Hi Q&A, Sorry I jumped the gun on your response to the nine points; hope we are now in synch.

We do have some common ground and even those points where we might disagree we are developing an understanding of respective positions which I find positive. In order to further develop this understanding, I will address those issues in point form.

A. I may have misunderstood your response, I thought we were agreeing that if the only thing scientists agree on that it is very complex, then the current two state outcome, AGW ‘ers vs. Deniers cannot be correct, therefore the real answer must by definition, be a composite.
B. Plus 4. & 5. <<You keep wanting absolutes>>, << science is never conclusive, it’s about probabilities>>, that I <<keep rabbeting on about “proof”>> and that <<science is inconclusive>> Science is conclusive, it is about proof. Science is about hypothesis, testing the hypothesis and repeating the test with a consistent result. On the other hand possibilities, probabilities and contingencies are a product of human imagination.
C. Did I <<not understand the cake?>>. You said it yourself, << The size of the cake is fixed. If I take a bigger slice, your slice will be correspondingly smaller. Winners are balanced by losers and it is a zero sum end game>> and << this adversarial approach to solving global issues is counterproductive>>. Correct, that is why “Rule Number One” states, do not try to take a bigger slice, instead, grow the cake, otherwise there will be winners and losers and it will create an adversarial situation.
D. I think this refers my point 3. of my post Tuesday, 26 May, 4.29 pm. I simply presented my logic in asserting that the debate has become the zero sum game. Your assertion was << This is a typical argument put forward by so called ‘deniers’ – it is a logical fallacy>>, I’ve explained my logic, can you explain why it is a “logical fallacy”?
E. I said, “If there were scientific certainty there would be no debate”. How can that possibly be incorrect?

( tbc)

(continued)

F. Computer stuff: I asserted that the debate had reached a binary state, that of Deniers or AGW’ers, for or against or pro or anti. It was your reference to computers and artificial intelligence to which I was responding. Apart from being wrong, your reference to computers and AI are not pertinent.
G. Ammo? That’s sick. Q&A, I was simply referring to the fact that I’d run into post and word limits as you had done previously. No offense intended.


1. I said << To believe that there is no significant body of scientific opposition to GHG induced GW is unsustainable>>. Until we can demonstrate scientific agreement my point is not invalidated by how many on each side or who they are.
2. “In or Out”, nothing to do with binary reasoning, just the two state outcome. See point F.
About << “research data, scientific interpretation, scientific modeling, media, politics, and public commentary” The public are not qualified to form a view of our own, we can only, adopt someone else’s opinion. We cannot do scientific research or interpret research or model it. That leaves us with the media, politics and non peer reviewed public opinion. I might have faith or trust in my GP, but these guys? Forget it.
3. See 2.
4. Strongly disagree, see B. plus 4. & 5
5. Strongly disagree, see B. plus 4. & 5. Nice of you to allude to my “unfortunate” limited intellect (tish tish). I guess your next post will determine who has the limited intellectual capacity? This emanates from your incorrect assertion that I have referred to the debate as “Binary”, “Circular” and a “Z S G”. You keep giving academic process explanations. I say again, not process, but outcome. Since you asked, “Intellectual or Academic Croaker” Those with a despondent, defeatist, grumbling, rumor-mongering enmity that prevents facts ever replacing a stubborn ideology. Also, no science, remember?
6. I’ll add something on Entity Relationship Analysis on my next post.

Over to you.

mil-observer

It is obvious you haven’t taken the trouble to research your own claims.

It is even more obvious you know nothing of Einstein or the scientific method.

Not knowing does not pass for scepticism. It is simply ignorance.

Spindoc

We all have a life. Time permitting, I hope to get back to you on the weekend.

Another quick test of Q&A's pretentiousness with the cliché and condescension (wow, stop press!) i.e., “Science is never conclusive or absolute” and “...obvious you know nothing of Einstein...”. But Einstein redefined “absolute space” and “absolute time” with reference to the speed of light as a new, encompassing absolute in “relativity”. That was rather “conclusive” too, yet Q&A tells us with absolute certainty that “science is never conclusive”. What an absolute clown!

And what of the language? E.g., “Time permitting, I shall obtain the capacity to utilize more pompous middle-class, pretentious and posterior diction and erudition, replete with numerous, novel verbosities”, etc. A proper wind balloon. Maybe that's why Q&A's so convinced about AGW: floating up with other blimps like Al Gore there must be some extra wafts of hot air.

Repulsive pomposity, obviously just another boring result of the monetarist and political fictions to which such class-obsessed poseurs cling like no-hoping, effete junkies.

Q&A/Spindoc,

Have been reading your too and froing with some interest and wanted to add a few comments:

1. Science.

Your disagreement about the 'scientific method' is somewhat semantic.

Spindoc's description: "Science is about hypothesis, testing the hypothesis and repeating the test with a consistent result" is correct, however, all the testing in the world doesn't prove (in the scientific 'absolute' sense), that a hypothesis is correct. There always remains the possibility that some later devised test will not be passed. The constant testing of a hypothesis merely produces an ever increasing probability that the hypothesis is correct, but never certainty. In that sense, Q&A is correct, that "science is never conclusive, it’s about probabilities."

The real question is, for any particular hypothesis, how well it stands up to testing.

Now, one FUNDAMENTAL issue is the limitation of the scientific method: The testing of a hypothesis is only reliable IF, AND ONLY IF, ALL THE VARIABLES in the experiment can be controlled and measured.

This is an issue which affects different areas of scientific study more than others. You may have heard 'physics and chemistry' described as 'hard' sciences, and psychology and biology as 'soft' sciences. The origin of these expressions is, broadly speaking, the imperfect experimental processes which have to be used in the soft sciences because of the varying difficulty in isolating and measuring the variables for any particular hypothesis. This inevitably leads to 'softer'LESS RELIABLE results.

The 'softer' the science, the less reliable.