213374U

Huh? You mean you are actually learning stuff? I thought people went to college to experience the decadent American college life, centered around scatterbrained hotties, frat house partying and illegal substance (ab)use. You have failed me for the last time.

Uh-huh. At least one good thing will come out of this healthcare bill thing -- from now on Hades will have no excuse not to have his medication upped.

"Economics and Political Science" How is it/why did you choose that?

Thoughts?

Back off man, I saw him first!

Hold on. Who is qualified to judge? Physicists? Anyone with a science degree? Someone involved with the IPCC? Those whose opinion supports your own? Just who, exactly? And weren't you saying just last page that "the ability to read and basic understanding of science" was enough? Which one is it? Yeah, the problem is that, in science, it's also necessary to deal with the data that doesn't agree with one's hypothesis. And I was told that it's also important to try and maintain perspective of the limited application value of one's model, considering how other factors aren't well understood and therefore left out or parametrized: Bohr wouldn't have tried to use his model to predict the emission spectrum of carbon. Also:

Well, I can only recommend that you read the article if you have the time, then. It highlights some admissions made in an interview by one of the big time scientists that worked for the IPCC, to make the point that the observed warming is well within normal parameters. The guy was hit pretty hard by the whole "Climategate" thing, apparently. It also mentions a few other interesting details I particularly hadn't heard, but overall the tone is fairly hostile to the man. The fossil fuels issue is only mentioned in passing, I think. Hey, who knows. Maybe we can actually get this thread back on track and leave the philosophy of science for another day...

I'm sure that any member of a special police unit/spec ops outfit can reasonably level the same criticism against gunplay in games... only most people haven't experienced the real thing and can't very well compare. Interesting read, Enoch.

Then it would simply not be published anywhere other than perhaps the author's website. I can guarantee that there would be no censorship proper. Hell, probably somebody has done that already, or worse. You know this guy Franco? You wouldn't believe the things people draw with him as a theme, around here. Nobody other than the usual suspects is tearing their shirts over that, as far as I can tell...

It wasn't. Not as far as providing an explanation for the emission spectrum of hydrogen goes, at any rate. In a general sense, yes, it's wrong -- though I've mostly heard it described as "incomplete" and "limited". It wasn't meant to explain ALL reality at the subatomic level, FOREVAR. Unlike your mind, science isn't a 0 or 1 thing. Well, it must be nice to have faith in something at least. Good luck with that. Btw, that's an informal fallacy. (argument from authority)

Nice, because other than this, there's nothing in your post I disagree with. So, other than dotting the i's and crossing the t's in Wals' post (and sending some happy feelings my way while you're at it), what do you have to say about the OP?

No ****, Sherlock! What was the model originally posited for, genius? Did it serve its purpose? At any rate, re-read what Walsingham said, think how Bohr's model illustrates his point, and rethink your ridiculous statement that "a model that cannot be used for any form of prediction is worthless". I'll be waiting. I already explained how AGW isn't even up to "theory" standards, as far as the scientific meaning of the word goes. A hypothesis with a basis on highly contested data and woefully incomplete and fine-tuned mathematical models? Sure. A "theory"? Perhaps, but only in the "I have a theory: you are a moron" sense. So tell us, what is AGW, according to you? A scientific Law? An epistemological imperative? A palindrome? PROTIP: It's also useful to explain HOW the argument you are trying to refute is wrong. The catch is that bluffing is much more difficult.

Nah, I restate my points in as derogatory a tone as I'm capable of when folks refuse to address the points and instead have a go at me. It's simple, really. It doesn't say much about you that you haven't been able to recognize this pattern yet. Oh, by the way, people who disagree with you are not necessarily wrong, nor are their opinions meaningless. That may actually be the case, but it's up to you to write a convincing rebuttal. Observations that do not agree with the model serve that purpose. If new, reliable observations do not agree with your current model, your model is wrong. Obbie, meet Bohr's atomic model. Bohr, meet Obbie. Etc...

I love neat sounding quotes. They are an awesome resource for when one has nothing original to say, and they can make you look real smart when delivered well and coupled with a good use of the eyebrows. A few off the top of my head: "When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be" - Lao Tzu "Stop quoting the laws, we have swords" - Pompey "I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the industrious, and the stupid. Most often two of these qualities come together. The officers who are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments. Those who are stupid and lazy make up around 90% of every army in the world, and they can be used for routine work. The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command; he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and industrious is a menace and must be removed immediately!" - Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord "No citizen has a right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training... what a disgrace it is for a man to grow old without ever seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable." - Socrates

In an ideal world where every listener is at least as educated as every speaker, hate speech would be pointless, and therefore there would be no need for it to be banned. This is far from being an ideal world, though, and we all recognize the dangers of demagoguery and populism. I'm not arguing for absolute, 100% pure unadulterated free speech. The problem lies, as always, in the proverbial line on the sand.

In fact, during the Middle Ages, Muslims and non-Muslims (Christians included), lived in peace and harmony in what have been arguably some of the most tolerant and progressive regimes of the time: the Caliphates. Characterized by a respect of individual rights (including, but not limited to, freedom of religion and freedom of expression), and an adherence to an early form of the rule of law, different peoples coexisted and worked together to bring about the "Golden Age" of Islam -- one of the most bright periods of Islamic history and comparable to the European Renaissance period in scope. So, no. It was merely the Pope and those who relied on him for validation of their authority that "hated Muslims", and only because back then the Muslim world was the dominant power. Free speech cannot lead to the polarisation you warn against -- that's the role of ignorance, to which suppression of free speech is conducive.

Talk about clumsy trolling. I edited the post, even if you don't really deserve it. So far your contributions to this thread have amounted to calling everyone an ignorant, claiming that any opinions different from your own are irrelevant, and accusing me of being wrong without actually substantiating such claims. This may come as a shock, but your word is not law around these parts, Obbie. We are not your mommy. And yeah, hurt as your pride may be, you are a total n00b at trolling. Not subtle, not funny, not even snobbish enough. Simply... weak. edit: I wouldn't bother, Wals. He's clearly not interested in the link, or even facts that disagree with his prefab opinions. If he was, he would have read it by now, only to have an idea of what the thread is about, don't you think?

"uh... buh... wha... that can't be, you wrong!" Yeah, Obbie. I know it hurts. Why don't you leave the grownups to their grownup discussions? It's obvious that you have no grasp of the science you insist on patronizing about, and by extension, the topic at hand. But that's not nearly as bad (it can be blamed on lazy teachers), as your lack of capacity to form your own opinions and your unwillingness to learn.

You don't need a doctorate, you need to be able to read and you need at least a basic understanding of how science works. Your misuse of the word "theory" demonstrates you lack the latter. I recommend you start reading the link posted by Walsingham in the first post, then, if all you need are basic reading comprehension skills. Right, because who needs critical thinking anyway? <snip> I may have misused the word "theory", in a strictly scientific sense. Let me rephrase: what we have are a bunch of models. But those are even weaker than a theory, as far as establishing a basis for what is known goes. Models are used to simulate systems for convenience of observations sake, but they don't actually explain anything and are at the complete mercy of the assumptions of the scientists that built them. The "theory" that this increase in temperature is a result of human activity is in no way scientific... it's more like guesswork. Further, the ability to read and "basic knowledge" of the workings of science will get you nowhere (or rather, it will get you where others want you to be), as this issue is one of the most complex topics tackled by science, ever. I speak on a regular basis with actual scientists... you know, folks that advance science for a living. And a common theme among them is ignorance of the details and technical aspects involved. This is hardly surprising, as scientists don't do "general science", and most don't have the time nor the inclination to go through specialized literature and journals in their spare time, just for the hell of it. <snip>

I take usurpation very seriously, thank you very much.

Oh, ho ho. Enlighten me. edit: ah, of course. So go ahead and post your doctorate credentials (as well as your current working assignments and past published research on the subject), so we can take you seriously instead of assuming you are just another self-important internet gasbag.

is just as bigoted and short-sighted as a Muslim that might get incontinently angry about the issue and yell "burn the cartoonist" - effectively you've got people in the Western world who are so blindly devoted to the idol of freedom of speech, so that rather than truly understanding its (very positive) role in society, they just worship it. How is this different from.... Uh, so because people don't understand what free speech is about (your insult example is a perfect example of this), free speech is suddenly at the same level as divine revelation? Really? The problem is that you cannot codify people's sensibilities and make that into a law that will be fair for everyone, because "offense" is not only unfalsifiable, but also completely subjective. Therefore, restricting free speech (a fundamental human right) just to whatever doesn't cause offense is bound to fail. While I think your stance in questioning everything, free speech included, is appropriate, I don't think you are being very thorough about it, as you seem to be confusing (or at least placing at the same level) dogma and empirical reasoning. Things like free speech and the secularisation of the state have been discussed for centuries now... and people were eventually convinced (by means of reason) that it was best. Revisiting these discussions is undoubtedly healthy, so as to avoid the blind worship problem you speak about, but let's try not to lose perspective. I'd genuinely like to hear your arguments against free speech, as I worship nothing myself, but I did notice you didn't actually make any.

Sorry sir, but that's bull. Free speech doesn't end where the sensibilities of group X begin. That is NOT free speech, you see -- self-censorship is still censorship. You make an interesting point: we do respect your culture/religion, as long as it doesn't conflict with the foundations of OUR culture. Because, unlike in other cultures, those foundations aren't untouchable since they were given to us by God Almighty directly (through a convenient intermediary). Systematically oppressing women and homosexuals should be acceptable because "there are no barbarians, just other cultures"? Where did this idea that irreconcilable differences don't exist come from? I'm not calling for open warfare here, but exemption from criticism? PC overdrive much?

Huh. If a single anonymous post can raise reasonable doubts, then perhaps the foundations of this theory aren't quite as solid as you'd like to think. I'm really in no mood to dig up a bazillon links that show that this "consensus" is not only irrelevant, but also not as complete as you claim. Use the search function if you're interested. Been there done that, etc.