Climate 'Study' By Non-Scientist At EPA Is Right's New Cause Celebre

[nowhereman 1]

Gary & Bat,

You both need to agree to disagree. No how many threads each of you starts on this issue & how many "facts" you throw at each other neither one of you are going to budge an inch. You're at an impasse & you are just repeating yourselves so both of you just need to cease fire.

Or one of you needs to visit the other and take care of things the old fashioned way

Or they need to get a room.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Gary & Bat,

You both need to agree to disagree. No how many threads each of you starts on this issue & how many "facts" you throw at each other neither one of you are going to budge an inch. You're at an impasse & you are just repeating yourselves so both of you just need to cease fire.

Or one of you needs to visit the other and take care of things the old fashioned way

Or they need to get a room.

I think Steven might enjoy it though

[HAL 9000 96]

Gary & Bat,

You both need to agree to disagree. No how many threads each of you starts on this issue & how many "facts" you throw at each other neither one of you are going to budge an inch. You're at an impasse & you are just repeating yourselves so both of you just need to cease fire.

Or one of you needs to visit the other and take care of things the old fashioned way

Bat already has a prior engagement.

TO respond to nowhereman... I think it could've been boiled down to science vs pseudoscience... but that I think would not be fair to folks like Gary that do read science from time to time. IMO its something along the lines of someone that trusts scientific consensus vs someone that trusts the dissenting viewpoint... and the heart of how a scientific consensus is constructed is at stake, apparently. Scientists beware.

Gary & Bat,

You both need to agree to disagree. No how many threads each of you starts on this issue & how many "facts" you throw at each other neither one of you are going to budge an inch. You're at an impasse & you are just repeating yourselves so both of you just need to cease fire.

Or one of you needs to visit the other and take care of things the old fashioned way

Or they need to get a room.

Nah you know which two need to do that.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I thought we had all come to an agreement that:

Global Warming is a scientific theory, and thereby meaning it is accepted (consensus) among the scientific community.

STFU.

Notice how it goes unchallenged.

Because it was already challenged and shot down. Science isn't done by consensus. Theories are only models that fit the data. You do know that the earth centered universe was once a theory? You do know that a scientific law about gravity by a fellow named Newton has been disproved by another guy named Einstein? Just because a bunch of scientists agree with something doesn't make it right.

Wait. Are you saying now that a scientific theory doesn't require a general acceptance among the scientific community to become a theory? What are the requirements, Gary, for a scientific theory to come into existence?

A theory is just a model that explains the data seen. It can be accepted but that does not mean it is fact. When the data changes so must the theory. When the data changes enough the theory must be abandoned. So it goes with GW. At one time the data was explained by the theory. The data has changed but the theory has not. With eggheads like HAL doggedly sticking to a disproved theory you get the consensus we have today.

So you agree that GW is a scientific theory, thereby generally accepted (consensus) by the scientific community? I ask this because you argued before that there is no consensus within the scientific community. If there wasn't a consensus, then it wouldn't be a theory....or do you have a different understanding of what consensus means?

[nowhereman 1]

Gary & Bat,

You both need to agree to disagree. No how many threads each of you starts on this issue & how many "facts" you throw at each other neither one of you are going to budge an inch. You're at an impasse & you are just repeating yourselves so both of you just need to cease fire.

Or one of you needs to visit the other and take care of things the old fashioned way

Bat already has a prior engagement.

TO respond to nowhereman... I think it could've been boiled down to science vs pseudoscience... but that I think would not be fair to folks like Gary that do read science from time to time. IMO its something along the lines of someone that trusts scientific consensus vs someone that trusts the dissenting viewpoint... and the heart of how a scientific consensus is constructed is at stake, apparently. Scientists beware.

Gary & Bat,

You both need to agree to disagree. No how many threads each of you starts on this issue & how many "facts" you throw at each other neither one of you are going to budge an inch. You're at an impasse & you are just repeating yourselves so both of you just need to cease fire.

Or one of you needs to visit the other and take care of things the old fashioned way

Or they need to get a room.

Nah you know which two need to do that.

- Hal: You don't need to convince me. My take is that GW is probably real & if it isn't I would rather be safe than sorry (my layman's perspective... I have a Masters but not science related). What really gets me upset about this topic is that it has become political in nature & it is the most non-political topic you could possibly think of (the environment affects everyone, from ####### Cheney to Nancy Pelosi).

- Random: No I don't know who... there are plenty of "couples" on VJ (Rogue & Pike would be my guess... they fight like an old married couple).

[HAL 9000 96]

Gary & Bat,

You both need to agree to disagree. No how many threads each of you starts on this issue & how many "facts" you throw at each other neither one of you are going to budge an inch. You're at an impasse & you are just repeating yourselves so both of you just need to cease fire.

Or one of you needs to visit the other and take care of things the old fashioned way

Bat already has a prior engagement.

TO respond to nowhereman... I think it could've been boiled down to science vs pseudoscience... but that I think would not be fair to folks like Gary that do read science from time to time. IMO its something along the lines of someone that trusts scientific consensus vs someone that trusts the dissenting viewpoint... and the heart of how a scientific consensus is constructed is at stake, apparently. Scientists beware.

Gary & Bat,

You both need to agree to disagree. No how many threads each of you starts on this issue & how many "facts" you throw at each other neither one of you are going to budge an inch. You're at an impasse & you are just repeating yourselves so both of you just need to cease fire.

Or one of you needs to visit the other and take care of things the old fashioned way

Or they need to get a room.

Nah you know which two need to do that.

- Hal: You don't need to convince me. My take is that GW is probably real & if it isn't I would rather be safe than sorry (my layman's perspective... I have a Masters but not science related). What really gets me upset about this topic is that it has become political in nature & it is the most non-political topic you could possibly think of (the environment affects everyone, from ####### Cheney to Nancy Pelosi).

- Random: No I don't know who... there are plenty of "couples" on VJ (Rogue & Pike would be my guess... they fight like an old married couple).

*Jedi handwave*

Actually... if I were in the convincing business I'd likely not take too much time on VJ or any other website for that matter.

As for your layman's perspective... its likely more sound than many would give it credit for. No need for listing degrees here or anywhere... but rather getting ahead through logical arguments backed up by proper skills that can only be learned by practice.

[GaryC 7]

I thought we had all come to an agreement that:

Global Warming is a scientific theory, and thereby meaning it is accepted (consensus) among the scientific community.

STFU.

Notice how it goes unchallenged.

Because it was already challenged and shot down. Science isn't done by consensus. Theories are only models that fit the data. You do know that the earth centered universe was once a theory? You do know that a scientific law about gravity by a fellow named Newton has been disproved by another guy named Einstein? Just because a bunch of scientists agree with something doesn't make it right.

Wait. Are you saying now that a scientific theory doesn't require a general acceptance among the scientific community to become a theory? What are the requirements, Gary, for a scientific theory to come into existence?

A theory is just a model that explains the data seen. It can be accepted but that does not mean it is fact. When the data changes so must the theory. When the data changes enough the theory must be abandoned. So it goes with GW. At one time the data was explained by the theory. The data has changed but the theory has not. With eggheads like HAL doggedly sticking to a disproved theory you get the consensus we have today.

So you agree that GW is a scientific theory, thereby generally accepted (consensus) by the scientific community? I ask this because you argued before that there is no consensus within the scientific community. If there wasn't a consensus, then it wouldn't be a theory....or do you have a different understanding of what consensus means?

As I said before, science isn't about consensus. It is about facts. You can have a theory without a majority of scientists accepting it. A theory is nothing more than a model that explains the facts. Theories come and go. There are more theories throughout history that have been disproved than those that have been proven and are still with us. As science advances and new data is discovered then old theories are cast aside for new ones that better explain the data.

[nowhereman 1]

I thought we had all come to an agreement that:

Global Warming is a scientific theory, and thereby meaning it is accepted (consensus) among the scientific community.

STFU.

Notice how it goes unchallenged.

Because it was already challenged and shot down. Science isn't done by consensus. Theories are only models that fit the data. You do know that the earth centered universe was once a theory? You do know that a scientific law about gravity by a fellow named Newton has been disproved by another guy named Einstein? Just because a bunch of scientists agree with something doesn't make it right.

Wait. Are you saying now that a scientific theory doesn't require a general acceptance among the scientific community to become a theory? What are the requirements, Gary, for a scientific theory to come into existence?

A theory is just a model that explains the data seen. It can be accepted but that does not mean it is fact. When the data changes so must the theory. When the data changes enough the theory must be abandoned. So it goes with GW. At one time the data was explained by the theory. The data has changed but the theory has not. With eggheads like HAL doggedly sticking to a disproved theory you get the consensus we have today.

So you agree that GW is a scientific theory, thereby generally accepted (consensus) by the scientific community? I ask this because you argued before that there is no consensus within the scientific community. If there wasn't a consensus, then it wouldn't be a theory....or do you have a different understanding of what consensus means?

As I said before, science isn't about consensus. It is about facts. You can have a theory without a majority of scientists accepting it. A theory is nothing more than a model that explains the facts. Theories come and go. There are more theories throughout history that have been disproved than those that have been proven and are still with us. As science advances and new data is discovered then old theories are cast aside for new ones that better explain the data.

Gary your argument sounds a lot like my mom's rationalizing smoking cigarettes... when she was told there was overwhelming evidence that smoking cigarettes significantly increases her chances of getting cancer her reply was "doctors don't know anything". She almost died a couple of years back because of her smoking & now she's on oxygen for the rest of her life (but quit smoking, thank God). My point... do you really want to wait until the earth is totally f'ed up to figure out that GW is real (i.e. by being a stubborn SOB like my mom was) or do you want to accept the strong possibility that GW is real?

Edited July 1, 2009 by nowhereman

[Ban Hammer 12,842]

Thanks, guys, for not rubbing it in. I promise to be more humble going forward and accept the reality that my scientific education does not make me any more of an expert in science than any of you.

"Any of us"?

Ok, I'll bite. What makes you think you're the only one with a "scientific education"?

Some of us have PhDs too, you know.

P.S. Err... never mind. Just noticed the extra zero

bad clone maker, should have gone with the capital O

[HAL 9000 96]

Thanks, guys, for not rubbing it in. I promise to be more humble going forward and accept the reality that my scientific education does not make me any more of an expert in science than any of you.

"Any of us"?

Ok, I'll bite. What makes you think you're the only one with a "scientific education"?

Some of us have PhDs too, you know.

P.S. Err... never mind. Just noticed the extra zero

bad clone maker, should have gone with the capital O

Had me fooled for a minute... I was like ####### ( didn't remember posting that!!) ... and then

[GaryC 7]

Gary your argument sounds a lot like my mom's rationalizing smoking cigarettes... when she was told there was overwhelming evidence that smoking cigarettes significantly increases her chances of getting cancer her reply was "doctors don't know anything". She almost died a couple of years back because of her smoking & now she's on oxygen for the rest of her life (but quit smoking, thank God). My point... do you really want to wait until the earth is totally f'ed up to figure out that GW is real (i.e. by being a stubborn SOB like my mom was) or do you want to accept the strong possibility that GW is real?

Global Warming is real. So is Global Cooling. The planet has been doing it since it was formed. My contention is that man has nothing to do with it. If you want to "do something" about it, fine. Just don't cripple us with worthless countermeasures that in the end will not help. I am perfectly happy with the further research on the subject. Just don't do the Cap and Tax thing that is nothing more than a new tax.

[mawilson 2,133]

If there wasn't a consensus, then it wouldn't be a theory....

[tmma 467]

If there wasn't a consensus, then it wouldn't be a theory....

I know!

**backs away from this thread**

Edited July 1, 2009 by tmma

[HAL 90000 0]

If there wasn't a consensus, then it wouldn't be a theory....

I know!

**backs away from this thread**

You're just a meteorologist. Please don't deign to speak to someone as highly educated and eminently qualified as myself.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So you agree that GW is a scientific theory, thereby generally accepted (consensus) by the scientific community? I ask this because you argued before that there is no consensus within the scientific community. If there wasn't a consensus, then it wouldn't be a theory....or do you have a different understanding of what consensus means?

As I said before, science isn't about consensus. It is about facts. You can have a theory without a majority of scientists accepting it.

Scientific theories come to existence through consensus or they are not theories, for one. Second, there is no conflict between facts and theory...

Essential criteria

The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no predictions that can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is inapplicable.

In practice a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis, according to certain criteria:

• It is consistent with pre-existing theory, to the extent the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense.
• It is supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation, ensuring it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Essential_criteria