Sixth mass extinction is here, researcher declares

June 19, 2015, Stanford University

There is no longer any doubt: We are entering a mass extinction that threatens humanity's existence.

That is the bad news at the center of a new study by a group of scientists including Paul Ehrlich, the Bing Professor of Population Studies in biology and a senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. Ehrlich and his co-authors call for fast action to conserve threatened , populations and habitat, but warn that the window of opportunity is rapidly closing.

"[The study] shows without any significant doubt that we are now entering the sixth great ," Ehrlich said.

Although most well known for his positions on human population, Ehrlich has done extensive work on extinctions going back to his 1981 book, Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of Species. He has long tied his work on coevolution, on racial, gender and economic justice, and on nuclear winter with the issue of wildlife populations and .

There is general agreement among scientists that rates have reached levels unparalleled since the dinosaurs died out 66 million years ago. However, some have challenged the theory, believing earlier estimates rested on assumptions that overestimated the crisis.

The new study, published in the journal Science Advances, shows that even with extremely conservative estimates, species are disappearing up to about 100 times faster than the normal rate between mass extinctions, known as the background rate.

"If it is allowed to continue, life would take many millions of years to recover, and our species itself would likely disappear early on," said lead author Gerardo Ceballos of the Universidad Autónoma de México.

Conservative approach

Using fossil records and extinction counts from a range of records, the researchers compared a highly conservative estimate of current extinctions with a background rate estimate twice as high as those widely used in previous analyses. This way, they brought the two estimates - current extinction rate and average background or going-on-all-the-time extinction rate - as close to each other as possible.

Focusing on vertebrates, the group for which the most reliable modern and fossil data exist, the researchers asked whether even the lowest estimates of the difference between background and contemporary still justify the conclusion that people are precipitating "a global spasm of biodiversity loss." The answer: a definitive yes.

"We emphasize that our calculations very likely underestimate the severity of the extinction crisis, because our aim was to place a realistic lower bound on humanity's impact on biodiversity," the researchers write.

To history's steady drumbeat, a human population growing in numbers, per capita consumption and economic inequity has altered or destroyed natural habitats. The long list of impacts includes:

  • Land clearing for farming, logging and settlement
  • Introduction of invasive species
  • Carbon emissions that drive climate change and ocean acidification
  • Toxins that alter and poison ecosystems

Now, the specter of extinction hangs over about 41 percent of all amphibian species and 26 percent of all mammals, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, which maintains an authoritative list of threatened and extinct species.

"There are examples of species all over the world that are essentially the walking dead," Ehrlich said.

As species disappear, so do crucial ecosystem services such as honeybees' crop pollination and wetlands' water purification. At the current rate of species loss, people will lose many biodiversity benefits within three generations, the study's authors write. "We are sawing off the limb that we are sitting on," Ehrlich said.

Hope for the future

Despite the gloomy outlook, there is a meaningful way forward, according to Ehrlich and his colleagues. "Avoiding a true sixth will require rapid, greatly intensified efforts to conserve already , and to alleviate pressures on their populations - notably habitat loss, over-exploitation for economic gain and climate change," the study's authors write.

In the meantime, the researchers hope their work will inform conservation efforts, the maintenance of ecosystem services and public policy.

Explore further: Research group suggests modern extinction rate may be higher than thought

More information: Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction, Science Advances, advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400253

Related Stories

North American freshwater fishes race to extinction

August 10, 2012

North American freshwater fishes are going extinct at an alarming rate compared with other species, according to an article in the September issue of BioScience. The rate of extinctions increased noticeably after 1950, although ...

Recommended for you

Research offers new insights into malaria parasite

May 18, 2018

A team of researchers led by a University of California, Riverside, scientist has found that various stages of the development of human malaria parasites, including stages involved in malaria transmission, are linked to epigenetic ...

What we've learned about the nucleolus since you left school

May 17, 2018

The size of a cell's nucleolus may reveal how long that cell, or even the organism that cell belongs to, will live. Over the past few years, researchers have been piecing together an unexpected link between aging and an organelle ...

188 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

denglish
2.3 / 5 (21) Jun 19, 2015
and to alleviate pressures on their populations - notably habitat loss

Yes, yes!

over-exploitation for economic gain

Absolutely!

and climate change

And you were doing so well. Suggesting humans can control the climate removes all credibility.
tadchem
3 / 5 (7) Jun 19, 2015
"Natural" biodiversity will be replaced by synthetic biodiversity as GMOs will eventually outnumber species that evolved the 'natural' way - by accident.
Meanwhile humans will continue to adapt as no other species in billions of years has adapted to the variety of environments available. We will populate deserts, farmlands, barren mountains, ice fields, and even submarine zones.
Gigel
3.3 / 5 (9) Jun 19, 2015
Actually humans like ants are a part of the environment and change it according to their nature. Humans affect the environment they live in such that vulnerable species disappear. Other species thrive though: pigeons, sparrows, plants at the edges of roads etc. What is important is that humans do not completely destroy the environment and also that they are not seen as an outside influence into the environment. Humans are part of Earth's natural habitat. Any species influences the world they live in and it is absurd to accuse humans of doing it too. One could discuss the specific influence that humans have though, but they cannot be thrown out of nature.
snoosebaum
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2015
its all those catholics go forth and multiply
shavera
4.6 / 5 (19) Jun 19, 2015
denglish: there's a stark difference between "control" and "affect." It's foolish to imagine we have no effect at all on the environment, because we can see that plenty of species do.

Can we control it? As in willfully make changes to it? Probably not. Not with current technology, surely. But we can sure do a lot of stuff to it randomly.

Replacing large portions of forests with farmland has an effect. Draining bodies of water in some places and creating new ones in others has an effect.

But maybe the most significant effect is taking carbon that used to be in the atmosphere during warmer times millions of years ago... that was then trapped by plant matter... then buried into rocks... and then putting it all into the atmosphere "at once" (in geological time). Even if I pretend our models absolutely suck at specific predictions, the rapid transfer of carbon from crust to atmosphere surely will do *something* to the climate.
Gigel
2 / 5 (9) Jun 19, 2015
The number of species that go extinct at a time is not itself a good indicator of a mass extinction. One should consider too how vulnerable those species are. Mass extinctions affected all species, including most or all of the more robust ones. Humans affect only a few robust species and generally draw limits on their influence in order to preserve them. We may actually be the only species that try to preserve the whole of nature at different scales. Any or most other species would go on a rampage if they could, destroying all their resources without consideration for conservation.

Moreover, humans are one of a few species that can grow their resources, and change them by progress. Thus instead of worrying for the human influence on the environment and hitting the brakes, maybe we should encourage progress, research and the development of more suitable resources for the future: energy, food, water etc. that will ensure a future jump similar to the one from hunting to agriculture.
Tangent2
4.7 / 5 (9) Jun 19, 2015
We may actually be the only species that try to preserve the whole of nature at different scales.


And to be fair, humans are the only species that have the ability to work against nature and the balance that it has established by the use of our intelligence and limited foresight. Fracking for oil comes to mind immediately, as well as destroying natural habitats for mineral/metal mining, etc.
denglish
1.8 / 5 (12) Jun 19, 2015
denglish: there's a stark difference between "control" and "affect." It's foolish to imagine we have no effect at all on the environment, because we can see that plenty of species do.

Environment, I can agree with.

Global climate? No way...or at least not proven yet to the extent that justifies moral and economic chaos that is being created by AGW bureaucrats.
FritzVonDago
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 19, 2015
This is so much Hog-Wash! I wonder if this guy has any Federal Research Grants in the works?
geokstr
1.7 / 5 (10) Jun 19, 2015
its all those catholics go forth and multiply

Wrong.

The greatest fertility rates in the world belong to Muslims and Africans.
Vietvet
4.7 / 5 (15) Jun 19, 2015
This is so much Hog-Wash! I wonder if this guy has any Federal Research Grants in the works?


@Fritz

The paper is open source. Why don't you read it and point out the flaws in their findings?

http://advances.s...e1400253

maxwell_bean
4.4 / 5 (10) Jun 19, 2015
Part of the problem is that environmentalists have framed the issue in terms of polar bears and Miami beach vs cars, hot showers, and the economy. If that's all we have to loose, then it's easy to side with the deniers. But if we don't make rapid chances then extinction is the real risk. We may already be past the tipping point.

It's always depressing hearing from all the deniers that pile on when the climate is discussed. We are almost certainly doomed since nothing can be done with one whole group of people fighting change.
howhot2
4.6 / 5 (12) Jun 19, 2015
There is a mass extinction in progress and it's very obvious when you look at the small things and have a sense of what it used to be like. Honeybees are one species that is so apparent in its absence. When you have a yard full of clover and not a single bee, something is really wrong! The ripple effect can be guessed at but it's unknown how many plant species depend on honeybees for procreation. Give our global industrial scale toxin producers credit for causing that extinction.

Global warming is simply global pollution using CO2. It's effects on ocean life is already profound, with coral bleaching from incredible ocean temperature rise and ocean acidification. Coral hosts whole ecosystems (like honeybees) and with them gone, so goes the other species the depend on them. It;s a real cascade effect, and certainly not a laughing matter for our future food supply.

I alway bring up the movie "Soylent Green" as an example of Man's future, I recommend it to all Deniers.

Shootist
1.7 / 5 (11) Jun 19, 2015
Great way to gain political power, scare the ignorant plebs to death.
howhot2
4.7 / 5 (13) Jun 19, 2015
Great way to gain political power, scare the ignorant plebs to death.

Scare them with what? The TRUTH?
Stevepidge
1 / 5 (10) Jun 20, 2015
I love humans and especially scientists. They think they know everything, when eventually the universe will throw a HUGE f'in curveball and knock them on their ass off the cliff of survival. I call it the "obnoxious know it all fiasco." Socrates said it best. " The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing!" Too bad only us ENTP's understand the gravitas of such understanding.
RobertKarlStonjek
1 / 5 (6) Jun 20, 2015
What people so readily forget is that mass extinctions are a normal part of the evolutionary cycle. We all too readily assume that the human induced extinction is unnatural, but the rise of human consciousness with its extensive imagination was a natural biological progression and the resulting extinction is a natural consequence of it.

The imagination also imagines preserving species and this is a first in evolutionary history. This is also a natural consequence of the evolution of human consciousness.

Either way, human mediated extinction or human mediated preservation, it is human consciousness that will be the mediator and this is the new reality.

We can not step back from this. Pandora's box is open.
SamuelEmmettBray
5 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2015
I dissent! Climate change is not the reason for this mass extinction. cause jebus!
Nope! It's because jebus filled this planet with tastey tastey critters...in my frying pan.
yep.
frying pan extinction.
mmmmm...tastey
(I can two speel!)
viko_mx
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 20, 2015
"There is no longer any doubt: We are entering a mass extinction that threatens humanity's existence."

When someone begins with such statement, I begin strongly to doubt because in fact it demonstrates his uncertainty and desire to program our attitude from the beginning of the article. There is no need even to read the entire article. When get to the dinosaurs extintion before millions of years, it became uninteresting.

viko_mx
Jun 20, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (14) Jun 20, 2015
@viko

At times I can't decide if you are writing very bad satire or if (more likely) you're an idiot young earth creationist.

Either way you are an idiot.
SamuelEmmettBray
4.6 / 5 (11) Jun 20, 2015
Oh! I have an idea...maybe...stay with me...just maybe we should educate the poor and destitute! `cause maybe...just maybe they know how to to more with less...
...cause really folks, religious texts are a a sad replacement for a real education! You can't feed yourself with religion....unless you are a plastic haired televangelist. :-[
Steve 200mph Cruiz
5 / 5 (9) Jun 20, 2015
In their insatiable drive to chew, beavers eventually destroy all the nearby trees and have to abandon the dens and dammed water.

I think the willful destruction of the environment speaks volumes on the nature of man, we are as dumb as bacteria. If brains can't save us from ourselves, they're just holes to throw food in. The next century will be a truly defining time. Don't choose to make life meaningless. Call me entitled, but I still have high hopes for us.
viko_mx
1.1 / 5 (8) Jun 20, 2015
"At times I can't decide if you are writing very bad satire or if (more likely) you're an idiot young earth creationist.
Either way you are an idiot."

Are these the best arguments you have? You constantly demontrate weak ability to defend your point of view.
Enthusiastic Fool
4.7 / 5 (15) Jun 20, 2015
viko said:
human population is growing at a steady pace. And it is clear that it can not be millions of years old.


Population growth tends to be exponential not linear. There are 18.7 births for every 7.89 deaths(1). Since 1950 world population has nearly tripled(2). I find it unfathomable that you could believe in a linear growth rate and use that "logic" to support a young Earth world view in the face of such damaging evidence. I presume you don't understand asymptotes, compound interest, or how .99999... = 1 either. Basic math :(

1)
https://www.cia.g.../xx.html
2)
http://esa.un.org...tion.htm
btb101
1 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2015
And there was me thinking it was the upcoming war between america and the rest of the world that was to blame...
aksdad
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 20, 2015
Utter and complete nonsense. Scientists have no idea how many species are going extinct and have no basis for claiming "unparalleled" extinction rates. They simply don't know. But Paul Ehrlich knows. He's the most prolific and discredited doomsayer in the world. He conjures up scary statistics with his divining rod, unconstrained by any supporting evidence, and declares their authenticity by sheer force of will. Each prophesy of doom is more dire than the last but none of them have come to pass--or ever will. Ehrlich is serially wrong. He has been wrong so many times that it is astounding that any journal will publish his silliness, but I guess his brand of gloom resonates with the gullible who like to think humanity is a curse on the earth. Meanwhile, in the real world, new species are discovered all the time and nature continues to astound us with its remarkable variety and tenacity.
Semmster
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 20, 2015
and to alleviate pressures on their populations - notably habitat loss

Yes, yes!

over-exploitation for economic gain

Absolutely!

and climate change

And you were doing so well. Suggesting humans can control the climate removes all credibility.


This idiot needs to find just one smokestack, anywhere, and watch it for one day. Now multilply that by how many of these you think there are in your country. Never mind the world. Still think humans cannot affect the climate? That's just one small facet of the ways we affect the earth's climate.
Semmster
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 20, 2015
There are too many people like denglish in the world. We humans will have earned the payback we will receive for ignoring, abusing and exploiting our environment and the other creatures that share that environment with us.
denglish
1 / 5 (7) Jun 20, 2015
It's always depressing hearing from all the deniers that pile on when the climate is discussed.

Makes ya think there may be something wrong with AGW.

What people so readily forget is that mass extinctions are a normal part of the evolutionary cycle.

Yep.

Give a monkey a brain, and he will swear he's the center of the universe.

There are too many people like denglish in the world.

They're just all in the wrong places. I find it revealing that AGW supporters think there is something wrong with skeptics on a personal level, and skeptics think there is something wrong with AGW on a global level.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (9) Jun 20, 2015
@Enthusiastic Fool

Can you find somewhere In my previous post the claim that the human population increases in a linear law? I told that grows with steady pace. Of cource that the law is exponential and can be clearly seen on the the graphics which represents population growth over time. That is why mankind can not be millions of years old and to maintain the mythology evolutionists need mass extinctions no once but many times. The more the better for them.
gkam
2.6 / 5 (18) Jun 20, 2015
viko, if we are made in the image of god, does he have a penis?
Returners
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 20, 2015
That's an unscientific headline.

You can't even tell us how many species there are, nor how many species is "normal" to exist simultaneously on the planet in the fossil record, so you have no basis for claiming that a certain amount of extinctions is "normal" or not.
Mike_Massen
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 20, 2015
denglish claims
Global climate? No way...or at least not proven yet to the extent that justifies moral and economic chaos...
What Chaos - how so ?

Core physics IS settled, any person schooled in Physics ie radiative heat transfer (IR) can see that, its Plain but, vast bulk of deniers are unfortunately NOT educated or lying through their (political) teeth
https://en.wikipe...transfer

Approximated well
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

For detailed discussion
http://phys.org/n...ial.html

Point denglish seems to be oddly trying to make (whilst sitting on the fence re Physics) is alarmist strawman claim "moral & economic chaos" ?

Does denglish NOT think, reducing fossil fuels ie CO2 emissions need NOT result in any chaos or what order ? Already happening with minimal impost !

Why can't denglish be smarter & progress & NOT come across as feeble idle obfuscator ?
Mike_Massen
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 20, 2015
Shootist FAILed but tried
Great way to gain political power, scare the ignorant plebs to death
This is just WHY education is SO VERY important & especially so in the definitive fundamentals our whole progress is soundly based upon ie Physics in conjunction with Maths !

Why ?

Because with mature detailed education you become immune to mere claim, immune to psych pressure re politics & religion as BOTH have issues of influence which has NO sound foundation.

Physics is unassailable, it cannot be manipulated by politics, it cannot be ignored. Some may try to obfuscate & lie but all essentials hold true, one of those essentials is based even more primarily on maths & that's ADDITION !

Adding waste CO2/heat of burning ~ 230,000 Liters petrol per sec ea & EVERY second HAS to have some influence otherwise basic math is wrong, its oONLY luck we have a large environment with immense oceans to slow the effect so far !

https://en.wikipe..._forcing
antigoracle
1 / 5 (7) Jun 20, 2015
Muttering Mike, blabbering as if he knows science.
Just ask him a science question and you'll see him blabber.
Mike_Massen
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 20, 2015
denglish unscientific blurts
Makes ya think there may be something wrong with AGW.
Give a monkey a brain, and he will swear he's the center of the universe.
They're just all in the wrong places. I find it revealing that AGW supporters think there is something wrong with skeptics on a personal level, and skeptics think there is something wrong with AGW on a global level
Why is it denglish CANNOT focus on the Physics ?

The essentials re https://en.wikipe..._forcing
and move on from there, is there some mental block that prevents him seeing it, prevents him addressing it, prevents him offering ANY contrary view - is his education in Physics against him ?

denglish, what is there possibly wrong, even a little with
https://en.wikipe...transfer

Experimentally verified for >100 yrs & part of the basis of heat flow in ALL environments, whether natural, industrial, domestic etc ?

Physics denglish !
Mike_Massen
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 20, 2015
antigoracle FAILs with very BEST he can do
Muttering Mike, blabbering as if he knows science.
Just ask him a science question and you'll see him blabber
For anyone interested, evidence trounces mere idle claim

See my posts; compare them with antigoracles, his NIL Physics. NIL Science & thus FAILs in an immature politically driven goal to obfuscate Science & damage

Can antigoracle claim he has ANY university or even High School education in heat transfer ?

Can antigoracle understand ANY of these issues - even a little & offer ANY dialectic ?

Rising CO2
http://woodfortre...esrl-co2

Increasing heat
http://images.rem...ies.html

Radiative transfer ie Physics
https://en.wikipe...transfer

Greenhouse effect
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

Discussion here
http://phys.org/n...ial.html

What is antigoracle's attempted agenda ?

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (17) Jun 20, 2015
I find it unfathomable that you could believe in a linear growth rate and use that "logic" to support a young Earth world view in the face of such damaging evidence.
But thats exactly what faith is. Religions have the authority to require that believers abandon reason and evidence in return for immortality, wish-granting, absolution, retribution, etc.

Faithers are actually proud of this ability even though in nature it would quickly lead to their extinction.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (15) Jun 20, 2015
The greatest fertility rates in the world belong to Muslims and Africans.
Actually they belong to fundys of all flavors. The religions which have survived to the present are all best at outgrowing and overrunning their less prolific counterparts. They were DESIGNED this way.

Natural selection if you will.

"A new analysis of data from Pew finds that 27% of Jews younger than 18 live in Orthodox households. That's a dramatic jump from Jews aged 18 to 29, only 11% of whom are Orthodox.
"Orthodox birthrates in just the last few years have been soaring," said Jewish sociologist Steven M. Cohen... Orthodox Jews will eventually likely be the majority of American Jews," said Sarah Bunin Benor, a professor of Jewish studies at the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion. She, like Cohen, was a member of the Pew study's advisory committee."

-Amish pops are set to double in 16 years, near the max possible for the species, and similar to gazans and kurds.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (7) Jun 20, 2015
"But thats exactly what faith is. Religions have the authority to require that believers abandon reason and evidence in return for immortality, wish-granting, absolution, retribution, etc."

There is wide evidence about God existanse and God's deeds all around as, which can not be seen only by those people who want 'to continue their sinful lifestyle. Such kind of people will be most comfortable if all are sinners like them and tolerant to their lawlessness. Because the saints with their lifestyle and faith remind to sinners for the lawlessness which cause anxiety and mental discomfort.

mrburns
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 20, 2015
Why the Japanese alone have documented, with the occasional assistance of Perry Mason, the eradication of several species of giant lizards, moths and other beasts in a number of cinematic documentaries . Isnt the destruction of Tokyo a small price to pay for biodiversity ?? Our only hope is to end the human race immediately (except for the rich people,their servants, select grant recipients and attractive nubile young bimbettes) ????
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (15) Jun 20, 2015
.... a mass extinction that threatens humanity's existence [....] call for fast action to conserve threatened species, populations and habitat, but warn that the window of opportunity is rapidly closing.


Over-the-top alarmism followed by the con of a sense of urgency,..... the tactics of the charlatan never change.

My prediction is this fraud like all such baseless frauds will continue to be ignored.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (16) Jun 20, 2015
Physics is unassailable, it cannot be manipulated by politics, it cannot be ignored.


Are you so naive as to think that just because some group of clowns do a "study" and "conclude" that mass extinction is imminent or that AGW is an cataclysmic imminent threat to humanity,... that that is "unassailable" physics?

It's nothing of the kind. It is light-years from qualifying as experimentally lab verifiable physics. At best it is wildly speculative interpretation of probably unconsciously bias facts, with a political agenda as it's salient motivation. The clue to this is in "calling for action". It is pure left-wing activism clocked as "scientific studies". They are only scaring the children. The collective genius of mankind will of course continue to ignore such unfounded fraud.
PhotonX
5 / 5 (11) Jun 20, 2015
And you were doing so well. Suggesting humans can control the climate removes all credibility.
Where do you get the idea that "change" equals "control"? If I'm a passenger in a speeding car, I can easily change its course by reaching over and violently twisting the steering wheel--that's very far from controlling it. The article doesn't suggest we can control the climate. And there's *your* loss of all credibility.
.
.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (18) Jun 21, 2015
Are we STILL in the Dark Age of Superstition? Really?

It is the 21st Century, folks, we outgrew that silly nonsense a long time ago.

Didn't we?
gkam
2.4 / 5 (20) Jun 21, 2015
"Faith comes from hearing the Word of God: The Truth"
--------------------------------------

If you hear "the word of god", I suggest you tell your doctor.
chapprg1
1 / 5 (8) Jun 21, 2015
"This is so much Hog-Wash! I wonder if this guy has any Federal Research Grants in the works?"

Who do you think already paid for it?
Bongstar420
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 21, 2015
The Greenies just have sandy vagina because of the lack of untouched wilderness.

Physics is unassailable, it cannot be manipulated by politics, it cannot be ignored.


Are you so naive as to think that just because some group of clowns do a "study" and "conclude" that mass extinction is imminent or that AGW is an cataclysmic imminent threat to humanity,... that that is "unassailable" physics?

It's nothing of the kind. It is light-years from qualifying as experimentally lab verifiable physics. At best it is wildly speculative interpretation of probably unconsciously bias facts, with a political agenda as it's salient motivation. The clue to this is in "calling for action". It is pure left-wing activism clocked as "scientific studies". They are only scaring the children. The collective genius of mankind will of course continue to ignore such unfounded fraud.

Bongstar420
1 / 5 (6) Jun 21, 2015
Actually, climate is definitionally +1000 year time scales...How long was the resident time of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere again? Thank you; come again

Physics is unassailable, it cannot be manipulated by politics, it cannot be ignored.


Are you so naive as to think that just because some group of clowns do a "study" and "conclude" that mass extinction is imminent or that AGW is an cataclysmic imminent threat to humanity,... that that is "unassailable" physics?

It's nothing of the kind. It is light-years from qualifying as experimentally lab verifiable physics. At best it is wildly speculative interpretation of probably unconsciously bias facts, with a political agenda as it's salient motivation. The clue to this is in "calling for action". It is pure left-wing activism clocked as "scientific studies". They are only scaring the children. The collective genius of mankind will of course continue to ignore such unfounded fraud.

Mimath224
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 22, 2015
This was one quote from an interview with Chris Scott (Chris Stott is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of ManSat etc......)
'What keeps you awake at night?'
'Near-Earth objects.We are living our lives in an astronomical shooting gallery. It makes no difference if we solve climate change, world hunger or freedom...nothing matters if we don't solve this'
I wonder how many other CEO's and the like, scientists and other think this way?
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 22, 2015
DavidW claims
The Truth is innocent and does take a side when it says Life is Most Important in Life
No, only for those of simple & pliable mindsets :-(

DavidW claims
Faith comes from hearing the Word of God: The Truth
Not possible it has been DEAD silent for millenia !

DavidW claims
.., it's the exact opposite
How, please explain how your god, ANY claimed deity EVER communicates ?

AND
"Why is it that all writings of all claimed religions can NEVER be confirmed by any method at all ?"

FACT
All religions have ONLY arise from CLAIM, ie All, whether; zoraster, zeus, moses, lubidies, jesus, mohammed, joseph smith, ron hubbard etc etc

Without ANY means to EVER confirm there ever was ANY personal human oriented deity !

Clearly, universe is replete with self-organization, all life components arise from common components via self-assembly, all dependent upon old rules of physics & chemistry & whatever forced those rules is a very bad narrow communicator !
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (14) Jun 22, 2015
Mike_Massen mutters....
All religions have ONLY arise from CLAIM... [....]... Without ANY means to EVER confirm


Yet many like you bow at the alter of your own religion reading the scriptures of "scientic studies" only because they are written and The Word....

"In the 1970s … hundreds of millions are going to starve to death," and by the 1980s most of the world's important resources would be depleted. [Paul Ehrlich] forecast that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980-1989 and that by 1999, the US population would decline to 22.6 million" - Paul Ehrlich (The Population Bomb, 1968) author of the above fraud.

"By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Paul Ehrlich, September 1971
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 22, 2015
"I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks India will be self-sufficient in food by 1971, if ever." - Paul Ehrlich [a few years lator, India would begin Exporting food production]

"At this late date, nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate…" - Paul Ehrlich [yet the facts turned out to be the exact opposite with a Decrease in gobal death rate from 13 per 1000 in 1965-1970 to 8.4 per 1000 in 2005-2010]

The question is why Phys.Org would link to a "study" done by a known Alarmist fraudster who has been wrong far more than he has been right; Answer: it is compatible with their preferred narrative of 1) establish catalysmic predictions, followed immediately by 2) the con of a sense of urgency in the "call for action",.... left-wing actvism for government control using the time tested tactics of the charlatan.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Jun 22, 2015
This was one quote from an interview with Chris Scott (Chris Stott is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of ManSat etc......)
'What keeps you awake at night?'
'Near-Earth objects.We are living our lives in an astronomical shooting gallery. It makes no difference if we solve climate change, world hunger or freedom...nothing matters if we don't solve this'

Seems to me there are a few more things out there that could cause us to have a terminally bad day (e.g. gamma ray bursts). Soving out 'local backyard' issues is certainly advisable. But it doesn't make us extinction-proof.
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 22, 2015
This is so much Hog-Wash! I wonder if this guy has any Federal Research Grants in the works?

The paper is open source. Why don't you read it and point out the flaws in their findings?


One could do just as well in finding flaws in the predictions of Nostradamus, who has a better track record than Ehrlich,... without having to even actually know anything. Nostradamus' ignorance made him less dangerous than Ehrlich's fraudulent claim of understanding.

Great way to gain political power, scare the ignorant plebs to death.

Scare them with what? The TRUTH?

How can you claim any "truth" in the above alarmism when such events have not even been validated yet? Do you know the difference between validated facts and speculative predictions? Ehrlich's own history demonstrates the error of claiming a complete understanding of complex systems. All Alarmist predictions in complex systems presuppose complete understanding
Sigh
5 / 5 (8) Jun 22, 2015
denglish:
Global climate? No way...or at least not proven yet to the extent that justifies moral and economic chaos that is being created by AGW bureaucrats.

One, you again concede that bureaucracy is the best solution for this kind of problem, because if the free market were better, then the existence of climate change would be an argument for market-based solutions.

Two, you might be interested in two episodes of the EconTalk podcast, on the subject of fat-tailed distributions and extinction risks: http://www.econta...man.html
In short, if you have a fat-tailed distribution, increasing uncertainty about seriously undesirable outcomes gives you more reason to act, not less.

Noumenon:
All Alarmist predictions in complex systems presuppose complete understanding
No. See above.
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 22, 2015
@greenonions
You troll rated my response to MM. Would you care to explain, or are you hiding under your desk? I provided quotes to substantiate my claim that just because something is a "scientific study" or "predicted" by a scientist, does not of itself mean that it is valid even approximately,... yet the naive will lap it up.

spencerpencer
1 / 5 (1) Jun 22, 2015
We may actually be the only species that try to preserve the whole of nature at different scales.


And to be fair, humans are the only species that have the ability to work against nature and the balance that it has established by the use of our intelligence and limited foresight. Fracking for oil comes to mind immediately, as well as destroying natural habitats for mineral/metal mining, etc.


Wrong. Beavers.
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 22, 2015
All Alarmist predictions in complex systems presuppose complete understanding
if you have a fat-tailed distribution, increasing uncertainty about seriously undesirable outcomes gives you more reason to act, not less

It means no such thing. It only means there is an increasing uncertainty about the studies a-priori predictions of doom. How do you square your gibberish with the above authors [Paul Ehrich] past predicted failures?
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 22, 2015
you again concede that bureaucracy is the best solution for this kind of problem,


And yet globally humanity continues to increase it's consumption of oil/coal. Where is your bureaucracy? When will the left concede that government has failed? The endless activist "calls for action" is falling on bureaucracy deaf ears.

because if the free market were better, then the existence of climate change would be an argument for market-based solutions.

The left's proposed solutions have deliberately not been politically inclusive, which is why they're useless wrt AGW. AGW is a technological problem and market forces will be the arbiter of the solutions. And btw, there is no argument, capitalism contiues unabated.
gkam
1.9 / 5 (14) Jun 22, 2015
"The left's proposed solutions have deliberately not been politically inclusive, which is why they're useless wrt AGW"
----------------------------------

The right-wingers have a "solution": Rape and ruin, only faster.

They remind me of Ed, a guy who lived for himself, and when he died, everyone close to him was there for him.

Ed died alone.
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (14) Jun 22, 2015
The right-wingers have a "solution": Rape and ruin, only faster.

If only the typical AGW-Enthusiast/Liberal-Progressive, who is concerned about an imminent threat of AGW, would go to extra personal expense and buy an electric car and reduce their standard of living, .... it may solve the problem as stats show there are enough of them to make a difference.

Instead they seem to rely on "right-wingers" and "deniers", and yet consciously choose to act in the same manner wrt carbon based energy.

To say it's just right-winger's who are releasing CO2 is just blatantly inaccurate.

The course of action is to keep the economy strong so that the transition is even possible, then invest in core technology. This is what is occurring at present.

But that is not the solution the liberal-progressives want. They want big gov, redistribution of wealth, social engineering, and regulation of human behavior.... a solution worse than the problem.
gkam
2 / 5 (16) Jun 22, 2015
Noum, why are you on a science site with your silly neo-fascist nonsense? You will convert nobody here, nor make any difference in what is done.

Selfishness is its own reward. Will your "things" love you back, or are you trapped by inanimate objects for which you must care and protect?

Who owns whom?
edward_ponderer
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2015
We must change ourselves before we can change the world (positively that is--negatively we're very accomplished). This means a focus on basic human relationships. Build an integral humanity to match the challenge of a complex natural environment, for that is exactly how natural communities do it (only lacking human ego, no integral education is necessary to implement it).

denglish
1 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2015
At some point - it seems to me very pointless to engage in this kind of political pissing match - and a better response for me to just downvote those commenters. Seems to me to be within the rules of the board - so I reserve the right to do that. I don't even know how to look at who specifically up or down votes a comment - but I do watch the overall trend - and seems that I am not the only one with this approach. Stick to the issues - and stop throwing childish labels around "liberal progressive" for example.


"I place high value on populism, and am very easily offended when my political agenda is called out with terms that I do not allow."
denglish
1 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2015
The course of action is to keep the economy strong so that the transition is even possible, then invest in core technology. This is what is occurring at present.

But that is not the solution the liberal-progressives want. They want big gov, redistribution of wealth, social engineering, and regulation of human behavior.... a solution worse than the problem.


Perfectly said. Bravo!

It is not ironic that those most likely to be dependent have no problem with the dependent class growing. Creating a crisis in which the builders are the worst offenders makes it cool to be a destroyer.
denglish
1 / 5 (6) Jun 22, 2015
One, you again concede that bureaucracy is the best solution for this kind of problem, because if the free market were better, then the existence of climate change would be an argument for market-based solutions.

The most importatnt part of a business plan is to determine whether or not any action is needed in the first place. AGW being un-proven, will not get the signature of a wise business person as a catalyst for development. This decision is even more solidified by the damage the AGW agenda is creating. Market-based solutions have appeared. As soon as they are viable in large scales, they will be marketed.

In short, if you have a fat-tailed distribution, increasing uncertainty about seriously undesirable outcomes gives you more reason to act, not less.

So lets everyone run around pointing fingers, censoring other ideas, and wrecking our economies while the bureaucrats get rich.

denglish
1 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2015
Why is it denglish CANNOT focus on the Physics ?

Because when theories are falsified by observation, there is no physics to discuss in those contexts. There becomes either a need to go back to the drawing board, or spout nonsense.

When the latter choice is made, there are no physics at all.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 22, 2015
@greenonions
You troll rated my response to MM. Would you care to explain

I did not 'troll rate' your post - I down voted it. There are posters on this board who take every topic and turn it into a political rant

The only post that you down-rated of mine in this thread contains no politics at all. When the given article makes mention of "calls for action",... then political discussion is relevant in the comment section,... especially when the author of the study has made over-the-top and absudly false predictions in the past, ....one has to wonder what the motivation is.
denglish
1 / 5 (6) Jun 22, 2015
This idiot needs to find just one smokestack, anywhere, and watch it for one day. Now multilply that by how many of these you think there are in your country. Never mind the world. Still think humans cannot affect the climate? That's just one small facet of the ways we affect the earth's climate.

Why is your assertion not borne out by reality?

http://www.ferdin...2011.jpg
gkam
2.3 / 5 (16) Jun 22, 2015
"So lets everyone run around pointing fingers, censoring other ideas, and wrecking our economies while the bureaucrats get rich."
----------------------------------------

'Scuse me, but this is not a case of sleazy politicians, draft-dodging goobers screaming "WMD!" at you, this is a rational topic debated by professionals and those with educations in the field.

We do not get our "information" from "Curveball", but from non-political and reputable sources, backed up by evidence.

Didn't know about Curveball? How about the Office of Special Plans as exposed by Lt Colonel Kwiatkowski? No? I did, and wondered why the rest of you didn't.
Sigh
5 / 5 (7) Jun 22, 2015
if you have a fat-tailed distribution, increasing uncertainty about seriously undesirable outcomes gives you more reason to act, not less

It means no such thing. It only means there is an increasing uncertainty about the studies a-priori predictions of doom.

If you measure something to be two units beyond your threshold for action, you know your measurement is normally distributed, and your standard deviation is one unit, then you have a 2.3% chance of the underlying reality going beyond your action threshold. If your uncertainty is greater, say the standard deviation is two units, then your chance of the real value exceeding your threshold for action is 15.9%. That's just the maths, and already applies to a normal distribution. Do you find any fault in this?
Sigh
5 / 5 (8) Jun 22, 2015
Noumenon:
How do you square your gibberish with the above authors [Paul Ehrich] past predicted failures?
Your mere assertion without argument doesn't establish a fact. You give me no reason why I should consider my statement as gibberish. Unless you do, I don't need to square gibberish with anything.

I didn't comment on Ehrlich, I commented on YOUR generalisation beyond Ehrlich. Could you try to stick to that topic, or withdraw the generalisation? Whichever you like better.
denglish
1 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2015
'Scuse me, but this is not a case of sleazy politicians, draft-dodging goobers screaming "WMD!" at you, this is a rational topic debated by professionals and those with educations in the field.

Rational. Interesting.

Ok, a rational question: how come the theories fall flat in the face of observation?

Didn't know about Curveball? How about the Office of Special Plans as exposed by Lt Colonel Kwiatkowski? No? I did, and wondered why the rest of you didn't.

Oh boy, here we go again. Was that the time you killed ten Germans with one hand grenade? C'mon, tell us how great you are again...it makes me laugh.

Oh, wait...its liberals playing conspiracy again. *yawn* Red Herring pie.

Rational.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (13) Jun 22, 2015
I can't blame you wanting to deflect attention from your last "I'm sure of it".

Look it up, it shows you how you were fooled, suckered, into supporting the Conservative Wars for Oil. Doug Fieth put his paid cronies to create "evidence" they could use to fool the goobers. It worked on the goobers, but not on many of the rest of us.
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (14) Jun 22, 2015
Yet many like you bow at the alter of your own religion reading the scriptures of "scientic studies" only because they are written and The Word...


I find that statement to be obnoxious - troll baiting. Arguing that people who support science - are following a religion - is one of the tactics that gets me seeing red.


Except I never stated that 'people who support science are following a religion'. I support science and have probably written far more about QM & GR than most here.

I stated IOW, 'many like you accept scientific studies merely on account of it being a written (published) scientific study',.... I then immediately preceded to supply several quotes by the above author predicting non-sense that had never even came close to occuring, to substantiate my point.

denglish
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 22, 2015
Look it up, it shows you how you were fooled, suckered, into supporting the Conservative Wars for Oil. Doug Fieth put his paid cronies to create "evidence" they could use to fool the goobers. It worked on the goobers, but not on many of the rest of us.


Hey Look! A Red Herring! This one is good too! Full of hatred for the US! Yummy!

btw. I already told you why I don't care how many tears you cry for your fanatic muslim brethren.

Rational.

Now...why do the predictions of AGW theories not match the observations.

Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 22, 2015
if you have a fat-tailed distribution, increasing uncertainty about seriously undesirable outcomes gives you more reason to act, not less

It means no such thing. It only means there is an increasing uncertainty about the studies a-priori predictions of doom.

If you measure something to be two units beyond your threshold for action, you know your measurement is normally distributed, and your standard deviation is one unit, then you have a 2.3% chance of the underlying reality going beyond your action threshold.


You're misunderstanding the purpose of those statistics (same with error bars). The uncertainty only makes reference to the model itself. It is not indicative of the accuracy of the model to Actual Future Reality. It is accurate as the statistics indicate Presuming everything else in the model is correct, the data, the starting premises, the input assumptions, completeness, etc. That of course begs the question.
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 22, 2015
.... clearly different models are not within each others error-bars. The reason is because those stats are contingent upon the particular scenario being modeled, .... thus are not indicative of any comparison with Actual Reality,..... as no such data has been collected yet.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (15) Jun 22, 2015
debated by professionals and those with educations in the field
-Except for you, who has proven himself to be a liar about what he knows and how he knows it.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 22, 2015
Noumenon
Except I never stated that 'people who support science are following a religion'.


Well - you made this statement
Yet many like you bow at the alter of your own religion reading the scriptures of "scientic studies" ONLY BECAUSE THEY ARE WRITTEN and The Word...


So it seems reasonable to me to interpret that as calling science a religion.


Only because you are either dishonest, trolling, or clearly have a reading comprehension issue.

Notice the phrase that I capitalized above, and the context in respect to M_M, and again note the quotes from Ehrlich that I provided immediately following. The point, Obviously, was that some believe whatever is written only because it was written by a scientist doing a study,.... rather than the rationale of the analysis itself. I hope this is clearer for you.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (13) Jun 22, 2015
You do make my point for me - that you will argue around and around in circles.


We each have the same number of posts wrt this particular point.

p.s. I downrated GhostofOtto by mistake.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 22, 2015
d said
AGW being un-proven
scientific evidence supports AGW
where is the evidence which also follows the scientific method and is published in a reputable peer reviewed journal from ANY poster who denies the scientific evidence of AGW that refutes the studies that i linked which empirically prove that the above comment is false?

there have been absolutely zero posts to date which have refuted the links i've shared, and even LESS evidence from deng, antiG, mr166 or the myriad other trolls posting here arguing against AGW
dung's argument is purely emotional bs based upon personal opinion & has NO substantiated evidence... even his continued posts here are only supported by further OPINION... not science
he states
...there is no physics to discuss in those contexts
but still cannot even provide the EMPIRICAL evidence to support falsification ... and just because there is a cold snap (ie- WEATHER) doesn't mean it is falsifying AGW (see Francis et al)

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jun 22, 2015
cont'd
when theories are falsified by observation...
There have been NO refutes or falsification of the following:

http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf

http://iopscience...4005.pdf

http://iopscience...4002.pdf

http://www.scienc...5682/362

http://www.scienc...full.pdf

http://www.nature...65a.html

http://rspb.royal...20141856

http://www.scienc...abstract

all the above help validate the AGW claims and science!
however deng et al above have yet to provide even one study which refutes any of these, or provide a single study which will get them retracted or debunked... where is the evidence that i requested?
all i have gotten from them is blogs, opinion or red-herring/strawman!
Noumenon
1 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2015
If CaptainStumpy (and the troll rating cabal) read Paul Ehrlich's book in 1968, he would likely have bought those alarmist predictions I quoted above, hook, line, and sinker,...... after all, how could they have been falsified?

Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (15) Jun 23, 2015
@ Nounaman-Skippy. How you are podna? I am good so far today.

Skippy you are double dipping at the ballot box again and that is not fair. You are not supposed to vote for your self just because somebody else doesn't like what you say.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. What is the eatherslingerling thing you are calling your self from four or three years ago?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jun 23, 2015
If CaptainStumpy (and the troll rating cabal) read Paul Ehrlich's book in 1968, he would likely have bought those alarmist predictions I quoted above, hook, line, and sinker,...... after all, how could they have been falsified?
@nou
1- there is no "troll rating cabal", there are only trolls like you who post philosophy and circular arguments in a science thread. everyone votes their own way
2- what does his '68 book have to do with the above study (he is not the primary author)
3- can you specifically point to ANY information in the study and claim it is wrong, and supply reputable peer reviewed studies to substantiate your claims?

or are you simply pushing your personal conjecture again and hoping that someone will take you as some kind of authority?

the point is this: the study is peer reviewed, which is orders of magnitude above your personal conjecture... and it has far more evidence than you've linked above

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jun 23, 2015
@nou cont'd
and Green has a valid point above: you typically crash into a science thread and pontificate with philosophy
...some believe whatever is written only because it was written by a scientist doing a study...
this may be true of scientifically illiterate laymen...
but your posts above state that everyone will fall for it (including myself)
I tend to swing towards validated studies... which is why i've posted the above in refute to dung and his stupidity

your problem is that you think philosophical musings on hard science and evidence is rational.

just because you can think of something that somehow refutes the study *in your mind* doesn't mean it is rational, scientific, empirical or in any way evidence against a study... it is simply conjecture (personal at that) unless you can substantiate it with evidence, which i see none above

IOW- you are simply playing rc today.. are you going to flood the thread with philo BS now?
one is enough!
denglish
1 / 5 (6) Jun 23, 2015
but still cannot even provide the EMPIRICAL evidence to support falsification

http://www.drroys...2013.png

Theories Falsified.

There have been NO refutes or falsification of the following:

Stop posting stuff you don't understand as if you do. Its the same thing as your claim to have a MIT education (what were the other universities?), being a firetruck captain, being shot (no doubt in hard-core combat), etc ad nauseum.

It doesn't work.

You may thrash about emotionally now.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (16) Jun 23, 2015
denglish, having no rational retorts makes you reach for personal attacks.

Grow up.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (15) Jun 23, 2015
Here is why we have a hard time with conservatives:
"One proud White American, in less than 2 minutes, has killed TWICE as many Americans as ISIS has in 2 years. White Terrorists. #WISIS."

This tweet by Michael Moore says it all about conservatism.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 23, 2015
@Stumpy, I made no mention of philosophy in this thread, so what are you talking about? I provided quotes of the author of the above study to substantiate the point that I choose to make.

If you knew how science actually works rather than feining an understanding with your constant pointless calls for "peer reviewed studies to disprove",..... you would know that speculative alarmist predictions as the one above and Ehrlich's quoted ones above, cannot be falsified until they are compared with actual reality,... which I did above.

greenonions stated... "you will argue around and around in circles." while hypocritically providing a matching number of counter arguments. 90% of your (CapStumpy) posts consist in arguing around and around in circles with JVK, to utterly pointless effect except to flood the boards.

denglish
1 / 5 (6) Jun 23, 2015
Here is why we have a hard time with conservatives:
"One proud White American, in less than 2 minutes, has killed TWICE as many Americans as ISIS has in 2 years. White Terrorists. #WISIS."

This tweet by Michael Moore says it all about conservatism.

What a nonsensical quote. It is trying to appeal to weak personalities groping for any reason to hate their nation. Perhaps your penchant for hatred of others has led you to not being able to hold jobs.

If ISIS is so great, go live in their world. If you don't, then you lack the courage of your words; you are a coward, no doubt living off the sweat of those you curse. You certainly enjoy the freedom won by those you choose to anonymously castigate without any mention of the reality that if you tried that against your heroes you'd be killed. COWARD.

Hating on your nation abominably to throw Red Herring arguments will not change the position you are in: you cannot explain why the theories of AGW do not match observation.
gkam
1.9 / 5 (17) Jun 23, 2015
"If ISIS is so great, go live in their world. If you don't, then you lack the courage of your words; you are a coward, no doubt living off the sweat of those you curse"
----------------------------------

I enlisted in 1965 and went to war in 1967, Jerk. I volunteered for that war, and saw it for myself, turning against it while still in it. It was unappreciated.

What did you do, Mister Patriot?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 23, 2015
"If ISIS is so great, go live in their world. If you don't, then you lack the courage of your words; you are a coward, no doubt living off the sweat of those you curse"
----------------------------------

I enlisted in 1965 and went to war in 1967, Jerk. I volunteered for that war, and saw it for myself, turning against it while still in it. It was unappreciated.

What did you do, Mister Patriot?
Lets see... while there you plugged things in and switched them on and off while pretending that you were designing, installing, and operating a top secret spy system directly for macnamara. And you did this as a noncom tech.

Correct? Or did the pretending come later?

Did you get a purple heart for a solder gun burn? Poor baby.
gkam
1.9 / 5 (13) Jun 23, 2015
"Hating on your nation abominably to throw Red Herring arguments will not change the position you are in: you cannot explain why the theories of AGW do not match observation."
-------------------------------------------------

My gosh, denglish, if you had my education and experiences you would have my opinions, too. No service experience? No advanced science education in the environment?

It does not matter what we post to you, we will just receive the same old nonsense. Look outside: The world is different than you isolated folk assume.

You will now get the same treatment I give to Willie, otto, and some others who no longer elicit responses from me: The Ignore feature.
denglish
1 / 5 (5) Jun 23, 2015
"If ISIS is so great, go live in their world. If you don't, then you lack the courage of your words; you are a coward, no doubt living off the sweat of those you curse"
----------------------------------

I enlisted in 1965 and went to war in 1967, Jerk. I volunteered for that war, and saw it for myself, turning against it while still in it. It was unappreciated.

What did you do, Mister Patriot?

Another made-up lie about your real-life persona. This time you've gone for stolen valor. You are SICK.

I don't talk about real life on the internet. It has no bearing here. You should have learned your lesson about that too by now, but you haven't; that's how invested you are in fantasy.

Now the question stands: why do the theories of AGW not match observation?
denglish
1 / 5 (5) Jun 23, 2015
You will now get the same treatment I give to Willie, otto, and some others who no longer elicit responses from me: The Ignore feature.

Took your ball and went home because you found out the rules you play by aren't the real rules.

Bye bye.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (7) Jun 23, 2015
http://www.drroys...2013.png
Theories Falsified
@d
i find it fascinating that you still think opinion or random images without context are somehow equivalent to validated scientific studies
Stop posting stuff you don't understand
ROTFLMFAO
i understand the difference between opinion and empirical evidence, just like i can differentiate between validated studies and your conspiratorial conjecture... the only one having problems understanding the science is you
You may thrash about emotionally now
why?
like i said: the only person not capable of proving their comments here has been you and your troll cabal of deniers

I understand your jealousy though... i am used to it from your type. you think your opinion is every bit as powerful or valid as the evidence in studies. that is why you completely fail to provide any scientific evidence refuting the studies above

keep posting and proving me correct... it allows others to spot the trolls like you
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jun 23, 2015
I made no mention of philosophy in this thread
@nou
i never said you did
so what are you talking about?
your historical posts on PO
If you knew how science actually works rather than feining [sic] an understanding with your constant pointless calls for "peer reviewed studies to disprove"
and this, more than anything else, reinforces my comments regarding your lack of scientific literacy or integrity. you assume that conjecture or speculation is somehow equivalent to validated evidence (see also Dung above). that is NOT the case...
so again, like Otto and so many others have pointed out: your arguments are mostly philosophical and NOT hard science
90% of your ...in circles with JVK
at least i've provided evidence supporting my arguments. You are still arguing with semantics and philosophy or opinion. at least i've pointed out that jk or dung et al have NO evidence or science... like your arguments
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 23, 2015
Another made-up lie about your real-life persona
@dung
no different than your insistence that you are a small business owner or someone who is being affected in such a horrible way by the gov't reductions in carbon emissions & cal taxes etc !!!... you are making it all up because you are a paid shill trying to argue politics, conspiracy and religion over science, just like your other fake friends and liars here on PO supporting your arguments! LMFAO
I don't talk about real life on the internet
hypocrisy at it's finest! ... so you are NOT a business owner? ROTFLMFAO
shall i re-post your claims here? all that "personal whine and crybaby BS" you gave about your hatred of gov't emission and controls?
ROTFLMFAO
why do the theories of AGW not match observation?
if you read those studies i linked, you would know this is a lie!
LMFAO
denglish
1 / 5 (4) Jun 23, 2015
i understand the difference between opinion and empirical evidence

Ok, then you will understand this:
http://www.drroys...2013.png]http://www.drroys...2013.png[/url]

the only one having problems understanding the science is you

That's nice. Stop posting stuff you don't understand.

you completely fail to provide any scientific evidence refuting the studies above

Such as this:
http://www.drroys...2013.png]http://www.drroys...2013.png[/url]

You may thrash around emotionally now:
it allows others to spot the trolls like you


you are a paid shill trying to argue politics, conspiracy and religion over science, just like your other fake friends and liars here on PO supporting your arguments! LMFAO

Thank you.

if you read those studies i linked

Stop referring to things you don't understand too.
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2015
If you knew how science actually works [...] you would know that speculative alarmist predictions as the one above and Ehrlich's quoted ones above, cannot be falsified until they are compared with actual reality

and this, more than anything else, reinforces my comments regarding your lack of scientific literacy or integrity. you assume that conjecture or speculation is somehow equivalent to validated evidence


Really, ....you just quoted me as stating the exact opposite. In fact its been my contention in this thread that some here take such wild speculation as fact, and take the models themselves as statistically verified fact. There not.

In fact YOU just requested of me to " specifically point to ANY information in the study and claim it is wrong",.... to which I responded that speculation is not falsifiable.

As to scientific literacy, I could run circles around you in QM and GR, etc.

denglish
1 / 5 (4) Jun 23, 2015
Broken link fixed:
AGW theories falsified by observation:

http://www.drroys...2013.png
denglish
1 / 5 (4) Jun 23, 2015
Models are off by about a factor of 2 on surface warming, but maybe by a factor of 5 for upper tropospheric warming.

http://www.drroys...MIP5.png

TheGhostofOtto1923
3.8 / 5 (13) Jun 23, 2015
if you had my education and experiences you would have my opinions, too
Well sure. Youre of the opinion that:

"HIGH ENERGY alpha cant penetrate skin.

Fallout is the MAJOR cause of lung cancer (not even on the list)

Fukushima H2 explosions can cause Pu nuclear detonations which throw imaginary macroscopic vessel parts 130km without making a crater.

There is plutonium or americium raining down on idaho.

Swimming pools are typically being used to cool residences.

Only 1 scientist ever concluded that the next ice age is imminent.

Its ok to double the number and intensity of earthquakes on a given day, as well as lie about official predictions.

Dried manure (which he wrongly calls volatile solids) is a major constituent of 'high atmosphere' (??) pollution in the central valley."

-A short selection from a very long list.

Is anybody as DISGUSTED with the audacity of this imbecile as I am?
The Ignore feature
-You mean the coward feature dont you?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 23, 2015
@yyz, thermodynamics

Gkams 'education and experience' have been thoroughly discredited by the contents of his posts. See the above list.

Anyone who asserts that manure is a major source of pollution, or that fallout is a major source of lung cancer, has no education or experience in environmentalism apart from what he has read on fringe websites.

And anyone who uprates and thereby encourages him for continuing to use it as evidence for the veracity of these 'opinions' of his should be ashamed of themselves.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 23, 2015
Ok, then you will understand this:
http://www.drroys...2013.png]http://www.drroys...2013.png[/url]
link broken (but same as above stupidity)

i will also add that linking to a personal opinion on a BLOG or some random graphic without context from someone that is directly refuted by my validated studies is [again] simply linking opinion and assuming that it is equivalent to validated empirical evidence [yet another epic fail for your argument and logic]

it is also appeal to authority, red herring, argument from ignorance and strawman
opinions are not equivalent validated studies - i noticed your dr doesn't have a peer reviewed study with that! and you don't even wonder why?

too bad you didn't understand what was in those studies i linked, otherwise you would see that dr roy is debunked...

tell you what: link that graph again and tell everyone we don't understand what we are referring to... it makes you look like [insert pejorative of choice here]
THANKS
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 23, 2015
I made no mention of philosophy in this thread, so what are you talking about?

your historical posts on PO [....] your arguments are mostly philosophical and NOT hard science


I have posted more on hard physics, QM, GR, than you have here. Who are you to critique me?

This is a comment section for discussion About science, not a scientific journal to advance it. My "philosophical" posts are about interpretations of hard science, QM, GR. That's what interpretations of QM are , philosophy of physics.

Your 'accusational style' objection to the form my posts take is patently absurd given that you engage in mostly Jerry-Springer arguing and pointless proxy debates via link-wars.

Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 23, 2015
As to scientific literacy, I could run circles around you in QM and GR, etc.
@Nou
perhaps you could, So? that is not what the topic is...
the point
specifically point to ANY information in the study and claim it is wrong
show what is specifically wrong in the study and lets get it published in the next ScienceMag as direct refute to the study.

my point is the same as it has been: your speculations about the validity of the science is simply your own and not supported by empirical evidence, otherwise you would have that study retracted for it's "speculation" which "is not falsifiable" - that is how science works, but you seemed to completely miss that

so, take a few turns and dazzle us with your interpretations of QM or GR like Benni always does... because as for Climate Science and basic scientific literacy, you are arguing your philo argument over the data presented [again]

get it now?

gkam
1.6 / 5 (14) Jun 23, 2015
"Your 'accusational style' objection to the form my posts take is patently absurd given that you engage in mostly Jerry-Springer arguing and pointless proxy debates via link-wars."
------------------------------------------

A classic example of projection.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 23, 2015
your speculations about the validity of the science is simply your own and not supported by empirical evidence


Yes, i'm stating my opinion based on past predictions made by the same author. So what?

I already told you that the projections in the study are not falsifiable, so how can I provide "empirical evidence" to the contrary today when they're making predictions of the future?

Do you even know what you are talking about? Further, as I stated above this is a comment section for discussion, not a scientific journal. Are you so naive also, to think that just because the above clowns did a study, that that means it's "hard science"?
denglish
1 / 5 (4) Jun 23, 2015
directly refuted by my validated studies

too bad you didn't understand what was in those studies i linked

Don't reference things you don't understand.

validated empirical evidence

tell you what: link that graph again

OK:
http://www.drroys...2013.png

Theory falsified.

Let's look at Ocean Temperatures AGW theory vs reality:
http://www.drroys...T-v4.png

Let's look at something else. Has it ever occurred to anyone that the Earth experiences cyclical changes? Observe:
http://www.drroys...tion.jpg

Let's take a look at Mr, Gore's predictions. Certainly, he can't be wrong!
http://www.drroys...ater.png
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jun 23, 2015
how can I provide "empirical evidence" to the contrary today when they're making predictions of the future?
@nou
methodology, materials, technique, bias, references and notes, metrics, etc.... all those things that are actually below the freakin abstract...

IOW- use the scientific method and their own data presented, from their references to whatever you wish, to refute the claims of the [second] author... if your argument holds any weight (especially the bias or philo argument) then, per the utilization of the scientific method, you can get the study retracted

this is basic stuff here, mr "I could run circles around you in QM and GR, etc"

point being: if you had any credible arguments you could get at least a caveat, alteration or change, or even a retraction (because "the scientific method")

so it makes me wonder... in your own words
Do you even know what you are talking about?
to be cont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jun 23, 2015
@nou cont'd
this is a comment section for discussion, not a scientific journal
i never said otherwise... however, the site even requests "Keep science: Include references to the published scientific literature to support your statements"

that rules out philosophy unless in a thread that specifically opens up the argument to philo or speculation, or even religion (none of those threads which i frequent nor do i care about that much... and try not to ever speculate within)

and i don't speculate about the above study as hard science until (and i am repeating myself) it is VALIDATED by other studies... until then, it is a stand alone study and though it may have good data, it doesn't mean it is absolute in its claims

again, it points back to your arguments of philo semantics over specific data and "hard science"... i prefer that which has at least some means of evidence which substantiates the claim... not just speculations or philo double-speak
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jun 23, 2015
@d
already refuted several comment threads back

also
dr roy's "opinion" is not empirical evidence, nor is it validated by scientific evidence. it is speculations and appeal to authority

if there was any valid claims by dr roy it would be put in a study and peer reviewed... not simply put in a blog and shared with other blogs...it is in a blog because the restrictions of the scientific method would show it's fallacious origin and bias (but you already know that, which is why you choose to share it- because it supports your delusional beliefs)

http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

you have gotten me more than 3 bingo's in just the past month
THANKS

also: gore is an idiot and a politician seeking popularity, not a scientists
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (13) Jun 23, 2015
this is a comment section for discussion, not a scientific journal

i never said otherwise...

In fact that's your only shtick here at P.O., to suggest that every comment must be rigorously following the scientific method,.... despite 90% of your own posts being purely Jerry-Springer'esque, devoid of any actual science at all.

It's almost as if that's all you know of science,... the 'scientific method',... and so failing a counter argument, you hide behind that standard which YOU have never yourself achieved except via proxy.

The scientific method is used to advance a subject, not in having discussions About it. That is what this comment section is for. Opinions. Do you have any or are you pretending to be a scientist?
gkam
2.2 / 5 (17) Jun 23, 2015
Noum, give it up.

Look into the mirror and see to whom you are lecturing.
denglish
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 23, 2015
dr roy's "opinion" is not empirical evidence, nor is it validated by scientific evidence. it is speculations and appeal to authority

Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.

also: gore is an idiot and a politician seeking popularity, not a scientists

Gore and many other politicians like him are getting very rich from AGW.

you have gotten me more than 3 bingo's in just the past month

Grasping at populism is not a way to achieve credibility amongst adults.

if there was any valid claims by dr roy it would be put in a study and peer reviewed

It is not difficult to find the peer reviewed stuff on his site. If I understood it, I would post it. Instead, I will turn to the summaries.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (7) Jun 23, 2015
Deng said:
Let's look at something else. Has it ever occurred to anyone that the Earth experiences cyclical changes? Observe:
http://www.drroys...tion.jpg


Yes, the earth does experience cyclical changes. However, if you read your own link, you will find that link only pertains to the northern extratropical region (not the Earth). It also does not indicate cycles (in that it does not show anything other than variation - not cycles. That is a regional graph, not a global graph. Read your own posts...
denglish
1 / 5 (4) Jun 24, 2015
Theories that are falsified by observations are false. Presenting them in popular science is irresponsible at best. En-acting policies based on them is incompetent at best.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Jun 24, 2015
also: gore is an idiot and a politician seeking popularity, not a scientists

Captain stunted you've eclipsed your previous level of stupidity with that rant.
More than anything, he is seeking wealth, and is capitalizing on you, the idiot, to acquire it.
Sigh
5 / 5 (6) Jun 24, 2015
It is not indicative of the accuracy of the model to Actual Future Reality. It is accurate as the statistics indicate Presuming everything else in the model is correct, the data, the starting premises, the input assumptions, completeness, etc. That of course begs the question.
Let's stipulate all that. Putting a number on uncertainty is not required for the argument that there are situations where greater uncertainty gives more reason to act. I gave you a numeric example only because you doubted the principle. Do you accept the point in the case of my example?

All your objections establish is that the uncertainty regarding future outcomes may well be greater than is accounted for in the models. How does that invalidate the point I brought up?

Have you listened to either of those podcasts, where the topic is discussed in greater depth and with greater competence than I can offer? If you care about the argument, you should access the best source reasonably available.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 24, 2015
Putting a number on uncertainty is not required for the argument that there are situations where greater uncertainty gives more reason to act.


I reject this interpretation. That uncertainty is only indicative of a lack of understanding. A lack of understanding is never actionable.

All your objections establish is that the uncertainty regarding future outcomes may well be greater than is accounted for in the models. How does that invalidate the point I brought up?


Because it would indicate elements not taken into account in the model. My point was of course to dispel the notion that calculated uncertainty means how far off the model is from reality. This is only the case for models that can be validated,… not just retrodictably.

.....
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 24, 2015
…….

I'm not a climatologist however. If they say that there is a correlation between global climate and increase of CO2 not processed in the natural cycle, then I must accept them at their word.

I don't have to accept the alarmism however, nor the suspiciously ubiquitous nature of left-wing solutions, nor that they have a handle on Global climate to within tenths of a degree per decade.

See the above article and the quotes I posted of past statements from the author. Ehrilich's predictions of doom and gloom were as unwarranted then as they are now, and some AGW predictions of doom and gloom are now.
denglish
1 / 5 (4) Jun 24, 2015
Deng said:
Let's look at something else. Has it ever occurred to anyone that the Earth experiences cyclical changes? Observe:
http://www.drroys...tion.jpg


Yes, the earth does experience cyclical changes. However, if you read your own link, you will find that link only pertains to the northern extratropical region (not the Earth). It also does not indicate cycles (in that it does not show anything other than variation - not cycles. That is a regional graph, not a global graph. Read your own posts...

I knew that. My point stands.

Relying on semantics to discredit the obvious isn't impressive.

btw, I'm starting to dig into this deeper. Holy Humanature...this AGW stuff is off the hook. Shameful.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 25, 2015
90% of your
@nou
closer to 35% - i track it... and the bulk of those posts are directed at very specific idiocy and trolls (like yourself & this conversation, dung, alchie etc)
That is what this comment section is for. Opinions
... that are substantiated by evidence
it even says that in the freakin rules (that link where you post which says Please Read)- "Keep science": i did post that above, so are you going to rationalize that those rules are so that PO can "hide behind that standard which [they] have never ... achieved except via proxy"??

or are you now saying that providing substantiating evidence from valid science is wrong because it doesn't allow for soft philo double speak & pseudoscience? i've always argued against pseudoscience over science & always will
keep posting and proving my point about your irrational philo double talk. thanks

...seeking wealth, and is capitalizing on you...
@antiG
i neither support nor defend gore
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 25, 2015
@nou cont'd
The scientific method is used to advance a subject, not in having discussions About it
and i disagree with this... this is the philo in you wanting to accept semantic arguments and personal logic over observed, measured data and speculative predictions which have probabilities.

you state you don't believe alarmist speculation for various reasons: well, nether do most of the science based posters here. in the argument about predictions, there will always be error bars showing the probability of something happening, much like QM (start dancing if you like)

AGW is no different. just like QM can make predictions (and now it is the most successful theory in existence) so too is prediction in other fields capable. just because they are not specific enough for YOU doesn't mean they aren't effective or capable. Science advances on further research, just like Einstein replaced Newton, so too will others replace older data with better newer data
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 25, 2015
lastly @nou
...some AGW predictions of doom and gloom are now
i am not going to say that all prior predictions are accurate, nor will i say that all prior science is perfect... but you are taking one person's predictions and failures and applying it to ALL the rest of the publications with a fear based conspiratorial nature.

just because one person failed in the past doesn't mean that all the rest did (or still do)... this circles back to the argument using the scientific method. as you can see above, dung argues from emotion, conspiracy, ignorance and fear and provides no substantial argument except to post blogs or opinion... how is that accurate or logical in the face of the refuting studies with measured.observed data?

using the scientific method (for argument regarding science) weeds out pseudoscience and emotional/religious arguments and allows for fact based discussion and speculation over delusion, religion or plain lunacy.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (3) Jun 25, 2015
Wow, I seem to have missed a lot...the 'follow up comments' only worked on the last 3 comments.. Please, all, forgive me, but perhaps WE should start a survey.
1. Do you think we are now on the extinction slide?
(me) No.
2. If 1 is 'no' then do you think we're approaching it?
(me) Yes.
3. If 2 is 'no' do you think it's all hype?
4. If 3 is 'no' go back to 1.
Seriously though what can be done and what will be done? For the former, a great deal and very little of the former for the latter. Imo we have got to the point where global sacrifice is needed to prevent the worst but how many of us will do that? I walked away from an argument between 2 farmers the other night. One claimed that the gov should pipe sea water from the coast to drought areas while the other was suggesting water is deliberately being held behind dams to cause drought. These guys are supplying my food, no wonder I felt like starvation was on the way.
denglish
1 / 5 (4) Jun 25, 2015
dung

Insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect.

argues from emotion

Theories are falsified when observation disagrees.
http://www.drroys...2013.png]http://www.drroys...2013.png[/url]

conspiracy

It has been predicted many times by the AGW crowd that horrible disasters would occur in the future... nothing yet (except taxes and economic ruin)!

ignorance

Do not post what you do not understand.

fear

?

provides no substantial argument

Theories that are falsified by observation are false, and are not actionable.

measured.observed data

http://www.drroys...2013.png]http://www.drroys...2013.png[/url]

Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 25, 2015
i've always argued against pseudoscience over science & always will keep posting and proving my point about your irrational philo double talk


You have never offered a counter argument to any of my posts about philosophy of physics as it relates to QM or GR.

In fact, your own posts about QM makes it clear that you are not hardly competent to do so.

Further I can and have provided links to works from prominent physicists to substantiate my positions,…. the meaning of which to this day I have no reason to think you even understand,… as all you do, is rile against the entire field of philosophy in sweeping and vacuous generalities,…. Displaying your immense ignorance of the fact that interpretations of QM, since they all must abide by empirical QM, are in fact 'philosophy of physics', pursued by physicists.

Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 25, 2015
in the argument about predictions, there will always be error bars showing the probability of something happening,

Error bars in purely retrodictively based models are not indicative of how accurate those models are to predicting future reality!!
They are only indicative of the expected error given the model ITSELF, it's starting assumptions, it's input data, the scenario it purports to model, etc.,…… and is therefore NOT the "probability of something happening" at all.
just because they are not specific enough for YOU doesn't mean they aren't effective or capable

I never stated anywhere that AGW models are not capable. Stop inventing strawman arguments.
denglish
1 / 5 (5) Jun 25, 2015
To the gentle reader: going forward, I will do a better job checking links before posting.

Here is the fixed link to accompany the above refutations:

http://www.drroys...2013.png

perhaps WE should start a survey

With respect, populism and speculation, while popular with the AGW crowd, does not carry much weight.
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 25, 2015

The scientific method is used to advance a subject, not in having discussions About it. That is what this comment section is for. Opinions.


this is the philo in you wanting to accept semantic arguments and personal logic over observed, measured data and speculative predictions which have probabilities.


I know about measured data and empirical observation, the history and philosophy of physics, the mathematical formulation of QM and GR,… so I don't need your insultingly presumptuous and condescending tone.

My quoted comment was referencing this comment section,…. i.e. there is never nor should one expect there to be, any scientific advance occurring in the comment section of this science news site..

,… therefore your monotone demand for the peer reviewed scientific method here, as you naively understand it, is entirely inappropriate here. For example, do you know the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory?
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 25, 2015
Ehrilich's predictions of doom [.] were as unwarranted then as they are now, and some AGW predictions of doom [.] are now.


[..] you are taking one person's predictions and failures and applying it to ALL the rest of the publications with a fear based conspiratorial nature.


Are you lying right now? Is that deliberate lie that you just spouted part of the scientific method, or is it an emotional argument based on your own unfounded personal conjecture of conspiracy that mine are based on conspiracy?

In fact, I did NOT in the least apply Ehrlichs past predictive failures to "to ALL the rest of the publications",… but clearly only to "SOME" similarly wildly cataclysmic ones.

In fact you could not have missed that I stated the following in that same post,… "I'm not a climatologist however. If they say that there is a correlation between global climate and increase of CO2 not processed in the natural cycle, then I must accept them at their word."
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (14) Jun 26, 2015
'philosophy of physics', pursued by physicists
No, it's just a shameless attempt by idle proponents of a dead discipline to own a successful science. Nobody listens to them but other philos like yourself. They have never offered any insight into the workings of physical properties. They have NEVER contributed to scientific inquiry whatsoever.

Never ever. See krauss, Hawking, feinmann et al.
The scientific method is used to advance a subject, not in having discussions About it
Well that's the problem isn't it? Philos desperately cling to 'discussion' as a way of doing science. It's not and never was.

The scientific method IS a 'discussion' of sorts, using experimentation, data analysis, and math instead of words. Scientists use words as substitutes for the complex theories and equations that only they fully understand.

Philos use words in the context of dead philo poetry that nobody understands, including them, because it's gibberish. See Dan Dennett.
howhot2
5 / 5 (9) Jun 26, 2015
To the gentle reader: going forward, I will do a better job checking links before posting.

Here is the fixed link to accompany the above refutations:

http://www.drroys...2013.png

perhaps WE should start a survey

With respect, populism and speculation, while popular with the AGW crowd, does not carry much weight.


Man @dogspit, you must be out of your marbles in your graph. All of the computer models seem to be way more accurate than you two data sets. Give a computer model it's fair shake. They are well thought out, and do reflect reality, and are tested against history. The obviously report different predictions as they reflect different theories of atmospheric science.

Give that, there is not a single graph (including yours) that has a negative slope, there for global waming and AGW is infact FACT! Infact it's so much FACT that your brain just exploded.


denglish
1 / 5 (4) Jun 27, 2015
All of the computer models seem to be way more accurate than you two data sets.

The two data sets are what actually happened. The rest of the lines are predictions that have been falsified by observation.

Do you think destructive social and economic policies should be made as a result of predictions that have been falsified by observation?

Give that, there is not a single graph (including yours) that has a negative slope

I don't think anyone is saying that the climate isn't changing.

Infact it's so much FACT that your brain just exploded.

Interesting. let me know when that summation works for you.
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 27, 2015
'philosophy of physics', pursued by physicists

No, it's just a shameless attempt by idle proponents of a dead discipline to own a successful science. Nobody listens to them but other philos like yourself. They have never offered any insight into the workings of physical properties. They have NEVER contributed to scientific inquiry whatsoever.


Your opinion, like that of CaptainStumpy, is not derived from any study of that field.

I have never claimed that 'philosophy of physics' is responsible for physical theories, ....only that interpretational, epistemological, and conceptual foundational issues relating to guiding theories are what IS 'philosophy of physics',..... pursued by among many many others,... Penrose, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Einstein, Mach, Jeans, d'Espagnat, ... oh and Lee Smolin,.... in his most recent book he presents a "natural philosophy" that he hopes will guide future cosmology,...
Noumenon
1 / 5 (12) Jun 27, 2015
Philos use words in the context of dead philo poetry that nobody understands, including them, because it's gibberish. See Dan Dennett.

You don't find it ironic that you would reference a philosopher of science there?

Your sweeping generalities about an entire field, that you clearly have never studied, only exposes your intellectual immaturity.

Like Stumpy, you never actually debate me in detail on a particular point that I make and that you presume is philosophy. Could it be because one would have to know QM or GR to do so effectively? Instead, you want to debate the validity of an entire field of interest,... despite that I only reference mostly writings by physicists.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (16) Jun 27, 2015
not derived from any study of that field
I don't know much about voodoo either but I'm pretty sure it's bullshit.

Actually I've presented to you a great deal of evidence to support my opinions - scientists who know more about it than you who declare it worthless, many excerpts to demonstrate that Kant derived his philopap from religion and that philo in general was meant to manipulate people and not inform them, etc.
wont debate me
Not possible as I don't speak philo. You philos can't even debate each other and get anywhere because you use undefinable words which mean different things to either side.
would have to know GM
You know GM as a poet knows a river. Only scientists can work with hydrodynamics and produce something useful.
ref mostly physicists
-And I showed you that most of the ones you ref are considered mystics. Some, like penrose, are actually proud of it.

Give me one example of a sciphi who contributed something useful to science.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (9) Jun 28, 2015
many excerpts to demonstrate that Kant derived his philopap from religion

Again, you're speaking out of your a$$,... not from personal knowledge. The Critique of pure reason, is not about religion,.. it is an analysis of knowledge, it's scope and limits of validity. The book by Smolin & Unger I referenced above mentions Kant throughout. Why? Because their book is about development of a "natural philosophy" ,... a new approach to cosmology,... and is a critique of concepts to be used. Like wise, d'Espagnat's writtings on the conceptually foundations and philosophy of physics is about the validity of knowledge claimed wrt QM.

That you would disparage those preeminent physicists I have listed,... as well as others like Born, Bohr, Pais, etc..... just shows your logical incompetence and fraud. You can supply a list who disagree (vaguely), ... but since I can also to substantiate, what then is the point here,... to avoid direct substantive debate?
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 28, 2015
you never actually debate me in detail [...] Could it be because one would have to know QM or GR to do so effectively?
You know GM as a poet knows a river.

I know the mathematical formulation of both theories. You continue to spout things not based on your own personal knowledge. You argue from ignorance and by proxy like a blind man feeling things out with a cane,.... but yet have the nerve to call gkam a fraud.

You're entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (9) Jun 28, 2015
Give me one example of a [philosophy of physics] who contributed something useful to science.

The entire history of the development of QM and the Einstein / Bohr debates on what it means and what approach should be taken,... was epistemological. See, your argue based on a lack of knowledge.

W. Heisenberg, N. Bohr, M. Born, P. Jordan, Pauli, etc,.... whom took an operational or instrumentalist approach to the development of QM (matrix mechanics and the Born rule),.... as opposed to Schrodinger and Einstein. The former took a non-intuitive approach on epistemological grounds, while the latter took a realist approach. Schrodinger could not proceed further on the basis that the wavefunction of his wave equation represented a physical wave.

Einstein was greatly influenced by E. Mach during development of GR.

A. Pais,... a nuclear physicist, once proclaimed N. Bohr to be the natural successor to I. Kant.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 28, 2015
.... I just referenced for you a [yet another book] book by Lee Smolin the purpose of which is to present a "natural philosophy" [their words ('philosophy of physics' being inappropriate given it is to theory dependent)] for a new approach to the further development of cosmology,.... arguments for the inclusive reality of time, .... that causation is more fundamental than natural laws [as opposed to the other way around], .... the mutability of natural laws,... etc.

But it does not matter what facts I present. A mind that is simply anti-this and anti-that, without specificity for the sake of being anti-this and anti-that, like a religion, can not be changed.

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (14) Jun 30, 2015
Smolin... riiiight.

Heres a crit of one of his books.

An incredible pile of unscientific gibberish

"There's one aspect in which Lee Smolin's newest book is less irritating than his previous book, The Trouble With Physics: the main purpose of the new book isn't to mindless attack and lie about the best results of the contemporary theoretical physics research. Instead, if we ignore the mega-arrogant and super-dishonest subtitle "From the Crisis of Physics to the Future of the Universe", "Time Reborn" tries to attack physics from the times of Newton and "constructively" present Smolin's own ideas about physics – or something he apparently calls "physics" – and it's a stinky junk of the most despicable kind, indeed."

-and so forth.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (14) Jun 30, 2015
whom took an operational or instrumentalist approach to the development of QM (matrix mechanics and the Born rule),.... as opposed to Schrodinger and Einstein
Dude, you can talk all you want. You can drop all the names you want.

You can try your best like your colleagues to own something which is not yours and never was. You can cite all the scientists you want who, in times of weakness or boredom or desperation to make a little money, waxed philosophic.

But bottom line is, youre all hangers-on. You wait by the stage door for a glimpse of your idols and then you pretend that they might care just a little that you adore them.

But they dont. Philo is irrelevant ever since clever people decided to actually LOOK at things in a systematic way and record what they saw. And they found that the world had nothing to do with platos forms or shadows on a cave wall.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (14) Jun 30, 2015
The entire history of the development of QM and the Einstein / Bohr debates on what it means and what approach should be taken,... was epistemological. See, your argue based on a lack of knowledge
Horseshit. Shameless, transparent horseshit.

THEY didnt think to use philo words or concepts when doing their science. They didnt NEED to.

This from the guy who insists that the normal person is doing classical philosophy when he decides whether to invest his money or go buy a cadillac.

Personal philosophy is NOT classic philosophy. Science is NOT classic philosophy. Scientists IGNORE kant. He has NOTHING to add to the conversation, and neither do you.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Jul 01, 2015
TheGhostofOtto1923 While I agree with most of what you say I do think that philosophy in its correct form can help those who don't understand a particular topic. Say for example philo of GR. Providing it's written with a scientific attitude can help the public why we can't do this or that. That said, I feel philo talk wouldn't be needed if scientists could engage the public more on up to date issues...well assuming scientist understand (watever it is) themselves.
Again, that said, I have to say that there are more 'popular science' outlets avaiable now than a few years ago (the Net being a good example). So why use a philo argument at all? Full circle. Maybe many are just downright too lazy to go and search!
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 01, 2015
"An interpretation of quantum mechanics is a set of statements which attempt to explain how quantum mechanics informs our understanding of nature. Although quantum mechanics has held up to rigorous and thorough experimental testing, many of these experiments are open to different interpretations. There exist a number of contending schools of thought, differing over whether quantum mechanics can be understood to be deterministic, which elements of quantum mechanics can be considered "real", and other matters.

This question is of special interest to philosophers of physics, as physicists continue to show a strong interest in the subject. They usually consider an interpretation of quantum mechanics as an interpretation of the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics, specifying the physical meaning of the mathematical entities of the theory." - Wiki

Every physicist is de facto involved in philosophers of physics if he analyzes interpretations of QM or GR.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (10) Jul 01, 2015
Yes, I can list many physicists who speak of philosophy of physics, which is really just reflections on the meaning of theory,.... and you can in turn disparage them by calling into question their sincerity. But this only embarrasses you further.

But they dont. Philo is irrelevant ever since clever people decided to actually LOOK at things in a systematic way and record what they saw.


You're (and your sources are) speaking of 'classical physics'. I have little interest in classical physics except as it relates to epistemology. You have been told this. You have already told that my main interest is physics, and 'philosophy of physics' written by other physicists. Again, if you knew the subject matter (physics) you would know that it is not as easy to disentangle one from the other as your naïveté gives you such false confidence to do.

A review of Smolin books is irrelevant to the point I made. I don't agree either with some of it.
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 01, 2015
"The reciprocal relationship of epistemology and science is of noteworthy kind. They are dependent upon each other. Epistemology without contact with science becomes an empty scheme. Science without epistemology is—insofar as it is thinkable at all—primitive and muddled." - Einstein

If I make a post that you consider "just philosophical" then you have the opportunity to refute that post using physics. I doubt you will do this. Instead you will continue with your irrelevant and vague "I hate philosophy" Jerry-Springer rant.

I didn't even post philosophy in this thread before CaptainStumpy accused me of doing so,... so it's questionable whether some here even know what philosophy is. Stumpy must think that my correcting the naive AGW-enthusiasts understanding of error bars and stats of models, is philosophy. It's not.
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 01, 2015
The entire history of the development of QM and the Einstein / Bohr debates on what it means and what approach should be taken,... was epistemological.

Horseshit. Shameless, transparent horseshit.


Do you ever tire of being factually wrong....

"The Bohr–Einstein debates were a series of public disputes about quantum mechanics between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr. Their debates are remembered because of their importance to the philosophy of science."

"An account of the debates was written by Bohr in an article titled "Discussions with Einstein on Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics"

THEY didnt think to use philo words or concepts when doing their science.

Again, I have never claimed that 'philosophy of physics' is responsible for the particular physical theories themselves, just that it is responsible for what approach is or should be taken and what they mean,....... that's what the Einstein/ Bohr debates where about.

Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 01, 2015
It is also what interpretations of QM is about, for example. The Smolin book above attempts to establishing a new way of doing cosmology. You can find a poor review of any book it that is your goal, btw. Did you read it yourself?

This from the guy who insists that the normal person is doing classical philosophy when he decides whether to invest his money or go buy a cadillac.


???? !!!!

You can cite all the scientists you want who, in times of weakness or boredom or desperation to make a little money, waxed philosophic.

The physicists that I site are far more numerous and eminent than your discovery channel boy, L. Krauss,... whom by the way, I agree http://www.dayone...mology/.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 01, 2015
.... with his epistemology and positivism.

p.s. Noumenon never mentioned philosophy in this thread. The Stumpy & Otto show introduced that irrelevant and pointless debate here.
Captain Stumpy
3.6 / 5 (5) Jul 01, 2015
While I agree ... I do think that philosophy in its correct form can help those who don't understand a particular topic
@mimath224
i can understand where you are coming from, but i disagree... if it is not made clear, it is a communication problem, not a philo one. in math, when the answers don't add up, we don't give Jr. credit for the attempt... we show him where he went wrong in a systematic way using methodology... we don't wax philosophic about the problem... we show a method for getting to the correct answer.
Philo's are subjective to the individual, and what is meaningful to you is irrelevant to others... it is the only class where your answers are always wrong OR right depending on the argument you make (kinda like law... but NOT like science)

also- Nou thinks physics/science needs philo... it doesn't... science exists by always seeking "why"... with a systematic method and using evidence, etc... not by argument/subjectivity/guesses
Mimath224
4.5 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2015
@Captain Stumpy, think you missed my point whence I mention 'full circle'. Although Sumerians did gather information for practicle purposes it wasn't until much later that thinkers people like Thales wanted to refute the philosphical ideas about what caused this & that. So in that way philosophy was useful in that it provoked people into looking for 'natural' rather 'supernatural' explanations. I am not religious but the same can be said for religion. Indeed, were not some 'men of the cloth' good astromomers too? I don't say that science NEEDS philosophy no more than science NEEDS religion. And don't forget not all maths is based on proven material there are still conjectures where a set of numbers or result seem to follow a pattern but can't be proven. So these are MATHEMATICAL ARGUMENTS (math philosophy??) And initial guesses also become important. Is Prabability exact thinking? I have had many a personal experience when its predictions turned out to be wrong.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (13) Jul 02, 2015
Nou thinks physics/science needs philo.


The Stumpy & Otto show's entire irrelevant and vacuous 'counter argument' is predicted on the false notion that Noumenon does not know how science progresses. Their argument is not a direct refutation of anything Noumenon has ever stated here.

Inorder to perpetuate this dishonesty, they're forced to ignore that a) Noumenon has stated that he knows the mathematical formulation of GR and QM, so understands well the roll that mathematics plays in physics, .....while niether Stumpy nor Otto has claimed likewise but yet put themselves forward as knowing better despite, b) Noumenon only makes specific epistemological arguments to make a case for scientific positivism which by definition is anti-metaphysics in science, c) Noumenon has provided quotes by a dozen preeminent physicists making the exact same point from Einstein to Hawking, to even Krause,.... so it is not inappropriate for Noumenon to do likewise in a comment section...

Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 02, 2015
science exists by always seeking "why"... with a systematic method and using evidence, etc... not by argument/subjectivity/guesses


Wrong on all four counts. Wow, your continued naïveté is not helping you substantiate your manufactured case.

seeking "why";
Science does NOT purport to seek "why". If seeks to provide a "how" to make predictions via models.

Arguments:
Scientific theories, are themselves arguments. Science is inductive rather than deductive, so it is not possible to prove anything, thus every theory is in essence an argument.

Subjectivity:
The entire history of science is basically a battle against (mind dependent) subjective intuitive concepts and there applicability or none applicability to physical theory.

Guesses:
There have been many 'guesses' in science. The Schrodinger equation is just one example; "It's not possible to derive [Schrödinger's equation] from anything you know. It came out of the mind of Schrödinger." - Feynmann.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 02, 2015
EDIT: ".....[predicated] on the false notion...." "....[it] seeks to provide a "how"..."
jeffensley
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2015
So lets get to the point, here. Do people expect humanity to have a population as great as we do and NOT alter the environment? If not impacting the environment is the end goal then there is only one solution... massive population reduction and a return to being hunter/gatherers. If that's NOT the end goal, then the logical conclusion would be we need to regulate our impact. One could easily argue that the only reason we still exist and can support the population we have is because we already practice that very thing. We've changed our agricultural practices, we've changed industrial practices, we've changed how we consume, how we throw away... do activists feel like the only way to make improvements to this practice is to constantly beat the drum of doom? Do they ever worry that they will eventually be ignored when predictions of doom don't come to pass?
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 02, 2015
You're exactly correct Jeff, Humanity will once again, adapt and migrate, but only when they're compelled to do so by forces of reality rather than forces of politics and theory.

Whenever an exagerated prediction of cataclysm is immediately followed by a call for political action, be suspicious and mindful of like political movements in history.
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 02, 2015
All historical major catastrophes to humanity were ultimately due to political movements and government coercion, central planning, and control.

Be suspicious as to why the political far left don't think nuclear energy is technologically improvable. Be suspicious as to why there is no call by the political far left for government funding of a Manhatten'esque project for alternative energy,.... if supposedly there is little time left, and given AGW is a technological problem ultimately.

The answer is that it is instinctive to their political narrative, de facto, .... to advocate for government solutions, social engineering, redistribution of wealth,.... so why would they advocate solutions that effectively compete.
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 02, 2015
,... so, far from being "the deniers" fault that "we're running out of time",.... it's principally the fault of proposed solutions that are not politically inclusive* and economically compatible.

* liberals are all about inclusiveness, except when it does not suit them.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2015
think you missed my point whence I mention 'full circle'
@Mimath
perhaps i did. Apologies for that
I don't say that science NEEDS philosophy no more than science NEEDS religion
True that

..

seeking "why";
@nou
perhaps a better choice of wording would have been to "ask why" which would cause the seeking and the how... the point is that there is NO need for subjective arguments over the seeking of knowledge and the answering of questions in a methodical objective way.

the "guess" of science is usually upon a foundation of experimentation and leads to experiments to validate (or refute) the "guess", so again, this directly supports my argument

as for subjective: i mean specifically this
http://www.merria...bjective

notice the part it states
philosophy : relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind

: based on feelings or opinions rather than facts
kinda points out the problems with philo, eh?
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 02, 2015
philosophy : relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind

: based on feelings or opinions rather than facts

kinda points out the problems with philo, eh?


No it doesn't, .... by referencing a definition that is intended convey a singular meaning as used in common parlance by the masses in 'way of speaking',... and not any specific branch of philosophy nor any specific philosophical problem of a particular field, you have only managed to confirm that you're light-years from being qualified to critique that entire several branch field, nor any specific arguments that I made in other threads.



Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2015
@nou
i know you would downvote this... but like i said above: that is because you value subjective arguments from your own personal delusion over objective science and evidence... case in point: your refusal of actual biology over pseudoscience in ANY JVK thread

perhaps you are hoping his pheromones can give you a life or education?
clear up your philosophy problem?
I suggest going back to that link i left for CD and actually using it... at least, learning the scientific method and not
philosophy : relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind

: based on feelings or opinions rather than facts

now rush and downvote this too!
and don't forget your sock-puppets!
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2015
by referencing a definition that is intended convey a singular meaning as used in common parlance by the masses in 'way of speaking'
@nou
you didn't use your socks... i am so disappointed
but back to the argument: that definition is accurate and posted in a lexicon so that people can have accurate means of representing an idea through communication with a certain word... i know you don't like something that nails down SPECIFIC arguments, because that is against the philo creed... right?

you are actually reinforcing my argument (as well as Otto's) by simply waffling back and forth and your above posting... especially when you downvote something that is proven just because!
LMFAO

please, continue to prove my point... i don't need to be "qualified to critique that entire several branch field" per your specific requirements, only by logical argument because that is the basis of philo - a good argument!

it is not about FACTS - but interpretations of reality
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 02, 2015
you value subjective arguments from your own personal delusion over objective science and evidence


You have not demonstrated that you know more physics than I do,... in fact I suspect that I know more GR and QM and physics history than you, so that continued claim in unfounded.

your refusal of actual biology over pseudoscience in ANY JVK thread

You have been told that I don't even read his posts, and even referred to them as "word salad", thus you're lying again.

suggest going back to that link i left for CD and actually using it... at least, learning the scientific method and not


I suggest the next time I make a post that you don't agree with, supply a specific and detailed counter argument, as scientifically minded argument requires, instead of hiding behind vacuous and sweeping generalities of your unqualified and subjective opinion about an entire field of study you have never actually read.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2015
You have not demonstrated ... blah blah blah ...so that continued claim in unfounded
[sic]
@Nou
are ya gonna tell me you are far more grammatically correct and educated in English too?
You have been told... blah blah whine cry ...you're lying again
but you downvote anyone arguing with proof against JVK.. therefore LOGICALLY you support his claims.... that is how that works, troll boy
I suggest ...instead of hiding behind vacuous and sweeping generalities cry whine blah blah about an entire field of study you have never actually read
you got that wrong again,just like the last 10 times we had this argument
i have studied philosophy- i just choose to ignore it and focus on science: you know - something that can be substantiated with evidence... that stuff that philo's like you hate!

i can make suggestions too, but you've ignored them all historically, so why bother?
Once a TROLL, always a TROLL

thanks for reinforcing that adage!
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 02, 2015
As far as sock puppets go, you and vietet are constantly giving each other 5 fingered hand-jobs and trolling my posts with 1's. Why only converse with cranks?

One would think that if so many of my posts supposedly only deserve a 1 that vietvet would eventually stop reading them. But no, the fact that he evidently continues to troll rate them, tells me enough that I should counter them as being invalid.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 02, 2015
you downvote anyone arguing with proof against JVK.. therefore LOGICALLY you support his claims


Patently false. I don't read his posts, nor even know wtf he is talking about. Only you and the troll rater vietvet, and only upon having been troll rated.

.....so that continued claim in unfounded....

are ya gonna tell me you are far more grammatically correct and educated in English too?

Is it more reasonable to you that I meant to write "in" instead of "is", than that it was a typo. In fact I'm on my phone.

i have studied philosophy- i just choose to ignore it and focus on science

Yet, you've never made a counter argument in either field against me,.... hmmm
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2015
As far as sock puppets go
i've never had a sock here or on any other site
you and vietet
two different people with similar experiences who are friends - you do know what that is, right? friend? do i need to post a link to the dictionary again?
trolling my posts with 1's
i only downvote on CONTENT - when you make general sweeping unsubstantiated conjecture and state it is factual, like
Humanity will once again, adapt and migrate, but only when they're compelled to do so by forces of reality rather than forces of politics and theory
rapidly followed by
All historical major catastrophes to humanity were ultimately due to political movements and government coercion, central planning, and control
then you are talking philo NONSENSE... not science or substance... it is also without reference OR evidence

it is SUBJECTIVE, thus can be stated as opinion, not science
IOW - downvoted
as for V... he is capable of making his OWN reasons to vote
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2015
... deserve a 1 that vietvet would eventually stop reading them
Well... i did put you on ignore for a while, but you started upvoting with your socks, and that means people started taking your posts seriously
Patently false
but you read his quotes when i post, which you said
Only you and the troll rater vietvet
which means, by your downvote, you AGREE with his comments and posts... sorry troll boy - you failed again

And i don't troll rate, philo-sock!
if i don't agree i downvote OR ignore

See above
than that it was a typo.... phone
an excuse?
yet you have done the same to me (or because i chose a word poorly)

IOW - two faced philo double speak is only for the philo-socks, right?
Yet, you've never made a counter argument in either field against me
because PHILO is NOT SCIENCE, and science doesn't require philo arguments?

wow

keep trolling and making my argument!

i would ignore you again but someone might take you serious (again)

denglish
1 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2015
And i don't troll rate, philo-sock!
if i don't agree i downvote OR ignore


The internet. A real chance for the average person to increase their intellect. Who knew it would come to this?
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 02, 2015
i only downvote on CONTENT - when you make general sweeping unsubstantiated conjecture and state it is factual, like
Humanity will once again, adapt and migrate, but only when they're compelled to do so by forces of reality rather than forces of politics and theory
rapidly followed by
All historical major catastrophes to humanity were ultimately due to political movements and government coercion, central planning, and control
then you are talking philo NONSENSE... not science or substance... [...]... IOW - downvoted


My first post was my opinion,...to which I'm entitled to make, the next was historical fact. Neither post was about philosophy.

You're a hypocrite as well as dishonest as the vast majority of your own posts are not about science. This is a comment section, for conjecture and opinion. This is not a scientific journal. Last time I check there was not even late
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2015
You're a hypocrite as well as dishonest as the vast majority of your own posts are not about science.
so... pointing out that your posts are not about science is not about science? pointing out a post is pseudoscience or based upon conspiracy and contains no science (like jvk or denglish, et al) is not science?
fascinating how you seem to think.. please expound upon this
This is a comment section, for conjecture and opinion
and i will show you this, YET AGAIN
Keep science: Include references to the published scientific literature to support your statements. Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted
IOW- when you post something, support your conjecture with science, not philosophy, pseudoscience, aether, electric universe or fairie-puking unicorns

which brings us full circle: your own hypocrisy
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 03, 2015
so... pointing out that your posts are not about science is not about science?

That's correct. Just telling Noumenon (or anyone) that their post is "not science" is not by itself a valid counter argument, and lacks evidence that it is anything more than simply your own conjecture and unqualified opinion. IOW, it is your own ignorance of QM or GR which leads you to your conclusion about my posts, not your own personal knowledge,... clearly.

You have been told that Noumenon has posted references to other physicists for every point he has made here wrt physics or what you interpret as philosophy .... yet you continue your deliberate uninformed lies that they are not about science.

If a posted article concerns politics then it will invoke political discourse. If it concerns interpretations of QM then it will invoke philosophical discussion. If it concerns hypothesis then it will invoked hypothetical discussion.
denglish
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2015
This thread is a good example of why one shouldn't argue with an idiot. They bring one down to their level, and beat them with experience.
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 03, 2015
Keep science: Include references to the published scientific literature to support your statements. Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted

IOW- when you post something, support your conjecture with science, not philosophy, pseudoscience, aether, electric universe or fairie-puking unicorns

Noumenon has never posted any non-mainstream theories at phys.org. Phys.Org routinely posts articles about hypothesis, politics, conjecture, philosophy of physics.

Clearly those rules are not enforced and clearly CaptainStumpy's posts only serve to effectively multiply the posts of cranks by debating them ad nauseum, giving them an audience.

If you want to follow the scientific method instead of being a hypocrite, you would point out in detail and with specificity WHY one is wrong, rather than debating via proxy and confusing the internet with your own knowledge base.

You can't because the "cranks" know more than you do.
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 03, 2015
....Furthermore simply supplying links to others opinion rather than making substantive points in your own words, makes you a librarian, not a scientifically minded person.

Stop your condescending and insulting tone wrt referencing "what science is" or what "evidence is or is not",.... or follow those rules yourself.

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2015
confusing the internet with your own knowledge base.
@Nou
you mean like providing subjective arguments based upon philosophy in a science thread like you've done?
....Furthermore simply supplying links to others opinion
since when are studies opinion? especially validated studies like Lacis, Lenski, Whittaker, Blank, Vavrus, Francis or the various other validated studies i've shared (along with the data therein?)

so when you say
simply supplying links...makes you a librarian, not a scientifically minded person
when i post studies, that means you think validated studies are somehow like philosophy and subjective to the individual?
hate to break this to ya, little guy, but you're wrong about that one!

See also:http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

your tenacious clinging to philo is (specifically) like a religion or conspiracy ideation
2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2015
2NouTROLL
Stop your condescending and insulting tone wrt referencing "what science is" or what "evidence is or is not",.... or follow those rules yourself
so am i taking your spot?
are you saying that you are the only one allowed to break the rules because you are a philo?
are you telling me that only the TROLLS and phiko's can break rules at all?

no one else is allowed to post anything other than their "making [of] substantive points in [their] own words"?

first off: unless you are privy to the entire conversation, perhaps you should reserve judgement until you have read the entire conversation (just sayin' IMHO)

and as for dung (or Alchie): he and i have had this conversation on-going in various comment threads for months (or longer)... not *just* this thread... so pull your head out and read them all or shut up with your "condescending and insulting tone" because you are ignorant of the BULK of the conversation.
is that specific enough for you?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2015
2 Nou TROLL...
If you want to follow the scientific method instead of being a hypocrite
you've never demonstrated a firm grasp of the scientific method to date, only an argument style based upon philosophical double talk and circular reasoning. (am i being specific enough for you still?)
so when you state
....Furthermore simply supplying links to others opinion
while *ignoring* the studies and points made about said studies means you are specifically here to post a message that is intentionally designed to inflame (IOW- TROLL).
given your propensity for this type behaviour, and your frequent use of philo over science, this means you are simply pointing our your own Dunning-Kruger and argument from ignorance rather than any "substantive points in your own words" or "detail and with specificity WHY one is wrong". Your entire argument above is based upon the TROLL premise. Especially WRT Dung, ALCHIE or my "supplying links to others opinion".
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2015
@noumenon the TROLLING philosopher
lastly, i will simply state this: i try to ignore your arguments because you mostly just use circular philosophy and don't make any "substantive points in your own words" that are backed up by any specific empirical evidence (except to prove that you quoted someone correctly from one of your philo arguments).

like dung or alchie (or most trolls) i tend to just ignore you because i know that you have nothing to offer the argument... nothing that can be backed up by hard science (most of the time). when i do engage you, it is for a specific reason. you should seriously consider that.

thanks for proving me correct and justifying this link:
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

you religious types (your faith is philo) and political crackpots (& conspiracy theorists) are fascinating to watch when you want to justify your beliefs. thanks for the fodder
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 06, 2015
lastly, i will simply state this: i try to ignore your arguments because you mostly just use circular philosophy


You have never analyzed the substance of my posts, and have never told me WHY you think they're defective, in any specificity at all,..... yet are willing to make dozens of posts of bickering.

All you provide is the same vacuous vague claim that "philosophy is not science", over and over again........ a charge that any illiterate who does not understand the post in question, is capability of making.

You don't even attempt to qualify that charge,... leaving me to have to do so. Then you ignore that I agree that philosophy has little to do with mathematical theory nor with conducting experiments,.... yet this does not stop you from continuing you immature, irrelevant, and uniformed manufactured charge.

The Stumpy & Otto show is not capable of argument based on substance,.... only Jerry-Springer'esque "charges" and "accusations".

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.