Maybe the folks at East Anglia were right

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by DCforever

Speculation is way too strong a word. There is a swing of about 0.5 °C about what has been a pretty consistent trend line for the past 50 years. We have absolutely no information that would suggest that the long term trend has been arrested. But forecasting the future is always an educated guess. Speculation is a guess without a basis, we have a very strong basis for our belief that the trend will continue.

Speculation is an opinion or evaluation that is not verifiable or validated in its assumption.

Speculation is a guess, the level of reasonableness to its assumption is irrelevant to its definition. It is still a guess.

It is simple. Either you know and can validate such (making it a fact), or you are speculating a given outcome.

The fact that you try so hard to spin the meaning of speculation is absurd and shows an extremely strong bias to a given outcome.

[DCforever]

Originally Posted by Nomander

Speculation is an opinion or evaluation that is not verifiable or validated in its assumption.

Speculation is a guess, the level of reasonableness to its assumption is irrelevant to its definition. It is still a guess.

It is simple. Either you know and can validate such (making it a fact), or you are speculating a given outcome.

The fact that you try so hard to spin the meaning of speculation is absurd and shows an extremely strong bias to a given outcome.

Actually I periodically appear as an expert witness in legal venues and speculation has a very specific meaning in that environment. It means an uninformed guess. The projection that warming will continue is based upon a substantial body of scientific evidence, and is thus not speculation.

Not spining, just using the English language with precision.

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by DCforever

Actually I periodically appear as an expert witness in legal venues and speculation has a very specific meaning in that environment. It means an uninformed guess. The projection that warming will continue is based upon a substantial body of scientific evidence, and is thus not speculation.

Not spining, just using the English language with precision.

*chuckle*

That isn't how science works. It isn't "horse shoes and hand grenades" where "close enough" is sufficient.

Science is a process of verification, validation, and replication. A guess regardless of how "informed" it may be is still... a guess and the process of establishing fact in science is not established by best guesses.

Maybe you should apply your "precision" more to the process of science?


You did read the posts I provided concerning the BEST data did you not? You do realize it is still in peer review? You do realize Muller's own statements concerning the findings do you not? Heck, even Hansen (activist researcher) isn't stating such in terms of fact or certainty.

Lastly, it is speculation, as even by your legal definition it is a guess based on what they believe to be evidence supporting such, a speculation as to the conclusion.

Need I remind you that "correlation != causation", its a, you know... principal of science?

[DCforever]

Originally Posted by Nomander

*chuckle*

That isn't how science works. It isn't "horse shoes and hand grenades" where "close enough" is sufficient.

Science is a process of verification, validation, and replication. A guess regardless of how "informed" it may be is still... a guess and the process of establishing fact in science is not established by best guesses.

Maybe you should apply your "precision" more to the process of science?


You did read the posts I provided concerning the BEST data did you not? You do realize it is still in peer review? You do realize Muller's own statements concerning the findings do you not? Heck, even Hansen (activist researcher) isn't stating such in terms of fact or certainty.

Lastly, it is speculation, as even by your legal definition it is a guess based on what they believe to be evidence supporting such, a speculation as to the conclusion.

Need I remind you that "correlation != causation", its a, you know... principal of science?

Yeah I know all those things. I was hoping that you could learn some too. I notice that most of the adjectives you use about climate change research have pejorative connotation. I was attempting to move the conversation to a more scientific and dispassionate level.

I think your point about correlation ≠ causation while true is woefully simplistic. Where we see correlation we look for potential causation. In the case of anthropogenic climate change we find both. We know from fundamental science that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So we have at least one of the culprits that is contributing to the current climate change.

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by DCforever

Yeah I know all those things. I was hoping that you could learn some too. I notice that most of the adjectives you use about climate change research have pejorative connotation. I was attempting to move the conversation to a more scientific and dispassionate level.

Yet your responses have been very unscientific. You proclaim guesses as if they were conclusions and your bias to a position is extremely obvious.

Originally Posted by DCforever

I think your point about correlation ≠ causation while true is woefully simplistic. Where we see correlation we look for potential causation. In the case of anthropogenic climate change we find both. We know from fundamental science that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So we have at least one of the culprits that is contributing to the current climate change.

Your explanation is exactly why that principal is established. What you explain is contrary to the scientific method. You do not see correlation and attempt to identify links by establishing potential causation. You make an assumption and then test it looking for any possible weakness in that assumption, otherwise you end up simply searching for means to prove your assumption correct by selecting the most plausible conclusion that explains your assumption. That is as they say "bass ackwards".

we know some about CO2, but we have only assumptions as to its interactions and roles within our system to any conclusive means concerning climate. Your language immediately attempts to specify it to a position that can not be validated by claiming it is a culprit.

Your entire approach to the reasoning of the issue is to look for a means to prove the assumption correct and, as I said... that is NOT scientific.