Oh here we go...

[aw51 121565]

With these feet said:

turbobloke said:

then it must be rejected or modified.

Or hidden, destroyed, falsified or massaged....

Don't forget the peer reviews of the reports/findings only by scientist peers who subscribe to the same tenet as the writers of the reports/findings (and not by fellow scientists who hold, errm, alternative views and would put the kibosh the whole thing) .

[turbobloke]

aw51 121565 said:

With these feet said:

turbobloke said:

then it must be rejected or modified.

Or hidden, destroyed, falsified or massaged....

Don't forget the peer reviews of the reports/findings only by scientist peers who subscribe to the same tenet as the writers of the reports/findings (and not by fellow scientists who hold, errm, alternative views and would put the kibosh the whole thing) .

You guys have got it covered

[technogogo]

grumbledoak said:

technogogo said:

Science is based on the evidence leading to consensus for a position that becomes, eventually, accepted fact. Unless some counter evidence appears. In which case the reasoned scientific consensus can change overnight.

Well, part of your problem is that you are wrong from the start. That is not how science works.

I realize I am probably breaching the never argue with an idiot rule, so I shall "say zis only once". This is the basis of scientific method:

1. You have an idea about how things work (we call it a hypothesis)
2. You make a prediction that should be true if your idea is correct
3. You make measurements and check your predicted results against reality (for clarity: reality is considered correct for our purposes)
4. You decide whether or not you still think your hypothesis is correct
5. You publish everything and let everyone else make their own minds up

You're welcome.

Edited by grumbledoak on Tuesday 2nd September 09:51

Well you have simply stated the mechanics of what I said! If I was being as stupidly picky as you I would suggest you failed to stress the importance of repeatable experiments carried out by I dependant third parties. Which would replace your rather weak step 4. It is peer review that is the cornerstone of science.

So shove your "welcome" up your pedantic nether regions. With respect.

[WinstonWolf]

technogogo said:

grumbledoak said:

technogogo said:

Science is based on the evidence leading to consensus for a position that becomes, eventually, accepted fact. Unless some counter evidence appears. In which case the reasoned scientific consensus can change overnight.

Well, part of your problem is that you are wrong from the start. That is not how science works.

I realize I am probably breaching the never argue with an idiot rule, so I shall "say zis only once". This is the basis of scientific method:

1. You have an idea about how things work (we call it a hypothesis)
2. You make a prediction that should be true if your idea is correct
3. You make measurements and check your predicted results against reality (for clarity: reality is considered correct for our purposes)
4. You decide whether or not you still think your hypothesis is correct
5. You publish everything and let everyone else make their own minds up

You're welcome.

Edited by grumbledoak on Tuesday 2nd September 09:51

Well you have simply stated the mechanics of what I said! If I was being as stupidly picky as you I would suggest you failed to stress the importance of repeatable experiments carried out by I dependant third parties. Which would replace your rather weak step 4. It is peer review that is the cornerstone of science.

So shove your "welcome" up your pedantic nether regions. With respect.

Models predicted warming. Warming been conspicuously absent. Models are wrong.

[Einion Yrth]

Richard P. Feynman said:

It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

Or in this case, observation.

[Richie200]

Techgonono seems to have gone a little quiet following these last couple of posts.
It always amazes me how; when faced with so much opposing evidence, that one still doesn't hold their hand up and say 'hey wait a minute, maybe there is a little more to this and thanks for the heads up'.

[With these feet]

Hockey stick.
Tree rings.

2 falsified, massaged and manipulated findings that were peer reviewed and passed on as scientific fact.

If it were not being supported so heavily by governments then shirley this should have been enough proof to show peer review is nothing other than the old boys clubbing together securing a decent pension?

[Jinx]

technogogo said:

Well you have simply stated the mechanics of what I said! If I was being as stupidly picky as you I would suggest you failed to stress the importance of repeatable experiments carried out by I dependant third parties. Which would replace your rather weak step 4. It is peer review that is the cornerstone of science.

So shove your "welcome" up your pedantic nether regions. With respect.

No it isn't. Peer review is a relatively new example of how to attempt to make science work and most recent major scientific breakthroughs have been in-spite of peer review (think Cric and Watson, bacterial source of stomach ulcers, plate tectonics) .
If you want examples of the failure of peer review to advance science then then the computer generated papers that passed peer review (200 that had to be retracted IIRC) tell you all you need to know.
Peer review is pointless now access to publication is cheap and easy.

[2013BRM]

technogogo said:

Well you have simply stated the mechanics of what I said! If I was being as stupidly picky as you I would suggest you failed to stress the importance of repeatable experiments carried out by I dependant third parties. Which would replace your rather weak step 4. It is peer review that is the cornerstone of science.

So shove your "welcome" up your pedantic nether regions. With respect.

If you don't realise that pedantry is pretty important in this particular subject then you'd best head off to the 'right, no messing, what are you listening to' thread old chum

[technogogo]

turbobloke said:

technogogo said:

becomes, eventually, accepted fact

What emerges is contingent 'fact', anything axiomatic is in at the start.

If what emerges (data) refutes a hypothesis then it must be rejected or modified.

Ok so we can drill down on the meanings of individual words. That won't help. Let me put is this way...

You need to drive over a rather old looking wooden bridge. At the side of the road are 100 bridge experts. Some number, let's say more than 95, urge you not to cross the bridge because they have studied it and declared it unsafe. A handful say, "yeah carry on you will be fine"! What do you do? Would you cross the bridge? Would you fervently argue on Internet forums in support of the handful without even having seen the bridge? Or only a sketch of one of the supporting pillars? Would you say that that one crack on the fifth pillar along on the left hasn't got any worse recently and that is all that matters?

That's what I find odd. Is it purely the power of wishful thinking?

[technogogo]

Richie200 said:

Techgonono seems to have gone a little quiet following these last couple of posts.
It always amazes me how; when faced with so much opposing evidence, that one still doesn't hold their hand up and say 'hey wait a minute, maybe there is a little more to this and thanks for the heads up'.

Err.... day job ;-)

Don't confuse evidence with opinion.

[Einion Yrth]

technogogo said:

Don't confuse evidence with opinion.

Which is precisely what you are doing.

[Jinx]

technogogo said:

Ok so we can drill down on the meanings of individual words. That won't help. Let me put is this way...

You need to drive over a rather old looking wooden bridge. At the side of the road are 100 bridge experts. Some number, let's say more than 95, urge you not to cross the bridge because they have studied it and declared it unsafe. A handful say, "yeah carry on you will be fine"! What do you do? Would you cross the bridge? Would you fervently argue on Internet forums in support of the handful without even having seen the bridge? Or only a sketch of one of the supporting pillars? Would you say that that one crack on the fifth pillar along on the left hasn't got any worse recently and that is all that matters?

That's what I find odd. Is it purely the power of wishful thinking?

Wow what an appalling comparison - now if the 95 or so said their models predict the bridge has already collapsed and yet it is still standing what would you decide to do?

Edited by Jinx on Tuesday 2nd September 12:25

[technogogo]

2013BRM said:

If you don't realise that pedantry is pretty important in this particular subject then you'd best head off to the 'right, no messing, what are you listening to' thread old chum

You are talking about the importance of being pedantic in the scientific pursuit. I agree.
I was talking about the pedantic interpretation of my comments/questions. Which is obviously different.

Deliberately conflating those two different things ain't a great way of arriving at a useful conclusion. Hopefully you weren't?

[technogogo]

Jinx said:

Wow what an appalling comparison - now if the 95 or so said their models predict the bridge has already collapsed and yet it is still standing what would you decided to do?

Oh yes that is a much better analogy. Let's pretend that.

It isn't about the bridge it is about the state of opinion.

I should have used the "bun past it's sell by date with mould in the middle that is yet to be uncovered by a bite" analogy :-)

[WinstonWolf]

technogogo said:

Jinx said:

Wow what an appalling comparison - now if the 95 or so said their models predict the bridge has already collapsed and yet it is still standing what would you decided to do?

Oh yes that is a much better analogy. Let's pretend that.

It isn't about the bridge it is about the state of opinion.

I should have used the "bun past it's sell by date with mould in the middle that is yet to be uncovered by a bite" analogy :-)

Mould forms from the outside in. HTH.

[2013BRM]

technogogo said:

2013BRM said:

If you don't realise that pedantry is pretty important in this particular subject then you'd best head off to the 'right, no messing, what are you listening to' thread old chum

You are talking about the importance of being pedantic in the scientific pursuit. I agree.
I was talking about the pedantic interpretation of my comments/questions. Which is obviously different.

Deliberately conflating those two different things ain't a great way of arriving at a useful conclusion. Hopefully you weren't?

I wasn't but they are not mutually exclusive either are they. Personally I agree that evidence shows the planet is warming, not unusual in itself, but at a much slower rate than hyperbole and hysteria would suggest, also this is not unnatural in any way, nor unusual or unheard of.
Many years of well funded analysis has yet to prove any correlation with us, so I'd cross that bridge, especially if it looked sound and the 'experts' were telling me that it's not actually a bridge but a tunnel

[Jinx]

technogogo said:

Oh yes that is a much better analogy. Let's pretend that.

It isn't about the bridge it is about the state of opinion.

I should have used the "bun past it's sell by date with mould in the middle that is yet to be uncovered by a bite" analogy :-)

The black line is the bridge - the red areas are the model predictions in the state of the bridge. Let's say at 14.4 the bridge collapses (therefore the majority of models have shown the bridge has collapsed) - would you cross and how much credence would you give the modellers?

[Grumfutock]

I have read the last few pages with great interest and I don't even attempt to have all the knowledge or expertise that you chaps clearly have. I didn't even understand half the words you used so I think I am going to stick with what I said on page 2.

Iceland volcano goes ape, Ice age and McPengiun Burgers by the new year.

[jshell]

Jinx said:

technogogo said:

Oh yes that is a much better analogy. Let's pretend that.

It isn't about the bridge it is about the state of opinion.

I should have used the "bun past it's sell by date with mould in the middle that is yet to be uncovered by a bite" analogy :-)

The black line is the bridge - the red areas are the model predictions in the state of the bridge. Let's say at 14.4 the bridge collapses (therefore the majority of models have shown the bridge has collapsed) - would you cross and how much credence would you give the modellers?