|
|
|
|
climb_eng
Nov 28, 2007, 5:57 PM
Post #226 of 228
(1748 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2007
Posts: 1701
|
Valarc wrote: climb_eng wrote: If you're side was as strong as you claim, they wouldn't use character assassination and petty insults. Questioning science have never deserved this sort of an attack. I ain't touching this argument with a ten foot pole, because I know how it always turns out. Neither side is ever going to have their minds changed. However, realize that the personal attacks and insults come after years of frustration dealing with idiots "questioning science". The internet has given everyone a voice, and unfortunately a vast majority aren't worth hearing, and an even vaster majority seem to be willing to listen to the drivel the first group spouts. I've sat through more arguments than I care to recall about such topics as the fake moon landing, the healing power of far infrared radiation, the electric theory of the universe, the 911 conspiracy, creation science (there's an oxymoron) and so on... There's a difference between "questioning science" and being misled by idiots with a website. There is so much garbage pseudoscience out there that folks who are a part of the scientific community get downright furious at the backwards ideas people come up with. Add in to that a culture in the USA which looks down on science and academics in general as stuffy nerds with no grasp on the real world, and you've got everything you need to put this country in the shithole spot we're in right now. Global warming could potentially be the biggest issue to ever face mankind. Corporations stand to lose billions, politicians stand to lose power, and scientists stand to lose their funding. There is NO ONE anywhere who doesn't have some personal investment in this issue. That makes it potentially the toughest issue imaginable when it comes to separating the facts from the lies. It also makes it the most frustrating imaginable when you think "your side" is the right one and others are being fed a line of bullshit. Both sides of the argument have done a masterful job of painting the other side as eccentric nutjobs. Just take a second to think to yourself what motivation you really have to support one side or the other, or perhaps more importantly, ask yourself what motivates those whose opinions you believe.
I don't particularly believe either side of the argument. Why is that? Because of my experience as an engineer. I know, and I know well that modeling of chaotic, non-linear systems is a messy business. You have to get you're initial conditions JUST RIGHT or else you'll have messy and inaccurate results.
Since we can't even measure many of the initial conditions that will affect climate models, it's a very hard sell to believe the predictions based on these models.
The problems with climate science:
- A reliable data set that spans for 100 years at most. Most data used relies on proxy measurement rather then direct measurement.
- No possible way of testing the hypothesis of climate science since there is no model atmosphere to deal with, only the one we have.
- Climate modeling relies on the hypothesis that we know and understand all the 'rules of the game', or at least understand them well enough to ignore the ones we don't understand. Yet there still is a great deal of misunderstanding (that climatologists admit) of interaction between the atmosphere, land masses, and the sun. This includes items such as the earths albido, the effect of topography and hydrology on weather generation, etc.
- The biggest flaw with climate modeling (as well as many other predictive models in science and engineering) is th linearization of non-linear functions. This primarilly involves attempting to curve fit known transendentals to otherwise unknown non-linear functions. Until we understand the mathematics of non-linear functions better, such modeling will always be flawed.
This isn't from any online hacks, fake scientists, or anything of that sort. I don't know why more research to answer some of these questions isn't being done. These are however valid issues and questions, ones which anyone with any background in physics, chemistry or engineering can ask and understand.
Back to work JP.
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Nov 28, 2007, 7:38 PM
Post #227 of 228
(1716 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
valarc said:
In reply to: Global warming could potentially be the biggest issue to ever face mankind.
that statement is true...however, the statement, "global warming could potentially be the biggest boon to human existence ever", is also true.
if it is that important, ask climate researchers to open up their science. force them to archive data, so that things can be audited. force them to use accepted statistical methods, and not make up non-standard methods which artificially improve their desired outcomes.
these are LEGITIMATE concerns. there is a healthy skepticism of AGW for a reason. a desire to "double check" the math, is NOT right-wing wacko denialism! why don't climate scientists release the computer codes, or archive the data in their published works? In the words of one:
"why should I release my data and code to you, when you only want to find something wrong with it?"
a physicist is rightfully horrified by this attitude. as Einstein said, " a thousand scientists can say I'm right, but it only takes one to prove me wrong"
|
|
|
|
|
chedontsurf
Jan 4, 2008, 1:48 AM
Post #228 of 228
(1652 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 18, 2007
Posts: 64
|
you are a moron!!! i know for certain that global warming exists. if it didn't, then none of us would be dry-tooling. and btw, there is something that would stop global warming. it's called nuclear winter. wouldn't it be cool to climb at night w/o a headlamp 'cause we all glowed in the dark?
|
|
|
|
|
|
