tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post5836178526584598969..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The Case for Global Warming SkepticismRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-20293878729250579592011-10-13T02:42:33.235-04:002011-10-13T02:42:33.235-04:00Great article! I'm going to keep a copy to quo...Great article! I'm going to keep a copy to quote from it in the future, you have some good examples. There are few in the sciences (other than in the applied sciences where mistakes are costly or hard sciences like Physics and Chemistry where discipline runs strong) that pay attention to decimal precision in their data or their conclusions.<br /><br />As for the earth warming, it's definitely happening, and I don't even need to take a single measurement because I trust the core Laws of Thermodynamics (Newton, Carnot, Gibbs, Boyle, Brown, et al.). However, it's not happening because of anything mankind is doing or not doing, it's the effect of a radiative sun acting on a body in space.geotopiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16137366796424180381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-91000780187610984442008-10-26T19:15:00.000-04:002008-10-26T19:15:00.000-04:00TitanicExplorer said:---Sorry I didn't get past th...TitanicExplorer said:<BR/>---<BR/>Sorry I didn't get past the first paragraph<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Trust us, we could tell.<BR/><BR/>TitanicExplorer said:<BR/>---<BR/>Science is actually very good at predicting outcomes, that is why your microwave oven cooks food and not you.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>A) That's not a prediction of an "outcome" per se (although what you actually meant by that is anyone's guess at this point).<BR/><BR/>B) Not all that is under the label of "science" is equally "scientific." After all, phlogiston was scientific and patently false.<BR/><BR/>C) If we go by the "if it works it's true" method, then tell me what exactly science has given us with the Global Warming hysteria.<BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/>---<BR/>Your first comment by Lucas wonders why the ice caps are melting... and that is what usually causes humans to start looking for answers, you know, questions about what we see.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Yes, and I see reports of "record cold" weather around the US, growing glaciers in Alaska, a thickening ice sheet in Antarctica. I look out my window and see winters pretty much exactly like they've always been through my entire life. And I'm supposed to ignore all this because some ex-politician produces a movie? Because some Socialistic goverments have redistribution concepts and want scientists to provide cover for it?<BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/>---<BR/>Your lack of belief in science I suppose is balanced by a belief in God.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Science is not something that ought to be "believed in." It is supposed to be something that is demonstrated.<BR/><BR/>I couldn't care less if you do or don't believe in God; it is irrelevant to this issue. The only thing that's relevant is whether Global Warming is scientific. That's the only issue here.<BR/><BR/>Which brings us back to:<BR/>---<BR/>it felt like at any moment you were going to talk about how God created the Heaven and Earth in 6 days... <BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Funny how you're the only one bringing religion into this.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-80463575748715334562008-10-26T14:20:00.000-04:002008-10-26T14:20:00.000-04:00My comment about the weatherman has more to do wit...My comment about the weatherman has more to do with realizing that we have a false sense that science is an accurate source for detecting truth. Science has been hijacked by politics. If it can be argued that the Bible can be interpreted more than one way because we observe that different people do indeed interpret it more than one way, and that some ministers have abused the trust people have placed in them as interpreters of biblical truth for personal gain, then it can also be argued that science as a sociological entity can be misused by some scientists and patrons of science, people who have been entrusted to develop accurate scientific conclusions, for their own political purposes.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, inasmuch as any scientific conclusion is of political value, it must be taken with a grain of salt and investigated carefully. If a conclusion is easily debatable and those who dissent are politically attacked, there stands a high likelihood that the scientific conclusion being debated is influenced by a bias of unrelated presuppositions. It’s one thing to presuppose the philosophical foundations of logic and another to desire an outcome because one prefers one system of government over another and desires to change it.<BR/><BR/>With regard to likelihoods, scientific discovery utilizes bivalent logic. However, given simple syllogistic limitations, one realizes that scientific discovery cannot demonstrate a conclusion to be deductively true. It can only inductively demonstrate a conclusion to have a likelihood of being true. Different conclusions have different likelihood for different reasons. You can't equivocate the accuracy of science in general from any particulars, and that was my point. To many of the ignorant among us look at technology and are told that science is a great thing for telling us what is true, and the media has been effective at implying viscerally that science can also tell us what is essentially true. However, science is not so monolithic in its discovery of testable truth because there are many foundational things we either cannot test accurately or cannot test at all.<BR/><BR/>As I have said, science is bivalent. It involves measuring the truth-value of explicitly defined subjects with what should be explicitly defined givens and presuppositions. However, science is not univalent. That is, there is no subject it can test that is only true in every case. Where a univalent subject affects bivalent subjects, the influence of the univalent subject can be tested. For example, the law of gravity is observationally univalent. We cannot test the law of gravity directly, but can observe its influence on other subjects. God is univalent. We cannot test Him. However, we can test His influence on other subjects. In this regard, Christian apologetics has a plethora of exceptional likelihoods demonstrating God's influence. It is right to say that these are not deductive proof. As I have said, science cannot demonstrate a conclusion to be deductively true. But the exceptional likelihoods are notable.<BR/><BR/>Rather, since God is univalent, He is as self-evident as such as the law of gravity. AS it is, the law of gravity is observationally sound, but is yet mysterious in the apparent observation of some things to defy it. God, being greater than the law of gravity, is much more mysterious. Would it seem that many defy Him, yet only for a time? Rather, are those things that seem to defy Him rather playing a role in His glory?<BR/><BR/>Finally, we discuss six days as though time is a constant; and the big bang is promoted without fully considering temporal dynamics. We don't understand the universe as a mechanism much less the non-mechanistic substance on which its existence rests. Yet would we observe the revelation of a Creator if He chose to reveal Himself? For there are some to whom he has revealed Himself. Can those to whom He has not speak of which they have not observed? Would that He reveal Himself to all, but that He glorifies Himself in all ways.Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-35277361176205838992008-10-26T00:37:00.000-04:002008-10-26T00:37:00.000-04:00I love the comment about science being as reliable...I love the comment about science being as reliable as the weatherman.<BR/><BR/>If your car started as often as the weatherman was correct, we'd all lose our jobs and go hungry.<BR/><BR/>Science is actually very good at predicting outcomes, that is why your microwave oven cooks food and not you.<BR/><BR/>But you keep your healthy skepticism about science, and just know for sure God will take you to heaven when you die.<BR/><BR/>Hot-button environmental issues...<BR/><BR/>You think it is scientifically impossible to measure temperature.<BR/><BR/>Sorry I didn't get past the first paragraph, it felt like at any moment you were going to talk about how God created the Heaven and Earth in 6 days... <BR/><BR/>Your first comment by Lucas wonders why the ice caps are melting... and that is what usually causes humans to start looking for answers, you know, questions about what we see.<BR/><BR/>Your lack of belief in science I suppose is balanced by a belief in God.<BR/><BR/>Your car starts, your computer boots, yet we can't measure temperature.<BR/><BR/>Pretty silly stuff... certainly a case for ignoring your blog.FoxSmarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17470478715080663031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-68984781907782226702008-10-25T20:31:00.000-04:002008-10-25T20:31:00.000-04:00Fred: hilarious!...and true, at least as far as pr...Fred: hilarious!<BR/><BR/>...and true, at least as far as project management goes in my industry.<BR/><BR/><I>"How hot is it today ??"</I><BR/><BR/>Good question. It's 54 degrees Fahrenheit here right now...<BR/>Oh, wait! That's Accuweather.<BR/>Weather.com says it's 55F.<BR/>I just checked the thermometer outside and it reads about 48 degrees. Hmmm: What elevation is best? I'm sure is cooler uphill. It's about 70F in my home office. It's probably over 80 just over the stove. It's also below freezing in my freezer. I'm feeling pretty well so I would expect my core temperature to be 98-point-something. How big of a "here" would it need to be? How could we determine an average temperature wherever "here" is supposed to be? Globally? Good luck.Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-89543472836831933982008-10-25T19:42:00.000-04:002008-10-25T19:42:00.000-04:00precision rules in project managementMeasure with ...precision rules in project management<BR/><BR/>Measure with micrometer<BR/>Mark with chalk<BR/>Cut with chainsaw.<BR/><BR/>How hot is it today ??Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-86940733536562186892008-10-24T12:20:00.000-04:002008-10-24T12:20:00.000-04:00LucasFrom what I've heard, the north pole ice is s...Lucas<BR/>From what I've heard, the north pole ice is shrinking, but the south pole ice is expanding (both, of course, due to Global Warming...which is another problem with the theory in that everything is claimed to be caused by GW, even direct contradictions).<BR/><BR/>In any case, I have no problem supposing that the North Pole ice sheet is getting smaller. That's something that could actually be demonstrated with a small degree of instrumental error, etc.<BR/><BR/>But all it would prove is <I>local</I> warming. That is, it would say it's warming at the North Pole. But that says nothing about anywhere beyond the Arctic.<BR/><BR/>That does actually tie into a bit with the averages again too. Since we don't know how the averages are collected, then it is difficult to see how a radical increase in temperatures at the North Pole (one site I read said they're about 15-20 degrees warmer), even if true, could translate to Global Warming if the world as a whole is still only 0.6 degrees warmer. (Also, note the ambiguity of scientists who mix the F and C scales; it's 15-20 degrees warmer in F, but it translates to 0.6 average difference in C. Again, this plays to the fact that F is more sensitive than C because it is more precise (almost double) and saying there's a 15-20 degree shift looks more impressive than saying there's a 7-10 degree shift.)<BR/><BR/>However, it's also not certain that the northern ice sheets are actually dwindling either, as we've seen Alaskan glaciers increased last year and many places are recording record (or near-record) lows currently. Not that I put much stock in those "records" for the reasons I stated in my original post.<BR/><BR/>And I suppose one final point could be made, and that's that it actually doesn't necessarily take extra heat (in terms of temperature) to melt ice. You do need extra heat in the form of calories (not to be confused with food calories). I don't remember the exact formula, but while it takes only 1 Calorie to raise 1 gram of room temperature water 1 degree Celsius (that's it's definition, BTW), it takes something like 70 Calories to melt ice, and those 70 calories do <I>NOT</I> increase the temperature of water. That is, a gram of water at 0 degrees C is frozen; add 70 (or whatever the real amount is) calories of heat and the ice melts, but is still 0 degrees C. This is the amount of heat needed for water to go through phase transitions, and the same thing happens for water to convert from liquid to steam (except, if I recall, at that point it takes something like 300 calories).<BR/><BR/>Again, don't take those numbers as 100% accurate as I'm going from memory, but the concept is the same. In any case, I'm not sure how this would actaully affect GW models; but then I'm not sure if any of the Algoreites have even considered that in the first place :-)Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-7321296614319470582008-10-24T11:46:00.000-04:002008-10-24T11:46:00.000-04:00Lucas,I may be wrong, but it's my understanding th...Lucas,<BR/>I may be wrong, but it's my understanding that while the surface cover of the poles has gotten smaller, the poles have gotten thicker. I'm not sure that this isn't some normal oscillation between surface coverage and thickness where the mass of ice remains relatively similar, but deposition makes thicker and eventually displaces to create more surface area, which floats off as ice burgs and melts. I don't know that we have enough historical data to know for sure.<BR/><BR/>Peter,<BR/>Great observations! I've always said that if you want to know how certain science really is, just watch the weatherman.Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-31351366761315459512008-10-24T10:25:00.000-04:002008-10-24T10:25:00.000-04:00Though I do agree with you that Anthropogenic Glob...Though I do agree with you that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a myth, I still wonder how you would account for the melting of the ice cap(s) (not sure if both are melting.) It would seem something would have to be getting hotter to melt them.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16854131841713405200noreply@blogger.com