climate science rap

Page 2 of 6 [ 91 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

21 May 2011, 10:28 pm

aghogday wrote:

What do you think?

If we had climate science as good as the Standard Model for Particles and Fields which makes verified predictions good to 12 decimal places we might be able to reach some conclusions. But the science is nowhere that good.

What we have to do is detach the study of climate change from politics. Then we might get some results we can believe.

ruveyn

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,929

21 May 2011, 10:42 pm

ruveyn wrote:

aghogday wrote:

What do you think?

I agree that an accurate measure of the impact the effect man has had on the environment is difficult, with or without politics.

But the study of the climate in regard to measuring temperatures, barometric pressure, ocean tempratures, etc. at designated locations is objective science. Much more objective than social sciences, I think.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

21 May 2011, 10:47 pm

aghogday wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

aghogday wrote:

What do you think?

I am all in favor of developing a decent science of climate and climate change. Right now we don't have it. All we have are models with way too many adjustable parameters. You might say the entire field is suffering from The Club of Rome Disease. The Club of Rome made some startling predictions and most of them were wrong.

ruveyn

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,929

21 May 2011, 10:56 pm

ruveyn wrote:

aghogday wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

aghogday wrote:

What do you think?

I agree to an extent, but still think that climate science does a good job in measuring impacts like La Nina, and El Nino. I do hope to see it improve, we certainly can use the best information and models we can get in regard to Hurricanes and other dangerous weather phenomenon.

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

22 May 2011, 12:53 am

ruveyn wrote:

LKL wrote:

No, you were born socially inept. They are different things.

I am genetically literal minded. I have no theory of mind for other people. I am not convinced other people have minds. I am not even convinced I have a mind. I know I have a brain because I have seen the angiograms, the PET scans and the MRI scans. I have a lovely brain with very few holes in it (which is good news from someone my age).

I am not only literal minded, I WANT to be literal minded. I want other people to be as exact in how they express themselves as I am. I mean what I say and what is more important, I say what I mean and I say it precisely. I don't want to be a muddle headed NT muggle. I want to be an Aspie wizard.

Social ineptitude is a small price to pay for intellectual excellence.

ruveyn

Your problem with 'climate science' is not a problem with literalism. It is a problem with deliberately being obtuse.

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

22 May 2011, 12:54 am

Philologos wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

LKL wrote:

No, you were born socially inept. They are different things.

I can buy into that lAZst remark. But you are too credulous. Being shown an MRI scan hardly PROVES you have a brain. For all you know it is just upgraded Scientology technology.

For that matter, it doesn't prove YOU have a brain. Plenty of people are shown scans of other people by doctors who want to scam them.

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

22 May 2011, 12:57 am

ruveyn wrote:

aghogday wrote:

If I had to guess, I suspect you don't agree that humans have anything to do with climate change, so since this science does not seem valid to you, you seem to see climatology as a whole, not to be a valid category of science. If that is the case, it seems like more of an emotional reaction than a logical one.

Human beings make more CO2 than is necessary and that will affect climate some. The question is to what extent do other natural processes drive climate. For example variation in solar output, variation in orbit, variation in inclination of the axis, secondary and and tertiary cosmic rays producing cloud cover. I have seen no proof that eliminates these other processes as causes of the current warming trend.

The problem is that the entire mater of global warming has been politicized and the "science" that supports human activity as the exclusive or major cause is quite corrupt. Government money favors anthropogenic global warming because that gives the government a pretext for increasing its regulatory powers. Let us say, I am skeptical of the anthropogenic hypothesis although I readily grant that it is -possible- that it might be true.

ruveyn

If that is the case, then the government is being unnaturally selective in the fields it is choosing to expand its regulation into. There are plenty of other areas that are under-regulated, and don't have multi-billion dollar industries funding think-tanks to dispute the evidence that they need to be regulated. It makes the government seem rather quixotic, actually.

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

22 May 2011, 1:02 am

ruveyn wrote:

aghogday wrote:

What do you think?

You are limiting 'science,' then, to only those very simple or fundamental systems that can be accurately described by relatively simple mathematical formulae. You are throwing out all of biology, meteorology, climatology, sociology, and any other field that uses descriptions and/or statistics to describe its predictions. Given that you were, a few posts ago, yammering dogmatically about a description based on psychology , which is the fuzziest science out there, we can only conclude that you are being deliberately selective in your critique of model accuracy.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 May 2011, 7:20 am

LKL wrote:

Molecular thermodynamics and quantum theory is statistical in the sense that probabilities are predicted. Sociology is nonsense on stilts and is not and never has been a science. Other sciences are based on chaotic dynamics and are mathematically much more challenging than fundamental physics. All the more reason for getting better models with few parameters to juggle with. The current climate models are far too adjustable and can be "fiddled" for political and other reasons which is why I am skeptical about them. I want to see much tighter models that in qualitative terms approach the kind of virtue that quantum physics and relativity theory possess. Why should we stake our lives and welfare on doctrines that can be manipulated for political or ideological reasons? That sounds too much like religion for my comfort.

ruveyn

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

22 May 2011, 12:06 pm

ruveyn wrote:

LKL wrote:

Some basic intuition and Occam's razor leads to the conclusion that it's not climate scientists who are politically motivated. To see who is politically motivated just look at which side has more to lose financially if they are wrong. I also notice that skeptics/denialists are almost exclusively of a right-wing political persuasion who are against regulation in general. In that case the accusations that climate science is politically motivated are a blatant and absurd case of psychological projection.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 May 2011, 12:56 pm

marshall wrote:

In that case the accusations that climate science is politically motivated are a blatant and absurd case of psychological projection.

The government has a vested interest in the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. It gives them more pretext to regulate our doings. That is why the issue has been politicized.

ruveyn

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

22 May 2011, 2:11 pm

ruveyn wrote:

LKL wrote:

You are willing to accept the findings of psychology, but not the findings of climatology - a science vastly more quantitative and accurate than psychology. You are, in other words, a hypocrite.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 May 2011, 3:46 pm

LKL wrote:

You are willing to accept the findings of psychology, but not the findings of climatology - a science vastly more quantitative and accurate than psychology. You are, in other words, a hypocrite.

.

Watch your mouth.

I consider psychology and psychiatry pseudo sciences. Neurology is a real science of the medical variety. Psychology is a scam and a waste of time.

Neurophysiology I can buy along with its correlate neuropharmacology.

The cure for madness is pills, not psychotherapy.

You should repress your urge to think you know what someone else is thinking. You only know what you see, hear, smell, feel and think. Anything else is hypothesis and guesswork. You do not know if any one else in the universe beside yourself even thinks or has a mind.

ruveyn

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

22 May 2011, 5:00 pm

In this thread you have used your putative psychological diagnosis of Asperger's to justify your behavior. That is neither an inference nor an imagining of mine.

dionysian
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 May 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 921
Location: Germantown, MD

22 May 2011, 5:08 pm

I find it amusing that the very same people that claim Pascal's Wager has some validity when it comes to religion, will simply not accept its application towards global warming.

It's also funny that people don't recognize the intrinsic benefits of the counter-measures offered against climate change. Reduce pollution, promote sustainability, develop renewable energy sources, and so on... these are goods in and of themselves. Not just as means, but as ends themselves.

In the end, I'm just left with the impression that these folks are pretty dim... I can't imagine an intellectually honest person of any intelligence taking a stance against our efforts to curb climate change.

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

22 May 2011, 5:13 pm

Perhaps one of the best examples of the inherent dishonesty of the denialist camp was when their star poster boy, Dr Richard Muller, took it upon himself to do research for the denialist camp (though I would term him as a skeptic) and ended up supporting the claims he initially was against due to his findings actually showing there is anthropogenic climate change. Shortly afterwards the denialist camp disowned him and encouraged hate mail towards Muller

_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do

Page 2 of 6 [ 91 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Jump to:

climate science rap Post Reply New Topic

climate science rap