Are you scientifically literate?

[PLC1]

there is one where the dog husband is sitting in a shabby easy chair empty beer cans around with an unhappy dog wife standi g looking at him and he says "you knew when you married me I was a non-working breed."

Both memorable, but the best of the lot is the Darwin Zoo, replete with signs like, "This fence is just decorative, go ahead and cross it." and "Hand feeding the carnivores is allowed".

 

[dogtowner]

Both memorable, but the best of the lot is the Darwin Zoo, replete with signs like, "This fence is just decorative, go ahead and cross it." and "Hand feeding the carnivores is allowed".

as long as we're threadjacking...

I love this, totally true...

 

[palerider]

Your own standards seem to rule you out as a critic of climate change.

Upon what observed evidence, and standards do you make that proclamation?

 

[samsara15]

Pale, perhaps I misspoke somewhat on that.

Would you say that the science establishment has drifted into a status quo that stifles good research and creative thinking, with excessive peer review before publication? That peer pressure has silenced many otherwise good ideas? Would you, for example, join Lee Smolin and others who say that String Theory is a dead end that has led nowhere? Or Fred Hoyle who says that the same sort of peer pressure led to the acceptance of Big Bang theory over a still not entirely dead Steady State theory?

 

[palerider]

Pale, perhaps I misspoke somewhat on that.

Would you say that the science establishment has drifted into a status quo that stifles good research and creative thinking, with excessive peer review before publication?

The science establishment? No. The science establishment being chemistry, physics, et. al. The pseudoscience establshment has been in status quo mode since it became very profitable to remain in that mode.

That peer pressure has silenced many otherwise good ideas? Would you, for example, join Lee Smolin and others who say that String Theory is a dead end that has led nowhere?

String theory has been around for how many years? Exactly what promise has it shown in those years? Where has it ever appeared to be leading?

Or Fred Hoyle who says that the same sort of peer pressure led to the acceptance of Big Bang theory over a still not entirely dead Steady State theory?

I personally have little respect for the big bang as it requires as much faith as most religions and the steady state theory leaves just as many questions unanswered and offers no hope of ever answering them.

 

[citizenzen]

I've been away on a business trip for a couple of days (Yes, liberals actually take business trips.) and would like to ask palerider how as a (purported) scientist, how can he be against looking at a subject more closely and giving more time for clarifying our understanding.

He seems to be a most unscientifically-minded scientist. What discipline of science could safely say, "We know all there is to know about X. There's no need to look any further."

What sort of scientist would claim than any subsequent discoveries in that field would be purely political concoctions and not legitimate science?

 

[palerider]

I've been away on a business trip for a couple of days (Yes, liberals actually take business trips.) and would like to ask palerider how as a (purported) scientist, how can he be against looking at a subject more closely and giving more time for clarifying our understanding.

I am all for looking at a subject more closely. That, however, isn't what is going on with climate "science". Climate "science" is a political movement designed to create anxiety for the purpose of transferring wealth. Climate "scientists" don't admit openly that they really don't understand the climate well enough to predict accurately what the climate will be like next year but that is exactly where they are. Instead, they promote anxiety and recommend draconian alterations to the world economy based on the projections of some of the most poorly written and data poor simulations ever written. That is not science and it is not an attempt at either understanding or clarification.

He seems to be a most unscientifically-minded scientist. What discipline of science could safely say, "We know all there is to know about X. There's no need to look any further."

I know a hoax when I see one. The actual science community, (physics, chemistry, etc.) do not accept AGW theory for precisely the reasons I outlined on the other thread. Its basis is found wanting by any actual scientific standard.

Further, because I am a scientist, I know that we don't even begin to know enough about the workings of the climate to begin to make economic suggestions. At this point, we don't even know whether the net effect of climate forcings is postive or negative. We can't state with any certainty what the mean temperature of the climate is on any day, week, year, decade, century, etc. We can't state what the earth's albedo is. And we have no clear understanding of how energy moves through the climate system. Those being the facts, climate "science" doesn't begin to know enough to even make reasonably educated predictions, much less to start making economic suggestions. Perhaps some day, three or 4 decades in the future, climate science may be able to answer those basic questions. At that time, it will be in a postion to perhaps make a reasonable forecast, but till then, climate science can not even rightly be called a science. At this time, it is at best, an avenue of inquiry.

What sort of scientist would claim than any subsequent discoveries in that field would be purely political concoctions and not legitimate science?

Name any actual discoveries ever made in climate "science".

 

[citizenzen]

I know a hoax when I see one.

So all climate scientists are actually political operatives? Tell me, palerider, do they recruit these agents in college, or do they turn them afterward?

I suggested in another thread that your debunking (if true) of Global Warming would earn you a Nobel Prize. But now, your exposing an entire scientific discipline as being a ruse to manipulate the public could even trump your previous accomplishment.

Perhaps you should contact 60 Minutes.

 

[citizenzen]

The actual science community, (physics, chemistry, etc.) do not accept AGW theory for precisely the reasons I outlined on the other thread.

Here is the official position of the American Physical Society* (bolding mine)...

National Policy
07.1 CLIMATE CHANGE
(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.​

*The American Physical Society is the world's second largest organization of physicists, behind the Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft.

 

[citizenzen]

The actual science community, (physics, chemistry, etc.) do not accept AGW theory for precisely the reasons I outlined on the other thread.

How about this policy statement from the American Chemical Society*...

Public Policy Statement 2007-2010
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
ACS POSITION

Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles (IPCC, 2007). There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change.

The reality of global warming, its current serious and potentially disastrous impacts on Earth system properties, and the key role emissions from human activities play in driving these phenomena have been recognized by earlier versions of this ACS policy statement (ACS, 2004), by other major scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union (AGU, 2003), the American Meteorological Society (AMS, 2007) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 2007), and by the U. S. National Academies and ten other leading national academies of science (NA, 2005). This statement reviews key global climate change impacts and recommends actions required to mitigate or adapt to currently anticipated consequences.​

BTW, did you read that last paragraph?



*The American Chemical Society (ACS) is a learned society (professional association) based in the United States that supports scientific inquiry in the field of chemistry. Founded in 1876 at New York University, the ACS currently has more than 154,000 members at all degree-levels and in all fields of chemistry, chemical engineering, and related fields.

 

[citizenzen]

The actual science community, (physics, chemistry, etc.) do not accept AGW theory for precisely the reasons I outlined on the other thread.

Since palerider is (purportedly) a biochemist, perhaps we should hear the opinion of the president of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology from his February 2010 message...

There are actually four sides [to the climate debate]: “denialists,” a group consisting of people with a right-wing political agenda who assert that the claim that global warming is caused by manmade emissions is a lie and is not based on sound science; “skeptics,” a group largely composed of scientists who argue that climate science, particularly large-scale modeling, is far too imperfect to form the basis of a consensus; “warners,” another group of scientists who believe that the best climate models accurately predict a looming planetary disaster and that human production of greenhouse gases is the primary cause; and “calamatists,” a collection of environmental activists whose agenda, like that of the denialists, is ideologically driven, but in the opposite direction: they have a neo-luddite view of industrialization and believe the denialists are evil. As Brand, a self-described warner, points out, understanding from which of these camps any given argument springs is useful in distinguishing propaganda from science and appeals to emotion from evidence-based assertions.

For decades, the denialists insisted that the Earth was not getting warmer. Short-term fluctuations were meaningless, they asserted. Climate modeling was worse than useless.

But after massive amounts of data were collected and analyzed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it became clear, on the release of its report in 2007, that no sensible person could deny that a dramatic rise in the planet’s average temperature had been occurring for at least a century.​

Palerider, are you a part of this organization? Maybe you should reconsider your membership. Or write a letter to your president... you know... to set him straight.

 

[samsara15]

A minor note, pale

some things you have quoted me as saying above, were actually said by CitizenZen. And there is also a posting of mine missing where I asked you how you explained existence of the fossil records of early hominids, since you do not believe in macro evolution.

 

[PLC1]

Is the so called "big bang" really a theory, or merely an attempt to explain observations? It is based on the observation that the universe seems to be expanding, as evidenced by the red shift being more prominent the farther away an object is.

Doesn't an hypothesis have to be tested in order to qualify as a scientific theory? How could big bang be tested?

To me, a non scientist, the idea that all of the matter and energy in the universe was once in an infinitely small space, and just sort of sprang forth sounds a lot like "Let there be light" from Genesis. Maybe it's because I don't understand the big bang.

 

[palerider]

So all climate scientists are actually political operatives? Tell me, palerider, do they recruit these agents in college, or do they turn them afterward?

I suggested in another thread that your debunking (if true) of Global Warming would earn you a Nobel Prize. But now, your exposing an entire scientific discipline as being a ruse to manipulate the public could even trump your previous accomplishment.

Perhaps you should contact 60 Minutes.

I repeat. I know a hoax when I see one. A rant, no matter how liberally sprinkled with red herrings, ad hominems, and appeals to ridicule; and any other logical fallacy you care to toss in does not represent rational argument.

Feel free to prove the theory and therefore prove it is not a hoax.

 

[palerider]

Here is the official position of the American Physical Society* (bolding mine)...

National Policy
07.1 CLIMATE CHANGE
(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.​

*The American Physical Society is the world's second largest organization of physicists, behind the Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft.

And less than 15% of the society's membership agrees with that statement. The head of the society is a political organization whose main concern is the head of the society. The american chemical society says basically the same thing while about the same percentage of the membership agrees.