Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Idea: Earthlings for Global Warming

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

We seem to have created two different discussions here. DragonMaci, I'm still interested in your views on global warming. This whole thing about the sun and salinty levels is kind of strange- it's certainly true that that Sun is a ginat ball of hot gas that has a huge effect on our climate, but is there evidence ot suggest that its effect is fluctuating significantly. I'm imagine that the IPCC doesn't have much credibility here, but it does address solar variance in its newst report, and they consider the effect to be much smaller than that of CO2, cloud cover, etc. I'm not suggesting that their report is gospel truth, but I haven't seen much other hard data regarding solar influence.

The same goes for water vapor and salt concentration- they may both be very important, but their relative influence only matters if they're changing. Even if water vapor is 99% of the climate equation, unless it's changed in the last 100 years it can't be blamed for the observed change in temperature. Again, I'm not saying that it hasn't changed, but I'd be very interested to see some studies indicating that it has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

OK, I have had enough of your evasions and idiocy. I will leave this debate with one parting comment: Just because many mathemiticans and scientists say something is true doesn't mean it is true.

One parting question: what mathematical training, if any, do you have? You don't really seem to even understand Euclid, and I got that in the tenth grade. I was under the impression that school was compulsory at least that far in New Zealand, but then maybe not...

At any rate, I'll repeat my challenge: prove a contradiction in hyperbolic or elliptic geometry. If you do, then I'll take everything back because you probably are the most brilliant mathmatical mind since Riemann.

Also, it's not "some" mathemeticians. ALL mathematicians believe non-Euclidian geometries to be internally consistent. But I will eagerly away DragonMaci's treatsie, "Why all Math is Wrong: Confessions of a New Zealand Douchebag."

Edited by Korthor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We seem to have created two different discussions here. DragonMaci, I'm still interested in your views on global warming. This whole thing about the sun and salinty levels is kind of strange- it's certainly true that that Sun is a ginat ball of hot gas that has a huge effect on our climate, but is there evidence ot suggest that its effect is fluctuating significantly. I'm imagine that the IPCC doesn't have much credibility here, but it does address solar variance in its newst report, and they consider the effect to be much smaller than that of CO2, cloud cover, etc. I'm not suggesting that their report is gospel truth, but I haven't seen much other hard data regarding solar influence.

The same goes for water vapor and salt concentration- they may both be very important, but their relative influence only matters if they're changing. Even if water vapor is 99% of the climate equation, unless it's changed in the last 100 years it can't be blamed for the observed change in temperature. Again, I'm not saying that it hasn't changed, but I'd be very interested to see some studies indicating that it has.

I suggest you watch the video I linked to in the blog posts I linked to. After that look for the people in the video and see if you can find anything about their reports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One parting question: what mathematical training, if any, do you have? You don't really seem to even understand Euclid, and I got that in the tenth grade. I was under the impression that school was compulsory at least that far in New Zealand, but then maybe not...

At any rate, I'll repeat my challenge: prove a contradiction in hyperbolic or elliptic geometry. If you do, then I'll take everything back because you probably are the most brilliant mathmatical mind since Riemann.

Hey, this guy while he might not have a major mathematical background, DID attend school, including what you would call the tenth grade.

There is no call by trying to insult someone by implying they did not get a decent education. You might think he sucks at Maths, and maybe overall you DO know more (though one might wonder given this debate) but that is no reason to think he is an idiot as you seem to. He has been making good arguments given his understanding of the topic and given what you seem to be trying to say, which seems pretty accurate to me.

Only a coward with no other avenue of "argument" retorts by sarcastically insulting their opponent for no good purpose. If you do not want to appear a coward, do not act like one.

If you want to somehow draw DM into the argument, offer an intelligent point that is worthy of refuting to, otherwise you are wastign your own time, which is a self-harming act.

Edited by Prometheus98876
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, this guy while he might not have a major mathematical background, DID attend school, including what you would call the tenth grade.

There is no call by trying to insult someone by implying they did not get a decent education. You might think he sucks at Maths, and maybe overall you DO know more (though one might wonder given this debate) but that is no reason to think he is an idiot as you seem to. He has been making good arguments given his understanding of the topic and what you seem to be trying to say, which seems pretty accurate to me.

Only a coward with no other avenue of "argument" retorts by sarcastically insulting their opponent for no good purpose. If you do not want to appear a coward, do not act like one.

If you want to somehow draw DM into the argument, offer an intelligent point that is worthy of refuting to, otherwise you are wastign your own time, which is a self-harming act.

Well, said, Dwayne. I agree totally with every point. I wonder if Korthor will read anything meaningful into my now responding to two people other than him? Will he read the obvious; that I can't be baited back into the debate until he, as you say, offers an intelligent point that is worthy of refuting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might have gone a bit over the top, but I guess I was frustrated when I kept explaining in numerous ways why non-Euclidian geometry's modification of the 5th postulate made the idea of "parallel" not relevant and he kept saying "parallel lines don't intersect." When I informed him that every single mathematician on the face of the globe agrees with me, he claims they're all wrong. I'll take back my hostility, but not my conviction that DM is too ignorant to talk about math unless he points me to some contradiction in non-Euclidian geometry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might have gone a bit over the top, but I guess I was frustrated when I kept explaining in numerous ways why non-Euclidian geometry's modification of the 5th postulate made the idea of "parallel" not relevant and he kept saying "parallel lines don't intersect." When I informed him that every single mathematician on the face of the globe agrees with me, he claims they're all wrong. I'll take back my hostility, but not my conviction that DM is too ignorant to talk about math unless he points me to some contradiction in non-Euclidian geometry.

OK, yes you did go over the top, and some might think DM did in trying to persuade you ( I do not quite think that).

Note, that it does not matter how many people beleive something, it does not mean they are right. Everyone but a few people thought the Earth wsa flat, but would you say that the few should have beleived it is flat just because they were outnumbered? The number of adherents to an idea is no indication of how correct it is, that is a matter of if it matches reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One cannot understand sunspot cycles without underestanding modern theories of gravitation and magnetic fields, which in turn requires an understanding of special relativity, which in turn is based on hyperbolic geometry.

It is specious in the extreme to defend a sunspot theory of warming while denying non-Euclidian geometry. It proves the point I initially made, which is that we should be skeptical of any amateur who makes claims about difficult scientific concepts. The very fact that DM parrots the results of astrophysicists while denying the math that lies at the foundations of their physics is the perfect demonstration of my argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might have gone a bit over the top, but I guess I was frustrated when I kept explaining in numerous ways why non-Euclidian geometry's modification of the 5th postulate made the idea of "parallel" not relevant and he kept saying "parallel lines don't intersect." When I informed him that every single mathematician on the face of the globe agrees with me, he claims they're all wrong. I'll take back my hostility, but not my conviction that DM is too ignorant to talk about math unless he points me to some contradiction in non-Euclidian geometry.

Parallel lines not relevant? You better tell that to my lined refill then! It seems to think they are relevant to it!

Every one on the globe? Odd, because I know of ones that don't.

I may be too ignorant of the maths to argue it (which I doubt), but you and your mathematicians are too ignorant of reality to argue it. Unless you have worded yours and their view badly, in which case you are too ingorant of the right words to argue it.

Edited by DragonMaci
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But really, you haven't refuted my central claim, which is that non-scientists don't have the expertise to adjudicate scientific controversies.

One does not need a stamped piece of paper labeling them a scientist in order to be educated or 'expert' in a field. If you think you can only trust someone who is paid to tell you what they tell you, then you're in a grave place indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, yes you did go over the top, and some might think DM did in trying to persuade you ( I do not quite think that).

Note, that it does not matter how many people beleive something, it does not mean they are right. Everyone but a few people thought the Earth wsa flat, but would you say that the few should have beleived it is flat just because they were outnumbered? The number of adherents to an idea is no indication of how correct it is, that is a matter of if it matches reality.

Well said, Dwayne and exactly what I said in my leaving statement above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One does not need a stamped piece of paper labeling them a scientist in order to be educated or 'expert' in a field. If you think you can only trust someone who is paid to tell you what they tell you, then you're in a grave place indeed.

Well said! A claim of authority in a field, a claim of support by [however many] people is not a subsittute for a grasp of reality or the ablity to effectively communicate correct ideas. Authority !== correctness.

NOR does not having a qualification == not being correct

Now, can we get back on topic? Or is the topic now kinda dead?

Lets try make assertions that actual evidence supports, and not base it on a blind assumption that every part of the "chain of theories' we have has to be correct. A certain Korthor is guilty of being a "mystic of science", I see no poing indulging him for a moment longer.

Edited by Prometheus98876
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parallel lines not relevant? You better tell that to my lined refil then! It sems to think they are relevant to it!

Every one on the globe? Odd, because I know of ones that don't.

I may be too ignorant of the maths to argue it (which I doubt), but you and your mathemticians are too ignorant of reality to argue it. Unless you have worded yours and their view badly, in which case you are too ingorant of the right words to argue it.

Can you prove how 'parallelness" is relevant in hyperbolic space?

Could you point me to a mathematician who denies that non-Euclidian geometry is internally consistent?

Could you point me to a contradiction in any mainstream non-Euclidian geometry?

You seem to think that Euclidean geometry describes reality, so anything that contradicts Euclidean geometry contradicts reality. I hate to break it to you, but EG doesn't accurately describe reality. And SPOILER ALERT there is no easter bunny...

As I just pointed out, even your precious sunspot astrophysicists rely on these brave new maths to model the phenomena they're observing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One does not need a stamped piece of paper labeling them a scientist in order to be educated or 'expert' in a field. If you think you can only trust someone who is paid to tell you what they tell you, then you're in a grave place indeed.

Well, said, Bob. Also, did you notice that he assumes because I am apparently lacking in knowledge in one field I am therefore lacking in a totally unrelated field? Even if I was lacking that knowledge, he is wrong that it makes me unqualified to debate a totally unrelated field. Notice also that he never asked me how much research into the science I have done? The truth is I have read and understood a lot of the science from both sides and agreed with some of both from both sides, though more from the sceptics, and disagreed with some from both sides, though more from the alarmists side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, said, Bob. Also, did you notice that he assumes because I am apparently lacking in knowledge in one field I am therefore lacking in a totally unrelated field? Even if I was lacking that knowledge, he is wrong that it makes me unqualified to debate a totally unrelated field. Notice also that he never asked me how much research into the science I have done? The truth is I have read and understood a lot of the science from both sides and agreed with some of both from both sides, though more from the sceptics, and disagreed with some from both sides, though more from the alarmists side.

How can you "understand" the modern physics behind climate change without understanding non-Euclidean geometry? At best, you can parrot the results, but you can't really "understand" what the astrophysicsts are saying since their models requires knowledge of higher maths.

Edited by Korthor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'm part way through the video, and I got to the part about solar influence, but I also found some articles discussing the erroneous nature of the evidence- have you looked up anything in reply to the video? One site in particular has a study showing how the correlation between solar cycles and temperature breaks sharply after 1980, which wasn't indicated in the video:

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publi...monLaut2004.pdf

Have you read anything about this? There are a lot of reponses to other parts of the video as well, but I haven't gone all the way through it yet, so I thought I'd start with this.

A second issue is the whole hockey stick graph debate. My understanding to date is that the study done by the two Canadian scientists was shown to be as faulty as the original one by Mann, and that when Mann updated his results, the conclusion was more or less unchanged. Also, several other studies are purported to have verified his grpah with different data. Does anyone have any info on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'm part way through the video, and I got to the part about solar influence, but I also found some articles discussing the erroneous nature of the evidence- have you looked up anything in reply to the video? One site in particular has a study showing how the correlation between solar cycles and temperature breaks sharply after 1980, which wasn't indicated in the video:

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publi...monLaut2004.pdf

Have you read anything about this? There are a lot of reponses to other parts of the video as well, but I haven't gone all the way through it yet, so I thought I'd start with this.

A second issue is the whole hockey stick graph debate. My understanding to date is that the study done by the two Canadian scientists was shown to be as faulty as the original one by Mann, and that when Mann updated his results, the conclusion was more or less unchanged. Also, several other studies are purported to have verified his grpah with different data. Does anyone have any info on this?

I will look at the site later when I have time, but right now I am too busy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to beat a dead horse, but being a physics and math major, i couldn't help but bring the topic of parallel lines back. The concept of parallel lines is a *relationship* between two lines and NOT an identity by itself. Thus, parallel lines can NEVER intersect. What does happen however is that upon changing from Euclidean to non Euclidean space, the two lines are no longer related in the same way as they were before.

To give another example, a triangle is defined by a closed surface having 3 vertices. The total angle between the three lines changes from 180 to >180 when going to curved space. The relationship between the angles change but a triangle is still a triangle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...