Thread: this aint right

Originally Posted by MickR

... I an't no scientist ...


Mick

Then why do you feel you're more qualified to discuss the facts about climate change/global warming?

I'm sorry. Was that a personal attack? And all because I stated what is (mostly) common knowledge taught to school children everywhere (except Colombia Pacific obviously)...Now, to answer your 'attack', please point out in my comment exactly where I said I was more qualified than anyone else, to make comment. Just because I said, "I ain't no scientist", doesn't mean I didn't study the different sciences.
Perhaps you yourself, should put forward proofs of your own eligability to have thoughts or opinions on the subject...


Mick

Originally Posted by elbonator

Theory remains theory.

Chris

Gravity is a theory.

Originally Posted by commiecat

Gravity is a theory.

Henceforth, I declare it shall be the Law of Gravity.

Originally Posted by commiecat

Gravity is a theory.

Thanks for proving my point.

Chris

Originally Posted by elbonator

Thanks for proving my point.

Chris

I thought you were arguing that man wasn't responsible. The scientific consensus is that humans have contributed to climate change in large parts (source).

A scientific theory is a substantiated, supported, and documented explanation. Human impact is the explanation given to the fact that the earth's climate has been increasingly changing.

Originally Posted by commiecat

I thought you were arguing that man wasn't responsible. The scientific consensus is that humans have contributed to climate change in large parts (source).

A scientific theory is a substantiated, supported, and documented explanation. Human impact is the explanation given to the fact that the earth's climate has been increasingly changing.

The problem is that you have the main proponents of the theory admitting, in private, that the theory doesn't explain the observations of the time. Nothing has changed about that and it casts serious doubt on the vercity of the theory.

Your comment about gravity reinforces what I am saying in the sense that gravity is in the realm of quantum physics and our underlying understanding of it or the theory of it has changed many times. It is very likely that the newer science of climate mechanics and AGW theory will also undergo an unsettling process and our understanding will change. Their private admissions are a harbinger of this.

Chris

Is this thread heating up due to natural causes or is it manmade?

Originally Posted by elbonator

The problem is that you have the main proponents of the theory admitting, in private, that the theory doesn't explain the observations of the time. Nothing has changed about that and it casts serious doubt on the vercity of the theory.

Your comment about gravity reinforces what I am saying in the sense that gravity is in the realm of quantum physics and our underlying understanding of it or the theory of it has changed many times. It is very likely that the newer science of climate mechanics and AGW theory will also undergo an unsettling process and our understanding will change. Their private admissions are a harbinger of this.

Chris

What private admissions are you talking about?

"All models are wrong, but some are useful" G.E.P. Box, Statistician.

The question then becomes how wrong do the models have to get before they become unusable? Often you cannot answer that question, because in most cases you need to entirely know the thing you are trying to model, and you are trying to model it in the first place because you do not entirely know it.

Most of the hoo haa surrounding Climate Change in my sphere revolves around people (layman and scientist) not fully appreciating the often severe limitations of collected or inferred data and the statistical or deterministic models that are fit or shoe-horned (in)to it. If they did I feel the debate would have taken a very different path to the one it is currently on.

The way I see it, the political wind is blowing toward a "cleaner" future pretty much everywhere. Technology innovation is certainly heading down that path. We are getting a Carbon pricing mechanism in Australia, for example.

My dearest wish in all of this would be that people on both sides were more critical of the literature they consume - ask why this person is saying what they are saying, what is their agenda, who is paying them, what is their background, what evidence are they presenting and what is its quality etc etc. I feel both sides are equally guilty of cherry-picking what they read or watch to match their pre-conceptions. That is no way to be objective and it is certainly not an empirical or scientific approach to the issue.

Not that I can talk, of course. I'm just saying wouldn't it be nice?

James.