Lots of areas of science use probabilities; that's inherent in any complex system where you can't isolate individual factors completely. Do you know how science works?
Lots of areas of science use probabilities; that's inherent in any complex system where you can't isolate individual factors completely. Do you know how science works?
Galileo the first denier.
After all, the science was clear. All the scientists knew that the sun orbited around the earth.
Uno
What's hilarious about this is apparently you don't realize that the science is based on the reasoning of thousands of individuals. I get the feeling that you don't know what the argument from authority fallacy is.
No, I'm not. You consistently have to change what ive said to make your points: clearly I haven't said what you have accused me of or you would be able to quote it verbatim.
I find your positions irresponsible. We have no business forcing people to starve or freeze today on the basis of lives we might save, 100 years down the road, if we have the math right.
You simply cannot be serious.
This argument is the equivalent of when evolution deniers try to equate evolution being a theory with when their grandma says 'I have a theory that your grandpa is going to be late to dinner'.
Nah, your position is simply duplicitous and I'm not letting you get away with it. You say you don't want to do nothing but then you simply advocate for things that won't actually solve the problem.
You are perfectly welcome to find the conclusions of science irresponsible. I'll stick with science, you stick with ideology.
I am serious, and further more I'm correct.
Another word for probabilistic analysis is guess. You may find that insulting, to reduce the science down to that but by virtue of definition it is correct.
Actually probabilistic analyses are not guesses any more than your grandma's theory is the same as a scientific theory. My description was perfectly accurate and is a frequently used tactic by those trying to argue against science. Normally it's used by evolution deniers, but I guess the fundamental principle can be used by climate deniers as well.
bshole
Diamond Member
- Mar 12, 2013
- 8,315
- 1,215
- 126
You use words with utterly no scientific meaning. Just answer the damn question! Quantify it for christ's sake. 50% probability, 10% probability?!?!?! The answer is you don't have a mother fucking clue what the probability is and neither does anybody else.... so you all say "highly likely" which means absolutely nothing!
You do realize that climate models have already missed badly in predicting the climate today. Unsuprisingly every single model OVER-ESTIMATED what the global temperature would be today. Every year that passes marks a further separation between the models and reality. Science my ass....
So reducing automotive emissions and increasing fuel economy "won't actually solve the problem."?
Reducing coal emissions "won't actually solve the problem."?
So then is the EPA just punishing people arbitrarily since by your very words these actions to not achieve their objectives?
And by the way, one of us is a slave to ideology but it is not me...
More meaningless analogies. If my statement is incorrect, use facts to prove it not feels.
You are the very thing you rail against. This is your faith.
No, they are elements of an overall strategy to solve the problem. Alone they will not solve the problem and I am unaware of anyone who believes that they would.
The 97% consensus agrees that its a 95% probability Global warming is real and caused by man. Is that specific enough?
Its called an EDUCATED guess, not a wild ass guess which is what economists do 90% of the time.
However not withstanding Doc is right it is a funny irony, doesn't change the fact climate change is real
http://www.weather.com/news/science...inter-cold-global-warming-still-real-20140107
Its called an EDUCATED guess, not a wild ass guess which is what economists do 90% of the time.
However not withstanding Doc is right it is a funny irony, doesn't change the fact climate change is real
http://www.weather.com/news/science...inter-cold-global-warming-still-real-20140107
I like how the guy who is trying desperately to find a way to ignore science is accusing someone else of basing their opinions on faith. I accept science. I wish you would start.
There is no 'feels' here, you are simply wrong about what probabilistic analysis is in much the same way evolution deniers are wrong about what a theory is. It is the basic principle that all statistics are based on. If you knew anything about statistics you would know that statistical analysis is not a guess.
Absolutely. If you look I never used the words "wild ass".
A guess can be many things. It can be educated.
bshole
Diamond Member
- Mar 12, 2013
- 8,315
- 1,215
- 126
But if it is science, real and true science, it creates a hypothesis and tests it to see if its true. The hypothesis is that it will be 5 degrees warmer in 70 years. The scientific method dictates that we wait 70 years and then test to see if the hypothesis was correct. They have dispensed with the testing part of science and declared the science as settled. That is just plain wrong. There is nothing scientific about it at all, it is 100% political.
PS. How did they derive their 95% probability? Did they just pull it out of their asses?
Last edited:
Because its predictive and forward prediction is unproven they TEST their hypothesis by loading their climate models and variables into a past known climate period and see if the models predict the climate the same way as what unfolded in reality.
This is a valid measure of modeling and future prediction. Its also why its only 95% there may yet be some unaccounted climate variable, still its a very high probability not a certainty as Faux news likes to propagate
http://www.skepticalscience.com/how-do-climate-models-work.html
"So how do we know the models are working? Should we trust the predictions they make for the future? It's not reasonable to wait for a hundred years to see if the predictions come true, so scientists have come up with a different test: tell the models to predict the past. For example, give the model the observed conditions of the year 1900, run it forward to 2000, and see if the climate it recreates matches up with observations from the real world."
This is a valid measure of modeling and future prediction. Its also why its only 95% there may yet be some unaccounted climate variable, still its a very high probability not a certainty as Faux news likes to propagate
http://www.skepticalscience.com/how-do-climate-models-work.html
"So how do we know the models are working? Should we trust the predictions they make for the future? It's not reasonable to wait for a hundred years to see if the predictions come true, so scientists have come up with a different test: tell the models to predict the past. For example, give the model the observed conditions of the year 1900, run it forward to 2000, and see if the climate it recreates matches up with observations from the real world."
Last edited:
Again, arguing with what you wish I said. I never said to ignore the science. I said to temper it with the understanding that its a young science and our knowledge of it is far from complete or comprehensive.
Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 35,765
- 10,068
- 136
The irony being that next summer there will be a heat wave and alarmists will be crowing Global Warming, as they always have.
You see, when it's warm the Weather always = Climate.
Again, taking what you said to its logical conclusion. Those making the science do not think it is young and they think their conclusions are solid based on the huge amount of evidence. You want to ignore this. Thus, you are ignoring the science.
Hey that's why I agreed Doc's original post was indeed funny
I don't look at a weather event and secretly proclaim Aha! but your right many do, hear it in the halls at work, all day on the radio etc.
OMG there is more sea ice! however Ice in general is down if you consider both poles, a GLOBAL issue, too many idiots citing localized weather for sure
FWIW I believe in AGC but I see peak oil and pollution/overpopulation as the much bigger issues and maybe something we can do about it
"When settlers first arrived, Muir notes, New England was home to tens of thousands of beaver ponds. As important as the slow release of water, moreover, was the way millions of gallons were held behind the dams, creating a constant seepage into the ground. The result: a “reservoir of ground water so abundant that it burst in ever-flowing springs [even] on the beach,” a ground water source necessary to all “the abundance of every kind [that] impressed the first Europeans to reach these shores, abundance of strawberries in the fields and of deer in the woods, abundance of trees, and an astonishing abundance of fresh, clear water” (7). The beaver gone, the forests felled, the ground turned into fast-eroding fields, this became the hardscrabble New England that we know today. But it scarcely mattered to the European settlers; rivers could be turned into industrial mills and new land could be acquired further west, with little cost to this new economics of extinction that had great and varied abundance to churn through. "
I don't look at a weather event and secretly proclaim Aha! but your right many do, hear it in the halls at work, all day on the radio etc.
OMG there is more sea ice! however Ice in general is down if you consider both poles, a GLOBAL issue, too many idiots citing localized weather for sure
FWIW I believe in AGC but I see peak oil and pollution/overpopulation as the much bigger issues and maybe something we can do about it
"When settlers first arrived, Muir notes, New England was home to tens of thousands of beaver ponds. As important as the slow release of water, moreover, was the way millions of gallons were held behind the dams, creating a constant seepage into the ground. The result: a “reservoir of ground water so abundant that it burst in ever-flowing springs [even] on the beach,” a ground water source necessary to all “the abundance of every kind [that] impressed the first Europeans to reach these shores, abundance of strawberries in the fields and of deer in the woods, abundance of trees, and an astonishing abundance of fresh, clear water” (7). The beaver gone, the forests felled, the ground turned into fast-eroding fields, this became the hardscrabble New England that we know today. But it scarcely mattered to the European settlers; rivers could be turned into industrial mills and new land could be acquired further west, with little cost to this new economics of extinction that had great and varied abundance to churn through. "
Last edited:
Not really. You appear to be the one unable to distinguish between scientific laws and scientific theories. It matters not how well researched it is, until it is declared a law, it is not fact, reality, or even 'consensus'. Just a theory.
bshole
Diamond Member
- Mar 12, 2013
- 8,315
- 1,215
- 126
Why not? I am 95% confident they won't. I base this on the amount of error already detected in the models when compared to reality. They are WAY the fuck high and nobody has explained why. We are actually now trending downward very slightly when all the models show a sharply accelerating upward trend.
Some models had predicted 7X the amount of warming than actually occured. Christ the error in that prediction far exceeds the measurement.
Basically this is a race to get invasive regulations in that enrich a few and impoverish the masses before it can be proven that it is a scam. Once they get in, it won't matter what happens with the climate because once the regulations are in they will never be taken out. Time is not on the global warmists side, they are being proven more wrong with each passing year.
Last edited:
Matt1970
Lifer
- Mar 19, 2007
- 12,320
- 3
- 0
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 397
Facebook
Twitter