Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Science does not use "the preponderance of evidence points to", where did you hear that? You MUST explain all divergence or failures of your hypothesis.
You make it sound like it is a simple matter of weights on a scale.
It is often said that proof is for alcohol and mathematics, as these are really the only areas where proof has any real meaning. "Proof" is something that the opponents of science are always clamouring for, yet is not actually something that science suggests it will give - specifically in the common sense definition of "proof" that suggests that a claim has been proven 100%.
Surprisingly to some, science does not deal in proof, in spite of the word being associated with science a whole lot more than perhaps it should be. Scientists will throw around phrases like "we've just proved our theory" when they should know better, but this can be excusable human nature. With some theories its very difficult to not think of them as proven, Newton's laws of motion, for instance, which have always and will always describe objects within the limits of those theories. Science as a method, however, deals not in proof but in evidence, and perhaps disproof when the evidence contradicts a hypothesis. Proof - RationalWiki
It is often said that proof is for alcohol and mathematics, as these are really the only areas where proof has any real meaning. "Proof" is something that the opponents of science are always clamouring for, yet is not actually something that science suggests it will give - specifically in the common sense definition of "proof" that suggests that a claim has been proven 100%.
Surprisingly to some, science does not deal in proof, in spite of the word being associated with science a whole lot more than perhaps it should be. Scientists will throw around phrases like "we've just proved our theory" when they should know better, but this can be excusable human nature. With some theories its very difficult to not think of them as proven, Newton's laws of motion, for instance, which have always and will always describe objects within the limits of those theories. Science as a method, however, deals not in proof but in evidence, and perhaps disproof when the evidence contradicts a hypothesis. Proof - RationalWiki
I never said anything about 100% proven, so I am not sure how that point is relevant.
Science is a process of verification, validation and replication. There is a distinct process and requirement for a hypothesis to be accepted as valid. My point is that CAGW has not achieved that requirement.
As I said earlier - people are starting to draw their own conclusions (and this is just the beginning):
"A poll due for release on Wednesday shows that a large majority of Americans believe that this year’s unusually warm winter, last year’s blistering summer and some other weather disasters were probably made worse by global warming. And by a 2-to-1 margin, the public says the weather has been getting worse, rather than better, in recent years. "
As I said earlier - people are starting to draw their own conclusions (and this is just the beginning):
"A poll due for release on Wednesday shows that a large majority of Americans believe that this year’s unusually warm winter, last year’s blistering summer and some other weather disasters were probably made worse by global warming. And by a 2-to-1 margin, the public says the weather has been getting worse, rather than better, in recent years. "
Considering this has been a push for political and public view, I guess this is a good thing in their eyes.
Fact is, The March record month isn't being attributed to CAGW.
None of the agencies are attempting to make such a connection that the media is. They are chalking it up to persistent weather patterns and randomness within the systems.
Usually these guys are sensationalist, it is nice to see them not drawing any conclusions to CAGW which they have a tendency to do.
Also note, that while march was a record month, it isn't that much of a record over 1910. Now you may think that doesn't mean anything, but keep in mind C02 ppm was below 350 (What Hansen states as a safe acceptable level), we are currently at about 392ppm, and so this creates problems with the belief that C02 rise is causing these incidents.
As for public opinion. The last poll I saw showed a large percentage of people thinking that the issue was largely due to natural variability and a recent Gallop poll shows the concern for CAGW to be at an extreme low. So I am not sure the NYT's poll really has any meaning (Polls rarely do anyway due to their poor methodology).
As for tornadoes, I find that one rather disingenuous. If anyone knows anything about how they calculate tornadoes, they know that about 4 years ago they changed the method concerning their calculations. They used to only count F2+ before that and now due to our technology, they count F0+ which makes historic comparisons a bit devious. Add in the fact that they also counted the 10 tornadoes recently in Kansas as 800+ because they counted the same signature each time it lifted and dropped down for a moment as separate tornado and it just gets... silly. Our records of tornadoes (when properly compared) are still far below the 1979 outbreak to which if you evaluate the temp records, was in a cooling trend.
So I guess it isn't surprising that some people are buying into the media hype concerning this, I mean... many people accept what they are told and don't bother to look into the details. /shrug
Considering this has been a push for political and public view, I guess this is a good thing in their eyes.
Fact is, The March record month isn't being attributed to CAGW.
None of the agencies are attempting to make such a connection that the media is. They are chalking it up to persistent weather patterns and randomness within the systems.
Usually these guys are sensationalist, it is nice to see them not drawing any conclusions to CAGW which they have a tendency to do.
Also note, that while march was a record month, it isn't that much of a record over 1910. Now you may think that doesn't mean anything, but keep in mind C02 ppm was below 350 (What Hansen states as a safe acceptable level), we are currently at about 392ppm, and so this creates problems with the belief that C02 rise is causing these incidents.
As for public opinion. The last poll I saw showed a large percentage of people thinking that the issue was largely due to natural variability and a recent Gallop poll shows the concern for CAGW to be at an extreme low. So I am not sure the NYT's poll really has any meaning (Polls rarely do anyway due to their poor methodology).
As for tornadoes, I find that one rather disingenuous. If anyone knows anything about how they calculate tornadoes, they know that about 4 years ago they changed the method concerning their calculations. They used to only count F2+ before that and now due to our technology, they count F0+ which makes historic comparisons a bit devious. Add in the fact that they also counted the 10 tornadoes recently in Kansas as 800+ because they counted the same signature each time it lifted and dropped down for a moment as separate tornado and it just gets... silly. Our records of tornadoes (when properly compared) are still far below the 1979 outbreak to which if you evaluate the temp records, was in a cooling trend.
So I guess it isn't surprising that some people are buying into the media hype concerning this, I mean... many people accept what they are told and don't bother to look into the details. /shrug
Concerning my above response to the poster, I noticed this happened to pop up concerning that "poll" and I found it rather interesting.
You can decide on your own what the issue is. I think the lacking in that particular argument is rather evident.
That's a bullsh*t link that tries to pawn off this years RECORD warm March temps as some kind of selective memory - this when even YOUR link (from the previous post) states:
"Record and near-record breaking temperatures dominated the eastern two-thirds of the nation and contributed to the warmest March on record for the contiguous United States, a record that dates back to 1895."
It is what it is - and if the models are correct (and I believe the are), those types of occurances will happen more and more frequently. As I said, people are starting to draw their OWN conclusions from what they are witnessing with their own eyes and soon your tiny (but loud) cadre of "prostitute scientists" will sound increasingly silly and will be simply ignored - but don't worry I'm sure they'll find jobs again with the Tobacco Industry.
That's a bullsh*t link that tries to pawn off this years RECORD warm March temps as some kind of selective memory - this when even YOUR link (from the previous post) states:
"Record and near-record breaking temperatures dominated the eastern two-thirds of the nation and contributed to the warmest March on record for the contiguous United States, a record that dates back to 1895."
It is what it is - and if the models are correct (and I believe the are), those types of occurances will happen more and more frequently. As I said, people are starting to draw their OWN conclusions from what they are witnessing with their own eyes and soon your tiny (but loud) cadre of "prostitute scientists" will sound increasingly silly and will be simply ignored - but don't worry I'm sure they'll find jobs again with the Tobacco Industry.
Stay tuned...
Ken
I think you need to read the links and my response again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
