Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics  
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2101  
Old 09.01.2017, 10:37
dodgyken's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Democratic Republic Kenistan
Posts: 10,666
Groaned at 281 Times in 232 Posts
Thanked 19,403 Times in 7,402 Posts
dodgyken has a reputation beyond reputedodgyken has a reputation beyond reputedodgyken has a reputation beyond reputedodgyken has a reputation beyond reputedodgyken has a reputation beyond reputedodgyken has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

I blame clean eating.

Clean eating = more veg = more intestinal gas = more farting = increased methane = increased temperatures

That might not be true - but it will give a scientist somewhere something to try and get a grant to research.
The following 2 users would like to thank dodgyken for this useful post:
  #2102  
Old 09.01.2017, 10:43
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 12,345
Groaned at 338 Times in 275 Posts
Thanked 26,173 Times in 10,978 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Much as I admire Einstein, I don't agree with this statement; a single experiment doesn't prove anything either way (Andrew Wakefield anyone?), that is just cherry-picking. However, when a series of experiments and data from independent sources start to corroborate, then you might have to reconsider your hypothesis.
I disagree.

Andrew Wakefield isn't here or there in this type of discussion as he didn't actually provide any tenable counter example.

If there is a theory and that theory has a valid counterexample then people saying "we won't change our opinions until we see more counter examples" are just being obstructive and unscientific.

Example.

- Scientist 1: No even number can be prime
- Scientist 2: What about the number 2
- Scienitst 1: Stop cherry picking. A single counter example does not disprove a theory. Are you Andrew Wakelfield or something?
  #2103  
Old 09.01.2017, 11:03
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
I blame clean eating.

Clean eating = more veg = more intestinal gas = more farting = increased methane = increased temperatures

That might not be true - but it will give a scientist somewhere something to try and get a grant to research.
That may well be true. But eating the veg second hand after a cow has pre-processed it is even worse. A cow produces much more methane than the beardiest vegan on a lentil feast.
  #2104  
Old 09.01.2017, 11:05
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 12,345
Groaned at 338 Times in 275 Posts
Thanked 26,173 Times in 10,978 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
That may well be true. But eating the veg second hand after a cow has pre-processed it is even worse. A cow produces much more methane than the beardiest vegan on a lentil feast.
Alpine pizza?
This user would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #2105  
Old 09.01.2017, 11:08
dodgyken's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Democratic Republic Kenistan
Posts: 10,666
Groaned at 281 Times in 232 Posts
Thanked 19,403 Times in 7,402 Posts
dodgyken has a reputation beyond reputedodgyken has a reputation beyond reputedodgyken has a reputation beyond reputedodgyken has a reputation beyond reputedodgyken has a reputation beyond reputedodgyken has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
That may well be true. But eating the veg second hand after a cow has pre-processed it is even worse. A cow produces much more methane than the beardiest vegan on a lentil feast.
Clean eating allows the eating of meat too
  #2106  
Old 09.01.2017, 11:10
st2lemans's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lugano
Posts: 31,788
Groaned at 2,368 Times in 1,722 Posts
Thanked 38,746 Times in 18,256 Posts
st2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

I produce plenty of methane regardless of what I eat!

Tom
The following 2 users would like to thank st2lemans for this useful post:
  #2107  
Old 09.01.2017, 11:10
PaddyG's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Pensier, Fribourg
Posts: 9,243
Groaned at 118 Times in 102 Posts
Thanked 16,857 Times in 5,912 Posts
PaddyG has a reputation beyond reputePaddyG has a reputation beyond reputePaddyG has a reputation beyond reputePaddyG has a reputation beyond reputePaddyG has a reputation beyond reputePaddyG has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
I disagree.

Andrew Wakefield isn't here or there in this type of discussion as he didn't actually provide any tenable counter example.

If there is a theory and that theory has a valid counterexample then people saying "we won't change our opinions until we see more counter examples" are just being obstructive and unscientific.

Example.

- Scientist 1: No even number can be prime
- Scientist 2: What about the number 2
- Scienitst 1: Stop cherry picking. A single counter example does not disprove a theory. Are you Andrew Wakelfield or something?
Seriously? So your saying that if we have an established hypothesis A, yet a single set of data supports a contradicting hypothesis B, you're just going to say, "OK, B must be correct" without wanting to corroborate it? Your example is just lamentable.
This user would like to thank PaddyG for this useful post:
  #2108  
Old 09.01.2017, 11:14
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Ausland, escaped .ch scamland
Posts: 239
Groaned at 49 Times in 24 Posts
Thanked 156 Times in 83 Posts
armed_neutrality is considered unworthyarmed_neutrality is considered unworthyarmed_neutrality is considered unworthy
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
Care to substantiate that with actual references.
Not really how this stuff works. Best way to understand this is to be well read in fields around epistemology, scepticism, empiricism, philosophy and history of science. If you really can't see it already, but are open to your position being challenged not just reinforced, then try to gain a historical perspective through lots of reading in those areas.

It would be interesting to try and compose a reading list but I can't right now.

Quote:
A decent sized list of names for example?[...]
You want names of scientismists or names of something else?

For relevant scientismists, leaders include Mann and anyone at cru.uea.ac.uk (eg Phil wotsisname). But there is a cast of millions. It's been a while since I looked at this and on the whole it's only of interest to those of an entomological bent.

Since scientismists outnumber scientists by around 50:1, and it is the scientists who have something valuable to add, it would be better to focus on the scientists. But better, and this is the point, on the stuff directly. There is no priesthood in this. Use the social network as the way to efficiently seek out material that is likely to have value, and then treat that material sceptically. Don't use the social network as the be all and end all, or use it as a truthometer.
  #2109  
Old 09.01.2017, 11:23
PaddyG's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Pensier, Fribourg
Posts: 9,243
Groaned at 118 Times in 102 Posts
Thanked 16,857 Times in 5,912 Posts
PaddyG has a reputation beyond reputePaddyG has a reputation beyond reputePaddyG has a reputation beyond reputePaddyG has a reputation beyond reputePaddyG has a reputation beyond reputePaddyG has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Not really how this stuff works. Best way to understand this is to be well read in fields around epistemology, scepticism, empiricism, philosophy and history of science. If you really can't see it already, but are open to your position being challenged not just reinforced, then try to gain a historical perspective through lots of reading in those areas.

It would be interesting to try and compose a reading list but I can't right now.



You want names of scientismists or names of something else?

For relevant scientismists, leaders include Mann and anyone at cru.uea.ac.uk (eg Phil wotsisname). But there is a cast of millions. It's been a while since I looked at this and on the whole it's only of interest to those of an entomological bent.

Since scientismists outnumber scientists by around 50:1, and it is the scientists who have something valuable to add, it would be better to focus on the scientists. But better, and this is the point, on the stuff directly. There is no priesthood in this. Use the social network as the way to efficiently seek out material that is likely to have value, and then treat that material sceptically. Don't use the social network as the be all and end all, or use it as a truthometer.
That's the kind of thinking normally attributed to the Anti-vaccine, anti-GMO crowd.
And wtf is a scientismist? Or is it basically your own oh-so-clever perjorative for a scientist you don't agree with? Was it Neil deGrasse Tyson or Carl Sagan who said: "science is right, whether you believe in it or not"?
The following 3 users would like to thank PaddyG for this useful post:
  #2110  
Old 09.01.2017, 11:36
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Ausland, escaped .ch scamland
Posts: 239
Groaned at 49 Times in 24 Posts
Thanked 156 Times in 83 Posts
armed_neutrality is considered unworthyarmed_neutrality is considered unworthyarmed_neutrality is considered unworthy
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Quote:
View Post
[...]
To quote Albert Einstein "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong".[...]
Much as I admire Einstein, I don't agree with this statement; a single experiment doesn't prove anything either way (Andrew Wakefield anyone?), that is just cherry-picking. However, when a series of experiments and data from independent sources start to corroborate, then you might have to reconsider your hypothesis.
You are right, but that's what he meant isn't it?

If we talk about "a single book that changed the world", does it have to be a single copy of a book?

Similarly, experiment can refer to the individual meal or to the recipe. "This is a classic experiment that every chemistry student should carry out".

I think it's taken as read that the "single" experiment must be not just repeatable, but actually repeated.

Since Einstein is not around to defend himself, I'm gonna go for the generous interpretation.
This user would like to thank armed_neutrality for this useful post:
  #2111  
Old 09.01.2017, 11:47
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 12,345
Groaned at 338 Times in 275 Posts
Thanked 26,173 Times in 10,978 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Seriously? So your saying that if we have an established hypothesis A, yet a single set of data supports a contradicting hypothesis B, you're just going to say, "OK, B must be correct" without wanting to corroborate it? Your example is just lamentable.
no.

there is a huge difference between saying "A is wrong" and saying "A is wrong therefore B must be right".

And as for a single set of data overthrowing a previous theory, this happens all the time.

The entire family tree of the evolution of early man has been re-drawn because somebody dug up a single jawbone.

Real scientists are able to admit they were wrong.
The following 3 users would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #2112  
Old 09.01.2017, 11:51
FrankZappa's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: France, near Geneva
Posts: 869
Groaned at 8 Times in 7 Posts
Thanked 2,777 Times in 728 Posts
FrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
You are right, but that's what he meant isn't it?

If we talk about "a single book that changed the world", does it have to be a single copy of a book?

Similarly, experiment can refer to the individual meal or to the recipe. "This is a classic experiment that every chemistry student should carry out".

I think it's taken as read that the "single" experiment must be not just repeatable, but actually repeated.

Since Einstein is not around to defend himself, I'm gonna go for the generous interpretation.
I agree with that. Einstein clearly meant a single carefully conceived and validated measurement. His remark was part of thoughtful discussion between actual and future Nobel physics prize winners, not on an internet forum, so the implict rules are different.
This user would like to thank FrankZappa for this useful post:
  #2113  
Old 09.01.2017, 12:01
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 12,345
Groaned at 338 Times in 275 Posts
Thanked 26,173 Times in 10,978 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
I agree with that. Einstein clearly meant a single carefully conceived and validated measurement. His remark was part of thoughtful discussion between actual and future Nobel physics prize winners, not on an internet forum, so the implict rules are different.
Physiscist are in the comfortable position of being able to repeat an experiment any number of times and of being able top vary one parameter while keeping all others the same. They can thus determine with an extremely high level of certainty that a correlation does or does not exist. Other scientists in other locations can furthermore verify or disprove the experment. We only have one planet with one climate and cannot independently verify theories by looking at other planets, as the planets that are close enough to be observed don't have comparable weather.

Thus experimental physicsists have the luxury of being able to do some "real science" with clean and controlled data whereas others are pissing in the wind with poor data and uncontrolled conditions and sometimes a sample size of just one.

Yet even so, as Feynimann's example earlier showed, experimental physicists can be fooled by their own bias. What level of certainty can we genuinely attach to statements from olther areas of science?
The following 2 users would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #2114  
Old 09.01.2017, 12:19
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 11,023
Groaned at 509 Times in 433 Posts
Thanked 19,821 Times in 10,471 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Much as I admire Einstein, I don't agree with this statement; a single experiment doesn't prove anything either way (Andrew Wakefield anyone?), that is just cherry-picking. However, when a series of experiments and data from independent sources start to corroborate, then you might have to reconsider your hypothesis.
Andrew Wakefield carried out a study based on correlation of raw data which he used to create a hypothesis but he never conducted an experiment; an experiment is a test under controlled conditions that is made to examine the validity of a hypothesis.

Incidentally the global warming theory is also based on correlation and nobody has ever figured out how to carry out an experiment under controlled conditions to examine the validity of this theory.
The following 3 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #2115  
Old 09.01.2017, 12:34
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 11,023
Groaned at 509 Times in 433 Posts
Thanked 19,821 Times in 10,471 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
I disagree.

Andrew Wakefield isn't here or there in this type of discussion as he didn't actually provide any tenable counter example.

If there is a theory and that theory has a valid counterexample then people saying "we won't change our opinions until we see more counter examples" are just being obstructive and unscientific.

Example.

- Scientist 1: No even number can be prime
- Scientist 2: What about the number 2
- Scienitst 1: Stop cherry picking. A single counter example does not disprove a theory. Are you Andrew Wakelfield or something?
"Scientist 1: No even number can be prime" but a real scientist would not say this?
The correct statement is "No even number greater than 2 is prime".

Incidentally while on this topic I should mention Goldbach's conjecture "Every even integer greater than 2 can be expressed as the sum of two primes" which seems to work for all known even integers although nobody could ever prove why!

Incidentally there seems to be some confusion here between an experiment (A test under controlled conditions) and data and examples.
This user would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #2116  
Old 09.01.2017, 12:35
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Ausland, escaped .ch scamland
Posts: 239
Groaned at 49 Times in 24 Posts
Thanked 156 Times in 83 Posts
armed_neutrality is considered unworthyarmed_neutrality is considered unworthyarmed_neutrality is considered unworthy
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Incidentally the global warming theory is also based on correlation and nobody has ever figured out how to carry out an experiment under controlled conditions to examine the validity of this theory.
.. although plenty of people would like to blur lines around what is "experiment" in this field to include things running entirely in simulation, in a model "validated" by getting it to "predict" past data from the record.

It's a shame. I'm sure there is all sorts of great experimental work to be done getting to understand greenhouse phenomena better on a macro - but not global - scale. Hardly anyone is actually doing it.
  #2117  
Old 09.01.2017, 13:04
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 11,023
Groaned at 509 Times in 433 Posts
Thanked 19,821 Times in 10,471 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
.. although plenty of people would like to blur lines around what is "experiment" in this field to include things running entirely in simulation, in a model "validated" by getting it to "predict" past data from the record.

It's a shame. I'm sure there is all sorts of great experimental work to be done getting to understand greenhouse phenomena better on a macro - but not global - scale. Hardly anyone is actually doing it.
"in a model "validated" by getting it to "predict" past data from the record." I compare this to driving a car by only looking in the rear view mirror; fine until the road has a curve
I am somewhat sceptical of such models reinforced by "they are continually being improved"!

"all sorts of great experimental work to be done" Indeed, the climate is a huge environment with many, many factors influencing it; many of which are little understood.

For example, Earth’s vegetated lands have shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due (it is assumed from models) to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
This involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments.
The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent an area to two times the continental United States.

Would be nice to know how much this greening reduces atmospheric carbon dioxide and hence global warming.

Source
__________________
It is naive to assume my posts are my own work
The following 2 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #2118  
Old 10.01.2017, 12:53
cyrus's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Emmenbruecke
Posts: 2,904
Groaned at 37 Times in 34 Posts
Thanked 3,471 Times in 1,513 Posts
cyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post

Would be nice to know how much this greening reduces atmospheric carbon dioxide and hence global warming.

Source
From your source
Quote:
While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.
The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”
So, not enough to reduce the cocentrations not seen in the last 500,000 years.
  #2119  
Old 10.01.2017, 13:16
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 11,023
Groaned at 509 Times in 433 Posts
Thanked 19,821 Times in 10,471 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
From your source


So, not enough to reduce the concentrations not seen in the last 500,000 years.
And from your quote
"The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited"
or may not?, not exactly a clincher is it.

Anyway the reality is there was an increase in greening the equivalent to an area of two times the continental United States so nobody had told the plants about limited beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide!
Inconvenient things the facts about physical world realities (versus theories) aren't they!
  #2120  
Old 10.01.2017, 13:26
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
.... Anyway the reality is there was an increase in greening the equivalent to an area of two times the continental United States so nobody had told the plants about limited beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide!
Inconvenient things the facts about physical world realities (versus theories) aren't they!
Pretty easy to work out it will be a one-time, short-term benefit. Maybe a one year gain.


Meanwhile we continue to pump out the carbon dioxide year after year.....
 

Tags
climate change, climategate, co2, global warming




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 22:11.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0