No my point is that if you use words incorrectly how can anyone understand what you are trying to express.

On a board with many who's first language is not English words have to be given a broad meaning. I was criticized for pointing out that a CPU's cores are not the same as a SETI processor. That was in Number Crunching when the words should be as exact as possible too.

---

A theory can be proven right or wrong, but until it is, it is really just an educated guess.

No, an educated guess is called a hypothesis, mere speculation, when evidence supports the hypothesis it becomes theory.

And your provable and repeatable evidence that if we do whatever you want will stop whatever you want is where? Or are we just talking semantics?

No my point is that if you use words incorrectly how can anyone understand what you are trying to express.

---

That's all well and good. I understand everything you have pointed out. My point is that I don't know you or your background. To me, you're just a voice on a forum. Intelligent to be sure. Educated, yep! But so is the other guy. Unless I know the difference, I can't give your opinion any more weight than his.

As to the computer model, it can only do what the programmer told it to do, regardless of the data input. And programs can be wrong. It happens all the time. Not saying it is, just saying that it could be. I'm also saying scientific studies can be wrong. We all know of some that have been in the past.

I fully agree that the media is responsible for much and probably even most of the misinformation we receive. There is so much BS floating around it is difficult to know who to believe. Mr. Al Gore is not a scientist, but he believes he is an expert and the media hyped his movie as fact. Turns out much of it is/was false. The polar bears didn't drown and the Northern ice cap is still there. Some glaciers are receding, but some are advancing. Even scientific reports are filled with qualifiers.....if, may, might, possible, etc. Which leads one to think they are not sure of the findings and doing a CYA just in case.

Anyway, that's my perspective. Far different than yours, but from where I stand that's what things look like.

---

Jack

So in other words, a standard schmuck with an opinion and not someone qualified to interpret the science accurately.

Even standard schmucks can be intelligent and informed.

This one in particular however, is not.

I have trouble putting one down for his opinion, because in so doing, I'm putting myself above him/her.

But that's how it works. Some people's opinions should be put above other people's if they know what they're talking about and have specific training in a field. Just as you should never put a Creationist/Intelligent Design Proponent up against a biologist and state that their opinions hold equal weight. They do not.

He has his (opinion), and you have yours. You're both entitled. I don't know his background, nor yours either.

Sure, but people that can back their statements with facts and not just unsubstantiated opinion makes all the difference. I would ask a physicist/chemist about climate change more than I would some dude who has his own blog and looks for holes in a theory he doesn't subscribe to because he doesn't really comprehend the science.

Time will tell who's correct or if either are correct. Even scientists are wrong at times and there are a few examples of that in this thread. I've been around the block a few times and, even though my memory is slipping, I can remember a few times they were wrong. Given time to think, I might come up with more than a few.

Your last "proof" of scientists being wrong indicated that only a small percentage of unqualified professionals stated the Earth was cooling, less than 6%, but the media seized upon it and ran with it. This doesn't make the scientists wrong, it means the media, and by extension some people, were wrong about the conclusions.

Isn't that why most scientists refer to global warming as a theory? A theory can be proven right or wrong, but until it is, it is really just an educated guess.

No. You misunderstand the meaning of the word Theory in a scientific context. A theory is the most proven idea that supports the observable and falsifiable evidence at hand. This means it is backed by empirical observation and not just an "educated guess". Laymen tend to throw around the word "theory" too much that most people have equated it with just an educated opinion when that's not the case.

Aren't scientists relying mostly on computer models? What if the computer programs are wrong? People wrote them, and people make mistakes. A computer error almost set off a nuclear attack.

Well yes, but the data that is input is based upon what we have observed. They don't just punch in a bunch of random data and spit out whatever they want. There's far more to it than that.


What really is at fault here is the lack of scientists that can speak and explain at a normal level, so the media is relied upon to relay that information. Sometimes the information disseminated has been wrong, leading to a distrust of any scientific announcement that sounds alarming, so people tend to dismiss it rather than try to understand it, such as what you've done here. Compound that issue with the money to be made in industry, and the propaganda against scientific findings (such as the aforementioned lead in the environment by way of leaded gasoline and other industrial uses) and one begins to see the clear picture of why that distrust is fully utilized to Big Money's advantage - and a bonus comes in by claiming it is the science where the money is to be made!

A theory can be proven right or wrong, but until it is, it is really just an educated guess.

No, an educated guess is called a hypothesis, mere speculation, when evidence supports the hypothesis it becomes theory.

And your provable and repeatable evidence that if we do whatever you want will stop whatever you want is where? Or are we just talking semantics?

---

A theory can be proven right or wrong, but until it is, it is really just an educated guess.

No, an educated guess is called a hypothesis, mere speculation, when evidence supports the hypothesis it becomes theory.

---

Wile you people are worrying about a few "political" degrees temperature over in a science thread we are saving the Earth from the next asteroid strike. Now that is real provable science but the margin of uncertainty is so great some possible impacts have a range of ten years and 1.5 times plus or minus energy on impact; if any impact even occurs. Climate warmers can't tell me if it will rain or not past seven days out.

So how can science tell us what will happen decades from now when it can't tell me what will happen a fortnight from now?

---

So in other words, a standard schmuck with an opinion and not someone qualified to interpret the science accurately.

Even standard schmucks can be intelligent and informed.

This one in particular however, is not.

I have trouble putting one down for his opinion, because in so doing, I'm putting myself above him/her. He has his (opinion), and you have yours. You're both entitled. I don't know his background, nor yours either. Time will tell who's correct or if either are correct. Even scientists are wrong at times and there are a few examples of that in this thread. I've been around the block a few times and, even though my memory is slipping, I can remember a few times they were wrong. Given time to think, I might come up with more than a few.

Isn't that why most scientists refer to global warming as a theory? A theory can be proven right or wrong, but until it is, it is really just an educated guess.

Aren't scientists relying mostly on computer models? What if the computer programs are wrong? People wrote them, and people make mistakes. A computer error almost set off a nuclear attack.

---

Jack

We have more important things to worry about than a warming of the planet. If we don't survive the nuclear threat, there will be no one left to worry about what happens after.

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/accidents/20-mishaps-maybe-caused-nuclear-war.htm

Hi Jack :)

Ever tried multi-tasking? :)

Don't ever say that near an airport. ;)

I've never been good at multi-tasking. To me it's a matter of priorities. Doesn't make good sense to me to plant a garden downstream from a dam if the dam is about to go. Best put all my efforts into fixing the dam first.

---

Jack

So in other words, a standard schmuck with an opinion and not someone qualified to interpret the science accurately.

Even standard schmucks can be intelligent and informed.

Intelligent and informed doesn't mean an expert in a given field of study. There are a lot of intelligent and informed people, but who they get their information from and how they interpret it will have a lot to do with the conclusions they draw, right or wrong.

So in other words, a standard schmuck with an opinion and not someone qualified to interpret the science accurately.

Even standard schmucks can be intelligent and informed.

This one in particular however, is not.

So in other words, a standard schmuck with an opinion and not someone qualified to interpret the science accurately.

Even standard schmucks can be intelligent and informed.

---

Jack

We have more important things to worry about than a warming of the planet. If we don't survive the nuclear threat, there will be no one left to worry about what happens after.

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/accidents/20-mishaps-maybe-caused-nuclear-war.htm

Hi Jack :)

Ever tried multi-tasking? :)

That maybe, but the final comment has merit...

..."Yet another sign of human arrogance and ignorance at play. And, probably a little bit of power struggle thrown in for good measure."

---

Very good.

Now... Do you wonder why and how?

Or is it that 'things just (randomly) happen'?

Intelligent design?

You want to force those you can to spend more and produce less wile those you can't control get rich. I know what irresponsible polluting is; I live in New Jersey and it was once like China is today.

I have two toxic dumps within a few miles of my home. They were deemed too dangerous to dig up and move so they were capped and will be monitored for 150 years. I mentioned what the Hudson river looked like, all rivers by the refineries were polluted 40 years ago, a river even caught fire once.

Today one can fish and even swim in most of those rivers, though some have so much lead in the river bed there will be no fishing or swimming in my lifetime. I know real pollution when I see it and I no longer see it. "Global warming" is not truly pollution that must be stopped NOW at any cost. Once you get China to stop REALLY polluting I'll listen.

---

The other side of that coin. ;)

http://www.secureconsulting.net/2007/04/human_arrogance_and_the_pendin.html

From that site's Disclaimer page:

This web blog, related pages, and anything else connected with the secureconsulting.net domain is the independent property of Ben Tomhave. It is neither owned nor directed by any third parties, including his employer, LockPath, Inc. The views expressed are his own and do not represent the views of the company (official or unofficial).

So in other words, a standard schmuck with an opinion and not someone qualified to interpret the science accurately.

The other side of that coin. ;)

http://www.secureconsulting.net/2007/04/human_arrogance_and_the_pendin.html

---

Jack

It seems to me some people think man is the ultimate cause of everything when in fact they are merely a violent congratulation of vapor strutting around on the stage and in the end signifying nothing. Think don't feel.

If you were to actually think, you wouldn't be spouting this drivel. Sure, humans are insignificant individually or on the cosmic whole. But 7 billion of us can cause quite some major impact events to happen at a planetary level. Your assumption that we are irrelevant is a feeling and not the product of evidence based logical thinking.

Skepticism means you want to be convinced by scientific evidence or sound logic. Climate skeptics repeatedly ignore the vast majority of scientific finding in favor of cherry picking the results of a tiny amount of often dubious scientific studies to support their claim.

99 and 44/100% of the people personally can't understand a scientific paper so, like with religion, they believe what they feel not what they know is fact.
...

So how about you ask someone with a degree in science what they think? I'm betting that someone with say, a physics degree, might have a good idea about how to interpret the science.

Just throwing it out there.

Pssshaw! Ask someone who can interpret the science accurately? Why would I do that if it disagrees with my world view and have to change my habits accordingly? Better to remain ignorant and spout a bunch of FUD because I know better than they do! ;-P