The One and Only Climate Change thread...

[Adam Cormier]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Just to clarify, because your wording is a bit unclear to me, I did not say that science doesn't compound. It does compound.

No I know you know science compounds(yeah my wording was awkward, i edited it, should have used the word he instead of you), I was waiting for Mr.Lohner to explain how he can justify saying mine, Dawkins (and probably just about any one who studies any branch of science) view(I'm certain it is a fact) is incorrect that science compounds.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Ed Seedhouse, I'm just going to wait for Mr.Lohner to express his opinion on why Dawkins and myself are wrong, and how you can justify saying science does not compound.

Just to clarify, because your wording is a bit unclear to me, I did not say that science doesn't compound. It does compound.

[Adam Cormier]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

I know it can happen. However, if you are well enough to play the game and lose, it shouldn't be the excuse. I've noticed no matter how sick I've felt during a game, if I win I always feel better. Winning a chess game while I'm sick works better than an antibiotic.

Put up a sign at the club. WHINING AND COMPLAINING AFTER A LOSS SHOULD BE DONE AT HOME.

I'll have to tell Rob Gashgarian (he's the president) to put that sign up sounds like a good idea.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

I'm sure some people actually have occurred problems/illnesses OTB. Back when I was a 1400(I'm 1950 now) I played in the PWC Toronto Open and had 2.5/3 in the U1600 and was playing really well, then I got a migraine...and lost both my next games. So things like that can happen...not saying they always do we have a player in Brantford who is always tired, or was focusing on his job, etc...

I know it can happen. However, if you are well enough to play the game and lose, it shouldn't be the excuse. I've noticed no matter how sick I've felt during a game, if I win I always feel better. Winning a chess game while I'm sick works better than an antibiotic.

Put up a sign at the club. WHINING AND COMPLAINING AFTER A LOSS SHOULD BE DONE AT HOME.

[Adam Cormier]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Well, where do you figure the team will finish? Maybe we can work something on that.

I get a laugh out of players who get their clocks cleaned in an event and they claim illness. When I started playing chess I made that mistake. It was in the 1950's. An old man at the event took me to the side and told me that nobody ever beats a well chess player. A defeated chess player always has a cold or a flu or didn't sleep well or has a headache.

The man told me when a chess player loses a game and whines about an illness he didn't only lose the game. He lost his pride.

I'm sure some people actually have occurred problems/illnesses OTB. Back when I was a 1400(I'm 1950 now) I played in the PWC Toronto Open and had 2.5/3 in the U1600 and was playing really well, then I got a migraine...and lost both my next games. So things like that can happen...not saying they always do we have a player in Brantford who is always tired, or was focusing on his job, etc...

Ed Seedhouse, I'm just going to wait for Mr.Lohner to express his opinion on why Dawkins and myself are wrong, and how he can justify saying science does not compound.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

No dice. We could send every chess player in Canada and we still wouldn't finish in the top 20. I don't have anything to do with selecting who represents Canada; I leave that to the experts.

Well, where do you figure the team will finish? Maybe we can work something on that.

I get a laugh out of players who get their clocks cleaned in an event and they claim illness. When I started playing chess I made that mistake. It was in the 1950's. An old man at the event took me to the side and told me that nobody ever beats a well chess player. A defeated chess player always has a cold or a flu or didn't sleep well or has a headache.

The man told me when a chess player loses a game and whines about an illness he didn't only lose the game. He lost his pride.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Wait what? if science doesn't compound then we would lose all of the science ever proved in all of history. Science has to compound or else the scientific method falls apart. Can you tell me exactly why science doesn't compound or how science progresses without compounding(because to me that is how science advances and becomes more complete).

And of course Kuhn never said anything of the sort. His book, these days, is considered interesting and an original viewpoint back in 1962 when it was written. But many flaws and mistakes in it have been pointed out in the 48 years since it was published. Kuhn was not a scientist but a philosopher observing a subset of scientists. Some of what he claimed does occur, but not nearly to the extent he believed. Scientist are, of course, human beings and have the normal set of human faults.

What makes me laugh is that these silly ideas about science are being promulgated on a medium which would not exist without the very science they decry.

[Adam Cormier]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Science is CONSTANTLY changing? really?? Thats news to me, you must be joking, I thought science just stayed the exact same and never changed and could never be questioned, oh wait that's religion.

Richard Dawkins also talks about that in one of his books, about how science is constantly compounding which is why a child can learn things that the greatest scientists of the past had no idea about.

Dawkins is wrong. Read Kuhns book and you will get an actually historical perspective by an expert in the field. Your (and Dawkins) view of science doesnt hold up to the historical evidence.

As for your book, I will look it up as it sounds like an interesting read :)

Wait what? if science doesn't compound then we would lose all of the science ever proved in all of history. Science has to compound or else the scientific method falls apart. Can you tell me exactly why science doesn't compound or how science progresses without compounding(because to me that is how science advances and becomes more complete).

[Jason Lohner]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Science is CONSTANTLY changing? really?? Thats news to me, you must be joking, I thought science just stayed the exact same and never changed and could never be questioned, oh wait that's religion.

Richard Dawkins also talks about that in one of his books, about how science is constantly compounding which is why a child can learn things that the greatest scientists of the past had no idea about.

Dawkins is wrong. Read Kuhns book and you will get an actually historical perspective by an expert in the field. Your (and Dawkins) view of science doesnt hold up to the historical evidence.

As for your book, I will look it up as it sounds like an interesting read :)

[Jason Lohner]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Jason of course has never read Kuhn's book. He is merely citing it in an attempt to sound impressive. He's failing at that, too.

I have read Kuhns book... several times at that and have it on my book shelf. It is one of my favorite philosophical texts. Perhaps YOU should read it.

[Adam Cormier]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

1. His opinions on drowsing is irrelevant to the discussion. It in no way nullifies his work in rising sea levels. This is called a red herring argument... perhaps you should take a course on logic.

2. Theon did years of work on AGW and has made a stand, just because you dont like it, doesnt make his opinion invalid. Note he isnt the only former NASA scientist who has come out and made skeptical statements about AGW, a point that you conveniently ignored.

3. You have only proved that you have NEVER READ a philosophical book if you dont see criticism of it. Perhaps you missed the part where it is considered one of the hundred most influential books in the past 100 years...

Kuhns premise is that science is CONSTANTLY changing and what is science 100 years ago is a joke now. Yet those who follow the paradigm follow it almost RELIGIOUSLY even when the evidence against it grows. Not until the next generation of scientists become the majority does the old paradigm fade away. Kuhn documents this quite well. That is why I recommended the book for those who religiously follow the current scientific theories of today.

Maybe his views on drowsing are irrelevant but him being completely wrong is not and you failed to mention that.

I never said his opinion was invalid but you are the one who is not looking at Hansen's response and the battle between the two and seeing that they are just trying to completely discredit the other(most likely due to alterior motives), and that article you presented has a few lies about Theon anyways, who is John S theon

Theon came to public attention in January 2009 when he announced that he did not support the scientific consensus that global warming is man-made. It is a scientific consensus just because a few scientists disagree doesn't take way from much from the majority of scientists.

I initially missed the other NASA scientist article I'll get back to you on that after I do more research.

Science is CONSTANTLY changing? really?? Thats news to me, you must be joking, I thought science just stayed the exact same and never changed and could never be questioned, oh wait that's religion.

Richard Dawkins also talks about that in one of his books, about how science is constantly compounding which is why a child can learn things that the greatest scientists of the past had no idea about.

the 3% of climatologists who are against AGW has along way to go to beat the majority of 97% and the evidence is piling up for not against it, Bjorn Lomborg has finally seen AGW to be the problem it is, even though before that he was a vocal skeptic and even has a skeptic book.

There is a much larger amount of evidence for then against AGW.

AGW deniers will never be the majority, because for that to happen that would take time and our world is going to be changing even more in the future providing more evidence for climate change. AGW supporters really could just sit and wait until more and more disastrous events occur(which they are) but we are actually trying to fix the problem.

AGW is not a theory it is a fact accepted both by the National Academy of Science and the Royal Society and the vast majority of scientists. In order for the deniers to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that global warming is not occurring(or is at least not man-made) the amount of evidence they require is enormous.

Here is a book I recommend for you, The republican war on Science which is being lead by Jim Inhofe.

[Kerry Liles]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Kerry, I have to tell you that if you can't see anyone in Western Canada qualified on merit to play on the Nationa team, you and I are looking at a different chess scene.

I'll bet you 20 dollars this national team doesn't finish in the top 20. Interested?

No dice. We could send every chess player in Canada and we still wouldn't finish in the top 20. I don't have anything to do with selecting who represents Canada; I leave that to the experts.

Of course there are likely players all over the country who may be qualified - I don't know the details of the selection machinations other than the result.

As far as I can tell, the CFC operates in secret, like the Knights Templar (who are also responsible for Global Warming)

[Jason Lohner]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Nils-Axel Morner is one man, INQUA disagrees with his position. Morner's claim that sea levels are not rising has been criticized for ignoring correctly calibrated satellite altimeter records, all of which show that sea levels are rising.

I guess you also agree with his views on drowsing, eh?

from your NASA articles, Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears. That is just a lie...a complete lie, the deniers aren't rapidly growing and people on both sides of the argument keep on flip-flopping. It even talks about how there are many meteorologists(weather-men) who are deniers...

Theon and Hansen obviously hate each other, if you actually do some more research you'd see that they both have fired back at each other calling each other liars, etc... both citing just as much work as the next. That site is obviously one sided(unlike skeptical science with at least acknowledges the denier's argument).

So your first key denier believes in drowsing and is just wrong about the sea levels.
your second one is just in a bitch fight with a AGW supporter.

and your third point on a philosophers book, 1/3 of the page is criticism...so maybe you might want to read both sides of the argument because it seems to me there is more to that issue then you think, if it so heavily debated(now before someone says I should look more at the deniers position because of how heavily debated it is, in Europe it is already accepted as a fact and most European countries are trying to find ways to solve this problem).

1. His opinions on drowsing is irrelevant to the discussion. It in no way nullifies his work in rising sea levels. This is called a red herring argument... perhaps you should take a course on logic.

2. Theon did years of work on AGW and has made a stand, just because you dont like it, doesnt make his opinion invalid. Note he isnt the only former NASA scientist who has come out and made skeptical statements about AGW, a point that you conveniently ignored.

3. You have only proved that you have NEVER READ a philosophical book if you dont see criticism of it. Perhaps you missed the part where it is considered one of the hundred most influential books in the past 100 years...

Kuhns premise is that science is CONSTANTLY changing and what is science 100 years ago is a joke now. Yet those who follow the paradigm follow it almost RELIGIOUSLY even when the evidence against it grows. Not until the next generation of scientists become the majority does the old paradigm fade away. Kuhn documents this quite well. That is why I recommended the book for those who religiously follow the current scientific theories of today.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Jason of course has never read Kuhn's book. He is merely citing it in an attempt to sound impressive. He's failing at that, too.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

I suppose the canadian thing to do would be to let anyone play and then get mediocre/horrible results and then say "oh well, at least we were there".

Kerry, I have to tell you that if you can't see anyone in Western Canada qualified on merit to play on the Nationa team, you and I are looking at a different chess scene.

I'll bet you 20 dollars this national team doesn't finish in the top 20. Interested?