Cold sun rising
On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 3:58:37 PM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:
Two problems here, Chris. First, this subject isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. No one here knows enough to know if the scientists who research the subject are altering data to suit an "agenda." Anyone who makes that statement is flat-out full of ****. -- Ed Huntress In my opinion this subject is still a matter of opinion, not fact. Until someone comes up with a model that agrees with the actual data, it is still an opinion. Even when someone has a model that agrees with the actual data, it is still a theory. Einstein's Theory of Relativity is a theory, even though many experiments have be made that show the experiment agrees with the Theory. Dan |
Cold sun rising
On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 13:19:35 -0800 (PST), "
wrote: On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 3:58:37 PM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote: Two problems here, Chris. First, this subject isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. No one here knows enough to know if the scientists who research the subject are altering data to suit an "agenda." Anyone who makes that statement is flat-out full of ****. -- Ed Huntress In my opinion this subject is still a matter of opinion, not fact. That's because you don't know the facts, and you have no way to evaluate them. Until someone comes up with a model that agrees with the actual data, it is still an opinion. No. You're misstating the nature of statistical models. Even when someone has a model that agrees with the actual data, it is still a theory. Einstein's Theory of Relativity is a theory, even though many experiments have be made that show the experiment agrees with the Theory. Dan Theories are not opinions. Theories are based on facts. -- Ed Huntress |
Cold sun rising
On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 4:36:06 PM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:
In my opinion this subject is still a matter of opinion, not fact. That's because you don't know the facts, and you have no way to evaluate them. Until someone comes up with a model that agrees with the actual data, it is still an opinion. No. You're misstating the nature of statistical models. Even when someone has a model that agrees with the actual data, it is still a theory. Einstein's Theory of Relativity is a theory, even though many experiments have be made that show the experiment agrees with the Theory. Dan Theories are not opinions. Theories are based on facts. -- Ed Huntress Sorry but I still disagree. If everything is facts as you believe, there would not still be scientists mulling over the data. When things are well known and understood , there are not people studying in the field. Ohms law is an example. It is well known and there are no studies being conducted to verify the results. No government grants to study Ohms law. Lots of government grants to study climate warming. Theories are based on facts and conjectures. Take the Big Bang Theory. Part observation , part conjecture. Dan |
Cold sun rising
On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 14:43:47 -0800 (PST), "
wrote: On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 4:36:06 PM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote: In my opinion this subject is still a matter of opinion, not fact. That's because you don't know the facts, and you have no way to evaluate them. Until someone comes up with a model that agrees with the actual data, it is still an opinion. No. You're misstating the nature of statistical models. Even when someone has a model that agrees with the actual data, it is still a theory. Einstein's Theory of Relativity is a theory, even though many experiments have be made that show the experiment agrees with the Theory. Dan Theories are not opinions. Theories are based on facts. -- Ed Huntress Sorry but I still disagree. If everything is facts as you believe, there would not still be scientists mulling over the data. When things are well known and understood , there are not people studying in the field. Ohms law is an example. It is well known and there are no studies being conducted to verify the results. No government grants to study Ohms law. Lots of government grants to study climate warming. Theories are based on facts and conjectures. Take the Big Bang Theory. Part observation , part conjecture. Dan "Conjectures," or assumptions, are part of stochastic modeling and are NOT opinions. In a good scientific model, the assumptions are themselves based on scientific facts. The reason they're assumptions is that their specific, individual truth values may not be known. The big issue then is whether these assumptions are determinant. The next step will tell you if they are. So when you have that situation, you test your model with different values for the assumptions. My son runs stochastic models that may go through 100 iterations like that. In climate science, it's probably 1,000 or many more. The usefulness of your model in that case depends on demonstrating that the alternate assumptions don't steer the model off in a different direction. Hurricane-path models are an example. You may not know if it will land in South Carolina or Delaware, but you know it's going northwest. Rarely, it goes off in some other direction. But you're limited in that case because you only have a limited time to run your models, and the inputs keep changing. In long-term climate modeling, you have the historical data and it takes years, typically, for the inputs to change significantly. This kind of modeling is not "opinion." And when you run a dozen models with different assumptions and they all track the same path, but with slightly different values, you know that the unknowns are not determinant, but only constants (in the mathematical sense) that vary the specific output values. That's where we are with climate science. Look at that bundle of snakes in the graph reprinted in the article we were talking about. They predicted the directions, both up and down, that were followed by the post facto data measurements. Those are good models. You will NEVER get perfect predictions from a stochastic model, if for no other reason than that it's statistical, and is based on sampling, not on a universe of measured examples. Contrast that with a mathematical model that predicts the fatigue life of an aluminum airplane wing. You may never have perfect data in that case, and you may not know the moment a break will occur, but you can predict it very closely because you don't have a huge number of variables, and their interactions are well known and consistent. You can reduce them to mathematical formulas that can be tested and that don't vary except with physical anomalies, like an internal stress that can't be controlled. Not so with climate. People who live with stochastic models recognize a good one. Climate scientists live with them. And almost all of them recognize that their models are all but incontrovertible. They can't tell you how many degees it will warm in, say, 2050, but they have a high certainty that they know the range. And it will be hell for some people on earth. As for the other 3% of scientists who disagree: I'll take the 97:3 odds. -- Ed Huntress |
Cold sun rising
On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 6:59:50 PM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:
As for the other 3% of scientists who disagree: I'll take the 97:3 odds. -- Ed Huntress When you say you will take the 97:3 odds, you are admitting that it is not fact, but opinion. Dan |
Cold sun rising
|
Cold sun rising
On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 17:44:28 -0800 (PST), "
wrote: On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 6:59:50 PM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote: As for the other 3% of scientists who disagree: I'll take the 97:3 odds. -- Ed Huntress When you say you will take the 97:3 odds, you are admitting that it is not fact, but opinion. Dan That's statistics, not opinion. -- Ed Huntress |
Cold sun rising
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 9:16:19 AM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 17:44:28 -0800 (PST), " wrote: On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 6:59:50 PM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote: As for the other 3% of scientists who disagree: I'll take the 97:3 odds. -- Ed Huntress When you say you will take the 97:3 odds, you are admitting that it is not fact, but opinion. Dan That's statistics, not opinion. -- Ed Huntress Not really. It is your opinion that the 97 % has got the theory right. It is my opinion that they still have a way to go. But all opinion. Dan |
Cold sun rising
On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 08:10:10 -0800 (PST), "
wrote: On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 9:16:19 AM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote: On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 17:44:28 -0800 (PST), " wrote: On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 6:59:50 PM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote: As for the other 3% of scientists who disagree: I'll take the 97:3 odds. -- Ed Huntress When you say you will take the 97:3 odds, you are admitting that it is not fact, but opinion. Dan That's statistics, not opinion. -- Ed Huntress Not really. It is your opinion that the 97 % has got the theory right. It is my opinion that they still have a way to go. But all opinion. Dan No, you're making the same mistake that the deniers make. You're saying that fewer than 1 in 30 scientists are as likely to be right as the 29 who say they're wrong. That's irrational. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of using your head. -- Ed Huntress |
Cold sun rising
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 11:20:26 AM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:
Not really. It is your opinion that the 97 % has got the theory right. It is my opinion that they still have a way to go. But all opinion. Dan No, you're making the same mistake that the deniers make. You're saying that fewer than 1 in 30 scientists are as likely to be right as the 29 who say they're wrong. That's irrational. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of using your head. -- Ed Huntress You really ought to pay attention to what people actually say and not to what you think they are saying. The statistics about 97% and 3 % is about opinions. 97 % of the scientists have the opinion ( Not fact ) that global warming constitutes a real threat. Only 3 % are not sure. I am not saying that the odds are equal. I am saying that I think there is some possibility that the 3 % might be right and that in time we will have a better idea of what the facts are. I have no idea of where you got the idea that I ever said anything about the odds of who is right. Try to read what I say. Use your head. Dan |
Cold sun rising
On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:24:40 -0800 (PST), "
wrote: On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 11:20:26 AM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote: Not really. It is your opinion that the 97 % has got the theory right. It is my opinion that they still have a way to go. But all opinion. Dan No, you're making the same mistake that the deniers make. You're saying that fewer than 1 in 30 scientists are as likely to be right as the 29 who say they're wrong. That's irrational. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of using your head. -- Ed Huntress You really ought to pay attention to what people actually say and not to what you think they are saying. I could say the same to you, Dan. The statistics about 97% and 3 % is about opinions. Bull****. Those are NOT opinions. Those are conclusions based on measured scientific facts. Some of them are wrong. Which ones, Dan? The 97%? Or the 3%? 97 % of the scientists have the opinion ( Not fact ) that global warming constitutes a real threat. Only 3 % are not sure. No they're not. The 3% are the ones who say that humans have "little or no influence" on global warming. Note that they don't deny global warming is going on, unlike Sentaor Snowball of Oklahoma. I am not saying that the odds are equal. I am saying that I think there is some possibility that the 3 % might be right and that in time we will have a better idea of what the facts are. Sure we will. Maybe when we're all toasty and swimming for shore. g I have no idea of where you got the idea that I ever said anything about the odds of who is right. Try to read what I say. I didn't say you said anything about it. I said that was your mistake: It's a statistical question, a question of likelihoods, and you erroneously think it's a matter of opinion. It has nothing to do with opnions. Opinions are what the people have who don't know all the facts. That's probably 99% of the people in the country. I have no opinion about it. I do have a recognition of the statistical probabiities about who is right. And I don't bet my life on odds that are against me by 30:1. That's for fools. Use your head. I do. You should do more of it yourself. Your logic has been slipping lately. -- Ed Huntress |
Cold sun rising
|
Cold sun rising
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 2:47:47 PM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:
Use your head. I do. You should do more of it yourself. Your logic has been slipping lately. -- Ed Huntress My logic is only slipping in your opinion , because I do not agree with you. Dan |
Cold sun rising
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:14 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter