It is necessary and true that all of the things we say in science, all of the conclusions, are uncertain, because they are only conclusions. They are guesses as to what is going to happen, and you cannot know what will happen, because you have not made the most complete experiments....John says:
Scientists, therefore, are used to dealing with doubt and uncertainty. All scientific knowledge is uncertain....
So what we call scientific knowledge today is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty....
If Krugman is terrified at the idea of not 'knowing,' maybe he's the one who's against science.I was going to challenge that "maybe," but that would be unscientific.
There are way too many political speakers embarrassing themselves these days by preening about how scientific they are, when all they mean is that they defer to authority. And there are way too many scientists who step up and pose as authorities to be deferred to (and given grants to).
পোস্টগুলি
২৩৪টি মন্তব্য:
234 এর 1 – থেকে 200 আরও নতুন» সবচেয়ে নতুন»Small minds must have certainty.
Mitt Romney will spend a half a billion dollars of his family's treasure ... to GET this office!
(That's how Bloomberg got to be mayor of NYC).
I still think Mittens has a problem. While all his money does buy press approval.
Exactly how far did McCain get on press approval? In 1988 McCain's bus got sideswiped by Governor Sununu picking the elder Bush to win. And, the "straight talking express" went over the cliff.
We live in a world, today, where you can see all the money in the world didn't produce "box office" winners. Remember ISHTAR?
I'm not impressed, yet, with the GOP.
Boehner, however, did a good one! I give him credit! (Even though Congress is hated even more so than Obama.)
And, I think democraps HATE Pelosi! I think this works in Boehner's favor, too.
And, sometimes? Well, there are enough politicians, now, in both parties who can read America's "mood."
Here? I don't give Mitt any edge.
And, I saw when George Romney couldn't unseat Nixon. George flew off the screen because he said "brain washed."
Brain washed wasn't the answer.
Today, I hope, a candidate who said something like "brainwashed" would fight back. Romney was criticizing the government when he said that, and he get crushed by his choice of word. He had a reason for saying it and he should have found the rhetoric to leverage the debate.
Uncertainty is science; certainty is religion.
And there are way too many scientists who step up and pose as authorities to be deferred to (and given grants to).
Ahem. Who's posing as an authority here?
Milton's feeling the heat from Perry, Palin, and Bachmann, so he's moving right a bit.
If he really wanted to shake up things, he'd quote Ann Coulter's columns from last week and this week.
Then we could watch Krugman's and Keller's heads explode.
AA is just jealous that lawyers can't get grants.....
I keed, I keed!
"Scientists, therefore, are used to dealing with doubt and uncertainty. All scientific knowledge is uncertain...."
That's what's so risible about the claim "The science is settled."
"And there are way too many scientists who step up and pose as authorities to be deferred to (and given grants to)."
Emphasis on the grants.
The CO2 hoax was a disgraceful set of intentional lies paid for by the Governments that planned to use it to create a World Tax collected by a World Government and paid in a new World Currency.
Every scientist in on it was a criminal. To not be against that hoax dressed in faked data by criminally fraudulent scientists is to abandon all hope for honest science forever.
To quote a small ethnic group at the eastern end of the Mediterranean, " Never again."
Crimes against humanity by organized crime is the subject here. The false energy shortages the demanded were intended to starve to death the impoverished Africans so they could seal their Continent.
Not that there is anything wrong with that if the criminal gang gives you a cut of the loot.
I defer to Richard Feynmann.
"when all they mean is that they defer to authority"
It's not necessarily unwise to defer to folks who have spent their lives studying particular, narrow scientific areas of inquiry.
This deferral to expertise is also common in non-sci-research fields, e.g. law and medicine. Most folks don't assume that, w/o training, they know more about law and medicine than practicing professionals. Not that the individuals in these professions (and the research folks) are anywhere near perfect. But, a strong consensus is worth listening to. And, maybe even deferring to, especially if we're not willing/able to devote ourselves to the training associated w/ becoming an expert in a particular field.
OTOH, Plenty of folks would eagerly defer to Palin, but not Huntsman. So, from this POV maybe it's not such a bad idea for folks (w/ a little Youtube training) to perform open heart surgery on each other.
CO-2 isn't the only "hoax." (And, that was just a global tax scheme! It had nothing to do with science!)
But the EURO is also a "hoax" ... because you know there are different countries, with different cultures and languages. And, each of them had to give up the citizens rights ... to gnomes in Belgium. Just as the global hoaxers are the UN. Which includes more despotic countries than anything else.
And, since Truman threw in with "stalemate" ... we've seen the whole world travel downhill!
The good news is that the hoaxer got caught. The truth actually caught up with them. Though punishments have not.
I don't think we live in a perfect world.
Even when we say "judges are impartial," we know they really are not. Humans, as a general rule, all use their built in prejudices as their roadmap and guide.
But it's not a play on words, either; this "impartiality" business. It means that both sides get a fair chance to present their views. You can't make faces. You can't make thumbs down signs. And, you've got to deliberate.
That means you're gonna process stuff where you have to sort through choices ... As long as you want to participate. Be it up on the bench. Or seated among jurors. You can't come in carrying rope.
Mitt knows this! He knows at some point either he's wasting his money ... or he spends his way to the top! He's very motivated to get there!
While the GOP doesn't yet seem to have a cohesive message that sells well with the multitudes.
While a schlemeil doesn't even lose ground.
So I went through and read Krugman's column.
He fulminates against Rick Perry in this fashion:
Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, recently made headlines by dismissing evolution as “just a theory,” one that has “got some gaps in it” — an observation that will come as news to the vast majority of biologists.
Now, we can certainly extrapolate that what Mr. Perry means by this statement is something more risible, but if you actually know anything about evolutionary science, you know that it is a "theory" with "some gaps in it".
Maybe it's the word "just" that Mr. Krugman should emphasize. I don't like it either. "Just" a theory is like saying "Just" a Shakespeare play or "Just" the Red Sox. Some theories are more important and profound than others.
Oh well. No one ever accused Paul Krugman of lack of certitude.
There is an easy litmus test to determine if someone is really committed to the Scientific Method, especially as expounded upon by Karl Popper.
And it is similar to a litmus test for so-called 'edgy' comedians who mock religion, using safe Christian-bashing jokes. Do they also mock Islam? Usually not. So much for 'edgy'.
So for commitment to science, how about this: How do they feel about the science that looks into mean IQ by Race?
That usually sorts out the truly objective, from the agenda driven, damn quickly.
I believe global warming is mostly caused by that huge fire ball in the sky.
Do you know the Midwest prairie was a desert thousands of years ago? Then the earth cooled down, prairies appeared, straight horn buffaloes and the humans who hunted them moved in. How much cooler are we now than the desert days? Yet Mitt Romney doesn't know global cooling is mostly caused by humans.
I do appreciate people like Feynmann who possessed the integrity to acknowledge reality.
Science is a faith derived from evidence and argument, which is necessarily constrained to a limited frame of reference. Let's hope that our frame of reference remains sufficiently predictable. If not, I suppose our efforts to renormalize it would be in vain anyway.
The concept of consensus is a social construct, which is antithetical to the true spirit of science. Anyone claiming scientific knowledge must answer to reasonable counterclaims supported by evidence and argument. It only requires one dissenting individual to invalidate a "scientific" consensus.
Any actions taken to address risk in our world based on scientific evidence should be commensurate to the quality of the evidence and argument presented.
When there is deviation from the scientific process, it is pursued by individuals and cooperatives harboring ulterior motives, typically in an effort to consolidate wealth and power, and to elevate their status within society.
Two German Physicist published a report in 2009 that exposed the un-scientific hoax that is GloBull Warming. Here's a money quote from the abstract:
"...global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is
radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist."
Full paper at: http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161
"No one ever accused Paul Krugman of lack of certitude."
An yet, he's an economist!
I don't think we live in a perfect world.
No schlemeil you, Carol Herman. More a schlimazel.
"Evolution" as explained by Darwin has been proven wrong.
Krugman makes an excellent argument for a rule that a Nobel prize is forfeited if the recipient engages in any advocacy not directly related to the research for which the prize was awarded.
He devalues the prize with his every utterance.
A comment should be made about equating evolutionary theory and global warming theory. Evolution has been around for 150 years. GW for what, 25 years? The way science deals with the uncertainty Feynmann speaks of is to continue to test the hypothesis. The longer something holds up, the more confidence we have in it. Evolution and GW and not on the same footing.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
PB&J(Troll) Science doesn’t operate on “Consensus;” it operates on hypothesis, evidence, and testing….which Global Warming fails at…it has hypothesis, but few if any falsifiable hypotheses, and the claims that HAVE been made have been wrong…the whole idea of carbon dioxide causing warming, via marginal increases in temperature, leading to MAJOR increases in temperature due to increased water vapour in the atmosphere have not materialized!
Remember there was a consensus about “phlogiston”, a “consensus” that various “humours” caused disease, that ulcers were the result of stress and diet, and that Plate Tectonics was resisted for almost 50 years., also don’t forget the Newtonian “consensus” on the “aether”.
How do they feel about the science that looks into mean IQ by Race?
I would say it's a social science. And I feel it's on a different footing than the natural sciences.
They are not only "deferring to authority." They are deferring to at best biased, and at worst corrupt, pseudo-authority. It's true that many scientists are posing as authorities. Many of these are ant biologists or something other than climate scientists. Like getting advice on your liver cancer from your dentist. But many of the climate scientists are corrupted, consciously or not, by the grant system, driven by political agenda, eco-fundamentalist orthodoxy, or commercial interest.
Too many politicians, even Chris Christie, being too busy, I guess to keep up with the story, are deferring to these pseudo authorities. This is potentially too big an issue to allow that. The voters, as usual, are way ahead of the "leaders" on this issue, and we cannot afford to allow the "leaders" to drag us backward on it.
"Gravity" as explained by Newton has been proven wrong.
If Obama doesn't know that increased gov't regulation and bureaurcacy doens't hinder economic development, is he against science?
It's true that many scientists are posing as authorities. Many of these are ant biologists or something other than climate scientists.
Sure. Name an ant biologist or two who are posing as "climate scientists."
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Sure. Name an ant biologist or two who are posing as "climate scientists
You ralize tha the bulk of the “scientists” and PhD’s on the IPCC are NOT climate scientists, right?
Curious George:
Evolution has not been proven wrong. Evolution as a description of origin cannot be proven. Transitional stages of complex life forms, but humans in particular, has not been observed. Past performance cannot be proven due to a lack of continuity in the physical record. We can, at best, demonstrate correlation, which is not causal evidence for the process. We can observe evolutionary processes for simple life forms with short life cycles.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
"Gravity" as explained by Newton has been proven wrong
To be fair, I didn’t think Newton “explained” gravity, merely acknowledged its existence and measured its effect, or posited its effect, with the R-squared rule.
Are there ant biologists or dentists or some such on the IPCC who are misrepresenting themselves as "climate scientists"?
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Evolution as a description of origin cannot be proven
NOTHING is “proven” in Science, as in unalterably true, and forever “given.” Does Evolution describe, explain, and predict, well and parsimoniously? If yes, it is an Operative Paradigm, if not it is either a failed contender or under replacement. Right now it is not either, but it is NOT “Proven.” It simply works better, than any other explanation.
Clearly the Republicans don't understand science. Journalists should get Democrats to explain it to them.
"President Obama, which experiments convinced you that global warming is occurring? What was the strongest objection to the anthropogenic hypothesis that appeared in the literature in the past ten years, and which of the responses laid it to rest?"
"Mr Biden, some Republicans have expressed doubts about the theory of evolution. Could you briefly outline the geological, genetic, and phylogenetic evidence in support of evolution that led you and your party to the conviction that evolution accounts for the diversity of life on earth?"
Science, we should remind ourselves, is a human endeavor and so is subject to the usual whims, miscalculations and outright biases of the people engaged in its practice. I happen to think that the greenhouse model of global warming is a convincing explanation for many of the changes we're seeing in weather patterns, migratory behavior, flora , and ocean levels. Some of these changes ultimately may prove negligible to the grand scheme of things; others, perhaps not.
However, how could one not cringe at, and ultimately dismiss the exaggerations, political posturing and almost delusional certainty of the Warmers? Ironically, the sainted Al Gore probably has done more damage to global warming advocacy than its severest critic.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Are there ant biologists or dentists or some such on the IPCC who are misrepresenting themselves as "climate scientists
The IPCC Governing body, upon which they sit, pronounces upon Global Warming and makes recommendations…you do understand that the head of the IPCC is NOT a “Scientist” but an engineer, right? So much of this “consensus” of the “scientists” is the Consensus of folks who are NOT Climate Scientists, but rather people who review and recommend…it has the PATINA of “science” but is lacking the science.
There were certainly climate scientists misrepresenting themselves as statisticians ... but perhaps they are more careful now.
So we're not really arguing that there are IPCC scientists who are misrepresenting their field of expertise. We dropped that red herring for other ground I gather.
In another context, "You are not bound by any expert's opinion." Wisconsin Jury Instruction (Civil) 260, Expert Testimony
phx said...
How do they feel about the science that looks into mean IQ by Race?
I would say it's a social science. And I feel it's on a different footing than the natural sciences.
It doesn't matter what you feel. There's plenty of data, and it always comes out about the same. You're not allowed to talk about this in "polite" society, but if you're interested, you'll find plenty of "facts" at Steve Sailer's blog.
Joshua (crypto),
Put down the straw man.
" n.n said...
Curious George:
Evolution has not been proven wrong. Evolution as a description of origin cannot be proven. Transitional stages of complex life forms, but humans in particular, has not been observed. Past performance cannot be proven due to a lack of continuity in the physical record. We can, at best, demonstrate correlation, which is not causal evidence for the process. We can observe evolutionary processes for simple life forms with short life cycles."
It doesn't matter what you feel. There's plenty of data, and it always comes out about the same. You're not allowed to talk about this in "polite" society, but if you're interested, you'll find plenty of "facts" at Steve Sailer's blog.
The original poster asked how we would feel about the "science" of measuring intelligence. I told him.
If you don't like my feelings tough.
How do you feel about that?
Joe:
Exactly, but to what end does a faith in evolution serve humanity? If it is simply a philosophical curiosity, then it should not be taught in our schools as science. If, however, the associated concepts and processes are valuable beyond merely satisfying some people's need for a justification of their faith or to support a dissenting position, then it is relevant to the needs of the general population and should be taught in our schools (and on PBS).
In any case, I would like for us to distinguish between philosophy (or religion) and science. I have absolutely no tolerance for people who exploit "science" in order to oppress or discriminate against other people who adhere to a competing faith.
I am also not a fan of progressive involuntary exploitation justified through the subversion and perversion of science.
I wish John Pinnette became a GOP candidate running for the presidency. When he got a turn at the mic, he could say "GET OUT OF THE LINE" ...
And, he could also say "NAY, NAY"
Meanwhile, alas, there's the schlemiel. He gains no ground. But he doesn't fall over, either.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
So we're not really arguing that there are IPCC scientists who are misrepresenting their field of expertise. We dropped that red herring for other ground I gather
Yes we still are saying that..not necessarily they are “ant scientists” but the bulk of the IPCC governing body are NOT Climate Scientists….and that many of the Climate Scientists were NOT good coders or statisticians….
Would you care to comment on the FAILURE of one of the global climate change mechanisms to appear, increased water vapour? Or on the claims that the Aortic Ice will be gone in the Summer or that snow may become a rare event in the UK? Or discuss disappearing glaciers, or Himalayan glacier loss? Or discuss previous warming or cooling cycles of the globe?
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Exactly, but to what end does a faith in evolution serve humanity? If it is simply a philosophical curiosity, then it should not be taught in our schools as science
Because it IS “Science” it is as “Sciencey” as Atomic Theory, Quantum Mechanics, or General Relativity. The fact that Atheists, erroneously use it to “prove” there is no Yhwh, is irrelevant to the Science of it.
"The more carefully [historians of science] study, say, Aristotelian dynamics, phlogistic chemistry, or caloric thermodynamics, the more certain they feel that those once current views of nature were, as a whole, neither less scientific nor more the product of human idiosyncrasy than those current today."
"If these out-of-date beliefs are to be called myths, then myths can be produced by the same sorts of methods and held for the same sorts of reasons that now lead to scientific knowledge."
"If, on the other hand, they are to be called science, then science has included bodies of belief quite incompatible with the ones we hold today."
"Given these alternatives, the historian must choose the latter."
"Out of date theories are not in principle unscientific because they have been discarded"
Thomas S. Khun, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Which directly implies:
"The old scientific ideal of episteme — of absolutely certain, demonstrable knowledge — has proved to be an idol. The demand for scientific objectivity makes it inevitable that every scientific statement must remain tentative for ever."
Karl R. Popper The Logic of Scientific Discovery
What is amazing is that most of the pundits who are "preening about how scientific they are" are postmodern adherents who espouse relativistic "realities". "What's true for you may not be true for me," or "It's all the same" or "It's all good" or, ultimately, "Truth is unknowable."
This is the intellectual corruption to which we've come, but Sharia will fix it all. Our intelligentsia will forbid asserting anything positive enough to defend us against it.
"Evolution" as explained by Darwin has been proven wrong.
Whatever helps you sleep, man.
Would you care to comment on the FAILURE of one of the global climate change mechanisms to appear, increased water vapour? Or on the claims that the Aortic Ice will be gone in the Summer or that snow may become a rare event in the UK? Or discuss disappearing glaciers, or Himalayan glacier loss? Or discuss previous warming or cooling cycles of the globe?
No, I'm not a scientist. That's beyond the scope of the point that I was discussing. But your opinion on those issues might be relevant to me if you have the credentials suggesting you are an authority worth deferring to.
My point was one of skepticism towards another commenter who said in effect there were scientists who were misrepresenting their field of expertise. It sounds like you also want to say that, but it isn't what you've said. You've said the majority of scientists on IPCC are not climatologists. But you're not saying they are misrepresenting themselves.
Go ahead, come right out and say they are misrepresenting themselves as climate scientists if you know that or believe it.
phx said...
It doesn't matter what you feel. There's plenty of data, and it always comes out about the same. You're not allowed to talk about this in "polite" society, but if you're interested, you'll find plenty of "facts" at Steve Sailer's blog.
The original poster asked how we would feel about the "science" of measuring intelligence. I told him.
If you don't like my feelings tough.
How do you feel about that?
I feel you are too unimportant to worry about. However, if you are interested in the data, see Sailer.
Ann Althouse said...
Today, I hope, a candidate who said something like "brainwashed" would fight back. Romney was criticizing the government when he said that, and he get crushed by his choice of word. He had a reason for saying it and he should have found the rhetoric to leverage the debate
=========================
Agree, by the history books..what George Romney was treated to was a complete bullshit dog and pony show of nonstop indoctrination, Potemkin village displays - about Vietnam done by the military and State on a visit there. Replete with "light at the end of the tunnel, victory for the noble democracy-loving freedom hungry S Vietnamese was right around the corner!!"
As a CEO and also as an architect of the Marshall Plan - Romney SR while he was an odd duck not well suited for politics, had an excellent BS detector.
Back then, the media was controlled by just a few families and they met in NYC and DC and sort of decided to run with the "brainwashing" to show the awkward George Romney was no trustworthy Eastern Establishment figure and should be winnowed from the field. As they hoped to do with Nixon, who had far more allies from rebuilding the Republican Party after the Goldwater debacle...shortly after.
Funny thing though - the history books that discuss the reality of Vietnam vs what LBJ's Administration presented to the American Public cite George Romney as one of the people that saw through it and helped Nixon to wind it down and wrap it up (at a far faster pace than Obama is managing with Iraq and Afghanistan.
Tank and I share the same feelings.
Far more interesting than Krugman's recycling of CW about AGW, is JAC's quotation from Feynmann. Certainty is a tricky subject (Wittgenstein had some typically sharp things to say on the subject, which his students collected in a book), but it is not meaningless even in the scientific context. Saying that something is certain is not equivalent to saying that its opposite is inconceivable, or even that it's opposite is guaranteed never to occur. It's a concept that lives in the same neighborhood as doubt, and is used to mean, essentially, undoubted or 'not subject to doubt'.
Feynmann wants 'certainty' to mean something different, which (in his telling) would apply only to tautologies. He rules out certainty about anything (again, excepting tautologies) because of the incompleteness of knowledge and the possibility that something learned tomorrow may cast doubt on what we think is certain today. He's certainly (!) right about the today/tomorrow bit, but just as clearly wrong about the certainty of incomplete knowledge. English (language generally) is more supple than that even when used in a scientific context, and accepts life as we life it rather than as it would be if everything were reduced to a mathematical model.
There is a saying about some people -- always certain and occasionally right -- that captures the concept. I don't think Feynmann would have been fond of that idea, but I think it captures the essence of 'certainty' a little better than Feynmann did.
An emotional bunch around these parts.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
No, I'm not a scientist. That's beyond the scope of the point that I was discussing. But your opinion on those issues might be relevant to me if you have the credentials suggesting you are an authority worth deferring to.
It’s not “deference to authority:” dood/doodette it’s called UNDERSTANDING SCIENTIFIC THEORY…Neither you nor I have to be Climate Scientists, to judge “Science.” “Science” advances Falsifiable hypotheses, to be tested. Please name the supported hypotheses of Climate Change? One is that increased CO2 will increase water vapour, and THAT will be the major driver of increasing temperatures. There is NONE…more claims have failed to materialize. I don’t have to have a PhD to understand that the “science” isn’t to “science” in AGCC.
Go ahead, come right out and say they are misrepresenting themselves as climate scientists if you know that or believe it
They are, this is the “Consensus” that AlGore and others wish to point to, the IPCC Reports, reports written and approved of by NON-CLIMATE SCIENTISTS. That is a mis-representation, SOME scientists, unskilled in computer coding and statistics produced work that “suggested” AGCCC, the IPCC endorses that Science….
This may be more on the mark.
My brother crypto Joe has the last word between us in this thread.
phx said...
Tank and I share the same feelings
I knew we could agree.
And, I feel better now.
; >)
The warmist fraud demonstrates evolution by the criminal scientists Total Depravity morphing into Utter Depravity.
Being nice and neutral to the jerks as if they were doing real science as they faked data and ignored the obvious contradictions in their pretend science is not worth warm spit any more.
Edutcher with some hard hitting science from...Ann the Man Coulter. Wow.
Maybe next quote Sarah Palin on atmospheric physics.
In this thread we have reiterated the same distortions, mischaracterizations, and lies about climate science, AND evolution, that we have in EVERY post where either is mentioned.
Sometimes from the very same commenters.
Today I'm going to pick one, and only one to deal with: "no transitional forms have been discovered".
This is an out-and-out and easily debunked lie. Anyone who has made this statement simply has not bothered to learn anything for themselves on the topic.
This is but one more example of he many of I have pointed to where commenters here who reject evolution, climate science or (the majority of them) both, have prven themselves utterly ignorant of the basic facts of the discipline in question.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Of course Krugman et. al. really aren’t talking about “Science” or “Republicans” as many wiser than me point out…Krugman and Co. are really just talking to THEMSELVES. Building a narrative that Republicans are stoopit, bitter Clinger Anti-Science types, whilst they are the “Smart people.” It’s not about truth or science, it’s about Liberal Self-Image.
GH,
What's the reaction been in the AGW community to Nasa's release that the rate of heat leaking into space is faster than previously thought?
I saw the article a couple of weeks ago, but have not followed up with any reading from other sources.
Seems like the burden of proof should be on the "scientists" to explain why a mild warming trend (.8 degree over a century) should be viewed with hysterical alarm.
So far all they've given us is computer models that don't work.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
No Gabriel it is YOU has a problem with Science, as far as Climate Science and AGCC goes….
"no transitional forms have been discovered".
The continued currency of this one puzzles me.
Most experimental science does involves probability, and often theories are revised (as Kuhn pointed out), but the ...know-nothings and creationist types --ie Coulters--often misread probability, or ..."falsifiableness-ness" as a type of relativism, if not just BS. So Coulterites will claim "since not everything's settled with Darwinian evolution, or global warming, and it's being modified all the time, it's all wrong!"-- a mistake of course. Probability, revisability, or falsfiable-ness does not imply non-science--indeed, Popper would say a scientific theory must be falsifiable to be science (ie, new facts/data arrives, and the theory is modified).
The temp data does show global warming. Even a one-time AGW skeptic such as Mueller agrees to that.
John M. Auston -
"So for commitment to science, how about this: How do they feel about the science that looks into mean IQ by Race?
That usually sorts out the truly objective, from the agenda driven, damn quickly."
===============
If you look at the Green Movement, particularly in it's potent European form, you see watermelons. Green on the outside, red on the inside.
It is a post-modern, post-communist movement that is anti-capitalist, transnationalist government and law at heart. The Great Earth is Dying From Man-Created CO2 crisis is simply the mechanism by which they seek to gain power (wealth redistribution, global taxes and reparations payments, answerable to "Global Courts).
They claim to be the channels of pure science...all others are deniers and dangerous people.
(Much as the basis of how Jewish&Russian Bolsheviks established that those questioning the scientific certainty of Marx's historical socialist progression were deniers of science, the urgent vital change Mankind was embarked on to better all. And deniers were dangerous! They needed to be demonized and suppressed by denunciations, public shaming, career retaliation, even by the tools of State Terror. But the Jews and Russians in charge of the Soviet Union were also very selective in what science they chose to claim as Final Authority. Only science that served the Marxist ideology was good. All other science and "inconvenient truths" was heresy. You didn't win arguments with the Bolsheviks by logic or scientific fact. It just marked you as a target.)
Same tactics, different era, same basic people though the ethnicities have altered somewhat.
The Greens just followed the 60s thinkers inc Derrida, Alinsky, the Hamburg School...who just followed the Bolsheviks, who patterned their repression on the Czar's sate terror, the 1848 counter-revolution, and the French Terror.
Auston is correct. Ask a Progressive Jew in the media like Krugman or a Green Fascist in Germany proclaiming the purity of The Scientific Community how they feel about the scientifically gathered data pointing to the failed business model of Green Jobs! Or scientific DNA and performance studies showing that race is quite real and not a "social construct", huge differences in performance of races in physical, behavioral, and mental performance exist.
Predictably, you will get rage and denial.
(Not that hardcore conservative Fundies will not also respond with rage and denial of science they find inconvenient...)
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
The temp data does show global warming. Even a one-time AGW skeptic such as Mueller agrees to that
My Yhwh the Small Pathetic Voice is almost lucid today! How long will that last?
But the warmest was in 1998 or 1996…and even though there are temperature variations over time and the globe, climate as opposed to weather, Ice Ages, Warmings, and the like, it is NOT clear that Humans have any or a majority of the cause of them….Climate Skeptics don’t question climate variability, only it’s degree and cause.
@Original Mike:"no transitional forms have been discovered".
The continued currency of this one puzzles me.
It makes perfect sense. It's science concern trolling. "Oh, we WOULD believe in evolution if ONLY there had been some transitional fossils, but there aren't so we have to sorrowfully and reluctantly conclude that the evidence just isn't good enough yet..keep trying scientists, we'll keep a open mind. Let us know as SOON as you find some!"
And when you point them out the quibbling and goalpost shifting begins.
Alas Little JoeJoe, the Small Pathetic Lysenkoist, isn't ever lucid.
Yes, there is a debate on the chemical mechanisms of AGW--man made Co2, water vapor, or other GHG etc. Im not one to defend ...Gore/IPCC. But the data does show...anomalous warming--which the Fox-types had denied for a few years. And most climate experts still believe co2 plays a big part in that.
At any rate, Ann Coulter, or Sarah Palin, or even yr favorite mormon politicians aren't really qualified to offer an opinion on that Joejoe, the small pathetic Lysenkoist
C4-- the Bolsheviks were quite scientific, though there was often a debate between the hardcore...marxists and the more empirical, or..Darwinian sorts (ie Bogdanov). They weren't all insisting on "dialectics" at every level, except when you get to people like Lysenko, one of Joejoe the CJ's role models
Gabriel...Did you see the NOVA three parter last night? If not get it on line.
It is the latest in human origins theory, and done quite well.
One big genetic evolution factoid they talked about is a sudden loss of chimpanzee hair, except from the head and pubic areas.
That let the new 6 foot and long legged hairless guys, about a million years ago, start running all day long in the hot mid-day sun until the fur covered animals they were chasing had a heat stroke and collapsed.
Thus they could meat eat and were off to the races for bigger brains.
(In fact this is UGA's strategy to beat Boise State Saturday by turning off the AC in the Georgia Dome.)
The NOVA guy's conclusion was that adaptability is the secret of evolved man's domination of the planet over many fierce climate changes during the last one million years.
We are engineered to adapt.
Would one of the great scientists writing here, or one of the great science supporters, please tell me what caused the ice ages.
Would one of the great scientists writing here, or one of the great science supporters, please tell me what caused the ice ages.
I'm still waiting on what the AGW's response to previously incorrect assumptions about the rate heat leaves the atmosphere for space and what it does to their models.
Would one of the great scientists writing here, or one of the great science supporters, please tell me what caused the ice ages.
It was the aortic ice in Gaia's heart that did it.
I'm still waiting on what the AGW's response to previously incorrect assumptions about the rate heat leaves the atmosphere for space and what it does to their models.
Not really a big issue since the models never worked in the first place.
Ask one of your scientist role models, Smurfhousers!--you know--like Dr. Ann Coulter, or Dr Sarah Palin, or Dr. Rush Limbozo
Not really a big issue since the models never worked in the first place.
Sure, from the skeptic's point of view. Much more telling to see how the AGW supporters are dealing with the new info and what their models are now predicting with it properly incorporated.
Ask one of your scientist role models, Smurfhousers!
I'm specifically asking the AGW supports, in this thread, if there has been an answer from the AGW community regarding this new data, John. Do you know?
I saw the Nova last night, and yeah, the take home message was the adaptability of our species.
AGW is a very interesting scientific question, and one that I think is still very much in doubt. But that misses the important point.
Let's, for the sake of argument, grant the premise. Next question, "What are we gong to do about it?" No one has advanced a plan that even comes close to making a dent. We ruin the economy (causing untold death and disease) to lower the global temperature by tenths of a degree (as shown by the same climate models that the AGWers assure us are so trustworthy).
SHOW. ME. A. PLAN!
A. REAL. PLAN!!!
The same people who believe they are so rational, so scientific stick their fingers in their ears and run off screaming "LA! LA! LA! Can't hear you!" when you point out their plan takes us back to the stone age. And, oh by the way, it doesn't fix the problem. This is why the cause looks more like a religion than a science.
If the AGWers are right, there is only one thing we can do. Adapt. And we will.
Perry is probably throwing some red meat to the religious right. While evolution is "just" a theory and probably has some holes (aren't there always unknowns?), there is no doubt that it is an excellent explanation for how and why species change.
The people who effectively challenged the edict that the earth is suffering from human caused catastrophic global warming were mostly very knowledgeable about science. These guys were/are not religious fundamentalists and are quite comfortable with evolution.
It would be good if Perry would STFU about evolution.
@Quayle:Would one of the great scientists writing here, or one of the great science supporters, please tell me what caused the ice ages.
Would one of the deluded believers in the smoking-causes-lung-cancer theory please tell me how people who work with asbestos can possibly get lung cancer if they don't smoke.
The creationist equivalent of this argument is "If we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?"
Climate scientists are aware that there have been ice ages. They are aware that there were no humans responsible for warming up after those ice ages.
Humans are responsible only for the warming caused by the excess carbon dioxide they produce.
As Steven Hayward and Patrick Michaels will tell you, there is no reasonable doubt left that the earth is warming and that humans are partly responsible. And like them, I reject most of the proposed solutions as unrealistic.
Where I part ways from them is that they give aid and comfrot to those who do reject the science and spread lies about it.
It doesn't matter that nearly every commenter at Althouse agrees with me that wind power is expensive and useless--when you spread lies about the science I will confront you.
First, review the latest consensus on the temp data: Mueller/LA Times. Professor Mueller's study at UC was funded in part by the notorious Koch bros, AGW skeptics--
A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that its data-crunching effort is producing results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view.
Bad news for the Rush-bots, and Alt-tards
@Scott M: If you were really wondering what actual climate scientist have to say about the CERn results, you could always go look at realclimate.
There's really no excuse for "why oh why can I not find their response" in the age of Google. You have to look for something before you can find it. Verb. sap.
The paper first confirms some results that are well known: aerosol nucleation increases enormously when you add H2SO4 into the air (the biggest contributor to human aerosol impacts via the oxidation of our emissions of SO2), it increases further when you add ammonia (NH3), and it increases even more when you increase ionisation levels from neutral, to ambient ground levels, and to upper atmospheric levels (as long as you are below what is called the ‘ion-pair’ limit). However, the most intriguing result is that despite going to a lot of trouble to make sure the chamber was ultra-free of contaminants, the researchers found that within most of the aerosols that formed, there were traces of organic nitrogen compounds that must have been present in almost undetectably low concentrations. The other intriguing finding is that aerosol nucleation rates in the chamber don’t match (by a an order of magnitude or more) actual formation rates seen in real world near-surface atmospheric layers at realistic temperatures (only in unrealistically cold conditions do rates come close). The authors speculate (quite convincingly) that this is precisely because they didn’t have enough volatile organic compounds (which are ubiquitous in the real world) to help get the nucleation started. This result will surely inspire some of their next experiments. All-in-all this is a treasure trove of results (and potential future results) for people tasked with trying to model or understand aerosol processes in the atmosphere.
It doesn't matter that nearly every commenter at Althouse agrees with me that wind power is expensive and useless--when you spread lies about the science I will confront you.
NASA
Heat escaping
Higher Rate Than Previous Though
Effect?
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that its data-crunching effort is producing results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view
And at the last report, I saw, they had gone thru about 2.5% of the data….of course CO2 is only the base cause of AGCC, it’s “real” effect is to increase water vapour in the atmosphere, which is the REAL driver of Global Warming…as I understand it no increase in this vapour can be found….. but hey, I’m a Global Warming Denier, please allyou bright AGCC supporters please show this increased water vapour or please tell me the new theory.
Thanks the link GH. I guess "Wikipedia" shows 'transitional fossils' it must be true. I know its where Paul Krugman and Matt Y get their science information.
@Scott M: If you were interested, you would use the Google and would find the link yourself, right--instead of asking me to do it for you?
...the Spencer interpretation has no merit. The interannual global temperature variations were not radiatively forced, as claimed for the 2000s, and therefore cannot be used to say anything about climate sensitivity. Clouds are not a forcing of the climate system (except for the small portion related to human related aerosol effects, which have a small effect on clouds). Clouds mainly occur because of weather systems (e.g., warm air rises and produces convection, and so on); they do not cause the weather systems. Clouds may provide feedbacks on the weather systems. Spencer has made this error of confounding forcing and feedback before and it leads to a misinterpretation of his results.
Hanna's Article From Wikipedia—
"but most, if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor."
So the transitional species are dead ends.
@rcocean:I guess "Wikipedia" shows 'transitional fossils' it must be true.
Which biology text would you prefer that I show you instead? You go right ahead and name an acceptable source.
I'm sure your acceptance of evolution is held up only because you haven't found something more authoritative than wikipedia, right?
The original papers can be found here:
Here's a partial list (A - C).
Looking forward to hearing about your new found acceptance of evolution.
Ahlberg, P.E. 1991. Tetrapod or near-tetrapod fossils from the Upper Devonian of Scotland. Nature 354:298-301.
Barnosky, A.D. 1987. Punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism: some facts from the Quaternary mammalian record. Chapter 4, pp 109- 148, in: Current Mammalogy, volume 1, ed. H.H. Genowys. Plenum Press, New York.
Benton, M.J. (ed.) 1988. The Phylogeny and Classification of the Tetrapods. Clarendon Press, Oxford. [collection of papers. Good intro to current thinking on many intermediate fossils from various groups.]
Benton, M.J. 1989. Patterns of evolution and extinction in vertebrates. Pp 218-241 in: Evolution and the Fossil Record, eds. K. Allen & D. Briggs. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Benton, M.J. 1990. Vertebrate Palaeontology: biology and evolution. Unwin Hyman, London.
Berta, A. 1994. What is a whale? Science 263:180-181. [commentary on discovery of Ambulocetus natans]
Bolt, J.R., R.M. McKay, B.J. Witzke, & M.P. Adams. 1988. A new Lower Carboniferous tetrapod locality in Iowa. Nature 333:768-770
Carroll, R. 1988. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. W.H. Freeman & Co., New York. [general text. Only chapter 22 is concerned with species-level evolution and transitions; the other chapters generally describe only genera or families.]
Chaline, J. 1983. Modalites, Rythmes, Mecanismes de L'Evolution Biologique: Gradualisme phyletique ou equilibres ponctues? Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris. [collection of symposium papers, most in French with English abstracts provided, some in English.]
Chaline, J., and B. Laurin. 1986. Phyletic gradualism in a European Plio-Pleistocene Mimomys lineage (Arvicolidae, Rodentia). Paleobiology 12:203-216.
Chevret, P., C. Denys, J.J. Jaeger, J. Michaux, and F. Catzeflis. 1993. Molecular and paleontological aspects of the tempo and mode of evolution in Otomys (Otomyinae: Muridae: Mammalia). Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 21(1):123-131.
Chuankuei-Li, R.W. Wilson, M.R. Dawson, and L. Krishtalka. 1987. The origin of rodents and lagomorphs. Chapter 3, pp. 97-108, in: Current Mammalogy, volume 1, ed. HH Genoways. Plenum Press, New York.
Coates, M.I., & J.A. Clack. 1991. Fish-like gills and breathing in the earliest known tetrapod. Nature 352:234-236.
Coates, M.I., & J.A. Clack. 1990. Polydactyly in the earliest known tetrapod limbs. Nature 347:66-69.
Colbert, E.H. & M. Morales. 1991. Evolution Of The Vertebrates: A History Of The Backboned Animals Through Time. Wiley-Liss, New York. [An accessible summary of large-scale trends in vertebrate history. Does not discuss species-level evolution at all, though.]
Alas Joejoe the Dimwitted Kulak, you know less about statistical sampling than you do about world history.
It's a ....verification of the existing weather data (as skeptics like Watts had wanted). Ie, via random sampling they check the consistency of the data, more or less. And it matches.
Now, many have stated the original Gore/IPCC CO2-based AGW models were faulty or ...inaccurate, but that doesn't disprove the AGW thesis. Co2's involved. Maybe you can set up a home-based lab for some chemical spectography and atmospheric modelling, JoeJoe the village idiot
The point of Lysenkoism is that it's government-championed, government-sanctioned science, a hypothesis maintained as the One and Only Truth, while any rival hypotheses are politically suppressed (e.g. as Gore would have it, drummed out of polite society)-- a politically enforced consensus. How in the world can an AGW skeptic, mocked & reviled by the thought police (cf. Krugman), by all the most authoritative organs of government, academia, and media, be a Lysenkoist? Analogy fail.
It would be good if Perry would STFU about evolution.
Agree. Conflating AGW skepticism with creationism just plays into the hands of AGW propagandizers (like Gabriel here).
Gabriel, the propagandizing I mean is not your defending AGW on its scientific merits-- do that as you see fit; that debate is good & healthy. It's your ad hominem identification of AGW skeptics with creationists, hence ab initio disqualifying their arguments as un- and anti-scientific, that is in bad faith.
I'm pro-science. That's why I'm an AGW skeptic-- an AGW doubter. Too much of the construction of AGW consensus (& its political enforcement) doesn't look like science to me. More like Cargo Cult Science, to use Feynman's memorable term.
@Valentine:So the transitional species are dead ends.
AAAANND the goal-post shifting starts on cue.
If creationism were true, these "dead ends" SHOULD NEVER HAVE EXISTED AT ALL. If creatonism were true, it would be meaningless to speak of related species AT ALL. Because it's only been 6-10,000 years. There hasn't been time for more than a handful of new species since then.
And of couse we can never prove that any individual fossil didn't die childless. So the creationists ALWAYS have an excuse to reject any transitional fossil whatever.
"Sorry scientists, we can only accept transitional fossils of animals which you can prove actually left descendants--uncles, siblings, and cousins don't count. We are just lining up to believe in evolution once you can prove that. How do we know your fossil wasn't sterile?"
If you were interested, you would use the Google and would find the link yourself, right--instead of asking me to do it for you?
But you did do it for me, didn't you?
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Now, many have stated the original Gore/IPCC CO2-based AGW models were faulty or ...inaccurate, but that doesn't disprove the AGW thesis
Science Small Pathetic Voice, as the AGCC crew were ADVANCING their hypothesis it’s THEIR job to “prove…an inaccurate model, almost by definition DISPROVES their theory. It’s not my job to disprove AGCC, it’s YOUR job to “prove” it by advancing falsifiable hypotheses and testing them…if they do NOT fail then the belief is that you have proven your point. Now the Atmospheric CO2 model does NOT seem to be providing evidence of increased water vapour in the atmosphere, and new research from CERN suggests that the Sun and Cosmic rays have a larger than anticipated effect on atmospheric vapour….
I’m sorry Gabriel and SPV, but the “Theory” of AGCC is not doing well as Science….please examine Einstein and Relativity..he demonstrated that his theory was accurate by explaining Mercury’s, till then, anomalous orbit, and proposed at least two other tests, gravitational lensing, discovered in the 1920’s and slower time, at altitude, confirmed in the 1970’s. So far AGCC isn’t doing so well.
Check Hanna's biblio—the latest papers on it are 15 YEARS OLD.
No scientific journal would publish any article where the latest citation is from 1994 and most are from the 80's.
Your case is very, very weak.
@yashu: It's your ad hominem identification of AGW skeptics with creationists, hence ab initio disqualifying their arguments as un- and anti-scientific, that is in bad faith.
My comments are intended to apply only to those people who ARE creationists AND climate deniers.
And they SELF-IDENTIFY here. This isn't something I'm just ACCUSING people of to shut them up--I'm only pointing it out when they specifically do it. I hate to pick on traditionalguy because I like him, but he's one. Check out his statements on both. Go through this thread and spot the other commenters who have made statements on both.
There are, as I have always acknowledged, people who accept evolution who reject AGW. However, I have never encountered a creationst who accepted AGW, and the overlap is very high from what I can tell.
Again, all this hubbub is based on a .8 degree observed temperature rise over the course of 100 years or so. On the tail end of the Little Ice Age. Eight tenths of one degree is an utterly trivial amount of warming.
There has (probably) been some warming over the past century, but the hysteria surrounding the issue is grossly out of proportion the the amount of warming that has actually occurred.
Would a .8 degree cooling trend over 100 years be just as alarming?
Are we so fickle as a species that we insist on a planet that is always the exact same temperature?
The whole thing is insane.
"It would be good if Perry would STFU about evolution."
Amen.
@Scott M:But you did do it for me, didn't you?
Only so that no one can say that there never has been an answer, and get away with it. If you weren't going to go there, another one would have.
Hanna I believe in evolution. You're the phony dropping invalid citations as gospel. Asshole, read the shit you cite!
@Valentine SmithNo scientific journal would publish any article where the latest citation is from 1994 and most are from the 80's.
Right, I'm sure your publication record is so much more extensive than mine, and you know from personal experience ALL ABOUT standards for journals.
But I'm not publishing a paper here--I'm posting a comment on a blog. I wanted to help rcocean. See, he's so close to accepting evolution, he just needed to see some real scholarship on the issue and not just wikipedia.
"Are we so fickle as a species that we insist on a planet that is always the exact same temperature?"
We were a lot tougher 100,000 years ago (A la the Nova program).
We were a lot tougher 100,000 years ago (A la the Nova program).
Hell...we were a lot tougher 100 years ago.
@maguro:Are we so fickle as a species that we insist on a planet that is always the exact same temperature?
There is no climate scientist demanding this. This is hogwash you made up, either because you choose to lie about climate science, or because you are too stupid to parse the distinction between
"it won't be good, in the long run, to warm the planet too quickly"
and
"the planet's temeprature must never change or we will all die"
You really, I am convinced, CANNOT tell the difference. Plenty of greens can't either, I concede, but you gave me to believe you weren't one.
The science about human caused global warning is certainly not close to being settled. It is not certain how much the earth is warming or even if the warming is significant over the last 10 or 15 years.
The direct effect of CO2 is miniscule. Theoretically, the direct effect of doubling CO2 will raise the earth's temp by about 1 degree C. The current CO2 level in the world is less than 400 ppm and is going up at about 2 ppm per year. At that rate, it will take about two centuries(!) to raise the earth's temp by 1 degree.
The sensitivity of the earth to raising the temp by increasing CO2 is the great unknown.
The computer models that the IPCC uses to predict climate are a joke and are all over the place. The climate is a chaotic system. Chaotic systems are nearly impossible to model, especially a chaotic system that is so incredibly complex and poorly understood as the earth's climate.
The IPCC is a UN org that was specifically created to construct an argument for human caused catastrophic global warming. The IPCC is like a prosecutor or defense attorney who is not interested in any evidence that does support his agenda. The IPCC is a corrupt and fraudulent UN org. It is obscene that our EPA outsources climatology to the IPCC.
The idea that we should bow down to politicized academics because of their "authority" is profoundly unscientific and undemocratic.
Tried to pull a fast one Hanna. Weak Hanna, very very weak. And your pompous self-assertion re journals carries no weight in cyberspace. Especially as a mere student.
That's .8 celsius, Mag. Now google for like the rest of the day to figure out the conversion of C to F (an exercise for you too, Joe Joe the Village Idiot! JJVI).
Hanna's sort of correct--the anti-evolutionists and creationists do tend to be the same people completely denying AGW. Not always, but usually. The Coulterite meme.
Gabriel Hanna - You're actually trying to debate this pack of right wing hyenas in a logical manner? And using actual scientific evidence to boot?
GFL with that.
What I want people like Gabriel to answer is why they would tolerate the use of political pressure and the threat of social ostracism to be deployed in what is basically a scientific debate.
Doesn't that represent a pollution of the purity and sanctity of the scientific process, where conclusions are drawn only on the identified facts, and not based on outside non-scientific pressure?
"The IPCC is a UN org that was specifically created to construct an argument for human caused catastrophic global warming."
Which then gives the U.N. and other global elites license to the kind of control they could only dream about in the past.
Convenient, no?
If the CO2 sequesters could really cool the planet, that would be great.
Atlanta can be as cool as Madison is now, while poor Madison fights off Polar bear invasions awaiting the 3 months of warm window every year.
But the trace CO2 keeps going up at the same rate while the Globe keeps its cooling down.
The summer months in Ireland were the coldest in 50 years. The sea level has suddenly fallen indicating ice accumulating over a land mass.
And finally, the latest reports indicate that there is NOT a closed system trapping heat in a geenhouse so that it does not escape into outer space.
But Hoax Science keeps pretending all the day long that there is still a problem from CO2. It's right there in their Hoax Models called HAL9000 so it cannot not exist.
And they claim that is a science.
Oh, but wait, Gabriel, I just realized the answer to my question.
One would think that the scientists debating amongst themselves would be a fairly confined discussion, about which only scientists would care.
But there's something else involved, isn't there.
The average schmoe on the street has to be convinced because..... there's more involved than mere consensus among scientists.
There's .......money involved, isn't there.
The proponents of AGW want money, don't they.
And they don't just want any money, they want taxpayer money.
Ah, yes. that's it. They want the taxpayers to vote to give them more money so the taxpayer has to be whipped in line with threats and ridicule.
Let's take Al Gore as an example.
Al wants the taxpayers to line up with his many venture capital investments.
He wants a pay-off on his risk.
You say it is science, but it isn't.
It is about money.
Otherwise the scientists would just fight it out in their little conventions and journals, and the rest of us to go about our lives none the worse off.
Gabriel. What is the science of money? Can you cite to journals on that?
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Gabriel Hanna - You're actually trying to debate this pack of right wing hyenas in a logical manner? And using actual scientific evidence to boot
Do be distinguished from your reasoned and logical ad hominem attacks…as AlGore said, “…And when they couldn’t really answer that question with integrity, the change really started.” I’m not seeing the “integrity” of your answer, please try again….please try to demonstrate the hypotheses of AGCC and their evidence.
Yeah bad news for you, Raul--since you're an anti-Darwinist--not to say flunkie from an RN program, and a mormon fundamentalist, and into chiropractics!-- except on the days when you put on your liberal schtick, here and at Digby's (where one can recently find you denying global warming as well). Tho' inquiring minds will have to find out your latest handle--maybe, the Subluxanator! heh heh
The use of "just a theory" reveals a confusion between theory, which is a an explanation of a set of related observations or events that has been verified a number of times by other researchers, and a hypothesis which in Popper's terms is a proposed explanation for a set of facts which is to be tested. There are stronger and weaker theories both of which are modified with new evidence. In evolution for example, the genetic discoveries had shown how complex organism have developed adding much to the theory of evolution.
@Valentine Smith: Especially as a mere student.
You know that not everything you find online is up to date, right?
Anyhow, I see your argument now is that a transitional fossil does not count, unless it was written about in a paper from the last few years. That's a pretty stupid argument, even for creationists.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Wow, Raul tough crowd…you can’t get a break even when you’re on Small Pathetic Voices’ side….oh well, sorry.
What is the science of money?
In the publicly-funded realm it is this:
Bureaucrats ... strive for increased budgets
Here's my cite (p. 37):
http://books.google.com/books?id=dOYe1ld9F1QC&dq=isbn%3A0202309592&q=budget+maximizing#v=snippet&q=budget%20maximizing&f=false
Wrong again, Joejoe the Village Idiot. "Raul"'s really on your side--ie, the Village Idiots, anti-evolution, anti-AGW, and pro Romney. But he sells more tee-shirts acting like a lib-rall online.
Speaking of evolution or a lack thereof, this should give one an interesting slant on the GOP's grip
on reality:
The Republican Party in Arizona's Pima County, which is represented by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), is in the midst of a fundraising raffle, $10 per entry.
The prize: the same model of gun that delivered a near-fatal blast to the Democratic lawmaker's skull outside a Tucson grocery store in January.
On the third page of the seven-page document, a large illustration of the gun appears with the headline "Help Pima GOP get out the vote and maybe help yourself to a new Glock .40."
The winner of the gun will also receive a case, three 12-round magazines and grips for the firearm.
@roesch-voltaire -- Exactly. I think the key word in Krugman's quote of Perry's statement on evolution is the derogative "just." I do find it amusing that Krugman thinks Perry's statement is risible on it's face. Stupidity is implied, but not explicit.
@Quayle:Gabriel. What is the science of money? Can you cite to journals on that?
Ah, so we're reduced to "follow the money", the infinitely malleable progressive conspiracy theory that substitutes for evidence.
RV,
Evolution is a robust theory that has stood the test of time but when Perry says evolution is "just" a theory, he is correct.
Perry depends on his target audience, the unscientific religious right, to translate the word "theory" into something other than its true scientific meaning.
Doctor Hanna—
Congratulations on your entry to the priveleged caste.
I was merely illustrating the "cut and paste" nature of the support for your argument. You've never read any of those papers, I'd wager.
I do hope you didn't follow the same path to your PhD.
The winner of the gun will also receive a case, three 12-round magazines and grips for the firearm.
So? Unless it was the exact number of clips/sizes/grips they pulled off Loughner, you're living in la la land. Are you suggesting that all Glock owners are murderers?
It might just be that the adults involved can differentiate between owning a weapon and being a murderer. You obviously cannot.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
The prize: the same model of gun that delivered a near-fatal blast to the Democratic lawmaker's skull outside a Tucson grocery store in January
Are you saying ALL Glock .40 calibers should be destroyed and NEVER another sold in the United States, I guess after JFK we should have outlawed Mannlicher-Carcano’s……..
J - Thanks again for shining your ever lovingly warped light on me.
You may be crazy, you may think you have some kind of and of course, have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, but any publicity is good publicity as far as I'm concerned.
*But you're going to have a tough time selling me as a political to these folks.
The .40 caliber Glock (the Glock23 in this case) is a standard law enforcement pistol.
Joe - I didn't say anything about getting rid of all guns.
Did I?
I merely threw the article out to serve as a fine example of how fucking crazy the GOP really is.
Do YOU think it's a good idea to raffle off the next best version of a gun that was used to do such harm to so many people?
Is that what you think...punk?
Ah, so we're reduced to "follow the money", the infinitely malleable progressive conspiracy theory that substitutes for evidence.
You missed my point entirely.
Answer this question: why should any average non-scientist care one way or the other about the debate among scientists about AGW?
Scott - Every time I begin to believe you're not as crazy as the many of the people here...you come right back with another insane comment.
Whether you're for guns or against...are you actually saying that you think it's a good idea to raffle off the next best version of a gun that was used to do such harm to so many people?
C'mon...
I think a gun is a gun is a tool is a gun. There's no more emotional imprinting on my pistol than there is on my car or my lawn mower. I doubt that you can believe that, but it doesn't matter because it's true.
The fact that you have your panties in a twist over this just gives more insight into an individual that thinks it takes "guts" to respond to a blog comment. Groups raffle firearms as prizes all the time. My brother, in fact, won a Glock 19 that way and I liked how it fired so much I bought one. So what?
You could just as easily say...wouldn't it be great to own the weapon that so many of our brave first-responders rely on as their primary firearm?
Do YOU think it's a good idea to raffle off the next best version of a gun that was used to do such harm to so many people?
It's a service pistol. Punk.
Steve Koch "Perry depends on his target audience, the unscientific religious right, to translate the word "theory" into something other than its true scientific meaning."
Of course.
What else does he have to run on?
His constant B.S. relating to his having anything to do with job growth in Texas is just that. His constant pandering to the religious right is embarrassing.
And his 2.22 GPA, with a degree in Animal Science should give one a pretty good idea of his intellect.
*And yeah, yeah, I know; Obama hasn't released his grades...but he did get into and graduate from Harvard, which certainly takes a hell of a lot more than a 2.22.
*And yeah, yeah, I know; Obama hasn't released his grades...but he did get into and graduate from Harvard, which certainly takes a hell of a lot more than a 2.22.
*See Bush, GW, et. al.
Calypso Facto - Obama's daddy isn't named Bush.
quoting Raul: you may think you have some kind of and of course, have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, but any publicity is good publicity as far as I'm concerned.
You may think you can write, Hoss-Raul, yet as the mumbling above indicates, you can't. We'll see when the server record appears. And the A-house gang is not on to your usual tricks as..I am--like your typical derailing of the topic (from evolution/AGW to...gun control). Perhaps because you don't want to express your own doubts about those non-churchly ideas?? Yeah.
Anyway, not to support Ahouse dolts but at the same time I do support the 2nd Amendment (tho' have qualms about selling semis to your homie Jared)
Henry - What does the fact that it's a service pistol have to do with the insanity of the GOP raffling off the same style gun that recently did so much harm...in that very county?
Are you daft?
If he had used explosives do you think a bomb raffle would be appropriate?
Here's another one for you to ponder:
Home > News > State > State Headlines
Comments 0 | Recommend 0
Concealed-carry gun permits let holders bypass Texas Capitol's metal detectors
A
Text Size
By Associated Press
Published 19 July 2010 09:46 AM
AUSTIN, Texas - Everyone from lobbyists to lawyers and journalists is rushing to get permits to carry guns inside the Texas Capitol, where legislators already often tote pistols in boots and purses or stow them away inside their desks.
A unique loophole in a new security procedure means a gun permit is like a special-access pass into the domed building, allowing people who are certified to carry a gun to bypass lines at the metal detectors that were set up after a shooting incident earlier this year.
So if you have a carry permit, you get to bypass the metal detectors.
*Gee, I hope all of those with permits are of sane mind because once they're inside the building...
pbAndjFellowRepublican said...
"when all they mean is that they defer to authority"
It's not necessarily unwise to defer to folks who have spent their lives studying particular, narrow scientific areas of inquiry.
This deferral to expertise is also common in non-sci-research fields, e.g. law and medicine. Most folks don't assume that, w/o training, they know more about law and medicine than practicing professionals. Not that the individuals in these professions (and the research folks) are anywhere near perfect. But, a strong consensus is worth listening to. And, maybe even deferring to, especially if we're not willing/able to devote ourselves to the training associated w/ becoming an expert in a particular field.
OTOH, Plenty of folks would eagerly defer to Palin, but not Huntsman. So, from this POV maybe it's not such a bad idea for folks (w/ a little Youtube training) to perform open heart surgery on each other.
9/1/11 11:49 AM
You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Other experts in fields such as physics and mathematics and statistics along with computer science have look at the data, the quality of the data, the assumptions from which the data has been extrapolated into and the programs used to derive the output have come to the conclusion that AGW is bullshit. Now the earth may be warming but that isn't to say that the cause is human activity. It just might be due to the obvious, caused by the sun. The earth has been warmer and colder in the past and these cycles occurred without human agency.
Now even if AGW were real (for the sake of argument)even its proponents concede that the measures to reduce carbon output are so negligible as to not be able to be teased out of the background noise. So the concept of bankrupting ourselves, further diminishing our liberties in a Quixotic endeavor is beyond stupidity and is well into the realm of insanity.
Krugman has permanently diminished himself.He has the mathematical and statistical background to know better.He is now just a leftist hack willing to prostitute his integrity for ideology.
in that very county?
Are you suggesting that the .40 Glock should be outlawed in every county a murder has taken place in which the same weapon can be shown to have been used?
How many bombs do you suppose are legal without explosives certifications?
You're really reaching on this one.
Obama's daddy isn't named Bush.
So it doesn't always "certainly [take] a hell of a lot more than a 2.22", and we still don't know anything about how Obama got into Harvard, and you still don't have a point?
Raul said...
Calypso Facto - Obama's daddy isn't named Bush.
9/1/11 4:00 PM
And W wasn't an affirmative admission. And as you said Obama hasn't disclosed his GPA so the assumption can only be that his GPA isn't exactly stellar.
cubanbob - "And W wasn't an affirmative admission."
Neither was Obama.
And you don't get into Harvard with less than a 3.3 or more.
"And as you said Obama hasn't disclosed his GPA so the assumption can only be that his GPA isn't exactly stellar."
He just doesn't want to intimidate us.
What a guy.
Calypso Facto - Obama got into Harvard after graduating from Columbia University and at Harvard he was the president of the Harvard Law Review.
You can denigrate him all you want, but you don't get into Harvard without the grades.
Original Mike - You finally got something right.
No. Krugman, whatever one thinks of him, was correct--the G.O.P. — is becoming the “anti-science party.” Or rather, has become. Perhaps not terrifying, but alarming.
Some reasoned skepticism of the specifics of AGW may be understandable, but that's not the MO of the Foxnews gang, or Coulters, Palins, and Limbaugh, and GOP leaders such as Perry: they deny it unequivocally, with little or no knowledge of the science and supporting evidence. Ie, the tactics of the...Village Idiot .
One little buck, Lucky? For old times sake.
Scott - You sound dumber by the minute.
I never said anything about outlawing guns...did I? I merely said that the raffle sounds pretty fucking dumb considering the circumstances.
*Or better yet: How would you have felt about a GOP or Democratic gun raffle within months and miles of of where Reagan was shot?
Something you could defend as being really, really cool?
Quit while you're ahead.
Scott - Here's another one of your favs:
WASHINGTON -- The White House says it expects the arrest of President Barack Obama's illegal immigrant uncle to be handled like any other immigration case.
Press Secretary Jay Carney also said Thursday that Obama didn't know about the case involving his distant relative until being informed about it by staff.
Raul aka Hoss-let--who the f*ck cares about your drama of the minute. The thread concerned Krugman, Romney, evo., AGW and the GOP as anti-science. Maybe you decided to derail because you don't enjoy reading K-man insulting yr hero Mittens? Yeah that's probably it.
So good: "There are way too many political speakers embarrassing themselves these days by preening about how scientific they are, when all they mean is that they defer to authority. And there are way too many scientists who step up and pose as authorities to be deferred to (and given grants to)."
"And there are way too many scientists who step up and pose as authorities to be deferred to (and given grants to).""
Actually, I have one minor quibble. Grants are earned, not given.
You can denigrate him all you want, but you don't get into Harvard without the grades.
Look closer: I haven't denigrated anyone or given an opinion on anyone's intelligence. All's I've asked for is consistency.
You suggest that Obama's attendance at Harvard means he's smart. Obama and Bush both went to Harvard grad school. Obama from, yes, Columbia, and Bush from Yale. Does that mean both of them are smart or not?
J - I do it because I love you.
I love the way you take such care in articulating your many deep, deep thoughts, your ability to form partial sentences, even spelling some of the big words right, and of course, what I love the very most of all is that you take the time out of your busy instructive day to mention...ME.
Keep up the good work.
When did I say Bush wasn't smart.
So I guess we have to assume that the Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change, made up of a group of over 2500 Scientists from countries across the world is off base, and that the daily visitors to Althouse have the real scoop on climate change.
Who knew?
why can't the IPCC answer the ICP's question?
When did I say Bush wasn't smart.
Then I'll ignore your insinuation that Bush was a legacy admission, and conclude you think as highly of his intelligence as Obama's due to his Harvard degree.
Now, personally I happen to think that's a Harvard diploma is a terrible measuring stick for intelligence and almost certainly irrelevant to leadership qualities, but at least we've established that intellectual equivalence exists between them in your mind.
Oh golly trying to act like a writer, Raul the flunkie boy, with yr usual stupid, sophomoric irony, like from Hoss-let days back at Casa Grande. Burt Reynolds time!
You're not a writer, Raul the dumbass, nor are you a scientist or economist. You don't know fuck about AGW, or Darwinian evolution. You don't understand in the least what Dr Mueller's recent research concerns. IN fact you're just another phony conservative, but slightly less conservative than the A-house chimps. You have nothing to say--you can't even identify K-man's thesis from the linked essay. In fact, you're defending Romney's anti-AGW views--or is it Perry now. Just admit it, dreck.
Calypso Facto - "Now, personally I happen to think that's a Harvard diploma is a terrible measuring stick for intelligence and almost certainly irrelevant to leadership qualities..."
So can I assume you feel John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama are all prime examples of people who lack the kind of leadership qualities you feel sufficient to be President?
Yeah, all attended Harvard.
J - Once again; thanks much for highlighting me in your screed.
I said it before and I'll say it again: I love you, Dude.
We should get together and play some badminton or maybe just take a long walk in the park.
Do you like ducks?
Calypso Facto - I don't remember saying that an "intellectual equivalence exists between them."
Obama is much more intelligent.
Sorry.
The GPA/gun drama another of your usual lame derailments, Raul aka Hoss-let. The question is...do you agree with K-man's thesis or not (which Althouse Jr. also missed, really)? Including his...diss of your hero Romney. Then like provide arguments, facts, evidence, draw out implications. Maybe you can still get that AA and..even your LVN!-- eventually.
Raul said...
cubanbob - "And W wasn't an affirmative admission."
Neither was Obama.
And you don't get into Harvard with less than a 3.3 or more.
9/1/11 4:33 PM
And you know that Obama wasn't an affirmative action admission. Please tell us how you acquired this bit of information. A Harvard Law Review editor that never had a paper published. When it comes to Obama nothing is ever clear or transparent. Always a but. But arguing about his academic records, previous achievements or presumed intelligence is besides the point. What is the point is his current record as President. And his record is what he will run on and be judged upon sucks. A near total failure and we still have another 15 months of this jumped up affirmative action hire who is way past his Peter Principle.
As for Romney not getting AGW, that is a plus. He hasn't deluded himself like the typical leftist with this pseudo science nonsense.
AGW is to climatology what astrology is to astronomy.
cubanbob - Why would I waste time trying to prove something isn't true?
Do you have any evidence Obama was admitted via affirmative actions?
Is that also how he got into and graduated from Columbia?
How do you know Bush wasn't also admitted via affirmative action?
You know, we need five more students with massive wealth to round out the cheerleading team?
cubanbob - "He hasn't deluded himself like the typical leftist with this pseudo science nonsense.
AGW is to climatology what astrology is to astronomy."
Well, that pretty much eliminates any further discussions.
And YOU want to know what Obama's grades were?
Good grief.
J - "The GPA/gun drama another of your usual lame derailments, Raul aka Hoss-let."
Hoss-let? Bonanza?
"The question is...do you agree with K-man's thesis or not."
oui.
"Including his...diss of your hero Romney."
Once again (this is getting old fast) - what do I have to do with Mitt Romney? I'm a flaming liberal.
"Then like provide arguments, facts, evidence, draw out implications."
Like, well, like what kind of like facts an' arguments, and like what implications are you referencing...like.
"Maybe you can still get that AA and..even your LVN!"
Got 'em both in the trunk of my car right now.
P.S. Do you or do you not...like Ducks?
Romney should have just said that, like you C-bob. Or better, glo-bal warm-in'? A load of horsecrap, my friends
Then he could lose all blue states.
K-man's point was that Romney himself is hardly different than a Perry or Palin, tho' some take him to be scientific. AS a potential POTUS he should have referred to some sources (even skeptics), or research, or something. Instead, Mittens just says "I don't know". Not Feynmann--more like...... Fakemann.
Whether you're for guns or against...are you actually saying that you think it's a good idea to raffle off the next best version of a gun that was used to do such harm to so many people?
I think it would have been a better idea to raffle off a copy of the gun that took out OBL. With the proper advertising they could have made a lot more money.
David53 - You may have a point, but I'm not exactly sure what one would do with such a weapon.
I stand by my previous comment relating to the GOP raffling off a gun so close to such a horrific crime scene being beyond the pale.
Proof that Bush wasn't admitted anywhere because of affirmative action.
1. Affirmative action is a term for allowing people of ethnic minorities to enter certain programs.
2. Ethnic minorities do not include white people.
3. George W. Bush is a white person.
4. Therefore, Bush has not benefited from affirmative action.
Which premise do you disagree with?
Seven - "Which premise do you disagree with?"
That Bush is a person.
Science is never complete. Blank pages must be left at the end of each 'conclusion' for any particular subject you might choose. Concepts should be vigorously challenged.
Take 'renewable energy'. There is no such thing. Anyone who understands chemistry and physics, does.
Green, renewable, clean, responsible, all buzz words for 'heavily regulated and subsidized'. By central government, your 'federal family'.
Big brother anyone?
Seven - When did they stop allowing white women to get into college via affirmative action?
Don't Tread - Kind of like those "subsidies" via that 'federal family'
the Bachmann family slurps up...while deriding such?
Oh.
Raul said
"Obama is much more intelligent.
Sorry."
Apology accepted.
I know you didn't mean it.
Who were you comparing The Won with?
Raul said
"Don't Tread - Kind of like those "subsidies" via that 'federal family'
the Bachmann family slurps up...while deriding such?
Oh."
Um, I was thinking more of the Kennedy's actually, you know, THAT 'first federal family'?
Don't Tread - Little Georgie.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Raul read the thread, the 2,500 hundred IPCC "scientists" aren't CLIMATE Scientists...many have PhD's in the "soft sciences" or specialities, not CLIMATOLOGY.
False appeal to "Authority".....
You never answeed, after JFK in Dallas ought we have banned Mannlicher-Carcano rifles?
Don't Tread - I have a difficult time coming down a family so closely associated with booze and snatch.
Sorry...again.
Seven - By the way:
As it currently stands, affirmative action through applies to "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."
So, unless little Georgie hasn't told us something...theoretically...he could have been admitted via A.A.
Raul said
"Don't Tread - I have a difficult time coming down a family so closely associated with booze and snatch.
Sorry...again."
You have a point there Raul, just let that hair grow a little and no one will notice.
sorepaw - Aren't you a tad late with your vigorous rebuttal?
I think Hanna is already in bed.
Don't Tread - And just when I thought we were growing close.
Raul
Not sure about that.
Seems to me the forecast calls for pain.
What I want people like Gabriel to answer is why they would tolerate the use of political pressure and the threat of social ostracism to be deployed in what is basically a scientific debate.
An excellent question—to which Hanna will produce no coherent answer.
When Hanna tries to argue climatological issues on the merits, he produces embarrassingly fallacious arguments, such as:
If three measurement techniques are all intended to function as proxies for temperature, and all three roughly agree much of the time for past eras when no instrument record is available, then they not only are likely to be measuring the same thing—they have to be measuring temperature!
Then when his achingly bad arguments are exposed, he reverts to sliming and belittling his critics.
Hanna may deny any political alliance with the likes of Al Gore. But he relies on the same rhetorical tactics. (And, by the way, Gore doesn't just want "climate change deniers" excluded from polite society. He wants them kept out of the media by force. A few years ago, he published a book promoting the resuscitation of the FCC's "Fairness Doctrine," among other censorship measures.)
"A few years ago, he published a book promoting the resuscitation of the FCC's "Fairness Doctrine," among other censorship measures.)"
I blame the Reagan admin for simply not enforcing this doctrine, rather than removing it from the regs.
I'm sure you cons celebrated when BHO's admin finally got it done.
Right?
Pbj: agreed that the removal of the fairness doctrine is a good thing and thanks to the administration for finally getting it done.
Second what Michael said. Re the fairness doctrine, this administration & the FCC did something, at least one thing, right. Kudos for that (I mean that sincerely).
What damages science more? Some laypeople who misunderstand a few terms or get a few facts wrong, or a political movement that hijacks the prestige and authority of science for political ends?
Particularly when those political ends are accompanied by obviously silly claims as well as outright fraud?
It might not be the scientists doing anything wrong, but they're still going to get thoroughly splashed with the sh*t and science itself is going to lose status.
But Krugman can still claim he's one of the cool kids and point his finger and say who is anti-science and it's not *him* because, well, just because he's a suck-up and not a skeptic and never expresses uncertainty.
JAC is right on the money about who is being unscientific, and it's not the person saying "I don't know."
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন