people discuss their experience of serving on panels that determine which studies get funded and which don't:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/reflections-on-funding-panels/
The process is not perfect, but note this in particular:
"No-one gets funded to demonstrate a specific result. People get funded to investigate questions."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/reflections-on-funding-panels/
The process is not perfect, but note this in particular:
"No-one gets funded to demonstrate a specific result. People get funded to investigate questions."
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Considering the noise level in the record, it appears that claims that global warming is over might be slightly premature:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/01/global-temperature-2013/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/01/global-temperature-2013/
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
My biggest issue is we are taking a look at 150 years of an epoch, and saying the same thing has never happened in other eras, epochs, and periods. The problem is, we don't have a way to look at a 150 year snapshot from say, the Paleocene. Maybe it hasn't happened, but maybe it has. I have an issue with people saying it's never happened, when they have no way to observe such a small sample. I'm willing to wager it has happened, but I am not going to say it absolutely has. But the other side is saying it absolutely hasn't, with no way to back up their statement.
ClimbnSink
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,997
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg
Repeat a lie often enough and the science doesn't matter.
write-stuff
En-Route
Wha-huh? What has never happened? Massive climate change? If so, yes, sure it has. The difference is that animals could migrate and adapt. Now we have these organisms called humans who have staked out claims to all the landmass. Mass migrations aren't quite so easy these days.
If that's not what you referred to, never mind.
ScottM
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 42,529
- Location
- Variable, but somewhere on earth
- Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
In science when you 'wager' that something has happened you need to back it up with some evidence. So lets see your evidence that it has happened? Right now a lot of paleoclimiate study is going on to understand past climatic changes. None of that data has shown some of the dramatic changes due to CO2 levels that we are seeing now.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Perhaps you didn't read my entire post.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Read what I said again, instead of what you wanted to read.