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
WJM - because I know how science works, and that if there's a consensus, it's because that's where the evidence points. Plus, the criticisms haven't very impressive (in my opinion). As for the predictions, I think the predictions that the climate will warm have been borne out - it's definitely been warmer. Ice is melting etc etc. asauber - thanks for playing. I'm happy with my current job, TBH. PaV - thank you. I was well aware that Canada is not the US. So?Bob O'H
August 25, 2017
August
08
Aug
25
25
2017
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
No one has taken my quiz @26. Bob O'H, what about you? Anyone? @32 Bob O'H: Canada is not the US. Here the grid-electricity is produced either by natural gas, coal, or oil--almost exclusively.PaV
August 25, 2017
August
08
Aug
25
25
2017
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
so where are these substantive criticisms?
Bob O'H, Here's one: You should get a job. Andrewasauber
August 25, 2017
August
08
Aug
25
25
2017
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
Bob O'H, If you have no means of personally assessing whether or not anything climate scientists say is valid or not, why do you believe them, especially when virtually all of their predictions have failed so spectacularly?William J Murray
August 25, 2017
August
08
Aug
25
25
2017
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
asauber - so where are these substantive criticisms? I'm afraid I haven't seen them, and Google isn't bringing up much.Bob O'H
August 25, 2017
August
08
Aug
25
25
2017
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
Do you have any substantive criticism of what real climate scientists are saying?
Bob O'H, Of course I do. I've been commenting them for for about a Decade. That's for 3.154e+8 seconds. Andrewasauber
August 25, 2017
August
08
Aug
25
25
2017
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
asauber - Do you have any substantive criticism of what real climate scientists are saying? Your dismissive attitude isn't very convincing, I'm afraid.Bob O'H
August 25, 2017
August
08
Aug
25
25
2017
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
I’m not a climate scientist, and have never claimed to be one.
Bob O'H, this is perfect. You have no idea if anything climate scientists say is correct, in the ballpark, or complete fantasy. Thanks for commenting, though. Andrewasauber
August 25, 2017
August
08
Aug
25
25
2017
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT
asauber - I'm not a climate scientist, and have never claimed to be one. That's why I gave links to what real climate scientists have to say (see my comments @ 7). If you are knowledgeable about how the earth’s weather system works then I assume you can explain why they are wrong, and I'd be interested to see what you have to say.Bob O'H
August 25, 2017
August
08
Aug
25
25
2017
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
the last 100 years of science
So what we have here (again) is our pal Bob O'H appealing to a nice, big, impressive and meaningless number that makes his religious belief in science look better to him. But does he actually know anything about how the earth's weather system works? 100 times no. Andrewasauber
August 25, 2017
August
08
Aug
25
25
2017
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT
No new coal plant has been built in Australia for the last forty or so years; none, that is zero are planned. Between now and 2055 around 20 to 25 more will be shut down and by that time a mere 1000Mw of electricity will be coming from coal. In the cities and towns coal is deeply unpopular, and politicians who push its economic importance are seen widely for what they are; men living in a by-gone era.rvb8
August 25, 2017
August
08
Aug
25
25
2017
12:36 AM
12
12
36
AM
PDT
PaV @ 28 - no, I believe it's mainly hydro up here. We export most of our naughty global warming fuels. Mung @ 29 - I tried that, but it only works once. groovamos @ 31 - Yes, I have heard of Arrhenius. He died a long time ago. Since then other have been other scientists who have done a lot more research. See the link in 7 to help you catch up with the last 100 years of science.Bob O'H
August 25, 2017
August
08
Aug
25
25
2017
12:11 AM
12
12
11
AM
PDT
BobO : Your explanation doesn’t make any sense. That water has absorption spectra means that it absorbs radiation from the sun. Which is what greenhouse gasses do. You might want to read up a bit more before trying again. Oh really? You ever hear of Arrhenius? Well let me introduce you to the assumptions of the greenhouse effect of which you apparently ignorant. Arrhenius postulated in 1895 that infrared emissions FROM THE PLANET SURFACE (duh) would fall largely in the peak region of the absorption spectrum of CO2. Then the CO2 molecules would, from the temperature elevation of such would re-radiate at longer wavelengths which would be absorbed by the planet's surface thereby warming it and the atmoshpere. Arrhenius and other scientists also looked at water vapor with a similar treatment of absorption spectra. Arrhenius was not able to account for the thermodynamic behavior of H2O in the other two phases based on the ability of both phases to reflect solar radiation back to space before reaching the surface. And this is the downfall of climate so-called models which are the sole basis for "climate science". And btw there is no such thing as a "global temperature" or anything remotely resembling proof that climate, even in theory, can be linked to human activity. If you have such proof as you see it, have at it here let us see it. You might want to get learned on the theoretical basis for your religion before spouting off the science supposedly justifying it.groovamos
August 24, 2017
August
08
Aug
24
24
2017
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT
Mung, the odds of lightning hitting your electric car are extremely low. How do you figure to get around the odds? Of course, OTOH, the odds of winning a lottery are tiny, and yet someone wins it all the time.PaV
August 24, 2017
August
08
Aug
24
24
2017
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
Here's how I charge my electric car. I leave my electric car on a golf course and wait for lightning to strike it.Mung
August 24, 2017
August
08
Aug
24
24
2017
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT
Bob O'H: Do they burn coal at your nearby power plant as a way of producing the electricity to power your 'electric car'?PaV
August 24, 2017
August
08
Aug
24
24
2017
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
groovamos @ 24 - Ah, so your appeal to authority is primary school physics? Sorry, but my A-level beats that. :-) Your explanation doesn't make any sense. That water has absorption spectra means that it absorbs radiation from the sun. Which is what greenhouse gasses do. You might want to read up a bit more before trying again.Bob O'H
August 24, 2017
August
08
Aug
24
24
2017
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT
Here's a quiz: In, or around, 2000, the NOAA did a computer simulation of warming using the gases in the upper atmosphere as variables. They wanted to match actual temperature data. When they used only CO2, there was no match; when they used CO2 and Methane CH4, their data moved somewhat towards actual data. And then when they included H2O, along with methane and CO2, they got almost a match with actual data! Now what problem does this present for AGW theory?PaV
August 24, 2017
August
08
Aug
24
24
2017
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
How did Al Gore get so rich?john_a_designer
August 24, 2017
August
08
Aug
24
24
2017
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
BobO : Which is unfortunate, as warming increases the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, which amplifies the warming. Fail. I took science in primary school where we learned that H2O can exist in 3 phases. The absorption spectra of H2O is drastically affected by refraction and reflection of two of those phases. Your heroes and their climate models BTW failed in their prediction of a rash of hurricanes tormenting the United States. I also take public transport (we don’t even own a car, but if we did it would be electric). I also try not to fly for long distance journeys You know this is such a joke. Maybe you don't live in the USA. But your living figurehead, Al Gore, uses 22x the energy in just one (in Nashville) of his 3 residences, than the average house in the USA. He also flies by private jet, drives a Lexus RX400h and a Ford Escape. You sacrifice so much for this guy to keep up his energy squandering lifestyle. Yes yes, this clown of a man does enjoy the comforts of the industrial age that he decries, and has the girth to prove it in person. And we could detail the lifetsyles of all your other "climate" heroes in Hollywood e.g. Leonardo DiCaprio and in the business world and inventory their private jets and multi-mansions, but you know what? You sheeple already know all this. You already know you're being taken for a ride and you can't admit it without feeling stupid, so you don't admit it.groovamos
August 24, 2017
August
08
Aug
24
24
2017
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
I can easily believe that global warming is a field of study for the comfortable and unproductive; and that, even if they are actually correct in their predictions of doom, that the field has been utterly worthless (at best) up until this point; but I do very much believe in green energy. There are the more immediate consequences of pollution. Electric cars are simply better (simpler, more efficient, just better) and, even though they break even with gasoline considering America's filthy coal powered electric generation infrastructure, that's more an issue of America's filthy coal powered electric generation infrastructure. While old-school solar panels are a nasty, toxic mess with hardly any return on investment, we're seeing much cleaner, cheaper, productive technologies emerging of late. Even if you look past the hype on all of Elon Musk's work, we're still seeing great progress. And, really, all we're trying to do here is make use of the God-given fusion reactor next-door. It only makes sense. So, Green is foolish as a religion, but excellent as a practical goal.LocalMinimum
August 24, 2017
August
08
Aug
24
24
2017
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
The only truly global temperature measurements are from weather satellites in polar orbits. Dr. Judith Curry, a former AGW believer now turned skeptic, posted an article on her website in Dec. 2015 which includes an interesting graph. https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/christy_dec8.jpg The red line represents what the average of 104 IPCC* computer generated climate models was predicting or forecasting. The blue and green lines represent actual data from actual global measurements. The blue is balloon data. The green is satellite data. The real data does show some global warming (the sceptics DO NOT DENY this) however, it does not show the runaway, catastrophic warming the alarmists are predicting with their models. Who is being more rational here? The alarmists who cling to their predictions even though they have been proven wrong time and time again by real world data? Or those who analyse the real data to reach a tentative conclusion? Here is the full article: https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate-reality/ If the scientific evidence showed that global warming was being caused by human activity I would not be a sceptic. I am a sceptic BECAUSE of what the scientific data presently shows, which is that any human contribution to global warming is being totally masked by a natural climatic cycle. AGW proponents have yet to provide any solid evidence to support their POV. footnote: *The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.john_a_designer
August 24, 2017
August
08
Aug
24
24
2017
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
100% of US Warming Is FakeWilliam J Murray
August 24, 2017
August
08
Aug
24
24
2017
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT
I have noticed that almost all climate change 'denialists', live in countries that are large, temperate, and have clearly defined seasons; the effects of climate change will be felt by your children and grandchildren, but probably not you; how selfish! I am amazed at Australia's continued denial, as it is already suffering forrest fires, and heatwaves, the likes of which have not been seen before. California is fast running out of water, but luckilly the State government largely ignores Federal leadership on the issue, such as it is. What is that joke about the climate change denying Governor, comming from the, 'Great State of Denial'?rvb8
August 24, 2017
August
08
Aug
24
24
2017
01:29 AM
1
01
29
AM
PDT
Global warming denialists remind me of a scene from the original version of The Magnificent Seven where Steve McQueen's character "Vin" tells this little story:
Vin: Reminds me of that fellow back home that fell off a ten story building. Chris: What about him? Vin: Well, as he was falling people on each floor kept hearing him say, "So far, so good." Tch... So far, so good!
Seversky
August 23, 2017
August
08
Aug
23
23
2017
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT
I am really beginning to worry about Warmers. They are getting increasingly desperate to "help" the rest of us...whether we like it or not. Scary people.Truth Will Set You Free
August 23, 2017
August
08
Aug
23
23
2017
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
Using “the methods and tools of science” what alternative energy sources are currently available to cut carbon emissions? One of them is solar. However, there is a dirty little secret about solar: it’s not as clean as people think or have been lead to believe.
Environmental Progress investigated the problem to see how the problem compared to the much more high-profile issue of nuclear waste. We found: [That the manufacturing of] Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than do nuclear power plants. If solar and nuclear produce the same amount of electricity over the next 25 years that nuclear produced in 2016, and the wastes are stacked on football fields, the nuclear waste would reach the height of the Leaning Tower of Pisa (52 meters), while the solar waste would reach the height of two Mt. Everests (16 km). In countries like China, India, and Ghana, communities living near e-waste dumps often burn the waste in order to salvage the valuable copper wires for resale. Since this process requires burning off the plastic, the resulting smoke contains toxic fumes that are carcinogenic and teratogenic (birth defect-causing) when inhaled.
http://www.environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/6/21/are-we-headed-for-a-solar-waste-crisis Of course wind is pretty clean but it also kills a lot of birds, especially soaring birds like eagles, hawks and condors. But they are just birds. Just make sure you eat a lot of dolphin safe tuna. The other drawback about wind turbines are that they are an ugly eyesore and the PC pro-environment progressive elites, who have vacation homes along the Massachusetts coast (Cape Cod, Nantucket, Martha’s Vineyard,) don’t want them built there. IOW you can’t build wind turbines everywhere even if there is a lot of wind there. Beside that both wind and solar are very inefficient. There’s nuclear but nuclear is politically incorrect. Why? It just is, so you shouldn’t even be asking why. (If you don’t already know you should know that just asking why is in and of itself politically incorrect.)john_a_designer
August 23, 2017
August
08
Aug
23
23
2017
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
that could be called vice signaling
To a Religious Global Warming Disciple, yes. Andrewasauber
August 23, 2017
August
08
Aug
23
23
2017
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
I think , asauber, that could be called vice signaling. :-)Bob O'H
August 23, 2017
August
08
Aug
23
23
2017
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
BTW, what are you doing to reduce your carbon footprint?
Nothing. I'm not dumb enough to think in such terms. Andrewasauber
August 23, 2017
August
08
Aug
23
23
2017
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply