AN ASSAULT ON SCIENCE

@BillRM,

Quote:

Flooding in the Miami Beach and Fort Lauderdale areas is nothing new.

By that logic there is no difference between an AK-47 and a musket because there have always been deaths with guns. The plane the Wright brothers flew and a Boeing 787 are the same because they both fly. A model T and a Tesla are the same because they're both cars. And the floods of today are just exactly the same as the floods of decades ago. When you live in a glass house, Bill, you really shouldn't be throwing dishonest stones.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Not according to the founder of that branch of mathematics Edward Lorenz who also is a climate scientist as well as a mathematician.

But once more you need to be a believer and so be it.

Quote:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3202497/

Edward Lorenz, from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is the official discoverer of chaos theory. He first observed the phenomenon as early as 1961 and, as a matter of irony, he discovered by chance what would be called later the chaos theory, in 1963,18 while making calculations with uncontrolled approximations aiming at predicting the weather. The anecdote is of interest: making the same calculation rounding with 3-digit rather than 6-digit numbers did not provide the same solutions; indeed, in nonlinear systems, multiplications during iterative processes amplify differences in an exponential manner. By the way, this occurs when using computers, due to the limitation of these machines which truncate numbers, and therefore the accuracy of calculations.

Lorenz considered, as did many mathematicians of his time, that a small variation at the start of a calculation would Induce a small difference In the result, of the order of magnitude of the initial variation. This was obviously not the case, and all scientists are now familiar with this fact. In order to explain how important sensitivity the to initial conditions was, Philip Merilees, the meteorologist who organized the 1972 conference session where Lorenz presented his result, chose himself the title of Lorenz's talk, a title that became famous: “Predictability: does the flap of a butterfly's wing in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas?” 19 This title has been cited and modified in many articles, as humorously reviewed by Nicolas Witkowski.20 Lorenz had rediscovered the chaotic behavior of a nonlinear system, that of the weather, but the term chaos theory was only later given to the phenomenon by the mathematician James A. Yorke, in 1975.21 Lorenz also gave a graphic description of his findings using his computer. The figure that appeared was his second discovery: the attractors.

2 Replies

@Briancrc,

You poor man are reaching and once more if a major hurricane would hit the florida keys now and put one or more of the keys completely under water as happen in 1930 I am sure you and others would be claiming that this event is just another proof of global warming.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

1961? You gotta be kidding! FYI, this is 2015.

1 Reply

WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE. CLIMATE IS NOT WEATHER. Weather is a shortter,m chaotic system. Climate is the long term ordered predictable change inweatheras the conditions affecting it change. Climate is not a chaotic system, and it hasproven possible to make verifiable predictions with computer models about will happen to the climate if the parameters change.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

Climate is not a chaotic system,

Good theory but not one that the founder of Chaos support.

As I stated true believers need to be believers.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

1961? You gotta be kidding! FYI, this is 2015.

You got to be kidding me 1962 was when he first came up with the chaos theory when he was working on computer modeling of the weather.

Since then it had become an acceped branch of mathematics.

Your comment made as must sense or as little sense as stating that you got to be kidding 1905 and it now 2015 in connection to the theory of Relativity.

Sorry but you not going to get off the hook in such a simple manner.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

As I stated true believers need to be believers.

In the face of overwhelming empirical evidence, it's the denialist that's clinging desperately to a faith-based, feel-good conclusion.

2 Replies

@FBM,

OK, Now I'm really confused. Are we actually talking about faith-based science??? That could be a lot of fun or a hell on earth.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Sorry there is zero evidence to what the climate is or is not going to do in the future or that current trends will continue less alone increased.

But as I stated a large percent of the human race are fans of doomsday predictions with special note of when it is our fault and the predictions come from men wearing white coats with computer banks in the background..

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

OK, Now I'm really confused. Are we actually talking about faith-based science??? That could be a lot of fun or a hell on earth.

Not sure how you're interpreting my post, but let me try again: The denialist is clinging to a faith-based conclusion in the face of overwhelming empirical evidence.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Just as there's no evidence that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, that the fire will burn your hand next time just because it did last time, that general anesthesia will render this person unconscious just because it has done so to others, or that a denialist can ever be reasoned out of a position that he didn't reason himself into in the first place? The main test of science is its ability to make verifiable predictions. You've been shown numerous times in this thread that it has done so accurately and is still doing so, and you're just sticking your head in the sand because you don't like what you see. It takes you out of your warm fuzzy comfort zone. The very definition of denialism. It's one thing to say, "I'm not sure. I'll wait for more evidence," and entirely another to just say, "Nuh-uh!" no matter what evidence is presented. Man up. Face the facts.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

You believe something, and we believe something else. Stop the obfuscation already.

1 Reply

@FBM,

You mean "in spite of overwhelming evidence", i suppose.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

You mean "in spite of overwhelming evidence", i suppose.

We watch the same story unfold time and time again. It doesn't matter much what the subject matter is (climate change, evolution, human behavior), when the subject matter touches upon one's belief system, then arguments stray from the data.

Instead of argument about methodological shortcoming, blanket statements are made regarding the infeasability of studying the subject at hand (or other equally invalid positions). The discussants are attacked, personally. Entire fields of study have rocks thrown at them by people whose only expertise in the field is having read about the field for a few hours on the web, and then pretend to be expert, themselves. Don't you agree?

There could be much more meaningful dialogue if people would check their egos. There are plenty of people who participate here that are well versed in subject areas relevant to given topics.

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

Quote:

Instead of argument about methodological shortcoming, blanket statements are made regarding the infeasability of studying the subject at hand (or other equally invalid positions). The discussants are attacked, personally. Entire fields of study have rocks thrown at them by people whose only expertise in the field is having read about the field for a few hours on the web, and then pretend to be expert, themselves. Don't you agree?

Yes, i totally agree. Many people do that on so many topics. The worse cases are like Qehog (or layman): Their entire world view is affected by denialism of pretty much all science / knowledge. Others like Bill have only one or two blind spots in which their thinking is irrational and antiscience, while maintaining some level of sanity on other topics.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

you believe something, and we believe something else. Stop the obfuscation already.

I have no problems with your believes or opinions about climate change even those I disagree with , just the strong strong attempts on this thread to paint anyone who disagree with you and others here, as anti-science and to pressure such people to just shut up.

The title of this thread does not in fact had the word climate change or climate theories or computer modeling of climate in the title it instant just have the title "Assault on Science".

.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

The title of this thread does not in fact had the word climate change or climate theories or computer modeling of climate in the title it instant just have the title "Assault on Science"

Let's be real. Do you think there's an assault on botony? Is there a public controversy with respect to physiology?

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

I did not write the title of this thread and do not agree with the title of this thread nor agree with the attempts to paint anyone that question the current climate changes theories as anti-science.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

That's not "doom", it's just a climate becoming progressively more hostile to humans.

To be fair, it should be noted that it will be an improvement for some. There is an upside to almost everything.

1 Reply

AN ASSAULT ON SCIENCE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know