Climate Change and the Integrity of Science

[iNow]

You stated that there is a 0.5% chance of a 200 year event happening on any given day

 

<...>

 

Which I'm not sure how you arrived at anyways, because statistically wouldnt it be more like 0.5% per year, (200 years, half a percent chance per year - that would make sense but on a day basis I don't think your stats are correct.)

 

You're saying that there is a 99.5% chance that it wont happen on any given day

 

All you need to do is read the quote to see how painfully you are misunderstanding/misrepresenting it.

 

 

Here's what swansont said. For reference, I copy/pasted it from your own post:

 

If the timing of the events is random, and they occur every 200 years, on average, you still have a 0.5% chance of one occurring each year.

[Double K]

All you need to do is read the quote to see how painfully you are misunderstanding/misrepresenting it.

 

 

Here's what swansont said. For reference, I copy/pasted it from your own post:

 

If the timing of the events is random, and they occur every 200 years, on average, you still have a 0.5% chance of one occurring each year.

 

My bad, I for some reason read that as 0.5% on any given day.

I'm human, unlike you oh lordliness iNow, I am not perfect and I humbly beg your pardon so that I may aspire to be the awesomeness that you embody.

 

It is possible to make a mistake without "misrepresenting" as you misrepresentedly put it, I just wonder if you see the irony, as the same arguments you guys use against me you yourselves do.

 

Regardless if it's on a day or year basis, thats still saying there is a 99.5% certainty that it wont happen on a year basis, which as swanson mentioned earlier 95% is readily accepted as virtual certainty, and this is even more certain than that.

 

If the idea of planning for a 200 year storm event is so hard to accept then I just boggle at how you can arrive at agreeing with interpolated data that predicts years into the future, and yet can't accept a 200 year model that is based on historical evidence and would be the same storm data etc that they use to create their GW model.

 

There seems to be as much blind acceptance as blind disagreement, it just depends on which side of the fence you want to sit.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well yes, in case you are wondering, most people would ignore a 1 in 200 years event as too unlikely to worry about.

 

Alternately, the could be a 95% certainty that the chance of the event happening is within a certain range of that 0.5% per year.

[iNow]

There seems to be as much blind acceptance as blind disagreement, it just depends on which side of the fence you want to sit.

It humors me that you call those who go with the side which is factually accurate and supported by mountains of evidence to be "blindly accepting." What a strange suggestion. We're not talking about unicorns or deities here. Human induced climate change has been fairly well understood, well supported, and heartily documented for nearly two generations now, and the suggestion of it's likelihood given our behaviors put forth back in the 1800s.

[Double K]

It humors me that you call those who go with the side which is factually accurate and supported by mountains of evidence to be "blindly accepting." What a strange suggestion. We're not talking about unicorns or deities here. Human induced climate change has been fairly well understood, well supported, and heartily documented for nearly two generations now, and the suggestion of it's likelihood given our behaviors put forth back in the 1800s.

 

That's impressive given our first real car was invented in 1769, so we were able in just 31 years to pollute enough to have a noticeable effect, that they began studying that? With probably what, like 6 cars in production? Would have thought we'd see some more damage by now.

 

Two generations, wow, thats what like 60 - 70 years? how old is the planet again? 12 billion something? We are an insignificant speck on the face of an ancient entity (I'm going to call it Unicorn Earth - Gaia (the deity)) There has been catastrophic events and ice ages before, and there will be again - innevitably. We had nothing to do with the previous events, and all it will take is one super volcano to pop and you're looking at instant global climate change. Unicorn Earth has more power than puny humans and their pollution.

 

It's still blind acceptance, you've taken on faith that the science is correct. You've taken it on faith because you have not personally analysed all the data, and no one expects you to, just don't be so quick to label someone who isn't prepared to accept it just because it's scientists who say so. Sometimes they get it wrong you know, it's happened before and it will happen again.

 

Descriptive relativism is merely the positive or descriptive position that there exist, in fact, fundamental disagreements about the right course of action even when the same facts obtain and the same consequences seem likely to arise.

 

http://www.justearth.net/publications_climatechangepaper

"The warnings on global heating go back a long time, but not that long. The Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius published On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground in 1895. George P. Marsh’s classic, more general warning about environmental deterioration, but not climate change, appeared in 1864: Man and Nature, or Physical Geography as Modified by Human Agency."

 

 

http://ireswb.cc.ku.edu/~crgc/NSFWorkshop/Readings/NSF_WkspReport_09.pdf

"Like all social scientific approaches, political economy research

acknowledges that climate change is not merely rooted in planetary physical systems, often the main focus

of natural scientists, politicians, and the general public."

 

Environmental sociologists use quantitative and qualitative methods to explore

the social and cultural processes that shape attitudes, discourses, and ideological dimensions of climate change in public debates and policy processes....

...Of particular importance here is the degree of public acceptance of natural science evidence as a guide to policy formation. Research on cultural and meaning systems assesses the attitudes, people, and organizations like the media, public relations firms, and political think tanks that shape public knowledge and opinions about global climate change, examines the social organization and rationales used by activists to promote and challenge scientific claims, and documents how these groups exert their influence to shape national agendas. Emerging work in this area asks, what are the social and psychological factors that cause individuals to internalize, react to, or deny the realities of global climate change? Strengthening research capacity to study these issues will be essential in programs designed to mitigate and adapt to climate change"

 

"His work shows that the public have little ability to independently determine what scientific arguments and empirical evidence are sound or not. Hence the public takes clues and form their policy position based on their particular reference groups. Hence if you are an individual more aligned with environmentalism you are more likely to take your cues/positions and attitudes from environmental organizations. Likewise if you are more conservative in your political views you are more likely to take your cues from conservative individuals

and organizations. Hence the position of these reference group organizations matter tremendously in shaping

public attention and attitude toward these important issues. In a democracy, the ability of these groups to sow misinformation and confusion is difficult to counter. This leads to a secondary issue on the misappropriation of civil society legitimacy that I will not discuss here." (pp 44. - same article as above)

 

I'm trying to demonstrate to you that the issue of GW is not just based on pure (mathematical) science - in fact there is science out there analysing this fact yet you disregard it as unimportant. I could link a load more from that document however I wont as the whole thing is pretty much relevant to this discussion.

Edited May 17, 2010 by Double K

[iNow]

That's impressive given our first real car was invented in 1769, so we were able in just 31 years to pollute enough to have a noticeable effect, that they began studying that? With probably what, like 6 cars in production? Would have thought we'd see some more damage by now.

I will again request you stop misrepresenting me when responding.

 

Since you've mentioned previously that you are less educated than some of us and concede that you make mistakes, I might suggest that you work on correcting that by reviewing closely the information contained in links like this one:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

 

 

There has been catastrophic events and ice ages before, and there will be again - innevitably. We had nothing to do with the previous events, and all it will take is one super volcano to pop and you're looking at instant global climate change. Unicorn Earth has more power than puny humans and their pollution.

And nobody here or elsewhere has ever claimed otherwise, but your comments don't negate the fact that we humans and our behaviors are having an impact, and that the impact we're having is resulting in measurable effects on climate.

[Double K]

I will again request you stop misrepresenting me when responding.

 

Since you've mentioned previously that you are less educated than some of us and concede that you make mistakes, I might suggest that you work on correcting that by reviewing closely the information contained in links like this one:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

I think it's you who's misrepresenting the models here.

 

In fact the first real GW model 1896 which admittedly looks at warming relating to humans, however 1896 whilst being the 1800's is pretty much at the turn of the century, lending you almost 100 years of implied study into the topic.

 

1896

Arrhenius publishes first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO2

Arrhenius's 1896 paper spurred Chamberlin to publish "a paper which, I am painfully aware, is very speculative..."

Chamberlin's novel hypothesis was that ice ages might follow a self-oscillating cycle driven by feedbacks involving CO2. The gas was originally injected into the atmosphere in spates of volcanic activity. It was steadily withdrawn as it combined with minerals during the weathering of rocks and soil

 

1930s

Milankovitch proposes orbital changes as the cause of ice ages

 

1956

Ewing and Donn offer a feedback model for quick ice age onset

"but it involves such a bewildering array of assumptions that one scarcely knows where to begin."

"Your initial idea was truly a great one," a colleague wrote Ewing years later, "...a beautiful idea which just didn't stand the test of time."

 

So it seems your 1900 model doesnt suggest warming due to humans

 

Secondly, just go back a page and read my comments again as I was still editing that when you responded and hopefully my continuation will clarify my comments and make you think I was less misrepresenting you rather than going off half cocked.

[iNow]

I think it's you who's misrepresenting the models here.

<...>

just go back a page and read my comments again as I was still editing that when you responded

"Still editing" a full hour after I made my reply?

[Double K]

"Still editing" a full hour after I made my reply?

 

Apologies, I was multi-tasking and attempting not to link red herrings by hastily posting something only slightly assosciated

[JohnB]

And now for the "Climate Change News" and levity break from our friends at "The Onion".

 

Article on the unsuspected results of Climate Change.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/melting-ice-caps-expose-hundreds-of-secret-arctic,2806/

 

And it's not just Earth.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/jupiters-liberals-worried-about-their-ammonia-foot,17419/

 

Another impending disaster, the upcoming rock shortage.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/geologists-we-may-be-slowly-running-out-of-rocks,17341/

 

From the Galactic News desk.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/laser-pointer-aimed-toward-space-in-1997-finally-a,17031/

 

And in Space News, an upcoming NASA Mission that may have profound results for geeks everywhere.

http://www.theonion.com/video/nasa-scientists-plan-to-approach-girl-by-2018,14400/

 

Fav quote is from the first link:

"You spend your whole career concocting a brilliant scheme to wipe out all of mankind, and what happens?" Dr. Raygun continued. "They bring about a major global catastrophe completely on their own, those fools!"

 

While Climate Change is an important, contentious and sometimes emotional topic, an injection of levity doesn't hurt.

 

And now back to your regular debates.

[swansont]

My bad, I for some reason read that as 0.5% on any given day.

I'm human, unlike you oh lordliness iNow, I am not perfect and I humbly beg your pardon so that I may aspire to be the awesomeness that you embody.

 

It is possible to make a mistake without "misrepresenting" as you misrepresentedly put it, I just wonder if you see the irony, as the same arguments you guys use against me you yourselves do.

 

Regardless if it's on a day or year basis, thats still saying there is a 99.5% certainty that it wont happen on a year basis, which as swanson mentioned earlier 95% is readily accepted as virtual certainty, and this is even more certain than that.

 

If the idea of planning for a 200 year storm event is so hard to accept then I just boggle at how you can arrive at agreeing with interpolated data that predicts years into the future, and yet can't accept a 200 year model that is based on historical evidence and would be the same storm data etc that they use to create their GW model.

 

There seems to be as much blind acceptance as blind disagreement, it just depends on which side of the fence you want to sit.

 

Still not seeing what one has to do with the other.

 

If the occurrence of a 200-year storm is statistically random, then each year there is a 0.5% chance of it happening. It is not being correlated with any cause. Confidence intervals do not apply.

 

The 95% confidence intervals is about a correlation between cause and effect; with a large sample, so that the results are statistically significant, having a 95% confidence is taken as evidence that the correlation is not random, in which case you would expect 50%. i.e. confidence intervals indicate nonrandom events.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

It's still blind acceptance, you've taken on faith that the science is correct. You've taken it on faith because you have not personally analysed all the data, and no one expects you to, just don't be so quick to label someone who isn't prepared to accept it just because it's scientists who say so. Sometimes they get it wrong you know, it's happened before and it will happen again.

For someone who claims to not disagree with climate science, you're trotting out some pretty standard denialist claims.

 

"Science has been wrong before" is one of the stock denialist arguments. It's denialist because it's a nonspecific criticism and implies we can't trust any science, because science has been wrong before. Which is advanced hypocrisy when you type it into a computer and send it along the internet.

 

The charge of taking science "on faith" suffers from the fallacy of equivocation, because the implication here is that the acceptance is religious in nature, i.e. uncritical. There is also the implication that this is somehow a special case. Virtually all science is taken "on faith" in this manner. I cannot go and do trials to test the efficacy of the medicines I am taking; I cannot possibly analyze all of the experiments involving gravity to confirm that I won't spontaneously float off into space. Again, there is hypocrisy here from the implication that climate science suffers from this problem while science in general does not.

 

The really insidious part of that accusation is that a denialist mking that claim isn't willing to trust the scientists, experts in the field, but is willing to trust nonexperts when they claim the science is wrong.

 

But I thought this thread was about the integrity of science, not the lack of integrity of the denialists.

[Double K]

If the occurrence of a 200-year storm is statistically random, then each year there is a 0.5% chance of it happening. It is not being correlated with any cause. Confidence intervals do not apply.

 

Your statistic of 0.5% is not correct.

 

"A fundamental relationship is that between flood recurrence interval (T) and probability of occurrence (p). These two variables are inversely related to each other. That is p = 1/T and T = 1/p. For example, the probability of a 50 year storm occurring in a one year period is 1/50 or 0.02.

 

The probability of occurrence and probability of nonoccurrence are related by the fact that something must either occur or not occur, so p + q = 1 and pN + qN = 1.

 

From basic probability theory, qN = qN. Substituting to get an equation relating pN and p: 1 - pN = (1 - p)N. This can be rearranged to: pN = 1 - (1 - p)N."

http://www.brighthub.com/engineering/civil/articles/41744.aspx

 

This would make your calculation of 0.5% quite off when in reality it would be

0.005% which is significantly different.

 

Also your ascertation that design storms do not use confidence intervals is not correct.

http://iahs.info/hsj/340/hysj_34_01_0041.pdf

 

The 95% confidence intervals is about a correlation between cause and effect; with a large sample, so that the results are statistically significant, having a 95% confidence is taken as evidence that the correlation is not random, in which case you would expect 50%. i.e. confidence intervals indicate nonrandom events.

 

Your GW model is entirely affected by random events, be they natural or human influence, but you're not willing to include random events that will alter these outcomes.

 

Lets see if they have now factored in the giant plumes of oil entering the ocean in the mexican gulf. Black patches which will absorb more light and heat and warm large portions of the ocean, not to mention the chemical and eco damage this can do which will likely affect climate (such as destroying large sea structures, kemp beds, reefs dying etc... I bet they didnt factor in this random event. How about the volcanic ash plume blocking sunlight and cooling portions of the globe - again random events which will affect the GW model and have not been factored in.

 

 

For someone who claims to not disagree with climate science, you're trotting out some pretty standard denialist claims.

 

Which must somehow make them invalid?

"some pretty standard denialist claims"

It's anti-denialist because it's a nonspecific criticism and implies we can't trust any denialist, because denialists have been wrong before.

 

"Denialists have been wrong before" is one of the stock anti-denialist arguments. Do you see how circular this argument is??

 

"Science has been wrong before" is one of the stock denialist arguments. It's denialist because it's a nonspecific criticism and implies we can't trust any science, because science has been wrong before.

 

No, I didnt say that. You said that, is that what you think? It's not denialist to say that science must stand up to the proper testing until it can be accepted. Medicines have a track record of working, and are rigorously tested, I in fact do have access to testing done on any given medication if I so choose to search for it, I can see the double blinds etc done for any medication if I want it. Now you could take that a step further and say but you didn't actually perform the experiment yourself, so why trust it, and that's also fair. Why do we trust so blindly in science?! This is a sociological issue, not just an issue of science being right or wrong.

I would definately go to say that "we can't trust any science, because science has been wrong before - until it is shown to be correct"

but just leaving out this last part of the sentence certainly changes things and I wonder if this intentional omission is perhaps grasping at straws?

 

Virtually all science is taken "on faith" in this manner. I cannot go and do trials to test the efficacy of the medicines I am taking; I cannot possibly analyze all of the experiments involving gravity to confirm that I won't spontaneously float off into space.

 

No, this is a fallacy, the science that is taken on faith makes sense, is proven to work, and is stands up to rigoris testing.

 

Again, there is hypocrisy here from the implication that climate science suffers from this problem while science in general does not.

 

Again, also something I did not say.

 

The really insidious part of that accusation is that a denialist making that claim isn't willing to trust the scientists, experts in the field, but is willing to trust nonexperts when they claim the science is wrong.

 

No, this again is a misrepresentation, or referred to as in irrelevant conclusion (Ignoratio elenchi). I don't believe denialists blindly trust someone questioning the science. They simply continually see scientists saying "Shut up imbecile, I'm a scientist, a self important and self proclaimed (or proclaimed by my social caste) expert and you shall take what I say as true because I spent a long time studying maths and such." Rather than offerring a true demonstration and backing their claims they use the authority figure stick to try and drum in their hypothesis as truth. Whether it be true or not, this method only begs the question.

 

Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise. The word beg, when used in this phrase, does not mean "asking for something", instead it means to dodge or avoid.[1] Begging the question is related to circular argument, circulus in probando (Latin for "circle in proving") or circular reasoning but they are considered absolutely different by Aristotle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

 

X is an unkown quantity, and a spurt is an uncontrollable drip.

 

 

But I thought this thread was about the integrity of science, not the lack of integrity of the denialists.

 

Uhm...I guess you just proved the Ignoratio elenchi present, and both sides of the fence are implicit in perpetuating this argument, which - I put to you yet again, detracts from the integrity of the science.

 

"Why is vicious circular reasoning unacceptable and fatal? Genuine method proceeds from the known to the unknown. Vicious circular reasoning proceeds from the known to the equally known. Vicious circular reasoning therefore, violates genuine method. Vicious circular reasoning does not add anything new, it does not advance learning, and it does not add knowledge. Vicious circular reasoning goes nowhere, and leads nowhere -- hence, its descriptive name "circular"....

...

The rest of us have to learn about them [logical fallacies] on our own in order to make and detect sound arguments. Note that the word argument applies to all reasoning regardless of form, and thus it includes hypotheses, models, arguments and studies."

http://www.numeraire.com/download/WhatIsCircularReasoning.pdf

Edited May 18, 2010 by Double K

[bascule]

For someone who claims to not disagree with climate science, you're trotting out some pretty standard denialist claims.

 

Which must somehow make them invalid?

 

Another way of phrasing it is to say that they are woefully incorrect but oft repeated claims made by individuals similar to yourself, which is to say someone who is not well-studied in the science but would like to have a dialogue with those who are.

 

There is a large and vocal crowd of people trotting out the same, incorrect arguments based on specious reasoning or outright falsehoods. They are attacking the science in an unscientific manner and deliberately spreading falsehoods about the science, even after they have been informed the information they have been spreading is incorrect.

 

Like it or not, in this thread you have demonstrated yourself to be among this large and vocal crowd of people, which is to say that for all intents and purposes you a climate science denier.

[Double K]

They are attacking the science in an unscientific manner

Let me reiterate:

A logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise;

The GW model supporters propose simply that their model is correct because it has been presented by scientists.

 

You are still missing the point, I'm guessing ego does this, that the debate is not simply about the science used to derive your beloved model.

 

I suggest that you yourself display bias in aligning with the scientific model as you have a background in science, and for you, this is how you build your construct of reality. That's fine, however you can't force this same construct on everyone as they all have different experiences from which they mould their thoughts. I actually also have science background, but mine is an applied science, and I question the validity of the model, and you yourself have alluded to the fact that there are discrepencies with the calcs (even someone on this forum was able to find strange errors, as postulated by yourself.)

 

I propose to you that the GW model was never presented to the public in a scientific manner, and therefore the Vicious Cycle began at the presentation by begging the question and launching the model off the back of authority rather than treating the community as adult enough to present the data in a fashion that could be understood.

 

The scientific community displays social bias towards their peer group, and yet denegrates, tirades, and "trotts out" at anyone who displays the same social bias from the other side of the argument.

 

 

Like it or not, in this thread you have demonstrated yourself to be among this large and vocal crowd of people, which is to say that for all intents and purposes you a climate science denier.

 

Actually I dont really care what label you wish to put on me, if that makes you feel more secure you go ahead and do that, I know what I believe and I don't need to align myself to either for or against to retain my attitude regarding that. In fact, your labelling methodology only goes to solidify my certainty that science reacts like a petulant child to criticism and therefore should be regarded as one, and observed to make sure it's doing the right thing.

 

 

"The general function of labels are widely known and recognized as a method of distinction that helps people recognize one product from another. In social terms, labels represent a way of differentiating and identifying people that is considered by many as a form of prejudice and discrimination.

 

Overview of the sociological labelling theory

When a majority of people hold a certain point of view towards a certain group, that point of view becomes a stereotype. That stereotype affects the way other people perceive the groups in question and the result is a 'label' that is metaphoricaly imposed on the members of the group in question. A member of a targeted group is thus 'labeled' by the larger society, and along with it, the nuances underlying the label, be it positive or negative, that aids in the formation of social stereotypes."

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Labeling

 

By the way isnt discrimination against ROA?

 

The interesting ponderance being, that I really have read very little, in fact next to nothing, of "climate change denier" (OOOOH HERETICS!! OOOGA BOOGA!!) arguments, all of the points I have brought up were my very own observations, so I find it interesting that you say I spout off "typical climate denier trottings" or whatever you want to call them, yet have been exposed to almost none of them. Very very interesting.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Double K

[iNow]

The GW model supporters propose simply that their model is correct because it has been presented by scientists.

No, that is false.

 

 

I'm guessing ego does this, that the debate is not simply about the science used to derive your beloved model.

No, that is yet another logical fallacy from you... ridiculing the belief of the person, not showing any falsity in their argument.

 

 

I suggest that you yourself display bias in aligning with the scientific model as you have a background in science, and for you, this is how you build your construct of reality.

More accurately, he is likely aligning with the assertion which is well founded and grounded in empirical evidence.

 

 

That's fine, however you can't force this same construct on everyone as they all have different experiences from which they mould their thoughts.

Point conceded. I cannot force anyone not to be an ill informed idiot.

 

 

I propose to you that the GW model was never presented to the public in a scientific manner

Rubbish. The scientific publications came well before the non-scientific presentations to the larger public. Your proposal is bunk on its face.

 

 

The scientific community displays social bias towards their peer group, and yet denegrates, tirades, and "trotts out" at anyone who displays the same social bias from the other side of the argument.

Irrelevant to your central point about the falsity of the mountains of evidence supporting the fact that human behaviors are resulting in changes to our climate.

 

 

 

I know what I believe and I don't need to align myself to either for or against to retain my attitude regarding that.

For reference, reality doesn't give a frak what you believe. You can believe anything you want. It won't change the reality of the situation.

 

 

 

The interesting ponderance being, that I really have read very little, in fact next to nothing

That has been obvious since the start. Your incredulity, however, doesn't change the fact that many of us have debunked your same arguments before put forth by others exactly like you.

[Double K]

No, that is false.

No, it isnt. No data is provided in this post, just postulation and assertion that the model is correct.

 

No, that is yet another logical fallacy from you... ridiculing the belief of the person, not showing any falsity in their argument.

pot.kettle.black

 

More accurately, he is likely aligning with the assertion which is well founded and grounded in empirical evidence.

what evidence? where is it? citation needed.

 

Point conceded. I cannot force anyone not to be an ill informed idiot.

yawn. seriously. yawn.

 

Rubbish. The scientific publications came well before the non-scientific presentations to the larger public. Your proposal is bunk on its face.

You mean the scientific publications that you get upset about when I start analysing and showing problems with their scientific method?

Or different ones that you havent presented as evidence?

 

Irrelevant to your central point about the falsity of the mountains of evidence supporting the fact that human behaviors are resulting in changes to our climate.

I never said this. Go back and read, seriously read, and think, uncloud your mind of the effluent you so easily trot out, and read what my points have been about, this has not once been my central point.

 

For reference, reality doesn't give a frak what you believe. You can believe anything you want. It won't change the reality of the situation.

Battlestar gallactica much? Actually, reality is the only thing that will prevail here, as reality wont give a frak what your model says either.

 

That has been obvious since the start. Your incredulity, however, doesn't change the fact that many of us have debunked your same arguments before put forth by others exactly like you.

 

Troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll

misrepresentation

cry cry cry

dont misrepresent my comments

cry cry

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You're obviously too special to realise that a logical falicy is a circular argument meaning that BOTH SIDES are incorrect.

 

Sheez, should I spell it for you in pictograms?

[iNow]

Yeah I tried. I think I'm about done here.

Worth repeating....

Indeed.

[Double K]

Point conceded. I cannot force anyone not to be an ill informed idiot.

Worth repeating.

Indeed, hrm yes, indeed.

I also can't force you not to be an abraisive prick, oh well, lose lose eh?

Besides the fact you've "tried" at nothing except discrimination, and comments that belittle in order to excert your authority on the position.

Not one of you has actually addressed science in your posts, yet focused on attacking me.

 

Integrity of climate science? I guess you guys are shining examples of exactly why I wouldnt take it at face value.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Double K

[bascule]

Yeah I tried. I think I'm about done here.

 

Worth repeating....

 

Indeed.

 

I'm certainly done now.

[Pangloss]

No, that is yet another logical fallacy from you... ridiculing the belief of the person, not showing any falsity in their argument.

 

 

Point conceded. I cannot force anyone not to be an ill informed idiot.

 

Interesting pair of quotes.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I think this thread is about due for suicide watch, if the best I can get here is "cry cry" and "ill informed idiot". Wrap up your arguments and prepare for a thread lock, gentlemen.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Pangloss
Consecutive posts merged.

[iNow]

Wrap up your arguments and prepare for a thread lock, gentlemen.

Either do it or don't. These "mr stompy" posts from you are ridiculous.

[Double K]

While I understand the frustration that critics and "skeptics" of climate science are going through when they find their criticisms perhaps unduly dismissed, it's difficult for legitimate climate science skepticism to exist in the outwardly anti-science environment perpetrated by various unscientific critics.

It appears there is as much guilt implicit from both sides.

 

I hope for a future where criticisms are leveled by those who understand what arguments lack scientific merit yet are still skeptical about mainstream climate science can join the scientists in rejecting these types of complaints.

This has not been demonstrated throughout the thread by the "scientific" community here.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Either do it or don't. These "mr stompy" posts from you are ridiculous.

 

Okay.

 

Suicide Watch has been around as a SFN tradition for a year or two now, but I think this thread has already jumped.

[swansont]

your statistic of 0.5% is not correct.

 

"a fundamental relationship is that between flood recurrence interval (t) and probability of occurrence (p). These two variables are inversely related to each other. That is p = 1/t and t = 1/p. For example, the probability of a 50 year storm occurring in a one year period is 1/50 or 0.02.

 

The probability of occurrence and probability of nonoccurrence are related by the fact that something must either occur or not occur, so p + q = 1 and pn + qn = 1.

 

From basic probability theory, qn = qn. Substituting to get an equation relating pn and p: 1 - pn = (1 - p)n. This can be rearranged to: Pn = 1 - (1 - p)n."

http://www.brighthub.com/engineering/civil/articles/41744.aspx

 

this would make your calculation of 0.5% quite off when in reality it would be

0.005% which is significantly different.

 

1/200 = 0.005 = 0.5%

 

0.005 ≠ 0.005%

 

 

Edit: Oh, crud. Didn't see this was closed. I won't rebut the rest, I guess.