|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 12/14/2007 : 18:49:49 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by filthy |
| That was a question not a statment. |
In use and context, it was a statement. |
Do you, or do you not, agree that not everything unknown or extraordinary is a miracle?
| No, it is called an hypothesis. Assumptions are sometimes used to temporarlty fill a gap, but they are always labled as such, and discarded as soon as the facts come to light. |
Assumption or hypothesis, who's really keeping track?
| The fundies actually have it all in a book and, although they are happy to use any science that benefits them, they also deny that science actually gets it right a lot more often than it gets it wrong. |
Your rambling and ranting again. Where did I ever say science is wrong more then it is right? |
I did not say anything about you in that comment. Now who is making assumptions? |
You have called me a fundie before.
| And when science is wrong, sooner or later it will correct itself with further study. |
This is your assumption that it will always correct itself or be corrected. |
It is not an assumption but an historical fact. |
That's imposable to know, you acknowledge that science is full of unknowns so how could we ever be sure that all unknowns have been accounted for?
| Science and reality by their very natures cannot be mutually exclusive as the former studies the latter which entwines the two irrevocably. |
One more time and nice and slow. Science can and has been wrong. When something is wrong it is mutually exclusive from reality as reality is reality. I am not saying all that science is mutually exclusive, only that science can and has been mutually exclusive from reality. |
One more time, nice & slow: When science is wrong, it gets corrected, and all you are doing now is playing with semantics. |
So you are saying that science and reality are entwined irrevocably even when science is wrong? That goes against the very definition of reality.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 12/14/2007 19:04:09 |
 |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2007 : 18:56:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by recurve boy
The vast majority of this data would be completely irrelevant to the current climate.
Earth started off as some primordial soupy thing. It was very geologically active and didn't even have an ozone for like, a billion years. The first multicelluar plants only appeared about 1 billions years go. And something resembling our current climate and ecology would have started at something like 200 million years ago. And even during this period we still had the Pangea super continent.
Then 65 million years ago there was a massive meteorite that hit the earth that changed the climate again. It's not reasonable to assume we could have predicted this event. And how much did it affect the climate in the long term?
So how much time left do we have that is obviously relevant? Recovering from the meteor didn't take that long in the scheme of things, so looking back further than the 60 million year mark is pretty useless.
|
Ladies and Gentlemen boys and girls, please deposit your nickel now and exit single file to the left please. 
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 12/14/2007 19:02:12 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2007 : 18:59:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by recurve boy
Originally posted by Bill scott
| Meanwhile, the global surface temperature for 2007 is expected to be fifth warmest since records began in 1880. |
So what?
|
So the current model is working and we have one more data point confirming the current prevailing theory.
|
Dude, every century since the creation of the planet has had a 5th highest year average temperature for the globe. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2007 : 19:25:35 [Permalink]
|
Bill:
Dude, every century since the creation of the planet has had a 5th highest year average temperature for the globe. |
Dang though, this sure does look like it might be a trend…
Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years
Since the start of the 20th century, the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74°C. But this rise has not been continuous. The linear warming trend over the last 50 years (0.13°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 4th Assessment (Synthesis) Report, 2007, “warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.” |
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2007 : 20:07:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Dude, every century since the creation of the planet has had a 5th highest year average temperature for the globe. |
You're missing the point. At some point tonight or tomorrow, Bill scott I (or someone) will come up with that global warming primer (if you're still open to the discussion-- your recent replies suggest not?). But the latest data are quite suggestive of something, and it's not "Let's drill for more oil and drive SUV's" |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2007 : 20:18:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years |
I would expect 10 of the warmest years of a 100 year cycle to be within close proxemety of one another. I would expect the 10 coldest years of a century mark to be within close proxemety of one another as well. Wouldn't you?
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2007 : 20:51:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by recurve boy
Originally posted by Bill scott
| Current climate has deviated significantly from that established pattern and to figure out why you don't go back a billion years and look blindly for phenomena that might be causing today's warming. You look at what is expected now, what's actually happening, and find observed phenomena that could be forcing those changes. |
But maybe if you could look billions of years into the past you could see that the earth went through a similar or the same climate change as we are today? Again, with such a complex phenomena as global climate change with a 4.5 billion year history the amount of assuming that would go into definitive statements and predictions as well as room for unknowns would be infinite.
Again, reality is not limited to that which is known, but science is.
|
The vast majority of this data would be completely irrelevant to the current climate.
Earth started off as some primordial soupy thing. It was very geologically active and didn't even have an ozone for like, a billion years. The first multicelluar plants only appeared about 1 billions years go. And something resembling our current climate and ecology would have started at something like 200 million years ago. And even during this period we still had the Pangea super continent.
Then 65 million years ago there was a massive meteorite that hit the earth that changed the climate again. It's not reasonable to assume we could have predicted this event. And how much did it affect the climate in the long term?
So how much time left do we have that is obviously relevant? Recovering from the meteor didn't take that long in the scheme of things, so looking back further than the 60 million year mark is pretty useless.
|
I'm thinking this is a waste of time. I think Bill knows he's spewing nonsense and he's having fun. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2007 : 20:54:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by Kil
Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years |
I would expect 10 of the warmest years of a 100 year cycle to be within close proxemety of one another. I would expect the 10 coldest years of a century mark to be within close proxemety of one another as well. Wouldn't you?
|
Who said it's a hundred year cycle? Plus, the warming is accelerating. Looks like a trend to me... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2007 : 22:39:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
So anything that is unknown or extraordinary is a miracle? |
No. That any argument based upon some unknown thing happening at an unknown time and having unknown effects would be seriously considered would be a miracle.| Regardless, you are assuming that there are no unknown(s), correct? |
No, there's nothing to assume. If you've got evidence of some climate mechanism that hasn't yet been considered, Bill, then spit it out and let the world know. We only assume things that there are good reasons to assume.
But assuming that there are "unknowns" offers us no benefit at all, it doesn't direct us towards any particular research path, it doesn't inform us. There are an infinite number of unknowns involved when you eat dinner each day, but you still do it because "I will starve if I don't eat" far outweighs "I might get killed by a runaway bulldozer if I go into the kitchen" and all the other "unknowns" that you're faced with, each and every waking moment of your life.
So, are you going to keep ignoring the unknowns in your day-to-day living, while preaching to us that we should pay attention to them?| Also, the more complex the phenomena we are studying the greater chance for there to be an unknown(s). |
Greater than what? Can you calculate this probability? I thought you were going to stick to the science, Bill.| So you believe that science should just assume that there are no unknowns on global climate change and state "AGW as a documented fact" rather then state that "because of the complexities of global climate change we believe AGW to be occurring, but, because we have to assume we know all there is to know on the phenomena we can only make this claim in theory rather then in fact."? |
Nope, neither one. You've completely left "science" behind in favor of propaganda, again.| Yes, science does work best on evidence, however, reality can work just fine on unknowns. And as you know science and reality can be mutually exclusive, at least with humans doing the science that is. |
And you're willing to bet your life on it (along with millions of other lives), without a shred of evidence and without any way to calculate the odds? We see once again, Bill, contrary to the standard political stereotypes, you're the one being wreckless and selfish, and I'm the conservative who's trying to save people from damnation.
Think about it this way, Bill: if humans are causing most of the warming (and thus humans can fix a lot of it), then by working with the U.N. you will lengthen the lives of the people who will suffer most - the people who are so distant from Western civilization that they don't understand why their crops are failing and their once-bountiful rivers are turning into fetid pools - the people least likely to have accepted Jesus Christ as their Saviour. Adding years to their lives offers more opportunities to Save them, after you've saved them. If other people are the primary cause of warming, don't you have a God-given duty to aid the less-fortunate?
Of course, if man isn't the cause, then God must be the cause. Does God want millions to die, or does God want people to try to do something about it? Do you know the mind of God, Bill? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2007 : 22:57:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Bill scott
As expected: |
A bargain considering the cost of doing nothing and dealing with the consequences. |
So the UN says... |
So does anyone who has a grasp on what "$40 billion" means. $40 billion is half of what the Alternative Minimum Tax will bring in just from 25 million U.S. taxpayers in the 2008 tax season if Congress can't fix it, Bill. $40 billion is one-tenth of the 2006 Defense Department budget. $40 billion is less than one-half of one percent of the U.S. National Debt, Bill.
It's a pittance compared to the global economy, which will be affected by much more than $40 billion if nothing is done. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 12/15/2007 : 05:19:41 [Permalink]
|
| Do you, or do you not, agree that not everything unknown or extraordinary is a miracle? |
Certainly not! It has yet to be demonstrated that miracles even happen.
No, it is called an hypothesis. Assumptions are sometimes used to temporarlty fill a gap, but they are always labled as such, and discarded as soon as the facts come to light.
Assumption or hypothesis, who's really keeping track? |
Obviously you are not, but should.
The fundies actually have it all in a book and, although they are happy to use any science that benefits them, they also deny that science actually gets it right a lot more often than it gets it wrong.
Your rambling and ranting again. Where did I ever say science is wrong more then it is right?[
I did not say anything about you in that comment. Now who is making assumptions?
You have called me a fundie before. |
Have I? Mayhaps I have. Are you?
And when science is wrong, sooner or later it will correct itself with further study.
This is your assumption that it will always correct itself or be corrected.
It is not an assumption but an historical fact. |
| That's imposable to know, you acknowledge that science is full of unknowns so how could we ever be sure that all unknowns have been accounted for? |
All of the unknowns will never be accounted for. That's a very safe assumption because if we continue to foul our planet as we currently are, our species will eventually give it over the cockroachs and follow all of the others that have shuffled off into oblivian. Indeed, even if we do get our collective act together, an event I find unlikely, we still will never know it all.
Science and reality by their very natures cannot be mutually exclusive as the former studies the latter which entwines the two irrevocably.
One more time and nice and slow. Science can and has been wrong. When something is wrong it is mutually exclusive from reality as reality is reality. I am not saying all that science is mutually exclusive, only that science can and has been mutually exclusive from reality. |
| One more time, nice & slow: When science is wrong, it gets corrected, and all you are doing now is playing with semantics. |
| So you are saying that science and reality are entwined irrevocably even when science is wrong? That goes against the very definition of reality. |
Awe contrary. The process of correcting is simply more study of an unknown or little-known. Do you consider an unknown not to be part of reality?
Boy-howdy, is this thread getting off-topic or what? Oh well, whaddahell, it's not the first.....
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2007 : 11:25:46 [Permalink]
|
filthy said:
Boy-howdy, is this thread getting off-topic or what? Oh well, whaddahell, it's not the first.....
|
No, this thread is right where billscott wants it. He knows he can't talk about the science of global warming and still support his position.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2007 : 13:28:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
filthy said:
Boy-howdy, is this thread getting off-topic or what? Oh well, whaddahell, it's not the first.....
|
No, this thread is right where billscott wants it. He knows he can't talk about the science of global warming and still support his position.
|
You are probably right. But, hell, it's his thread and I guess we should just follow where it leads, even unto Star Treking.
I would like to go Star Treking. I think Lt. Uhura is hot!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2007 : 16:16:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
[I would like to go Star Treking. I think Lt. Uhura is hot!
|
Maybe she was at one point. But she isn't anymore. I saw her at Dragon*Con 2007 and she doesn't look any better than my grandmothers did just before they shed their respective mortal coils...
And she seems to have gone religious too (I don't know if she always was).
Anyway, she disappointed me.
About the looking back in time for climate changes... Bill made the argument of what was the point of looking at only 500 million years, when the earth is 4.5 billion? The answer is that before 500 million years ago the earth looked so very differently. 500 million years ago was in the middle of the second half of Cambrian. There weren't even green plants on the face of the earth at that time. Plants that bind CO2.
Going farther back than this won't tell us much.
And don't give us that crap about some geological or astronomical event with a period of 500+ million years could be the cause of today's warming. The change is happening way too quickly to be any kind of natural event but one: a massive meteor strike.
That's what happened some 65 million years ago.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2007 : 17:46:24 [Permalink]
|
Maybe she was at one point. But she isn't anymore. I saw her at Dragon*Con 2007 and she doesn't look any better than my grandmothers did just before they shed their respective mortal coils...
And she seems to have gone religious too (I don't know if she always was).
Anyway, she disappointed me.
|
Ah yes, but never having seen her in the flesh, I can still enjoy my fantasy unspoiled.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
An international team of MMGW deniers (scientists)
