dennislmay

APS and the Global Warming Scam

Recommended Posts

Governor "Moonbeam" AKA Jerry Brown of California says you are both wrong!

The governor repeated his belief that this spring's fire season, already consuming 25,000 acres and destroying dozens of homes in San Diego County, has been worsened by climate change brought on by human activity.

He told CNN host Candy Crowley that California's fire season is now more than two months longer than it was a decade ago, and that fire crews must be activated year-round instead of seasonally.

Continuing, Moonbeam explained that:

He said there was "political denial," especially among Republicans, of forces that he said are changing the way Californians must live.

"We're going to deal with nature as best we can, but humanity is on a collision course with nature," Brown said on ABC.

"In California, we're not only adapting, but we're taking steps to reduce our greenhouse gases in a way that I think exceeds any other state in the country. And we'll do more.

Here is the global threat and it is Moonbeam himself...

And the people are going to have to be careful of how they live, how they build their homes and what kind of vegetation is allowed to grow around them."

http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-ff-jerry-brown-climate-change-20140518-story.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science and Consensus??????

About 150 years ago almost one hundred percent of certified physicists subscribed to the existence of aether, the elastic medium which is supposed to carry light waves from Here to There.

So much for consensus.

Ba'al Chatzaf

That's because there were very good reasons and overwhelming evidence in support of the theory, as I'm sure you already know. When just about every expert in a field agrees that some proposition is true, then that is very strong evidence that that proposition is true. The scientific consensus represents the propositions for which everyone who has access to the best data, arguments, and relevant skills in that field agrees are true. These people and their process may be fallible, but that does not make them automatically wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science and Consensus??????

About 150 years ago almost one hundred percent of certified physicists subscribed to the existence of aether, the elastic medium which is supposed to carry light waves from Here to There.

So much for consensus.

Ba'al Chatzaf

That's because there were very good reasons and overwhelming evidence in support of the theory, as I'm sure you already know. When just about every expert in a field agrees that some proposition is true, then that is very strong evidence that that proposition is true. The scientific consensus represents the propositions for which everyone who has access to the best data, arguments, and relevant skills in that field agrees are true. These people and their process may be fallible, but that does not make them automatically wrong.

What was interesting was how many physicists still believed aether existed even after the famous after the Michelsob Morley experiment showed contrary results. the MMX has been done thousands of times with ever more sophisticated equipment.

The conclusion is still --- No Aether --

The aether theory was respectable until the MMX busted it. All it takes is one contrary fact, properly observed and corroborated to take down the most beautiful theory or hypothesis. Facts Rule, Theory sometimes serves.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science and Consensus??????

About 150 years ago almost one hundred percent of certified physicists subscribed to the existence of aether, the elastic medium which is supposed to carry light waves from Here to There.

So much for consensus.

Ba'al Chatzaf

That's because there were very good reasons and overwhelming evidence in support of the theory, as I'm sure you already know. When just about every expert in a field agrees that some proposition is true, then that is very strong evidence that that proposition is true. The scientific consensus represents the propositions for which everyone who has access to the best data, arguments, and relevant skills in that field agrees are true. These people and their process may be fallible, but that does not make them automatically wrong.

What was interesting was how many physicists still believed aether existed even after the famous after the Michelsob Morley experiment showed contrary results. the MMX has been done thousands of times with ever more sophisticated equipment.

The conclusion is still --- No Aether --

The aether theory was respectable until the MMX busted it. All it takes is one contrary fact, properly observed and corroborated to take down the most beautiful theory or hypothesis. Facts Rule, Theory sometimes serves.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al Chatzaf

Exactly. So if you want to disprove AGW, why not find the facts and explanations which actually do that instead of claiming (wrongly) that scientific consensus is meaningless?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. So if you want to disprove AGW, why not find the facts and explanations which actually do that instead of claiming (wrongly) that scientific consensus is meaningless?

Scientific consensus is not in and of itself authoritative. As I said, Facts Rule. If the climate models do not predict how

temperature is then the models are wrong. My argument with models, as opposed to well corroborated physical theories is that they have too many adjustable parameters. Any model that can be fiddled is questionable.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientific consensus is not in and of itself authoritative. As I said, Facts Rule. If the climate models do not predict how

temperature is then the models are wrong. My argument with models, as opposed to well corroborated physical theories is that they have too many adjustable parameters. Any model that can be fiddled is questionable.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The question of whether or not scientific consensus is "in and of itself authoritative" is irrelevant. What matters is whether or not it is strong evidence in favor of or against some proposition. Your implication that the scientific consensus is meaningless ignores the fact that the experts form their beliefs via a process called "the scientific method" which has been shown to produce accurate theories better than chance.

If your disagreement with AGW is that the models used are unfalsifiable, then why not take some specific mainstream climate models and demonstrate that they are unfalsifiable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The conclusion is still --- No Aether --

That was not Einstein's conclusion, as has been pointed out to you a number of times before.

From "Ether and the Theory of Relativity,"

An Address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden

pg. 13, Dover reissue, first published in 1983, "of the translation by G. B. Jeffery, D.Sc., and W. Perrett, Ph.D., first published by E. P. Dutton and Company, Publishers, N.Y., in 1922."

[emphasis added]

The next position which it was possible to take up in face of this state of things appeared to be the following. The ether does not exist at all. [....]

More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does NOT compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a state of definite motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical charactistic which Lorentz had still left it. We shall see later that this point of view, the conceivability of which I shall at once endeavor to make more intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the general theory of relativity.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The conclusion is still --- No Aether --

That was not Einstein's conclusion, as has been pointed out to you a number of times before.

From "Ether and the Theory of Relativity,"

An Address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden

pg. 13, Dover reissue, first published in 1983, "of the translation by G. B. Jeffery, D.Sc., and W. Perrett, Ph.D., first published by E. P. Dutton and Company, Publishers, N.Y., in 1922."

[emphasis added]

The next position which it was possible to take up in face of this state of things appeared to be the following. The ether does not exist at all. [....]

More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does NOT compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a state of definite motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical charactistic which Lorentz had still left it. We shall see later that this point of view, the conceivability of which I shall at once endeavor to make more intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the general theory of relativity.

Ellen

Einstein -likened- the space-time manifold to "a kind of aether". In fact the MMX proved there is no elastic substance that fills space. You simply did not grasp the essential meaning of what Einstein said. Aether is space-time itself, not a substance that fills space-time. Hence there is no absolute from of reference for the entire cosmos. The theory of relativity is a mathematical exercise in pasting -local- manifolds together smoothly. That is why there is no absolute global frame of reference. The smooth joining of the local manifolds is the basis of a co-variant theory.

The MMX proved without a doubt there is no ultra stiff elastic gelatinous goo that fills all of space that serves as a medium for electromagnetic waves.

Bottom Line: No Aether. There is not an iota of evidence for its existence. Einstein later put a punctuation mark on the issue by showing light is particulate. His paper on the photoelectric effect won him his Nobel Prize.

It turns out that the assertion that there is an elastic substance that fills space is an $arbitrary assertion.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You simply did not grasp the essential meaning of what Einstein said.

I think it's you who don't grasp that with your insistence on limiting the meaning of "ether" to an "ultra stiff elastic gelatinous goo that fills all of space that serves as a medium for electromagnetic waves."

Einstein later put a punctuation mark on the issue by showing light is particulate. His paper on the photoelectric effect won him his Nobel Prize.

The photoelectric-effect paper was published in 1905, which isn't "later" than the 1920 talk from which I quoted. And you ignore the "wavicle" characteristics of subsequent-to-1905 ideas of light.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the so-called "consensus" on AGW, from which issue the ether issue spun off, there isn't such a consensus and never has been one.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the so-called "consensus" on AGW, from which issue the ether issue spun off, there isn't such a consensus and never has been one.

Ellen

*suppresses laughter*

Naomi,

That's a funny reaction seeing as you talk about the virtue of looking at facts.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the so-called "consensus" on AGW, from which issue the ether issue spun off, there isn't such a consensus and never has been one.

Ellen

*suppresses laughter*

Naomi,

That's a funny reaction seeing as you talk about the virtue of looking at facts.

Michael

Yes, the facts are precisely what make Ellen's statement there so entertaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please define consensus Naomi.

Use it in a sentence, in other words, give it some context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the so-called "consensus" on AGW, from which issue the ether issue spun off, there isn't such a consensus and never has been one.

Ellen

*suppresses laughter*

I won't suppress mine. Your ignorance on the subject is enormous if you've bought the "consensus" hype.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't suppress mine. Your ignorance on the subject is enormous if you've bought the "consensus" hype.

Ellen

If what you're saying is that AGW claims are false because the scientific consensus is merely "hype" and doesn't actually exist and that therefore there exist reputable scientific organizations and climate scientists whose data and theories refute those claims, then why not simply point those people, data, and their theories out?

My guess is that's because there aren't any, and instead of giving the most decisive and informative refutation of a claim possible, you choose to split hairs about a consensus in order to dodge the real problems with AGW skepticism.

Maybe I'm wrong, and you will point to those people, organizations, data, and theories in your next post and prove it. But I am almost never wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I am almost never wrong.

I've seldom noticed you being right.

I'm saying that the idea that there is a consensus is hype. You can find plenty for starters on this board. You might begin by reading the early posts on this thread. I'm not going to compile information for you, since I've seen enough examples of how you proceed in a discussion to think that I'd be wasting my time.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If what you're saying is that AGW claims are false because the scientific consensus is merely "hype" and doesn't actually exist and that therefore there exist reputable scientific organizations and climate scientists whose data and theories refute those claims, then why not simply point those people, data, and their theories out?

My guess is that's because there aren't any, and instead of giving the most decisive and informative refutation of a claim possible, you choose to split hairs about a consensus in order to dodge the real problems with AGW skepticism.

Maybe I'm wrong, and you will point to those people, organizations, data, and theories in your next post and prove it. But I am almost never wrong.

FYI -

Climate change: no consensus on consensus

J. A. Curry and P.J. Webster

School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences

Georgia Institute of Technology

Atlanta, GA 30332-0340

Correspondence: curryja@eas.gatech.edu

Conclusions

The climate community has worked for more than 20 years to establish a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. The IPCC consensus building process arguably played a useful role in the early synthesis of the scientific knowledge and in building political will to act. We have presented perspectives from multiple disciplines that support the inference that the scientific consensus seeking process used by the IPCC has had the unintended consequence of introducing biases into the both the science and related decision making processes. The IPCC scientific consensus has become convoluted with consensus decision making through a ‘speaking consensus to power’ approach. The growing implications of the messy wickedness of the climate change problem are becoming increasingly apparent, highlighting the inadequacies of the ‘consensus to power’ approach for decision making on the complex issues associated with climate change. Further, research from the field of science and technology studies are finding that manufacturing a consensus in the context of the IPCC has acted to hyper-politicize the scientific and policy debates, to the detriment of both. Arguments are increasingly being made to abandon the scientific consensus seeking approach in favor of open debate of the arguments themselves and discussion of a broad range of policy options that stimulate local and regional solutions to the multifaceted and interrelated issues of climate change, land use, resource management, cost effective clean energy solutions, and developing technologies to expand energy access efficiently.

No consensus on consensus - Climate Etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please define consensus Naomi.

Use it in a sentence, in other words, give it some context.

The general agreement on a proposition by the experts in a field.

So, would that be 50.000001 % of the experts in the field?

Or, would it have to be 66.6666 %?

Or, 90.00 %?

Additionally, a consensus of the experts in the field of theology would be that a God exists? Yes?

consensus
Middle ground in decision making, between total assent and total disagreement. Consensus depends on participants having shared values and goals, and on having broad agreement on specific issues and overall direction. Consensus implies that everyone accepts and supports the decision, and understands the reasons for making it. See also collective responsibility.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/consensus.html#ixzz32Dy9AWt8

looks like 50.00000001 % works as a consensus which of course makes you quite sadly, incompetent in argumentation.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I am almost never wrong.

I've seldom noticed you being right.

I'm saying that the idea that there is a consensus is hype. You can find plenty for starters on this board. You might begin by reading the early posts on this thread. I'm not going to compile information for you, since I've seen enough examples of how you proceed in a discussion to think that I'd be wasting my time.

Ellen

I did just that and can you guess what I did not find? Yup, not a single bit of evidence that contradicts AGW claims.

It's not that you won't "compile information for me" (or as I like to call it, "substantiating your claims like you would if you were presenting a rational argument") because you don't like how I proceed in a discussion. You're just giving excuses because you know your skepticism is based on absolutely nothing that has even a shred of scientific merit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If what you're saying is that AGW claims are false because the scientific consensus is merely "hype" and doesn't actually exist and that therefore there exist reputable scientific organizations and climate scientists whose data and theories refute those claims, then why not simply point those people, data, and their theories out?

My guess is that's because there aren't any, and instead of giving the most decisive and informative refutation of a claim possible, you choose to split hairs about a consensus in order to dodge the real problems with AGW skepticism.

Maybe I'm wrong, and you will point to those people, organizations, data, and theories in your next post and prove it. But I am almost never wrong.

FYI -

Climate change: no consensus on consensus

J. A. Curry and P.J. Webster

School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences

Georgia Institute of Technology

Atlanta, GA 30332-0340

Correspondence: curryja@eas.gatech.edu

Conclusions

The climate community has worked for more than 20 years to establish a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. The IPCC consensus building process arguably played a useful role in the early synthesis of the scientific knowledge and in building political will to act. We have presented perspectives from multiple disciplines that support the inference that the scientific consensus seeking process used by the IPCC has had the unintended consequence of introducing biases into the both the science and related decision making processes. The IPCC scientific consensus has become convoluted with consensus decision making through a ‘speaking consensus to power’ approach. The growing implications of the messy wickedness of the climate change problem are becoming increasingly apparent, highlighting the inadequacies of the ‘consensus to power’ approach for decision making on the complex issues associated with climate change. Further, research from the field of science and technology studies are finding that manufacturing a consensus in the context of the IPCC has acted to hyper-politicize the scientific and policy debates, to the detriment of both. Arguments are increasingly being made to abandon the scientific consensus seeking approach in favor of open debate of the arguments themselves and discussion of a broad range of policy options that stimulate local and regional solutions to the multifaceted and interrelated issues of climate change, land use, resource management, cost effective clean energy solutions, and developing technologies to expand energy access efficiently.

No consensus on consensus - Climate Etc.

That paper in no way says that there is no scientific consensus on AGW, despite the suggestive title. It merely says that a specific set of policies about consensus building at a single organization, namely the IPCC, introduces biases and is otherwise messy. Whether that is true or not, the bottom line is that that article in no way shape or form says what you would like it to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please define consensus Naomi.

Use it in a sentence, in other words, give it some context.

The general agreement on a proposition by the experts in a field.

So, would that be 50.000001 % of the experts in the field?

Or, would it have to be 66.6666 %?

Or, 90.00 %?

Additionally, a consensus of the experts in the field of theology would be that a God exists? Yes?

consensus
Middle ground in decision making, between total assent and total disagreement. Consensus depends on participants having shared values and goals, and on having broad agreement on specific issues and overall direction. Consensus implies that everyone accepts and supports the decision, and understands the reasons for making it. See also collective responsibility.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/consensus.html#ixzz32Dy9AWt8

looks like 50.00000001 % works as a consensus which of course makes you quite sadly, incompetent in argumentation.

A...

Try looking up "scientific consensus", and not "consensus" as it relates to non-scientific contexts such as theology or business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did just that and can you guess what I did not find? Yup, not a single bit of evidence that contradicts AGW claims.

Find any that supports such claims!

It's not that you won't "compile information for me" (or as I like to call it, "substantiating your claims like you would if you were presenting a rational argument") because you don't like how I proceed in a discussion. You're just giving excuses because you know your skepticism is based on absolutely nothing that has even a shred of scientific merit.

Whatever.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now