User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 8 of 31

Thread: yellow science

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Ft. Worth, TX
    Posts
    2,251
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    yellow science

    A pretty good article, which makes some good points to muse over:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121433436381900681.html
    Z polski y dumny
    Prayer - how to do nothing and still think you're helping.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F5aCUNE4Z8
    ^^^Newest vid

  2. #2
    dude...cut down stream not across radjess331's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Redlands, Sanbernardino County, California, United States
    Posts
    84
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Pulitzer and Hearst
    They think they got us
    Do they got us?

    no!

    And the World will know
    And the Journal too
    Mister Hearst and Pulitzer
    Have we got news for you
    Now the world will hear
    What we got to say
    We been hawkin' headlines
    But we're makin' 'em today
    And our ranks will grow

    When you got a hundred voices singin'
    Who can hear a lousy whistle blow?
    And the world will know
    That this ain't no game
    That we got a ton of rotten fruit and perfect aim
    So they gave their word
    But it ain't worth beans
    Now they're gonna see
    What "stop the presses" really means
    And the day has come
    And the time is now
    And the fear is gone

    Pulitzer may crack the whip but he won't whip us!
    And the world will know
    And the world will learn
    And the world will wonder how we made the tables turn
    And the world will see
    That we had to choose
    That the things we do today will be tomorrow's news
    And the old will fall
    And the young stand tall
    And the time is now
    And the winds will blow
    And our ranks will grow and grow and grow and so
    The world will feel the fire
    And finally know!
    PaRtY hArD rOcK'n RoLl We'Re ThE ClAsS yOu CaN't CoNtRoL ThE gUyZ aRe HoT ThE GiRlS aRe FiNe We'Re ThE ClAsS oF 2009!!!!

  3. #3
    Doing it wrong until I do it right. xvart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Zone 8
    Posts
    5,594
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I love Newsies!! Best musical ever.

    Look at this! "Baby Born with Two Heads"... must be from Brooklyn. lol.

    Anyways, I totally agree with most everything that is in the article. I think another thing to consider is that we live in a polarized society of "know-it-alls," and people will argue for days about things that have little to no supporting evidence. That certainly doesn't help, especially when we are all fed this "information" day in and day out.

    xvart.
    "The tragedy of life is not that every man loses; but that he almost wins."

    "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    427
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wow, what a load. Seriously, could that article be written by someone who is LESS informed? I've only read a few paragraphs and it's already teeming with flat-out factual inaccuracies (such as the mythical "decline" recently).

    Probably the most egregious is his assertion that global warming is unscientific and cannot be tested, when in fact, it has. When it first came to national attention, scientists had run the first climate models on computers with less power than your cell phone. Now, 20 years later, guess what? Those models were right. Predictions made 20 years ago for current climate have been proven correct.

    I don't know about the moron who wrote that article, but I call "making a prediction and having it come true" pretty damned good science.

    Seriously, that guy wouldn't know science if it bit him in the butt.

    Mokele
    Last edited by Mokele; 06-27-2008 at 08:02 AM. Reason: Correcting the date
    \"With malleus aforethought, mammals got an earful of their ancestor's jaw.\"
    --J. Burns, on the evolution of auditory ossicles.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Ft. Worth, TX
    Posts
    2,251
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think the point he was trying to make about it not being able to be tested is that you can't test the alternative, so you can't be 100% sure people are the sole cause of the current global warming. I.e., 20 years ago, someone said, "I think global warming is happening because of industrialization", and coincidentally, it has been getting warmer the past 20 years (plus a whole lot longer). However, since you can't measure the temperatures of the last 20 years without any industrialization, you really can't prove that beyond the shadow of a doubt.


    Is industrialization making it a tiny bit hotter? Maybe/probably...but let's get serious here. These apocalyptic predictions that industrialization is going to lead to the end of the world are ridiculous. Anyone that knows anything about the Earth can freely admit that we have been living on a climatic knife-edge since the beginning of time. Look at the ice core samples, etc. Our global climate has looked like a roller coaster of extremes over the past 11,000 years.

    Global warming has become more of a political platform unsupported by fact than anything else. "You can't do this because of global warming", "this and that cause global warming", etc, etc, etc. It's like every single thing anyone could ever possibly do causes global warming, and every single problem the world has is a result of global warming. The obesity epidemic is both the cause and result of global warming! Problems in the Middle East? Blame global warming! Oil companies not drilling enough? Probably because of global warming. Etc, etc.

    Too bad a cause of it more weighty than industrialization is gases......from cow anus. One of the most abundant of those evil "greenhouse gases" is....
    .....WATER VAPOR
    lol @ man-made global warming.

    There have been multiple ice ages. Am I the only one that ever wonders what made the ice melt?

    Of course scientists are flocking to it, because that's where the money is now, since it has become more of a political agenda than anything else. Unfortunately misguided politicians control the funds, and scientists will do whatever it takes to secure said funds. I find that totally irresponsible, but hey, maybe that's just because I care about the truth; whatever it may be.

    Sure, tons of funding-hungry scientists like to blame anything and everything on global warming, but the facts aren't there, and very unfortunately at the moment, the scientific community is failing to remember that the truth is not subject to a vote. It used to be general consensus that the world was flat.....
    With anything, I think it would be a smarter idea to abstain from making any sort of drastic policies/judgements until all the evidence is in definitively proving GW is caused solely by humans. I'm a patient person - 100 years and counting so far....

    People have been hawking this anthropogenic GW thing for a long time, which has resulted in nothing but Draconian policies. The world is much "greener" now than it was in the mid 90s, but guess what...it's still getting warmer. Oops!

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/...ming020507.htm
    Also some good links at the bottom of the article

    http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html

    http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=79
    Z polski y dumny
    Prayer - how to do nothing and still think you're helping.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F5aCUNE4Z8
    ^^^Newest vid

  6. #6
    BigBella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    SF, CA
    Posts
    2,972
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by phissionkorps View Post
    A pretty good article, which makes some good points to muse over:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121433436381900681.html
    Yeah, the article has a lot to say. I read it earlier and agree with much of what was said. As a scientist myself, I couldn't agree more . . .

    The notion of a scientific "consensus" is a terrible one and flies in the very face of the scientific method; the only appropriate arena for consensus is a voting booth. A bunch of tenured professors living in a "publish or perish" Darwinian arena, attempting to steer public policy is unpleasant at best. Only the most apocalyptic scenarios for "climate change" (when was it ever the same anyway?) get the grants or public attention. Most researchers cannot organize their desks, me included for that matter.

    When other scientists bring up the fact that the earth has been warming for the last ten thousand years and that there is a great amount of vulcanism in the Antartic which may be contributing to the loss of some glaciation (all the while its becoming far colder inland), we are simply directed to the shrine of the new Jeremiah, Al Gore, and his psychophants.

    Perhaps, I should bloat up to 275, grow a beard, and pursue the Nobel . . .
    “Sì perché l'autorità dell'opinione di mille nelle scienze non val per una scintilla di ragione di un solo . . ."

    -- Galileo "Biff" Galilei

  7. #7
    Stay chooned in for more! Clint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Metro Atlanta Area
    Posts
    9,681
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Al Gore is a great man and we wouldn't be where we are today if he had won. Oh.. wait.. well, you know what I mean. I'm really not into the green lifestyle (don't really care that much. I don't litter, so leave me alone :P) but I really like Al. I think it's his voice.


    At least the dems and and repubs can agree that it's warming finally. Now we just disagree about why. Even if you think it's natural, you can't possibly say that the pollution isn't speeding it up.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    427
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think the point he was trying to make about it not being able to be tested is that you can't test the alternative, so you can't be 100% sure people are the sole cause of the current global warming. I.e., 20 years ago, someone said, "I think global warming is happening because of industrialization", and coincidentally, it has been getting warmer the past 20 years (plus a whole lot longer). However, since you can't measure the temperatures of the last 20 years without any industrialization, you really can't prove that beyond the shadow of a doubt.
    That's actually a misunderstanding of science - you don't need to test *alternative* hypotheses (as none my exist), but rather test the hypothesis in a way in which it is possible for it to fail.

    To use a short example, the hypothesis "this bag is entirely full of red balls" can be tested (by taking balls out) and falsified (by pulling out a blue ball) without ever invoking the alternative hypothesis of "the bag is entirely full of blue balls".

    Now, it's *good* to test alternative hypotheses, but not always possible.

    Our global climate has looked like a roller coaster of extremes over the past 11,000 years.
    Um, no, actually, it hasn't. The past 11,000 years have been mostly stable, and the current peak is by far the largest and fastest deviation.

    Prior to that, it was the Wisconsonian glaciation, which lasted for about 100,000 years and ended about 11,000 years ago.

    Too bad a cause of it more weighty than industrialization is gases......from cow anus. One of the most abundant of those evil "greenhouse gases" is....
    .....WATER VAPOR
    lol @ man-made global warming.
    You do realize that water vapor acts only as a passive amplifier, right?

    The amount of water vapor in the air is primarily controlled by temperature. In other words, something else has to start the warming, allowing water vapor levels to increase, resulting in more warming, etc.

    There have been multiple ice ages. Am I the only one that ever wonders what made the ice melt?
    Yes. Everyone else knows the ice ages are due to the Milankovich cycles, a complex interaction between the eccentricity of Earth's orbit, orbital precession, and obliquity.

    We aren't at a time when the cycles predict warming.

    Of course scientists are flocking to it, because that's where the money is now, since it has become more of a political agenda than anything else. Unfortunately misguided politicians control the funds, and scientists will do whatever it takes to secure said funds. I find that totally irresponsible, but hey, maybe that's just because I care about the truth; whatever it may be.
    You are aware that scientists care more about stabbing each other in the back than any political agenda, right?

    Seriously, if scientist A can damage scientist B's career by undermining global warming, they'd do it in a heartbeat, consequences be damned.

    People have been hawking this anthropogenic GW thing for a long time, which has resulted in nothing but Draconian policies. The world is much "greener" now than it was in the mid 90s, but guess what...it's still getting warmer. Oops!
    That's because carbon emissions are even higher now than ever before. We've reduced them below what they could have been, but not enough.

    but the facts aren't there
    What facts do you think are missing?

    The notion of a scientific "consensus" is a terrible one and flies in the very face of the scientific method;
    So you don't think evolution is scientifically supported because Michael Behe disputes it? One versus everyone else?

    You don't think birds evolved from dinosaurs because Alan Fedducia refuses to accept it, in spite of the massive piles of evidence?

    "Consensus" is simply a way to convey to the public that most scientists who have seen and are qualified to evaluate the evidence are convinced by it.

    Anyone who thinks all of these scientists are just "going with the flow" has never met a scientist. Science is fueled by gigantic egos crashing into each other like atoms in the heart of a star. They'll pick fights over miniscule details *just for the sake of it*.

    Trying to get consensus out of scientists is like herding cats. Seriously, do you know that we don't even know what "running" is? I kid you not, 100 years after the origins of biomechanics as a field, we have two factions squabbling about kinematic vs kinetic definitions. Not to mention just about every other subject.

    "Consensus" is an argument precisely because it's so incredibly rare to actually see it in the scientific community. If it happens, something must have been very clearly demonstrated.

    When other scientists bring up the fact that the earth has been warming for the last ten thousand years and that there is a great amount of vulcanism in the Antartic which may be contributing to the loss of some glaciation (all the while its becoming far colder inland)
    Sources, please. Peer-review journals only.

    It used to be general consensus that the world was flat.....
    Um, no. The "Scientific method", and thus science, did not arise until the 16th century, while in 240 BC Eratosthenes not only determined the Earth was round, but calculated the diameter to within a few hundred miles.

    Mokele
    \"With malleus aforethought, mammals got an earful of their ancestor's jaw.\"
    --J. Burns, on the evolution of auditory ossicles.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •