it's fine that there may be consensus, but they need a ~unified model~ which they do not have. Do you see the difference? Would they all agree that all "at least 12" models are correct? I doubt it.

Link? The OP in this thread was about faulty quoting, after all.

Sorry, this doesn't fit with your definition of science earlier in the thread!

Plus, evolution itself is a very, very basic model. It's not good at making detailed conclusions. By analogy, very basic models of global warming can suggest global warming, which it seems you acknowledge elsewhere in the thread is a real phenomenon. That would be the apples to apples comparison. If we're going to slag global warming theorists for the failure of their models to predict all weather everywhere in sumptuous detail, then by the same token we should hold evolutionary theorists' feet to the fire for their failure to establish from first principles why we have humans and duckbilled platypi.

Now, it's fine to say that there are substantially greater policy consequences for the specific predictions of the warming theories, and thus we should pay more attention to them. That's a fine argument, but it's a lot more nuanced and thoughtful than just "lol global warming isn't science because you can't do it in a lab." That a dozen different people are knocking your arguments down with essentially no thought should give you a little pause here, and yet it doesn't. Which makes this

pretty funny. Refusal to acknowledge anybody else's actual points and stop spouting nonsense is why this thread continues.

Love the broad variance on cow methane conditions. You also realize that fermentation because of mcrobes is the main contributor now, correct? You didn't find the stuff on temites, etc. Nice field work. I'm clapping with one hand

Your failure of reading comprehension is also a contributing factor. The groundwork of evolution has a fairly long history, much of which was not unified, but now is. calling it basic is laughable at best.

I am not claiming a fact or refuting a fact so what fact is it that I am supposed to check? It seems like your arguement here is "some other people are making some claims that are wrong and so um since you um like also believe in global warming YOU are responsible for fact checking everyone of them".

The only reason cow produced methane is even an issue is because you DEFINED the MOLECULE methane as that which is made by bacteria. Do you not see how absolutely hilarious that is?

Do you realize that "lack of reading comprehension" is not a synonym for stupid? It actually has a meaning, and it doesn't apply to this situation at all. Particularly since the choice of description of evolution as basic was, originally, performed by you. Further, "lack of reading comprehension" much better applies to your failure to see that the whole evolution subargument cropped up because your definition of science is terrible. Here's a helpful paragraph break:

You are making yourself look really dumb.

EDIT: What are your thoughts on Sarah Palin?

unified in what extent? In some aspects they are unified - for example in predicting at least some level of warming up to 2100. They are all very unified in the underlying physics and processes involved. Of course they are not identical, but how could you expect that that would be the case?

The mere fact that there are 12 models that agree on the basics and disagree on some specifics should show how that unified groundwork you wanted actually exists.

What does this even mean?

I'm pretty sure you are the only person in this thread who ever expressed any interest in cows, I thought I would take a few minutes out of my day to do some googling for you and compile a few bits of data in a nice easy to read format with links and all that. Apparently it wasn't appreciated

precisely. The analogy of evolution is not with global warming but with say the greenhouse effect. Both evolution and the greenhouse effect are a fairly simple processes to understand and conceptualize.

However they are both difficult to try and make a computer model that PREDICTS what the future is going to be based on these physical processes. Of course we are a lot closer with global warming than with evolution.

At this point I'm pretty sure that the mental picture daveT has of climate science is Al Gore ****ing a farting cow in the acid rain.

I already did the research.

And why the hell do you think I am trying to prove anything? The burden of proof is on the poeple who are so for AGW; they are blind to any contradictory facts.

I did not bring up evolution, and comparing global cliimate to evolution is laughable. Evolution has actual physical evidence, DNA evidence, and a solid grounding in induction. Yes, it is a huge thought experimennt, but unlike AGW, there is a long and undisputable fossil record (even though it has not been completely interpreted). Had it not been for this fossil record, creationism would be nearly incontrovertable.

I can go on all day about evolution, however, AGW can't even figure out an accurate baseline for it's temperature records, as admitted by the lead scientist. If we don't know that the records from 130 years ago are accurate, then what the hell, all the statistics are pure ****.

And it is shocking to me that people on a poker forum don't understand (without me directly saying it) that if you create a probability model and you come up with 12+ solutions, then there is something very wrong with someone's probability model. In this case, at least 11 of them.

So, if you are going to believe the AGW is completely and unequivically accurate, you must believe that the models as they stand are corrrect. You can't say, "Well, I suppose our records from a few years back may be inaccurate, and we can't say for sure this or that, but here is a few logs of ice."

Seriously? You call that science? You guys quickly dismiss Gore as an idiiot, yet "He is good at explaining what climatologist are attempting to say." and someone else admits that even AGW believers know that An Inconvenient Truth was flawed?

Hello? It's too easy to pick and choose what you want to believe and toss out, as long as it fits your narrow definition of what passes as confirmation or not confirmation.

Yeah, my stuff may not make sense because none of the posters are not even able to agree with each other. You are able to hurt my arguments, because there are "at least 12" theories that I am attempting to dissect. If one falls flat, then all you have to do is reach back and pick up some other factiod.

You aren't.

----------

I made the post about the EPA right about the time it came up on the TV news. It showed the actual woman speaking and saying what I said, so a link is probably going to have to wait.

And Tom, I already told you that your link was inaccurate and biased, so keep your stones close to your sleeve.

Contradictory, convenient "evidence" is my picture of it.

Why? Why must there be one and only one model? What's the difference if they're all making broadly the same prediction of significant warming over the coming decades?

Who's the arbiter of what is needed from science? You? Who are you?!

I'm still waiting for the link/citation here.

Dave, your epistemic failure ITT is just epic.

WHat the hell do you want from people? Honestly, you come on here whining about AGW alarmists do this and AGW alarmists do that and you make up crap about non-peer-reviewed science being used in the media and someone claiming Miami was supposed to be flattened by now. And you claim to have some expertise in science and you can't understand that temp records from 130 years ago have higher uncertainty intervals than those taken last year.
Once again, when you hear something PAY ATTENTION. This did not happen. You probably saw something about Texas challenging the EPA's finding.

But, hey, you just said that the EPA is a pretty heavy nail in the debate, so go find out what they have to say about it:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

But remember to PAY ATTENTION.

You admit that temperature readings from 130 years are going to be innaccurate, correct? Then what is the base-line reading that is able to make people certain that this warming phase is historically signifigant? Why isn't anyone here able to answer this simple question? We are on a ****ing poker site in a sub forum with "math" in it, i would hope that probability and statistical reasoning is relatively understood. If you are able to concede that measurements from 130 years ago are inaccurate, you would logically have to believe you have no dependable model, and you cannot state that the models that are based on ice samples, or whatever else, are dependable. Correct?

How can people who are so knowlegeable about chemical effects on climate not know that sulfuric acid can either warm or cool the planet?

Yet another stellar example of the mastery of the English language.

Dave, I haven't read all of the background material now, so I could be completely wrong, but I think they're just saying something to the effect of:

we can take really accurate measurements now, e.g. "the average temperature in April was 82 degrees +/- 0.1 degree." However, the measurements we had before were less accurate, so we can only say "the average temperature in April 130 years ago was 76 degrees +/- 2 degrees."

That is, I think they're just saying the uncertainties in our measurements have decreased over time. If that's right, I think they're also saying that you just do something like a weighted least squares fit to the data to find the answer. A weighted least squares fit is just what it sounds like: it's a way to factor your error bars into your fitting procedure.

Am I basically right?

Here are the temp readings from CRU with uncertainty intervals.



Here's what Jones said in the interview:

Somehow you have morphed this into "The temp records from 130 year ago are inaccurate." You keep reading things and then getting the completely wrong impression from them. The problem is entirely on your end.

No, you don't understand what confidence intervals are. You can't conclude from the statements that data from 130yrs ago are INaccurate...he's just saying that the confidence interval is wider than more recent data. That means that relatively speaking it's less accurate, but that doesn't therefore make it inaccurate.

The temperature reading is 17.0000001 vs 17.000001. One is more accurate than the other but it doesn't make the less accurate one "inaccurate"

Yet another refusal to post a link. It's not in a prominent place on the EPA site. Your quotes brought up no hits in google. I find it very unlikely that your description or quotes are accurate. By all means, post a link to support your assertion.

This right here is the core of why daveT's perspective is so utterly flawed. The idea that AGW is some black and white binary thing that you either completely support or completely refute is nonsensical. There is not a single person in this thread claiming it is completely and unequivically correct so please just STOP with this mischaracterization that has manifested itself in this thread numerous times.

You can believe in AGW's general claims without being forced to agree with the exact prediction of every single model, to want to spray the atmosphere with NO2 or stop people from eating cows.