Comments on: Newtongate: the final nail in the coffin of Renaissance and Enlightenment ‘thinking’ http://carbonfixated.com/newtongate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-renaissance-and-enlightenment-thinking/ Photosynthesising in a CO2-enriched world Wed, 12 May 2010 22:37:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Erasmussimo http://carbonfixated.com/newtongate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-renaissance-and-enlightenment-thinking/comment-page-3/#comment-1250 Erasmussimo Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:01:13 +0000 http://carbonfixated.com/newtongate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-renaissance-and-enlightenment-thinking/#comment-1250 I am astounded that the deniers attempt to differentiate Newton's laws from climate change science by arguing that "well, what Newton did was real science" whereas what the IPCC does is some kind of pseudoscience. Have any deniers actually read Principia Mathematica (Newton's work on physics)? I have slogged through the entire thing and it is not at all as clear and simple as your high-school physics would have you believe. It is a huge mass of theorems, corollaries, and extensive calculations. He got some of those calculations wrong! (No big surprise -- some of them are very lengthy and he didn't have a calculator.) The theorems are extremely dense and I gave up trying to follow the logic on many of them -- and I hold a master's degree in physics! If you think that you could follow them, try it yourself. It's really tough. The physics you read nowadays enjoys the benefit of centuries of cleaning up, simplification, and different teaching strategies. Sure, it seems clean and simple, but it was nowhere near so clean and simple back then. There were complications and mistakes. I have read both IPCC AR4 and Principia, and I can state flatly that IPCC AR4 is clearer, better argued, and better supported than Principia. I am astounded that the deniers attempt to differentiate Newton’s laws from climate change science by arguing that “well, what Newton did was real science” whereas what the IPCC does is some kind of pseudoscience. Have any deniers actually read Principia Mathematica (Newton’s work on physics)? I have slogged through the entire thing and it is not at all as clear and simple as your high-school physics would have you believe. It is a huge mass of theorems, corollaries, and extensive calculations. He got some of those calculations wrong! (No big surprise — some of them are very lengthy and he didn’t have a calculator.) The theorems are extremely dense and I gave up trying to follow the logic on many of them — and I hold a master’s degree in physics! If you think that you could follow them, try it yourself. It’s really tough.

The physics you read nowadays enjoys the benefit of centuries of cleaning up, simplification, and different teaching strategies. Sure, it seems clean and simple, but it was nowhere near so clean and simple back then. There were complications and mistakes. I have read both IPCC AR4 and Principia, and I can state flatly that IPCC AR4 is clearer, better argued, and better supported than Principia.

]]> By: Reed Coray http://carbonfixated.com/newtongate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-renaissance-and-enlightenment-thinking/comment-page-3/#comment-848 Reed Coray Tue, 19 Jan 2010 17:11:50 +0000 http://carbonfixated.com/newtongate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-renaissance-and-enlightenment-thinking/#comment-848 Pop quiz on the above article. [Note returning to the text of the article is considered cheating--or at least data adjusting.] Align the names in column A with the names in Column B A (historical) B (current) Newton Mann Hooke Jones Oldenburg Trenberth Jones Santer Cotes Wigley Jack the Ripper Hansen Leibniz Gore Freebie: Jack the Ripper ...and... Santer. Pop quiz on the above article. [Note returning to the text of the article is considered cheating--or at least data adjusting.]

Align the names in column A with the names in Column B

A (historical) B (current)
Newton Mann
Hooke Jones
Oldenburg Trenberth
Jones Santer
Cotes Wigley
Jack the Ripper Hansen
Leibniz Gore

Freebie: Jack the Ripper …and… Santer.

]]> By: pat http://carbonfixated.com/newtongate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-renaissance-and-enlightenment-thinking/comment-page-3/#comment-839 pat Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:45:58 +0000 http://carbonfixated.com/newtongate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-renaissance-and-enlightenment-thinking/#comment-839 Of course the skeptics play the part of Newton in this spoof. Of course the skeptics play the part of Newton in this spoof.

]]> By: Dan http://carbonfixated.com/newtongate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-renaissance-and-enlightenment-thinking/comment-page-3/#comment-832 Dan Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:25:41 +0000 http://carbonfixated.com/newtongate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-renaissance-and-enlightenment-thinking/#comment-832 A fantastic demonstration of why climategate is so important. As Jack Lacton identifies. The big difference between Newton and CRU is that Newton's laws are scientific (i.e, have been tested and verified objectively), while the AGW argument is untested (or, more to the point, untestable) and is therefore unscientific. The CRU emails would be irrelevant, as Newtons letter are, if CRU were actually able to objectively predict future weather - which, as the MET office demonstrated these last two years, they are not. Without science behind them, CRU are left to defend their views with an appeal to society's goodwill and trust - which given the emails, should be running out fast. An excellent post that has helped me clarify my thinking on this topic. Thanks. Dan A fantastic demonstration of why climategate is so important.

As Jack Lacton identifies. The big difference between Newton and CRU is that Newton’s laws are scientific (i.e, have been tested and verified objectively), while the AGW argument is untested (or, more to the point, untestable) and is therefore unscientific.

The CRU emails would be irrelevant, as Newtons letter are, if CRU were actually able to objectively predict future weather – which, as the MET office demonstrated these last two years, they are not.

Without science behind them, CRU are left to defend their views with an appeal to society’s goodwill and trust – which given the emails, should be running out fast.

An excellent post that has helped me clarify my thinking on this topic. Thanks.

Dan

]]> By: Jack Lacton http://carbonfixated.com/newtongate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-renaissance-and-enlightenment-thinking/comment-page-3/#comment-829 Jack Lacton Mon, 18 Jan 2010 03:16:42 +0000 http://carbonfixated.com/newtongate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-renaissance-and-enlightenment-thinking/#comment-829 The author is too obtuse to observe that Newton's laws were tested and verified to be true for hundreds of years whereas the IPCC's projections have been tested and shown to be false, which is exactly what one would expect given the egregious, statistically invalid backfitting that goes on in their models. The author is too obtuse to observe that Newton’s laws were tested and verified to be true for hundreds of years whereas the IPCC’s projections have been tested and shown to be false, which is exactly what one would expect given the egregious, statistically invalid backfitting that goes on in their models.

]]> By: Mojo http://carbonfixated.com/newtongate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-renaissance-and-enlightenment-thinking/comment-page-3/#comment-828 Mojo Mon, 18 Jan 2010 01:10:42 +0000 http://carbonfixated.com/newtongate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-renaissance-and-enlightenment-thinking/#comment-828 Brilliant leftwingnuttery. Bravo! It deserves a Nobel Prize! It also explains the nose ring craze –how better to lead the sheeple than to convince them that what was once relegated to cattle is cool. Watch the video below where ‘green’ activists show their smarts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw Another funny one is Gore’s new scary book with four hurricanes –two spinning backwards --- on the cover, and the water level rising high enough to cover Cuba’s highest peak at 6,563 feet. I guess that can happen when the core of the earth is millions of degrees, and the new god supplies a lot more water than there really is –but you could co borrow some of the swell Creationist ‘science’ to explain the water. Look under Noah. All peer reviewed and ready to go…. Brilliant leftwingnuttery. Bravo! It deserves a Nobel Prize! It also explains the nose ring craze –how better to lead the sheeple than to convince them that what was once relegated to cattle is cool.

Watch the video below where ‘green’ activists show their smarts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

Another funny one is Gore’s new scary book with four hurricanes –two spinning backwards — on the cover, and the water level rising high enough to cover Cuba’s highest peak at 6,563 feet. I guess that can happen when the core of the earth is millions of degrees, and the new god supplies a lot more water than there really is –but you could co borrow some of the swell Creationist ‘science’ to explain the water. Look under Noah. All peer reviewed and ready to go….

]]> By: Eric Anderson http://carbonfixated.com/newtongate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-renaissance-and-enlightenment-thinking/comment-page-3/#comment-827 Eric Anderson Mon, 18 Jan 2010 01:02:12 +0000 http://carbonfixated.com/newtongate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-renaissance-and-enlightenment-thinking/#comment-827 But that is just the difference, isn't it, between "companies that produce reflecting telescopes, use differential and integral calculus, or rely on the laws of motion" and the proponents of AGW. One deals with real physics and practical real-world applications. The other deals in computer models, questionable assumptions, and alleged effects that won't be seen for years, if not decades or centuries hence. I.e., one is experimental science. The other is not. (The other thing to should watch out for -- whenever one pushes a pseudoscience, they often try to claim that it has some extraordinary station; they particularly like to compare it to gravity, even though the comparison/analogy does not fit at all.) But that is just the difference, isn’t it, between “companies that produce reflecting telescopes, use differential and integral calculus, or rely on the laws of motion” and the proponents of AGW. One deals with real physics and practical real-world applications. The other deals in computer models, questionable assumptions, and alleged effects that won’t be seen for years, if not decades or centuries hence.

I.e., one is experimental science. The other is not.

(The other thing to should watch out for — whenever one pushes a pseudoscience, they often try to claim that it has some extraordinary station; they particularly like to compare it to gravity, even though the comparison/analogy does not fit at all.)

]]> By: RockyRoad http://carbonfixated.com/newtongate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-renaissance-and-enlightenment-thinking/comment-page-3/#comment-826 RockyRoad Mon, 18 Jan 2010 00:06:53 +0000 http://carbonfixated.com/newtongate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-renaissance-and-enlightenment-thinking/#comment-826 Certainly this is just a spoof. Why, there's no mention at all about some odorless, colorless gas impacting the degree with which earth's gravity reaches out and captures the moon, perhaps drawing it nearer and nearer until the two collide. Of course, you might say that instead of a colorless, odorless gas there is this notion of gravity itself being colorless and odorless. However, it is far easier to demonstrate simply by watching ripe apples drop from a tree than to conjur up the same rationale for today's temperatures. Certainly this is just a spoof. Why, there’s no mention at all about some odorless, colorless gas impacting the degree with which earth’s gravity reaches out and captures the moon, perhaps drawing it nearer and nearer until the two collide. Of course, you might say that instead of a colorless, odorless gas there is this notion of gravity itself being colorless and odorless. However, it is far easier to demonstrate simply by watching ripe apples drop from a tree than to conjur up the same rationale for today’s temperatures.

]]> By: Fred http://carbonfixated.com/newtongate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-renaissance-and-enlightenment-thinking/comment-page-3/#comment-825 Fred Sun, 17 Jan 2010 23:49:27 +0000 http://carbonfixated.com/newtongate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-renaissance-and-enlightenment-thinking/#comment-825 So does this mean you still believe in the whole global warming thingy ? How last year, how old school, how quaint. Do you ever wonder how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? So does this mean you still believe in the whole global warming thingy ?

How last year, how old school, how quaint.

Do you ever wonder how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

]]> By: DCC http://carbonfixated.com/newtongate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-renaissance-and-enlightenment-thinking/comment-page-2/#comment-824 DCC Sun, 17 Jan 2010 22:56:35 +0000 http://carbonfixated.com/newtongate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-renaissance-and-enlightenment-thinking/#comment-824 What a bunch of Newtonian silliness! As if referencing unpublished work were actually allowed by the IPCC! It isn't, and that's just one of the rules that they found themselves violating.) I second a previous suggestion - read Feynman's CalTech address from 1974. http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~slu/on_research/fayman_science.html It is the responsibility of every scientist to report the results of every experiment that appears to disprove his thesis - and explain why it does or does not do so. Furthermore, it is a responsibility to seek out those results that counter his thesis. Anything short of that is not science. What a bunch of Newtonian silliness! As if referencing unpublished work were actually allowed by the IPCC! It isn’t, and that’s just one of the rules that they found themselves violating.)

I second a previous suggestion – read Feynman’s CalTech address from 1974. http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~slu/on_research/fayman_science.html

It is the responsibility of every scientist to report the results of every experiment that appears to disprove his thesis – and explain why it does or does not do so. Furthermore, it is a responsibility to seek out those results that counter his thesis.

Anything short of that is not science.

]]>