Global Warming?

[toppop52]

Science adapts to new data. That is how it works. Sometimes it embarrasses when it does so.

How do we know their new idea is better than the old idea? both were based in "proof".
As for the 1970 article, too early to fit the serious discussion of cooling, that was 1974-1981. More or less.

 

[tcreeley]

I told myself I was not going to post in this thread again, but after reading this, I have to jump in.......and out.
This is well spoken, unfortunetly it comes at the expense of another member, maybe he had it comming......if you can't stand the heat........
Other than than the slight, very slight, political connotations........I wish I'd said that.
I wish I was smart enough to get that out.
It's a frustrating complicated topic, made exasperating when oversimplified and scoffed at.
Now I'm done

You are not using an abacus and the mail to post your thoughts are you...think again... science moves ahead
- it was not magic or spiritual belief.

I hope I have your intent correct.

 

[tcreeley]

How do we know their new idea is better than the old idea? both were based in "proof".
As for the 1970 article, too early to fit the serious discussion of cooling, that was 1974-1981. More or less.

It is the scientific process- look it up. If it does not hold up too verification and testing, it is overlooked. Politics is another process altogether. That is what this forum is about, -politics. None of us are in the field -we resort to "I believe statements influenced by our politics!"

 

[RobertBrown]

I hope I have your intent correct.

You don't.

I did not or was unable to quote the entire post but it was a classic. I suppose that you missed it....shame on ya.
I was using a mobile device and the length of the post divided by the height of the text window made it prohibitive or otherwise entirely to frustrating, so this is where you may have been mislead. I just clipped a small fraction, enough for those who caught it to recognize it.
recomended reading....2216.

 

[toppop52]

It is the scientific process- look it up. If it does not hold up too verification and testing, it is overlooked. Politics is another process altogether. That is what this forum is about, -politics. None of us are in the field -we resort to "I believe statements influenced by our politics!"

The cooling article was based on scientific research, yes science changes, but how cold or warm it was in a measured period does not.

 

[IslandTractor]

Good for the sake of good, is well, good. But there are holes in that theory, long before we used their oil the Barbary Pirates were enslaving and killing our sailors and stealing their cargo's. They were never completely benevolent towards us, they always had an agenda and knew their goals.

I don't understand what Barbary pirates have to do with this debate. Your response seems like it was intended for another thread.

 

[EE_Bota]

I told myself I was not going to post in this thread again, but after reading this, I have to jump in.......and out.
This is well spoken, unfortunetly it comes at the expense of another member, maybe he had it comming......if you can't stand the heat........
Other than than the slight, very slight, political connotations........I wish I'd said that.
I wish I was smart enough to get that out.
It's a frustrating complicated topic, made exasperating when oversimplified and scoffed at.
Now I'm done

You don't.

I did not or was unable to quote the entire post but it was a classic. I suppose that you missed it....shame on ya.
I was using a mobile device and the length of the post divided by the height of the text window made it prohibitive or otherwise entirely to frustrating, so this is where you may have been mislead. I just clipped a small fraction, enough for those who caught it to recognize it.
recomended reading....2216.

Al Pacino The Godfather - Just When I Thought I Was Out - YouTube

 

[RobertBrown]

Al Pacino The Godfather - Just When I Thought I Was Out - YouTube

Wow...yet another perfect post....and in the global warming thread.....who da thunk it?

 

[IslandTractor]

How about the credentials of all those scientists of the 70's that "proved" the earth was cooling? Showed us graphs of how much we had cooled between 1950 and 1972, now they show us graphs showing how much it warmed in the same period. Goes to ones credibility I would think. Did you bother to read the article on cooling? Just as compelling as any evidence today of warming.

You continue to have difficulty getting your head around the scientific process. Virtually ALL scientists have published incorrect interpretations of data or done flawed studies. Science moves forward through a logical review process and repetition to attempt to falsify earlier experiments and theories in an effort to build a more accurate theory. Doesn't mean the earlier scientists were stupid or sloppy, it just means they did not get the story completely right. Very few theories/models/predictions turn out exactly as the original scientist thinks they will. Sometimes data is reinterpreted using new and better models or theories to come up with significantly different interpretations. That doesn't mean that at any given time the current research or theory is more likely to be wrong than an earlier theory. New theories usually explain experimental data better.

Hanging on to this example of a falsified 1970's cooling theory as a reason to reject all the massive subsequent work in the climate field (that is contrary to your favored politically driven conclusion), is the antithesis of rational scientific review. You are beating a dead horse. Move on or just admit you read science through a very biased set of lenses.

 

[tcreeley]

You don't.

I did not or was unable to quote the entire post but it was a classic. I suppose that you missed it....shame on ya.
I was using a mobile device and the length of the post divided by the height of the text window made it prohibitive or otherwise entirely to frustrating, so this is where you may have been mislead. I just clipped a small fraction, enough for those who caught it to recognize it.
recomended reading....2216.

Thanks for pointing that out!
I'll look.

Was good....tempted to post some Good fellas- eating dinner with Ma- but language is strong!

 

[houstonscott]

You continue to have difficulty getting your head around the scientific process. Virtually ALL scientists have published incorrect interpretations of data or done flawed studies. Science moves forward through a logical review process and repetition to attempt to falsify earlier experiments and theories in an effort to build a more accurate theory. Doesn't mean the earlier scientists were stupid or sloppy, it just means they did not get the story completely right. Very few theories/models/predictions turn out exactly as the original scientist thinks they will. Sometimes data is reinterpreted using new and better models or theories to come up with significantly different interpretations. That doesn't mean that at any given time the current research or theory is more likely to be wrong than an earlier theory. New theories usually explain experimental data better.

Hanging on to this example of a falsified 1970's cooling theory as a reason to reject all the massive subsequent work in the climate field (that is contrary to your favored politically driven conclusion), is the antithesis of rational scientific review. You are beating a dead horse. Move on or just admit you read science through a very biased set of lenses.

The name Forward carries a special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist, communist and other leftwing newspapers and publications. For example, Vpered (Russian language for ‘Forward’) was the name of the publication that Lenin started after having resigned from the Iskra editorial board in 1905 after a clash with Georgi Plekhanov and the Mensheviks.

Careful with that word today, it has a history and meaning you might not know, your so educated though I think you know and use it as it has been used for years.

HS

 

[Gator6x4]

The cooling article was based on scientific research, yes science changes, but how cold or warm it was in a measured period does not.

Let me see if I understand what you said correctly. Using a 600 year time span, the average mean temperature for 500 years was 78 degrees. For the last 100 years it was 98. So you are saying this is not an indicator of climinate change because you have discarded the first 500 years of data as being incorrect and only the data for the last 100 years can be used so the average mean temperature is 98 and therefore no climinate change is occurring.

 

[IslandTractor]

The name Forward carries a special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist, communist and other leftwing newspapers and publications. For example, Vpered (Russian language for 詮orward? was the name of the publication that Lenin started after having resigned from the Iskra editorial board in 1905 after a clash with Georgi Plekhanov and the Mensheviks.

Careful with that word today, it has a history and meaning you might not know, your so educated though I think you know and use it as it has been used for years.

HS

I'm sorry but that comment is just a nutty distortion of the English language. It is beyond ludicrous to imply that "Science moves forward" is a Commie catch phrase. It is plain ordinary English. Context is everything and in the use you quoted, forward means forward just as backward means backward. To imply that the statement "Science moves forward through a logical review process and repetition to attempt to falsify earlier experiments and theories in an effort to build a more accurate theory" is somehow coded commie political language is F'ing nuts. Do you have ANY idea how science works?

And, have you figured out how to reply to the comment on your earlier unsubstantiated volcano theory?

 

[houstonscott]

I'm sorry but that comment is just a nutty distortion of the English language. It is beyond ludicrous to imply that "Science moves forward" is a Commie catch phrase. It is plain ordinary English. Context is everything and in the use you quoted, forward means forward just as backward means backward. To imply that the statement "Science moves forward through a logical review process and repetition to attempt to falsify earlier experiments and theories in an effort to build a more accurate theory" is somehow coded commie political language is F'ing nuts. Do you have ANY idea how science works?



And, have you figured out how to reply to the comment on your earlier unsubstantiated volcano theory?

Just don't become what Marx called a useful idiot. I don't know how long you have been looking at the global warming issue but CO2 has been proven not to be a warming gas. In fact the study of atmospheric gas may not even be the science to be studied to understand global climate changes. You seem to come across as educated on the subject but repeating old CO2 stuff that has been long ago debunked and discussed here makes me think you just joined the uniformed or mislead, so go somewhere else if CO2 is what you want to show as some proof global climate change. When you understand who the global warming people are and their agenda and understand who's slogan is Forward you must understand a red-light comes on when some self proclaimed educated elitist starts with Science moves Forward scattered though their posts.

HS

 

[RobertBrown]

When you understand who the global warming people are and their agenda and understand who's slogan is Forward you must understand a red-light comes on when some self proclaimed educated elitist starts with Science moves Forward scattered though their posts.

Ok this is what makes me a GW idiot.
I am unable to recognize the percieved threat.
I need you to spell it out for me if you will. Who are these people and exactly what do they have to gain from climate change?

 

[houstonscott]

Ok this is what makes me a GW idiot.
I am unable to recognize the percieved threat.
I need you to spell it out for me if you will. Who are these people and exactly what do they have to gain from climate change?

You are kidding, you can't be that uninformed. Sounds like you got some homework. Check Raibody posts on subject he lays it out for you.

HS

 

[RobertBrown]

You are kidding, you can't be that uninformed. Sounds like you got some homework. Check Raibody posts on subject he lays it out for you.

HS

Not kidding.
I was hoping you had a hole card, but it seems to me your bluffing.

 

[/pine]

The AGW henny penny's put so much faith in the professionals that interpret the little data that there is on the subject...yet every year almost 200,000 Americans die because equally trained and educated (medical) professionals make mistakes...

 

[RobertBrown]

The AGW henny penny's put so much faith in the professionals that interpret the little data that there is on the subject...yet every year almost 200,000 Americans die because equally trained and educated (medical) professionals make mistakes...

It's the books....isn't it?

 

[houstonscott]

I think Raibody already showed you the door. Now go read up.

HS