"Walt" wrote in message
...
Gilligan wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4604332.stm

Where was the consensus?

People who rely on consensus - other people's opinions - usually cannot
think for themselves.

Oh, you're just mad because the scientific evidence isn't corrorborating
your preconceived opinions.


No. Show me one computer model that has accurately simulated the climate for
the past 200 years. Show me a computer model that predicts what the weather
will be in 30 days.

Science is about measurement, repeatability, understanding and prediction

The evidence is overwhelmingly in my favor. There are millions of years of
past climate changes. Look here at the chart of temperature vs CO2 for the
last 750,000 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Are you saying man caused at the warming spikes and sudden drops in the
temperature and CO2 concentrations for the last 750,000 years? In fact,
10,000 years ago it was greater than it is today.



That's fine. You can keep holding your opinions despite overwhelming
evidence to the contrary, and trolling through the interwebs looking for
something/anything to bolster your faith-based notions. Michael Crichton,
anyone? Surely a hack Sci-Fi novelist would be in a better position to
know than an actual reasearch scientist who has to submit his assertions
to a peer review process, right?

So tell me - seriously - what exactly is my opinion?



Meanwhile, those of us with a science/engineering background can read the
peer-reviewed papers, listen to the scientists who have much more
familiarity with the subject, evaluate the evidence, and draw the
inevitable conclusions.

Inevitable conclusions - is that similar to "preconcieved notions"



Global warming is sort of like the link between cigarette smoking and
cancer - it took a decade or two to go from conjecture to hypothesis to
consensus theory. Sure, there are still those who deny the link, but
they're mostly paid shills for the tobacco companies and kooks on the
intertubes. Likewise, when the global warming studies first came out in
the early 80's any reasonable person would have been skeptical. I
certainly was. By the mid-ninties it was more than just hypothesis, and
today the evidence is basically irrefutable. Except for a few paid shills
for the energy companies, some non-scientist bloviators and a large
quantity of their ignorant followers, the verdict is in.

NOAA:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...paleolast.html

Here's raw data for the last 1,000 years:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pal...al-4_12_01.txt

Go over the Solar Beryllium 10 concentrations. You know what that indicates
or do you need it explained? What is your conclusion about the data?

Do you know what NOAA is?



So sorry that you're on the losing side, but them's the breaks. (Actually,
I wish you were right. But wishing won't make it so.)

No, I don't expect to convince you of anything, Glen. You've clearly made
up your mind. But I can point out to others that what you say is crap.

You can only prove it is crap with logic, reason and fact. When are you
going to get around to producing some of this?


Instead rely on basic physical laws and measurable, repeatable
experiments reduced to the fundamentals.

So you don't believe in plate techtonics either, eh?

So that's your use of logic?

'Cause that's never been repeated in a laboratory.

Measured by GPS and reproduced in the lab. The geological evidence is very
strong too, ridges, rifts, mountain ranges. The thin spots in the earth's
mantle below Hawaii and Yellowstone clearly show the drift. Seismic analysis
also show plates floating.


You have a funny narrow idea of
what constitutes science.


I think you do.

"This first thing a scientist does is work to disprove a new theory."

Just doing my job.

Come back when you have some numbers (measured data or a validated model )
that shows the sun is not warming (increasing its output) or the sun is not
the major cause of global warming.

Or simply show that CO2 levels are historically (show about one million
years of data) a leading indicator for temperature rise.

You can't and you won't. You will simply parrot the phrase "There's a
consensus". Famous last words of many civilizations.

So, basically what you're saying is that after you review all the findings
from those in a better position than you to know the facts, you base your
decision upon their conclusions. Like you said, you go with the consensus.

Thanks for clarifying.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Gilligan" wrote in message
...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Sorry, but you've just supported my argument. You said that you read
published papers. Thus you are relying on the papers to form your
opinions. Yet, you claim that one shouldn't use consensus for technical
issues. So, when you read 10 published papers from respected scientists
and find one that doesn't agree do you take the minority opinion as act
of faith?


The papers present facts and conclusions supported by facts.

I draw my own conclusions. From reason and analysis of the data set and
experiment.

Here's a simple example from first year college physics. It is taught that
relative motion between magnet and a wire is necessary to produce
electrical current (Faraday's Law of Induction). That is a law.

Now go here and read on about unipolar or homopolar electrical generators:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homopolar_generator

Consider the case of the permanent magnetic rotating with the disc:

"If the magnetic field is provided by a permanent magnet, the generator
works regardless of whether the magnet is fixed to the stator or rotates
with the disc. Before the discovery of the electron and the Lorentz force
law, the phenomenon was inexplicable and was known as the Faraday
paradox."

The key here is the Faraday Paradox:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox


Now, one proven simple physical law (Faraday's Law of Induction) cannot
explain the observed results and yet another simple law (Lorentz force
equation) can.

Laws work the same in all reference frames, regardless of the observer.

Figure out why Faradays Law of Induction does not work and what simple
modification or observation is necessary to make it work.

This is all simple physics, you do not have to invoke relativity, there is
no one elses opinion or consensus to help you. Figure it out on your own.

Again, this is a very simple physics problem, not a complex global warming
problem. After you tackle this, then tell me about global warming.

Now I know you will say, what is the relevance of this to global warming?
The earth is a unipolar generator of a large scale. The conductive
atmosphere and core is rotating with it's magnetic source. The resulting
electric field is a forcing function in the climate, weather and
ionosphere.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0022-3727/11/5/020

Which consensus includes the effects of the earth's magnetic field in
their global warming models?

Which global warming model has accurately predicted previous climatic
trends using data from the time? (This is a good way to test global
warming models, see if it works on old data).

If the earth cools over the next 20 years does global warming even exist?
Why don't the models predict a cooling?

Claiming consensus is an argument from ignorance and an appeal to
authority. Claiming consensus where none exists is ignorance.

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
So, basically what you're saying is that after you review all the findings
from those in a better position than you to know the facts, you base your
decision upon their conclusions. Like you said, you go with the consensus.

Thanks for clarifying.


Facts are not conclusions.

How can there be a consensus (and what is it?) when there are conflicting
conclusions?

My decisions do consider others conclusions. It's still my decision based
upon facts and reason, not majority.

Show me the consensus.

Gilligan wrote:
irrelevant crap snipped

People who rely on consensus - other people's opinions - usually cannot
think for themselves.

You will simply parrot the phrase "There's a
consensus". Famous last words of many civilizations.

You seem to be going back and forth between "there is no consensus" and
"the consensus is wrong"

Which is it, Glen? Please make up your mind which way you want to argue
this. It will save us all a lot of time.

//Walt

The consensus is obvious. You don't have to have 100 percent agreement to
have consensus. I suggest you look up the definition.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Gilligan" wrote in message
...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
So, basically what you're saying is that after you review all the
findings from those in a better position than you to know the facts, you
base your decision upon their conclusions. Like you said, you go with the
consensus.

Thanks for clarifying.


Facts are not conclusions.

How can there be a consensus (and what is it?) when there are conflicting
conclusions?

My decisions do consider others conclusions. It's still my decision based
upon facts and reason, not majority.

Show me the consensus.