Global Warming is real says the NCSE

[Bronco]

[SeattleGriz]

Come to think of it, Al Gore is a shrewd business man for positioning himself where he is. Dude is raking it in.

[SeattleGriz]

There is a very legitimate basis for Naturopathy. Do you think you would see them practicing next to MD's if there wasn't?

But, the whole point about this thread is how the NCSE feels that the junk science that is currently supporting global warming is correct and any dissension must be squashed.

As I've mentioned before, link to some peer-reviewed science that you can't tie to big energy within a few clicks of the mouse and I'll listen.

But that is the point. If the theory is that strong, bad data will be bore out and the theory that much stronger.

And why the fear of showing your data? I thought science was supposed to open and honest.

[JohnStOnge]

As I've mentioned before, link to some peer-reviewed science that you can't tie to big energy within a few clicks of the mouse and I'll listen.

See, that shouldn't be necessary. Another thing is that this thing of "peer review" is WAY over rated. But that's not the point.

Look at the scientific method. You don't have to have a "peer review" study to tell you what the scientific method is. It is what it is. And you should be able to evaluate what you see in that context.

And when you do that climate science doesn't hold up that well. It just doesn't. You see excuses and such for why the scientific method can't really be followed. An example is provided by the White House report on Climate change released a year or so ago. You can find this quote:

Scientists have amassed a vast body of knowledge regarding the physical world. Unlike many areas of science, however, scientists who study the Earth’s climate cannot build a “con- trol Earth” and conduct experiments on this Earth in a lab. To experiment with the Earth, scientists instead use this accumu- lated knowledge to build climate models, or “virtual Earths.” In studying climate change, these virtual Earths serve as an im- portant way to integrate different kinds of knowledge of how the climate system works.

Lots of flowery language there but it's an admission that the scientific method can't really be applied. The "conclusions" coming from "climate science" were not derived through application of the scientific method. And if we're REALLY going to educate students with respect to what science is we should be training them to recognize that.

[kalm]

As I've mentioned before, link to some peer-reviewed science that you can't tie to big energy within a few clicks of the mouse and I'll listen.

See, that shouldn't be necessary. Another thing is that this thing of "peer review" is WAY over rated. But that's not the point.

Look at the scientific method. You don't have to have a "peer review" study to tell you what the scientific method is. It is what it is. And you should be able to evaluate what you see in that context.

And when you do that climate science doesn't hold up that well. It just doesn't. You see excuses and such for why the scientific method can't really be followed. An example is provided by the White House report on Climate change released a year or so ago. You can find this quote:

Scientists have amassed a vast body of knowledge regarding the physical world. Unlike many areas of science, however, scientists who study the Earth’s climate cannot build a “con- trol Earth” and conduct experiments on this Earth in a lab. To experiment with the Earth, scientists instead use this accumu- lated knowledge to build climate models, or “virtual Earths.” In studying climate change, these virtual Earths serve as an im- portant way to integrate different kinds of knowledge of how the climate system works.

Lots of flowery language there but it's an admission that the scientific method can't really be applied. The "conclusions" coming from "climate science" were not derived through application of the scientific method. And if we're REALLY going to educate students with respect to what science is we should be training them to recognize that.

So in other words, you and SeaGriz got nuthin'.

[JohnStOnge]

So in other words, you and SeaGriz got nuthin'.

No, I have the truth. And the truth is that climate science is "weak" for the reason mentioned in that White House report quote. It's the nature of the beast. It's inherently limited because there is no way one can conduct controlled experiments to test hypotheses. It's the kind of "science" that should ALWAYS have an asterisk by it and THAT'S the kind of thing we should be teaching students if we're trying to teach them about the process of science.

As a general matter, whenever any cause and effect statement is made, the first question an intelligent consumer of "science" should ask is:

"Was that inferred through controlled experimentation?" And what that means is that there were treatment subjects and control subjects with the investigator controlling which subjects got the treatment and which did not.

And if the answer is "no," there's an automatic asterisk by the cause and effect statement or statements. It's got limited credibility.

We'd all be a lot better off if the general public as well as politicians were informed enough about what science is to go through that thought process.

[houndawg]

Nobody says nothing like our John.

[Brock Landers]

Example? Not sure if serious, but homeopathy. It has no scientific basis, it in fact disobeys the basic laws of science, so the explanation is it's magic. Literally.

And I didn't say you brought it up. I'm just trying to understand how a mind like yours thinks

I'm pretty sure there's a legit basis for some naturopathy.

Yes, the 5% that involves common sense instead of woo

ie supplement your iron intake if need be, stress reduction is good, etc.

But if you want to defend cranial sacral therapy or muscle testing be my guest

[Brock Landers]

I'm pretty sure there's a legit basis for some naturopathy.

There is a very legitimate basis for Naturopathy. Do you think you would see them practicing next to MD's if there wasn't?

But, the whole point about this thread is how the NCSE feels that the junk science that is currently supporting global warming is correct and any dissension must be squashed.

Well you're in Seattle. Of course the MDs realized their lives would be easier if they just put up with that bullshit. It's like asking an OBGYN about their thoughts on midwives.

[kalm]

I'm pretty sure there's a legit basis for some naturopathy.

Yes, the 5% that involves common sense instead of woo

ie supplement your iron intake if need be, stress reduction is good, etc.

But if you want to defend cranial sacral therapy or muscle testing be my guest

I'm guessing it's more than 5%. And CST may be quackery when it comes to treating cancer but it certainly isn't when it's related to pain treatment.

Western medicine can be very ineffective in treating pain. It tends to be too often based in a 100's year old skeletal model versus the influence of soft tissue ( although that's getting better....

man.

[kalm]

So in other words, you and SeaGriz got nuthin'.

No, I have the truth. And the truth is that climate science is "weak" for the reason mentioned in that White House report quote. It's the nature of the beast. It's inherently limited because there is no way one can conduct controlled experiments to test hypotheses. It's the kind of "science" that should ALWAYS have an asterisk by it and THAT'S the kind of thing we should be teaching students if we're trying to teach them about the process of science.

As a general matter, whenever any cause and effect statement is made, the first question an intelligent consumer of "science" should ask is:

"Was that inferred through controlled experimentation?" And what that means is that there were treatment subjects and control subjects with the investigator controlling which subjects got the treatment and which did not.

And if the answer is "no," there's an automatic asterisk by the cause and effect statement or statements. It's got limited credibility.

We'd all be a lot better off if the general public as well as politicians were informed enough about what science is to go through that thought process.

So you've still got nothing I see other than to blow off the best science available.

[JohnStOnge]

Nobody says nothing like our John.

Good heavens it's not "nothing." It's a very important concept. Our society is absolutely overwhelmed with statements about cause and effect that are based on observational data. And making statements of cause and effect based on observational data is not valid. That's not just my opinion. That's a rule of science. And the "climate change" thing is in that realm.

[JohnStOnge]

So you've still got nothing I see other than to blow off the best science available.

Good GRIEF man. If it's questionable being the "best" available doesn't change that. It's still questionable.

Look, in my job I routinely am in position to make decisions on the basis of mathematical models. I'm telling you, what's going on with this climate thing thing is insane. To be asking people to make the kinds of decisions they're asking people to make on the basis of models when there are NO experiments to substantiate them is insane.

I may have already said this in this thread because I think it all the time but I'll risk repeating myself. If you had some disease that needed to be cured and some drug company said it had a drug to cure it BUT rather than having clinical trials (controlled experiments on actual people) to show that it was safe and effective it had experiments on "virtual humans" generated by models they'd be laughed out of the room. There is no WAY the drug would be approved.

And that's what the climate change people are asking.They're asking that commitments be made for "treating" the planet on the basis of a level of evidence that would NEVER be accepted for treating something like a treatment for human disease. There's a LOT of risk associated with doing that.

[JohnStOnge]

If you go to http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/teaching_ ... method.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; you will see something I think is actually good educational material. Notice what is happening.

It's describing a scenario in which the kid conducts an experiment. The kid is comparing two situations. And the kid controls the experiment. The kid gets to create two different scenarios. The kid gets to see what happens when he controls to make sure scenario A happens. And he gets to see what happens when he controls to make sure scenario B happens.

Climate science isn't like that. What happened and happens happened and happens. Climate scientists don't get to test their hypotheses by seeing what happens if there isn't any human activity.

And that's the thing. It's huge. Glossing over it is a bunch of crap,

[CID1990]

There is a very legitimate basis for Naturopathy. Do you think you would see them practicing next to MD's if there wasn't?

But, the whole point about this thread is how the NCSE feels that the junk science that is currently supporting global warming is correct and any dissension must be squashed.

As I've mentioned before, link to some peer-reviewed science that you can't tie to big energy or government funded research grants within a few clicks of the mouse and I'll listen.

FIFY

[houndawg]

So you've still got nothing I see other than to blow off the best science available.

Good GRIEF man. If it's questionable being the "best" available doesn't change that. It's still questionable.

Look, in my job I routinely am in position to make decisions on the basis of mathematical models. I'm telling you, what's going on with this climate thing thing is insane. To be asking people to make the kinds of decisions they're asking people to make on the basis of models when there are NO experiments to substantiate them is insane.

I may have already said this in this thread because I think it all the time but I'll risk repeating myself. If you had some disease that needed to be cured and some drug company said it had a drug to cure it BUT rather than having clinical trials (controlled experiments on actual people) to show that it was safe and effective it had experiments on "virtual humans" generated by models they'd be laughed out of the room. There is no WAY the drug would be approved.

And that's what the climate change people are asking.They're asking that commitments be made for "treating" the planet on the basis of a level of evidence that would NEVER be accepted for treating something like a treatment for human disease. There's a LOT of risk associated with doing that.

I think you're really a teenaged girl, it just isn't possible for a man to be this much of a drama queen day in and day out.

[Bronco]

-
This should work out well for the moonbats in Portland (another reason to root for EWU)

How about going in your basement and coming up with an alternative for fossil fuels before you cut them off

Take this Global Warming

Portland Bans New Gas Stations In The Name Of Global Warming….

Via Daily Caller:

Portland’s city council unanimously approved a resolution Friday effectively preventing any new gas stations from being built.

The city’s resolution prevents the construction of new facilities to transport or store oil, gasoline, coal, and natural gas within Portland, Ore. The council didn’t unilaterally ban gasoline and oil to avoid violating interstate commerce laws, but the goal of the resolution is to make shipping of fossil fuels prohibitively expensive for companies in the name of fighting global warming.

“Our work is not done yet, but we feel that with this unanimous vote, there is good chance that the codifying language is going to be strong and signal to the fossil fuel industry that Portland is not open for their business” Adriana Voss-Andreae, director of a local environmental group, told the left-wing news site Climate Progress.

[Brock Landers]

It's fine, you can buy artisan bio diesel at your nearest farmer's market for $200 a liter

[JohnStOnge]

I think you're really a teenaged girl, it just isn't possible for a man to be this much of a drama queen day in and day out

If you want "drama queens" you shouldn't be looking at me. You should be looking at the "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE OR IT WILL BE THE END OF THE WORLD" crowd.

[kalm]

If you go to http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/teaching_ ... method.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; you will see something I think is actually good educational material. Notice what is happening.

It's describing a scenario in which the kid conducts an experiment. The kid is comparing two situations. And the kid controls the experiment. The kid gets to create two different scenarios. The kid gets to see what happens when he controls to make sure scenario A happens. And he gets to see what happens when he controls to make sure scenario B happens.

Climate science isn't like that. What happened and happens happened and happens. Climate scientists don't get to test their hypotheses by seeing what happens if there isn't any human activity.

And that's the thing. It's huge. Glossing over it is a bunch of crap,

It's truly amazing you've been able to figure this out while the entire climate science community hasn't.

[JohnStOnge]

It's truly amazing you've been able to figure this out while the entire climate science community hasn't.

You are making a mistake by taking that approach instead of looking for yourself at what it takes to infer cause and effect.

But actually the climate change community probably does not that. That's reflected by the statement made in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Physical Science Basis Report that unequivocal attribution of Climate change to ANY cause would require experiments that cannot be conducted. But they haven't emphasized it. And as far as they can tell they did not repeat that caveat in the most recent (2013) Physical Science Basis report.

Basically, I think what you're dealing with is intellectual dishonesty. They know very well that they can't really infer cause and effect without controlled experiments. But they don't want to say it because in their hearts they believe certain things and they don't want the "great unwashed" to dismiss their beliefs because they admit that they can't really infer cause and effect.

[Chizzang]

No, I have the truth. And the truth is that climate science is "weak" for the reason mentioned in that White House report quote. It's the nature of the beast. It's inherently limited because there is no way one can conduct controlled experiments to test hypotheses. It's the kind of "science" that should ALWAYS have an asterisk by it and THAT'S the kind of thing we should be teaching students if we're trying to teach them about the process of science.

As a general matter, whenever any cause and effect statement is made, the first question an intelligent consumer of "science" should ask is:

"Was that inferred through controlled experimentation?" And what that means is that there were treatment subjects and control subjects with the investigator controlling which subjects got the treatment and which did not.

And if the answer is "no," there's an automatic asterisk by the cause and effect statement or statements. It's got limited credibility.

We'd all be a lot better off if the general public as well as politicians were informed enough about what science is to go through that thought process.

So you've still got nothing I see other than to blow off the best science available.

The entire Climate Debate got ugly when the Science got pushed aside...
John is actually right in this exceedingly RARE moment (write this down)

Were the climate scientist simply providing data with the proper caveats (as noted by John)
We wouldn't be in this position - but we are because liberties were taken and sold as facts

And once you irresponsibly and wrongly create an "out" for your opponent inn any debate
You've already lost...

Had the framers of the argument (Al Gore Specifically) said based on the best available Science
and expressed the issues with the information that we have
we'd be 1 million miles farther along down this road
Instead we're stuck at "Hello... Climate Cha..." FUCK YOU!

[CAA Flagship]

It's fine, you can buy artisan bio diesel at your nearest farmer's market for $200 a liter

[kalm]

So you've still got nothing I see other than to blow off the best science available.

The entire Climate Debate got ugly when the Science got pushed aside...
John is actually right in this exceedingly RARE moment (write this down)

Were the climate scientist simply providing data with the proper caveats (as noted by John)
We wouldn't be in this position - but we are because liberties were taken and sold as facts

And once you irresponsibly and wrongly create an "out" for your opponent inn any debate
You've already lost...

Had the framers of the argument (Al Gore Specifically) said based on the best available Science
and expressed the issues with the information that we have
we'd be 1 million miles farther along down this road
Instead we're stuck at "Hello... Climate Cha..." FUCK YOU!

Don't disagree, but I never really paid much attention to Al Gore. Never saw the movie either. Al Gore had an obvious ax to grind and is not a climate scientist. The same goes for JSO.

[JohnStOnge]

Don't disagree, but I never really paid much attention to Al Gore. Never saw the movie either. Al Gore had an obvious ax to grind and is not a climate scientist. The same goes for JSO.

The difference between me and Al Gore is that I AM a scientist and Al Gore is not.

No, I'm not a climate scientist. I'm an "everyday" applied scientist. But one thing I've said for years is that this thing of saying someone has to be a climate scientist to criticize climate science is bogus. There are principles that apply regardless of discipline.

And one of those principles is that you have to have controlled experiments to infer cause and effect. If you don't have controlled experiments you're supposed to be very careful to let people know that you can't really say "X causes Y." You're supposed to be very careful to say something like "X is associated with Y."

That's a rule that transcends disciplines. And the discipline of climate science is totally out of control right now.

When Climate Scientists say that ANYTHING "causes" anything else with respect to climate they are breaking the rules of science. And they're doing that all the time.