AN ASSAULT ON SCIENCE

Sometimes your posts look an awful lot like Layman's posts. Argument by google search is never effective. I studied this, and your quick search for google phrases that you think support your position has failed you.

Here are Maxwell's equations



Have you ever worked with these? Einstein's paper I think you are mentioning, the one that earned him his Nobel prize, was on the photoelectric effect.

I bet you have never read it, have you? Arguing by google search is neither a good way to learn, nor to make any valid point.


You have no clue what you are talking about.

The point here is that science works with levels of certainty.

There are ideas that are untested, and hypotheses that are untested. Theoretical physicists publish ideas all the time. But they aren't accepted until they are tested by experiment and the results match the theoretical predictions.

There are theories that science has great deal of certainty about. For a theory to become accepted theory, it needs to be tested in multiple ways in ways that other theories can't duplicate.

Of course, different scientific ideas are known with different levels of certainty. And, scientists understand this. There is much more controversy about string or black holes stability (which are difficult to test now) than there is about Archimedes principle or or the effectiveness of vaccinations.

Luminiferous aether (for all of Setanta's sciolism) was never successfully tested by experiment, and Setanta's google searches haven't shown a case where any physicist cited "overwhelming evidence" to support the existance of aether. It was a working hypothesis, not a proven theory. If you show me a single quote from a reputable physicist at the time that there was "overwhelming evidence" for aether, then you will prove me wrong. But I bet you can't.

That is why, when reputable science institutions are all using the terms "overwhelming evidence" and "incontrovertible" to describe human induced climate change. Scientists don't see this as a working hypothesis. They have put up the satellites. They have made measurements with buoys, they have taken ice core samples, they have taken atmospheric samples.

At some point scientists can be certain. We have reached this point with smoking. We have reached this point with vaccinations. And, we have reached this point with human induced climate change.

You are free to attack them if you want. But the historical record shows that scientists have wrong about working hypotheses before, but once they have done the experiments and reach a consensus to where they say they are certain, they have been right.

I've known about Einstein's paper on optics since you were still shitting in your diapers. There was no such thing as a google search in those days, bright boy. Basically, what we see here is that it is sufficient for me to post for you to want to start a pissing contest about it. You have assumed that i don't accept that global warming is taking place, not only without reason, but in defiance of what i have posted in this thread. You apparently also want to assume that i don't accept smoking as a cause of cancer. Just more grist for you pissing contest mill.

You started this thread by making personal attacks on me. You have a problem, but it's not my problem, nor is it my fault. Have a lousy life, and don't bother to write.

If 82% of the AAAS agrees on something is that enough certainty for you?

Known about? That's a funny term.

Have you ever read it? Have you done the math?

If you did, you would have a much better clue what it was about.

As everyone knows, 87% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Science says a bunch of things that are disputed by some people on the internet

- AIDS is caused by HIV.
- Humans developed from earlier species based on a process of natural selection.
- There is a direct link between smoking and cancer.
- There is no causal link between childhood vaccinations and autism.

How certain are you, or Setanta about any of these?

If the argument is that science can't be certain about anything, then you have successfully taken away the usefulness of science.

Isn't that what the Assault on Science is all about?

How certain am I that...



Certain enough. I don't have time enough off work, or the mental energy left over from work, to research or question these claims -- which is also how I feel about climate change. (My job involves some thinking. It isn't a matter of just shouting at underlings at a restaurant my wife bought for me.)

Stop evading...

82% of scientists say the growing human population will be a major problem in the future, and yet you disagree. Please tell us, Max (and believe me, whatever reason you give I will totally accept), why are you so anti-science?

I don't know what you are talking about. You are probably referencing something I wrote in some other thread I forgot about long ago. Obviously if population keeps growing, then it will be a big concern. I suspect I agree with 82% of scientists depending on how this is worded. If reputable institutions start saying there is "overwhelming evidence" for this, I will likely change my mind if I don't already agree with them.(this a lot different than just a poll of scientists).

I posted the statements about climate change from several scientific institutions. I agree with these statements, the scientists have done the research and are stating unequivocally what they have concluded.

Show me the statement about population growth from a reputable scientific institution and then I can tell you whether I agree with it or not.

All I have as far as that goes is this link to the Pew study saying 82% of AAAS scientists voted yes to "Growing world population will be a major problem because there won't be enough food and resources."

Anyway, that thing about you being anti-science was a joke. You don't have to believe everything a super-majority of AAAS says. I certainly don't, although I trust them more than I would trust a random guy on the internet or in a bar.

Computer models and predictions from them of anything as complex as the earth climate is not science.

Nor are votes of the opinions of scientists in itself science.

I have no problem with the idea that mankind is effecting the climate of the planet but I draw the line at computer drawn maps of sea level raises and such back only by those computer model as that is not science.

I don't understand why you think the Pew study matters at all. A scientific consensus has nothing to do with Pew opinion survey.

I don't, overly much. I thought it mattered to you because you started a thread on that very poll on Jan 31.

Ok. The poll in that thread was interesting and tangentially related.

But it doesn't have anything to do with the scientific consensus we are discussing here where reputable scientific institutions are publishing policy papers using the words "overwhelming evidence".

It is one thing to answer "yes" to a poll question over the telephone on your opinion on a topic. It is another to write or sign a paper that says you are convinced there is "overwhelming evidence" that something is true.

It's a consensus of people who are paid by the climate change groups. Of course a scientist is going to agree with the science. If they don't agree they don't get all of those nice grants from the govt and private groups to waste. A consensus of 97% when they only talked to a portion of the scientists and not all of them to get their take on what is happening.

How do you explain the climate models being so far off from what they predicted? They haven't been right.

Really? You are actually saying the poor oil companies couldn't keep up with the financial spending of climate change groups?

This tactic kind of sounds plausible when the anti-GMO people make it. When it comes to oil companies... not so much.

Which climate models? The ones being made in the 1970s?

No one in the 1970's claimed that there was any scientific consensus, they had a working hypothesis. We are now 50 years later with that much more research and data.

Manns models, the original hockey stick... The basis for all this climate scare stuff. Those very models have proven to be wrong as nothing has gone according to what the models claim.

How many times does NASA need to re-adjust the temps to make it look like it is worse than it really is...

That really is the issue, we have very little idea how the Earths regulation systems work, so we dont know enough to influence them to get the result that we want. In that case the thing to do is to keep trying to learn more, and to be ready to deal with what ever comes down the pike. Most of this money put into lowering CO2 should be put into legal and engineering solutions to the most likely problems we will face. Those we have a pretty guess at:

1) climate changing and not being stable

2) sea level rise

3) natural water distribution needing human assist

4) we likely will need to manage human population numbers

5) we need to figure out how we are going to deal with human migration rights (Merkel's opinion that people should be able to roam at will is a good example of how our political leaders are failing us...that is 100% sure to result to chaos and inefficiencies )

6) we are likely going to need to provide more land and sea based food supplies in controlled environments, we need to figure out how to do this a lot better

7) we are likely going to have to design structures that can deal with flooding and high winds without taking gobs of money to get back into service

and these are just off the top of my head. Lets work on these as we are trying to figure out WTF is going on.

This fundamentalist response "CO2! CO2! CO2! CO2! CO2! CO2!, LOWER IT TO ALMOST NOTHING NO MATTER THE COST OR RESULTING DEGRADATION IN THE QUALITY OF OUR LIVES!" is dumb.

Trying to prevent change is only a good idea if we know how to do it, which we dont in this case. The best course of action is usually to be resilient, is to have a plan to deal with situations if they should happen. Also, show me a person who is afraid of change and I will show you an unsuccessful person, change is a part of life. I dont give a **** if the Earth changes so long as I can still live on it. I am a pretty smart guy, unless things get really bad I can probably figure it out. And I have nothing to inform me that things are going to get very bad.

Take a chill pill people, and switch your brains to the ON position! Work smart not hard, and dont put up with a low quality life to "save the planet" except as a last resort.

I declare this thread firmly in the hands of the loons. Bye.