@HenryCase

Quote:

I tell you what TMTisFree, I'll do you a deal. If you promise to watch this series of videos (well worth doing in my opinion), I will promise to research deep abiotic oil theory and take it seriously:

Isn't it the same video you promoted here? I am sorry but I stopped watching TV, reading newspapers and hearing radio long ago for the same reasons I do not watch video: imprecise or deformed informations in the best case. My scientific education refuses this kind of drawback (in addition to the lose of time). Anyway you don't need bet or promise to improve your knowledge, increase your information, evolve your opinion or be convinced of anything: an insatiable curiosity, a little open mind and some critical judgment is sufficient.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @HenryCase Quote: I tell you what TMTisFree, I'll do you a deal. If you promise to watch this series of videos (well worth doing in my opinion), I will promise to research deep abiotic oil theory and take it seriously: Isn't it the same video you promoted here? I am sorry but I stopped watching TV, reading newspapers and hearing radio long ago for the same reasons I do not watch video: imprecise or deformed informations in the best case. My scientific education refuses this kind of drawback (in addition to the lose of time). Anyway you don't need bet or promise to improve your knowledge, increase your information, evolve your opinion or be convinced of anything: an insatiable curiosity, a little open mind and some critical judgment is sufficient. Bye, TMTisFree

Oh, so it's fine for me to learn about your side of the argument, but for you to do the same would be out of the question because you have some snobbery about video.

Yes, it is the same video I promoted before, and if you watched it you would know that all of the points made are made through maths, not through imprecise/deformed information. How about this, if I transcribe the key points made in the video will you promise to read it?

Last edited by HenryCase on 05-May-2009 at 06:13 PM.

@HenryCase

Quote:

Oh, so it's fine for me to learn about your side of the argument, but for you to do the same would be out of the question because you have some snobbery about video.

Sorry if I expressed myself so poorly you misunderstood me, this is not really what I wanted to say: what I meant is that there are so many information available around than I had to make choice at a certain point in time and I choose scientific information because 1/ I have easy access to scientific literature (I know how to read it because I had to write some), 2/ I prefer to have information from the source and build my own opinion from it. It is really not about snobbery, it is about efficiency and lack of time. I hope this is clearer now.

Quote:

How about this, if I transcribe the key points made in the video will you promise to read it?

You are welcome. I will read you if you post in this thread. Or any scientific paper you can link to btw.

Edit: typos
Edit2: more typos

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 05-May-2009 at 08:13 PM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 05-May-2009 at 07:08 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@damocles

Quote:

We are running out of oil" has been around since the last turn of the century.

So true: "The American geologist Price (1947) observed that, approximately every five years since Drake drilled the first oil well in North America, some person has announced a dire prediction of an imminent exhaustion of oil resources. The persons making such predictions have often been considered to be “experts” possessing special information about petroleum resources and geology. All have been believers in biological origin of petroleum. In 1886, the American geologist C. A. Ashenbenner (Price, 1977) urged a strong conservation policy for the oil reserves in the U.S.A., because (as he predicted), the American oil fields would “soon be depleted” and were “nearing exhaustion”. In 1906, the American petroleum geologist D. T. Day, reported to the White House that oil reserves in the U.S.A. would be completely exhausted between 1935-1943. In 1920, the chief geologist of the United States Geological Survey, D. White (Pratt, 1942), predicted that production of oil in the U.S.A. would “peak” within 3-5 years, and thereafter begin to decrease, and would be exhausted within 18 years. White’s predictions were supported by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Thus has continued the ill-informed litany that “the human race will run out of petroleum soon.” Such predictions of an imminent exhaustion of oil and gas resources and of an inevitable energy crisis were loudly proclaimed during the Arab oil embargo in the 1970’s. The American geologist H. Hedberg (1971) called the 20th century the Age of Petroleum. [...] He asserted that reserves of oil on the globe are limited and soon would be depleted."

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @HenryCase Quote: Oh, so it's fine for me to learn about your side of the argument, but for you to do the same would be out of the question because you have some snobbery about video. Sorry if I expressed myself so poorly you misunderstood me, this is not really what I wanted to say: what I meant is that there are so many information available around than I had to make choice at a certain point in time and I choose scientific information because 1/ I have easy access to scientific literature (I know how to read it because I had to write some), 2/ I prefer to have information from the source and build my own opinion from it. It is really not about snobbery, it is about efficiency and lack of time. I hope this is clearer now.

It is clearer.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: How about this, if I transcribe the key points made in the video will you promise to read it? You are welcome. I will read you if you post in this thread. Or any scientific paper you can link to btw. Edit: typos Edit2: more typos Bye, TMTisFree

Okay, here's pretty much the full transcription of the first part of the video (first part of 8). Bear in mind that it's setting the scene by making sure the students understand the ideas behind exponential growth, so do not dismiss it if you find it too simple. What I want you to do is read it and see if you find any holes in it. After your response I'll post the second part of the transcription.

Quote:

'The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See (part 1 of 8)': Central premise: "The Greatest Shortcoming of the Human Race is our Inability to Understand The Exponential Function." "The Exponential function is use to describe the size of anything that growing steadily, for example, 5% per year." "We are talking about a situation where the time that is required for the growing quantity to increase by a fixed fraction is constant." "If it takes a fixed length of time to grow five percent, then it follows that it takes a longer fixed length of time to grow by 100 percent. This longer time is called the doubling time." "We can calculate the doubling time, T2 = 70 / % growth per unit time Thus a growth rate of 5% per year has a doubling time of T2 = 70 / 5 = 14 years" "Where did the 70 come from? Well it's a approximately one hundred multiplied by the natural logarithm of two (69.3). If you wanted the time to triple you'd use the natural logarithm of three." "But you don't have to remember where it came from if you just remember 70." "Now I wish we could get every person to make this mental calculation every time we see a percent growth of anything in a news story. For example if you saw a story that said things had been growing 7% per year for several recent years you wouldn't bat an eyelash, but when you see a headline that says 'Crime has doubled in a decade' you say 'my heavens what's happening?'. Well what is happening? 7% growth per year. Divide 7 into 70, the doubling time is 10 years. But notice, if you're going to write a headline, you never write 'Crime growing 7% per year', because most people wouldn't know what it really means." "Now do you know what 7% really means? Let's take another example from Colorado, the cost of an all day lift ticket to ski at Vail, has been growing about 7% per year ever since Vail first opened in 1963, and at that time you paid $5 for an all day lift ticket. Now what's the doubling time for 7% growth? 10 years, so what was the cost 10 years later in 1973? ($10) Ten years later in 1983? ($20) Ten years later in 1993? ($40) And what do we have to look forward to? Now this is what 7% means. Most people don't have a clue." "Well let's look at a generic graph of something that's growing steadily. After one doubling time the growing quantity is up to twice its initial size, two doubling times its up to four times its initial size, then it goes to 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, in just 10 doubling times it's a thousand times larger than when it started [x1024], and you can see, if you tried to make a graph of that on ordinary graph paper, the graph will go right through the ceiling." "Now let me give you an example to show the enormous numbers you get with just a modest number of doublings. Legend has it that the game of chess was invented by a mathmetician who worked for a king. The king was very pleased, he said 'I want to reward you', and the mathmetician said 'my needs are modest, please take my new chessboard, and on the first square place one grain of wheat. On the next square double the one to make two, on the next square double the two to make four, just keep doubling until you've doubled for every square, that will be an adequate payment.' Oh we can guess the king thought 'this foolish man, I was ready to give him a real reward, all he asked for is just a few grains of wheat.'" "Well let's see what's involved in this, we note there are 8 grains on the fourth square. Now I can get this number 8 by multiplying three 2s together, it's 2x2x2, it's one 2 less than the number of the square. Now that follows in each case, so on the last square I find the number of grains by multiplying 63 2s together. Now let's look at the way the totals build up, when we have 1 grain on the first square the total on the board is 1, we add two grains that makes the total 3, we put on 4 grains now the total is 7. 7 is a grain less than 8, it's a grain less than 3 2s multiplied together, 15 is a grain less than 4 2s multiplied together, well that continues in each case, so when we're done, the total number of grains will be one grain less than the number I get multiplying 64 2s together." "My question is, how much wheat is that? You know, would that be a nice pile here in the studio? Would it fill the building? Would it cover the county [Colorado] to a depth of 2 metres? How much wheat are we talking about? The answer is it's roughly 400 times the 1990 worldwide harvest of wheat. Now that could be more wheat than humans have harvested in the entire history of the earth, you say 'how do you get such a big number?'. It was simple, we just started with one grain but we let the number grow steadily until it doubled a mere 63 times." "There's something else that's very important, the growth in any doubling time is greater than the total of all of the preceding growth. For example, when we put 8 grains on the fourth square, the 8 is larger than the total of 7 that were already there. When we put 32 grains on the sixth square the 32 is larger than the total of 31 that were already there. Every time the growing quantity doubles it takes more than all that you used in all of the preceeding growth." "Now let's translate that into the energy crisis. Here's an ad, from the year 1975, and it asks the question, 'Could America run out of electricity?'. 'America depends on electricity. Our need for electricity actually doubles about every 10 or 12 years'. That's an accurate reflection of a very long history of steady growth, of the electric industry in this country, growth of a rate around 7% per year, which goes with doubling every 10 years." "Now with all that history of growth they expected the growth to just go on forever, fortunately it stopped. Not because anyone understood the arithmetic, it stopped for other reasons, but let's ask 'what if?'. Suppose the growth had continued, then we would see here the thing that we just saw on the chess board. In the 10 years following the appearance of this ad, in that decade, the amount of electrical energy that we would have consumed in this country would have been greater than the total of all of the electrical energy we had ever consumed, in the entire preceeding history of the steady growth of that industry in this country." "Now did you realise that anything is completely acceptable, a 7% growth per year could give such an incredible consequence that in just 10 years you'd use more than the total of all that had been used in all of preceeding history? Well that's exactly what President Carter was referring to in his famous speech on energy. One of his statements was this, he said 'and in each of those decades (the 1950's and 1960's) more oil was consumed than in all of mankind's previous history'. Now by itself that's a stunning statement, now you can understand it. The President was telling us a simple consequence of the arithmetic of 7% growth each year in world oil consumption, and that was the historic figure up until the 1970s." "Now there's another beautiful consequence of this arithmetic. If you take 70 years as a period of time, and note that that's roughly one human lifetime, then any percent growth continued steadily for 70 years gives you an overall increase by a factor that's very easy to calculate. For example, 4% per year, you find the factor by multiplying four 2s together, it's a factor of 16. Now a few years ago one of the newspapers here in Boulder [Colorado] quizzed the nine members of the Boulder city council, and asked them 'what rate of growth for Boulder's population do you think it would be good to have in the coming years?'. Now the nine members of the Boulder city council gave answers ranging from a low of 1%..." [Continued in second part of video]

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @damocles Quote: We are running out of oil" has been around since the last turn of the century. So true: "The American geologist Price (1947) observed that, approximately every five years since Drake drilled the first oil well in North America, some person has announced a dire prediction of an imminent exhaustion of oil resources. The persons making such predictions have often been considered to be “experts” possessing special information about petroleum resources and geology. All have been believers in biological origin of petroleum. In 1886, the American geologist C. A. Ashenbenner (Price, 1977) urged a strong conservation policy for the oil reserves in the U.S.A., because (as he predicted), the American oil fields would “soon be depleted” and were “nearing exhaustion”. In 1906, the American petroleum geologist D. T. Day, reported to the White House that oil reserves in the U.S.A. would be completely exhausted between 1935-1943. In 1920, the chief geologist of the United States Geological Survey, D. White (Pratt, 1942), predicted that production of oil in the U.S.A. would “peak” within 3-5 years, and thereafter begin to decrease, and would be exhausted within 18 years. White’s predictions were supported by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Thus has continued the ill-informed litany that “the human race will run out of petroleum soon.” Such predictions of an imminent exhaustion of oil and gas resources and of an inevitable energy crisis were loudly proclaimed during the Arab oil embargo in the 1970’s. The American geologist H. Hedberg (1971) called the 20th century the Age of Petroleum. [...] He asserted that reserves of oil on the globe are limited and soon would be depleted." Bye, TMTisFree

Nice examples, but what was the scientific consensus at the time? Was there even a scientific consensus back when those scientists you pointed to made those statements? It's all very well and good pointing to individual scientists but really it's the consensus that has more weight. You can find scientists that go against the scientific consensus on AGW, while it's good to listen to them you have to consider the wider context.

P.S. Scientific consensus grows when a proposed model seems to work and/or is based on logic/understanding we already understand as true.

Last edited by HenryCase on 05-May-2009 at 10:03 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @TMTisFree ... First you claim GHE has no blanketing or reflective effects. ...

Care to explain what you mean with GHE?

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@HenryCase

Quote:

HenryCase wrote: @TMTisFree ... Whilst this is correct in a sense, you are missing one point, which is the timescale that these new resources become available.

If it's up to TMTisFree and like-minded, these new resources will never ever become available.

Why?

Because TMTisFree and like-minded deny there is a manmade global warming effect.
If we don't contribute to GW, then we can go on like before and don't have to care for the environment. Therefor and due to his "There is no reason to believe that at any given moment in the future the available quantity of any natural resource or service at present prices will be much smaller than it is now, or non-existent." there is no need to open up new resources.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Dandy ... As for Heim... I'm going to have to stick to others translations. Meine deutsche sind sehr schlect.

From the publishing house I've heard they were working on the translation of the Heim books - so there might be hope for you to be able to read Heims books in English.

Although I have no idea how long it will take...

EDIT:
Typo fixed...

Last edited by Dandy on 06-May-2009 at 10:02 AM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: @HenryCase Quote: HenryCase wrote: @TMTisFree ... Whilst this is correct in a sense, you are missing one point, which is the timescale that these new resources become available. If it's up to TMTisFree and like-minded, these new resources will never ever become available. Why? Because TMTisFree and like-minded deny there is a manmade global warming effect. If we don't contribute to GW, then we can go on like before and don't have to care for the environment. Therefor and due to his "There is no reason to believe that at any given moment in the future the available quantity of any natural resource or service at present prices will be much smaller than it is now, or non-existent." there is no need to open up new resources.

I'm putting the GW issue to one side for moment, just talking about the issue from resource level only.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @HenryCase ... My scientific education refuses this kind of drawback (in addition to the lose of time). ...

But it allows you to present a paper as "scientific", which emerges as journalistic article at best, if you take a closer look?
That's also a loss of time...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: ... I had to make choice at a certain point in time and I choose scientific information It is really not about snobbery, it is about efficiency and lack of time. ...

And now you expect us to check the infos presented by you if they really are scientific.

Keep in mind - most likely none of us is a real scientist (and demanding a scientific work from us simply is absurd) - no matter if we had a "scientific education" or not.

We have to use our brains to form an opinion from the info we have access to.

You present papers to us (claiming it is scientific literature that you have easy access to) that have too much flaws to be accepted by us as being scientific (use of misleading, eye-catching phrases; missing axis labels in diagrams; ...).

So you have to leave it to us to decide if we accept the info you presented or not.

Such decisions take time - time we are lacking the same way as you.

So don't be surprised if we don't feel the incentive to check your sometimes (for the purpose of this discussion) way too long quotes - we equally don't have too much time.

And as non-scientists it would take us even more time...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: And now you expect us to check the infos presented by you if they really are scientific. ... So you have to leave it to us to decide if we accept the info you presented or not.

Precisely. If you're interested you read it, if you're not you won't. No need to make a big deal about it.

Last edited by HenryCase on 06-May-2009 at 11:55 AM.

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: @BrianK Quote: BrianK wrote: @TMTisFree ... First you claim GHE has no blanketing or reflective effects. ... Care to explain what you mean with GHE?

G.reenH.ouse E.ffect

@HenryCase

Quote:

HenryCase wrote: @Dandy Quote: Dandy wrote: @HenryCase If it's up to TMTisFree and like-minded, these new resources will never ever become available. Why? Because TMTisFree and like-minded deny there is a manmade global warming effect. If we don't contribute to GW, then we can go on like before and don't have to care for the environment. Therefor and due to his "There is no reason to believe that at any given moment in the future the available quantity of any natural resource or service at present prices will be much smaller than it is now, or non-existent." there is no need to open up new resources. I'm putting the GW issue to one side for moment, just talking about the issue from resource level only.

O.K. - nevertheless - the argument remains valid.
If "the available quantity of any natural resource" will NOT "be much smaller than it is now" I cannot see any "need to open up new resources".

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Dandy Quote: Dandy wrote: @BrianK Care to explain what you mean with GHE? G.reenH.ouse E.ffect

Thanks for clarification - I just was sure the wiki article I linked had nothing to do with it (aside from the abbrevation)...

Last edited by Dandy on 06-May-2009 at 12:14 PM.
Last edited by Dandy on 06-May-2009 at 12:12 PM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

You said supposed recovery not due by Global Cooling but by other factors: supposed bleaching can not be caused by AGW then. So adding AGW in the equation just for the sake of it (that is pointing finger) has to be rejected due to lack of proof

Within the evidence it's fairer to say GW effects were not tested. The experiment neither supports nor denies GW causes. It indeed shows that pollution within the water does have an impact. It doesn't negate other work that has been done on impacts of GW. Bolt tries to use the change in pollution as a disproof of GW. It's not and that's why your (2) and his (8) are both wrong assessments.

Quote:

More correctly you claimed supposed bleaching/recovery was caused by events not related to AGW.

More correctly supposed bleaching/recovery has many causes and this change demonstrated that quality of water is amongst those causes.

Quote:

"I think it's fair to say we know polluted water had a negative impact." (ie clean water has null impact because it is the normal state of water...).

I don't agree with your null hypothesis. Water on this planet has many states. Frozen, liquid, solid, brackish, pristine, flowing, stagnet. To say that there's a 'normal' state of clean on the planet is nto fair. If the water was clean then it'd be only Hydrogen and Oxygen. Such water would not flow nutrients by the coral nor allow colonies to cross pollinate. That could well have a negative impact on coral's life. Also, here we didn't prove what the water conditions would be if humans didn't exist. Perhaps we're now providing cleaner water than would the coral would naturally experience with the lack of humans.

Quote:

What about reading the few existing scientific papers instead to get responses

Thanks for the idea but I got there already as that's what I've been researching. For an example of an in situ study, one was done studying the of El Nino events. The unseasonably warm temps of the water produced during the El Nino have larger bleaching effects. Another in situ study found that coral in slightly cooler water, produced by undground and river effects, are more aboundant than coral in water that's wamer. So certainly there is linkage with high water temps and coral bleaching.

Nice big quote at the end. I will note that Dr. Craig was head of the http://www.co2science.org/. Definite spin in the denialst agenda here.

@HenryCase

Quote:

Nice examples, but what was the scientific consensus at the time? Was there even a scientific consensus back when those scientists you pointed to made those statements? It's all very well and good pointing to individual scientists but really it's the consensus that has more weight. You can find scientists that go against the scientific consensus on AGW, while it's good to listen to them you have to consider the wider context. P.S. Scientific consensus grows when a proposed model seems to work and/or is based on logic/understanding we already understand as true.

Already discussed ad nauseam in this thread. In short, these 2 words are self contradictory: there is no such thing in Science. Consensus is for politics. Consensus is the antithesis of the Science paradigm. Consensus is a mean to format people's mind while the Science's epitome is to perpetually break the straitjackets of mind: they are self exclusive.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @HenryCase Quote: Nice examples, but what was the scientific consensus at the time? Was there even a scientific consensus back when those scientists you pointed to made those statements? It's all very well and good pointing to individual scientists but really it's the consensus that has more weight. You can find scientists that go against the scientific consensus on AGW, while it's good to listen to them you have to consider the wider context. P.S. Scientific consensus grows when a proposed model seems to work and/or is based on logic/understanding we already understand as true. Already discussed ad nauseam in this thread. In short, these 2 words are self contradictory: there is no such thing in Science. Consensus is for politics. Consensus is the antithesis of the Science paradigm. Consensus is a mean to format people's mind while the Science's epitome is to perpetually break the straitjackets of mind: they are self exclusive. Bye, TMTisFree

Yes there is consensus in science, it is just of a different kind from politics. Let me put it to you a different way, all those scientists you mentioned before, did any other scientists attempt to follow their work and check it's accuracy, and if they did check it's accuracy did they believe in the conclusions presented? If you don't believe in consensus in science what do you think the peer review process in scientific journals is for?

Also, did you manage to read the first part of the video transcription I posted? If you accept what I wrote was correct I'll post the second part.

@BrianK

Quote:

Within the evidence it's fairer to say GW effects were not tested.

The point of contention, precisely. Bolt wrotes "in 1999, Professor Ove Hoegh-Gulberg, our leading reef alarmist and administrator of more than $30 million in warming grants, did claim the reef was threatened by warming" and "in 2006 he again warned high temperatures meant "between 30 and 40 per cent of coral on Queensland's Great Barrier Reef could die within a month" and "in 2007 he again warned that temperature changes of the kind caused by global warming were bleaching the reef". Never tested but the only alarmist explanation for some without any evidence supporting the claims.

Quote:

The experiment neither supports nor denies GW causes.

So why putting AGW in the balance just for the sake of it? Alarmism is no Science.

Quote:

Bolt tries to use the change in pollution as a disproof of GW. It's not and that's why your (2) and his (8) are both wrong assessments.

More exactly Bolt points to repeated but unsupported claims about a supposed link between potential negative effect of hypothesized AGW and coral, and thus correctly assesses that the latter, in the current state of Science, has nothing to do with the former, therefore refuting repeated unsupported claims by an alarmist.

Quote:

More correctly supposed bleaching/recovery has many causes and this change demonstrated that quality of water is amongst those causes.

Nice semantic turn but temperature and pH are not, in the current state of Science, causative negative factors: observations show the opposite. Thus there is no proof AGW has negative effect(s). So my 2/ and Bolt's 8 are correct.

Quote:

I don't agree with your null hypothesis...

Loosing your time with rhetoric here, not mine.

Quote:

The unseasonably warm temps of the water produced during the El Nino have larger bleaching effects...

References?

Quote:

Nice big quote at the end. I will note that Dr. Craig was head of the http://www.co2science.org/. Definite spin in the denialst agenda here.

Typical response of BrianK: last time it was about MWP evidences on the same web site: "founded by Exxon" was your first words . It would be more interesting and time efficient to discuss the results presented.

Edit: typos

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 06-May-2009 at 03:26 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@HenryCase

Quote:

Yes there is consensus in science, it is just of a different kind from politics. Let me put it to you a different way, all those scientists you mentioned before, did any other scientists attempt to follow their work and check it's accuracy, and if they did check it's accuracy did they believe in the conclusions presented? If you don't believe in consensus in science what do you think the peer review process in scientific journals is for?

I am sorry but you are digging your own grave here. Scientists do not believe. Scientists are convinced by evidences. Belief is for laymen, consensus is for politicians and evidence is for scientists. Period.
In usual (read not corrupted) scientific fields, the peer reviewing process has nothing to do with belief: the peer reviewer evaluates the appropriateness of used methodologies with the scientific goal(s), in short the plausibility of the paper. And I am well aware of the peer reviewing process, having 'suffer' it many time.

Quote:

Also, did you manage to read the first part of the video transcription I posted? If you accept what I wrote was correct I'll post the second part.

Done.

Edit:changed to Done
Edit2: since you also refer to 'scientific consensus', let me also have the opportunity to show you (in the same form of quoted text, starting next post) why such political word has no meaning in the framework of Science.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 06-May-2009 at 05:17 PM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 06-May-2009 at 02:52 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".