Global Warming 2.0 (thread reopened; let's keep it civil)

[Urwumpe]

Urwumpe;
Don't get sucked down to the depths of... ...Superstition driven chatter...

No, I just think a hypothesis should be tested... and what is a better test, than a small bet? It is putting your cards on the table.

And I don't mean predicting the weather - I mean predicting the mean temperatures in a sufficient long time frame.

 

[Omhra]

You are right... I mean you have been on these forums since I ran into Orbiter in 2002, back on the M6 forums.
So I guess since we do rack-up decades here... we do have time and a good chance to re-read all we have written and find out who was right and who wasn't.

 

[Urwumpe]

You are right... I mean you have been on these forums since I ran into Orbiter in 2002, back on the M6 forums.
So I guess since we do rack-up decades here... we do have time and a good chance to re-read all we have written and find out who was right and who wasn't.

Yes, because in that point, we take of our scientist hats.

If we would be scientists, which observe the climate, you would find us numerically calculating the differences between latest climate model and real measurements back and forth, for finding new factors in the system which we did not consider yet.

Being right or being wrong, does not matter then. Being right just means more work.

 

[Moonwalker]

Moonwalker;
That is because you don't understand the scientific process...

"Scientists are mere mortals casting their gaze on a system so complex we cannot precisely predict its future state even five days ahead".

Further:

"The signature statement of the 2007 IPCC report may be paraphrased as this: "We are 90% confident that most of the warming in the past 50 years is due to humans. We are not told here that this assertion is based on computer model output, not direct observation. The simple fact is we don't have thermometers marked with "this much is human-caused" and "this much is natural".

Professor John Christy, IPCC lead author

 

[Urwumpe]

Is that a problem for you that scientists know their limits?

 

[Moonwalker]

Is that a problem for you that scientists know their limits?

If it would be a problem for me, I would call them sceptics.

 

[Omhra]

you lean on a deterministic gray line Moonwalker... and are too prone to take the easy over the unknown. and too trapped on the "mortal coil"... the scientific method IS separate from the mortals... the knowledge is more permanent.

 

[Moonwalker]

you lean on a deterministic gray line Moonwalker... and are too prone to take the easy over the unknown. and too trapped on the "mortal coil"... the scientific method IS separate from the mortals... the knowledge is more permanent.

The scientific method is made by mere mortals, and it is as ignorant and as fading as mere mortals.

I'd like to quote IPCC lead author John Cristy again, since he is part of a community you seem to submissively depend on, and people think that there is a consensus and it's all proven finally:

"We should always begin our scientific pronouncements with this statement: 'At our present level of ignorance, we think we know...'"

"Mother Nature simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at this point, beyond the mastery of mere mortals (such as scientists) and the tools available to us."

 

[Omhra]

ofcourse its not the 'scientists' I follow.. it's the method.
And even with its flaws is the most honest way to persue any truth.
No other exercise of reason comes close.


-----Post Added-----


but we are a bit off-topic and we are now dabbeling in philosophy, where abstract, yet untestable axioms reside.
You should really start a phylosophy thread.

 

[Urwumpe]

The scientific method is made by mere mortals, and it is as ignorant and as fading as mere mortals.

I'd like to quote IPCC lead author John Cristy again, since he is part of a community you seem to submissively depend on, and people think that there is a consensus and it's all proven finally:

"We should always begin our scientific pronouncements with this statement: 'At our present level of ignorance, we think we know...'"

"Mother Nature simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at this point, beyond the mastery of mere mortals (such as scientists) and the tools available to us."

Yes, but if we battle with quotations, let me remind you on this:

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. - Max Planck.


Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman.

 

[Omhra]

Moonwalker,
The IPPC is irrelevant to your argument. You are discrediting most, if not all of the physical sciences. Meteorology ( on the spot), Chemistry, Geology and High energy physics to start. You are also dismantling Taxonomy and Anthropology.
How?

 

[Andy44]

The scientific method is made by mere mortals, and it is as ignorant and as fading as mere mortals.

While I tend to believe that AGW is itself based on the failure to use the scientific method in favor of politics and social acceptance, I have to say I couldn't disagree with you more.

The scientific method is a rigorous application of skepticism in order to mitigate the tendency of humans to self-delude, and is based, as much as possible, on objective fact. Humans may not be perfect, but this is the best way to recognize and deal with that limitation, unlike the irrational meanderings into metaphysics you seem to be embracing.

 

[Moonwalker]

Climate modeling and soothsaying of the future climate is anything but not objective facts.

Science is partly overestimated and largely based on theoretical and philosophical human thinking and imagination. We have defined most of it so that it works and becomes explicable to what our narrow transient sense organs seem to observe.

 

[Urwumpe]

Science is partly overestimated and largely based on theoretical and philosophical human thinking and imagination. We have defined most of it so that it works and becomes explicable to what our narrow transient sense organs seem to observe.

I think your opinion, which is not based on any scientific process at all, is not even just party overestimated. What are you? A god? A Übermensch? Flawless and better than all? With perfect memory and perfect senses? You would have discovered relativity before Einstein, but it did just not interest you? You are with high probability as human as any scientist. But your opinion does not require a peer review, while any science needs it. Your opinion does also not get produced by a disciplined approach to the topic, but by the lack of it. You just think so. Like Aristotle.

Sorry, but you just show, that you have never even considered learning what the scientific method is, before you criticize it. You criticize something else, from the points you criticize.

Again: This is a good introduction into the scientific method:
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html

Read it, understand it, and then reformulate your criticism.

Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What's left is magic. And it doesn't work. -- James Randi

 

[Omhra]

Climate modeling and soothsaying of the future climate is anything but not objective facts.

Science is partly overestimated and largely based on theoretical and philosophical human thinking and imagination. We have defined most of it so that it works and becomes explicable to what our narrow transient sense organs can observe.

Soothsaying?
Science is over estimated?
OK...
And what do you propose?
Are you suggesting we accept it all as the will of.... what... who...
WHY?
What method shall we use (in your world of deceit and unimportance) to answer those questions...
Or what book has all the answers... Is it a book of prophesy?

So you are really just "anti-science" and not really anti GW...

Lets discuss in the proper terms...
Andy is a skeptic on AGW but not anti-science, And in AGW we may disagree.
But, Moonwalker, have you read the malleus mallifecarium?
In it it was explained through some logic what a witch was... and you are saying horribly similar things about scientists.
In your gross generalizations you imply mystical-spiritualist invocation (cum hoc) to the pursue of SCIENCE (propter hoc)...

We are here to dis-spell your sort of nonsense.

Our senses are narrow, but not feeble. Our knowledge is limited, but not insurmountable and our dreams soar high.

You invite us to throw ourselves to the ways of the [....] and get to working on [....] because our future is [.....] and to change it we can do [....]. You claim that we know [....] and we use deceiving methods to reaffirm [....].

Awful lot of blanks.

The word Theory becomes your worst enemy.
This is why you try to corrode it down to the level of prophesy... BUT those two words are of opposite weights... they are as apart in meaning as vacuum is from solid.
Is a flaw in reason. to equate improper terms to follow reason. The error is fundamental.

 

[Moonwalker]

Just like I don't overestimate our religions, I also don't overestimate our science. But many people do overestimate it.

It is interesting how nervous people become when they insist on science but have nothing to provide that shows humans are causing clobal warming.

 

[Omhra]

Moonwalker;
negative. We become 'invested' when politics like yours attempt to make science INTO a religion.

 

[Moonwalker]

It is the attempt of AGW-believers to turn science into a religion I guess. And the IPCC reports are the holy scriptures people show and say "I have this in my hands, you have nothing".

 

[Urwumpe]

Just like I don't overestimate our religions, I also don't overestimate our science. But many people do overestimate it.

You can not overestimate science. You can only not understand it.

Of course you need a belief into the system. If you don't believe into the scientific method, you will never work scientific. Just to quote our chancelorette:

If we make the laws to strict, it will be impossible to follow them.

It is interesting how nervous people become when they insist on science but have nothing to provide that shows humans are causing clobal warming.

If it is a No-AGW believer, who makes the rules, there will never be evidence - something will always be wrong, a reason will always be found to not accept it.

I have a simple task for you: Show, positively, that there is a natural explanation for the climate change. Back your theory up with evidence. Don't assume or believe. Know.

Simply saying, it can be a natural cycle is not proving the hypothesis. Of course it can be it. But can you also show that a natural cycle is happening?

 

[Andy44]

It is the attempt of AGW-believers to turn science into a religion I guess. And the IPCC reports are the holy scriptures.

You are arguing that because AGW is not scientific you can indict the scentific method. That is contradictory.

If, as you say, AGW believers are falling victim to superstition, than they are, by definition, not following the scientific method.

Make up your mind.