How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[TrueSceptic]

Go tell that to Albert Einstein. In 1905 he produced four papers that overturned a massive scientific consensus.

Oh boy. You played the Galileo/Darwin card! If only the site had a feature to sound a klaxon as in QI (BBC prog hosted by Stephen Fry).

You are wrong in so many ways it's just risible. Einstein did not overturn a massive scientific consensus. He devised a new way to describe the universe, one that explained and resolved some of the greatest problems in physics. He expanded understanding, while leaving existing theories still valid in a restricted context.

He did not falsify the work of Newton, Maxwell, etc. He did not use dubious statistical tricks to discredit them. He created something that better explained reality than previous theories had.

And he wasn't, at the time, a professional academic or even possess a PhD. He was a patent clerk (3rd class) at the Swiss Patent Office.

So?

The notion that a single paper can overturn all that went before it is one of the glories of the scientific method. If you're referring to consensuses then you're talking about politics and not science.

You ignored

The way science works is that if such a paper is convincing and its findings are replicated throughout the scientific community, it becomes the new orthodoxy.

It is absurd to claim that one paper, of itself, can overturn anything. It needs to withstand scrutiny, to be replicated, to be convincing, to better explain the evidence than previous ideas. Your description of science is of a system so chaotic that it would be worthless and unable to make any progress at all.

And you are talking about politics. From the very beginning of this thread, its not about science, but about numbers of people who believe proposition X and why some very, very good scientists don't believe proposition X.

Very, very, good? Who are they?

This thread is about GWS behaviour. As such, it is indeed about politics. GWS denial is not driven by science; it is driven by right-wing politics of the most despicable kind.

Lastly, are you really seeking to compare MM2005 with Einstein1905?

 

[TrueSceptic]

TS:McIntyre is not only laughable but also offensive.

My my....

Correct that misrepresentation immediately and apologise.

 

[mhaze]

Alric: I find the whole McIntyre deal distasteful
TS: McIntyre is not only laughable but also offensive.​

My my....
warm happy basket of feelings not so warm and happy?
Awww......
Reality does that, unfortunately.
​

Correct that misrepresentation immediately and apologise.

If you find mention of McIntyre offensive, you are going to be easily and often offended.

This thread is about GWS behaviour. As such, it is indeed about politics. GWS denial is not driven by science; it is driven by right-wing politics of the most despicable kind.

Admitted by TS. Thread isn't about science but is about politics. So move it to the lion's den. Let's see how your warm happy basket of feelings does down there.

 

[Pipirr]

Correct that misrepresentation immediately and apologise.

Yes, I quite agree. I see what he did there.

Deceitful, isn't it.

 

[Megalodon]

If you find mention of McIntyre offensive, you are going to be easily and often offended.

Always the same shameless liar... If there was any science behind your arguments, cheap pathetic tricks like these would be unnecessary... but alas, there isn't

Admitted by TS. Thread isn't about science but is about politics. So move it to the lion's den. Let's see how your warm happy basket of feelings does down there.

Basket of feelings? This from the field that bitches and moans how unfair the scientific world is, and how all those nasty reviewers turn down they're work, leaving them with only the net and E&E to "publish"?

You are depressing...

 

[TrueSceptic]

It was M&M.

We all know this, which made the ignorance of TS on the issue even funnier.

He asked for a citation because he didn't believe Diamond's assertion. And stepped in a big pile of steaming ****. Poor TS, he just couldn't believe it might be true. Education is very frustrating for some.

I don't believe unsupported assertions, and most certainly not those made by proven liars.

I knew perfectly well what Diamond's source was. It is ludicrous that you should claim otherwise. The issue was: why did he not cite it, and why did you use the same source to support the assertion? Is it because you have no idea of the concept of proof, or even of simple honesty?

Carry on. We can see what you are. None of it is good.

 

[TrueSceptic]

If you find mention of McIntyre offensive, you are going to be easily and often offended.

I said

Any comparison [of Einstein] with McIntyre is not only laughable but also offensive.

Apologise

 

[CapelDodger]

However, all other proxy studies do agree with Mann's. Why this doesn't obviate McIntyre is beyond my understanding of basic logic.

We've moved beyond reason here. What we're dealing with is a visceral response.

Logic can explain human behaviour, but basic logic can't . Where people are concerned, logic gets fuzzy.

 

[Round Robin]

He did not falsify the work of Newton, Maxwell, etc. He did not use dubious statistical tricks to discredit them. He created something that better explained reality than previous theories had.

To build upon what TS said, not only did Einstein not falsify Maxwell, he developed relativity as an offshoot of imagining the implications of Maxwell's equations. (he was really good at thought experiments ) His other papers--at least the Annus Mirabilis papers--built upon the work of others as well, such as Plank, Lorentz, Hertz, etc.

Lastly, are you really seeking to compare MM2005 with Einstein1905?

QFT

 

[Round Robin]

Any comparison with McIntyre is not only laughable but also offensive.

As a former student of physics, astronomy, and cosmology, I, too, find the use of the "Einstein gambit" (or the Galileo or Darwin gambits) to be absurd. It disrespects the intellectual achievements of great and inspiring scientists.

You are correct that Galileo predates the scientific method as we know it, but he wasn't afraid to design and carry out experiments and in ways that are not unfamiliar now. Stephen Hawking has said that he did more for the birth of modern science than anyone else. Einstein called him the father of modern science.

 

[CapelDodger]

Lastly, are you really seeking to compare MM2005 with Einstein1905?

Beware that you don't get drawn into a personality-cult. Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein .. they were just these guys, y'know? Right place, right time, right temperament, right publicity (which goes with the time and place). Maxwell is noticeable for his absence from the usual list, which is criminally unjust IMO.

McIntyre will not feature in the annals of science, but he may well feature in future historical work on this period. Historians cannot sensibly ignore personality-cults.

 

[Round Robin]

Beware that you don't get drawn into a personality-cult. Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein .. they were just these guys, y'know? Right place, right time, right temperament, right publicity (which goes with the time and place). Maxwell is noticeable for his absence from the usual list, which is criminally unjust IMO.

Maxwell?? What a hack! He was just building upon Michael Faraday's work! (The fact that my current career depends upon Maxwell, notwithstanding...)

I do not know what use this discovery will be put to in the future, but I am sure that Her Majesty’s government will find a way to tax it.

 

[CapelDodger]

To build upon what TS said, not only did Einstein not falsify Maxwell, he developed relativity as an offshoot of imagining the implications of Maxwell's equations. (he was really good at thought experiments ) His other papers--at least the Annus Mirabilis papers--built upon the work of others as well, such as Plank, Lorentz, Hertz, etc.

To my mind, Einstein's genius was in the way he could use his mind as a laboratory for thought-experiments. It's arguable that Einstein's greatest contribution to science was his indefatigable but always honest assault on quantum theory, by thought-experiments. Einstein asked questions before quantum theorists had thought of them, to the great benefit of quantum theory.

 

[CapelDodger]

Maxwell?? What a hack!

A hack to you, the zenith of maths education to me. I actually got it at the time, but I've lost most of it since. Use it or lose it, as the saying goes.

He was just building upon Michael Faraday's work!

Faraday was good, but a notorious media-hound. Maxwell, not so much. For what that's worth .

We don't stand on the shoulders of giants but that's always how the media like to play the story.

 

[Round Robin]

A hack to you, the zenith of maths education to me.

Perhaps you missed my use of snark-italics; Maxwell was astonishing. For better or for worse, I don't use his equations anymore either since our design tools solve them for us.

In a discussion of climate science, I sometimes find it ironic that my job is modeling and simulation--of EM wave propagation in electronic circuits in my case (hence the Maxwell connection). We have a saying, "All simulations are wrong; many simulations are useful." This always rings true to me when a climate model is criticized for not being precisely right. I've rarely conducted a simulation that predicted reality exactly, but it is remarkable what I can learn from them.

ETA: wait... wasn't there a topic that I am so characteristically drifting away from? TS must want to dope-slap me sometimes.

 

[TrueSceptic]

As a former student of physics, astronomy, and cosmology, I, too, find the use of the "Einstein gambit" (or the Galileo or Darwin gambits) to be absurd. It disrespects the intellectual achievements of great and inspiring scientists.

You are correct that Galileo predates the scientific method as we know it, but he wasn't afraid to design and carry out experiments and in ways that are not unfamiliar now. Stephen Hawking has said that he did more for the birth of modern science than anyone else. Einstein called him the father of modern science.

Yes, Galileo is commonly described in that way, and I certainly agree.

I think denialists use this gambit because the main opponents of Galileo and Darwin were the supporters of established religious dogma. They like to characterise the current AGW consensus as a similar dogma, with themselves as the revolutionary heroes. It is nonsense, of course: they are the ones supporting the old dogma, overturned over the last few decades, that we can not alter anything as vast as the earth's climate. They are not the Galileos; they are the dogmatists pointing at the sun and shouting, "See, it moves, it moves! It's obvious!".

 

[TrueSceptic]

Perhaps you missed my use of snark-italics; Maxwell was astonishing. For better or for worse, I don't use his equations anymore either since our design tools solve them for us

If geniuses can be underrated, then Maxwell was. Strange that he was a committed Christian all his life, which tells me that great intelligence is no protection against irrational belief.

In a discussion of climate science, I sometimes find it ironic that my job is modeling and simulation--of EM wave propagation in electronic circuits in my case (hence the Maxwell connection). We have a saying, "All simulations are wrong; many simulations are useful." This always rings true to me when a climate model is criticized for not being precisely right. I've rarely conducted a simulation that predicted reality exactly, but it is remarkable what I can learn from them.

You will be familiar with control theory, then, another field in which Maxwell was important: he could be said to have laid its foundations.

ETA: wait... wasn't there a topic that I am so characteristically drifting away from? TS must want to dope-slap me sometimes.

Slap me back then. I enjoy small diversions like this, unlike the constant attempts of the GWS to repeat the same old 'Hockey Stick' claims.

 

[CapelDodger]

Perhaps you missed my use of snark-italics; Maxwell was astonishing.

I neglected to put in a smilie . Partial differential equations were as far as I got in maths, a peak I started slipping from pretty much from the moment I completed the last exam. (For the record, I only got a "B".)

 

[TrueSceptic]

Global Warming Is Over

I've seen this claim appear in the last few days. Does anyone have a source? I did find this, which tells us nothing we didn't know already, or does it?

 

[CapelDodger]

I've seen this claim appear in the last few days. Does anyone have a source? I did find this, which tells us nothing we didn't know already, or does it?

See http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3610139#post3610139

and more specifically
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002906.html

for jennifer (does she mind if I call her jennifer?). As the pond shrinks and gets shallower the smaller fish get to make a splash. Fifteen minutes of fame.

The GWSceptic camp is already crowing about what's going to be the 2008 turnout, according to the people that they were mendaciously mocking recently for "predicting a record-breaking 2007". Is this desperation, or what? We are witnessing the end-game. The next two-to-seven years will see game-over (bar the shouting, and the whining, of course ).