swansont

"Think outside the box" used in this context is often a cop-out, used to excuse the lack of evidence for and rigorous analysis in support of a particular position.

"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." (Carl Sagan) "Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment; you must also be right." (Robert Park) The issue is not so much that Tsolkas has a contrary viewpoint, it's that he doesn't stay here to defend it. He's a hit-and-run troll, and that is what is being ridiculed and belittled here.

I have never claimed expertise, and have tried to limit my responses to the validity of the criticisms and arguments presented. I doesn't take expertise in the specific discipline to spot specious reasoning, logical fallacies and misunderstanding of scientific methodology. The thing is, no contrary data have been presented, so no expertise in climatology has really been necessary. It's pretty much all been rhetoric and fabrication. Not only has it not been science, at times it's been anti-science. The thought that opinion enters into it is part of the problem.

I'm not sure if your equations are actually wrong or just mistyped. (^ usually means exponent) [math]Q = mc\Delta T[/math] What are the relevant values of the terms?

If you don't understand how science is done, you can't hope to argue, on scientific principles, why any particular conclusion is wrong. Misrepresenting statistics is not a scientific argument. Harping about the presence of uncertainties is not a scientific argument. These are rhetorical devices. It's hard to describe how pitiful they sound to a scientist, nor how dangerous it can be that people will buy into the rhetoric and idealogy because they can't tell science if it bit them on the posterior. No measurement is perfect. Not one. Quantifying the errors in a measurement is part of how science is done. The presence of error in a measurement or model does not, in and of itself, mean anything about the validity of the science.

In curved spacetime the rules change somewhat, from what I understand, but in flat spacetime they are orthogonal. The Lorentz transformation matrix being diagonal shows that.

And we've come full circle...again. I refer you to my remarks in post 173, and I'm done.

You could have the escape velocity such that you impacted with the planet, and you could have energy losses. Other than that, though, I think the object keeps receding from the planet.

Is that a "no," then? Without data, it's just argument from incredulity.

The legend claims that it is listing increases of anthropogenic sources. Your answer seems to be simply, "no, it's not." Do you have peer-reviewed sources that give different data?

All you can hope to do is describe an experiment and what you results you would get if the experiment were actualy done. i.e. you can make a prediction, based on some assumption. But I don't see that what you've done here; if I get a more than few minutes free later I'll try and work through it.

I saw a bar graph in post 54 that purported to show exactly that.

How many times does bascule have to refer you to various peer-reviewed papers before the cries of "you haven't presented any evidence" stop? They contain actual measurements and data. Read them, and then discuss/critique.

Klaynos put proven in quotes, indicating a good understanding that scientific inquiries do not actually prove in the sense of mathematical proofs, i.e. they are not deductive. However, something that has been confirmed to a high degree, and is usually accepted as fact. As Stephen J Gould explained, "In science, fact can only mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms." IOW, it is reasonable to consider gravity (insofar as Newtonian gravity applies) to be a proven fact. AFAIK SR is self-consistent, so a thought experiment, using SR, isn't going to disprove it.

The data from the most recent times is noisier than the rest of the graph; this gives an appearance of there possibly being more fluctuations, and also gives the illusion that the more remote times were smoother transitions. However, I think this is merely due to there being more data from the recent past. This makes it a little more difficult to ascertain any recent trends (spans of hundreds of years) from that graph.

Seems to have fixed it for me as well. The dupes must have been confusing the bulletin board software.

It looks to be within a few percent of the maximum to me. The "first peak" to which I referred is the one that occured ~400kya (first one occurring in time), and is the only one that rivals the current one for duration. The other peaks were much sharper. You can't tell on the first one partly because it's cut off.

It wasn't my graph, it was Dr. Dalek's (posted a hundred times), so I'm not the one who did the cropping. I was commenting on DD's interpretation of it. Anyway...so what? Once again, it's not a matter of whether natural fluctuations occur; they do. The question is how much effect are humans having. To say that the concentrations have been that high before, in the remote past, is meaningless, considering that the species that were alive then aren't now; the natural conditions could have been very, very different.

I'm having issues with seeing all the posts in "Accuracy of An Inconvenient Truth" I've adjusted my "views per page" but when that was set to default or 10 or 20 per page, I wasn't able to get to the last page or two — the same page would keep reloading. I had to set it to 30, and now 40 per page, in order to see the latest posts. I also see that SkepticLance had some posting issues, as there are two sets of multiple posts. Anone else reading that thread having trouble? (I'm on Safari on a Mac). I haven't had issues in other threads.

You say that anthropogenic CO2 comprises 3% of the total, but talk about the remaining increase as being natural; this is deceptive. The anthropogenic contribution to the increase is about 15% (roughly 12 ppm out of 80 ppm), and the total variation is 40%. (One thing I haven't seen is how these increases are broken down; are some of the "natural" increases occurring because of destruction of CO2 sinks, for example)