@Dandy

Quote:

If there really had been a period with no glaciers in the alps 2000 years ago, Ötzi would have benn rotten during this period. His subsistence prooves that the alps had glaciers 2000 years ago.

Good point. Besides, that illustration just looks stupid.

It would have had to be VERY much hotter to have the treeline that much higher.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@TMTisFree

I'm keeping an open mind at this point dealing with planet x. A few nights ago the History channel had the show on the solar system, and out of the blue came images of "this mystery" taken from the 1983 NASA IRAS spacecraft.

Its worth looking into when time permits..

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@BrianK

You might also read Holland 2007 here (PDF) for a good résumé of the HS problematic: Quote:

The climatic “hockey stick” hypothesis has systemic problems. I review how the IPCC came to adopt the “hockey stick” as scientific evidence of human interference with the climate. I report also on independent peer reviewed studies of the “hockey stick” that were instigated by the US House of Representatives in 2006, and which comprehensively invalidated it. The “divergence” problem and the selective and unreliable nature of tree ring reconstructions are discussed, as is the unsatisfactory review process of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report that ignored the invalidation of the “hockey stick”. The error found recently in the GISS temperature series is also noted. It is concluded that the IPCC has neither the structure nor the necessary independence and supervision of its processes to be acceptable as the monopoly authority on climate science. Suggestions are made as to how the IPCC could improve its procedures towards producing reports and recommendations that are more scientifically sound.

In any case, the claim by Mann that "the warmth of the latter part of the 20th century was unprecedented over the past two millennia" is plainly false and wrong given the amount of studies (680 and counting) that demonstrate both quantitatively and qualitatively a global warmer Medieval Warm Period. Link to this Java map to definitely closed this case. Or will it also be claimed that all of these studies were funded by Big Oil/Coal/Nuclear/Pharma/whatever to fool poor environmentalists?

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".

@Dandy

Quote:

May I ask what/who the source behind the IP of the linked pics is?

It is my web site. The picture was cut from a presentation by Steve McIntyre in mars 2009. The PDF where the picture is embed is this PDF. Other glaciers are also discussed in his presentation. The reconstruction picture comes from this German article.

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:

But as I save them on my site for further reference (in case) I have not bother to search for at that time.

Data without source is worthless. Thus, saving it locally without also saving a pointer to the source is just as useless. It leads to "papers" like the one by the German aerospace engineer.


BTW, seeing as you claim to have re-calculated all the calculations from the Nicol paper, and thus to have arrived at the result of "10^-17m" yourself --- did you ever bother to check the units? Because if you had, you would have found that things just don't come out as one would expect.

Remember this?

Quote:

This is given by x = c / (N.B.h.v) with c is the light velocity (300000000 m/s), N the CO² density (1.10^22, see above), B the Einstein B coefficient (6.03.10^22 given by B = (e^2/4.m.ε.h.v).f where e is the electric charge of the electron = −1.602176487.10^-19 C (or A.s), m is mass of the electron = 9.10938215.10^-31 kg, ε is the dielectric permittivity of free space = 8.85419.10^-12 F/m (or A^2.s^4/kg/m^3) (see here), v is frequency of absorbed wavelenght = 2.10^13 Hz, h is Plank's constant = 6.6.10^-34 J.s (or kg.m^2/s) and f the oscillator strength that can be shown to be = 1 in this case (conservative)), h the Plank's constant (6.6.10^-34 J.s) and v the wavelength (2.10^13 Hz); this gives x is about 10^-17 m

Let's look at what you get when you substitute the B in the first expression:

x=c/(N*B*h*v) with B=f*e^2/(4*m*ε*h*v) gives x=c*4*m*ε*h*v/(N*f*e^2*h*v)=4*c*m*ε/(N*f*e^2)

Alas, the unit of that expression is not "meter", its "meter times seconds". The powers of seconds contributed by the various parts are: c:-1, ε:+4, (1/e^2):-2, m,N,f: all 0. And obviously, 4-2-1=1, whereas distance measures don't contain seconds.

So there is nothing "symbolic" about "your" "result" of "10^-17 meters", it's just plain wrong, because it doesn't even have the right unit. I find it interesting that your critical reading and re-doing of Dr. Nicol's calculations did not expose this rather glaring mistake...

@Dandy

Quote:

I have doubts regarding their seriousity (especially the reconstruction of the view of the Roman times), since the famous mummy "Oetzi" has been conservated for 5300 years in the alps glacial ice. If there really had been a period with no glaciers in the alps 2000 years ago, Ötzi would have benn rotten during this period. His subsistence prooves that the alps had glaciers 2000 years ago.

Right, but Alps are extended mountains and there are obviously more than one valley in Alps. It could be interesting to know where exactly (altitude, valley) the mummy was extracted before jumping to definitive conclusion.

You might also be interested by this study: Quote:

The dendrochronological record from the Kauner valley, showing high and very high tree-line positions between approx. 7100 and 2100 b.c. with only two gaps (around 6490 b.c. and from 3350 to 3280 b.c.), suggests that summer temperatures as observed in the late 20th century were at the normal or the lower limit of the temperature range which can be assumed for long periods of the early and middle Holocene epoch.

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".

@umisef

Quote:

Data without source is worthless.

For you, not for me.

Quote:

Thus, saving it locally without also saving a pointer to the source is just as useless.

Sure, but I will not spend the rest of my life discussing GW and data not supporting it inthere. So pointer to the original data is not worth the effort. In addition the NTFS does not have the ability to keep url in comment like my Amiga.

Given your always unpleasant tone, the fact that I only "regurgitated" Dr Nicol's paper and that the final word of this paper states:Quote:

Let the analysis speak for itself. Criticism, argument, corrections to the assumptions made and the analysis performed, will be enthusiastically welcomed by the author

I am sure Dr Nicol will enjoy your great finding to correct his paper. Do not forget to post here his reply. I bet I will not heard of you.

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:

In conclusion, your truth has a train late and final words for IPCC reports are not from scientists and therefore do not represent honestly the state of the Science.

You said lots here but most of it was just a reiteration of why you don't like the IPCC. I think I fairly characterized your view that you see it as a political organization which has ruined the scientists actual work and conclusion.

Wegmann isn't a scientist and he was funded by politics. There reason you seem to accept these biases are simply because they come from your preferred angle and result in your preferred conclusion.

If you want to decry politicalization and work by non-scientists that's fine. I simply ask that you are consistent. You don't get to cry political foul on GW and embrace politicalness in anti-gw. That's having it both ways, eg buttering your bread on both sides.

Last edited by BrianK on 20-Mar-2009 at 04:21 AM.

@BrianK

Quote:

I think I fairly characterized your view that you see it as a political organization which has ruined the scientists actual work and conclusion.

On this we and most ex-IPCC scientists agree.

Quote:

Wegmann isn't a scientist and he was funded by politics.

Below is what he said in response to Mr. Bart Stupak in Connection with Testimony to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations:
Quote:

I have been a professional statistician for some 38 years. I have served as editor of the Journal of the American Statistical Association and served as coordinating editor, associate editor, member of the editorial board and a number of other editorial roles for many journals during this time period. I am currently on the Board of Directors of the American Statistical Association as the publications representative and will become the Chair of their Publications Committee as of 1 January, 2007. I am thoroughly familiar with the benefits as well as the drawbacks associated with peer review. I recognize that scientists are also human beings and share the desire for acceptance and adulation that we all desire. In addition to these editorial roles, I have served as senior executive at the Office of Naval Research where I was a program manager for the mathematical and computer sciences. In this role, I not only evaluated proposals for research funding, but I also had very significant interdisciplinary interactions with many other discipline areas including oceanography and meteorology. Indeed, I was the initial funding agent for the first two conferences on statistical climatology held respectively in Hachioji, Japan in 1979 and Sintra, Portugal in 1983. The history page on this meeting series, http://cccma.seos.uvic.ca/imsc/history.shtml, can verify that I was on the scientific program committee for the Portuguese meeting. Although some individuals, including individuals writing editorials in the popular press, have attempted to portray me as uninformed and naïve on such matters, I am not. For example, I have known about mixing of gases in the atmosphere since my high school days1. But I was asked to testify as a statistician as to the correctness of the Mann-Bradley-Hughes (MBH) methodology

So Pr Wegman is a very skilled statistician thus scientist (or is Statistic not a Science?) and this is precisely the reason why he was chosen to arbiter. That he was funded by politicians, well most scientists (NASA, NOAA, etc) are. Do you suggest that to get good scientific results, Science might be hold by private organizations (Big Something)? It is a good question.

I note I provided the link to the PDF in my previous post you obviously did not read. I also note that being always the first to request data, links and evidences to support my claims, you do not act accordingly when properly done, and thus do not meet your own standard yourself.

Quote:

There reason you seem to accept these biases are simply because they come from your preferred angle and result in your preferred conclusion.

I merely quoted and pointed to many reports and linked to almost 700 studies that demonstrate Mann's methodologies, data, results, discussion and conclusion are erroneous. If you don't want to accept the MWP, that your choice, as wrong as it is. For my part, I agree I am strongly biased toward scientific integrity.

Quote:

If you want to decry politicalization and work by non-scientists that's fine. I simply ask that you are consistent. You don't get to cry political foul on GW and embrace politicalness in anti-gw. That's having it both ways, eg buttering your bread on both sides.

What is inconsistent in denouncing wrong ideologies/policies/motives/BS with objective and honest Science? Refuting a political/ideological motives/arguments with scientific evidences is acceptable and correct ; nihiling scientific evidences with political/ideological motives/arguments is not. Btw when I breakfast in the morning I dip my unbuttered bread in the milk: unfortunately both faces are wetted...

Edit: typos

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 20-Mar-2009 at 08:17 AM.

_________________
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:

So Pr Wegman is a very skilled statistician thus scientist (or is Statistic not a Science?)

In the college I attended statistics was a discipline of mathematics not science. It deals with numbers (math) not natural phenomenon (science).

Quote:

That he was funded by politicians, well most scientists (NASA, NOAA, etc) are

In the past you have decried the association of politics and science. Wegman was sought out by Republicans to look at Mann in particular. IMO, someone cherry picked to critique things in favor of a prescribed view by polticians should easily fit into your desire to throw out politics from the sGW debate.

Quote:

Do you suggest that to get good scientific results,

Again nope. That's something you're taking off your own opposition to the relation of science and politics when someone holds a mirror up to your own evidence.

Quote:

For my part, I agree I am strongly biased toward scientific integrity.

This statement is highly questionable in accuracy. As displayed here you seem to cry foul on scientists who are supporting GW to get paid, are political, and are unscientific. Yet, in many cases you link to anti-GW who also are in the boats of getting paid/want to keep jobs, are political, and are unscientific.

Well and I think Dandy, if I have the name correct I didn't ldouble check, has sunk your 'scientific integrity' of your atmosphere calculations.

EDIT: As for your toast wetted on both sides....
There are double standards all over the place here TMTiF.
You claim Mann is poorly supported because the only scientists supporting him are his friends. But again you accept Wegman who at the hearing indicated that the report had only been peer-reviewed by those he personally selected.

A cherry picked review team by a cherry picked leader selected by politicians who were slanted with the anti-gw conclusion speaks volumes on your so called 'bias towards scientific integrity'.

Last edited by BrianK on 20-Mar-2009 at 01:23 PM.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy Quote: I have doubts regarding their seriousity (especially the reconstruction of the view of the Roman times), since the famous mummy "Oetzi" has been conservated for 5300 years in the alps glacial ice. If there really had been a period with no glaciers in the alps 2000 years ago, Ötzi would have benn rotten during this period. His subsistence prooves that the alps had glaciers 2000 years ago. Right, but Alps are extended mountains and there are obviously more than one valley in Alps. It could be interesting to know where exactly (altitude, valley) the mummy was extracted before jumping to definitive conclusion.

English Wikipedia on the location:


Quote:

The mummy was found in 1991 in the Schnalstal glacier in the Ötztal Alps, near Hauslabjoch on the border between Austria and Italy. The nickname comes from Ötztal (Ötz valley), the region in which he was discovered.

German Wikipedia mentions the mummy was found in a height of 3210 m.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: You might also be interested by this study: Quote: The dendrochronological record from the Kauner valley, showing high and very high tree-line positions between approx. 7100 and 2100 b.c. with only two gaps (around 6490 b.c. and from 3350 to 3280 b.c.), suggests that summer temperatures as observed in the late 20th century were at the normal or the lower limit of the temperature range which can be assumed for long periods of the early and middle Holocene epoch. Bye, TMTisFree

Yeah - interesting read.

_________________
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:

In the college I attended statistics was a discipline of mathematics not science. It deals with numbers (math) not natural phenomenon (science).

So mathematics are not Science. I have always thought this but my professors always disagreed badly.

Quote:

In the past you have decried the association of politics and science. Wegman was sought out by Republicans to look at Mann in particular. IMO, someone cherry picked to critique things in favor of a prescribed view by polticians should easily fit into your desire to throw out politics from the sGW debate.

I have decried the twist of the Science by politicians. Pr Wegman is a scientist (you have not proved he is not) and has acted accordingly (you have not proved he has not) so have Dr North and the NAS' panel and the 700 scientific peer reviewed papers to refute Mann's methodologies and conclusions.

Quote:

Again nope. That's something you're taking off your own opposition to the relation of science and politics when someone holds a mirror up to your own evidence.

You fall in the trap like an innocent rodent: a good part of the discoveries in pharmacology, molecular biology, physiology, genetics and Life's Science in general is done by Big Pharma, smaller/middler private laboratories (they also fund public researches with contracts). They provide (or will provide) you the medication you need when something goes wrong (it is likely in the future) and they are able to do so because they have studied the fundamental underlying molecular or physiological pathways that led to the medication's effect. The scientific researches in these field and most particularly in pharmacology, tolerate no error: methodologies (protocols) are drastically reviewed, results have to be reproducible, etc. You cannot play with life. Climatology research is far from having the same quality standards.

Quote:

This statement is highly questionable in accuracy. As displayed here you seem to cry foul on scientists who are supporting GW to get paid, are political, and are unscientific. Yet, in many cases you link to anti-GW who also are in the boats of getting paid/want to keep jobs, are political, and are unscientific.

I can't help if you do not appreciate the difference.

Quote:

Well and I think Dandy, if I have the name correct I didn't ldouble check, has sunk your 'scientific integrity' of your atmosphere calculations.

No, it is umisef who is painfully trying to find error where there is not. Doing an error in a calculation do not imply a will to deceive. In the other hand, if someone *really* shows you the error and you continue to use your calculation, then, you have no 'scientific integrity'. I am not an adept of Cargo Cult Science.

Quote:

EDIT: As for your toast wetted on both sides....

I have killed you with this one, heh...

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".

@Dandy

The site of the South Tyrol Museum of Archaeology has a few interesting bit of information about the IceMan:Quote:

1. He must have been covered by snow shortly after his death and later by ice. Only in this way could the body have been protected from predators and decomposition. Whether the mummy ever resurfaced again in the course of several thousand years cannot be determined with certainty. Paeleoclimatic data show that warm phases occurred in the second half of the third century BC and during the Roman period. During these phases the ice in the gully may have melted.

So it is not sure that glacier has melted or not. But this confirms the picture I embed recently that Roman period was warmer.

I also found this interesting paper entitled "Natural and man-made changes of vegetation and relief within the Central Alps during Late-Glacial and Holocene periods. A case study from the Schnalstal (South Tyrol)" here (this is where IceMan was excavated from ice). It underlines that it is suspect that IPCC rests focussed only on CO² and does not want to take into account current man-made land use changes as a strong forcing. Obviously man has modelled the planet since ages to fit its need and continues to do so.

Edit: a typo, reworded the last sentence

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 20-Mar-2009 at 04:28 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".

@jingof

As you like survey, a fresh one here, dated March 19, 2009: Quote:

For the first time in Gallup's 25-year history of asking Americans about the trade-off between environmental protection and economic growth, a majority of Americans say economic growth should be given the priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent.

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:

Pr Wegman is a scientist (you have not proved he is not)

You first claimed he is a scientist. Step 2 I rejected your claim. Step 3 is demonstrate how your claim can possibly be true. You've not proved he is a scientist.

Quote:

and has acted accordingly

When he presented his paper he was asked who peer reviewed his review. He stated none of his peers. Now I agree he acted accordingly by being honest that none of his peers reviewed it. However, I would disagree that presenting his work without peer review was acting accordingly.

Quote:

You fall in the trap like an innocent rodent:

Huh? Somehow me realizing that both privately held and government funding can both produce a good scientific results is a trap? You got a screw loose?

Quote:

The scientific researches in these field and most particularly in pharmacology, tolerate no error:

Yeah because there has never been any recalls ever (cough thalidomide) due to poor research done and harmful effects of medicines.

Quote:

In the other hand, if someone *really* shows you the error and you continue to use your calculation, then, you have no 'scientific integrity'.

Huh could you link to me the post where you said 'oops there's an error I withdraw these posts'? I guess I missed it. Thanks.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

No, it is umisef who is painfully trying to find error where there is not

10^-17 meter-seconds is a distance, then?

I have absolutely no problem admitting that I haven't got nearly enough physics background to calculate what the average travel distance of a 15 micrometer photon is in Earth's atmosphere. At the same time, I know with absolute certainty that it is not something expressed in meter-seconds.

You'd do well to drop the whole line of reasoning which you derived from the Nicol essay. It's busted.

@BrianK

Quote:

You first claimed he is a scientist. Step 2 I rejected your claim. Step 3 is demonstrate how your claim can possibly be true. You've not proved he is a scientist.

He is a statistician. Statistics are a branch of Mathematics. Mathematics belong to Science (I thought that was self evident but as you seems to not know this evidence, "Mathematics" comes from the Greek word μάθημα (máthēma), which means science, learning, study). Wegman is a scientist. A simple deductive reasoning to definitively rebut your without-any-evidence, spurious and evidently disingenuous rejection. Your 2 remaining possibilities to falsifiate this reasonning is to demonstrate that either Statistics does not belongs to Mathematics or Wegman is not a statistician. Good luck.

Quote:

When he presented his paper he was asked who peer reviewed his review. He stated none of his peers. Now I agree he acted accordingly by being honest that none of his peers reviewed it. However, I would disagree that presenting his work without peer review was acting accordingly.

He was asked as an expert and replied accordingly. NAS's panel scientists were asked as experts as well and concluded Wegman's report and their own conclusion were consistent, that is to say Wegman's report's conclusion was correct. Moreover, about 700 peer-reviewed papers demonstrate essentially the same conclusion.

Quote:

Huh? Somehow me realizing that both privately held and government funding can both produce a good scientific results is a trap? You got a screw loose?

Your negative response were so easy to predict (given your systematic opposition to Big Whatever). Some large parts of Science are already done by Big Something and there are good results (medications). Therefore your negative response ("nope") to my question entails that scientists who are funded by politicians can also exhibit good scientific results. Thus we can expect Pr Wegman is also able to exhibit good result notwithstanding the fact that he is funded by politicians. NAS' report from Dr North just confirms this as the almost 700 papers I linked to.

Quote:

Yeah because there has never been any recalls ever (cough thalidomide) due to poor research done and harmful effects of medicines.

Secondary effects of thalidomide were apparent in what is called Phase IV of the medication's life and which corresponds to the period when a medication is on the market. So thalidomide was tested favourably in Phases I to III (lab. and clinical periods). Molecules are rarely tested on pregnant women in clinical Phase III for obvious reasons. It is no luck that thalidomide is also a very potent teratogenic molecule. It is still used nowadays btw. The procedures to select a molecule act as screening filters; the 'problem' is that this screening system progresses as Science advances. This is the only unavoidable drawback of the pharmacological research that leads to medication. The procedures are so strict that a new molecule will possibly become a new medication after 10 years of research and tests. So your example does not apply.

Quote:

Huh could you link to me the post where you said 'oops there's an error I withdraw these posts'? I guess I missed it. Thanks.

Perhaps for the simple fact that for the moment there is none. Correction: I finally manage to find one here. On the other side there are so many from you which do not support even lightweight analysis or simple reasoning but you keep repeating (see above the Wegman/NAS/MWP reports/papers for the last example) that it seems to be apparently to related to a predictable irrationality. Will you publicly admit Wegman is a scientist? There is no shame to do error and recognize it.

Edit: correction above. See, I also correct my own error.
Edit2: added a reply

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 21-Mar-2009 at 02:33 PM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 21-Mar-2009 at 09:22 AM.

_________________
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".

@umisef

Quote:

10^-17 meter-seconds is a distance, then?

Yes!

Quote:

I have absolutely no problem admitting that I haven't got nearly enough physics background to calculate what the average travel distance of a 15 micrometer photon is in Earth's atmosphere. At the same time, I know with absolute certainty that it is not something expressed in meter-seconds.

Sure and I eventually agree with you heartily in the usual case.

Quote:

You'd do well to drop the whole line of reasoning which you derived from the Nicol essay.

What? You write I was able to derived the calculation from Dr Nicol's paper without "regurgitating" it? A pleasant move that is true because Dr Nicol provided no numbers for his calculations. I had to search them myself.

Nevertheless, it is not because *you* are absolutely certain about something that this something *is* absolutely certain. Also as I have no hope you will ever contact Dr Nicol to point to him an 'error' in his paper, here is the little explanation "regurgitated" from his paper you obviously had not read (a common behaviour in this thread):

x is expressed in ms (meter second) because the radiation field has its intensity defined as the power flowing per unit of surface and per unit frequency. This unit frequency represents a particular emission line. As the B coefficient is related to the radiation field intensity also per unit of frequency, it is deduced that x HAS TO BE expressed in ms for the units to be coherent (in the radiation field).
Dr Nicol writes: Quote:

the definition of the B coefficient is given in terms of the radiation density ρν per unit frequency interval

that is to say in 1/Hz which is equivalent to time s. For a particular emission line (so for a unit frequency interval), the particular x is numerically expressed per the B coefficient (1/B) thus per time unit s (1/s), which leads to this particular x to therefore be correctly expressed in (ms x 1/s)=m (meter) for this line.

Quote:

It's busted.

It is not. Your remark is.

To conclude x is correctly and formally expressed in ms (meter second) in the whole radiation field. For a particular emission line from this radiation field, x is also correctly expressed in m (meter).

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

Interesting that we agree math is not science.
Quote:

So mathematics are not Science. I have always thought this but my professors always disagreed badly.

Interesting that all your professors believe that. I wonder what makes the French different than the Americans. Again certainly my science professors (chemistry, biology) didn't consider math a science.

I think the problem here is one of definition. As I see it math is not a science. Science is done through observation and experimentation. Math is done through rigor and proofs. Science is a systematic understanding of the world. Science and math both have laws at the foundation. Math has a right answer. Science's answer is the best one we can make based upon current observation. So it may change. Math isn't done through the scientific method. So they are closely related but not the same.

I find it interesting that colleges have Schools of Mathematics and Science. If they were one in the same one has to wonder why they felt the need to repeat themselves in the name?

Of course science wouldn't get far without math. But, it also wouldn't get far without any language (be it English or German or Russian or..) In that sense mathematics is the language of numbers. A tool for communication of ideas. Again different then the observation and understanding of the world.

As an aside there is some infighting in mathematics of where to place statistics as it's not as pure a deductive reasoning as other disciplines of mathematics. Again we see colleges seperating the concepts -- School of Mathematics and Statistics.

It is fair to say that Wegman is not a scientist. If you need the nitpicker view it's fair to say that Wegman's area of study is not climatology, which is used to understand the earth's systems.


Quote:

He was asked as an expert and replied accordingly

I disagree he acted accordingly. He created a paper and presented it. His paper did not receive, as he himself stated, peer review. He may be an expert but even experts require peer review of their work to ascertain accuracy.

Quote:

Moreover, about 700 peer-reviewed papers demonstrate essentially the same conclusion.

It seems you want to claim no need to peer review a paper if other papers have the same conclusion? Really we give up rigor for concensus? Didn't you make statements against how science shouldn't work with concensus? I see yet another both side wetted toast syndrome.

Quote:

The procedures are so strict that a new molecule will possibly become a new medication after 10 years of research and tests. So your example does not apply.

I admire your optimism that medical research is prefect and never again will we experience ill effects or recall. I'll temper it with realism. These are things done by humans and imperfect. Certainly the majority of medicines won't have a problem. But, certainly some will and testing will fail to find them.

Quote:

Correction: I finally manage to find one here

Wow a correction which made your calculations even worse. What a winner!

BTW I think you are projecting with your claim to 'predictable irrationality'. You are the one decries the problems of politics, money, science in GW but accept politics, money, non-science, and unreviewed work as acceptable for anti-gw views.

@BrianK

Quote:

Interesting that we agree math is not science.

We are not. It was what I thought when I was younger because I found Mathematics not that concrete when compared to Physics or Physiology. Of course I now think, like any sane person, that Mathematics are a branch of Science, as shown by semantic only.

Quote:

Interesting that bla-bla...

Good rhetoric, but all definitions of Mathematics describe and define Mathematics as a Science. Back to point 0.

Quote:

It is fair to say that Wegman is not a scientist.

Fair to whom? To you I suppose. Your argument that Mathematics are not a Branch of Science is untenable.

Quote:

If you need the nitpicker view it's fair to say that Wegman's area of study is not climatology, which is used to understand the earth's systems.

Nice try but moving target. What was asked to Pr Wegman was not to understand climate but to give his scientific opinion as a skilled statistician on the 'creative' methodologies used by Mann.

Quote:

I disagree he acted accordingly. He created a paper and presented it. His paper did not receive, as he himself stated, peer review. He may be an expert but even experts require peer review of their work to ascertain accuracy.

Of course not. He was asked his opinion and wrote a report accordingly. His report was then conclusively and independently supported by the NAS report from Dr North.

Quote:

It seems you want to claim no need to peer review a paper if other papers have the same conclusion? Really we give up rigor for concensus? Didn't you make statements against how science shouldn't work with concensus? I see yet another both side wetted toast syndrome.

It is not a paper, it is a report to give an opinion. What part of that is so difficult to understand for you? No expert who is asked his opinion in his field of competence has to feel obligated to published it in a peer-reviewed journal. It is just non sense.

Quote:

I admire your optimism that medical research is prefect and never again will we experience ill effects or recall.

A not so smart tentative to use a reification fallacy (that thus requires no further comment).

Quote:

These are things done by humans and imperfect. Certainly the majority of medicines won't have a problem. But, certainly some will and testing will fail to find them.

On this we agree: I explain why in my previous post. Nevertheless, my point still stands that methodologies and procedures in climatology lack minimum quality control.

Quote:

Wow a correction which made your calculations even worse. What a winner!

It appears you have not followed the explanation, or more probably not understood it. What about rereading the physics to not appear as a loser?

Quote:

BTW I think you are projecting with your claim to 'predictable irrationality'. You are the one decries the problems of politics, money, science in GW but accept politics, money, non-science, and unreviewed work as acceptable for anti-gw views.

A pathetic attempt to misrepresent what I wrote in the previous posts. Are you hard-wired to deliberately and repetitively fall in the dishonest category? Perhaps a look at the § named 'Self-Deception' from the peer-reviewed paper (Nina Mazar and Dan Ariely, 2006. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing. Vol 25-1, 117-126) entitled Dishonesty in Everyday Life and Its Policy Implications and reading: Quote:

Although it seems to be a paradox that a person could deceive him- or herself, casual observation suggests that people are effective in maintaining unrealistically positive views of themselves. People maintain beliefs in their intelligence, competence, and moral worth in the face of their sometimes foolish, incompetent, and immoral behavior... Although self-deception can be beneficial in the short run because it enables people to maintain self-regard, the inflated self-perception can be problematic in the long run when that bogus self-regard has costs.

might help.

Edit: added the last §

Bye
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 21-Mar-2009 at 05:34 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".