Science

[BugI02]

I am but a confounding variable in the experiment that is INGO.

Dependent or independent, and can you really tell from inside the experiment?

 

[2A_Tom]

[video=youtube;0K-t090uvL4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K-t090uvL4[/video]

 

[BugI02]

Imma blather on about this a bit. Standard human behavior is to make our judgements intuitively. Then the default action is to use our reasoning to justify the intuition. I read about some experiments where they measured response time in the brain, and intuitive judgements are nearly instantaneous. It's a feature, not a bug. If we had to use reasoning for every decision, our species wouldn't have lasted very long. Our intuition is based on both nature and nurture, pre-wiring and learned information. So it can be overridden as we learn new things. So reasoning can reprogram our intuitions so that we come to different instantaneous judgements.

That's what happens when we consider both sides of an issue. We might intuit a judgement one way, then later find information that makes us have to reevaluate what we know about something. And then that becomes the new intuition.

So in this thread, it seemed to me that JH just assumed he's correct. He sees things we post and intuits a reaction. That last part where we have the opportunity to adjusted our knowledge did not seem to be happening. I think another dangerous thing is just what you touched on, our intuition can be hacked. When you believe something that becomes a part of your view of everything. And then once your world view becomes what other people want it to be, you'll always react in that predictable way. That kinda explains a lot of radical people. If your worldview gets hacked and you start thinking that you're surrounded by Nazis, and that everyone who disagrees with you must be one. So you encounter someone who disagrees with you and then you react just like Antifa does.

Same thing with real ass Nazis. People start believing that some ethnic/racial/religious group is causing all their problems, and then they react predictably to certain inputs: decide the answer is shooting a church full the "bad" people. People are incredibly hackable. I don't think there's a firewall to prevent that kind of hacking, other than a willingness to give a fair hearing to all views, and reserve reaction until you've had a chance to reason it out.

"If you believe people use reason for the important decisions in life, you will go through life confused and frustrated that others seem to have bad reasoning skills. The reality is reason is just one of the drivers of our decisions, and often the smallest one" - Scott Adams

 

[NKBJ]

Ask any successful salesman!

 

[rhino]

Dependent or independent, and can you really tell from inside the experiment?

Depends on which direction the function is pointing!

 

[chipbennett]

The issue I have is this, even though the estimates are dropping on the high end they are consistent in predicting sea level rise. Not one (1) of them is predicting sea level reducing. The models are all moving in the same direction with the variability reducing.

Seas rise as the earth warms during its normal cyclical patterns. The question is: does human influence cause a statistically significant change in the rate of sea rise? And the answer to that question remains, unequivocally: no.

You should be thankful for sea levels continuing to rise. It means that we're not trending toward the ice age for which we are currently due. Ice ages are bad, and mean bad things for humans. A warm earth is a habitable earth. A warmer earth means more arable land.

 

[chipbennett]

Point of order, sir. There are no such theories. At best, they have untested or poorly tested hypotheses. In order for a hypothesis to be elevated to the level of a theory, it must be thoroughly tested (via experiments) multiple times by multiple investigators, usually over a significant period of time. The results of the testing that comprise the body of evidence must actually support the hypothesis, and not support (or refute) the null hypothesis. None of this has ever come close to rising to the level of a theory.

It also requires a sincere and rigorous effort to provide and challenge falsifications of the hypothesis. Instead, we get the Magic Black Box model that outputs a hockey stick regardless of the data set input, and "hide the decline."

 

[rhino]

[video=youtube;0K-t090uvL4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K-t090uvL4[/video]

The content of that video is awesome, but the text-to-speech narration makes it incomprehensible at parts unless you are already familiar with the topic of discussion.

I spent a significant chunk of my early adult life applying several of those equations. Navier-Stokes!

 

[jamil]

What I really want to know:

What color M&M is Jamil?

I have a mental picture.....

Wow. That’s a nice shade of blue. That would look really good on a truck.

 

[rhino]

It also requires a sincere and rigorous effort to provide and challenge falsifications of the hypothesis. Instead, we get the Magic Black Box model that outputs a hockey stick regardless of the data set input, and "hide the decline."

Fraud and deliberate intellectual dishonesty certainly catapult what could at best be considered "junk science" into the realm of crap.

 

[IndyDave1776]

It also requires a sincere and rigorous effort to provide and challenge falsifications of the hypothesis. Instead, we get the Magic Black Box model that outputs a hockey stick regardless of the data set input, and "hide the decline."

Fraud and deliberate intellectual dishonesty certainly catapult what could at best be considered "junk science" into the realm of crap.

Is that something like "heads, I win, tails, you lose"?

 

[KG1]

Imma blather on about this a bit.

I missed all this hoopla originally but I finally caught up with this thread and I pretty much came away with this impression of a lot of the posts that I perused. ( not yours specifically jamil. just a general overall impression)

 

[rhino]

Is that something like "heads, I win, tails, you lose"?

Very much so.

 

[actaeon277]

[video=youtube;r_QZe8Z66x8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_QZe8Z66x8[/video]

 

[actaeon277]

[video=youtube;OX8kEjSUr04]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX8kEjSUr04[/video]

 

[Kutnupe14]

[video=youtube;OX8kEjSUr04]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX8kEjSUr04[/video]

Where's "Dr D" David Schultz when you need him?

 

[jamil]

Seas rise as the earth warms during its normal cyclical patterns. The question is: does human influence cause a statistically significant change in the rate of sea rise? And the answer to that question remains, unequivocally: no.

You should be thankful for sea levels continuing to rise. It means that we're not trending toward the ice age for which we are currently due. Ice ages are bad, and mean bad things for humans. A warm earth is a habitable earth. A warmer earth means more arable land.

Rest assured, when we do head into the next ice age, there will be a herd-o-goats insisting that it’s human’s fault.

 

[ATOMonkey]

 

[KLB]

Boy, that was fun to catch up with.

 

[NKBJ]

2011 started trying to learn what impact projected climate changes were liable to be. Learned that according to quite a few Earth was going from a relatively stable warm period that had lasted 10,000 plus years into a relatively stable cooler period (what a time to move north!) but that in between we would have climate instability lasting don't know how long (maybe longer than me).

So the globgov guys and gals still need to convince everybody to pony up for carbon... eh, they'll be preaching from now on.