Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 53   Go Down

Author Topic: Global Cooling. The sky is falling.  (Read 107962 times)

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Global Cooling. The sky is falling.
« Reply #660 on: June 17, 2018, 11:41:21 pm »

Sure! If He exists, He must be tremendously clever; completely beyond the comprehension of mere human mortals who, after many centuries of scientific endeavour, are beginning to realize that the most sophisticated scientific instruments we have developed might potentially be capable of detecting only 5% of the matter and energy that surrounds us. The other 95% is an unknown substance we have labelled Dark Matter and Dark Energy. It may or may not exist, but we can be certain that God exists, eh!  ;D

I can appreciate the emotional need to have some degree of communication with the most powerful entity that the human mind can imagine. Such beliefs can have very significant placebo effects, help to cure illnesses, and have other social benefits such as bringing people together, but there are also negative consequences to such unfounded beliefs, such as continual warfare which has inflicted tremendous misery on millions of victims throughout the history of mankind, and continues to this day in the form of ISIS and the continuous conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

The analogy using religious belief to describe climate change alarmism, is very relevant. There is a similarity in the sense that both the existence of a Creator God and the existence of the 'devastatingly harmful effects (the devil)' of rising CO2 levels, are scientifically unfounded, that is, beyond the scope of the most rigorous methodology of science which provides a rational degree of certainty.


Well, if you could prove God exists, what we be the point of faith?  Of course many feel that global warming adherents operate on faith too with most of their facts hidden in a dark cloud somewhere.  :)

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Global Cooling. The sky is falling.
« Reply #661 on: June 18, 2018, 04:45:42 am »

Well, if you could prove God exists, what we be the point of faith?  Of course many feel that global warming adherents operate on faith too with most of their facts hidden in a dark cloud somewhere.  :)

The point would be faith in the true scientific methodology of repeated experimentation under controlled conditions, which could prove that God exists, if it were the case that proof was possible.

This type of faith in the hard methodology of science appears to be seriously lacking among climate-change alarmists. They seem to have faith in any type of science, however soft, if it meets their preconceived agenda.  ;D
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Global Cooling. The sky is falling.
« Reply #662 on: June 18, 2018, 08:05:11 am »

It was dismaying to read recently how many scientific studies are bogus.  Scientists and researchers are not using strict and consistent procedures.  Standards are weak.  When tests and experiments are repeated by different scientists, they can't get repeatable results. 

Of course, I've long suspected that things don't seem right when science keeps reversing themselves.  How many times have they changed the food "pyramid" of what type of foods are best for us and in what quantities?  How about PSA tests? Drugs that have been accepted only to find that they really cause more damage then originally claimed?  E-cigarettes are good (for those trying to get off real cigarettes) only to find that we're addicting a whole new generation of kids to nicotine.   We'll soon find out just how really bad marijuana is for you.   The list goes on.  Of course, many studies are paid for and pushed by the drug companies and other who stand to profit.  It seems that every other ad on TV is about a drug I ought to try. 

As we discussed, the Great Barrier Reef issue is receiving a billion dollars a year in studies and other upkeep work to the reef.  The reason that scientist educator was being castigated was because the university probably was fearing loss of research funding or funding from the companies that benefit directly with that billion dollars.  They told the university to get rid of that guy.  He was hurting business.   It reminds me of the joke a few years back when America had so much welfare for the poor going to thousands of companies providing expensive services for these people.  Some old wit obviously on the take said, "Well, there's a lot of money in poverty."

Here's a quote by Richard Horton, Editor of The Lancet  a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is among the world's oldest, most prestigious, and best known general medical journals.


"The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”.
Link to the full article: https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Global Cooling. The sky is falling.
« Reply #663 on: June 18, 2018, 10:04:05 am »

It was dismaying to read recently how many scientific studies are bogus.
How many would that be? How many total scientific studies over what time period too? The studies that you say are bogus where stated to be bogus by what peer review process?

It was dismaying to read recently how many photos are out of focus.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Global Cooling. The sky is falling.
« Reply #664 on: June 18, 2018, 10:27:13 am »

How many would that be? How many total scientific studies over what time period too? The studies that you say are bogus where stated to be bogus by what peer review process?

It was dismaying to read recently how many photos are out of focus.


From a Wikipedia article on replication crisis of scientific studies:

"According to a 2016 poll of 1,500 scientists reported in the journal Nature, 70% of them had failed to reproduce at least one other scientist's experiment (50% had failed to reproduce one of their own experiments). Failure to reproduce results differs among disciplines (percentages in brackets represent failure to reproduce own results):[7]
chemistry: 87% (64%),
biology: 77% (60%),
physics and engineering: 69% (51%),
Earth sciences: 64% (41%)…."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Global Cooling. The sky is falling.
« Reply #665 on: June 18, 2018, 10:32:36 am »

If we had such a ratio of OOF shots, photographers would go the way of dinosaurs 😉

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Global Cooling. The sky is falling.
« Reply #666 on: June 18, 2018, 10:58:04 am »

From a Wikipedia article on replication crisis of scientific studies:

"According to a 2016 poll of 1,500 scientists reported in the journal Nature, 70% of them had failed to reproduce at least one other scientist's experiment (50% had failed to reproduce one of their own experiments). Failure to reproduce results differs among disciplines (percentages in brackets represent failure to reproduce own results):[7]
chemistry: 87% (64%),
biology: 77% (60%),
physics and engineering: 69% (51%),
Earth sciences: 64% (41%)…."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
Are you serious, equating the inability to reproduce an experiment as concluding all the work thus and later as bogus? What is reported above is a part of the scientific process. It's part of peer review and until that is fully finished and presented for peer review which includes multiple variations, it's utterly premature to state the science is bogus unless (and you've yet to provide that data), it is presented by a peer group as a settled agreement of the science and then, using the same process, rejected.
Look at how the scientific community, through peer review, dismissed the incorrect idea by Andrew Wakefield that vaccines produce autism. His work was bogus. He was discredited by the scientific community by and large. That's how peer review science studies and conclusions take place, after multiple groups of scientists have tested the thesis, multiple times, not once, by one scientists.

You're again grasping at straws to discredit work you apparently don't fully understand or wish to dismiss without merit.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Global Cooling. The sky is falling.
« Reply #667 on: June 18, 2018, 10:58:49 am »

If we had such a ratio of OOF shots, photographers would go the way of dinosaurs 😉
What ratio? That's my point. Make one up. That would be expected for you to continue with that concept above.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Global Cooling. The sky is falling.
« Reply #668 on: June 18, 2018, 10:58:59 am »

Everybody on here needs to read "The Social Benefits of Fossil Fuels Far Outweigh the Costs" in this morning's Wall Street Journal.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
    • advantica blog
Re: Global Cooling. The sky is falling.
« Reply #669 on: June 18, 2018, 11:02:50 am »

If we had such a ratio of OOF shots, photographers would go the way of dinosaurs 😉

I've seen many photographs of waterfalls and oceans where the water was blurred beyond recognition. They must have used very slow cameras.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Global Cooling. The sky is falling.
« Reply #670 on: June 18, 2018, 11:06:19 am »

Are you serious, equating the inability to reproduce an experiment as concluding all the work thus and later as bogus? What is reported above is a part of the scientific process. It's part of peer review and until that is fully finished and presented for peer review which includes multiple variations, it's utterly premature to state the science is bogus unless (and you've yet to provide that data), it is presented by a peer group as a settled agreement of the science and then, using the same process, rejected.
Look at how the scientific community, through peer review, dismissed the incorrect idea by Andrew Wakefield that vaccines produce autism. His work was bogus. He was discredited by the scientific community by and large. That's how peer review science studies and conclusions take place, after multiple groups of scientists have tested the thesis, multiple times, not once, by one scientists.

You're again grasping at straws to discredit work you apparently don't fully understand or wish to dismiss without merit.

I didn't state it. It was stated by Richard Horton, Editor of The Lancet,  a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is among the world's oldest, most prestigious, and best known general medical journals.  I'll let the readers decide if you or Horton reflects the current situation regarding scientific research accuracy. 


Horton's quote: "The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”.
Link to the full article: https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Global Cooling. The sky is falling.
« Reply #671 on: June 18, 2018, 12:32:16 pm »

From a Wikipedia article on replication crisis of scientific studies:

"According to a 2016 poll of 1,500 scientists reported in the journal Nature, 70% of them had failed to reproduce at least one other scientist's experiment (50% had failed to reproduce one of their own experiments).

Well, there you have it, the scientific process at work. If (almost) nobody can reproduce the experiment/observations, it means that it will be rejected (unlike conspiracy theories in blogs).

If, on the other hand, many/most can reproduce (or amend and improve) it, the experiment will lead to an emergent truth upon which others can base further research. That's why also the number of references in reputable publications/studies is important.

The scientific method explained by a Scientist in a simple manner:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FvSXI2iBcA&feature=youtu.be

And here a bit more in detail and relating to climate change skeptics or even deniers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udeF6EFUzkk

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: June 18, 2018, 02:32:15 pm by BartvanderWolf »
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Global Cooling. The sky is falling.
« Reply #672 on: June 18, 2018, 12:42:10 pm »

I didn't state it. It was stated by Richard Horton, Editor of The Lancet,  a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal.
So you didn't state this, or agree with it: It was dismaying to read recently how many scientific studies are bogus.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Global Cooling. The sky is falling.
« Reply #673 on: June 18, 2018, 01:19:18 pm »

There you have it: the more bogus science, the more scientific science is ;)

Jeremy Roussak

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8961
    • site
Re: Global Cooling. The sky is falling.
« Reply #674 on: June 18, 2018, 01:21:58 pm »

Well, if you could prove God exists, what we be the point of faith?

Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer.
          Voltaire

Or, more amusingly,

The Babel fish is small, yellow, leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier, but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that something so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing.' 'But, says Man, the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.' 'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and vanishes in a puff of logic. 'Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

        Douglas Adams

I particularly like the "puff of logic".

Jeremy
Logged

Jeremy Roussak

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8961
    • site
Re: Global Cooling. The sky is falling.
« Reply #675 on: June 18, 2018, 01:25:46 pm »

Are you serious, equating the inability to reproduce an experiment as concluding all the work thus and later as bogus? What is reported above is a part of the scientific process. It's part of peer review and until that is fully finished and presented for peer review which includes multiple variations, it's utterly premature to state the science is bogus unless (and you've yet to provide that data), it is presented by a peer group as a settled agreement of the science and then, using the same process, rejected.

Look at how the scientific community, through peer review, dismissed the incorrect idea by Andrew Wakefield that vaccines produce autism. His work was bogus. He was discredited by the scientific community by and large. That's how peer review science studies and conclusions take place, after multiple groups of scientists have tested the thesis, multiple times, not once, by one scientists.

That's absolutely right. Horton has good reason to be wary of surprising research: it was he, as editor of the Lancet, who published Wakefield's fraudulent garbage.

The inability of one scientist to reproduce the work of another is a mere curiosity, nothing more. It could mean the first was wrong; it could mean the second is incompetent; or perhaps that the result isn't obtained every time.

Jeremy
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Global Cooling. The sky is falling.
« Reply #676 on: June 18, 2018, 01:29:43 pm »

... The inability of one scientist to reproduce the work of another is a mere curiosity, nothing more. It could mean the first was wrong; it could mean the second is incompetent; or perhaps that the result isn't obtained every time...

In the meantime, we better save billions of dollars until we figure out which is which ;)

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Global Cooling. The sky is falling.
« Reply #677 on: June 18, 2018, 02:00:09 pm »

In the meantime, we better save billions of dollars until we figure out which is which ;)

On the contrary, 'our' inaction will cost billions, and it will cost many many human lives.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Global Cooling. The sky is falling.
« Reply #678 on: June 18, 2018, 02:32:10 pm »

That's absolutely right. Horton has good reason to be wary of surprising research: it was he, as editor of the Lancet, who published Wakefield's fraudulent garbage.
And, thanks to sound peer review, it was redacted. So no, it's not absolutely right.
Quote
The inability of one scientist to reproduce the work of another is a mere curiosity, nothing more.
No, it's a lot more. It's part of the scientific process.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Global Cooling. The sky is falling.
« Reply #679 on: June 18, 2018, 02:34:58 pm »

And, thanks to sound peer review, it was redacted...

Note that, before publishing, it was also peer reviewed.
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 53   Go Up