What is science?

[lawrocket 3]

And what is anti-science?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jakee 1,594]

Science: The systematic pursuit of knowledge about the physical world, the method for that pursuit and the body of knowledge, fact and theory that results.

Anti-Science: Bellyfeel.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[quade 4]

lawrocket

And what is anti-science?

If this isn't a completely rhetorical question, then it explains a lot.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Rickendiver 6]

Science is the pursuit of recognition, the next publication & the next round of funding. Research is merely the mechanism for getting these. Science is an industry.

[Andy9o8 2]

lawrocket

what is anti-science?

It's often illustrated by "Hold my beer and watch this."

[lawrocket 3]

quade

***And what is anti-science?

If this isn't a completely rhetorical question, then it explains a lot.

I see the term used a lot. And I think that in many cases it is not used appropriately.

Nor is the term science.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

lawrocket

******And what is anti-science?

If this isn't a completely rhetorical question, then it explains a lot.

I see the term used a lot. And I think that in many cases it is not used appropriately.

Nor is the term science.

Then by that statement it was, in fact, a rhetorical question. You believe you know what science is and you probably do.

So why phrase it like you're an uneducated person with almost no vocabulary?

Just to get "a" response?

Okay, fair enough I guess, but I would think it might be a better tactic to just say what you have to say rather than meander through that valley of muck.

So what's your point?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Croc 0]

Science is Jakee's definition. Anti-science is getting a government grant to study a foregone conclusion. The study must be so expensive that no one without a government grant can replicate it, so that the author of the study can bask in the glory of his discovery unchallenged, which leads to more government grants, more unchallenged discoveries, more basking, etc., until we are all dead.

"Here's a good specimen of my own wisdom. Something is so, except when it isn't so."

Charles Fort, commenting on the many contradictions of astronomy

[billvon 3,107]

>Anti-science is getting a government grant to study a foregone conclusion.

Some of the most important discoveries in science have come from a big study that was intended to reach a foregone conclusion - and didn't.

"Geez, we spent all this money and the setup was perfect, and we expected to see no more than a 2 nanosecond variation in arrival times. But occasionally . . . hmm, that's odd."

[JerryBaumchen 1,463]

Hi Bill,

Quote

Some of the most important discoveries in science have come from a big study that was intended to reach a foregone conclusion - and didn't.

Viagra & Post-Its anyone?

Jerry Baumchen

[Anvilbrother 0]

Quote

what is anti-science

Probably some shit that would go well with common core. Here is a definition from my daughters 2nd grade vocab typed exactly as it is shown.

jostled-to not or bump against others.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[lawrocket 3]

Science is two things intermingled. First, it is the organized and collected knowledge of testable and tested hypotheses and the conclusions drawn from it. This science is predicated upon the second definition, which is a system designed and used to acquire that knowledge through experiment and observation.

"We have to cut emissions to 1999 levels by aggressive taxation of carbon dioxide emissions and cap and trade" is not something that science would ever say. Nor would science ever say that global warming is a greater threat to Americans than terrorism. His is because s ken e doesn't pass subjective judgment. Science doesn't care whether a rock is as heavy as an orange is sour.

Science has a method of hypothesis, experiment, observe, conclude. To an extent, we are conducting a live experiment with the atmosphere. The hypothesis is that if the CO2 concentration doubles then the earth's temperature will rise a certain amount (thought to be between 1.5 and 4 degrees Celsius). We are in the experiment/observation phase.

Science also is conducted with rational doubt. It typically does not like inductive reasoning. That means putting in observations that weren't specifically predicted but using them to support hypothesis.

things that happen that were not predicted invalidate a hypothesis. Things that didn't happen that were predicted invalidate a hypothesis. Things that have a rational explanation aside from the hypothesis are dis favored.

The term "science" has been co-opted and being perverted for use as a political weapon, like the term "patriot" was used a decade ago (anyone opposed to the policies was not a patriot).

I actually want to hear a little less about "science" and start hearing more about "fact." Fact is the earth has warmed over the last 150 years. Fact is that CO2 plays a role in it. Fact is that temperature is predicted to rise by three degrees c between 1860 and 2100.

What is not a fact is that temperature WILL rise by 2100. Facts must be established by observation.

I allege that scientific discussion must be founded on facts. Period. It must be founded on prediction and observation. I allege that when everything is predicted to result from climate change (seriously, every weather effect has been predicted to both intensify/decline and be mor common/rare) that nothing is predicted. ExMple is that climate change predicts more snow for the northeast. And less snow. It also predicts years that are around average. So five years ago was Snowmaggedon - - and it was attributed to climate change. As was the past couple of years of less snow. And then more snow.

I noticed that Michael Mann said that there was a weather event that was consistent with what we would expect from climate change. I tweeted him the question of what weather event is not consistent with what we'd expect from climate change. So he blocked me because he considered me to be a troll.

This is what the premier climate scientist does. A simple question about what weather event would be inconsistent after he commented that a weather event was consistent was not answered. And the heretic excluded.

The exclusion of alternative viewpoints or explanations is inconsistent with the advancement of knowledge. Fact - the storm was consistent with climate change. Fact - the storm was consistent with no climate change.

The abuse of science by the self-proclaimed guardians is something that should stop. Anti-science being characterized as pro-science is as dangerous as religion posing as science.

Same question, Paul - what weather event is not consistent with climate change? And then tell me this: If there isn't one, then would you agree that it is not scientific to attribute any event to climate change if there isn't one that isn't expected?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

lawrocket

Same question, Paul - what weather event is not consistent with climate change? And then tell me this: If there isn't one, then would you agree that it is not scientific to attribute any event to climate change if there isn't one that isn't expected?

Actually, there is. There is absolutely ONE weather event that would absolutely be inconsistent with climate change. Sit down. Are you ready for it?

A trend toward stability. This would be where weather of all types, all extremes, become demonstrably less extreme.

Weather is a transfer of energy. When that transfer happens things change. It's like a cup of luke warm water sitting at room temperature. There's not a lot of convection going on. Not a lot of movement. Not so little it freezes, but not so much it's constantly churning.

Take that same cup of water and just light a match and hold it next to the cup so it starts to heat up one part of it. That's climate change. It's introducing more instability.

Show me on the planet wide-scale where weather has become more stable than in our industrialized past.

I'll wait.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[brenthutch 444]

quade

*********And what is anti-science?

If this isn't a completely rhetorical question, then it explains a lot.

I see the term used a lot. And I think that in many cases it is not used appropriately.

Nor is the term science.

Then by that statement it was, in fact, a rhetorical question. You believe you know what science is and you probably do.

So why phrase it like you're an uneducated person with almost no vocabulary?

Just to get "a" response?

Okay, fair enough I guess, but I would think it might be a better tactic to just say what you have to say rather than meander through that valley of muck.

So what's your point?

Lighten up, it is called the Socratic method. Invented by Socrates Johnson I believe.

[lawrocket 3]

quade

***Same question, Paul - what weather event is not consistent with climate change? And then tell me this: If there isn't one, then would you agree that it is not scientific to attribute any event to climate change if there isn't one that isn't expected?

Actually, there is. There is absolutely ONE weather event that would absolutely be inconsistent with climate change. Sit down. Are you ready for it?

A trend toward stability. This would be where weather of all types, all extremes, become demonstrably less extreme.

I have a couple of big problems with this. The first is the use of the term "extreme." Did you know that skydiving is extreme? Did you know that there are also extreme mass market soft drinks and candies? I think that this alone should be a fIr indicator that "extreme is whatever the hell anyone wants it to be."

Second: you are looking for weather of all types to be "less extreme." Again, I'll demonstratd how this works to be an impossible task.

Drought. A drought may be looked at as an absence of significant weather events over a long period of time. Picture a day that is mostly sunny and a high of 75 in Los Angeles. Would that he extreme?

Now picture that same weather for three straight years. The lack of any weather event for three years then gets called a drought and becomes extreme weather.

So what you have done is set it up where, no matter what, the trend wil be toward an increase in extreme weather in at least one thing. The absence of significant weather events is defined as extreme. The presence of significant weather events is defined as extreme. "I've never seen a year so extremely average!"

Quote

Weather is a transfer of energy. When that transfer happens things change. It's like a cup of luke warm water sitting at room temperature. There's not a lot of convection going on. Not a lot of movement. Not so little it freezes, but not so much it's constantly churning.

Take that same cup of water and just light a match and hold it next to the cup so it starts to heat up one part of it. That's climate change. It's introducing more instability.

Show me on the planet wide-scale where weather has become more stable than in our industrialized past.

I'll wait.

There's the set up again. When weather "has become more stable" that is called "climate change." Any change in weather pattern is called climate change. It changed from more chaotic to more stable.

You are actually suggesting that the only thing you'll accept is as proof that climate is not changing is proof of climate change. I'm shocked but not surprised. Unless I can show you that climate changed from an unstable preindustrial era to a stable present then you will believe in climate change.

I really do blame the climate alarmists and climate scientists for this. I do. Because I'm convinced that you have no idea that you are asking for a logical impossibility. You want to see the climate become more stable. To you that change will be proof that the climate isn't changing.

There is another problem with your approach, and it is a lack of understanding of equilibrium. Weather is indeed a transfer of energy. The energy transfer always goes from high energy to low energy. If it was called "regional warming" then we should expect to see more weather events. In "global warming" we wouldn't becUse there isn't a gradient.

As you know, things like hurricanes are nature's way of dispersing energy. Nature takes a beach and erodes it instead of increasing the temperature. Temperature is increasing. This means that the energy is not being released as kinetic energy in things like storms.

I do see an objective measurement. It's called "accumulated cyclone energy." What do you think worldwide cyclone energy has done over the last 40 years? If your answer is, "why Lawrocket, the worldwide ACE has a downward trend" you'd be correct. What has the planet done during that time? Heated to record level. What has CO2 done during that time? Increased.

What has the ACE done? Gone down. Why, we are in an extreme lull. People looked at Haiphan as so big and powerful that they'd never seen anything like it before. That's because they didn't look back to Typhoon Tip, which made Haiphan look like a wimp.

Paul - you have to give something that is objective and testable and measurable. I just said that my view of science is that a prediction of everything is a prediction of nothing. Your approach of extreme and climate change to prove no climate change is why I made this post.

Your ideas are what I hope to change. I hope this post educates people to what science is and isn't. "Extreme" has no place in a scientific discussion unless talking about statistical extremes.

Edited to add some ACE images

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[brenthutch 444]

You have the right idea, however you come to the wrong conclusion. A warmer globe would result in a more stable climate.
global warming, warms the poles, not the equator. Vigorous weather results from the clash of warm and cold. Warmer climate = stable weather.

While we are on the topic, can you explain what "extreme weather" is? And can you point to a time in history where weather was stable.

[lawrocket 3]

>>> warmer climate more stable climate

You've got the right idea but wrong conclusion. By making something more stable you are changing it. More stable climate is called climate change.

I think you went with quade's wording. What I think he meant was "fewer weather events" or "less average intensity." The weird thing is, Brent, that we are seeing fewer and less intense weather events. According to you this is evidence of global warming.

It is according to me, too. Problem is that the alarmist community has locked itself into the narrative that killer storms are the inevitable result of it when the opposite is true and changing to an"this warmer climate will save lives" thing isn't viewed as fitting with the chosen narrative.

Other problem is that it works against the denier community, too, because it is evidence that the globe is indeed warming. So the denier crowd looks no less anti-science than the alarmists.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

global warming, warms the poles, not the equator.

Do you have science backing this up, or is this an hypothesis/assumption from which you draw conclusions?

[lawrocket 3]

SkyDekker

Quote

global warming, warms the poles, not the equator.

Do you have science backing this up, or is this an hypothesis/assumption from which you draw conclusions?

He got it mostly right. The effect of AGW is predicted to be higher and much more noticeable at the poles. This is because the effect of water vapor as a greenhouse gas is limited at the colder temperatures of the poles. Versus the tropics, where water vapor is so dominant that the signal of CO2 is dealing with a lot of noise.

This is a specific prediction of AGW theory. And part of the reason why there has been the focus on Arctic ice as the figurative canary in the mine

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,107]

>global warming, warms the poles, not the equator.

Nope, it is warming both. See below for the 2014 warming.

http://publicradio1.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/newscut/files/2015/01/NOAA-Global-2014-YTD.gif

[quade 4]

lawrocket

Paul - you have to give something that is objective and testable and measurable.

I did. Just because it doesn't fit with your view doesn't mean it's not objective (which it is) nor testable (which it also is) nor measurable (which it absolutely is).

Show me where extreme weather events of all types around the globe; hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, ice packs are neither increasing nor decreasing, etc. are lessening since the industrial revolution, and I'll begin to believe you when you say climate change isn't happening.

Until then, you're simply blathering.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

quade

***Paul - you have to give something that is objective and testable and measurable.

Show me where extreme weather events of all types around the globe; hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, etc. are lessening since the industrial revolution, and I'll begin to believe you when you say climate change isn't happening.

Decreasing of those things means climate change is happening. You are demanding circular evidence. You are demanding proof of climate change as proof that climate change isnt happening.

Additionally, I dont claim that climate change is not happening.

But I can show you the last 40 years. You want evidence that also doesnt exist. I cant tell you the Arctic ice extent or volume in 1863. There are Huricanes detected now through dvorak that nobody would have known about in the past.

You effectively asking for something that is nontestable. The data isnt there and and cannot be even inferred.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

lawrocket

Additionally, I dont claim that climate change is not happening.

Really? Then you should probably find out what is causing it.

If you don't come to the same conclusion virtually all of the experts in the field have, then you can write a paper about it and possibly win the Nobel Prize.

Until then, you might want to look at what the vast majority of experts have to say about the subject.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

quade

***Additionally, I dont claim that climate change is not happening.

Really? Then you should probably find out what is causing it.Ahhh nature is

If you don't come to the same conclusion virtually all of the experts in the field have, then you can write a paper about it and possibly win the Nobel Prize.this is bs as often proven

Until then, you might want to look at what the vast majority of experts have to say about the subject.

there are pleny of experts who disagree, but you and yours just demonize them

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

billvon

>global warming, warms the poles, not the equator.

Nope, it is warming both. See below for the 2014 warming.

http://publicradio1.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/newscut/files/2015/01/NOAA-Global-2014-YTD.gif

yes, but as time => limit, then Te-Tp => zero

and it's the difference in temps that causes gradients which drives those crazy weather events


AND, its even better if we use Centigrade vs Fahrenheit for 3 digit displays.....or is it the other way around


short story - everyone switches to Centigrade and the problem is solved as soon as the average temperature approaches 513C

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants