How many Prius owners believe in Global Warming theory?

Science is unaffected by your "two cents." Science is based on repeatable, peer-reviewed studies. In a free country, you have a right to believe whatever nonsense you like. It is sad, however, when people who place more value on their own "two cents" than on science get to make public policy, thereby turning the Earth into an uninhabitable garbage heap.

 

Wow. More than 3 decades of detailed satellite solar output measurements dismissed without thought, followed by a direct contradiction of the measured solar cycle data.

Hip waders are not tall enough for this one.

 

Jon is not aware of satellite data. He considers scientific information unreliable, when measured against his own hunches.

 

CO2 runaway global warming is also totally a "hunch" by a bunch of bought and paid for scientists .Paid ONLY if they can prove CO2 warming.
Their hypothesis is absolutely unproven .
Read this in Scientific American.
They spin a conclusion that because they have zero certainty ,we need to act.
Thats BS .
They have zero certainty, which means they need to prove their hypothesis or its all just a BS hunch.
But its pretty funny that they actually admit they have no proof for the hypothesis.
The only thing thats certain is that a doubling of CO2 will raise temps 2.1 degrees F ,anything else is a hunch.

Climate Change's Uncertainty Principle: Scientific American


"In essence, neither this international team of experts nor any other can say with any certainty just how bad global warming may get...
Some of these feedback processes are poorly understood—like how climate change affects clouds—and many are difficult to model, therefore the climate's propensity to amplify any small change makes predicting how much and how fast the climate will change inherently difficult. "Uncertainty and sensitivity are inextricably linked," Roe says. "Some warming is a virtual certainty, but the amount of that warming is much less certain."
Roe and his U.W. co-author, atmospheric physicist Marcia Baker, argue in Science that, because of this inherent climate effect, certainty is a near impossibility, no matter what kind of improvements are made in understanding physical processes or the timescale of observations."

 

Mojo, did you even read what you quoted?
The section you quoted talked about how certainty about how bad it will get. Not as to the basis of the science.

AGW has advanced well beyond the hypothesis stage.
Many tests on the infra-red absorption properties of CO2 and its transparency to shorter wavelengths. These support the original hypothesis.
Measurements (direct in the last 6 decades or so, and a variety of indirect ones) also support the original hypothesis. They show an increase in the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. The particular ratio of isotopes identifies that a significant portion of this CO2 is from us.
Research into other possible explanations for the climate forcing have so far either not shown alternative options (orbital cycles, sun, etc), or been less conclusive than CO2 and other 'greenhouse gases' being the primary culprits.
I don't see how you can claim AGW is a hypothesis at this point. The amount of research and positive experimental tests easily elevate AGW to a working theory.

 

Mojo, very interesting article.
Interesting the sections you choose to quote, and the words in those sections you chose to put in bold face.

You missed this part of the article though...

 

Sure. And gravity is just a THEORY! They admit it all the time: Newton's THEORY of gravity, and Einstein's THEORY of gravity.

 

The terms "theory" and "belief" cause all sorts of trouble in this type of debate. Scientists and laymen choose to use different definitions. For example, a scientist will say that he believes the sun will rise tomorrow. In this context, "believes" is not faith, but instead a "commonplace" - a commonly held idea based on common knowledge. All of our common knowledge and understanding suggests that the sun will rise. However, being a positive assertion, one can't prove that the sun will rise, only that the sun has risen. Therefor the scientist states it as a belief.

Unfortunately the word "belief" is also used for faith, as in "I believe in the existence of God." Both uses are correct, but deliberately misinterpreting the definition is disingenuous.

Likewise with theory. Laymen use the philosophical definition of "theory", and define it as a hunch or guess. Scientists define theory as an explanation of phenomena that meets the empirical observations. It's not a guess, but instead the simplest possible explanation for why something works as observed. Once again we have one word with two different meanings, and many people are more than willing to exploit the difference.

Tom

 

Of all the Denier arguments, this one is my absolute favorite. All those University researchers driving around in their Rolls Royces with money pouring out from dumptrucks backed up into their driveway from the Universities are out to crush those poor, poor scientists working for those poor, poor Multibillion dollar international corporations.

 

There is a law of gravity.

 

This is what passes for scientific proof of the AGW hypothesis.
It was Richard B. Alley, an IPCC report author ,who originally made that similar observation .
Thats their proof?I was astonished the first time I heard that.
Alley has no other explanation,
because science has no understanding of how clouds and water vapor affect climate.Nor cosmic rays, sunspots or natural temperature cycles.
Thus scientists cannot possibly design adequate computer models.

 

Don't go and convolute the agrument Mojo.

 

I thought Deniers only believed in Intelligent Falling.

 

Yes... and I'm afraid that you're trying to make some sort of point with that. A point that can't be made.

You don't really want to go there, do you? Are you aware that there is no heirarchy or prioritization of scientific statements? That a law is no *better* or more important than a theory? That a theory never gets more credibility and then graduates to become a law? A theory explains what we can all observe... and it never becomes a law. A theory can never be proven correct - only changed or partially or completely disproven through further observation.

We have created laws based on these observations. One of them is likely what you're talking about here - Newton's Law of Gravitation. This law helps us calculate the gravitational pull - but this law doesn't explain why gravity happens. That's what the theory aims to do.

The climate change that we're all experiencing and the gravity that we experience every day both have scientific theories built around them. Neither one will ever become law. Both have the potential to change or even be disproven. The theories are what we observe, stated in scientific terms (they contain no hunches). And for a final bit of confusion: Neither climate change nor gravity are theories or laws. They are both observations.

Science tries to explain what we see around us... with the understanding (different than religion, for example) that our explanations will change through more observation.

 

Wait! Do you have a point about this law business that we should know more about?

 

Actually, if we want to get pedantic:

Scientific law: Generalizes a set of observations at which time it is presented, there are no exceptions to the law.

Scientific theory: Summarizes 1 or more hypothesis which is supported by repeated testing.

A law does not offer to explain why it happens - a theory does.

So, Newton's Law of Gravity basically tells you what will happen, but not why. Einstein's Theory of Relativity offers insight as to why Newton's Law of Gravity exists.

So an explanation of why increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases surface temperatures on average will always be theory based on current best knowledge and not Law. There is probably a Law describing how much the surface of a planet will be given various amount of CO2 under theoretical conditions.

 

You totally missed it. drees will help you out.

 

Not so, grasshopper, not so! The sun does not rise at all. It's an illusion, created by the spinning Earth. When we speak of the sun rising, we are either speaking figuratively, or in ignorance.

Which one? Newton's "law," which turned out to be wrong? Or Einstein's "law" which is inconsistent with quantum physics? Gravity is not a law, it's merely a theory. (See my FSM reference below.)

Hey wait! This guy is plagiarist!

Pastafarians have been saying ever since The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was published, that gravity is only a theory; that there is no mysterious "force," that it's the FSM pressing down on us with his noodly appendages!

 

Did I miss a joke one me?

Drees was definitely more pedantic. Did you actually read what he and I wrote? Nothing he wrote contradics what I wrote... as you seem to be implying here with your accusation of "total miss." Perhaps you can state clearly what your point is? If poking fun at me, I did totally miss it!

Drees and I have simply pointed out why when something is a scientific "law" that it doesn't make the related theory any more or less important or likely to be correct. A law tells us "what" and a theory tells us "why" - to the best of our knowledge.

 

From our accelerated reference, the sun does indeed rise. It's one of the nice things about general relativity.

Tom