Select to expand quoteD3 said..
That was him and science versus religion. Not peers.
Can you give us some more?
In 1590 science and religion were the same thing.
The founding of the royal society immediately after the English civil war is probably the point when the two properly separated.
Interesting group of people who set it up.
Louis Pasteur and the other dude who discovered bacteria.
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..D3 said..
That was him and science versus religion. Not peers.
Can you give us some more?
In 1590 science and religion were the same thing.
Its nearly come full circle with all the climate zealots running around preaching "the end of the world is nigh" and labeling anyone who doesn't believe the "science is settled" a "denier".
Select to expand quoteParadox said..
We see a lot of anomoly graphs like this.
Tell me, how do they arrive at a mean ocean surface temperature today and what is the error margin? How did they do it in 1910 and what is the error margin?
The way anomalies are dealt with for the NOAA climate data are outlined here:
The Global Historical Climatology Network Monthly Temperature Dataset, Version 4
Matthew J. Menne....
DOI: doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0094.1
Page(s): 9835-9854
"Nearly all weather stations, at some point during their history, undergo changes in the circumstances under which measurements are taken (Trewin 2010). For example, thermometers require periodic replacement or recalibration, and measurement technology has evolved over time. Temperature recording protocols have also changed at many locations from recording temperatures at fixed hours during the day to once-per-day readings of the 24-h maximum and minimum. "Fixed" land stations are sometimes relocated, and even minor temperature equipment moves can change the microclimate exposure of the instruments. In other cases, the land use or land cover in the vicinity of an observing site can change over time; this can impact the local environment that instruments are sampling even when measurement practice is stable. All of the above modifications to the circumstances of recording near-surface air temperature can cause systematic shifts in temperature readings from a station that are unrelated to any real variation in local weather and climate. Moreover, the magnitude of these shifts (or inhomogeneities) can be large relative to true climate variability. Inhomogeneities can therefore lead to large systematic errors in the computation of climate trends and variability not only for individual station records but also in spatial averages. For this reason, detecting and accounting for artifacts associated with changes in observing practice is an important and necessary endeavor in building climate datasets."
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..D3 said..
That was him and science versus religion. Not peers.
Can you give us some more?
In 1590 science and religion were the same thing.
The founding of the royal society immediately after the English civil war is probably the point when the two properly separated.
Interesting group of people who set it up.
Louis Pasteur and the other dude who discovered bacteria.
So how does Copernicus fit in?
I always understood him to have been the first (non-ancient) to describe the earth as revolving around the sun?
But he didn't get jumped on by the church like Galileo did. (He was even a Catholic priest, I think)
Eratosthenes did some good work around 240 BC.
www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200606/history.cfm
Select to expand quoteD3 said..
So how does Copernicus fit in?
Carantoc always has copernicus servings of pavlova ?
I am not sure you are going to hear much about classical Greek philosophers on Fox news though.
I don't think the audience is that way inclined.
This sort of thing seems to be more like it:
www.foxnews.com/world/scantily-clad-witches-caught-munching-deer-carcass-bizarre-security-cam-footage
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..
I am not sure you are going to hear much about classical Greek philosophers on Fox news though.
I don't think the audience is that way inclined.
This sort of thing seems to be more like it:
www.foxnews.com/world/scantily-clad-witches-caught-munching-deer-carcass-bizarre-security-cam-footage
I don't usually click links but I was baited by the headline. Thanks for wasting five seconds of my life on the opinion of some fat ****s.
Select to expand quoteremery said..Paradox said..
We see a lot of anomoly graphs like this.
Tell me, how do they arrive at a mean ocean surface temperature today and what is the error margin? How did they do it in 1910 and what is the error margin?
The way anomalies are dealt with for the NOAA climate data are outlined here:
.......Moreover, the magnitude of these shifts (or inhomogeneities) can be large relative to true climate variability. Inhomogeneities can therefore lead to large systematic errors in the computation of climate trends and variability not only for individual station records but also in spatial averages. For this reason, detecting and accounting for artifacts associated with changes in observing practice is an important and necessary endeavor in building climate datasets."
No, the statement does not mention how the issue is dealt with or whether the way they deal with it is effective. It is highlighting the issue I was raising. ie "large systemic errors" are inherent in the data sets and get significantly larger the further we go back in time because of the declining standards in measurement and the significant reduction in global data points.
That is the whole point of what scientists like Maharasey are saying, the way they are "detecting and accounting" these problems in the data sets is problematic and is likely giving a meaningful artificial warming bias when compared with historical results.
This is highlighted by the BoM recently announcing they are moving to international standards for measurements. That has been a key issue that has been raised by many people for 15 years or more and previously the response from the BoM was that there systems were perfectly fine and didn't need to meet those standards. In fact they were not even following thier own documented procedures.
There is a good discussion on early sea temp measurements and links to relevent peer reviewed papers here: notrickszone.com/2022/09/08/pre-1970s-global-sea-surface-temp-measurements-are-no-more-reliable-or-accurate-than-guessing/
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..D3 said..
That was him and science versus religion. Not peers.
Can you give us some more?
In 1590 science and religion were the same thing.
The founding of the royal society immediately after the English civil war is probably the point when the two properly separated.
Interesting group of people who set it up.
Louis Pasteur and the other dude who discovered bacteria.
Completely wrong. In Galileo's era there was a major split between religion and science, which had first seen the heliocentric model in the day of Aristachus of Samos, 310-230 BC.
Let's hear it from the man himself, in his famous letter to Castelli where he disputed one of the main tenets of Catholocism at the time, which was that the bible was infallible.
"nature is inexorable and immutable, and she does not care at all whether or not her recondite reasons and modes of operations are revealed to human understanding, and so she never transgresses the terms of the laws imposed on her; therefore, whatever sensory experience places before our eyes or necessary demonstrations prove to us concerning natural effects should not in any way be called into question on account of scriptural passages whose words appear to have a different meaning, since not every statement of the Scripture is bound to obligations as severely as each effect of nature......"
"I should think it would be prudent not to allow anyone to oblige scriptural passages to have to maintain the truth of any physical conclusions whose contrary could ever be proved to us by the senses and demonstrative and necessary reasons."
The letter was specifically cited to the Inquisition as evidence that Galileo was trying to re-interpret the bible, which was against church policy.
Some science worked in accordance with religion and was permitted, but scientific theories that were seen to contradict the bible were regularly banned. The Catholics of Galileo's era banned his books and the books of Sir Francis Bacon, Kepler and other leading scientists. Figures like Martin Luther and John Calvin specifically wrote that science and religion were different; Martin Luther said "We Christians must be different from the philosophers [i.e. scientists] in the way we think about the causes of these things" in reference to the earth's motion. He also referred to Copernicus as a fool. John Calvin went further, and said that those who believed Copernicus were "stark raving mad" and "possessed" by the devil. But they were religious figures, not scientists.To use the fact that Galileo was attacked by a church in the 1600s as evidence of anything to do with scientists, or the modern era, is stretching logic far beyond its breaking point. You can't truthfully say that religion, which banned scientific truths like heliocentrism because they clashed with the bible, was the same as science.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..remery said..Paradox said..
We see a lot of anomoly graphs like this.
Tell me, how do they arrive at a mean ocean surface temperature today and what is the error margin? How did they do it in 1910 and what is the error margin?
The way anomalies are dealt with for the NOAA climate data are outlined here:
.......Moreover, the magnitude of these shifts (or inhomogeneities) can be large relative to true climate variability. Inhomogeneities can therefore lead to large systematic errors in the computation of climate trends and variability not only for individual station records but also in spatial averages. For this reason, detecting and accounting for artifacts associated with changes in observing practice is an important and necessary endeavor in building climate datasets."
No, the statement does not mention how the issue is dealt with or whether the way they deal with it is effective. It is highlighting the issue I was raising. ie "large systemic errors" are inherent in the data sets and get significantly larger the further we go back in time because of the declining standards in measurement and the significant reduction in global data points.
That is the whole point of what scientists like Maharasey are saying, the way they are "detecting and accounting" these problems in the data sets is problematic and is likely giving a meaningful artificial warming bias when compared with historical results.
This is highlighted by the BoM recently announcing they are moving to international standards for measurements. That has been a key issue that has been raised by many people for 15 years or more and previously the response from the BoM was that there systems were perfectly fine and didn't need to meet those standards. In fact they were not even following thier own documented procedures.
There is a good discussion on early sea temp measurements and links to relevent peer reviewed papers here: notrickszone.com/2022/09/08/pre-1970s-global-sea-surface-temp-measurements-are-no-more-reliable-or-accurate-than-guessing/
So......any chance of getting you to answer the questions I asked a while back?
To repeat them;
Did you not (1) know that the IPA states that its researchers like Marohasy provide a one-sided view and try to ignore that; or
(2) did you NOT know that the IPA states that its researchers like Marohasy provide a one-sided view?
Since it is a fact, stated by Marohasy's employer, that her job is to provide a one-sided view, why do you appear to believe her claims without query?
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
Completely wrong.
Completely ?
For sure, I don't think you can identify a single point in time and say that before then science and religion were 100% the same thing, and after that point 100% different. Bearing in mind I'm talking about societies' consideration of the two, not an absolute definition of the meaning of the words that we would specify today.
But, the point of separation in societies eyes I would suggest was sometime after the mid 1600, not the late 1500s.
The examples and points you use demonstrate that people were trying to seperate the two. The fact you use the point that 'John Calvin went further, and said that those who believed Copernicus were "stark raving mad" and "possessed" by the devil. But they were religious figures, not scientists' demonstrates that people who considered themselves scientists had a hard time separating themselves from the religious and had to go out of their way to make the separation apparent.
You don't see scientists today making statements to qualify that they are scientists and not preachers and that the bible doesn't form the foundation of physics. It simply doesn't need to be said today. Back in the late 1500s it had to be said.
And that he also said '"possessed" by the devil' implies some level of religious mindset remained, even n somebody who was at pains to point out he was of science not religion. I don't think you'd find a scientist today who would attribute somebodies madness to devil possession.
So I take the point that the separation was never a single point in time, but I'd still say the separation we understand today didn't really gain significant acceptance until the mind 1650s, demonstrated by the establishment of the royal society (the first modern type scientific organization) with one primary aim of separating science from religion. And I'd say this in part because religious figures were part of the process of establishment, recognizing that science and religion could co-exist.
Hence I'm sure I'm wrong, but not sure completely wrong.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
Since it is a fact, stated by Marohasy's employer, that her job is to provide a one-sided view, why do you appear to believe her claims without query?
Just because she is prejudiced doesn't automatically make her wrong.
I have never heard of her but I read the link provided and the premise of what she was saying, that using a one second peak and comparing that to a mercury thermometer is a bit dumb, seem fair enough at face value.
..And that if you used a 1 minute average to compare to a mercury thermometer (which takes a minute to react to any change) it would be a better way of doing it (and also what everyone else does apparently) makes sense at face value.
......And that the difference in the 1 second peak and 1 minute average is about 0.7 deg, which is also the same difference between the mercury average and the modern digital 1 second peak readings, implies that saying the average has increased by 0.7 may have as much to do with changing the basis of the recording as it has with the results - also made face value sense to me.
No idea if any of it is true. But I'd rather make that conclusion on somebody refuting what she said, not on what side of the political spectrum funds the publication that printed what she said.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
So......any chance of getting you to answer the questions I asked a while back?
To repeat them;
Did you not (1) know that the IPA states that its researchers like Marohasy provide a one-sided view and try to ignore that; or
(2) did you NOT know that the IPA states that its researchers like Marohasy provide a one-sided view?
Since it is a fact, stated by Marohasy's employer, that her job is to provide a one-sided view, why do you appear to believe her claims without query?
Marohasy, "claims the ability to forecast accurate rainfall amounts up to a year in advance using "historical data and genetic algorithms embedded into sophisticated probabilistic neural networks.""
"The Australian reported that Marohasy's funding at the university from Macfie had been channeled through the IPA. Clive McAlpine, a climate change expert at the university, expressed concerns about the funding: "It is important that the science is objective and that students are not subjected to restraints from donors," Dr McAlpine said."
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..Chris 249 said..
Completely wrong.
The examples and points you use demonstrate that people were trying to seperate the two. The fact you use the point that 'John Calvin went further, and said that those who believed Copernicus were "stark raving mad" and "possessed" by the devil. But they were religious figures, not scientists' demonstrates that people who considered themselves scientists had a hard time separating themselves from the religious and had to go out of their way to make the separation apparent.
You don't see scientists today making statements to qualify that they are scientists and not preachers and that the bible doesn't form the foundation of physics. It simply doesn't need to be said today. Back in the late 1500s it had to be said.
And that he also said '"possessed" by the devil' implies some level of religious mindset remained, even n somebody who was at pains to point out he was of science not religion. I don't think you'd find a scientist today who would attribute somebodies madness to devil possession.
That reads as if you think Calvin was a scientist. Is that what you think?
"After review by climate scientists, however, the [Marohasy] report was found to contain several obvious flaws and was recommended for redaction.
Most notable was the selective use of only six data points out of nearly 700 to yield a predictive model that "proved" that temperature rise would have occurred much as it has even without any additional CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by industrial civilization.
Dr. Gavin Schmidt, director of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies, suggested that the paper's conclusions are the result of "what happens when people have their conclusions fixed before they start the work.""
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..Chris 249 said..
Since it is a fact, stated by Marohasy's employer, that her job is to provide a one-sided view, why do you appear to believe her claims without query?
Just because she is prejudiced doesn't automatically make her wrong.
I have never heard of her but I read the link provided and the premise of what she was saying, that using a one second peak and comparing that to a mercury thermometer is a bit dumb, seem fair enough at face value.
..And that if you used a 1 minute average to compare to a mercury thermometer (which takes a minute to react to any change) it would be a better way of doing it (and also what everyone else does apparently) makes sense at face value.
......And that the difference in the 1 second peak and 1 minute average is about 0.7 deg, which is also the same difference between the mercury average and the modern digital 1 second peak readings, implies that saying the average has increased by 0.7 may have as much to do with changing the basis of the recording as it has with the results - also made face value sense to me.
No idea if any of it is true. But I'd rather make that conclusion on somebody refuting what she said, not on what side of the political spectrum funds the publication that printed what she said.
Yes, the fact that she is paid to put a political spin doesn't automatically make her wrong - but I weighed in when Paradox was making allegations that sources on the consensus side were biased. If "sceptics" are going to make claims of bias then they cannot complain when the other side points out that the same "sceptic's" sources are very biased - and their employer admits that they are paid to be biased.
Bias is also at the basis of many of Marohasy's claims against the BoM and others, so therefore her own bias is surely a fair subject. If she is going to allege bias then no one can complain if the same allegations (with incomparably better evidence) are raised against her.
I've refuted what Marohasy claims, by pointing out that contemporary evidence says that the procedures for recording temperatures were not followed in the case of the alleged Bourke max., and also that contemporary paper reports state that the temperature reports for that period (and only that period) came from a pub fridge. I've looked at other issues with her claims in the past.
What Marohasy said about the temperature probes HAS been refuted, in the 2020 Ayers and Swan paper. Have you read it?
It's interesting that unlike Marohasy, who is paid to present biased claims by an organisation that states that it does not believe in AGW, Swan isn't a specialist in global warming. Her expertise seems to be in instrument calibration, among other things, so there's no reason to believe that she is biased or incompetent.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
"After review by climate scientists, however, the [Marohasy] report was found to contain several obvious flaws and was recommended for redaction.
Most notable was the selective use of only six data points out of nearly 700 to yield a predictive model that "proved" that temperature rise would have occurred much as it has even without any additional CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by industrial civilization.
Dr. Gavin Schmidt, director of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies, suggested that the paper's conclusions are the result of "what happens when people have their conclusions fixed before they start the work.""
Wow, six out of 700 data points. That's even worse than her mate Stewart, who ignored about 24 of 104 data points.
www.glennmurray.com.au/why-my-mum-doesnt-believe-in-global-warming/
"Then why the accusation against the BoM?
The person making the accusations is Dr Jennifer Marohasy. Here's a bit about her:
She switched from research to management in 1997.
She spent 6 years working at the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), a lobby group for big businesses like News Ltd, BHP, Western Mining, Monsanto, big tobacco, and the fossil fuel industry.
She's a foundation member of the Australian Environment Foundation (AEF), which, among other things, lobbied to have 70,000 hectares of World Heritage listed Tasmanian forest de-listed.
Her research is funded by a Perth-based climate science sceptic, and long-standing IPA member, Bryant Macfie. He gave the University of Queensland $350k (facilitated by the IPA) to pay for environmental research scholarships, claiming science had been corrupted by a "newer religion" of environmentalism. At the time, Macfie owned 634,846 shares in a mineral exploration company called Strike Resources.
She's even spoken at a Heartland Foundation event in the US. (They're the mob that claim carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant at all, and that it's good for us!)
On Fox, Tucker would get maybe 2 million views of his show, he was the most popular at Fox
On Twitter, Tucker has got over 100+ million views in 1 day for his first episode
Check it out, not his best show but he is always worth watching
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
That reads as if you think Calvin was a scientist. Is that what you think?
Is that all you got from it ? Dunno why I bother. Really don't.
If the point I was making was that in the 1500s there wasn't the difference between science and religion in the way we separate them today, then why would I be labelling people from the 1500s one or the other ?
Then again, you'se was pointing out that the separation completely existed and to evidence it you quoted people who were at the forefront of revolutionary thought about the separation and how much of hard time they had in convincing anyone else....
then yep.... I might as well just agree.... I think Calvin was a scientist. I also think he was a Christian. And a theologist. And also a philosopher.
mmmm, now there is one. Is philosophy a science or an art ? We ask ourselves today in the same way those in the 1500s might have asked if science is a religion.
Science, art, religion. Zero overlaps since 1500 ?
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..Chris 249 said..
That reads as if you think Calvin was a scientist. Is that what you think?
Is that all you got from it ? Dunno why I bother. Really don't.
If the point I was making was that in the 1500s there wasn't the difference between science and religion in the way we separate them today, then why would I be labelling people from the 1500s one or the other ?
Then again, you'se was pointing out that the separation completely existed and to evidence it you quoted people who were at the forefront of revolutionary thought about the separation and how much of hard time they had in convincing anyone else....
then yep.... I might as well just agree.... I think Calvin was a scientist. I also think he was a Christian. And a theologist. And also a philosopher.
mmmm, now there is one. Is philosophy a science or an art ? We ask ourselves today in the same way those in the 1500s might have asked if science is a religion.
Science, art, religion. Zero overlaps since 1500 ?
But the thing is that you've given no evidence at all that Calvin, a religious leader, was a scientist. On the other hand we have his own words saying that those who believed the science of heliocentrism were "possessed by the devil". And Martin Luther was clearly saying that Christians must be different from scientists.
Yes, some people shared a deep and educated interest in both science and religion, and some of them worked in both areas. But that doesn't mean that you can blame scientists for what an organised branch of an organised church did to Galileo when its religious leaders charged him with a religious crime.
Science and religion had less of a clear division back in Galileo's day but that doesn't mean that the fact that someone hundreds of year ago was sanctioned by religious leaders for a religious crime is in any way relevant to what scientists, especially scientists in modern English, do to those who break the scientific consensus with new discoveries.
For a look at what happens in modern times, look at how astonished Rutherford and Einstein were at their own discoveries, and yet how enthusiastically their ideas were adopted by science.
On another point - much of this discussion is centred around evidence. You have provided no evidence for your claim about how closely science and religion were mixed at all. On one hand, you seem to say that we should be sceptical of the scientific consensus, but on the other hand you seem to say that I should accept your views about the depth of the science/religion mixed with no scepticism at all. Surely you can see how inconsistent that is.
By the way, I did some other background research into Calvin, Galileo etc and checked up Bertrand Russell, so I wasn't talking out of the ether. I just don't see why you are narked when I don't just roll over and accept your claim merely because you said it.
Moral decline is an illusion
There's no evidence that people are not as kind, respectful and trustworthy as they used to be. Decades' worth of survey results show that people in 60 countries have perceived a general moral decline for at least the past 70 years. But individuals' evaluation of their contemporaries' morality has remained largely unchanged. Biased memory could be a factor in maintaining the illusion: negative memories tend to fade faster than positive ones, which might help to explain why people believe that past morality was relatively high.
www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06137-x.epdf
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
Science and religion had less of a clear division back in Galileo's day
Yep, glad we agree.
Select to expand quoteHarrow said..
Can't believe I'm about to say this, but I miss when Bitcoin was the no.1 thread.
Sometimes I pine for the glory days of chemtrails.
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..Harrow said..
Can't believe I'm about to say this, but I miss when Bitcoin was the no.1 thread.
Sometimes I pine for the glory days of chemtrails.
I think the flat earth trilogy was a highlight, its rare that sequels keep getting better
