quote:

Originally posted by What's in your mind:
what's the delusion?

The delusion is that the science of 'the other side' is good, that is somehow worth all the fuss we are making about it now.

comparing alternate theories of GW to creationism is not being very objective, is it?

quote:

Originally posted by What's in your mind:
It's the ploy of social scientists to hide behind metaphors when they run out of arguments its interesting to see a physical scientist reverting to such tactics

What metaphor am I hiding behind? It was you who threw evolutions vs. creation in the equation.

quote:

Originally posted by What's in your mind:
comparing alternate theories of GW to creationism is not being very objective, is it?

I am not comparing theories. I am just comparing your particular way of reasoning and your ignoring of a large body of evidence with what the creationists do.

I am confused. Are you a creationist? If not why do you say 'ignoring a large body of evidence with what the creationists do?' If you are, it of course explains a lot

quote:

Originally posted by What's in your mind:
There are relatively few scientists claiming a causal mechanism for GW other than carbon, than scientists claiming carbon is the cause. This fact proves what? That majority consensus becomes the true presentation of reality? It is important to note that this debate is not like the debate between 'evolution' and 'creation'. Here there is a possiblility that the other side may be right and it is important that we learn about the other side

There are scientists who believe in magnetic monopoles, and some who still think Einstein was wrong. Just because a minority take a position in opposition to the general concensus, it does not mean that they are right, which is what you are implying.

In abscence of expert knowledge or training, the usual approach is to check the proponents credentials, and to research their sources.

If their sources do not hold-up to scrutiny, or are absent, then their claims are not credible. It matters not how well their theory is reasoned,or how sensible it seems, if it does not hold up to scrutiny then it's false.

The challenges to global warming theory are not supported by the majority of those who know beacause the challenges do not meet the basic criteria. The fact that these challenges can be made, and the theory stands even with it's flaws, and unkowns, is a measur of it's strength.

There is a phrase in in science whic describes some theories as NEW. It's kind of a joke. It stands for Not Even Wrong. Ie, so wrong it can't even be justified as being a theory at all. Some of the challenges it seems fall into the NEW category.

Hobbes007, Your posts are a classic example of the cut n' paste mentality of the green movement. They are becoming as tedious a the rhetoric they spout in public.

This film is on various video download sites now, Google Video etc. Your small effort to try and discredit the makers of this film are in vain.

The whole world is watching now.

I know you are :-).

No, I am not a creationst. I am claiming that your way of dismissing the large body of evidence that supports AGW is akin to the way that creationists dismiss the large body of evidence supporting evolution.

I am fully supportive of challenging established scientific theories. For instance, AGW does have to counter the challenge of e.g., the cosmic ray theory of global warming. I am sure they already have done so or will do so in the very near future. In the mean time, as long as the scientific merrit of the cosmic ray theory is unclear, it should not become a factor influencing public policy.

Other example: even though creationists start from an unscientific metaphysical hypothesis, when design theory comes up with an argument such as 'irreducible complexity', evolutionists better rise to the challenge. And fortunately, that is exactly what they did, thereby successfullly bringing evolution theory through another 'risky prediction', to use Popper's words.

quote:

Originally posted by AnimalFarm:
Hobbes007, Your posts are a classic example of the cut n' paste mentality of the green movement. They are becoming as tedious a the rhetoric they spout in public.

This film is on various video download sites now, Google Video etc. Your small effort to try and discredit the makers of this film are in vain.

The whole world is watching now.

Mr. Animal,

I am not even in the green movement. I am just someone who doesn't like misleading information.

Now at least we are getting somewhere. So you acknowledge it may be true that cosmic ray theory may be a closer representation to reality than AGW. It is a low probability according to you (high probability according to the experts in the program) but it is a matter of probability.

Now what is the probability that creationism is right and evolution is wrong? Get my drift?

quote:

Originally posted by What's in your mind:
Now at least we are getting somewhere. So you acknowledge it may be true that cosmic ray theory may be a closer representation to reality than AGW. It is a low probability according to you (high probability according to the experts in the program) but it is a matter of probability.

Now what is the probability that creationism is right and evolution is wrong? Get my drift?

Not really. Evolution theory has a certain, small probability of being wrong, and so does AGW theory. Whether one or the other is bigger doesn't really matter that much. In Popperian terms, any scientific challenge should be investigated.

I have said many posts ago that the evidence we have TO DATE indicates that AGW is probably true. And as Wunsch has so eloquently said, we should base public policy on those probabilities. We should not change those policies every time someone comes up with a challenge that we don't even know yet is a challenge or not!

Evolution theory was not put on temporary hold as long evolutionists did not have a good argument against irreducible complexity. No, all biologists still kept on believing it was true. Same we see in the debate of AGW.

You are wrong about treating evolution as a theory. It is a natural law that evolution progresses by natural selection of changes that happen through mutation. This is no longer a theory- It's a law just like the law of planteray motion.

To compare such natural laws to theory of AGW suggest mind boggling stupidity and a definite unscientific mind. Despite all your pretensions of scientific mentality your true colors are exhibited by you shoddy research on the participants and your over reliance on reliable scientific sources such as wikipedia

I have written before that there is no progression in science from hypothesis to theory to law.

'Law' and 'hypothesis' are not concepts on the same level as 'theory'.

The theory of gravity, the theory of nuclear physics, the theory of relativity, all may contain laws, but they never become law.

I suggest you get your scientific terminology right before you start accusing me of stupidity.

What happens to theories over time is that, while they are surviving more and more 'risky tests', they become more and more established, or corroborated. But they never become 'proven' or 'true' or 'law'.

hobbes loves to site Realclimate.org. Do a WHOIS search and you see the site is owned by Environmental Media Services. This company was founded by Arlie Schardt. Now who is this? Communications director for Al Gores 2000 campaign. you source is highly dubious.

Does that discredit the science?

Not all arguments in this debate are political. But as long as you don't understand that, programs like GGWS can continue to spread their confusing message.

Well yes it does Hobbes. Since you claim that the experts on the program were non experts and industry hacks. Chosing to source this from wikipedia(and it's recently edited profiles) and a site owned by AGW biggest cheerleaders,
Al Gores 2000 comm. manager are highly suspect.

in the interests of balance i challenge the sceptics here to watch this CBC programme before commenting further:

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/

Featuring the same tiny band of Oil Industry Lobbyists, Fred Singer, Tim Ball and all..

( are there really so few of these guys that they have to pull any old dude with a degree out of retirement and send him on world tour??)

Putting the AGW theory in the same level to the theory of evolution is stupid, even a non scientist can vouch for that. Your silly argument about evolution just being a theory that is still open for falsfification is incidently the main argument of the creationist lobby who are as confused about scientific theories as you are.

Evolutionary theory and AGW differs in important respects such as predictive power. Expand your philosophy of science beyond wikipedia and popper

Nastyboy,

You are right. When the AGW lobby receives money from institutions who would benefit from a validation of its theory, its okay. Example here is that of the British government that has been the main sponsor of the AGW theory. The government directly benefits if the AGW is accepted by the social community in Britain as it makes green taxes seem green (and not an underhand way of squeezing more money out of taxpayers). AGW also helps government of developed countries to impose all sort of punitive tariffs on developing countries for use of carbon that would have been deemed brazen protectionist measures unless seen through the green lens.

So its okay for AGW scientists to recieve money from such vested interests but not for other scientists who do not subscribe to the 'carbon is bad' theory. Bottomline is AGW scientists are not on high moral ground as they are guilty of receiving money from insititutions that directly benefit from the verification of its theories

You seem almsot 'desperate' to disprove the findings of the documentary. What have you to gain from this? We breath in Oxygen and breathe out CO2 don't we????? Why is the whole thing based on this and not a real pollutant surely that is a more likely source of damage to the environment and maybe climate. I would like to hear your personal theory.

Excuse my spelling!! : /

quote:

You seem almsot 'desperate' to disprove the findings of the documentary. What have you to gain from this? We breath in Oxygen and breathe out CO2 don't we????? Why is the whole thing based on this and not a real pollutant surely that is a more likely source of damage to the environment and maybe climate. I would like to hear your personal theory.

Check out other threads in this forum to see the obvious errors in this programme.

Don't fall for the rather silly argument that because CO2 is natural it is not significant. If (for some bizarre reason) oxygen levels rose from 20-25% the level of forest fires would massively increase.

Please note that of the 9 experts on the programme last night, whatever their qualifications, very few of them are active in researching the theory being propounded by the programme (ie. the cosmic ray theory).

I wouldn't risk criticising any of them for their contributions last night since I don't know how Durkin twisted their words. Carl Wunsch appears to have been mislead, and I do know that while John Christy appeared to be suggesting the troposphere was not warming as fast as the surface (an area he is qualified to talk on) he is contributer to a current report that has corrected errors in the satellite data that bring it into line with surface temperature.

John Christy,

Was that an interview done for the programme or an old interview? Christy Spencer's UAH does show less warming than other datasets. But because of their methods the other datasets are finding more favour.

The NCCSP report concludes that more work is needed but this is not a major issue for the models anyway.

How do you know Carl Wunsch was mislead? from an 'email' sent to one of our virtual friends? You presuppose Durkin twisted the word of the participants appearning in the program. Why? I know you are biased (we are all biased) but at least pretend to be objective