>> ^bobknight33:

Darwin is wrong. When you look at the Cambrian explosion, for the most part everything suddenly appears during this event is such a rapid time frame. Darwin's theory alone can not explain this event. You go from bacteria type to animals. However we all see that each species adapts and evolves as is needed.

Cambrian explosion.


"Sudden" in the Cambrian Explosion context means everything but what we normally think of as sudden. When biologist say sudden, they are talking about tens of millions of years. compared to hundreds of millions of years that are relatively uneventful evolutionary speaking, 10-100 million years of faster changes look "sudden" and "explosive". This effect is due to the fact that evolution occasionally reaches an equilibrium, where a stable environment ensures that the balance in nature stays the same over very, very long periods, followed by new "explosions". This is called punctuated equilibrium. This effect is actually exactly what you would expect from Darwins theory, and attempts at computer-modelling evolution has show this effect. Take a look at a video I posted a while back to see this effect: Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker

But the thing about science is that you are supposed to give out information willy-nilly. A central ideal of the scientific method and scientific experimentation is repeatability. You make a hypothesis, design a controlled experiment to test that hypothesis, and publish in an extremely open way the steps and procedure of those experiments so that other people can repeat what you've done, perform the same tests and verify your results for themselves.

So much of global warming science comes from computer climate models. The problem with modeling something as complex as climate with computers is that it is nearly impossible to understand the whole system well enough that you can isolate one experimental variable to vary and compare to a control group. As time goes on, we keep learning about more and more variable inputs to the whole system of climate. Carbon Dioxide, Methane, and other gases create a greenhouse effect. The sun has a periodic sunspot cycle and other random (as near as we can figure) fluctuations.

Climate Science is a good thing, because we will gradually learn to understand more and more of those contributing variables. But before anything radical is done in reaction to computer models, those models have to be proven viable. One way that can be done is to feed old, recorded data into the model and see if it can accurately "predict" the past.

For that to be done, the system that the computer models use must be fully disclosed, open, and accepted.

Johannes Kepler came up with some scientific, mathematical equations to describe the physics of how bodies in space interact with gravitational pull. By applying those equations, we've sent men into space and to the moon, maintained orbits of satellites, and done all sorts of fantastically useful things. Until climate science can take data from 2 decades ago and accurately describe what happened 1 decade ago, I think it makes sense to be at least a little skeptical in our reactions to what those models say will happen 10-100 years from now.

A university teacher of mine has developed a similar machine with force feedback and computer models of heart surgery, specifically infant heart surgery, since it's insanely hard to work with "blindfolded".

See more about it here: http://www.cavi.dk/projects/medicalvisualization.php

>> ^NetRunner:
Remember, correlation does not imply causation now, so don't just quote me figures and rely on synchronous movements!

Funny, that's what the computer models on climate change are based on. Take data, multiply value with noise(the more the better), add to model mapping, wait for the end of the world. If end of the world doesn't happen, apply tweaking to ensure that it's man made.

I like my science best with a high amount of skepticism, when there is open debate from both sides. We don't have that, what we have is one side or the other being drowned out with echos of, "You're on the payroll of such and such".

Let me know when the science of climatology gets back to being science. And away from the political opportunists.

Tax cuts are a non sequiter for the AGW debate. However, the general principal of research methodology apply to economic theory as well as scientific theory. Do tax cuts 'cause' economies to propser? They certainly increase economic activity, which can in turn increase tax revenue. It is a proven fact that tax hikes decrease specific economic activities. But neither can be said to be the 'sole' cause of economic prosperity or malaise. I object to tax increases on the principle that they limit personal freedom - not because I think tax cuts cause properity.

These arguments can be used to attack anything, so long as people refuse to agree on both what the actual statistics are, and what a reasonable theory is for the way the world works.

A true 'scientist' doesn't state that he has arrived at a conclusion in the absence of isolated, definitive proof. Real scientists keep thier counsel until they have ecumenical data generated from comprehensive population samples which can be reliably and repeatably duplicated when accounting for all known variables. A real scientist does not use incomplete convenience samples, or rely on computer models that ignore important known intervening variables.

And yet, that is what the entire AGW 'science' is currently based on today. AGW 'science' has no isolated proof. It doesn't use ecumenical data. It doesn't use comprehensive samples. It cannot reliably or repeatably duplicate results. It doesn't account for all known variables. It uses incomplete, flawed datasets. It entirely depends on computer models which deliberately omit key variables. It's total junk which is being treated as 'fact'.

AGW is not science that is refining a solid technique based on sound hypothesis. It is political bunk peddling itself via propoganda with the word 'science' scribbled on it in crayon.

Well said X. If evolution is 'scientific theory' then what shall we say of AGW as 'science'? It is supposition based on inference and computer models built with faulty, incomplete, and partly imaginary data. I've seen the actual data. The strongest 'correlation' that has ever been made to anthropogenic C02 emissions and world climate temperatures is below +0.1. Correlations have to reach 0.3 to even be considered weak in statistical circles, and only 0.6 and higher are strong. Human C02 emissions do not correlate with planetary temperature. They never did.

Regardless, hooray for Matthews? The man is as despicable as Limbaugh, Hannity, Olberman, and all the other sell-outs. He isn't qualified to work as a page in a newspaper room, let alone pretend he's a journalist. He's a propogandist. If you find yourself cheering when a propogandist is slinging his bull then it can mean only one thing... It means that you are a brain-dead, easily manipulated lemming, dancing to the piper. Anyone who cheers a neo-lib or a neo-con shill doesn't deserve to be spat upon, even if their hair is on fire.

Very Nice. I hope she manages something as impressive for her masters thesis.

When she says she "proved it" does that mean she got it published? A non peer review proof is not yet properly a proof. I hope she's right, it would be a very nice tool for bio-chem computer modeling.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a theory (hypothesis). It is an unproven theory. What you do with theories is put them to the test with scientific observations.

Rambling nonsense, in science there is no such term as "unproven theory" A theory is a construct and means to explain the available facts

Correctamundo. Is anyone seeing a distinct "intelligent design" element hovering around this thread?

>> ^quantumushroom:
You (QM) lie on a routine basis.
Yeah, lying with the truth, supported by facts and logic.
You represent all that is filthy, lazy, and ugly in mankind.
But only compared to the socialist utopia dreamed up by frauds, thieves and charlatans. And of the three adjectives above, I'll agree with 'lazy' but that's it.
Thousands of years ago, the shaman stood on a little dirt mound, waved a bone and proclaimed the tribe was in danger of being killed by evil spirits; therefore give the shaman a portion of your harvest and he'll save you.
Thirty years ago, some poindexters in white labcoats stood at a podium with fraudulent computer models, trying to frighten people into believing the world would be destroyed by WARM WEATHER; therefore shut down all progress and give us half your income in taxes and we will save you.
There is no scientific evidence for man-made global warming, only govt-sponsored scientists trying to lick the hand that feeds them (with OUR tax dollars).
When it comes to the man-made global warming religion, I'm an atheist.

And also, when did those scientists start demanding money? They're just providing their opinion on the research they've conducted. If you think they're trying to scam money out of us by making us use cleaner more efficient and safer equipment WHICH THEY INVENTED!!!!!11oneoneone, then please re-read this sentence. Where the fuck is the HARM in using cleaner more efficient and safer equipment?

If they're right, and we change how we live to be cleaner and safer, we win.
If they're wrong, and we change how we live to be cleaner and safer, we didn't lose.

This is my favourite piece of advertising. There is no CGI on display. Abel and Associates only used computers to figure out angles and control camera moves. I love how they've wrapped people in textureless grey body suits in order to simulate shaded computer models.

PS everyone who failed to upvote this when it was in the queue should be ashamed of their self. Makes me question the wisdom of this crowd.

You (QM) lie on a routine basis.

Yeah, lying with the truth, supported by facts and logic.

You represent all that is filthy, lazy, and ugly in mankind.

But only compared to the socialist utopia dreamed up by frauds, thieves and charlatans. And of the three adjectives above, I'll agree with 'lazy' but that's it.

Thousands of years ago, the shaman stood on a little dirt mound, waved a bone and proclaimed the tribe was in danger of being killed by evil spirits; therefore give the shaman a portion of your harvest and he'll save you.

Thirty years ago, some poindexters in white labcoats stood at a podium with fraudulent computer models, trying to frighten people into believing the world would be destroyed by WARM WEATHER; therefore shut down all progress and give us half your income in taxes and we will save you.

There is no scientific evidence for man-made global warming, only govt-sponsored scientists trying to lick the hand that feeds them (with OUR tax dollars).

When it comes to the man-made global warming religion, I'm an atheist.

I've been working at IT for over 2 years at a university so I've seen literally dozens of computer models grace my desk. Send me a profile message letting me know a few details (laptop or desktop, PC or Mac, price range, etc.) and I'd be more than happy to walk you through it.

"one of the most sophisticated computer models ever made"... hah!

>> ^quantumushroom:
You should tell the doctors and scientists at Johns Hopkins why their numbers are wrong. I'm sure they can learn a lot about epidemiology from you and and your intelligent feedback.
Speaking of bullshit numbers, you're supposed to be scared about warm weather and give up what's left of your freedom based on hopelessly inaccurate computer models of weather patterns.
Meanwhile, why don't you libs get a petition together to let the Iraqis know how much you wish they could live under Saddam's and his sons' bootheels again.



There are ethnic mafias going around mass-murdering people and you only want to talk about the small percentage of the casualties that are named in the records?

You should tell the doctors and scientists at Johns Hopkins why their numbers are wrong. I'm sure they can learn a lot about epidemiology from you and and your intelligent feedback.

Speaking of bullshit numbers, you're supposed to be scared about warm weather and give up what's left of your freedom based on hopelessly inaccurate computer models of weather patterns.

Meanwhile, why don't you libs get a petition together to let the Iraqis know how much you wish they could live under Saddam's and his sons' bootheels again.

I posted it the last time this came up in sift talk and its still relevant. So, here is the copy paste to save me the re-write:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html

"Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

I think the ultimate point of this article is that the scientific debate is not over. Conclusions have been reached that are not supported by data being collected over the past few years. This includes not only the general hold on rising temperatures, but the record increase in sea ice levels in Antarctica. My favorite part is the end:

"Well-meaning intellectual movements, from communism to post-structuralism, have a poor history of absorbing inconvenient fact or challenges to fundamental precepts. We should not ignore or suppress good indicators on the environment, though they have become extremely rare now. It is tempting to the layman to embrace with enthusiasm the latest bleak scenario because it fits the darkness of our soul, the prevailing cultural pessimism. The imagination, as Wallace Stevens once said, is always at the end of an era. But we should be asking, or expecting others to ask, for the provenance of the data, the assumptions fed into the computer model, the response of the peer review community, and so on. Pessimism is intellectually delicious, even thrilling, but the matter before us is too serious for mere self-pleasuring. It would be self-defeating if the environmental movement degenerated into a religion of gloomy faith. (Faith, ungrounded certainty, is no virtue.)

"Fighting" climate change makes you *feel* good because you're taking action with good intentions. Working towards cleaner industry and a generally more environmentally friendly society is a great goal. Throwing trillions of dollars at something that scientists do not even agree is a real problem is just a poor idea. Costs are fine, if you can prove you are actually going to fix something. Don't forget that regulation is a business. Apply the same skepticism to handing them trillions of dollars that you do to anything else. It's almost become fashionable to be environmentally conscious today with the government regulating us damn near into oblivion. You can't drill for oil here, you can't build power plants here, you have protected habitats springing up all the time, initiatives to change all light bulbs to the mercury filled energy savers are in place, and the list goes on. Basically, the planet's weather and climate systems are incredibly complex, and the data/support from the scientific community is just falling away from global warming. What I think will be even funnier is when we reach the point where the doomsday prediction deadlines have faded into history, there will still be people preaching environmental doom just over the horizon, and the failed predictions will be explained as being narrowly avoided by whatever feel-good eviro fad we're currently into. Of course by then we'll most likely be fearing death by another ice age if the historic trends keep up.

Here is a final bit for you from the Royal Society's talk on the future of science and the distaste for global warming junk science.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Future-of-science-talk-at-the-Royal-Society
(1 minute mark)