Page 38 of 52 FirstFirst ... 28363738394048 ... LastLast
Results 371 to 380 of 519

Thread: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

  1. #371
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Another straw man

    Quelle surprise!!
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  2. #372
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,535

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    So much for the rock-solid consensus on the accuracy of Global Climate Models. Oops.


    CERN's 8,000 scientists may not be able to find the hypothetical Higgs boson, but they have made an important contribution to climate physics, prompting climate models to be revised. . . .

    Climate models will have to be revised, confirms CERN in supporting literature (pdf):

    "[I]t is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours [sulphuric acid and ammonia] and water alone.

    The work involves over 60 scientists in 17 countries.

    Veteran science editor Nigel Calder, who brought the theory to wide public attention with the book The Chilling Stars, co-authored with the father of the theory Henrik Svensmark, has an explanation and background on his blog, here, and offers possible reasons on why the research, mooted in the late 1990s, has taken so long.

    Svensmark, who is no longer involved with the CERN experiment, says he believes the solar-cosmic ray factor is just one of four factors in climate. The other three are: volcanoes, a "regime shift" that took place in 1977, and residual anthropogenic components.

    When Dr Kirkby first described the theory in 1998, he suggested cosmic rays "will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth's temperature that we have seen in the last century."


    To the points I made earlier in this thread. Climate Modeling is not science. We understand quite well some of, in fact, most of the isolated processes, but how they all interact is a HUGELY complex affair.

    Having climate scientists advocating for public policy is what has tainted their reputation (notwithstanding their trying to pass off modeling as science) - they've traded on their authority by telling the public that the science is settled. Ooops. Not really.

    To the last bolded statement - if we're going to play a game of which expert to listen to, it behooves us to note that the expert who is correct in his statement on a matter should have more authority than an expert who is incorrect on a matter. Further experimentation will give us more information, but the point still stands - the science is not settled and if climate models were indeed science, then this report has just falsified an entire body of work. Now that's impressive science.
    A search on CERN's website of the phrase "climate models will have to be revised" brings up the following:


    "Searched for: All the words "Climate models will have to be revised" Only search in: All WebPages People CDS Indico TwikiPages
    Found: 0 No documents found in 78 ms
    Sort by: Relevance | Date | Size Reverse
    Perhaps you could provide a link to the study you've posted, something other than a blog citing studies more than a decade out of date, maybe on the CERN website itself.
    Last edited by Dittohead not!; 08-26-11 at 10:30 PM.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  3. #373
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Perhaps you could provide a link to the study you've posted, something other than a blog citing studies more than a decade out of date, maybe on the CERN website itself.
    See here (note the URL):


    Based on the first results from CLOUD, it is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours and water alone. It is now urgent to identify the additional nucleating vapours, and whether their sources are mainly natural or from human activities.

  4. #374
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,535

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    See here (note the URL):


    Based on the first results from CLOUD, it is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours and water alone. It is now urgent to identify the additional nucleating vapours, and whether their sources are mainly natural or from human activities.
    This is an interesting study, and one that bears watching.

    From your link:

    However, it is premature to conclude that cosmic
    rays have a significant influence on climate until the additional nucleating vapours have been identified, their
    ion enhancement measured, and the ultimate effects on clouds have been confirmed
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  5. #375
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    This is an interesting study, and one that bears watching.
    Just to make clear - there is a difference between calling for climate models to be revised and reaching conclusions based on this finding. Climate models are tools, conclusions are reached through the use of the scientific method.

  6. #376
    Advisor nijato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Charm City, USA
    Last Seen
    01-19-12 @ 03:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    417
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    I apologize for my absence of late, but I am happy to continue this conversation.

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    You go too far. Liberal creationists deny that the hereditarian hypothesis isn't even worthy of consideration, that it can't possible function as a mechanism which explains what is happening. That's why they're creationists.
    Agreed. That's just silly.


    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    I'm not saying that you must accept that such variance in intelligence MUST result, I'm saying that you have to accept that this is an entirely legitimate question, that it follows logically from a sound premise, and as my last post argued, that it in fact should be the null hypothesis if you wish to avoid wearing the label of creationist. This still leaves plenty of room for debate on determining how to explain the variance we measure while not rejecting the body of science that has developed around evolutionary principles.
    Accepted again! It would appear that neither of us are attempting to do more than establish the validity of our positions. I agree that to discount either is folly. In fact, I would go so far as to say that there is almost certainly SOME race-associated genetic factors that affect general cognitive ability. The degree to which they impact intelligence is very debatable.



    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post

    Jan Klein and Naoyuki Takahata
    put it better than I can:

    Under these circumstances, to claim that the genetic differences between the human races are trivial is more a political statement than a scientific argument. Trivial by what criterion?

    This is just wordsmanship that you're engaged in. Defining a 2 SD variance as being small and inconsequential is a bold move that might convince some people who are not up to speed on the details of what exactly it is that you're talking about, but a 2 SD variance is not "a small range of variance" when used by statisticians and scientists. You're making a political statement.
    Fair enough. the 2SD / 95% certainty line is a tall order, especially in measuring something as diffuse as cognitive ability. However, it is my contention that the assertion that certain racial groups are genetically superior to others requires a high bar. And let us not forget the limitations of IQ testing to begin with - we must accept that it measures only a fraction of the many abilities that compose "intelligence."

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    I'm sorry that I gave you the impression that I was setting out to conclusively make the case. If I wanted to set out on that task I'd have to marshall more than 2,000 papers I have sitting on my hard drive. What I was doing was answering challenges from liberal creationists. I enjoy doing that. I find pleasure in their presenting an objection that they think closes down the debate and I come back and undermine their rejection. This back and forth display is available for all to follow over the two threads that hosted this discussion.
    Well, I will agree with you once again - it is an invalid position to reject completely the POSSIBILITY of race-associated genetic factors that affect general cognitive ability. Intelligence is THE key adaptation that differentiates Homo sapiens from Pan trogdolytes.

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    That's funny to read. You're taking more authority onto yourself than is warranted considering that this topic seems to be entirely new to you. All you're doing is engaging in a political show which seeks to give cover to liberal creationists to continue on in their ways of rejecting evolution as being applicable to humans and to human intelligence. That's fine, there's nothing wrong with engaging in political polemics, but please drop the act of your position being based on your thorough review of the evidence - this is a discussion board, for pete's sake, and you've just skimmed the literal surface of all the material from a number of disparate disciplines which produce mutually reinforcing evidence in support of the hereditarian position. You have not established any grounds to justify speaking with such reassuring authority.
    Here, I must disagree. Although my review of the literature was far from thorough, even a cursory exploration was sufficient to discover a very high degree of uncertainty in the literature measuring the heritability of cognitive ability. Also, remember my only goal is to establish the validity of the "predominant environment" position as a defensible one, and the "predominant heritability" position as uncertain. As the non-expert (with some relevant training in molecular genetics) I am confident I have shown this.

    Interestingly though, it seems we have arrived at many more points of agreement than disagreement. This is unsurprising considering that we have been at least somewhat reserved (perhaps with help from the opposing side) to claiming only what is shown in objective, peer-reviewed research. Damn, I love the process of science. Dogmatism fills me with an urge to vomit.
    "A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

  7. #377
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,535

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    Just to make clear - there is a difference between calling for climate models to be revised and reaching conclusions based on this finding. Climate models are tools, conclusions are reached through the use of the scientific method.
    Exactly. Let's leave the jumping to conclusions to the bloggers.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  8. #378
    Advisor nijato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Charm City, USA
    Last Seen
    01-19-12 @ 03:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    417
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    All evidence is to the contrary, not that you know what evidence is or what scientific standards are, but you're free to indulge in the religion of global warming all you want. At least you're not running for office and trying to force your religion down other people's throats with various Green-Laws (new new Blue Law), so have a good day
    Really? "All evidence" is to the contrary? That statement is absurd and you would do well to speak to topics you have some knowledge of, as to not make yourself appear so foolish.
    "A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

  9. #379
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Quote Originally Posted by nijato View Post
    I apologize for my absence of late, but I am happy to continue this conversation.
    Well, we're still left with a huge problem - the entirety of social science is predicated upon a liberal creationist foundation. "You don't believe in DNA, do you?"

    If one doesn't understand what one is studying, and doesn't thoroughly investigate all factors, then the conclusions one reaches are bound to be inaccurate.

  10. #380
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    Well, we're still left with a huge problem - the entirety of social science is predicated upon a liberal creationist foundation. "You don't believe in DNA, do you?"

    If one doesn't understand what one is studying, and doesn't thoroughly investigate all factors, then the conclusions one reaches are bound to be inaccurate.
    Another straw man

    *yawn*
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

Page 38 of 52 FirstFirst ... 28363738394048 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •