A Lesson from Darwin

IanC

Gold Member
Sep 22, 2009
11,061
1,344
245
In 1837, Charles Darwin presented a paper to the British Geological Society arguing that coral atolls were formed not on submerged volcanic craters, as argued by pioneering geologist Charles Lyell, but on the subsidence of mountain chains.

The problem, as Darwin saw it, was that corals can not live more than about 30 feet below the surface and therefore they could not have formed of themselves from the ocean floor. They needed a raised platform to build upon.

However, the volcanic crater hypothesis didn’t satisfy Darwin; he thought the atoll shape was too regular to have been the craters of old volcanos. There were no atoll formations on land, Darwin reasoned; why would there be such in the ocean? Therefore, Darwin proposed that corals were building upon eroded mountains, an hypothesis that, he wrote happily, “solves every difficulty.”....
Darwin didn’t have any actual physical evidence to support these two hypotheses: he arrived at them deductively, through the principle of exclusion. A deductive conclusion is reached through theory—if X, then logically Y must be so—as opposed to induction, which builds a theory out of empirical data. The principle of exclusion works from the premise that “there is no other way of accounting for the phenomenon.”.....my error has been a good lesson to me never to trust in science to the principle of exclusion.”[2]

While Darwin rejected the principle of exclusion, at least as a primary scientific tool, alarmist climate science has not. Instead, the principle of exclusion is one of the most-cited arguments to support the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis.

For example, in a 2010 interview with the BBC on the Climategate scandal, Climate Research Unit (CRU) head Phil Jones was asked: “What factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?” Jones’s reply: “The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing.” In other words, Jones is using the principle of exclusion: while he and his colleagues can’t prove that human activities are causing warming, they can’t find any other explanation.
....
The AGW hypothesis may well prove to be correct. However, the simplest and most logical explanation for climate change, in the past, now, and in the future, is natural variation. If so, then the AGW hypothesis, based on the treacherous principle of exclusion, will go the way of Darwin’s two hypotheses on the Glen Roy tracks and the creation of coral atolls.

And so, while alarmist climate scientists are quite within their rights to propose the AGW hypothesis, they should also be cautious: AGW is an hypothesis. It has not reached the status of a scientific theory (it has not passed enough scientific tests for that), nor is it a scientific fact, as the public is told. Instead, alarmist climate scientists have thrown the proper scientific caution to the winds to make claims that aren’t supported by the evidence, and to smear those who point out the possible errors in their hypothesis.
Alarmist climate science and the principle of exclusion | Watts Up With That?


ten years from now Old Rocks will be telling everybody that the scientists never said AGW was going to be catastrophic.....it was only the media getting confused....and here are the links to prove it!

hahahaha
 
Doesn't prove they're wrong. Darwin's problem was he excluded without doing further research. Now it's the skeptics who are actually calling for the research to be scaled back, if not ended. You'd think they'd want proof instead of depending on "faith" to say that man can't possibly be having an effect on the climate of something as large as Earth. That's right!!! I said it! AGW isn't the "religion" in this controversy, it's the "Ayatollahs of Denial" invoking magical GHG neutralizing powers! :eusa_pray: :lol: :cuckoo:
 
ten years from now Old Rocks will be telling everybody that the scientists never said AGW was going to be catastrophic.....it was only the media getting confused....and here are the links to prove it!

hahahaha



I read that article and it couldn't be more true. The whole CO2 is causing climate change is the result of a political agenda and not being able to think of anyting else that might move world govenrment a step closer to reality. There exists no actual evidence that CO2 is causing warming, only the media's inability to grasp that they are being snowed.
 
Doesn't prove they're wrong. Darwin's problem was he excluded without doing further research.

It doesn't prove that they are right either.

Now it's the skeptics who are actually calling for the research to be scaled back, if not ended.

Who is asking that research be stopped? I would like to see equal money being spent on either side of the issue, but any suggestion that skeptics are entitled to as much research money as warmists is met with the outright lie of settled science and consensus.

You'd think they'd want proof instead of depending on "faith" to say that man can't possibly be having an effect on the climate of something as large as Earth.

The actual science, and observed evidence already show that man is not responsible for the changing climate. It costs a great deal of money to make a lie appear to be the truth and if less money were funneled into the propaganda machine, the lie would be exposed that much sooner.

By the way, I am still waiting for you to explain how the same downdwelling radiation that supposedly warms the earth can create a cooling effect, even during the daylight hours when you point a parabolic dish towards it? What law of physics might explain and support such a thing?
 
Doesn't prove they're wrong. Darwin's problem was he excluded without doing further research. Now it's the skeptics who are actually calling for the research to be scaled back, if not ended. You'd think they'd want proof instead of depending on "faith" to say that man can't possibly be having an effect on the climate of something as large as Earth. That's right!!! I said it! AGW isn't the "religion" in this controversy, it's the "Ayatollahs of Denial" invoking magical GHG neutralizing powers! :eusa_pray: :lol: :cuckoo:

Even Dr. Spencer has had to come out and state unequivocally that GHGs are one of the driving forces of the warming that we are seeing.
 
Doesn't prove they're wrong. Darwin's problem was he excluded without doing further research.

It doesn't prove that they are right either.

Now it's the skeptics who are actually calling for the research to be scaled back, if not ended.

Who is asking that research be stopped? I would like to see equal money being spent on either side of the issue, but any suggestion that skeptics are entitled to as much research money as warmists is met with the outright lie of settled science and consensus.

You'd think they'd want proof instead of depending on "faith" to say that man can't possibly be having an effect on the climate of something as large as Earth.

The actual science, and observed evidence already show that man is not responsible for the changing climate. It costs a great deal of money to make a lie appear to be the truth and if less money were funneled into the propaganda machine, the lie would be exposed that much sooner.

By the way, I am still waiting for you to explain how the same downdwelling radiation that supposedly warms the earth can create a cooling effect, even during the daylight hours when you point a parabolic dish towards it? What law of physics might explain and support such a thing?

And still, every Scientific Society, every Academy of Science, and every major University cannot see the brilliance of your statements. They all continue to state on the basis of the evidence that they have gathered that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Bentwire, you are full of shit. From Fourier on, we have accumulated evidence that is presently overwhelming that our burning of fossil fuels has increased the amount of heat retained by our ocean and atmosphere. That it is affecting the acidity of our oceans and harming the base of the oceanic food chain.

People like you constantly deny the evidence, state lies about what science has found, and generally are a very large part of the problem.
 
Doesn't prove they're wrong. Darwin's problem was he excluded without doing further research.

It doesn't prove that they are right either.



Who is asking that research be stopped? I would like to see equal money being spent on either side of the issue, but any suggestion that skeptics are entitled to as much research money as warmists is met with the outright lie of settled science and consensus.

You'd think they'd want proof instead of depending on "faith" to say that man can't possibly be having an effect on the climate of something as large as Earth.

The actual science, and observed evidence already show that man is not responsible for the changing climate. It costs a great deal of money to make a lie appear to be the truth and if less money were funneled into the propaganda machine, the lie would be exposed that much sooner.

By the way, I am still waiting for you to explain how the same downdwelling radiation that supposedly warms the earth can create a cooling effect, even during the daylight hours when you point a parabolic dish towards it? What law of physics might explain and support such a thing?

And still, every Scientific Society, every Academy of Science, and every major University cannot see the brilliance of your statements. They all continue to state on the basis of the evidence that they have gathered that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Bentwire, you are full of shit. From Fourier on, we have accumulated evidence that is presently overwhelming that our burning of fossil fuels has increased the amount of heat retained by our ocean and atmosphere. That it is affecting the acidity of our oceans and harming the base of the oceanic food chain.

People like you constantly deny the evidence, state lies about what science has found, and generally are a very large part of the problem.

It's time to play everybody favorite Fake Science Game

Wheel

of

Climate

Change!


prinn-roulette-4.jpg
 
In 1837, Charles Darwin presented a paper to the British Geological Society arguing that coral atolls were formed not on submerged volcanic craters, as argued by pioneering geologist Charles Lyell, but on the subsidence of mountain chains.

The problem, as Darwin saw it, was that corals can not live more than about 30 feet below the surface and therefore they could not have formed of themselves from the ocean floor. They needed a raised platform to build upon.

However, the volcanic crater hypothesis didn’t satisfy Darwin; he thought the atoll shape was too regular to have been the craters of old volcanos. There were no atoll formations on land, Darwin reasoned; why would there be such in the ocean? Therefore, Darwin proposed that corals were building upon eroded mountains, an hypothesis that, he wrote happily, “solves every difficulty.”....
Darwin didn’t have any actual physical evidence to support these two hypotheses: he arrived at them deductively, through the principle of exclusion. A deductive conclusion is reached through theory—if X, then logically Y must be so—as opposed to induction, which builds a theory out of empirical data. The principle of exclusion works from the premise that “there is no other way of accounting for the phenomenon.”.....my error has been a good lesson to me never to trust in science to the principle of exclusion.”[2]

While Darwin rejected the principle of exclusion, at least as a primary scientific tool, alarmist climate science has not. Instead, the principle of exclusion is one of the most-cited arguments to support the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis.

For example, in a 2010 interview with the BBC on the Climategate scandal, Climate Research Unit (CRU) head Phil Jones was asked: “What factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?” Jones’s reply: “The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing.” In other words, Jones is using the principle of exclusion: while he and his colleagues can’t prove that human activities are causing warming, they can’t find any other explanation.
....
The AGW hypothesis may well prove to be correct. However, the simplest and most logical explanation for climate change, in the past, now, and in the future, is natural variation. If so, then the AGW hypothesis, based on the treacherous principle of exclusion, will go the way of Darwin’s two hypotheses on the Glen Roy tracks and the creation of coral atolls.

And so, while alarmist climate scientists are quite within their rights to propose the AGW hypothesis, they should also be cautious: AGW is an hypothesis. It has not reached the status of a scientific theory (it has not passed enough scientific tests for that), nor is it a scientific fact, as the public is told. Instead, alarmist climate scientists have thrown the proper scientific caution to the winds to make claims that aren’t supported by the evidence, and to smear those who point out the possible errors in their hypothesis.
Alarmist climate science and the principle of exclusion | Watts Up With That?


ten years from now Old Rocks will be telling everybody that the scientists never said AGW was going to be catastrophic.....it was only the media getting confused....and here are the links to prove it!

hahahaha

Well, Ian, tell all of this to the people in the Midwest, and to the people in the Southwest. Or Northern Alberta. How about the people in Pakistan or Russia.

You see, we have had record weather events in the last eleven months. Events that have killed thousands of people. Cost tens of billions in damage.

Now, watch what happens on the next El Nino.

And it will not be ten years, for you will be stating that things really are not as bad as the media makes them out to be, that it might have happened any way, and that is has all happened before. We have already seen that line trotted out for the present cluster of catastrophes.
 
In 1837, Charles Darwin presented a paper to the British Geological Society arguing that coral atolls were formed not on submerged volcanic craters, as argued by pioneering geologist Charles Lyell, but on the subsidence of mountain chains.

The problem, as Darwin saw it, was that corals can not live more than about 30 feet below the surface and therefore they could not have formed of themselves from the ocean floor. They needed a raised platform to build upon.

However, the volcanic crater hypothesis didn’t satisfy Darwin; he thought the atoll shape was too regular to have been the craters of old volcanos. There were no atoll formations on land, Darwin reasoned; why would there be such in the ocean? Therefore, Darwin proposed that corals were building upon eroded mountains, an hypothesis that, he wrote happily, “solves every difficulty.”....
Darwin didn’t have any actual physical evidence to support these two hypotheses: he arrived at them deductively, through the principle of exclusion. A deductive conclusion is reached through theory—if X, then logically Y must be so—as opposed to induction, which builds a theory out of empirical data. The principle of exclusion works from the premise that “there is no other way of accounting for the phenomenon.”.....my error has been a good lesson to me never to trust in science to the principle of exclusion.”[2]

While Darwin rejected the principle of exclusion, at least as a primary scientific tool, alarmist climate science has not. Instead, the principle of exclusion is one of the most-cited arguments to support the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis.

For example, in a 2010 interview with the BBC on the Climategate scandal, Climate Research Unit (CRU) head Phil Jones was asked: “What factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?” Jones’s reply: “The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing.” In other words, Jones is using the principle of exclusion: while he and his colleagues can’t prove that human activities are causing warming, they can’t find any other explanation.
....
The AGW hypothesis may well prove to be correct. However, the simplest and most logical explanation for climate change, in the past, now, and in the future, is natural variation. If so, then the AGW hypothesis, based on the treacherous principle of exclusion, will go the way of Darwin’s two hypotheses on the Glen Roy tracks and the creation of coral atolls.

And so, while alarmist climate scientists are quite within their rights to propose the AGW hypothesis, they should also be cautious: AGW is an hypothesis. It has not reached the status of a scientific theory (it has not passed enough scientific tests for that), nor is it a scientific fact, as the public is told. Instead, alarmist climate scientists have thrown the proper scientific caution to the winds to make claims that aren’t supported by the evidence, and to smear those who point out the possible errors in their hypothesis.
Alarmist climate science and the principle of exclusion | Watts Up With That?


ten years from now Old Rocks will be telling everybody that the scientists never said AGW was going to be catastrophic.....it was only the media getting confused....and here are the links to prove it!

hahahaha

Well, Ian, tell all of this to the people in the Midwest, and to the people in the Southwest. Or Northern Alberta. How about the people in Pakistan or Russia.

You see, we have had record weather events in the last eleven months. Events that have killed thousands of people. Cost tens of billions in damage.

Now, watch what happens on the next El Nino.

And it will not be ten years, for you will be stating that things really are not as bad as the media makes them out to be, that it might have happened any way, and that is has all happened before. We have already seen that line trotted out for the present cluster of catastrophes.

Pointing to some local event and shouting, "See That? ManMade Global Warming!" is not Science.

You Fail
 
The simplest explanation for climate change is that gigantic nuclear reactor in the sky.

Now Whitey, care to show me from a reputable scientific source where the TSI has increased over the last 40 years?

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

The skeptic argument...
It's the sun
"Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer. The data suggests solar activity is influencing the global climate causing the world to get warmer." (BBC)

What the science says...
Select a level... Basic Intermediate Advanced
In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions


Until about 1960, measurements by scientists showed that the brightness and warmth of the sun, as seen from the Earth, was increasing. Over the same period temperature measurements of the air and sea showed that the Earth was gradually warming. It was not surprising therefore for most scientists to put two and two together and assume that it was the warming sun that was increasing the temperature of our planet.

However, between the 1960s and the present day the same solar measurements have shown that the energy from the sun is now decreasing. At the same time temperature measurements of the air and sea have shown that the Earth has continued to become warmer and warmer. This proves that it cannot be the sun; something else must be causing the Earth's temperature to rise.


Solar Trends: Comparison of TSI and GISS Temperature Anomaly Trends | Climate Charts & Graphs
 
Last edited:
Alarmist climate science and the principle of exclusion | Watts Up With That?


ten years from now Old Rocks will be telling everybody that the scientists never said AGW was going to be catastrophic.....it was only the media getting confused....and here are the links to prove it!

hahahaha

Well, Ian, tell all of this to the people in the Midwest, and to the people in the Southwest. Or Northern Alberta. How about the people in Pakistan or Russia.

You see, we have had record weather events in the last eleven months. Events that have killed thousands of people. Cost tens of billions in damage.

Now, watch what happens on the next El Nino.

And it will not be ten years, for you will be stating that things really are not as bad as the media makes them out to be, that it might have happened any way, and that is has all happened before. We have already seen that line trotted out for the present cluster of catastrophes.

Pointing to some local event and shouting, "See That? ManMade Global Warming!" is not Science.

You Fail

LOL. Severe drougth in Russia, huge fllood in Pakistan, several severe floods in China, continuous storms in Colombia, about 1/4 of the continent flooded in Australia, huge fires in Northern Alberta, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. Missouri and Mississippi rivers above flood stage for a couple of months, and will be for at least a couple more weeks. The Colombia system at flood stage.

Yes Franky, real local events.
 
Even Dr. Spencer has had to come out and state unequivocally that GHGs are one of the driving forces of the warming that we are seeing.

Proving that people have to say all sorts of things if they want the grant money to keep flowing.
 
Bentwire, you are full of shit. From Fourier on, we have accumulated evidence that is presently overwhelming that our burning of fossil fuels has increased the amount of heat retained by our ocean and atmosphere. That it is affecting the acidity of our oceans and harming the base of the oceanic food chain.

Actually, you have no evidence at all. Make yourself a 15 dollar parabolic dish, put a thermometer in it, take it outside during the daytime and point it at the sky but away from the sun and watch the temperature drop. Then explain how the downdwelling radiation that you believe warms the earth can also cause the temperature to drop when you point your dish at it.

People like you constantly deny the evidence, state lies about what science has found, and generally are a very large part of the problem.

It is you who denies the physical evidence in favor of endless appeals to authority. Authority, by the way, who will say anything to keep the grant money flowing.
 
ten years from now Old Rocks will be telling everybody that the scientists never said AGW was going to be catastrophic.....it was only the media getting confused....and here are the links to prove it!

hahahaha



I read that article and it couldn't be more true. The whole CO2 is causing climate change is the result of a political agenda and not being able to think of anyting else that might move world govenrment a step closer to reality. There exists no actual evidence that CO2 is causing warming, only the media's inability to grasp that they are being snowed.

It's the deniers that have a political agenda, because neither science nor logic are on their side. "No actual evidence", eh? You seem to be changing your story!!! In other threads you said it was IMPOSSIBLE, but now you're backtracking. Why, if you're such an expert?!?! :doubt:
 

Forum List

Back
Top