Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Let’s Play “Spot the Equivocation”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Some friends and I drove up to Casper, which was in the exact center of the zone of totality of the eclipse.  The experience was indescribably spectacular.  It was even worth enduring the worst traffic jam of my life in which the normal four-hour drive back to Denver was stretched to ten hours.

This morning I learned that Neil deGrasse Tyson‏ tweeted

The divided United States of America will unite today, sharing a cosmic event predicted by the methods and tools of science.

Most commenters have interpreted this as a dig at climate alarmism skeptics.  So, let’s play “Spot the Equivocation”!

A.  The “methods and tools of science” used to predict the eclipse have been extremely well understood for hundreds of years; are astronomically (literally) precise, and have been used to make an exacting prediction the success or failure of which can be measured with pinpoint accuracy.

B.  The “methods and tools of science”  used to predict future climate change are based on factors that are not well understood, if they are understood at all. The predictions of past models have failed spectacularly.

Why would any sane scientist compare “A” to “B”?  Oh, wait, Tyson was not acting as a scientist.  He was acting as a propagandist, and as is often the case, he was attempting to cover his political prejudices with the mantle of science.

Comments
Yes, in Bob's Universe it takes the smartest people in the world, Climate Scientists, to counter ol' Andrew's UD comments. I find that infinitely amusing. I must be at the Restaurant At The End of The Universe. Andrewasauber
August 27, 2017
August
08
Aug
27
27
2017
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT
Bob, If you thought my criticism lacked substance, you wouldn't be appealing to scientists to try and counter it. You've failed completely as a second-rate troll. Andrewasauber
August 27, 2017
August
08
Aug
27
27
2017
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT
asauber - scientists have given a definition for "climate". So that's a scientific definition. My point was that your harping on about how "climate"is defined isn't a substantive criticism of the science. It's almost as if you're trying to evade giving any substantive criticism.Bob O'H
August 27, 2017
August
08
Aug
27
27
2017
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
The divided United States of America will unite today, sharing a cosmic event predicted by the methods and tools of science.
Yes, thanks to the hard work of Creationists such as Newton and Kepler such predictions are possible. triple whopper environmental impact of global meat production The number 1 cause of global environmental change is animal agriculture. But we can't talk about that cuz everyone needs their milk, bacon and hamburgers.ET
August 27, 2017
August
08
Aug
27
27
2017
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
No matter what we call ‘climate’
Again, Bob, this is an admission by you that climate doesn't have a scientific definition, because it doesn't matter what time period, as you state. There is has been no scientific discovery that compels any specific definition of climate. The best you can do is the generalization 'weather history'. Which is 'weather' to those able to grasp the obvious. Andrewasauber
August 27, 2017
August
08
Aug
27
27
2017
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
asauber- no, I don't know a lot about the history of climate science. I gave the link to show that more is known, and also in the hope that you would use it to start some research, as this seems to be an issue of importance for you. But again, I really don't see that as a substantive criticism of climate science. No matter what we call 'climate', there has been an increase in global temperature, particularly over the last 50 years or so: "Sixteen of the 17 warmest years in the 136-year record all have occurred since 2001, with the exception of 1998". This is attributed by climate scientists to changes in concentrations of greenhouse gasses, particularly CO2. That's what's important, not whether we call 'climate' a 30, 50, 300, 10,000 year phenomenon.Bob O'H
August 27, 2017
August
08
Aug
27
27
2017
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
it’s done by the process of discussion and debate
This process doesn't necessarily produce a scientific conclusion.
but I’m sure the full story is much more complex
Again, you're just admitting you don't know what you're saying and/or supporting. Knew that already. It looks like you are the one who needs to present a substantive comment. Sometime. Andrewasauber
August 27, 2017
August
08
Aug
27
27
2017
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
asauber - if by "scientific process" you mean the process of dong science, then it's done by the process of discussion and debate, where some suitable definition is arrived at. You can read an outline of how it was arrived at here, but I'm sure the full story is much more complex.Bob O'H
August 26, 2017
August
08
Aug
26
26
2017
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
But Bob, what scientific process determines climate to be 30 years, 1000 years, 1 billion years or 4 times a year? Andrewasauber
August 26, 2017
August
08
Aug
26
26
2017
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
Mung - hey, sometimes it's cold & dry. Plus, we get northern lights.Bob O'H
August 26, 2017
August
08
Aug
26
26
2017
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT
Bob O'H: Is that a "Fjord," or a "Chevrolet"? :) TO THE REST: As to the quiz @ 26, I'll give you the answer: the problem that NOAA simulation raises is that the entire argument for AGW is that CO2 levels are critical in the upper atmosphere because water vapor doesn't rise up that high. But if computer simulations can't produce anything remotely close to actual temperatures until water vapor is included, means that water vapor is, indeed, present in the upper atmosphere at 'more' significant levels than CO2. Or, IOW, the entire AGW argument falls apart. But don't that stop anything. After all, there's a "consensus."PaV
August 26, 2017
August
08
Aug
26
26
2017
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
So Bob O'H thinks that the way to combat global warming is to go someplace cold and wet.Mung
August 26, 2017
August
08
Aug
26
26
2017
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
PaV @ 47 - sorry, I should have responded earlier. I now live by a fjord in Norway.Bob O'H
August 26, 2017
August
08
Aug
26
26
2017
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
asauber @ 58 - that's not really substantive, I'm afraid. For a start, it's just semantics. We have to call the study of long-term weather something. We could call it "thingy science", if you want, but the changes in CO2 in the atmosphere and the warming trend we are seeing still exist, whatever you call the study of it.Bob O'H
August 26, 2017
August
08
Aug
26
26
2017
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
The number of failed economic and global disaster predictions didn't matter, because Jesus was coming back any day.Mung
August 26, 2017
August
08
Aug
26
26
2017
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
I’m still waiting to see a substantive criticism from you of what real climate scientists are saying.
How about 'climate' not being a scientific concept. Imagine someone saying that 13 eggs are a 'dozen' or 33 years of weather is 'climate'. You can make up all kinds of combinations of numbers of things and name them. It's a fun game. Andrewasauber
August 26, 2017
August
08
Aug
26
26
2017
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
I’m curious to know, though, what made you think I was unemployed.
I suspected you are unemployed because you Troll a lot during the day. The fact that you proceeded to comment about having a job but not what it is doesn't help relieve my suspicion. Andrewasauber
August 26, 2017
August
08
Aug
26
26
2017
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
asauber - I'm still waiting to see a substantive criticism from you of what real climate scientists are saying. FWIW I do have a job. I'm curious to know, though, what made you think I was unemployed.Bob O'H
August 26, 2017
August
08
Aug
26
26
2017
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
“ice is melting” Ice melts during cooling trends, too. Andrewasauber
August 26, 2017
August
08
Aug
26
26
2017
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
I guess you don’t know what my current job is.
Bob O'H, I don't. I suspect you don't have one. That's the impression I get from your comments. I see you as over 97% Troll, if you believe in deriving such percentages. And you do because you claim to believe in the climate science consensus (same number). The numbers I present are as scientific as theirs. Andrewasauber
August 26, 2017
August
08
Aug
26
26
2017
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT
I don't think I can even count the number of failed global disaster predictions made by scientists that I've personally lived through. Back in the '70's it was the "coming ice age scare" and a supposed worldwide famine that would see widespread starvation. We were supposed to run out of precious metals and oil long before now. Then there was the ozone hole scare. With the current climate change scare, supposedly we had to make drastic worldwide changes long before now or else anything we did would be far too late. Well, it's too late now, right? Why are these people still badgering us about doing something when they said that now would be too late? My question is, why should I believe any group with such an abysmal track record when it comes to predicting global environmental calamity? Don't failed predictions even matter? Bob says that his proof is that it is "getting warmer" and that "ice is melting"; NOBODY asserts that the Earth is not going through a general warming period right now, which would mean it is getting warmer and that - generally - ice is melting. The question is whether or not humans are drastically contributing to that warming and pushing it way beyond historic, natural cycles of warming. The predictions from the view that this is not a normal warming cycle have failed spectacularly. And if we were even to take their predictions seriously, then by those predictions it is already too late to do anything about it.William J Murray
August 26, 2017
August
08
Aug
26
26
2017
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT
April 28, 1975 Newsweek “There are ominous signs that Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically….The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it….The central fact is that…the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down…If the climate change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.” July 9, 1971, Washington Post: “In the next 50 years fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun’s rays that the Earth’s average temperature could fall by six degrees. Sustained emissions over five to ten years, could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.” Michael Oppenheimer, 1990, The Environmental Defense Fund: “By 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…”(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers…The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.” Edward Goldsmith, 1991, (5000 Days to Save the Planet): “By 2000, British and American oil will have diminished to a trickle….Ozone depletion and global warming threaten food shortages, but the wealthy North will enjoy a temporary reprieve by buying up the produce of the South. Unrest among the hungry and the ensuing political instability, will be contained by the North’s greater military might. A bleak future indeed, but an inevitable one unless we change the way we live…At present rates of exploitation there may be no rainforest left in 10 years. If measures are not taken immediately, the greenhouse effect may be unstoppable in 12 to 15 years.” 1969, Lubos Moti, Czech physicist: “It is now pretty clearly agreed that CO2 content [in the atmosphere] will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.”William J Murray
August 26, 2017
August
08
Aug
26
26
2017
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT
Bob and I must live in two different realities, because in mine, global warming/global change predictions have virtually all been abject failures. 107 Failed Global Warming PredictionsWilliam J Murray
August 26, 2017
August
08
Aug
26
26
2017
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT
rvb8 said:
William J M@ 40, suggests Bob’s lack of climate science credentials means he is not clued up enough to contribute; that’s just silly as the science when explained is quite understandable to the half educated.
No, I did not suggest that. Try again. I merely asked him how he came to his conclusions given his self-admitted limitations in understanding the science involved.
So, to my question for William; If you have no post graduate degrees in biology, (and to all the posters here who have no doctoral degrees in biology), what makes you qualified to run a ‘science’ blog criticising biological science?
The answer is that I don't run a science blog criticising biological science. On the rare occasion that I contribute to this blog, What I criticize is the logic and reasoning of certain views and beliefs. Which is why I asked Bob what I asked him.William J Murray
August 26, 2017
August
08
Aug
26
26
2017
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT
Bob O'H, admits he's not a climate scientist, @35, I admit I'm not a biologist, always, in what way does this invalidate our criticisms of ID? William J M@ 40, suggests Bob's lack of climate science credentials means he is not clued up enough to contribute; that's just silly as the science when explained is quite understandable to the half educated. So, to my question for William; If you have no post graduate degrees in biology, (and to all the posters here who have no doctoral degrees in biology), what makes you qualified to run a 'science' blog criticising biological science? The science of climate change, like that of evolution, is accepted. The only other position is denial.rvb8
August 26, 2017
August
08
Aug
26
26
2017
01:07 AM
1
01
07
AM
PDT
Neil deGrasse Tyson just won’t give it up. Today on twitter he tweeted: “Hmm. Don’t see much denial of @NOAA climate scientists who have predicted Hurricane Harvey’s devastating path into Texas.” https://twitter.com/neiltyson To which one meteorologist has responded:
Neil… doesn’t seem to understand that the National Hurricane Center has operational meteorologists, not climate scientists. But when you believe weather is climate, I guess anything goes. Sheesh. Pretty soon he’s going to outshine Bill Nye in the science stupidity category.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/25/friday-funny-advice-from-another-scientist-to-neil-degrasse-tyson-neiltyson-stick-with-eclipses/ The equivocation game continues. How does one even debate inane and stupid arguments?john_a_designer
August 25, 2017
August
08
Aug
25
25
2017
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT
Bob O'H: I thought by your response that you were indicating that you live in Canada. All others: No takers for the quiz @ 26?PaV
August 25, 2017
August
08
Aug
25
25
2017
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
PaV - huh? Why did you bring Canada into this? asauber - they don't have to. I guess you don't know what my current job is. Oh, and I'm still waiting to see some evidence of your substantive contributions to the discussions about climate change.Bob O'H
August 25, 2017
August
08
Aug
25
25
2017
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT
because I know how science works
Is that what they tell you at your current job? Andrewasauber
August 25, 2017
August
08
Aug
25
25
2017
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
Bob O'H: "So." So confront the reality that driving an electric car does not ensure that so-called "naughty global warming fuels" won't be used to generate the electricity you use. Let's go nuclear. Actually, I can't wait for fuel-cells, if they can make them safely.PaV
August 25, 2017
August
08
Aug
25
25
2017
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply