jmog;1502892 wrote:Can you please quote where I said climate researches "no nothing" (to quote you) about modeling climate and I do?

I once stated that climate is a multi bifurcating system, also know as chaos theory, which is the hardest thing in the world to model. I have also stated that the field of climate science tends to prove an already 'known' conclusion rather than testing hypothesis.

I have NEVER said they "no nothing", those were words YOU said in response to my criticisms and statements about the field.

You don't seem to be very responsive when you see quotes of yourself saying goofy shit but it is right there in the thread where you were talking about chaos theory. You're sitting here and you're going to play language games say that you didn't use the exact phrase "no nothing" but you intimated as much multiple times. They don't know real higher order math like you do and the models can't be trusted, etc.

Why are you acting like you're not readily dismissive of climate science. Just go look through your passing mentions of it in the quotes of you I provided from the evolution thread and don't get up in a language game.

BoatShoes;1502893 wrote:Jmog, please see post 75 where you acknowledged that I provided a quote w/ regard to your calling yourself a scientist on the matter of AGW....in that post you complained about me not providing a quote about you saying it with regard to evolution....which I then provided and you are now complaining that I didn't provide quotes of you calling yourself a scientist on the matter of global warming....LOL!!!



^^^Jeez there you are acknowledging it!!

Yeah, too many posts to keep track. Your posts about evolution and being scientist never said "I believe in creation because I'm a scientist". It said I am a scientist therefore I have spent much time researching both sides of the issue and came up to my own belief system.

jmog;1502895 wrote:I agree that the IPCC has tried to redefine what CI percentages mean, but just because they redefined it to fit their conclusions, doesn't make you posting it over and over again any more correct.

I disagree. They are trying to convey what they mean by their use of a 90% CI in this particular context.

BoatShoes;1502897 wrote:You don't seem to be very responsive when you see quotes of yourself saying goofy shit but it is right there in the thread where you were talking about chaos theory. You're sitting here and you're going to play language games say that you didn't use the exact phrase "no nothing" but you intimated as much multiple times. They don't know real higher order math like you do and the models can't be trusted, etc.

Why are you acting like you're not readily dismissive of climate science. Just go look through your passing mentions of it in the quotes of you I provided from the evolution thread and don't get up in a language game.

YOU stretched my criticisms of modeling chaos theory and statistical use in climate science to "hey, jmog says they 'no nothing'".

I have never once said I'm smarter than them, never once said I know more than they do. I have said my beliefs on why the science is not fool proof or trustworthy at this time.

I could, however, just fall in line like a lemming if it makes you feel better, but that's not the way my scientific mind works. Science, by definition, is supposed to be a skeptical field, which is why papers/research is peer reviewed.

jmog;1502898 wrote:Yeah, too many posts to keep track. Your posts about evolution and being scientist never said "I believe in creation because I'm a scientist". It said I am a scientist therefore I have spent much time researching both sides of the issue and came up to my own belief system.

^More language games. Is this your schtick?? That if there is not the exact phrase you dismiss it out of hand. Obviously I never meant that you said that phrase...the point was to show that you readily appeal to your own authority as a "scientist" in arguments on these matters....which is unequivocally demonstrated by the posts I provided.

jmog;1502901 wrote:YOU stretched my criticisms of modeling chaos theory and statistical use in climate science to "hey, jmog says they 'no nothing'".

I have never once said I'm smarter than them, never once said I know more than they do. I have said my beliefs on why the science is not fool proof or trustworthy at this time.

I could, however, just fall in line like a lemming if it makes you feel better, but that's not the way my scientific mind works. Science, by definition, is supposed to be a skeptical field, which is why papers/research is peer reviewed.

You've never said the exact words that they "know nothing" but you've readily dismissed the matter as if that were the case and appealed to yourself as a scientist as justification for doing so.

BoatShoes;1502902 wrote:^More language games. Is this your schtick?? That if there is not the exact phrase you dismiss it out of hand. Obviously I never meant that you said that phrase...the point was to show that you readily appeal to your own authority as a "scientist" in arguments on these matters....which is unequivocally demonstrated by the posts I provided.

You change what someone says to mean something else and I'm playing language games?

jmog;1502888 wrote:Sorry, items 1-3 he listed are facts. Item 4 is opinion. I will give you that.

I wouldn't even go so far as to say that it is a fact that the earth is warming...fact is not a good word IMHO....it's just a proposition that there seems to be a fair amount of empirical evidence for.

jmog;1502908 wrote:You change what someone says to mean something else and I'm playing language games?

I'm not changing what you say. I'm accurately describing what you convey. Of course you never said the exact words that climate scientists "know nothing". Of course you did not. But could your contempt have been any more clear in the Al Gore Thread?

I am not going into the detail of th statistical models they falsely use to predict or the fact the weather and climate is the most complicated mathematical system know to man. It is a mathematical model with 1000s of bifurcating systems which by definition is chaos theory. Chaotic problems are ones that by definition can not be solved...period.

Everyone who has ever taken a chaos theory PhD math course as I have knows this, but they will continue to pull the wool over people's eyes as long as it is profitable and political gains can be made.

jmog;1502901 wrote:YOU stretched my criticisms of modeling chaos theory and statistical use in climate science to "hey, jmog says they 'no nothing'".

I have never once said I'm smarter than them, never once said I know more than they do. I have said my beliefs on why the science is not fool proof or trustworthy at this time.

I could, however, just fall in line like a lemming if it makes you feel better, but that's not the way my scientific mind works. Science, by definition, is supposed to be a skeptical field, which is why papers/research is peer reviewed.

Now, read what you wrote here and then go look at the post I just quoted of you from the Al Gore thread. Do you see the measured, careful analysis you're acting like you make in the part I bolded....No....

There's a guy saying climate researchers essentially don't know what they're doing because they haven't taken the same higher order math as he does but they'll continue to deceive the public and do so for fraudulent, political reasons.

BoatShoes;1502921 wrote:Now, read what you wrote here and then go look at the post I just quoted of you from the Al Gore thread. Do you see the measured, careful analysis you're acting like you make in the part I bolded....No....

There's a guy saying climate researchers essentially don't know what they're doing because they haven't taken the same higher order math as he does but they'll continue to deceive the public and do so for fraudulent, political reasons.

I did not say they haven't taken higher mathematics, I said anyone who HAS taken chaos theory knows this and in my opinion they are pulling the wool over the eyes of the general public.

NEVER was the words or phrases or suggestions that I am smarter than the climate researchers. You can keep stretching all you want.

My opinion there is a political slant to climate research, absolutely, but never did I say I was smarter than the climate researchers or knew more than they did.

Read carefully, I used the chaos theory statement as evidence of the political slant, saying that if they have taken classowork in chaos theory (and I assume they have) then they know their models are not fool proof. However, they portray that AGW is pretty much a fact, which it is not.

The problem isn't the qualification and expertise of the climate researchers, or even their potential politicization (on average)...the science itself is developing and just not nearly as solid as the general public is lead to believe.

It's not that the space is fraudulent (though it appears some are, and this is actually a somewhat alarming trend in other disciplines as well). And without discussing publication bias and other issues, they are struggling to isolate and prove what might be a very small impact of man.

I think man is having a small impact (which doesn't mean it is necessarily harmful or significant) because the science behind greenhouse gases, etc, is pretty sound. It's a bit of hyperbole, but I feel it's more like throwing a pebble into the ocean.

JMOG's point about chaos theory is a little bit of a sledgehammer to make the point, but again look at what's been happening over the relatively young life of this research. One model after another showing a statisically weak relationship is discarded almost overnight because of some new effect that wasn't expected or controlled for - cow farts, volcano belches, sun spots, oceans sucking up carbon...At some point reasonable people need to ask if man is having such a significant impact, why do all these other things keep "popping-up" to dominate it?

The bottom line is their models are just horribly insufficient at describing a complex system to attach much confidence to their conclusions. It's not junk science, it's just not quite ready for prime time.

BoatShoes;1502629 wrote:In response to the Bolded...no it isn't...it's accurately interpreted as VERY LIKELY warranting further study. And, I wouldn't be surprised if it's revised to 95% in the 2014 report.

Again, you don't actually understand what a CI is and how it is calculated. If your model and/or data is garbage, so is your CI.

"Very likely" in this case is not taking into account the potential or probability for your model and/or data to be garbage. Therefore, when talking in the broader context that considers issues such as model error and measurement bias/error (which the CI does not consider), you have a real world probability/accuracy of something much, much weaker than "very likely".

gut;1502616 wrote:This demonstrates a complete ignorance of the scientific method.

The opposing viewpoint being correct doesn't mean it's correct. However it's interesting to me that so many people who are climate change deniers or however you want to term yourself are 100% convinced that we can have no effect on the environment/climate when there's little evidence to suggest this. And what evidence there is certainly isn't to the standard of medical or pharm research that you set for people who say climate change does exist.

What I mean is that you don't get many people (actually I don't know that I've encountered anyone) who say "I don't think x climate research report is up to snuff in regards to its level of scrutiny and CI so I don't buy it/entirely buy it, however that doesn't mean that what they assert isn't true".

Instead you get more "that report is wrong because of x, therefore we have no effect and cannot have any on the climate/environment".

I Wear Pants;1503230 wrote:The opposing viewpoint being correct doesn't mean it's correct.

LMAO. At least your consistent in demonstrating your ignorance of the scientific method.

And nowhere have I said we have no effect on the environment. I think the results are weak, if not dubious, and the failure of these models to stand even a short test of time would seem to support that.

gut;1503239 wrote:LMAO. At least your consistent in demonstrating your ignorance of the scientific method.

And nowhere have I said we have no effect on the environment. I think the results are weak, if not dubious, and the failure of these models to stand even a short test of time would seem to support that.

That was a typo, I meant incorrect. As in, (and I don't think this is the case but let's assume here) if the research on climate change having a human component is not proper or false or whatever then it doesn't give more validity to the notion that humans do not have an effect on the climate.

I'm not ignorant of the scientific method, I made a typo.

Edit: I had "GFY" with a smiley beside it at the end but apparently this shithole doesn't show smileys anymore so I removed it because it looked like I was being serious without the smiley.

I Wear Pants;1503261 wrote:That was a typo, I meant incorrect. As in, (and I don't think this is the case but let's assume here) if the research on climate change having a human component is not proper or false or whatever then it doesn't give more validity to the notion that humans do not have an effect on the climate.

I'm not ignorant of the scientific method, I made a typo.

Apparently you are, because you don't appear to understand how it works. You don't prove the null hypothesis. How are you going to test man doesn't have an effect? That's the point of the research - the result leads you to reject the hypothesis that man has no effect.

If man has an effect, we should be able to prove it otherwise we should conclude he doesn't. To demand the converse not only turns the scientific method upside down but is truly ignorant on multiple levels.

To me, the results scream there may be a small, even immaterial, effect. The inability to find a model with power that stands the test of time proving man has an effect is actually anecdotal evidence that man may not have an effect. Every model that fails and every theory that is discarded or revised is actually affirming the null hypothesis that man has no impact.

gut;1503275 wrote:Apparently you are, because you don't appear to understand how it works. You don't prove the null hypothesis. How are you going to test man doesn't have an effect? That's the point of the research - the result leads you to reject the hypothesis that man has no effect.

If man has an effect, we should be able to prove it otherwise we should conclude he doesn't. To demand the converse not only turns the scientific method upside down but is truly ignorant on multiple levels.

To me, the results scream there may be a small, even immaterial, effect. The inability to find a model with power that stands the test of time proving man has an effect is actually anecdotal evidence that man may not have an effect. Every model that fails and every theory that is discarded or revised is actually affirming the null hypothesis that man has no impact.

You're right, you don't prove the null hypothesis. I was definitely being dumb there.

I Wear Pants;1503285 wrote:You're right, you don't prove the null hypothesis. I was definitely being dumb there.

I get what you were trying to say, and I don't disagree. It would be nice to prove conclusively one way or the other...and I think man does have an effect to some degree, and it doesn't hurt to continue trying to prove it and quantify it.

But until then it's just faith that man has a material impact, and my position is 100% that faith alone, not matter how well intentioned, does not warrant forcing potentially harmful social and economic change.

I don't buy into the urgency or alarmist proclamations about how dire the situation is. And I get offended by people (no one here, this has been a surprisingly mature and cordial discussion) who dismiss and attack those who say simply the science isn't nearly that compelling.

gut;1503313 wrote:I get what you were trying to say, and I don't disagree. It would be nice to prove conclusively one way or the other...and I think man does have an effect to some degree, and it doesn't hurt to continue trying to prove it and quantify it.

But until then it's just faith that man has a material impact, and my position is 100% that faith alone, not matter how well intentioned, does not warrant forcing potentially harmful social and economic change.

I don't buy into the urgency or alarmist proclamations about how dire the situation is. And I get offended by people (no one here, this has been a surprisingly mature and cordial discussion) who dismiss and attack those who say simply the science isn't nearly that compelling.

My thing is that I don't think the economic and societal changes are very harmful and in some cases aren't harmful at all/are beneficial. And should current scientific consensus be correct we're killing ourselves down the line by not doing something about it.

And even ignoring the environmental change argument things like increased recycling, greater energy efficiency, and a greater use of renewable energy is a benefit in the long run. Plus I'd rather us have a head start, because eventually we will not be able to use fossil fuels like we do now, whether that's in 20 years or 200 years it will happen. And if it's in 200 years I think everyone will be grateful that we started innovating and investing in alternatives before the "oh shit, we're out" moment.

I Wear Pants;1503324 wrote:My thing is that I don't think the economic and societal changes are very harmful and in some cases aren't harmful at all/are beneficial. And should current scientific consensus be correct we're killing ourselves down the line by not doing something about it.

Perhaps, if done very slowly and responsibly (which is practically never the case). I'm not a fan of central planning/engineering society on faith. And, really, if you take an honest and objective look at the evolution of the theory and wild swings it's difficult not to dismiss the science as still relatively clueless. 20 years from now they'll probably be scrambling trying to figure out how to warm the damn thing back up. If I can make a comparison, I might say they are in the leech stage of medicine - they still just know far less than they don't know.

Look at windfarms in the 80's. Disastrous waste of money. Maybe we learned something from that...but 20-30 years before we start seeing an ROI?

For all the problems and frictions with capitalism, one thing it still does really well is getting behind tech when it's viable and there's a demand. We can go back and forth all day about positives and negatives devoting resources to an issue that might not be an issue. The short-term transition costs are always high, and the long-run benefits vs. opportunity costs uncertain. It's not something I can just go along with "where's the harm?"

gut;1503356 wrote:Perhaps, if done very slowly and responsibly (which is practically never the case). I'm not a fan of central planning/engineering society on faith. And, really, if you take an honest and objective look at the evolution of the theory and wild swings it's difficult not to dismiss the science as still relatively clueless. 20 years from now they'll probably be scrambling trying to figure out how to warm the damn thing back up. If I can make a comparison, I might say they are in the leech stage of medicine - they still just know far less than they don't know.

Look at windfarms in the 80's. Disastrous waste of money. Maybe we learned something from that...but 20-30 years before we start seeing an ROI?

For all the problems and frictions with capitalism, one thing it still does really well is getting behind tech when it's viable and there's a demand. We can go back and forth all day about positives and negatives devoting resources to an issue that might not be an issue. The short-term transition costs are always high, and the long-run benefits vs. opportunity costs uncertain. It's not something I can just go along with "where's the harm?"

Fossil fuels will run out. That much is certain.

I Wear Pants;1503361 wrote:Fossil fuels will run out. That much is certain.

Some day, perhaps. It's a given if the population keeps expanding geometrically, but this is actually a great point in this debate. Because fossil fuels running out and dwindling was a "consensus" not long ago. It was dire. New discoveries and technological advances have really walked that back, though.

We certainly don't need to push the market to find alternatives because of climate change. The market was already going down that path as oil prices rise.

I would limit the involvement of govt in this regard only to funding research at the university level. To nascent, uncertain and far from viable for the market to care much for. We don't need the govt passing oppressive environmental regs or launching start-ups.

gut;1503393 wrote:Some day, perhaps. It's a given if the population keeps expanding geometrically, but this is actually a great point in this debate. Because fossil fuels running out and dwindling was a "consensus" not long ago. It was dire. New discoveries and technological advances have really walked that back, though.

We certainly don't need to push the market to find alternatives because of climate change. The market was already going down that path as oil prices rise.

I would limit the involvement of govt in this regard only to funding research at the university level. To nascent, uncertain and far from viable for the market to care much for. We don't need the govt passing oppressive environmental regs or launching start-ups.

That program was on the whole successful despite all the bemoaning of Solyndra. Tesla is a wonderful example.

And we likely have different opinions on what counts as "oppressive" environmental regulations.

I Wear Pants;1503398 wrote:That program was on the whole successful despite all the bemoaning of Solyndra. Tesla is a wonderful example.

And we likely have different opinions on what counts as "oppressive" environmental regulations.

Tesla still isn't viable. They are making money only because of selling their carbon credits. Great example of being completely propped up by the govt, on both ends. And it begs the question of how necessary and what contributions Tesla made to the market. All the big boys would, and already were, researching hybrids and battery power.

There were more failures than Solyndra, and who knows how many other cases the govt crowded-out other investors. There is absolutely no need for the govt to get into the VC game. None. And in most cases, these companies stand a better chance with private capital and the governance/expertise that comes with it.