Cynic

Thanks to those who posted up data and links for me to study. I’ve been seeing both sides of this debate ad nauseum and have not been able to make up my mind. As for Ken Fabian’s comment that I say others don’t know, I do not recall saying that. I questioned whether decisions on global economic scales should be based on correlations when correlations are not an accepted basis for causation. In fact, I said in my OP that it might very well be the case that man is responsible. One person astutely brought up the use of correlations in epidemiology and this was exactly why I brought up the question elsewhere in this forum of Hill’s Criteria being used to identify cause based on correlation. However, it seems to me that such correlations, regardless of how suggestive, are only really proven after properly controlled experiments. Anyway, the discussion here is exactly what I had hoped to see, for my own edification.

Yes, which brings me back to the earlier graph showing correlation, or lack of, temperature and CO2 over geologic time. We have experienced dramatic changes in earth’s climate before without any thermometers at all.

Regarding the question earlier about why I doubt the accuracy of measurements, this is a station map of the monitoring sites and the length of time they’ve been operational. Aside from the Antarctic being dramatically under-sampled, most of these stations simply haven’t been around that long and of those that have, little thought was given towards locating them so as to best evaluate global temperature patterns. edit: forgot the link to below https://data.nodc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/iso?id=gov.noaa.ncdc:C00839

I’m going to get buried here....so, one thing at a time, the Tyndall and Arrhenius publication, is this the one you mean? It more resembles a review paper than an experimental report. Do I have the wrong one? https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Arrhenius 1906, final.pdf “It sounds as if your objections are based almost entirely on a lack of understanding of the relevant science.“ That’s entirely possible but I read both sides of this argument and I cannot reach a decision on who is actually correct. I’m an old school biologist (college in the 60s) and this is certainly not my field. Also, for what it’s worth, I am all for being a good Stewart of our planet but I don’t think swapping billions of dollars of carbon credits among countries and corporations is any way to do it.

You know, I feel like the odd man out on this man made global warming thing. Is it an actual thing? I don’t know, maybe. It appears to me that all information I’ve seen consists of attempts, through various models, to correlate atmospheric green house gases generated by human activity with global temperature change, specifically warming. — Correlations, where they can even be demonstrated at all, mean little to nothing because correlation does not mean causation. Only actual experiments can verify whether a correlation is in fact the result of some cause and effect. — However, no truly accurate, controlled experiments can be done to verify or falsify any observed global correlations because it is impossible to even establish a control for a planetary climate experiment. Ideally, we’d need an exact copy of earth, minus humans. — I doubt the ability to accurately measure global temperatures as precisely as have been claimed, with the exception of the only very recent measurements obtained by remote sensing. Much of the data is collected from stations never intended for the purpose of determining global climate change. — Climate has changed repeatedly and dramatically over the millennia with the complete absence of man made technology, or even man for that matter. It seems perfectly reasonable to believe that current changes are due to factors similar to what have happened throughout earth’s history, not something that came along in the last blink of an eye. I have been called stupid, brainwashed, denier, ignorant of science, fill in the blank for merely stating this view on other forums. Is it really so wrong to be skeptical given the above?

I have done technical writing on some papers, reports and and for scientific products. Though not intended for strictly scientific purposes, I found this little booklet to be a gem. I think anyone engaged in any kind of writing would benefit from having a copy. I have not found there to be any big difference in writing for science than writing for any other factual (non-fiction) content. Since you are writing the paper, you presumably know more about the scientific content and methods than most readers so the main goal is simply to be clear, concise and accurate. I remember one paper I reviewed that ended up being rejected because of the writing. It was embarrassing to read because, though the research being reported might have been novel and interesting, the writing was so awkward and confusing that it was impossible to tell. https://www.amazon.com/Elements-Style-William-Strunk-Jr/dp/194564401X

Serendipity.......

I’m inclined to agree with iNow’s assessment of tribalism, just my $0.02. We fancy ourselves civilized and beyond such things when instead we see so many similarities of behavior among our fellow creatures who are even less recently down from the trees. However, I guess one could say tribalism kicks the can down the road because one can then ask why do we have tribal behavior and why does it dominate our supposed higher reasoning ability (which I think is paraphrasing OP’s question). I’ve had a post I wanted to make on this forum that demonstrates this topic, where I have been called every imaginable name merely for voicing the thought ..... not sure yet I want to get into it. So, I think it probably is something very primitive.

I learned about Bufflehead Ducks from a friend of mine. It’s a small duck I had never heard of, much less seen. He said they apparently come down to Virginia's eastern shore from the arctic region during the winter. He said he had been watching a small group of about a dozen or so feeding in the water, that most all of them would dive under at the same time to feed except for one who apparently acted as a lookout.

Might this be the quote by Hitchens that you mention? It is similar. I had copied this and use it as a sig line on another forum I frequent. “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/12042-that-which-can-be-asserted-without-evidence-can-be-dismissed

Sounds interesting. I’ve often thought questions from “left field” can spur thinking along different lines. Maybe just having those different viewpoints collide was productive of different thoughts. It’s sort of like stated above about synergetic effects.

Right now, we have 2 Maine Coons and one domestic short hair rescue. We’ve had up to 4 but lost one recently and, given our age, have decided these might be our last. We would not want them to be without us. They are a huge part of our lives.

I’m not only a gun owner, I’m an NRA certified Range Safety Officer and Instructor, NRA Distinguished Expert in 4 position smallbore and one time Virginia state champ 4 position smallbore, sharpshooter class. I’m also an atheist since I believe in nothing supernatural, love cats and currently registered as a libertarian but having voted for D and L v. R presidents about 2:1. I hate the party system and wish it would die; I always vote for, or against, the person. I worked for 2 1/2 years after I retired at a very busy indoor shooting range. I don’t think I could begin to classify the kinds of people that came through. As some have said, there were more conservatives than liberals but beyond that, I wouldn’t know what to say, it was just a huge mix of everything you could imagine. About 1/4 of the people that came in were women. Also about 1/3 of the people that came in, on a weekly basis, were first time shooters (flagged on their electronic waivers).

I guess I should have copied the question. I was merely responding to this question within the OP. ”Can anyone think of any other president of the US that was a “star”?”

That was paraphrasing the claim in a lay publication that caught my eye. Fortunately, it included a link to the actual article and it is very impressive what they claim. The actual title of the research paper is “Non-contact acquisition of brain function using a time-extracted compact camera” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-54458-7

Ronald Reagan was a star.

There are three main hazards associated with liquid nitrogen and a few other liquified gases. 1. Inert gas asphyxiation. There is no warning, no sensation of suffocation and death can occur unexpectedly and relatively quickly. Gaseous nitrogen can displace oxygen in the room without being noticed. 2. Extreme cold. Precautions must be taken when handling it to avoid freezing injury. 3. It’s a liquified, refrigerated gas. It is only liquid because it is so cold. Sudden contact with even room temperature objects could, under certain conditions, result in “explosive” transition from liquid to gas.

Hatebeak is the first metal band with an African Gray Parrot as lead singer. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatebeak

... is the title of a Discovery Channel documentary my wife and I recently discovered and purchased. It is about the NIH Clinical Center, Building 10, the largest research hospital in the world and, unfortunately, one of our best kept secrets IMO. This documentary is the first time the NIH allowed a camera crew to follow 4 patients, from admission through final treatments, as the patients sought final option care. I thought it was a very well done, often times moving production. I highly recommend it.

Hmmm, I didn’t see these in this list but I use them all the time and I think most of us know the first three...which I will not spell out so as to avoid getting my hand slapped. SNAFU FUBAR TOFU However, when things are just about to get fouled up all over again, I think my favorite is BOHICA. Bend Over Here It Comes Again.

I realize this is an old thread but thought I would add a reply which might offer a partial answer (see link below). The paper was done by a researcher I knew at the NIH. I don’t know what more has been done in this area but I thought it was pretty interesting. I remember at the time, both the NIH and her institute issued press releases and she was getting all kinds of calls for interviews. It was significant news at the time but that was over 15 years ago. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8564546_Transplanted_bone_marrow_generates_New_neurons_in_human_brains

I grew up pretty religious, went to a private Mennonite elementary school, also attended Sunday School and Bible School during that time. After moving into the public school system, my dad, a closet catholic, pushed us into joining the Catholic Church. I went through formal instruction and was baptized. I was in high school by now and it was bothering me how different the Catholics and Mennonites saw things yet both believed they were right, obviously a problem. I was also bothered by the observation that religion was highly cultural. If I had been born in India, I might be a Hindu and believe that was the only correct belief. So, with the view that getting this right was the most important thing in life, I started reading about different religions. It didn’t take long to discover they all had their holy scriptures, holy men, god(s), etc. but the evidence for one was no better than for another. This was a long slow process and as my belief subsided, my sense of urgency about it all lessened. I sort of percolated in this state for a while and, don’t remember exactly when, decided maybe I should just look at the other side of things, those who claimed there are no gods. In reading atheist literature, I think the final straw was having a science education and reading George Smith’s book, “Atheism, the Case Against God”. I now believe in nothing supernatural. For me, there are two answers for any question as far as I’m concerned. The first is any answer that can be provided by proper experimental science; a testable, repeatable, verifiable and falsifiable answer. The second answer is, “I don’t know.” Anything else is just information.

Thanks Prometheus, I’ll read that. Seeing it though reminds me of an interesting anecdote. Years ago in the lab, I was talking with a coworker about an article I read that was discussing the risks of smoking. The article said, in brief, that statistics showed that cancer incidence was lowest in non smokers, higher in smokers, but highest of all in people smoked and then quit. Conclusion, it’s dangerous to quit. One of the department P.I.s was standing nearby and overheard us talking. He walked over and said he had also read that article and asked if I knew what was wrong. I said no, I didn’t really think that much about it. He said the obvious problem was that they did not account for the reason people quit. He said he knew that a large number of people who quit did so because they were already starting to show symptoms. This made it appear it was dangerous to quit smoking once you started but separating out the group who did so because they had already become sick would negate that.

Sorry to bother you. What value is any experiment if it isn’t controlled? I had assumed that in the first statement, and assumed others would as well; I just stated it in my second. If you don’t care to address my question but just nit pick, save the effort. Thank you, appreciate the thoughtful response.

OK. I found the link the guy posted. I could not remember but it does not appear to be mathematical in the strictest sense and it is not experimental. It seems to me to be based on preponderance of suggestive evidence of certain types but it still does not seem to me to PROVE causation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford_Hill_criteria I think people tend to correlate all kinds of things without any controlled experiments. It is only when an actual experiment is done and repeatedly verified that the correlation is determined as likely valid. Here are some humorous correlations (obviously no experimentation). http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations I particularly like the one about cheese consumption and dying by becoming entangled in bedsheets. In the example I first mentioned about epidemiology, it might be an easy observation to note that certain insect populations correlate with certain specific disease but this is merely observation, not experimentation.