Talking about end times:

Post Reply New Topic

Ma belle sends us a nice link out of the Antipodes:

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph ... ure_watch/

Wow. The very first article mentioned is quite clearly misrepresented:

Hmm... Well, I read the article... and it says:



Oh, um... well, uh. Move along. Nothing to see here.

i don't recall what the exact climate prediction was but something catastrophic was predicted for 2010 and we're still here a year later.

We have NO idea how many endings have been predicted..

There are plenty, but I see no value in creating a straw man in order to deny climate change. There may be some who overstate the evidence, severity, or speed at which it is approaching, but I would advise against forming your opinions in opposition to them without consulting the mainstream of the scientific community.

That is not what I am doing at all.

I know - for my sins - the scientific community from the inside, from my experiences and observations, those of friends and colleagues, those of certain relatives.

The scientific community includes some very real and great students and scholars and researchers - it is the same thing. They are not all Feynman, but they are serious and dedicated and if Hawking [whom I do not personally like] does - like certain of my colleagues - go into areas I disapprove I do not for that reason put down his real work and qualifications any more than I do my colleagues, even though he [the colleague] as an administrator totally sold out.

The scientific community ALSO includes some lightweights and lamebrains, some of whom, such is our world, have the charisma and the gall to grab big reputations with nothing underlying it. One extreme case I worked with - to a REALLY big rep - every time he talked to a reporter or gave a public lecture it went into his resume as an accomplishment and contribution to science.

The scientific commuinity further includes some people just trying to get ahead who will - I try to view this gently - sell their souls. Who will be convinced of what their dissertation supervisor or their chairman or the interviewer believes. Who will gasp and go "What am I saying!" if one of those might hear them saying something outside the party line. I have seen it happened, there is a lot of pressure, my brother's career has sufffered for NOT doing it.

AND the scientific ommunity also includes some people who buy into what they have been taught, who are not, as Feynman says, trying to prove themselvdes wrong.

I do not form my opinions by automatically adopting or automatically opposing the views of any of these groups.

I already said that on the issue of the climate I do not have a formed opinion.

I DO have the opinion that when a sizable share of the community holds a view that the media find sexy - for them a very convenient opinion - that needs to be scrutinized carefully, because good science is usually NOT sexy in ways the media can grasp, and I have known personally scholars who have clung to a rather weak hypothesis because it fitted in with someone else's pet idea.

And I DO feel - built into my nature - that putting anything like that on a timeline is NOT scientifically justified. Predicting a freeze or meltdown, sure, if you as a climatologist think the trends support it. But - saying next year, next decade, next century? When the TV meteorologist tells us there is a 50% chance of rain with a downpour outside the studio? No.

So you have formed opinions.

A) That weather = climate.

B) That predictions about climate over certain timescales is impossible.

If the media really found it sexy, it would be all you heard about... There is so much information out there that just isn't getting any traction. I think the media is actually suppressing quite a bit, because outlets are owned and operated by firms with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. They're also the firms in the best position to capitalize on a profit-motivated response when things truly get out of hand. It is the Shock Doctrine unfolding in slow motion before our eyes, on the largest scale we can imagine...

No because slow changes in the earth's magnetic field, variations in solar activity, and variations in the earth's distance from the sun occur on a similar timescale.

Yes, good thing NASA never heard about those. You phone them up and let them know.

Interesting that last year was the lowest solar minimum in 100 years, yet tied for hottest by NASA's graph and the 2cd hottest by Hadley's.

--------------------

My opinions include:

A. Weather is and will be : inference from percepts over a 40+ year time span

B. Climate can be roughly and unprofessionally defined for present purposes [I am a linguist not a climatologist or meteorologist] as the imaginary line around which weather events in a particular region tend to cluster in temporal cycles - definition cobbled together for present purposes, based on inference from recieved statements about climate over a 40+ year time span.

C.In our current state of technologv and understanding, we can within limits extrapolate probable trends in weather events [there is a 30% chance of snow later tonight, the hurricane is expected to arrive at Cape Hatteras sometiome tomorrow] and in patterns of climate [The Sahara is expanding at a rate of three miles a month, the shift southward of the Gulf Stream will lower average tempoeraturesz in Britain].

D. In our curent state of technology and understanding, time frames and secific events can only be approximated.

E. If we saw an asteroid approaching from far enough away, and could train radar on it long enough, I think we could likely come pretty close on point of impact and time. We could also predict it would effect weather and probably climate. Predicting exactly what tghat effect would be is something else.

Okay?

Not seeking approval or agreement - I do not mind those but I learned a long time ago that it is easier to precdict the weather than to predict approvakl or agreement. Just looking to have my answer understood.

THAT is usually quite hard enough.