Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations JAE on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Things are Starting to Warm/Heat Up Part IV 9
- Thread starter dik
- Start date
GregLocock
Automotive
80%? more cherry picking.
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
Guest102023
Materials
What are the Denialist’s qualifications?
"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"
"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"
TugboatEng
Marine/Ocean
No qualifications necessary, just a bit of skepticism.
Leftists are getting weird. They can't define a climate scientist, they can't define a woman, they can't define a recession. On top of that, discussion is not healthy and everything must be left to the experts. It's as if leftists don't know anything at all.
Leftists are getting weird. They can't define a climate scientist, they can't define a woman, they can't define a recession. On top of that, discussion is not healthy and everything must be left to the experts. It's as if leftists don't know anything at all.
Guest102023
Materials
I think skepticism doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Any good scientific investigator’s mentality will include skepticism.
"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"
Any good scientific investigator’s mentality will include skepticism.
"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"
- Thread starter
- #205
GregLocock
Automotive
A zero appetite for bunkum is a good start. Venice is sinking because sea levels are rising. Bunkum. Pacific islands are sinking. Bunkum. Greta sailing the Atlantic. Bunkum.
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
Guest102023
Materials
Your ‘arguments’. Bunkum.
"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"
"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"
TugboatEng
Marine/Ocean
Greg has done a good job explaining why his examples are bunkum. Can you please explain how his examples are bunkum instead shouting your usual unfounded accusations.
Guest102023
Materials
Maybe I just really enjoy saying ‘bunkum’, is that allowed Mr Mall Cop?
It’s late Friday, time to start uncoiling for the weekend tug. But I suspect you won’t; after all, anarcho communists never sleep.
"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"
It’s late Friday, time to start uncoiling for the weekend tug. But I suspect you won’t; after all, anarcho communists never sleep.
"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"
- Thread starter
- #211
warming in Antarctica... more to come... ![[pipe]](/data/assets/smilies/pipe.gif "[pipe] [pipe]")
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates
-Dik
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates
-Dik
GregLocock
Automotive
Well OK, " may be compromising the stability of the East Antarctic ice sheet" "warmer waters and sea-level rise may damage marine life and threaten human coastal settlements"
Not exactly sticking their necks out. But what puzzles me is that this is sea ice melting. Mr Archimedes told me that floating sea ice which melts makes no difference to sea level.
Then in the paper they reference the eastern ice shelf GAINS mass between 2003 and 2019, according to table 1 in
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
Not exactly sticking their necks out. But what puzzles me is that this is sea ice melting. Mr Archimedes told me that floating sea ice which melts makes no difference to sea level.
Then in the paper they reference the eastern ice shelf GAINS mass between 2003 and 2019, according to table 1 in
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
- Thread starter
- #213
'May' is the best they can do... none of this is certain. The Antarctic glaciation is melting and getting smaller. I wonder where it is going?
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates
-Dik
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates
-Dik
- Thread starter
- #214
A new motor for electric vehicles, perhaps? ![[ponder]](/data/assets/smilies/ponder.gif "[ponder] [ponder]")
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates
-Dik
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates
-Dik
@brimstone, "Any good scientific investigator’s mentality will include skepticism." ... oh, ok.
So you believe, I guess, that the case proven beyond any shadow of a doubt and therefore no skepticism is permitted (any skeptic is clearly denying a proven statement).
Or you are skeptical of some CC statements ? which ??
"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.
So you believe, I guess, that the case proven beyond any shadow of a doubt and therefore no skepticism is permitted (any skeptic is clearly denying a proven statement).
Or you are skeptical of some CC statements ? which ??
"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.
GregLocock
Automotive
rb1957, as my favorite physicist and bongo drum player wrote
"In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your
contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.
The easiest way to explain this idea is to contrast it, for example, with advertising. Last night I heard that
Wesson oil doesn't soak through food. Well, that's true. It's not dishonest; but the thing I'm talking about isn't just
a matter of not being dishonest, it's a matter of scientific integrity, which is another level. The fact that should be
added to that advertising statement is that no oils soak through food, if operated at a certain temperature, If
operated at another temperature, they all will - including Wesson oil. So it's the implication that has been
conveyed, not the fact, which is true, and the difference is what we have to deal with.
We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your
experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with
your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good
reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it's this type of integrity,
this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult
science.
...
We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One
example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an
answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a little bit off, because he had the incorrect value for the
viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of the electron, after Millikan.
If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little
bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.
Why didn't they discover that the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are
ashamed of - this history - because it's apparent that people did things like this: when they got a number that
was too far above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong - and they would look for and find a reason
why something might be wrong. When they got a number closer to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard, And
so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that, We've learned these tricks
nowadays, and now we don't have that kind of a disease - we hope.
But this long history of learning how to not fool ourselves - of having utter scientific integrity - is , I'm
sorry to say, something that we haven't specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope
you've caught on by osmosis.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have
to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have
to be honest in a conventional way after that.
...
I'm talking
about a specific, extra type of integrity that requires bending over backwards to show how you maybe wrong, a
kind of integrity you ought to have when acting as a scientist. This is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to
other scientists, and I think to laymen as well."
Read the whole thing at
TLDR you need to discuss why you might be wrong, which is a level of self-skepticism I have rarely seen (arse covering-I can't actually think of any) in any climate related papers, and never in the pop media summaries.
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
"In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your
contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.
The easiest way to explain this idea is to contrast it, for example, with advertising. Last night I heard that
Wesson oil doesn't soak through food. Well, that's true. It's not dishonest; but the thing I'm talking about isn't just
a matter of not being dishonest, it's a matter of scientific integrity, which is another level. The fact that should be
added to that advertising statement is that no oils soak through food, if operated at a certain temperature, If
operated at another temperature, they all will - including Wesson oil. So it's the implication that has been
conveyed, not the fact, which is true, and the difference is what we have to deal with.
We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your
experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with
your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good
reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it's this type of integrity,
this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult
science.
...
We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One
example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an
answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a little bit off, because he had the incorrect value for the
viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of the electron, after Millikan.
If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little
bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.
Why didn't they discover that the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are
ashamed of - this history - because it's apparent that people did things like this: when they got a number that
was too far above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong - and they would look for and find a reason
why something might be wrong. When they got a number closer to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard, And
so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that, We've learned these tricks
nowadays, and now we don't have that kind of a disease - we hope.
But this long history of learning how to not fool ourselves - of having utter scientific integrity - is , I'm
sorry to say, something that we haven't specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope
you've caught on by osmosis.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have
to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have
to be honest in a conventional way after that.
...
I'm talking
about a specific, extra type of integrity that requires bending over backwards to show how you maybe wrong, a
kind of integrity you ought to have when acting as a scientist. This is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to
other scientists, and I think to laymen as well."
Read the whole thing at
TLDR you need to discuss why you might be wrong, which is a level of self-skepticism I have rarely seen (arse covering-I can't actually think of any) in any climate related papers, and never in the pop media summaries.
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
GregLocock
Automotive
Science begins with the null hypothesis, which assumes that the claim under investigation is not true until demonstrated otherwise.
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
- Thread starter
- #218
Hydro is dependent on the water supply. This could be at risk:
Article shows amounts of power provided by hydro, nuclear, and fossil fuels.
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates
-Dik
Article shows amounts of power provided by hydro, nuclear, and fossil fuels.
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates
-Dik
- Thread starter
- #220
More unexpected melt... I wonder where the ice is going? Could it affect sealevel water?
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates
-Dik
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates
-Dik
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question