jmog;1502425 wrote:Again, I called myself a scientist when someone attacked my posible knowledge of atmospheric sciences. YOU said that I said that I believe in creationism "because I am a scientist". You have now moved the goalposts to a different subject once again.

The "hogwash" is the those saying we have irrefutible proof that GW is mostly Anthropogenic.

Keep the goalposts where you left them, show proof that I have said "I believe in creation because I am a scientist".

Don't switch it to me talking about doing actual research IN THIS FIELD (emission and EPA, not directly climage change) and therefore being skeptical about the man made affects in GW.

Once again, you failed because you can't keep your story straight.

jmog;223863 wrote:Anyone who truly understands the math/statistics/science involved in the creation of the first life could tell you why its ignorant to believe it just happened by chance.

jmog;223888 wrote:Then you truly don't understand statistics and the science involved in creating the first life. Like I said, even the evolutionary biologists don't believe it was by chance anymore.

jmog;223938 wrote:Google search my friend, its a very common belief of the origin of life on Earth among evolutionary biologists who study this subject.

Then, why you ask the origin of life on the "other" planet, they are then just lost.

I wish, as a scientist, I was making this up.

Look up Abiogenesis, which is the scientific study of the origin of life here on Earth. I hate wikipedia, but its a quick source on the subject if you don't want to dig through scientific papers on the subject.

jmog;228508 wrote:Trust me, even as someone who believes in creation AND is a scientist, if you read my original posts, you'll see that I said that ID should not be taught in science class but maybe in philosophy.

I agree with your logic/philosophy class observation though, even as an engineer two of my favorite classes in college were logic and philosophy.

jmog;229572 wrote:
Mock if you want, but before you do let me ask how many college chemistry and physics classes have you taken? I have a Bachelor's in Chemical Engineering with a minor in both chemistry and physics, a Bachelor's in Applied Math, and a Master's in Chemical Engineering.
I've probably taken more classes on that subject alone than you have total science classes.

I actually understand how radiometric dating techniques work, what math is used, what instrumentation is used, what ASSUMPTIONS are used, etc.

jmog;248503 wrote:
If you read back through this thread, you will find that most of us that believe in a form or creation/ID are NOT advocating for it to be taught in science classes. As a scientist myself I've said "no, it shouldn't" on this thread.

So, before you get your panties in a bunch at least read the thread.

We've said it could be taught in philosophy or possibly even a scientific philosophy class, but it shouldn't be in the pure sciences.

jmog;252395 wrote:1. Show me proof that they didn't walk the Earth at the same time. I'm not saying I'm 100% correct and I know everything, I'm just saying that the evolutionary biologists don't either.

2. If there is one subject you listed I understand VERY well as a master degree'd chemical engineer, its radioactive dating. Trust me, there are MANY assumptions/mistakes/bad data in these systems. Some intentional to sell the science, some unintentional because they just didn't know. For instance on the U-Pb dating, the assumption of all the Pb came from U was intentional, but the mistaken halo burns was not as the technology to examine the halos is relatively new.

3. Show me a "conspiracy" theory I came up with. I said that many scientists will manipulate data to fit their claims. That is a fact, look at how many of the "missing links" have been shown to be hoax's, people filing down jaw bones and matching human skulls with orangatang jaws to make it look like a "missing link". There's a difference in a "conspiracy theory" and manipulation of data. Heck, look at the scientists behind global warming, you can't tell me they haven't manipulated data to fit their claims.

jmog;274201 wrote:Your sounding a pompous know-it-all.

Who said God put anything in the ground? Search the posts and see if anyone has said that.

jmog;275454 wrote:I don't have a misunderstanding of theories vs laws.

As a scientist myself (3 scientific degrees) I understand the relationship between theories and laws.

I said that theories are our thoughts on how the universe behaves, laws are things we know as "facts" about how the universe behaves.

At times theories do become laws and vice versa. Before there was a law of conservation of mass was first stated as a physical theory by Russian scientist Mikhail Lomonosov in 1748. The theory was later confirmed through many exhaustive experiments to be "fact" and changed to the law of conservation of mass.

So you are incorrect, theories are tested over and over again in science, and at the time they are found to be factual, they are not a theory anymore, they are a law.

Newton's Universal Law of Gravititation was originally a theory.

You name a scientific law, and I can nearly guarantee that when it was first proposed it was a scientific theory or a scientific principle.

jmog;275507 wrote:I'm not the only one, there are MANY scientists that know C14 dating is a farce for anything older than about 50k years. There is a reason they stopped using it and started using other radiometric dating techniques.

The problem is, they will never admit they were wrong and just say they "are now using more updated/scientifically advanced" dating techniques when in reality the math/science is the same.

I'm not going to spell it out for you again and explain how to use google so you can look up the many scientists who have questions/concerns with radiometric dating. (See, I can be pompous too).

jmog;275552 wrote:
You're happy to accept bad information as fact as long as its said by a scientist? Maybe my scientific training that involves the thought process of "question everything" makes me different, but I don't just accept what others say as fact without looking into it myself.

jmog;275642 wrote:1. I do believe the Bible is 100% correct, but I stop you at that. My believe in a young Earth is NOT based solely on the Bible and never has been. Matter of fact at one point in my scientific career I believed everything they tell us about the age of the universe it wasn't until I started to question it and research it myself that I saw the possibility of a young Earth SCIENTIFICALLY. It just happened to fit with one Biblical theory of the age of the Earth. I've done researh that includes anything from ocean salt concentrations to planetary motions to radiometric dating techniques to plate tectonics to backup my thoughts (as has many other scientists, not just me). I do not use anything in the Bible to describe the age of the Earth, period.

2. Where did I say I reject everything? If you don't understand that this topic of the age of the Earth is such a small percentage of science then you are uninformed. I don't reject the possibility of the universe being billions of years old, I reject the idea that it is fact. There is a huge difference there.

The multiple scientific journals that have published my few papers might disagree with your assertation that I'm not a scientist. In your logic every scientist who doesn't accept that "status quo" of science at that time isn't a scientist at all.

jmog;277198 wrote:You have a very naive few of some scientists. Look at the AGW debacle if you don't believe some scientists skew numbers on purpose to fit their belief system.

Why would most of the scientists "want" the Earth to be old? Because in order for evolution to make ANY sense at all the Earth has to be extremely hold, evolution makes zero sense if the Earth is young. So, to fit the evolution model, they believe the Earth is old before they even do any calculations. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why they would "want" it old.

jmog;289778 wrote:
Also, as a scientist I believe in science and reason and I have yet to find anything that makes science and reason mutually exclusive with a faith in a supreme being.

gut;1502599 wrote:You are putting entirely too much faith and misunderstanding of a 90% CI. What you are proposing is not conservative, it's destructive. That's a lot of unwarranted faith in a bunch of lawyers as central planners.

The reason so many of these models are failing and proving inadequate is because "very likely" tremendously overstates reality. The reason you go with a higher CI in such complex systems is because of the very real probability that you are measuring unaccounted for factors and not an impact of the test variable.

A 99% CI means you are increasing your margin for error given the inherent issues with the models and data, that should be intuitive even for a layperson, but also obvious if you've been following this story for the last 15-20 years.

A 90% CI is more accurately interpreted as evidence of a POSSIBLE relationship warranting further study. You should never put your money on that relationship actually existing - it is that tenuous. The "very likely" is specific to the model and data as represented, which is to say if the model and data DON'T accurately represent reality then the only thing very likely is that your model is junk. However politics (and more broadly than Dem/Repub) comes into play and grossly misrepresents the "certainty" of a relationship.

Now what SHOULD happen, if there is truly a relationship, is models evolve and you get real power at a 95% or 99% significance. But that's not really been the direction. In fairness, computing power has been a fairly limiting constraint. Another real problem is we seem to be identifying NEW sources of NEW error, rather than closing the gap on the existing error. What that means is this model here that was "very likely" at the 90% level has been invalidated, and now here's a NEW model that is "very likely" at the 90% level.

Wash, rinse and repeat. Then you being a rational and intelligent fellow, how many times are they going to get it wrong before you start to question the "strong scientific certainty" you've been led to believe exists?

BoatShoes;1502555 wrote:I disagree...the world is aplenty with people who have "been there done that".....when 3 people who've been there done that think X while 97 of the people who've been there and done that think Y.....a rational bystander can reasonably question the assertions made by the 3 people. The burden is on them to claim why they have the monopoly on veritas while the other 97 don't and a reasonable interlocutor who is not a member of those 97 can properly evaluate claims and need not merely accept..."Oh you've been there done that...ok then, you must be right".

BoatShoes;1502542 wrote:Like I said, we covered that previously. The rest of this is all available in the link;



Attempts to figure out what percent of scientists agree with AGW, they routinely yield numbers at or above 90%.

The 97% number comes from here:





Doran, Peter T.; Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (January 20, 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

BoatShoes;1502551 wrote:I don't think a 90% CI is "crap" when it comes to Anthropogenic climate change. You're talking about a difference of virtually certain --- 99% CI, Extremely likely, 95% CI and Very Likely at 90% CI according to the IPCC. So we're still talking about Very Likely at 90% CI.

gut;1502565 wrote:Let me clarify where I'm coming from on all this:
1) The earth is in a warming phase

2) Man is having some effect, as consistently measured at the 90% level.

3) A 90% level is rather small and trivial, because a 95% level would fail to determine an effect

4) Given the complexity of the issues, anything less than a 99% CI does not justify the damaging economic costs attempting to address the issue

BoatShoes;1502570 wrote:In the IPCC's third assessment report in 2001 they had a 66% CI w/ regard to AGW and then in 2007 it was revised to a 90% CI in the fourth assessment report in 2007. I find that to be significant and do not dismiss it out of hand as "crap" and indicative of crap, biased science, etc. because it is not 95% or 99%. The next assessment report is due in 2014 so we'll see if it changes.

BoatShoes;1502619 wrote:Like I said, I couldn't find it. For whatever reason when I search "Jmog" and "Evolution", this thread didn't pop up. But, just searching "evolution" and I was able to find it just sifting through the threads on evolution. As you can see, there are no shortage of instances wherein you appeal to your authority as a scientist.






















^^^^A favorite wherein you talk about dinosaurs walking on earth as the same time as humans and connect your disbelief in AGW to your disbelief in Evolution AND remind us how you have degrees in the natural sciences so you should be trusted!




^^^^This post was quoted for irony.







^^^^^Here you are appealing to the supposedly large number of scientists who have problems with C14 dating....an argumentative technique that you have readily complained about with regard to the matter at hand in this thread.







^^^^Here you are suggesting that scientists misrepresent data w/ regard to evolution and compare it to AGW and suggest that scientists are biased against young earth creationism....as we can see your epistemology w/ regard to AGW and evolution are incredibly similar...hence why I brought it up in the first place.




There are more but that's enough for now ...and I didn't even find the post that I was thinking of.

BoatShoes;1502629 wrote:In response to the Bolded...no it isn't...it's accurately interpreted as VERY LIKELY warranting further study.

Belly35;1502819 wrote:Here let me help.

Whenever the word “Global” is applied to anything = fraud, lying, scam or a socialist mentality concept guaranteed to fail.

jmog;1502804 wrote:For the second time you fail to prove what you have said. You said that I stated I don't believe in man made GW because I am a scientist. Once again, you failed at this and MOVED the GOALPOSTS to an evolution debate.

You fail BS, copying pretty close to the same posts as the last time you did this on this thread does not change the fact that you were wrong both times.

It's ok to admit you were wrong, just go ahead it's possible.

jmog;1502807 wrote:False, so false. Gut is correct, you are not.

jmog;1502801 wrote:lol...please take a senior level statistics course at a university.

In 2001 they should have been thrown out using a 66% CI. That is laughable. The 90% is still crap and like gut said, isn't enough to require the economica collapse of nations.

Get it to 99% CI, and we'll talk.

jmog;1502797 wrote:You just proved that you have zero statistical knowledge, I am sorry, but you shouldn't talk about confidence intervals anymore.

Please don't, anyone who has ever taken a higher level statistics course (not freshman basic statistics) knows that any random data can produce 90% CI. 90% CI is so crap statistically its funny.

When we do statistical models in engineering to say prove that one type of part is better than another, 98 or 99% is used, we don't even allow 95%.

Trust me, no one but climatetologists are using 90%, that's how rare it is, no one else.

jmog;1502800 wrote:100% fact right there, very nicely put gut.

BoatShoes;1502862 wrote:Jmog, I have now provided evidence of your blathering on about yourself being a scientist in both the context of evolution and climate change.

BoatShoes;1502871 wrote:No Jmog, take your condescending attitude elsewhere. A 90% CI as was used be the IPCC means Very Likely and it was used out of an abundance of caution. You would discount it anyway if the IPCC came out saying that they had a 95%-99% CI (which they very well might in 2014) so I don't why you're getting such a boner over this.

Like I said, just because you use the standard of Virtually Certain to justify choices and actions in your combustion engineering and would not take action based on something being "Very Likely" does not mean that that is not what the 90% CI standard means. A 90% CI is equivalent to Very Likely. Whether it rises to the standard that would justify action that Virtual Certainty does...is something different. I realize that a 90% CI would not be acceptable if you're building a Car for example...but in the nascent science of climate change it is silly to dismiss it as "crap" as their models are getting better and better trying to approach the standards that would be acceptable in other fields.

jmog;1502789 wrote:
Now, go with all scientists/engineers in general and you see MUCH lower percentages who believe GW is mostly Anthropogenic. I keep trying to tell you this, but you don't want to read.

jmog;1502883 wrote:I'm sorry, but you keep reiterating false claims about what 90% CI in statistics means. If I got condescending it was only because you have been explained to by people who understand statistics multiple times what it means but keep posting the same line/quote from the IPCC in rebuttal. 90% CI is a statistical term, talk to a statistician about what it means instead of the IPCC. You will get a different answer than the one you have repeated stated over and over again.

BoatShoes;1502875 wrote:Not really a fact. Reasonable minds can disagree on Gut's conclusion given the gravity at stake. IMHO, the conservative thing to do is engage in action when it's very likely and not wait for virtual certainty. But, I suppose if we don't want to be conservative on the matter we can wait until the 2014 report when there's a 95 or 99% CI.

BoatShoes;1502884 wrote:^^^If this is your point it is silly. Seems irrelevant to poll psychologists on whether they believe in AGW. Jmog's big argument after saying that Climate Researchers no nothing about how to properly model the climate (while he does) is that we should care what scientists who do not do climate research think about AGW when trying to figure out what percentage of the scientific community supports AGW.

"So, 97% of climate researchers polled agree that humans are causing climate change but oh wait, let's make sure we ask Indiana Jones in the anthropology department! See, I told you boatshoes!!!" lol

Who would even conduct such a poll?? "Let's not only poll experts but also all the other "scientists" out there".

Better yet, we don'[t have to because all of these other types of scientists have science academies....and there is not one scientific academy that has issued a dissenting opinion on the matter.

For example, your colleagues, the National Academy of Engineering, agree with AGW.

jmog;1502877 wrote:No, you provided it about evolution, not climate change. Keep trying. You keep reposting the same quotes from an evolution thread but have yet to find one where I said something along the lines of "I believe GW is not mostly Anthropogenic because I am a scientist".

jmog;1502425 wrote:Again, I called myself a scientist when someone attacked my posible knowledge of atmospheric sciences. YOU said that I said that I believe in creationism "because I am a scientist". You have now moved the goalposts to a different subject once again.

The "hogwash" is the those saying we have irrefutible proof that GW is mostly Anthropogenic.

Keep the goalposts where you left them, show proof that I have said "I believe in creation because I am a scientist".

Don't switch it to me talking about doing actual research IN THIS FIELD (emission and EPA, not directly climage change) and therefore being skeptical about the man made affects in GW.

BoatShoes;1502886 wrote:No I am not. Per the IPCC's on standards.


http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-6.html