Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Monday, September 19, 2011 18:34
VIEWED: 4620
PAGE 3 of 7
Hello,
I think the fellow might be wrong about everything in the wide world, down to the color of the sky and the matter of water being wet...
and it makes his specific criticism in this instance no less valid.
There is a terrible tendency, when a mistake is pointed out, to point out all the mistakes the other guy has made.
As though some quantity of wrongness on the part of the accuser somehow rights the wrong of the accused.
He may be hypocritical, he may be a fool, he may be a bastard.
But he's not wrong about *this one thing.*
--Anthony
_______________________________________________
"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Exactly, Anthony. I disagree with the man about his personal stance on climate change, and he is a hypocrite for being unscrutinizing of his own beliefs. But he's absolutely right that none of the research is incontrovertible, or that we couldn't and shouldn't continue to refine the models, measurements, and calculations or continue to study the issue.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I think the fellow .."
By that, do you mean Rap?
The use of the word 'incontrovertible' is rare in science, but not unheard of. For example, it is incontrovertible that gravity is a force of attraction between two masses. If I measure the temperature of ice and the temperature of boiling water in degrees Celcius, it is incontrovertible that ice is colder than boiling water. By all measurements taken and all observations made - average sea temperature, average land temperature, glaciers in retreat and permafrost melting globally, average air temperature, temperature-related changes in biomes, global ice core data, it is incontrovertible that the earth is warmer than before. It is a matter of measurement and data.
And, btw, that is all that is claimed as being incontrovertible. Not necessarily that it's man made, not even that it's due to CO2 - just that the earth IS warmer.
Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?
Yeah, me neither....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
BYTE: I skim posts, I did not read to the bottom of yours. Sorry for jumping the gun.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Gravity is incontrovertible since it's a law... To a degree. Some have wondered if the relativistic modifications to gravity are quite right, as you might be able to recalculate them in a way that doesn't require dark matter and dark energy in the universe.
Your other examples, however, are not.
-If I measure the temperature of ice and the temperature of boiling water
Low temperature vacuum.
-it is incontrovertible that the earth is warmer than before. It is a matter of measurement and data.
But not the exact numbers or difference, which may vary depending on measurements used, methods of calculating average global temperature from the large amounts of raw data, differences between the northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere and so on. You might be able to replicate the results with one set of data, but I suspect with other sets of data there might be minute differences, which would compound in the end results. That, unfortunately, is a downfall of statistics.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
To NOBC, explaining how it's still significant that they are migrating from New Zealand, but that we have to be careful about sensationalism.
We were arguing against the concept of neutrality and skepticism in science, I believe? You're making a good showing for the opposition.
Not sure what you mean, exactly. I agree: it's still significant, and we do have to be careful about sensationalism.
I WAS mostly making a joke about the ALASKA to the SOUTH POLE thing, and I WAS wrong about that fact.
I do agree about neutrality in science- results should be testable by repeated experiments by neutral parties.
By that standard, climate science cannot be science, can it? We ain't got a test tube big enough, and ain't got enough years to test it.
But as I wrote above there somewhere, there is a lot of observable evidence that suggests that the theory is correct. It seems from the article that the crab migration was one of the things predicted about global warming-- now it seems to have come true, validating the prediction. Validating the prediction is therefore evidence suggesting that the theory is good. Not PROOF, but more evidence suggesting that it's valid.
As far as skepticism goes, yeah, some is good: a goodly number of scientists have questioned accepted theory, only to be proven correct, and thereby bringing new insights.
I do have considerable doubts about the neutrality and skepticism of some of the folks opposing global warming theory-- too many of them COULD BE shills of folks who already have a fog in the fight.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:And rappy would know this... how? Because he understands the scientific method? Because he's all about the facts? Because he has a shred of logic?
It's poor science, and he's absolutely right.
Yanno, the fact that this comes from someone who has complete disdain for evidence makes this statement nothing more than a joke.
I'm all about facts and logic and evidence. Have been for a long time. You're the joke for even suggesting that I have any disdain for such things, and are only showing your complete and total ignorance on such matters yourself.
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"It's poor science, and he's absolutely right."
Except he's a proponent of equally poor science in the other direction. Do you dismiss HIS poor science as well, based on it being poor science?
He has no 'poor science', in the least. He's absolutely right. You not liking to hear the truth does not make it any less valid.
Deal w/ it.
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"exact numbers"
Uhm - do I need to say the earth is overall 0.572 C warmer not 0.773 C warmer in order to say it is warmer? Really? You are going to hang your argument on minute differences in amount of 'warmer' because slightly more warmer or slightly less warmer somehow nullifies 'warmer'?
Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?
Yeah, me neither....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME