Climate-gate

Quantum Quack said:
"we can manipulate it, we can interpret it
Click to expand...

They WILL manipulate it and will assert false interpretations despite their best intentions. If you know human beings, you know they 'contaminate' everything they touch. Science and its methods can be theoretically pristine (but are not given they arise from the same tainted/limited 'batch' that does the science) yet once employed, are tainted by the individuals doing the science.
 
Science:
Re/ the data is the data is the data .............

Y'all know the parable of the 3 blind men and the elephant?

Always present with the topic at hand.
 
sculptor said:
Science:
Re/ the data is the data is the data .............

Y'all know the parable of the 3 blind men and the elephant?

Always present with the topic at hand.
Click to expand...

That example is incomplete, because of human nature. One is assuming the three blind men have no agendas, personal or otherwise.
 
ok rewrite
the first blindman had a fondness for snakes
the 2nd blindman was seeking shelter
the 3rd blindman needed a halter for his cow

better?
 
sculptor said:
ok rewrite
the first blindman had a fondness for snakes
the 2nd blindman was seeking shelter
the 3rd blindman needed a halter for his cow

better?
Click to expand...

I'd say you are getting closer but not necessarily better...the agendas all arise from the same shared, internally skewed/twisted, source.
 
I'd say you are getting closer but not necessarily better...the agendas all arise from the same shared, internally skewed/twisted, source.
Click to expand...
Agendas, and skewings, and source(s), which will continue to be alluded to, referenced, suggested, hinted at, without ever being described and specified and argued.

Because when the actual beliefs underlying this oblique and incoherent slander are laid out in the sunlight, they don't look so good. They aren't just eccentrically batty - they threaten one's self-image as a decent human being.

What has happened here is that the Reagan Revolution succeeded, to a significant extent. And then its consequences started coming home to roost. And a lot of Americans were faced with what they had done, on purpose, through being fundamentally wrong about stuff that mattered. Some faced it, adjusted their thinking. But a lot them instead went spla - adjusted their reality.
 
Photizo said:
They WILL manipulate it and will assert false interpretations despite their best intentions. If you know human beings, you know they 'contaminate' everything they touch. Science and its methods can be theoretically pristine (but are not given they arise from the same tainted/limited 'batch' that does the science) yet once employed, are tainted by the individuals doing the science.
Click to expand...
nice conspiracy theory you got going...
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetc....1371/journal.pone.0075637&representation=PDF

considering that scientists all compete
and that the competition actually makes finding mistakes a prize to those who find them
and that finding the mistakes in another study can vault a scientist into worldwide attention (even before the internet)
and that there are always going to be different cultures, no matter how hard we try to eliminate them
and that there is always another perspective willing to study the same subjects
and that this is how the scientific method controls it's "perspectives"
and that you are assuming that all scientists are typically from the exact same cultural, religious, sexual, racial and other cut of cloth, based upon your comment "but are not given they arise from the same tainted/limited 'batch' that does the science"

then we can see that no matter HOW cross cultural the science is you will attempt to attach some conspiratorial leanings to it
you will ignore it because you fear it and cannot comprehend it
you transfer your own failings into it because you cannot comprehend how a WORLD can study the same things and get the same results

just because you have these failings doesn't mean that the entire planet studying a subject has them

iceaura said:
Agendas, and skewings, and source(s), which will continue to be alluded to, referenced, suggested, hinted at, without ever being described and specified and argued.

Because when the actual beliefs underlying this oblique and incoherent slander are laid out in the sunlight, they don't look so good. They aren't just eccentrically batty - they threaten one's self-image as a decent human being.
Click to expand...
Much more succinct than i
but likely will be ignored by the conspiratorial wack-jobs every bit as much as everything else
 
Quantum Quack said:
Example of stupid science:
Claim: "Plastic toilet seats contribute towards the development of cancer"
Why: ">85% of persons suffering cancer have sat on plastic toilet seats"
Can the above be tested for? yes
Are the results repeatable? yes
Prediction:
If you sit on a plastic toilet seat at any time in your life you have a >85% chance of developing cancer.

Is the claim founded as valid?: Yes

Suggested remedy:
Use our own very special brand of inexpensive non-cancer causing "timber" toilet seats.
"Where splinters in the bum are better than cancer in the...."
B-)
Click to expand...

No, it's an example of a logical fallacy - post hoc, ergo propter hoc. No scientist would accept the correlation bieng proof of anything unless the experiments were very carefully crafted and conducted. There are too many hidden variables and there is no causal mechanism proposed. You might as well be proposing that drinking water causes cancer.
 
Trippy said:
No, it's an example of a logical fallacy - post hoc, ergo propter hoc. No scientist would accept the correlation being proof of anything unless the experiments were very carefully crafted and conducted. There are too many hidden variables and there is no causal mechanism proposed. You might as well be proposing that drinking water causes cancer.
Click to expand...
Totally agree!
The problem is that when you apply infinite reduction (reductio ad absurdo) to those false correlations and reduce the errors in judgement made to the miniscule we may still see dramatic mistakes in the macro.
Then again there is the "blinded by my ego" (pride) problem which leads to significant over sight.

There are too many hidden variables and there is no causal mechanism proposed.
Click to expand...
as science does every day,
For example: "The laws of physics are universal in application"
-No mechanism provided and purely presumed via correlation of evidence over time which provides no actual ability to state anything in a way that is conclusive.

Proof that the laws are not universal is easy to find
If those laws of physics were indeed universal then anomalies such as "The great attractor" "dark flow" and the Eridanus void would be non-existent.
Of course science would might counter with, say, "laws of physics yet to be determined" are universal. And well that says heaps doesn't it?
 
@Truck;
Your video posted:
actually ...proves my point.

He talks of rising water up to the statue of liberties elbow.
He says if we loose the ice caps blah blah blah.

Gosh, he is a re-known astrophysicist and he is talking about a massive weight dispersal from the South pole globally. He fails to consider orbital dynamics, planetary axis, rotational speeds etc etc. and how if the South pole melts this planets ability to sustain life is more or less over.
Go on, ask him if you can, what happens to orbital dynamics if the South Pole's ice disperses globally.

He should know what happens if you have a weight balancing problem in a satellite or space probe and how that weight (mass balance - center of mass) affects the objects movement and trajectory.

Alternatively do the math and work it out for yourself.

He quotes from archeological data that he PRESUMES is accurate. "No ice caps when the dinosaurs roamed" which is speculation based on correlation with evidence of climate that we can not even get right using today's data for today....blah blah blah...
 
Ironically we talk of O2 depletion at high altitudes earlier:
Inexplicable?
USA TODAY 26/03/2015 said:
SAINT-LOUIS, France -- The pilots of a doomed German jetliner sent no distress call as the Airbus A320 went into a sharp, eight-minute descent Tuesday before crashing into the rugged French Alps, killing all 150 people aboard and leaving a scene of utter destruction.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/
Click to expand...

Just gets to Altitude 38,000 ft
Sharp 8 minute descent to approx. 7000 ft
No pilot communication for the 8 minutes of the descent.
Fly's straight into a mountain with no apparent evasive action taken...
Flight voice recorder apparently damaged.

sounds ominous to me...hypoxic cabin possibly
Cabin atmosphere is generated by air taken from the engines and pressurized into the cabin. The external/internal O2 % remains unchanged as the Partial pressure is increased.

Of course if they find hypoxia to be the case they will not say so publicly as to do so would immediately effect the entire airline industry dramatically.

Puzzle: Plane entirely shredded, disintegrated
 
Last edited:
billvon said:
If every single bit of the ice in Antarctica melts, how much do you think the mass of the Earth will change?
Click to expand...
none
but the key that you failed to see is that the "center of mass" will change.

The center of mass is highly important to orbital dynamics is it not?
 
billvon said:
How much will its center of mass change as a percentage?

Not significant ones. You can treat the Earth as a point gravitational source and be 99.99% accurate in terms of our orbit around the Sun.
Click to expand...
So what determines the inclination of the axis?
Something that seems to be overlooked constantly is that :
"If you change one value in a system then you change all values"
You take all the mass of ice at the South Pole and disperse it uniformally around the globe and orbital dynamics MUST change.
It is really a question of how much and how long not a question of "if"
How many orbits around the sun would it take for the orbit / axis or both to degrade significantly (regarding the ability to sustain life) ? (rhetorical)
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
You take all the mass of ice at the South Pole and disperse it uniformally around the globe and orbital dynamics MUST change.
Click to expand...
Well, the biggest effect would be change in the length of the day. If all the ice melted and nothing else changed, the day would get longer by 2/3 of a second. Then the crust would rebound and erase much of that change, of course. Again, since orbital dynamics really depend on total mass, that wouldn't change much.
 
billvon said:
Well, the biggest effect would be change in the length of the day. If all the ice melted and nothing else changed, the day would get longer by 2/3 of a second. Then the crust would rebound and erase much of that change, of course. Again, since orbital dynamics really depend on total mass, that wouldn't change much.
Click to expand...
Where do you get 2/3 of a second from?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top