PDA

View Full Version : A science lesson for the cabal ...



LWW
03-29-2011, 07:50 AM
Many here have pontificated about their love of the scientific method while they simultaneously regurgitate mythology and junk science.

For a brief history and definition of the actual meaning of the scientific method:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Since Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen, 965–1039), one of the key figures in the development of scientific method, the emphasis has been on seeking truth:

Truth is sought for its own sake. And those who are engaged upon the quest for anything for its own sake are not interested in other things. Finding the truth is difficult, and the road to it is rough.[6]

"Light travels through transparent bodies in straight lines only" — Alhazen in Book of Optics (1021 Arabic: Kitāb al-Manāẓir‎) as shown in a Basle 1572 Latin translation, Friedrich Risner, ed., Opticae Thesaurus Alhazeni Arabis,[7] frontispiece showing optical phenomena: transmission of light through the atmosphere, reflection of light rays from parabolic mirrors during the defense of Syracuse by Archimedes against ships of the Roman Republic, refraction of light rays by water, and the production of colors in a rainbow.

How does light travel through transparent bodies? Light travels through transparent bodies in straight lines only.... We have explained this exhaustively in our Book of Optics. But let us now mention something to prove this convincingly: the fact that light travels in straight lines is clearly observed in the lights which enter into dark rooms through holes.... [T]he entering light will be clearly observable in the dust which fills the air.[8]

The conjecture that "light travels through transparent bodies in straight lines only" was corroborated by Alhazen only after years of effort. His demonstration of the conjecture was to place a straight stick or a taut thread next to the light beam,[9] to prove that light travels in a straight line.

Scientific methodology has been practiced in some form for at least one thousand years.[10] There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of method, however. As William Whewell (1794–1866) noted in his History of Inductive Science (1837) and in Philosophy of Inductive Science (1840), "invention, sagacity, genius" are required at every step in scientific method. It is not enough to base scientific method on experience alone;[11] multiple steps are needed in scientific method, ranging from our experience to our imagination, back and forth.

In the 20th century, a hypothetico-deductive model[12] for scientific method was formulated (for a more formal discussion, see below):

1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.

2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.

3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.[13]

This model underlies the scientific revolution. One thousand years ago, Alhazen demonstrated the importance of steps 1 and 4.[14] Galileo 1638 also showed the importance of step 4 (also called Experiment) in Two New Sciences.[15] One possible sequence in this model would be 1, 2, 3, 4. If the outcome of 4 holds, and 3 is not yet disproven, you may continue with 3, 4, 1, and so forth; but if the outcome of 4 shows 3 to be false, you will have to go back to 2 and try to invent a new 2, deduce a new 3, look for 4, and so forth.

Note that this method can never absolutely verify (prove the truth of) 2. It can only falsify 2.[16] (This is what Einstein meant when he said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."[17]) However, as pointed out by Carl Hempel (1905–1997) this simple view of scientific method is incomplete; the formulation of the conjecture might itself be the result of inductive reasoning. Thus the likelihood of the prior observation being true is statistical in nature [18] and would strictly require a Bayesian analysis. To overcome this uncertainty, experimental scientists must formulate a crucial experiment,[19] in order for it to corroborate a more likely hypothesis. </div></div>

Using words for what they actually mean, human caused global warming is junk science of the highest order.

Using the rise in CO2 as an explanation of climate change is, as I have demonstrated in the past, a less likely predictor of climate change than the reduction of high seas piracy.

Using the actual scientific method, Darwinism as it is currently taught is ... at best ... a decent hypothesis with many things it simply cannot explain.

The primary two things it cannot explain are how abiogenesis ever came to be and why species that are changed due to environmental changes tend to ... quickly ... "devolve" once the environmental changes are removed.

cushioncrawler
03-29-2011, 03:31 PM
Yes and no. Science iz only logic, nothing more or less.
There iz no such thing az junk science -- just junk logik.
Here i must now be very kritikal of dubb's logik (and other's).
The main problem re man-made global warming iz a logik problem.
If scientists are korrekt re CO2 and mmgw then we shood do something about it.
If scientists are not korrekt then we shood do something about it too.
Koz, the thing iz, scientists might be korrekt.
The problem iz potentially so bad that we must akt.
And, re the akts needed, if mac were King mac would implement the akts even if mmgw had never been heard of. Koz the akts are good, and badly needed for lots of reasons.
mac.

LWW
03-29-2011, 03:53 PM
Then by that logic we must promote piracy on the high seas as the shrinkage of the pirate fleet corresponds nearly exactly with temperature changes.

CO2 OTOH rose the most while the temps plummeted ... 1935-1980 ... and then temps rose as CO2 leveled off.

The fact is, the supposed link between CO2 and temperature rise was a fabrication of the IPCC.

cushioncrawler
03-29-2011, 04:13 PM
But the fakt iz that it might not hav been a fabrikation.
If i were to tell u that a 7' tall puerto rican poofta woz kreeping up behind u u would hav a number of options.
1. Run koz u beleev me.
2. Run koz u dont beleev me but you dont like the possibility of having a slow-healing painfull split in your rectum.
3. Back up a bit and brace yourself, koz u kind of like the idea.
4. Go back to playing pocket billiards koz u dont beleev.
mac.

Soflasnapper
03-29-2011, 04:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Then by that logic we must promote piracy on the high seas as the shrinkage of the pirate fleet corresponds nearly exactly with temperature changes.

CO2 OTOH rose the most while the temps plummeted ... 1935-1980 ... and then temps rose as CO2 leveled off.

The fact is, the supposed link between CO2 and temperature rise was a fabrication of the IPCC. </div></div>

If all other factors were equal, you'd likely have a point. Since they weren't, you don't.

cushioncrawler
03-29-2011, 09:42 PM
However there iz a definit link tween global warming and piracy near Somalia (dunno about the high seas).
Somali fishermen turned to piracy koz many developed nations with their big fishing nets and long fishing lines etc illegally pirated and plundered and depleted the fish stocks in the Somali sea.
And in addition uzed the Somali sea for illegal dumping of toxik junk -- Italian mafia mainly i think.

This sort of alien aktivity iz probly linked to population pressure etc.
Same az CO2 iz linked to population pressure.
Hencely Somali piracy iz linked to population pressure.
Hencely Somali piracy iz linked to global warming.
mac.

Stretch
03-30-2011, 01:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But the fakt iz that it might not hav been a fabrikation.
If i were to tell u that a 7' tall puerto rican poofta woz kreeping up behind u u would hav a number of options.
1. Run koz u beleev me.
2. Run koz u dont beleev me but you dont like the possibility of having a slow-healing painfull split in your rectum.
3. Back up a bit and brace yourself, koz u kind of like the idea.
4. Go back to playing pocket billiards koz u dont beleev.
mac. </div></div>

I'm beting dub goes for option #3. St.

LWW
03-30-2011, 02:17 AM
You are contradicting yourself ... again.

Qtec
03-30-2011, 04:31 AM
Global Dimming.

Q

LWW
03-30-2011, 05:02 AM
You sir are evidence of that.

Soflasnapper
03-30-2011, 09:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are contradicting yourself ... again. </div></div>

Really? Then I'm sure you have me on record somewhere claiming 'all other things WERE equal' with regard to comparison to all things relevant to climate change between those time periods?

Funny I don't remember anything like that.

It is no contradiction to say, of course, there are many things that impact climate, some cyclic (sun cycles, periodic El Ninos, La Ninas), some non-cyclic (particulate matter put into the atmosphere by volcanoes becoming active, or as schmutz from dirty hydrocarbon burning, or aerosols going into the atmosphere), AND that there is also a discernible effect from CO2 increases.

I know that any situation with perhaps countervailing forces acting separately and apart from one another makes your head hurt, but it's not a difficult concept.

LWW
03-30-2011, 04:02 PM
Read what you quoted me on and actually take it in instead of assuming that since it isn't from the Goremon hymnal it simply must be dismissed.

Soflasnapper
03-30-2011, 04:40 PM
The CO2 lag argument is like saying "Chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been observed to hatch from them".

Discussing the CO2 lagging temperature changes 'argument' (http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm)

Discussing the pre-1940 warming period (http://www.skepticalscience.com/pre-1940-warming-causes-and-logic.html)

cushioncrawler
03-31-2011, 02:57 AM
Very interesting.
When i look at the graph what i see iz hat when temp rizes CO2 in air rizes with no lag or at most say 100yr.
When temp drops CO2 drops with a lag of say 3000yr.

This suggests to me that CO2 in seawater leevs seawater (or the whole sea) eezyly (ie az sea temp rizes).
But that CO2 in air iz absorbed into seawater (or the whole sea) very slowly (ie az sea temp falls).
Dunno what would cause this diff.
mac.

LWW
03-31-2011, 04:35 AM
You assume that your anti capitalist handlers tell you the truth, as opposed to spoon feeding you the "TRUTH" as the agenda requires it to be today ... subject to change without notice:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While Antarctic ice core records supposedly 'prove' a significant increase in CO2 in this period, there are serious problems with this data. Besides the fact that ice bubbles take about 80 years to form and so cannot give a single year accurate measure, the continual freezing, refreezing and pressurization of ice columns may greatly alter the original composition of the air trapped in the bubbles. Nevertheless, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and many others have accepted as meaningful the ice core results that indicate a pre-industrial CO2 level of 280 parts per million (ppm), in comparison with today's 385 ppm.

The most accurate way to determine the atmosphere's average CO2 content is to simply conduct a direct chemical analysis at many different places and times. Fortunately, there are more than 90,000 direct measurements by chemical methods between 1857 and 1957. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>However, in what appears to be a case of 'cherry-picking' data to fit a pre-determined conclusion, only the lower level CO2 data were included when the pre-industrial average was calculated</span> (see below graph where data used in the averaging is highlighted). This is the average that was used to supposedly 'validate' the long term ice core records on which Al Gore and others depend.</div></div>

It gets worse for the Goremons:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In a new scientific paper in the journal Energy and Environment, German researcher Ernst-Georg Beck, shows that the <span style='font-size: 11pt'>pre-industrial level is some 50 ppm higher than the level used by computer models that produce all future climate predictions. Completely at odds with the smoothly increasing levels found in the ice core records, Beck concludes, "Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated, exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942, the latter showing more than 400 ppm."</span></div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In a paper submitted to US Senate Committee hearings, Polish Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, a veteran mountaineer who has excavated ice from 17 glaciers on six continents, stated bluntly, "The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic [human] causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false."
As such, the article concluded:

Clearly, the federal government must immediately convene open, unbiased hearings into the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. If the science driving CO2 reduction plans is as 'solid' as environmental lobbyists would have us believe, then they have nothing to fear.
But, if it is wrong, as increasingly it appears to be, then we stand on the verge of the largest, and most costly, science scandal in Canadian history.</div></div>

OH DEAR! (http://newsbusters.org/node/12737)

cushioncrawler
03-31-2011, 04:51 AM
.....If the science driving CO2 reduction plans is as 'solid' as environmental lobbyists would have us believe, then they have nothing to fear......
Mac sez. If the science iz solid then we hav everything to fear......

.....But, if it is wrong, as increasingly it appears to be, then we stand on the verge of the largest, and most costly, science scandal in Canadian history......
Mac sez. If it iz wrong then we should be very releeved.
mac.

Qtec
03-31-2011, 04:57 AM
<span style='font-size: 20pt'>How spoon fed you are. </span>

So desperate to prove you are right you will even link to <span style='font-size: 17pt'><span style="color: #000099">Newsbusters,</span> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>who's header</span> is - <span style="color: #990000"><u>'exposing & combating Liberal media Bias'</u></span>.</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However, what if a new scientific study concluded that the IPCC cherry-picked data concerning CO2 levels in the past in order to make it look like today’s levels are out of the ordinary. Would the media report that?

Well, an article written by scientists Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris of the <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Natural Resources Stewardship Project </span>was published on Monday making exact this claim (emphasis added throughout):

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/node/12737#ixzz1IAmgfw8Q
</div></div>

Source watch.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP), a Canadian non-profit group, <u>including a number of leading climate change sceptics, was launched October 12, 2006. [1] The website for the site, nrsp.com, was taken down in March 2008[1] and the group now appears to be defunct.</u>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>The NRSP has been exposed as being controlled by energy industry lobbyists.</span>[2][3]</div></div>


link (http://www.desmogblog.com/discredited-friends-of-science-emerge-as-the-natural-resources-stewardship-project)


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> 12 October 06
<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Discredited Friends of Science Re-emerge as the Natural Resources Stewardship Project</span>
Comment on this StoryEmail this story

BREAKING UPDATE!
NRSP exposed -- controlled by energy industry lobbyists (click here)



A breathless news release announced Thursday that Dr. Tim Ball is now the chair of a new "environmental" group called the Natural Resources Stewardship Project.

The snazzy new NRSP website announces a broad array of principles and strategies, but their goal is simple:

<span style='font-size: 14pt'> NRSP’s first campaign is focused on dispelling the notion that Canada needs CO2 reduction plans.</span>

Here we have yet another "grassroots" organization, emerging spontaneously to fight the demonic international conspiracy to recognize the global threat of climate change.</div></div>


Admit it, you were spoon fed and you licked that spoon clean.


Q............. http://bshistorian.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/shot-down.jpg

Qtec
03-31-2011, 04:59 AM
You should always check out his sources.

Q

LWW
03-31-2011, 05:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">.....If the science driving CO2 reduction plans is as 'solid' as environmental lobbyists would have us believe, then they have nothing to fear......
Mac sez. If the science iz solid then we hav everything to fear......

.....But, if it is wrong, as increasingly it appears to be, then we stand on the verge of the largest, and most costly, science scandal in Canadian history......
Mac sez. If it iz wrong then we should be very releeved.
mac.



</div></div>

By that logic I should stock up on Holy water, silver bullets, and garlic cloves.

LWW
03-31-2011, 05:01 AM
And Snoopy again confirms that if a news agency is out to promote the truth ... he hates them.

Qtec
03-31-2011, 07:28 AM
There you go again. WHAT news agency?

This news Agency???????????

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 26pt'>Discredited Friends of Science Re-emerge as the Natural Resources Stewardship Project</span> </div></div>

Q.........by all means, keep digging, we could use the laugh.

LWW
03-31-2011, 03:55 PM
Can't you read your own posts?