For Ian [modified]
-
Yup - Newton's theory has been refuted and it's everyday predictions are indistinguishable from Einstein's. No contradiction there. If you don't have a problem with the Lindzen quote I'd suggest a course in elementary logic (it does have two major blunders). :laugh:
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
tell me about them
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
-
tell me about them
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
First it commits the inductive fallacy. Because something has not happened in a long period does not mean it cannot happen. Second there is a non sequitur in the implication. It does not follow that, even if the climate has not "tipped", then mankind cannot tip it. Unless of course he defines tipping to be something that is impossible. His claim that "tipping" has not happened presumably excludes ice ages. I do love the scare quotes - makes you wonder just what does he mean? :)
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
First it commits the inductive fallacy. Because something has not happened in a long period does not mean it cannot happen. Second there is a non sequitur in the implication. It does not follow that, even if the climate has not "tipped", then mankind cannot tip it. Unless of course he defines tipping to be something that is impossible. His claim that "tipping" has not happened presumably excludes ice ages. I do love the scare quotes - makes you wonder just what does he mean? :)
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
OK, but I think you can understand what he is saying even though he has couched it in simplistic terms (whcih americans love).
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
-
riced wrote:
I could think of a number of mechanisms were steps to do so could be taken.
Like stick it all in a big glass enclosure? :) Come on, FACE experiemnts are flawed. For months, CO2 is pumped out of pipes in an open air field, aorund a collection of plants. I imagine some distance away is a controll group. Now, over those months, the wind blows as usual. Smetimes strongly carrying the OC2 away before it has any effect and over the controll group. Sometimes not, and you have perfect localised mixing giving exactly the 600PPM or whatever the target concentration is. Sometimes it doesnt blow and the CO2 is languidly flopping about on the ground, a long way from the leaves that need it. (You know CO2 is heavy yeah?). Science? This is so full of holes its a joke. No one would ever allow this through publiching in any other field of science because of its inherent unrepeatability and lack of control of conditions which affect the outcome to the point that the results are total junk. If you cant see this then I have serious doubts about your secientific credentials!
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
I can see you have a different notion of science to what I have. For me it's an attempt to explain the way things work. While at the same time knowing full well that our explanations are always provisional. For you it seems to be the quest for The Truth - i.e. something that is eternally fixed as being the case, somewhat like the 'Truths' of religions. As to the FACE experiments being flawed, exactly the same can be said of the greenhouse ones. The conditions in a greenhouse are not the same as in open fields so we should dismiss them as well. It just happens to be the nature of experiments. If flaws are found then the most appropriate response is to devise an experiment that fixes them and see what outcomes are. Not to just dismiss them as non-scientific. Of course you can restrict the sciences to those where experiments a rigidly controlled and exactly reproducible. But that would rule out whole areas that claim to be sciences. Mind that might not be such a bad thing if it got rid of IQ tests in psychology/psycho-metrics :laugh: .
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
OK, but I think you can understand what he is saying even though he has couched it in simplistic terms (whcih americans love).
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
It's a meaningless soundbite and I'm always suspicious about people who utter such stuff. It does raise the question What if climate has "tipped" in the last 4 billion years? Does that mean mankind can tip now? :laugh:
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
I can see you have a different notion of science to what I have. For me it's an attempt to explain the way things work. While at the same time knowing full well that our explanations are always provisional. For you it seems to be the quest for The Truth - i.e. something that is eternally fixed as being the case, somewhat like the 'Truths' of religions. As to the FACE experiments being flawed, exactly the same can be said of the greenhouse ones. The conditions in a greenhouse are not the same as in open fields so we should dismiss them as well. It just happens to be the nature of experiments. If flaws are found then the most appropriate response is to devise an experiment that fixes them and see what outcomes are. Not to just dismiss them as non-scientific. Of course you can restrict the sciences to those where experiments a rigidly controlled and exactly reproducible. But that would rule out whole areas that claim to be sciences. Mind that might not be such a bad thing if it got rid of IQ tests in psychology/psycho-metrics :laugh: .
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
riced wrote:
For me it's an attempt to explain the way things work.
No, its actualy an attmept to show that increased CO2 outside of greenhouses doesnt produce the same increase in crop yields because it actually states a figure. 50% (aprox). And isnt that a suspicious figure in itself? If it was merly going to show the way things work then it would not even mention a crop yield, but just say "plants need CO2 to grow".
riced wrote:
For you it seems to be the quest for The Truth - i.e. something that is eternally fixed as being the case, somewhat like the 'Truths' of religions.
No its not, and dont try to defame me by accusing me of religious sentiment.
riced wrote:
exactly the same can be said of the greenhouse ones
What experiments? Have I mentioned any? All I have said is that governments recomend 1000PPM in greenhouses for crop production and that an entire industry has grown up providing CO2 enrichment machinery. I have a very clear understanding of science (as someone who received a very good education in it) and how experiments should be conducted. These FACE experiments ara a joke whose sole intent is to provide propaganda for the AGW movement.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
-
It's a meaningless soundbite and I'm always suspicious about people who utter such stuff. It does raise the question What if climate has "tipped" in the last 4 billion years? Does that mean mankind can tip now? :laugh:
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
I guess thats a yes, depending on what you call tipping.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
-
riced wrote:
For me it's an attempt to explain the way things work.
No, its actualy an attmept to show that increased CO2 outside of greenhouses doesnt produce the same increase in crop yields because it actually states a figure. 50% (aprox). And isnt that a suspicious figure in itself? If it was merly going to show the way things work then it would not even mention a crop yield, but just say "plants need CO2 to grow".
riced wrote:
For you it seems to be the quest for The Truth - i.e. something that is eternally fixed as being the case, somewhat like the 'Truths' of religions.
No its not, and dont try to defame me by accusing me of religious sentiment.
riced wrote:
exactly the same can be said of the greenhouse ones
What experiments? Have I mentioned any? All I have said is that governments recomend 1000PPM in greenhouses for crop production and that an entire industry has grown up providing CO2 enrichment machinery. I have a very clear understanding of science (as someone who received a very good education in it) and how experiments should be conducted. These FACE experiments ara a joke whose sole intent is to provide propaganda for the AGW movement.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
fat_boy wrote:
No, its actualy an attmept to show that increased CO2 outside of greenhouses...
I was talking about science as an activity not this particular experiment. What's the point of doing any science? For me it seems that it is to find out how the world works. For you it seems to be to carry out experiments that don't produce results that conflict with your predetermined view. Ask yourself this question: Is there any evidence I would accept that shows AGW to be true?
fat_boy wrote:
And isnt that a suspicious figure in itself?
What makes it suspicious? Any figure could be seen as suspicious. Suppose it had been 90%, would that not seem suspicious?
fat_boy wrote:
No its not, and dont try to defame me by accusing me of religious sentiment.
Where's the accusation? I was merely saying how things seem to me. The general tenor of your posts is to denigrate those who disagree with you. You invariably accuse studies that might seem to support AGW as being biased, politically motivated or the work of stupid people. That hardly makes you look like the dispassionate scientist that you claim to be. You also have a penchant for attributing motives to people when you really don't know why they carried out a particular experiment.
fat_boy wrote:
What experiments? Have I mentioned any?
The fact that you have not mentioned any specific experiments is irrelevant, you imply them by contrasting the FACE ones with them. I am merely pointing out that virtually all experiments have flaws. Science makes progress by spotting the flaws and finding better experiments to test theories.
fat_boy wrote:
I have a very clear understanding of science
I find the evidence that this is the case somewhat lacking. You make broad claims that when challenged you ignore or grudgingly accept that they don't stand. You argue with soundbites and outright assertions and make simple errors in logic. You present partial quotes and mangle them so they misrepresent what the author is saying. I could go on but it's lunch time and I prefer to eat and drink a nice cup of coffee.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - A
-
fat_boy wrote:
No, its actualy an attmept to show that increased CO2 outside of greenhouses...
I was talking about science as an activity not this particular experiment. What's the point of doing any science? For me it seems that it is to find out how the world works. For you it seems to be to carry out experiments that don't produce results that conflict with your predetermined view. Ask yourself this question: Is there any evidence I would accept that shows AGW to be true?
fat_boy wrote:
And isnt that a suspicious figure in itself?
What makes it suspicious? Any figure could be seen as suspicious. Suppose it had been 90%, would that not seem suspicious?
fat_boy wrote:
No its not, and dont try to defame me by accusing me of religious sentiment.
Where's the accusation? I was merely saying how things seem to me. The general tenor of your posts is to denigrate those who disagree with you. You invariably accuse studies that might seem to support AGW as being biased, politically motivated or the work of stupid people. That hardly makes you look like the dispassionate scientist that you claim to be. You also have a penchant for attributing motives to people when you really don't know why they carried out a particular experiment.
fat_boy wrote:
What experiments? Have I mentioned any?
The fact that you have not mentioned any specific experiments is irrelevant, you imply them by contrasting the FACE ones with them. I am merely pointing out that virtually all experiments have flaws. Science makes progress by spotting the flaws and finding better experiments to test theories.
fat_boy wrote:
I have a very clear understanding of science
I find the evidence that this is the case somewhat lacking. You make broad claims that when challenged you ignore or grudgingly accept that they don't stand. You argue with soundbites and outright assertions and make simple errors in logic. You present partial quotes and mangle them so they misrepresent what the author is saying. I could go on but it's lunch time and I prefer to eat and drink a nice cup of coffee.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - A
Of course science is there to explain the way the world works and to allow us to master it. Which it has done very well.
riced wrote:
Ask yourself this question: Is there any evidence I would accept that shows AGW to be true?
If CO2 increases could be directly attributed to temperature increases and if those increases were sufficiently high to cause, on ballance, disruption then yes.
riced wrote:
Science makes progress by spotting the flaws and finding better experiments to test theories.
Right so it can start by throwing these FACE experiements away then because anyone can see how flawed they are.
riced wrote:
You make broad claims that when challenged you ignore or grudgingly accept that they don't stand. You argue with soundbites and outright assertions and make simple errors in logic. You present partial quotes and mangle them so they misrepresent what the author is saying
Prove it or its just libel.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
-
Of course science is there to explain the way the world works and to allow us to master it. Which it has done very well.
riced wrote:
Ask yourself this question: Is there any evidence I would accept that shows AGW to be true?
If CO2 increases could be directly attributed to temperature increases and if those increases were sufficiently high to cause, on ballance, disruption then yes.
riced wrote:
Science makes progress by spotting the flaws and finding better experiments to test theories.
Right so it can start by throwing these FACE experiements away then because anyone can see how flawed they are.
riced wrote:
You make broad claims that when challenged you ignore or grudgingly accept that they don't stand. You argue with soundbites and outright assertions and make simple errors in logic. You present partial quotes and mangle them so they misrepresent what the author is saying
Prove it or its just libel.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
fat_boy wrote:
Prove it or its just libel.
I cannot prove it in the way I can prove say Pythagoras theorem. Just as no scientific theory can be proved by experiments. However I can offer evidence. First look back at the correspondence we have had in this and previous encounters, then look at your other posts and the responses they have generated. You will see a number of examples that support my claims. Here are some. 1 In the post that this is a reply to you make this broad claim: Right so it can start by throwing these FACE experiements away then because anyone can see how flawed they are. Reading the article that started this off, will show that (a) the article is a metastudy, (b) each of the experiments it considers takes steps to obviate the problems you identify, and (c) the article does not propose that it has a definitive answer. Rather it identifies an issue that should be addressed in constructing models of crop growth. 2 In prior discussions you asserted that (a) Herschel had found a correlation between sunspot activity and temperatures 9a view that seems common among some anti AGW people) (b) no anti AGW supporter had been shown to be a liar and (c) balloon data had been collected on temperatures for centuries. I refuted these claims (a) by referring directly to Herschel's 1801 article which clearly does not establish any such correlation, (b) citing two incidences where an anti AGW supporter had made contradictory claims regarding the temperature data from satellites and (c) pointing out that the first experimental weather balloons were launched in 1896 so, at best, there would be one century's worth of data. Another example of your extravagant claims is when you claimed that the temperature in Scotland last January were the lowest ever. Subsequently reduced to the lowest in the temperature record i.e. something just over 100 years. But even that was an admission that took some extracting. 3 In a discussion regarding the alleged criminality of Jones you made claims about what constitutes a crime under English law. You used two arguments to support your definition. One was 'my wife was in the police for five years' with the implication that somehow that supported your claimed definition. The logic is clearly wrong. You also claimed that speeding is not a criminal offense because that would mean large numbers of people are criminals. Again the logic escapes me. You clearly confused committing a crime with
-
fat_boy wrote:
Prove it or its just libel.
I cannot prove it in the way I can prove say Pythagoras theorem. Just as no scientific theory can be proved by experiments. However I can offer evidence. First look back at the correspondence we have had in this and previous encounters, then look at your other posts and the responses they have generated. You will see a number of examples that support my claims. Here are some. 1 In the post that this is a reply to you make this broad claim: Right so it can start by throwing these FACE experiements away then because anyone can see how flawed they are. Reading the article that started this off, will show that (a) the article is a metastudy, (b) each of the experiments it considers takes steps to obviate the problems you identify, and (c) the article does not propose that it has a definitive answer. Rather it identifies an issue that should be addressed in constructing models of crop growth. 2 In prior discussions you asserted that (a) Herschel had found a correlation between sunspot activity and temperatures 9a view that seems common among some anti AGW people) (b) no anti AGW supporter had been shown to be a liar and (c) balloon data had been collected on temperatures for centuries. I refuted these claims (a) by referring directly to Herschel's 1801 article which clearly does not establish any such correlation, (b) citing two incidences where an anti AGW supporter had made contradictory claims regarding the temperature data from satellites and (c) pointing out that the first experimental weather balloons were launched in 1896 so, at best, there would be one century's worth of data. Another example of your extravagant claims is when you claimed that the temperature in Scotland last January were the lowest ever. Subsequently reduced to the lowest in the temperature record i.e. something just over 100 years. But even that was an admission that took some extracting. 3 In a discussion regarding the alleged criminality of Jones you made claims about what constitutes a crime under English law. You used two arguments to support your definition. One was 'my wife was in the police for five years' with the implication that somehow that supported your claimed definition. The logic is clearly wrong. You also claimed that speeding is not a criminal offense because that would mean large numbers of people are criminals. Again the logic escapes me. You clearly confused committing a crime with
I thank you for your detailed response, and apologise for my lack of equal answer, and for the time that that implies in you having wasted in so doing. Suffice it to say that I will never accept the veracity of the entire message as stated under the name of AGW. And note the word 'entire'. There is too much that smells bad for it to be acceptable to a reasonable pallate.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
-
I thank you for your detailed response, and apologise for my lack of equal answer, and for the time that that implies in you having wasted in so doing. Suffice it to say that I will never accept the veracity of the entire message as stated under the name of AGW. And note the word 'entire'. There is too much that smells bad for it to be acceptable to a reasonable pallate.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
fat_boy wrote:
Suffice it to say that I will never accept the veracity of the entire message as stated under the name of AGW. And note the word 'entire'. There is too much that smells bad for it to be acceptable to a reasonable pallate.
I would not expect you to. It seems to me that the whole issue is in a state of flux as usually happens in science, especially in the early days. Just think of the debates regarding evolution, plate tectonics, the age of the earth and many more from the history of science. What seems to me to be the case is that you often have good sensible things to say. However, the way you say them is what makes people react antagonistically. It comes across as a harangue that is trying to brow beat people into submission. It also tends to be couched in language that makes extravagant claims. As a result I think you have acquired a reputation as being unreasonable and that, unfortunately, tends to obscure any valid points you make. I would like to say thanks for the stuff you have contributed, it got me looking at things I probably would not have looked at. So I at least have benefited from the debates you have initiated.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Suffice it to say that I will never accept the veracity of the entire message as stated under the name of AGW. And note the word 'entire'. There is too much that smells bad for it to be acceptable to a reasonable pallate.
I would not expect you to. It seems to me that the whole issue is in a state of flux as usually happens in science, especially in the early days. Just think of the debates regarding evolution, plate tectonics, the age of the earth and many more from the history of science. What seems to me to be the case is that you often have good sensible things to say. However, the way you say them is what makes people react antagonistically. It comes across as a harangue that is trying to brow beat people into submission. It also tends to be couched in language that makes extravagant claims. As a result I think you have acquired a reputation as being unreasonable and that, unfortunately, tends to obscure any valid points you make. I would like to say thanks for the stuff you have contributed, it got me looking at things I probably would not have looked at. So I at least have benefited from the debates you have initiated.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
I can be very blunt, it is true! :) Anyway, thanks for saying that at least I am not entirely unreasonable.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman