Australian Politics Forum - Re: Climate Science

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #15 - May 26^th, 2010 at 9:25pm

Mozz, you are getting apoplectic again - a sign that you are letting fancy run away with you, again.

Der Speigel is not exactly a 'denialist site'. ANd no matter how often you declare it, there is NO "overwhelming accumulation of evidence pointing towards anthropogenic climate change".

Secondly, if extreme right wing christian fundamentalist morons in the mot secular of countries can block action on Rudd's greatest moral challenge of our time and make him into one of the cowards he deplored so loudly a year ago - well, then you shouldn't bugger with extreme right wing christian fundamentaisl morons, don't you think? Their power is greater than you think. So watch out.
Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

Paella

Senior Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 290

Re: Climate Science
Reply #16 - May 26^th, 2010 at 11:42pm

mozzaok wrote on May 26^th, 2010 at 11:06am:

Considering the greatest support base for denialist drivel is the extreme right, who have a disproportionate over representation of ultra nationalistic, fundamentalist christians, it begs the question of just how they arrive at deciding what is considered evidence?

My personal theory is that people with relgious inclinations tend towards thinking that they can choose their beliefs. To them, evidence is only of secondary importance, at best. More commonly, evidence is some sort of mythic, elusive concept (since they never seem to have any of it).

If you are one of those who is of the persuasion that belief is a matter of choice, when you are presented with something that you would prefer was not true, then you can just choose to believe that it isn't.

But I could be wrong, of course.

Back to top

IP Logged

Paella

Senior Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 290

Re: The atmosphere, warming, and all that jazz...
Reply #17 - May 28^th, 2010 at 12:29pm

Soren wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 9:31pm:

Climate is an average. It is not an object. The various fields that you mentioned do not make it into an object.

Weather is concrete - it's hot, cold, rain, shine. The climate is average weather. It's statistics.

Well done, soren. For once again demonstrating so vividly that you have absolutely no idea.

How would you describe the weather, do you think? You might start with the temerature? Well soren, temperature is an average. I could explain this mathematically, but what would be the point?

The fact that it is an average doesn't make it less real. How about you stick your head into a pot of boiling water and comfort yourself with knowing that temperature is only an average? Tell you what, I'll put the same amount of heat into a bathtub, and since you insist that weather, and therefore temperature, is absolute, we'll experience the same sensations, no?

Better still, wire your postieror to a power point and switch it on. You'll be fine, because the electrical potential of 240V shooting up your AR5E is 'only' an average. Good luck.

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 28^th, 2010 at 2:41pm by Paella »

IP Logged

mozzaok Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 6741 Melbourne Gender:	Re: Climate Science Reply #18 - May 28^th, 2010 at 12:35pm lol, too much mental imagery for me, but still got me chuckling. God I am bored shitless, this job will end me.
Back to top	OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma! IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: The atmosphere, warming, and all that jazz...
Reply #19 - May 29^th, 2010 at 10:01am

Paella wrote on May 28^th, 2010 at 12:29pm:

Better still, wire your postieror to a power point and switch it on. You'll be fine, because the electrical potential of 240V shooting up your AR5E is 'only' an average. Good luck.

And 50 times in every second, there will be no electrical potential difference, so what are you complaining about? Grin

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: The atmosphere, warming, and all that jazz...
Reply #20 - May 29^th, 2010 at 2:11pm

Paella wrote on May 28^th, 2010 at 12:29pm:

Soren wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 9:31pm:

Climate is an average. It is not an object. The various fields that you mentioned do not make it into an object.

Weather is concrete - it's hot, cold, rain, shine. The climate is average weather. It's statistics.

Well done, soren. For once again demonstrating so vividly that you have absolutely no idea.

How would you describe the weather, do you think? You might start with the temerature? Well soren, temperature is an average. I could explain this mathematically, but what would be the point?

The fact that it is an average doesn't make it less real. How about you stick your head into a pot of boiling water and comfort yourself with knowing that temperature is only an average? Tell you what, I'll put the same amount of heat into a bathtub, and since you insist that weather, and therefore temperature, is absolute, we'll experience the same sensations, no?

Better still, wire your postieror to a power point and switch it on. You'll be fine, because the electrical potential of 240V shooting up your AR5E is 'only' an average. Good luck.

SO you are insisting that the climate is a physical object?

Back to top

IP Logged

Paella Senior Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 290	Re: Climate Science Reply #21 - May 30^th, 2010 at 11:09pm I am insisting that the question is not only irrelevant, but also really really stupid.
Back to top	IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #22 - May 31^st, 2010 at 1:26pm

Paella wrote on May 30^th, 2010 at 11:09pm:

I am insisting that the question is not only irrelevant, but also really really stupid.

Excellent, time-tested warmerist argument. Science does need a physical object for it to have a subject matter. No physical object- no science.
Climate science is a science like sociology or political 'science' are sciences.

Back to top

IP Logged

Paella

Senior Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 290

Re: Climate Science
Reply #23 - May 31^st, 2010 at 10:42pm

So I guess tsunamis are unscientific as well? They are certainly not objects. Neither are avalanches. Nor is fire, or heat in general. Electromagnetic radiation is not an object. Radioactive decay is not an object. This is fun, I could go on. Electric charge, magnetic fields, gravity!

No physical object - no science hey? Good effort soren.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #24 - Jun 3^rd, 2010 at 2:39pm

Paella wrote on May 31^st, 2010 at 10:42pm:

So I guess tsunamis are unscientific as well? They are certainly not objects. Neither are avalanches. Nor is fire, or heat in general. Electromagnetic radiation is not an object. Radioactive decay is not an object. This is fun, I could go on. Electric charge, magnetic fields, gravity!

No physical object - no science hey? Good effort soren.

You are wrong with each of your examples.

But more worryingly, this just in:

"the Royal Society has announced it is to review its public statements on climate change"

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100041427/latest-climate-climbdow...

Back to top

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Climate Science Reply #25 - Jun 3^rd, 2010 at 3:29pm - and here's what the Royal Society actually said: http://royalsociety.org/Climate-Change/ - A bit of a difference hmmm.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #26 - Jun 3^rd, 2010 at 3:59pm

muso wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2010 at 3:29pm:

- and here's what the Royal Society actually said:

http://royalsociety.org/Climate-Change/

- A bit of a difference hmmm.

What's the difference? Hmm?

This is what the RS's president said before the RS said whatever it said:
I remember Lord May leaning over and assuring me: "I am the President of the Royal Society, and I am telling you the debate on climate change is over."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100041427/latest-climate-climbdow...

This is what The Times thought happened:
"The society appears to have conceded that it needs to correct previous statements. It said: “Any public perception that science is somehow fully settled is wholly incorrect — there is always room for new observations, theories, measurements.” This contradicts a comment by the society’s previous president, Lord May, who was once quoted as saying: “The debate on climate change is over.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7139407.ece

Back to top

IP Logged

locutius Gold Member Offline You can't fight in here! It's the War Room Posts: 1817 Queensland Gender:	Re: Climate Science Reply #27 - Jun 3^rd, 2010 at 4:36pm So it's just the judgement of Lord May that's really at issue?
Back to top	I dream of a better tomorrow, where chickens can cross the road and not be questioned about their motives. IP Logged

Paella

Senior Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 290

Re: Climate Science
Reply #28 - Jun 3^rd, 2010 at 5:05pm

Soren wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2010 at 2:39pm:

Paella wrote on May 31^st, 2010 at 10:42pm:

So I guess tsunamis are unscientific as well? They are certainly not objects. Neither are avalanches. Nor is fire, or heat in general. Electromagnetic radiation is not an object. Radioactive decay is not an object. This is fun, I could go on. Electric charge, magnetic fields, gravity!

No physical object - no science hey? Good effort soren.

You are wrong with each of your examples.

Oh really? Damn, not again!

Pray tell, soren, exactly why each of my examples is wrong. I'll be patient.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #29 - Jun 3^rd, 2010 at 8:04pm

Paella wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2010 at 5:05pm:

Pray tell, soren, exactly why each of my examples is wrong. I'll be patient.

Because each of them is an identifable phenomenon or individual, interchangable occurences of them (fire, electrical charge) can be identified. You can't do that with climate unless you conflate it with weather which, from memory, is a big non-no.

Climate science is computer modelling - that is to say, stats.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 3^rd, 2010 at 8:13pm by Soren »

IP Logged