White House issues new dire climate report: Scientists: Extreme weather will worsen if pollutants aren't curbed

[nowhereman 1]

DIRE and EXTREME in the title.

If you have nothing worthwhile to add then you are just trolling.

Well, your useless comment added no value.

Actually it did... yours was just plain stupid. If you're bored go mow the lawn or something.

[HAL 9000 96]

and for the record, Gary...

HAL has a master's degree in a scientific discipline and is currently working on a doctorate degree at an Ivy-level major research university in science. That means people like HAL are trained in reading scientific articles, how to dissect the information given, and spot flaws in the author's arguments.

...which goes back to my argument. I think it may take God Himself to reach down and press you under His thumb before you come around to accepting the scientific consensus of Global Warming. In the meantime, the world with not wait for you...we're already addressing the issue on a global scale.

That is what he says. I would have to see his diploma before I would believe it. No reputable scientist would skim a long and technical study that was peer reviewed for 5 minutes and declare it invalid. His own preconceptions overrides his credibility. If this is an example of how scientists work then it does explain how we got this "consensus". At best he is a bad scientist, at worst he is a bald face liar. I have zero respect for him after that.

Talking about people in this way is extremely disrespectful. On several occasions I invited you to a lab tour, which you of course ignored. Which diploma would you like to see? My undergraduate or my masters? If that is that important for you, then come on up to Chicago. Like Guano quite accurately portrayed, and like I've reminded you in the past, scientists are trained technical readers. Even engineers are trained to do so, as I am sure some will vouch for in case Gary has a hard time accepting reality.

As I once told you- quite clearly, the 'evidence' you use to support your rationalized notion that CO2 is no greenhouse gas does not support your claims. Mechanistically, scientifically, and even logically. This is called being obtuse.

A couple of kudos for you, at least you seem to grasp some of the general notions of how scientific knowledge is generated, from conception to acceptance. The only problem is that you are confusing (no huge surprise, sadly) precisely how said OBSERVATIONS, MODELS, and ultimately, THEORIES, are exactly constructed into scientific lingo in 2009.

DARN... I guess this mean HAL 9000 is back in OT.

I cited a reputable source. Are you that dense? A theory is an idea that explains observations. It isn't facts, it's an idea (theory) that could explain what could be happening. If it were hard facts it would be a scientific law. You just don't want to understand.

Gary, I posted that at the time you posted yours, but thanks for the insult. That source did not support your claim that a scientific theory is just an idea...that is simply not accurate.

Here is a good explanation: (see the part in red...that's all I need to prove your claim that there is no concensus on Global Warming. All scientific theories are generally accepted to be true because of the process of peer review....but read on so that you might have a better understand of just what a theory is in science.)

Scientific Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that a theory never becomes a law unless it was very narrow to begin with. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science. Here is an oversimplified example of the development of a scientific theory:

Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:

• Observation: Every swan I've ever seen is white.
• Hypothesis: All swans must be white.
• Test: A random sampling of swans from each continent where swans are indigenous produces only white swans.
• Publication: "My global research has indicated that swans are always white, wherever they are observed."
• Verification: Every swan any other scientist has ever observed in any country has always been white.
• Theory: All swans are white.

Prediction: The next swan I see will be white.

Note, however, that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next swan I see will be white. Thus it is said to be falsifiable. If anyone ever saw a black swan, the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out. (And yes, there are really black swans. This example was just to illustrate the point.)

http://www.wilstar.com/theories.htm

Forget it Steven, you just don't want to understand. What I posted was correct and now your playing semantics. A theory isn't proven and isn't fact. Only scientific law is proven. Many theories have been proven wrong.

Stevo... Gary is somewhat accurate with this.

Scientific Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

Forget it Steven, you just don't want to understand. What I posted was correct and now your playing semantics. A theory isn't proven and isn't fact. Only scientific law is proven. Many theories have been proven wrong.

I've just proven your claim that there is no scientific consensus on Global Warming. Unless you are now saying that Global Warming is not a theory, the above makes it as clear as crystal that all scientific theories are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole...ergo, consensus. That's not semantics...that just good logic.

I see your logic here.

Money is pretty useless in the face of the problems the human species faces, whether you believe this rapid global heating as man made or not. I am looking for much more long term solutions and have little to no interest in bringing back an economy that is based on the fallacy that the human species requires ever expanding consumption to gain happiness.

Hippy? It is nothing to do with being a hippy and everything to do with hoping for a sustainable socioeconomic structure.

I think ALC hit it quite accurately early on in this thread. Humans will have to adapt (big DUH moment there). How we adapt, and to what, is likely to be far more expen$ive than being smart (proactive) about things at this stage of the game.

[tmma 467]

About the whole definition of 'theory'.......Gary's summary is an acceptable definition of 'theory'.

I think semantics and incorrect terminology are at play here on this thread-

The outcome of the warming of the atmosphere is NOT KNOWN for fact. Therefore scientists use models and data to come up with a HYPOTHESIS......not a 'theory'.

example--I'm a meteorologist. When I was practising-I hypothesized every day. I looked at diagnostic and prognostic computer models, radar and satellite along with skew-t thermodynamic charts of the environment; and come up with a HYPOTHESIS on what the weather will be using KNOWN laws and taking into account variables.. This hypothesis is discussed and my reasoning behind it analyzed by other met folks using LAWS of hydrodynamics, thermodynamics, physics...etc etc. If they agree on my calculations and reasoning, the forecast is published.

My hypothesis was only PROVEN after the fact---after the forecast was published and the time frame had passed..

This whole argument on the definition of scientific theory in this thread is moot and pointless, IMO.

o/t I miss HAL on here.

edit! talk of the devil----HI HAL!!!!

Edited June 19, 2009 by tmma

[HAL 9000 96]

Imagine throwing probability statistics into these interpretations of climate phenomena!

Or confidence intervals... *gasp*

Or tests of significance!!! THE HORROR!!!

[tmma 467]

Imagine throwing probability statistics into these interpretations of climate phenomena!

Or confidence intervals... *gasp*

Or tests of significance!!! THE HORROR!!!

*gasp*

Probability statistics are used-along with 'tests of significance' (mathematics is a huge part of thermodynamics, the science of meteorology and climatology etc)------to try and get 1) the most accurate diagnosic interpretation of the current state of the atmosphere followed by 2) to get a reasonable and defendable hypothesis of future atmospheric behaviour- the basis of which being grounded in known fact and scientific law ( physics, etc); adding variables and local phenomena and of course every prognosis I did was reviewed by my peers before publishing---as most are, I believe, but I only speak from my experience.

*gasp* I'm going to get off this thread now, I'm getting a headache... ( I promised myself when it started I would NOT join in...hrmph....but couldn't stop myself when the argument started on 'theory', etc)

[HAL 9000 96]

Imagine throwing probability statistics into these interpretations of climate phenomena!

Or confidence intervals... *gasp*

Or tests of significance!!! THE HORROR!!!

*gasp*

Probability statistics are used-along with 'tests of significance' (mathematics is a huge part of thermodynamics, the science of meteorology and climatology etc)------to try and get 1) the most accurate diagnosic interpretation of the current state of the atmosphere followed by 2) to get a reasonable and defendable hypothesis of future atmospheric behaviour- the basis of which being grounded in known fact and scientific law ( physics, etc); adding variables and local phenomena and of course every prognosis I did was reviewed by my peers before publishing---as most are, I believe, but I only speak from my experience.

*gasp* I'm going to get off this thread now, I'm getting a headache... ( I promised myself when it started I would NOT join in...hrmph....but couldn't stop myself when the argument started on 'theory', etc)

Well it suckered me right back into OT!!

I know... can you imagine some people trying to actually interpret Null testing here in OT? My AI shudders at the thought...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This whole argument on the definition of scientific theory in this thread is moot and pointless, IMO.

If Global Warming is in fact a scientific theory and all scientific theories are accepted by the scientific community as a whole, that means consensus. Is there a dispute whether it is in fact a theory?

[HAL 9000 96]

This whole argument on the definition of scientific theory in this thread is moot and pointless, IMO.

If Global Warming is in fact a scientific theory and all scientific theories are accepted by the scientific community as a whole, that means consensus. Is there a dispute whether it is in fact a theory?

There really is no rabid scientific dispute... its something more like consensus vs healthy skepticism, which is quite normally part of the scientific vetting process. Although I have seen a few scientific fistfights. Reminds me of the time I saw some howler monkeys flinging poo at each other. Kind of funny, and when it was all over, they helped clean themselves up.

The rabid 'debate' is political in nature, and usually takes shape when understanding the issue is lacking, thereby lending itself to political agendas that do not represent science.

[scandal 951]

There is an awful lot of confusion here about what constitutes the scientific method.

How doe scientific theories come about? How are they "proven", or at least accepted by the scientific community? How do alternate theories come about? What is scientific "truth"?

I can assure you these questions are not new. And the majority of practicing scientists are in fact mostly unaware of the accumulated body of research that has gone into the study of the scientific method itself. Most operate under the assumption that it progresses more or less as Steven described previously. In fact, that is really not the case.

One of the best college courses I ever took was a class in the Philosophy of Science. It was one of those life-altering courses that continues to affect my understanding of how things happen more than 20 years later. The rest of this posting is a quick synopsis of my recollections of that course, buttressed by some quick Google/Wikipedia hits to refresh my memory and provide a few citations.

The field of study delving into the scientific method has several key names who pioneered different models - Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn and Imre Lakatos being the most influential.

The model Steve outlined above is referred to as inductivism, or sometimes more pejoratively as "naive inductivism". The concept being, propose a theory. Test it. Test repeatedly. Assume "true" based upon no negative-experiments. Deem it false as soon as one counter-experiment is conducted which conflicts with the theory.

This model was critiqued by Karl Popper who argued that this is not how science actually proceeds. He instead suggested that the model is one of falsification. Since it's impossible to prove something "true" no matter how many experiments are ever performed, "scientific truth" is not an absolute thing, and in fact is not the goal of science. Rather, he saw an ongoing interplay between the questions science poses (why is the sky blue? why do apples fall earthward? why are sea levels rising?) and the conjectured theories which offer answers to those questions. Theories compete with each other to explain the questions, and are judged by constructing empirical measurements (experiments) in an attempt to falsify them. The standard is not some abstract notion of "truth", but rather fitness. Theories are "fit" if they do a good job at answering a question. They are "more fit" if they answer "better". Over time, the questions we pose evolve, and the theories do to. A classical theory that made sense with a certain body of knowledge may not make as much sense as the body of experimental data changes. The job of scientists then, is to be continuously proposing theories, and bombarding those theories with experiments intended to falsify the weak ones, and prove the fitness of the strong ones.

As an example, Newtonian physics was a good fit for the questions and observations of the 18th century. But by the late 19th century, odd factors like observations of Mercury's precession did not "fit" the model of Newtonian gravity prompting acceptance of general relativity as a more "fit" theory. Note that relativity did not replace classical mechanics so much as it made classical mechanics a special case of GR, appropriate when masses and velocities are sufficiently small that the more general theory "reduces" to the simpler one.

Popper's falsification held sway for a few decades as the definitive model of the scientific method, until Thomas Kuhn published The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, This book had one very lasting effect on popular culture well beyond philosophy of science in it's introduction of the phrase "paradigm shift". As Kuhn saw it, scientists do not spend their time trying to falsify theories. Rather, scientists are by and large conventional people who look for the security of a conventional model. They spend their time working within the framework of the accepted theory that governs their field (the "paradigm"). Their experimentation is by and large not intended to disprove the paradigm, but rather to work out the details of how the paradigm applies to specific subproblems (e.g. if the paradigm is linear stress-strain relationship in thermodynamics, then apply that paradigm to the flow of incompressible airflow over an airframe). Once in a while though, a momentum occurs within the scientific community laboring under the paradigm - a momentum to recognize that it's just not working to answer the problems being faced. At that point, a scientific revolution occurs, a sharp break with the past. This is the famous "paradigm shift" to a radically new model of explanation. And this shift does not occur instantaneously. Rather, there is great debate amongst the community. Many are reluctant to abandon a model they have grown comfortable with, spent their careers working with, published all their articles within. It takes a new body of evidence for a new model, and time - sufficient time- to get the consensus to move to a new model. Frequently it takes an entire generation of scientists to retire and die out and be replaced by a younger generation to complete the revolution in a given field.

The final name I would add to this history is that of Imre Lakatos. He was a disciple of Popper's at London School of Economics. He essentially proposed a "modern Popper" view, one that harmonized falsification with Kuhn's paradigms and revolutions.

Coming back to Global Warming ... where I think we are is in a paradigm-changing moment. The notion that human initiated activities could have effects on a global scale would have seemed preposterous a few decades ago. There was scant evidence for it, and the conventional mindset was that humans were not able to have such profound changes. Over the past 20 years or so, that consensus is shifting. There was real and significant debate, even among experts, as recently as the 1980s and 1990s. In the professional community this debate has largely subsided and an acceptance has set in that the phenomenon is real. The data accumulated has been overwhelming that warming is occurring and that it is correlated to human activity. There are those who disagree - that's natural at a paradigm shift (to be Kuhnian about it). And there are dissenting papers and research, that is normal as well. Remember -this is not about simple facts being "true" or "untrue" in a naive inductivist sense. The theories are complex, the data is complex, there are arguments over interpretation. By and large though the expert community has moved to a new paradigm that it's real and occurring.

There is still raging debate however about whether and how it can be reversed, and whether it is wise to attempt to reverse it. That is not only a scientific question, but a political and economic and policy question. And that's where I'll wrap up.

BTW --- I got suspended from VJ last night. I won't argue about whether the suspension was valid or not.

But I will say this.

I'm all for having legitimate discussion of issues like GW or whatever. I tried to do that above. I am perfectly capable of adding insights and opinions and facts to a discussion. I think Steve, Gary others can too.

When OT is getting so bad that the attacks are flying and causing "reasonable" people to get caught up in insane flamefests -- something is wrong.

This place is really out of control. I think I have a pretty thick skin - I can handle the taunts, the jokes, etc. I have no problem with the good-natured kidding and happily participate myself. I'm not a wallflower and I don't get easily offended.

But there have been posts recently on VJ that are outright racist and provocative and hateful. That have slandered and labeled people and groups. I'm not comfortable participating in an agora of ideas with people that are able to spew such bile. I'm thinking of just bugging out and leaving this place to the mean spirited crowd. I'll see how it goes for a few days and decide.

[Peikko 1,575]

Very good post - interesting stuff.

[HAL 9000 96]

Brother scandal-

I just returned. The trash of the forums must not be allowed to continue, although they are. It is another issue unfortunately.

Thank you for your philosophical post. I tend to subscribe to paradigm shifts... but as a practicing scientist I focus more on basic phenomenology as it constructs knowledge.

Lucky for us we have really good searchable databases that yield treasure troves of experimental data in a very short amount of time- thereby simplifying our approaches.

[tmma 467]

This whole argument on the definition of scientific theory in this thread is moot and pointless, IMO.

If Global Warming is in fact a scientific theory and all scientific theories are accepted by the scientific community as a whole, that means consensus. Is there a dispute whether it is in fact a theory?

There really is no rabid scientific dispute... its something more like consensus vs healthy skepticism, which is quite normally part of the scientific vetting process. Although I have seen a few scientific fistfights. Reminds me of the time I saw some howler monkeys flinging poo at each other. Kind of funny, and when it was all over, they helped clean themselves up.

The rabid 'debate' is political in nature, and usually takes shape when understanding the issue is lacking, thereby lending itself to political agendas that do not represent science.

Spot on. Politics TOO OFTEN gets in the way of scientific discovery.

As for the scientific fistfights...me too. Been in a couple myself.

[nowhereman 1]

Guys thanks for getting this thread I believe this is an interesting & worthwhile subject.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Imagine throwing probability statistics into these interpretations of climate phenomena!

Or confidence intervals... *gasp*

Or tests of significance!!! THE HORROR!!!

Careful! You are starting to sound like an engineer!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Guys thanks for getting this thread I believe this is an interesting & worthwhile subject.

There have been countless threads on GW...but I think at heart of the matter are two things - if in fact Global Warming is a scientific theory and if so, what that means. Because it's not just Gary disputing that there is no consensus, but we have Senators who think along the same lines. Setting aside the scientific data, if you could get these GW deniers to at least understand what a scientific theory is and what it means, you could avoid getting into these armchair science debates, IMO.