My Science is not your Science

Discussion in 'Science' started by Grey Matter, Jun 3, 2022.

  1. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And yes, no matter what we did, Salt Lake will still die.

    We could divert enough water to equal 5 times it's outflow prior to the arrival of "white man", and it would still die. In fact, increasing the amount of water going into it might even kill it faster.

    The only way to ever "save it" would be to recreate the older Lake Bonneville, and flood most of Utah once again under one of the largest lakes on the planet.

    That is how little most people understand of science.
     
  2. Grey Matter

    Grey Matter Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2020
    Messages:
    4,400
    Likes Received:
    2,579
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Depends I guess on whether your Mother Nature is the same as my Mother Nature. My Mother Nature used to have bugs in it and humans have changed that quite a bit. I remember once upon a time driving through the Midwest in June it was helpful to have a full windshield washer fluid reservoir. Not so much anymore. I suspect neonicotinoid class insecticides. And don't get me started on the bioengineered fruit and veggies that last forever and have no flavor.
     
  3. Grey Matter

    Grey Matter Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2020
    Messages:
    4,400
    Likes Received:
    2,579
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's pretty fascinating stuff.

    Randall Carlson's take on geology is full of amazing explanations about the magnitude of changes that took place around the end of the last ice age.

    I suspect it's likely that you may have watched this already, but in any case, this is both entertaining and educational,

     
  4. James California

    James California Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2019
    Messages:
    11,335
    Likes Received:
    11,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ~ You make a good point. We try to "improve " and end up doing the opposite. :blankstare:'
     
    Grey Matter likes this.
  5. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually, I have not. And will not watch it.

    I am aware of who Randal is, and I see him also as a huckster. He will go on about past events like ice age floods, then always tries to bring it around to his theories of "advanced civilizations" that existed in the past, like Atlantis. As well as aliens, and that none of the real evidence of them exists today because those events conveniently wiped them all out.

    Reminds me of Chariots of the Gods, and the 50 other similar movies that were all the rage in the early 1970's.

    Does not matter much to me if some theories of an individual match common science or not. Once they go into pseudoscience, I dismiss them.
     
  6. Grey Matter

    Grey Matter Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2020
    Messages:
    4,400
    Likes Received:
    2,579
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Fair enough. I first learned of the interesting proofs he offers in support of the similar stuff you mentioned about the last ice age ending with a mega-flood. I think Randall attributes it most probably to an asteroid impact, but you mention that the prevailing theory is volcanic activity. Aside from his flights of fancy about lost civilizations, well, you seem familiar with some of is stuff to some extent anyway, so regarding his assertions of a rapid end to the last ice age circa 14k years ago - have you found them to be in keeping with your studies of the topic?

    Certainly no vast reservoirs of burning oil led to rapid global warming I assume....
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2022
  7. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, let me answer that most easily from a joke I posted in another thread in here.

    Geologically, it is damned near impossible to pin down anything in spans of time less than 100,000 years, more or less.

    How fast did the last ice age end? Well, we know it was fairly rapid, in the area of around 50,000 years. And that is less time than has passed then the height of the last ice age.

    And technically, we are still in an "ice age". One of the biggest "landmarks" for that is actually a permanent polar ice cap (which we still have), and significant areas of permafrost (which we also still have).

    I find that those who are "climate change fanatics" are 100% denying science. That the planet is dynamic and constantly changing. From ice ages that cover significant parts of North America under mile thick glaciers. and era where there is little to no ice caps, there is little to no permafrost or tundra, and palm trees can live in Central Alaska.

    The thing is, we can not get to the latter without things being a hell of a lot warmer than they are now, and humid.

    They also have it 100% backwards what "global warming" means. They all seem to have this weird belief that that means things are a lot hotter, and drier. That deserts cover most of the planet and most life dies.

    In reality, things generally get incredibly humid, as the increased water released from the ice caps only makes the planet like a Florida summer. Average humidity globally rises by around 10-20%, and deserts shrink in size. And after the die-off of animals that evolved to survive in the cold and dry climate, an explosion of new evolution occurs to fill in the vacant areas left open.

    No, they believe in a 100% static planet, where absolutely nothing will or should ever change. What things were yesterday will be today, and will continue into tomorrow. Ignoring everything about geology, and evolution that should give ample evidence that the planet is dynamic and always changing.

    As far as the "rapid end", I knew of that over 4 decades ago. When my science teacher told us about the albedo effect, and why that would make things warm up even faster. And that was still in the 1970s, when "new ice age" was still all the rage, and nobody had thought of "global warming" that is now "climate change". Even when most people thought we were killing the planet with extreme cold, I knew that was wrong. And not a single thing in the last 40+ years has shown me that is still not the case.

    Notice, almost none of the "Global Warming" fanbois will ever discuss the albedo effect, if they even know what it is. And I bet most do not, as I have brought it up over and over again and nobody has ever bothered to say a word about it. In fact, I have never heard of a single model that discusses it either.

    This can often be seen to those who are "science literate" in my frequent jokes about Doggerland, or San Francisco in roughly the era the very first humans discovered it. I can tell how "scientifically literate" somebody is by how they respond to those kinds of comments. If they do not see the joke, then they are obviously scientific morons and not worth putting any effort into a serious discussion with.
     
    James California likes this.
  8. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I gave you a very long list of the scientists and science organizations who totally disagree with your comments here.

    There are very few scientists who agree with anything you have said.
     
  9. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Really? A long list of scientists that do not agree with me?

    Holy hell, let me talk to them then! I would love to meet some of them, and know exactly where they disagree with me.

    Please tell me the scientists that say that deserts shrink during an interglacial, and the humidity does not rise. That plant growth explodes, and at the same time CO2 levels rise also.

    Oh, who am I fooling? You will provide nothing, as usual. Just scream you are right over and over and that everybody disagrees with me.

    And prove even more that you have no idea how this "science" thing works.
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  10. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nonsense.

    Our food supply has been HUGELY improved.

    We now have tomatoes that deter bugs, that can be picked by machine, that can endure transport in huge containers, that last a long time, that all have that iconic tomato color.

    The result is plentiful supplies of identical tomatoes that cost far less than one would expect.

    That's exactly what the market demanded!
     
    ryobi likes this.
  11. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The climatologists I cited for you point out that Earth is warming due to human activity.

    And, they point out that is a huge problem, because the human population has dramatically increased and is depending on a more static climate.

    I'm going to bet that you are far to smart to fall for that.

    After all, how could you possibly accept that 95% of climatologists know anywhere NEAR as much as you do?
     
  12. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And ultimately, that is your response to everything.

    I try to discuss almost anything, and you go right back to this "list of climatologists" over and over again.

    Or wait, is it climatologists or scientists? Because I forget, you keep moving back and forth so it is hard to keep track.

    However, as I have said I look at things through the eyes of a geologist. And as such, the climatologists who look at periods of 5-10 years can bite my ass. I look at trends of thousand and tens of thousands of years. In which simply 5, or 25, or 100 is not even worth considering.

    And once again, you fail to answer simple questions asked of you, and pretend you either answered them already, or that you were never asked.

    Tell me, what of these "climatologists" say that the planet will not get more humid as more water is released form polar ice? What climatologists say that the "green belt" will not more farther North, as it always has? What climatologist says that deserts do not shrink during an interglacial, but instead grow?

    This is why you always fail, and will always fail. You do not understand the actual science, and instead believe what "climatologists" tell you. It is simply a religion to you, and nothing else.

    So tell me, are you ever going to actually discuss the actual science? Or are you always going to hide behind your holy relics?
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  13. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,246
    Likes Received:
    16,930
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not trying to pettifog your point, I want to digress for a moment since you mentioned it, but on that cool section of the movie, when he whipped out a slide rule instead of a calculator to make the calculation, it is keen attention to detail, because in 1970, when Apollo 13 was in it's flight, the calculator hadn't yet been invented.

    Now think about that, they are in a machine going to the moon, and the calculator hadn't yet been invented. Their space craft was a veritable Tin Lizzy compared to the space craft of today, and can you imagine going to the moon in such a contraption whose total on board computer power is probably less than that of a simple calculator?

    I still am amazed when I think about it.
     
    Grey Matter likes this.
  14. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,246
    Likes Received:
    16,930
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male


    In assessing the caliber of your comment, which is necessary to evaluate your credibility, I note that it's poor in a few respects. Let's take this sentence you wrote:

    Scientists lack the ability to obtain all the variables and mathematics that would be needed to make such a prediction.

    If I were trying to communicate that the number of variables are simply too vast in order that a scientist could make a viable prediction, I wouldn't attack scientists' ability to do it, as you have, so I'm wondering why you are doing it? I would merely point out that the variables are simply too many in number in order to make reliable predictions (assuming that point is true, which, since I'm not a scientist, I wouldn't know).

    Moreover, why would a competent scientist lower him/herself to use a loaded phrase such as, 'to the liberal elitist science religious community', which, in my humble opinion, would be considered a words unbecoming of a scientist. In my view, a competent scientist would avoid making political statements because politics, regardless of one's political persuasion, is not science and it's not appropriate when discussing science. It is, of course, appropriate when discussing politics, but this is a science forum, not a politics/opinions forum. Even if a scientist were discussing politics, I should think competent scientists would know enough about the art of debate to avoid weasel words and loaded phrases. Even I know that, and I'm not a scientist.

    But, that's just me. Other's opinions may vary.
     
  15. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nothing needed. Science is not a democracy. Meanwhile:
    How Climate Change Pseudoscience Became Publicly Accepted
     
    James California likes this.
  16. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As long as people are recommending books, I suggest The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn.
     
  17. GrayMan

    GrayMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    8,357
    Likes Received:
    3,512
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would love to hear scientists all argue that we have all the data and mathematics we need. If they did, we could stop wasting tax dollars on their research of weather and climate change.
     
  18. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When faced with what YOU believe and what the world wide community of climatologists believes ...

    ... I don't choose you.

    And, I certainly do not consider that "failure".
     
  19. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You keep posting Shaviv.

    And, there is only ONE reason for that. He believes what you believe!

    Thus you think that justifies calling the entire field of climate related science to be a bunch of liars.

    But, it most certainly does not.
     
  20. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,246
    Likes Received:
    16,930
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Rebuttal not on point to mine.

    But, your deflection aside, why would you make such a point? Writ large, no one can have 'all the data and mathematics we need' regarding climate change, and the statement's premise, that if we had it we wouldn't be wasting tax dollars, is vague and sloppy.

    Clearly, you are not a scientist, or not one that I could recognize.
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  21. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, they are not liars, but they are mistaken.
     
    James California likes this.
  22. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually, it was.

    The mechanical Arithmometer was already well over 150 years old by that time. Many do not seem to realize that prior to the "Digital age", mechanical computers and calculators had gotten quite sophisticated. When the Iowa class Battleships were pulled out of mothballs, they returned to service with their mechanical computers still in place. The Navy did look at making them digital, but realized that the cost compared to the almost minimal increase in accuracy was just not worth it. I watched a documentary on that long ago, and I want to say the improvement was around 10 meters per 10,000 meters of range. Just not enough to bother with when you are talking about 16" HE shells.

    And the first "Electronic Digital Calculator" actually appeared in 1961 with both the Anita MK VII and MK VIII.

    But yes, the "pocket calculator" was still a few years away. And most back then who needed them could use slide rules as fast or even faster than somebody today with a modern digital calculator.

    I recently inherited my grandfather's slide rule (complete with hip case), which he used when he was in Alaska working on setting up early warning stations during the 1950's and early 1960's. I was also one of the last generation to use them, as when I was in school we were not allowed to use calculators. But we could use a slide rule if we had one.
     
    roorooroo and Jack Hays like this.
  23. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And I did not ask you to.

    You seem to be under the mistaken belief that science is some kind of "popularity contest". Like some kind of Facebook Influencer, and the one with the most likes wins.

    Hence, you absolutely ignore any science, and instead try to argue through popularity. Which is always a fail no matter what.
     
    roorooroo and Jack Hays like this.
  24. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,246
    Likes Received:
    16,930
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Yes, I'm fully aware of cumbersome devices. At home, I would use my dad's electronic adding machine (which could only add and subtract), but bringing to school wouldn't work, it' was heavy and noisy, and the teach surely would say no.

    No, I mean a handy pocket digital calculator.

    I graduated in 1969, there were no calculators, trust me. If there were, we would have used them. we had only slide rules. The first practical one came in 1972 by Texas Instruments, and it was for a couple of hundred bucks.

    As a practical matter, my point stands, as does the detail in the film.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2022
  25. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When one comes up with ideas on climate that are diametrically opposed to pretty much every single expert on climate in the entire world, you should ask yourself how a difference so dramatic as that could exist.
     

Share This Page