CokeSnortingTory Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 In 100 years, the complex, unpredictable chaotic system that is you, will have ended. etc. Smoking is a possible cause of cancer alongside a great many others. You cannot predict who will get cancer, and where they will get it. You could possibly predict a greater likelihood of someone getting cancer if they smoke, but then you get counter-examples like Greece and Japan, which tend to have lots of smokers but a lower incidence of cancer due to their diet. Also, the human body is a tightly controlled, regular, enclosed system, unlike the atmosphere. Thanks for telling me I'll live to be 140, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ian Chesterton Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 Also, the human body is a tightly controlled, regular, enclosed system, unlike the atmosphere. And like the atmosphere it is subject to the environment around it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(Blizzard) Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 Smoking is a possible cause of cancer alongside a great many others. You cannot predict who will get cancer, and where they will get it. You could possibly predict a greater likelihood of someone getting cancer if they smoke, but then you get counter-examples like Greece and Japan, which tend to have lots of smokers but a lower incidence of cancer due to their diet. Also, the human body is a tightly controlled, regular, enclosed system, unlike the atmosphere. Thanks for telling me I'll live to be 140, though. No, the human body is more complex and difficult to predict than the atmosphere, and yet we can still make predictions about it. The smoking example is quite a good analogy for the atmosphere. It is true that you cannot predict everything, but that doesn't mean you can predict nothing. The fact remains that science is largely concerned with making predictions, and with no predictions you have no science. Of course, that is the real goal of the global warming opposition lobby. They want to replace science with ideology, since science stands in opposition to their interests. The other part of the analogy is the huge amount of money that was spent by cigarette companies trying to persuade people that the science was wrong. This same tactic is now used to try and combat the science of global warming. Almost everything around you is a direct or indirect result of the scientific method, operating over the last few hundred years. It is the most successful human project ever undertaken, and has achieved miracles. Of course, now it suggests limits to human growth and nasty consequences of our civillisation, we can suddenly see it must have been wrong all along. Good luck with the longevity though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CokeSnortingTory Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 And like the atmosphere it is subject to the environment around it. Good point. The environment is subject, to random, chaotic change too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ian Chesterton Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 Good point. The environment is subject, to random, chaotic change too. That wasn't my point, but well done for avoiding it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Limpet Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 As mmm..beer has said, AGW or not, we need to move away from burning fossil fuels towards more sustainable energy sources for more pressing reasons, like them being finite, rather than based on what appears to be increasingly dodgy science. Exactly right and very sensible. However Global Warming is not about being efficient, sensible, or self sufficient, it is just a way of giving the taxman another stick to beat you with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CokeSnortingTory Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 No, the human body is more complex and difficult to predict than the atmosphere, and yet we can still make predictions about it. The smoking example is quite a good analogy for the atmosphere. It is true that you cannot predict everything, but that doesn't mean you can predict nothing. The fact remains that science is largely concerned with making predictions, and with no predictions you have no science. Of course, that is the real goal of the global warming opposition lobby. They want to replace science with ideology, since science stands in opposition to their interests. The other part of the analogy is the huge amount of money that was spent by cigarette companies trying to persuade people that the science was wrong. This same tactic is now used to try and combat the science of global warming. Almost everything around you is a direct or indirect result of the scientific method, operating over the last few hundred years. It is the most successful human project ever undertaken, and has achieved miracles. Of course, now it suggests limits to human growth and nasty consequences of our civillisation, we can suddenly see it must have been wrong all along. Good luck with the longevity though. Are you seriously saying that the human body is more difficult to predict than the atmosphere? Is my pulse likely to randomly swing from 0 to 100? As for the politics stuff, It's just a diversion because both sides of the debate tend to make conspiracy-type accusations that have precisely nil persuasive effect. At the end of the day, I just don't believe that humans can predict random stuff that's going to happen in the future, whether it be economic trends, population trends or climate trends. That some people think we can is simply a delusion that''s built into a number of secular narratives that posit mankind with a power and foresight that it simply does not have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CokeSnortingTory Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 That wasn't my point, but well done for avoiding it. It was a crap point so I didn't entertain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(Blizzard) Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 Exactly right and very sensible. However Global Warming is not about being efficient, sensible, or self sufficient, it is just a way of giving the taxman another stick to beat you with. Yes, thank god they have global warming. Otherwise they'd never be able to tax anything. In particular they could never tax income or windows, or alcohol, or cars or land, or smoking... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ian Chesterton Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 It was a crap point so I didn't entertain it. You suggested the human body was an "enclosed system", rather like the scientific term "closed system". I'm sorry if pointing out you were talking ******** is considered a "crap point". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Limpet Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 Yes, thank god they have global warming. Otherwise they'd never be able to tax anything. In particular they could never tax income or windows, or alcohol, or cars or land, or smoking... I said "another", not the first and only. As it happens, global warming, sorry, climate change, is already one of the major justifications for the extortionate level of tax on fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CokeSnortingTory Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 You suggested the human body was an "enclosed system", rather like the scientific term "closed system". I'm sorry if pointing out you were talking ******** is considered a "crap point". It's an enclosed system in the way that all its operations happen internally. Sort of like an internal combustion engine. I wasn't using "enclosed" as an item of terminology. Who did you used to be Ian? Am I being rude to somebody I actually like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(Blizzard) Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 Are you seriously saying that the human body is more difficult to predict than the atmosphere? Is my pulse likely to randomly swing from 0 to 100? As for the politics stuff, It's just a diversion because both sides of the debate tend to make conspiracy-type accusations that have precisely nil persuasive effect. At the end of the day, I just don't believe that humans can predict random stuff that's going to happen in the future, whether it be economic trends, population trends or climate trends. That some people think we can is simply a delusion that''s built into a number of secular narratives that posit mankind with a power and foresight that it simply does not have. No, I would say they are about the same. You can predict your pulse to some degree, over some time given some knowledge about your activity levels. I can predict that you will die, and roughly when (but I'm probably going to drop this now, its a bit morbid) I can also predict that it will be colder at the poles, than at the equator. I can predict that summer will be warmer than winter. Both of these will be true for millions of years. The anti-science campaign is a conspiracy. Conspiracies exist. I don't think anyone seriously doubt the extremely well funded anti-global warming PR campaign. It is pretty well documented, and even admitted to, although I suspect the perpetrators would disagree about why they are doing it. If I suggested that Russian intelligence leaked the climategate emails, to further the Russian carbon industry, then that would be an unsubstantiated internet 'conspiracy'. Humans can make predictions about complex things, they do it all the time, and it really works. There are so many examples, it isn't worth making a list. You can't predict everything though, and half the battle is knowing what you can predict and what you can't. I agree that people can take these things too far, and many of the pro-science side of the debate are guilty of this as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(Blizzard) Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 I said "another", not the first and only. As it happens, global warming, sorry, climate change, is already one of the major justifications for the extortionate level of tax on fuel. People would be a lot better off if they stopping worrying about 'their' excuses and started worrying about 'them'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CokeSnortingTory Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 No, I would say they are about the same. You can predict your pulse to some degree, over some time given some knowledge about your activity levels. I can predict that you will die, and roughly when (but I'm probably going to drop this now, its a bit morbid) I can also predict that it will be colder at the poles, than at the equator. I can predict that summer will be warmer than winter. Both of these will be true for millions of years. You're really just talking about boundary conditions here. You could equally say that a boundary condition of economics is that capital always flows, and that when equities fall you can predict bonds will rise. Same with the human body, but for example scientists have been very bad at predicting random/chaotic events such as the extent of virus outbreaks etc. If you fervently believe we can predict random/chaotic future events, then I'm not going to be able to stop you. I just think this is pure hubris that is connected at deep levels to western illusions of "progress" and mastery of nature. Ironically, it is fossil fuel limits and the correlated collapse of credit that is going to end this hubris just as surely as it will end any putative global warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(Blizzard) Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 You're really just talking about boundary conditions here. You could equally say that a boundary condition of economics is that capital always flows, and that when equities fall you can predict bonds will rise. Same with the human body, but for example scientists have been very bad at predicting random/chaotic events such as the extent of virus outbreaks etc. If you fervently believe we can predict random/chaotic future events, then I'm not going to be able to stop you. I just think this is pure hubris that is connected at deep levels to western illusions of "progress" and mastery of nature. Ironically, it is fossil fuel limits and the correlated collapse of credit that is going to end this hubris just as surely as it will end any putative global warming. Random just means unpredictable so no, we can't predict unpredictable events. Nor can we predict chaotic events, that's pretty much the definition of chaos - sensitive dependence on initial conditions. However, most interesting systems exhibit both order and chaos. I can't predict the position of all the atoms in a gas, but I can still derive gas laws that predict the behavior of gases pretty well. Well enough to build engines. It isn't really an opinion, this is how science works all the time. Other than maybe particle physics, scientists are always trying to make predictions about complex chaotic systems. It was hubris once, maybe in Isaac Newton's time, but now its been done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CokeSnortingTory Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 Random just means unpredictable so no, we can't predict unpredictable events. Nor can we predict chaotic events, that's pretty much the definition of chaos - sensitive dependence on initial conditions. However, most interesting systems exhibit both order and chaos. I can't predict the position of all the atoms in a gas, but I can still derive gas laws that predict the behavior of gases pretty well. Well enough to build engines. It isn't really an opinion, this is how science works all the time. Other than maybe particle physics, scientists are always trying to make predictions about complex chaotic systems. It was hubris once, maybe in Isaac Newton's time, but now its been done. Well there you go, they're always trying. I always wonder why they don't try to model something relatively more predictable, like horse racing, and make themselves millionaires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ian Chesterton Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 It's an enclosed system in the way that all its operations happen internally. Sort of like an internal combustion engine. I wasn't using "enclosed" as an item of terminology. Then its a piss poor analogy. Who did you used to be Ian? Am I being rude to somebody I actually like? Don't worry, you've always been a twit to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(Blizzard) Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 Well there you go, they're always trying. I always wonder why they don't try to model something relatively more predictable, like horse racing, and make themselves millionaires. Well that's just cheating! I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I do feel sorry for you though. Living in such a bewildering, unpredictable world must be quite confusing. You must be permanently surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ian Chesterton Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 I always wonder why they don't try to model something relatively more predictable, like horse racing, and make themselves millionaires. They have and they did. They're called bookmakers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CokeSnortingTory Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 Well that's just cheating! I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I do feel sorry for you though. Living in such a bewildering, unpredictable world must be quite confusing. You must be permanently surprised. Yeah, we''ll have to agree to disagree. I think the world is bewildering and unpredictable (to a certain extent), and we're fools if we try to frame order on that which is inherently random. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pick It Down Posted August 1, 2010 Author Share Posted August 1, 2010 Weather ≠Climate Weather ≠Climate Weather ≠Climate Weather ≠Climate Weather ≠Climate Weather ≠Climate Weather ≠Climate Weather ≠Climate Weather ≠Climate Weather ≠Climate Weather ≠Climate Weather ≠Climate Weather ≠Climate Weather ≠Climate Weather ≠Climate Weather ≠Climate Weather ≠Climate Weather ≠Climate Weather ≠Climate Weather ≠Climate Weather ≠Climate Weather ≠Climate Weather ≠Climate Weather ≠Climate Weather ≠Climate Weather ≠Climate Weather ≠Climate Weather ≠Climate Except of course when it is.. Wildfires spread in western Russia Cooling is weather, warming is climate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ian Chesterton Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 Cooling is weather, warming is climate. THANK YOU! About bloody time you admitted that. I'll be sure to quote you on that next time you base one of your ****** monkey arguments on a short period of weather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CokeSnortingTory Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 They have and they did. They're called bookmakers. Bookmakers don't predict the outcomes of horse races. If they did the favourite would always win. They simply systematically adjust odds based on the punters estimates of who will win, so that they collect no matter which horse is the winner. Reality, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ian Chesterton Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 Bookmakers don't predict the outcomes of horse races. If they did the favourite would always win. They simply systematically adjust odds based on the punters estimates of who will win, so that they collect no matter which horse is the winner. Reality, eh? In other words, they've modeled "something relatively more predictable" and made themselves millionaires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.