For years, NewsBusters and its parent the Media Research Center have euphemistically made the case that press outlets use smoke and mirrors to present the news they want viewers to see, hear, read, and, most importantly, believe.
No finer example occurred than during CNN's Election Night coverage when three dimensional images of folks not actually on the set with Wolf Blitzer were presented to the viewing audience as "holograms" (video below the fold).
As CNN.com reported Thursday (photo courtesy CNN.com):
It was an election night like none other, in every sense of the phrase. In addition to the obvious -- the selection of the nation's first black president -- Tuesday night's coverage on CNN showcased groundbreaking technology.
"I want you to watch what we're about to do," CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer told viewers early in the evening's coverage, "because you've never seen anything like this on television."
And he was right. Cue CNN political correspondent Jessica Yellin.
"Hi Wolf!" said Yellin, waving to Blitzer as she stood a few feet in front of him in the network's New York City studios. Or at least, that's the way it appeared at first glance.
In reality, Yellin -- a correspondent who had been covering Sen. Barack Obama's campaign -- was at the now president-elect's mega-rally along the lakefront in Chicago, Illinois, more than 700 miles away from CNN's Election Center in New York.
It looked like a scene straight out of "Star Wars." Here was Yellin, partially translucent with a glowing blue haze around her, appearing to materialize in thin air. She even referenced the classic movie on her own, saying, "It's like I follow in the tradition of Princess Leia. It's something else."
Pretty snazzy, yes?
However, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, this wasn't what CNN claimed:
CNN's US election night stunt, in which reporter Jessica Yellin and rapper will.i.am appeared on set as three-dimensional "holograms", was little more than smoke and mirrors, physics experts say. [...]
Blitzer made every attempt to hide the fact that the hologram was fake, saying "Jessica, you're a terrific hologram" and that he liked the hologram because "we can have a more intimate conversation".
Yellin likened herself to a character from Star Wars, saying, "It's like I follow in the tradition of Princess Leia." [...]
But Hans Jurgen Kreuzer, theoretical physics professor and holography expert at Dalhousie University, told CBC news in Canada that the so-called holograms were simply 2D images superimposed onto the TV broadcast.The images were in fact tomograms, or images captured from all sides - in this case by 35 high-definition cameras set in a ring inside a special tent - reconstructed by computers and displayed on the screen.
A real hologram would have meant the images were projected into space, which did not occur as Blitzer and Cooper could not see their interview subjects. [...]
To perform its stunt, CNN used technology from Vizrt, based in Norway, and SportVu, based in Israel.
In an interview with Norwegian publication DagensMedier, Vizrt technical director Ole Jacobsen said that, contrary to CNN's claims, "it's not technically a hologram", which would be the company's "next challenge".
Leave it to Australian press to report that which American media refuse to.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
That's money well spent.
November 7, 2008 - 11:11 ET by Spinningplates2Wow, 35 high-def cameras to get that blue haze look. That what the low rated CNN thinks will help it's ratings? Kinda makes me understand how George Lucas thought of Jar Jar Binks. Nothing like a gimmick to get the people fired up.
with so much other BS....
November 7, 2008 - 11:15 ET by OklahomaIsShapedFunnyWith so much REAL bullcrap stinking up CNN I can probably deal with their misrepresenting a Tomogram as Hologram.
Reporting from Space
November 7, 2008 - 11:21 ET by dboHere was Yellin, partially translucent with a glowing blue haze around her, appearing to materialize in thin air
How is this different from here normal everyday reporting?
My son is a graphic design
November 7, 2008 - 11:35 ET by marpelMy son is a graphic design artist. He does CG for a living and he thinks this is stupid. He's right in thinking that we need to leave this stuff up to Hollywood, not Wolf(I'm really a manniquin) Blitzer...LOL
What's the big deal?
November 7, 2008 - 11:28 ET by wnaegeleCNN has "misrepresented" the news for years...
"Hologram", my fanny. More
November 7, 2008 - 11:37 ET by Chris Norman"Hologram", my fanny. More like a "Hokeygram"...
"..he liked the hologram because 'we can have a more intimate conversation'."
Apparently, Wolf enjoys intimate conversations with thin air...
Probably no one reported
November 7, 2008 - 11:32 ET by balboaProbably no one reported it because no one cared.
Bal
November 7, 2008 - 11:43 ET by UphillPlease don't rain on our parade.
b
November 7, 2008 - 11:52 ET by Noel Sheppardb,
Yet you cared enough to snark about nobody caring. I quite imagine you missed the inherently delicious irony. :-) ns
»→ Holograms
November 7, 2008 - 12:21 ET by Cool ArrowCNN simulated a hologram for the same reason a person climbs an imaginary mountain. - because it isn't there.
Watch how you use "imaginary"...
November 7, 2008 - 12:30 ET byCA,
There are a number of "imaginary" places, beings, and things people cling to every day...to gain inner strength and hope for a better future through change in themselves, thereby, hopefully creating change around the world. Hang on, it's going to be a wild ride!
Übercon
»→ Imaginary Mountains
November 7, 2008 - 12:37 ET by Cool ArrowPoint taken Ubercon.
I refer you now to the melodic rhapsody of Walter Brennan.
BWAHAAAHAHAHA!
Of course, Noel! I wouldn't
November 7, 2008 - 12:29 ET by balboaOf course, Noel! I wouldn't want you to think I was taking a day off or something. :-)
I can testify that
November 7, 2008 - 12:09 ET by lotrI can testify that technically minded geeks like myself do care -- it was not a hologram, not even close. It was a gimic, designed to attract naive viewers, nothing more.
I suppose that the comparison to Princess Leia in the movie Star Wars wasn't too far off, for both were special-effects simulated "holograms." Should I "care" that CNN now fancies itself a Hollywood SciFi Studio?
And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all. -- Edgar Allan Poe
"It was a gimic, designed
November 7, 2008 - 13:47 ET by Eileen Right"It was a gimic, designed to attract naive viewers"
based on the success of their gimmick to attract naive voters...
Help me Obama-wan Kenobi,
November 7, 2008 - 13:54 ET by lotrHelp me Obama-wan Kenobi, you're my only hope!
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
You're wrong, Bal
November 7, 2008 - 12:29 ET by CobraManYou're wrong, Bal. "Someone" IS reporting it. As a matter of fact, quite a few "someone's" are reporting it like CBC News, Newsfactors, Top Tech News, The New Zealand Herald, and sever other news sources. The biggest problem is that very few AMERICAN "mainstream" news sources are reporting it. I wonder if that has more to do with trying to avoid highlighting the competition rather than avoiding the story altogether?
http://www.google.co...
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
The former, not the
November 7, 2008 - 12:30 ET by balboaThe former, not the latter.
If I were the competition...
November 7, 2008 - 12:38 ET by CobraManIf I were the competition, I'd report this as often as possible. Just think of the "headline" a competitor like that MSNBC could use: "CNN: America's Most Deceitful News Source!"
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
What do you expect from a
November 7, 2008 - 11:33 ET by motherbeltWhat do you expect from a bunch of guys who call a firearm an "assault weapon" based on its appearance?
it's even funnier...
November 7, 2008 - 14:59 ET by UndercoverConservative...when the Media shows somehigh school kid's "arsenal" and it consists of one real firearm (a 22 rifle) and airsoft BB guns (fire 6mm plastic BBs with a motor and a spring) that are modeled after real steel weapons. Total non lethal fakes, designed for a tag-style game.
The worst part is, when they show this "arsenal" like it was real deadly weapons, they show ones that are models of non-real-world weapons-like Robocop's "Auto-9" and futuristic Seburo's from Japanese cartoons.
"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".
"You spend your money anyway you want and respect other's rights to do the same"
Wow...Who knew?
November 7, 2008 - 11:46 ET byMisrepresenting a tomogram as a hologram is similar to continually referring to Climate Change as Global warming, liberals as fascists, liberal republicans as small government, free market conservative capitalists ...one being the true term and the other as it is misrepresented in news reporting. Thanks for uncovering this misrepresentation of a term to be added to the pile of new definitions.
Übercon
Good morning Uber
November 7, 2008 - 11:53 ET by cocodrieStill playing the word game I see. You liberals are the ones changing definitions just to cause confusion.
Über...you are so daft
November 7, 2008 - 11:59 ET by LionKingIt certainly was a hologram.
tomogram: Any of several techniques for making detailed x-rays of a predetermined
plane section of a solid object while blurring out the images of other
planes.
As far as changing the terminology, doofus, it was the liberals that changed AGW to Climate Change. People in the real world acknowledge climate change ... they are called SEASONS!!!
Actually...
November 7, 2008 - 12:43 ET byLK,
The scientific community defines Climate Change, Global Warming as part of Climate Science. It's a settled science and continues to evolve into a better understanding of changes occurring in our atmosphere and related atmospheres on other planets. Sure, there's been controversy in naming and defining certain aspects of Climate Science, but, for the most part Climate Scientists are at the forefront of making sure we have a better overall understanding and appreciation for what is happening in our atmosphere. It's for the rest of us to figure out how we can reduce our impact on future generations of humans.
Übercon
uber...the un-artful dodger
November 7, 2008 - 13:10 ET by LionKingI noticed the dodge on hologram...nice.
True that climatology and meteorology are legitimate sciences. The Algore crowd of anthropogenic global warming is not. The AGW science is beyond being suspect.
Questions for Uber (can you answer without dodging?):
LK -- not only is he a
November 7, 2008 - 13:38 ET by Jack BauerLK -- not only is he a "conservative" he's an "uber" conservative.
Though I'm beginning to suspect "uber" is German for liar. Though it is also an anagram for rube.
jack...I like "trolling" the trolls
November 7, 2008 - 17:29 ET by LionKingI humor them with an intelligent discourse. Usually it ends when I pin them in a corner with facts ... gotta love 'em.
Happy hunting!
Case and point
November 7, 2008 - 18:24 ET by LionKingHere is an example.
Well, we could have an all day discussion...
November 7, 2008 - 13:40 ET byLK,
For you to get started...
There's a great website for all this info.
Get back to me that's a lot of reading to absorb. You might want to take a break a few times as you read the topics.
Übercon
Still a liar and a
November 7, 2008 - 13:53 ET by Jack BauerStill a liar and a supercilious jerk as well.
Mirror, mirror on the wall...
November 7, 2008 - 14:30 ET byJacques,
How's the mood in England after the election of our new President-elect Barack Obama. As I touched the voting screen, I thought of you and voted for the One in your honor...oops...honour.
Peace!
Übercon
You are a documented liar on
November 7, 2008 - 15:03 ET by Jack BauerYou are a documented liar on this site, where you came on board pretending to be a quasi-fascist.
I assume you did this to try to get "support" for the revolting views you spewed for a day or two.
When that didn't work, you reverted to type. Which appears to be a shallow, not too bright liberal.
Please explain exactly when I have lied? Which I assume your "mirror" comment is meant to imply. I repeat: you are a documented liar on Newsbusters.
I don't discourse with liars. This has been a Public Service announcement.
Thanks again for the discourse.
November 7, 2008 - 15:24 ET byJacques,
Au contraire! I enjoy the enlightenin' banter. The back and forth, the quips of nonsensical musings of an Englishman. You're quick and funny. What's funny is how I've come to realize how wrong I was in my initial thinking of what conservatism is and what it is not. I enjoy having fun and astonished at how the "conservatives" on this site supported their socialist leaders for so long. Predictable and pathetic are wonderful words to describe the far right wingnuts of this party and their blind following of issues against their own interests. The conservatives deserved to lose this election by not following the true values of fiscal conservatism. The GOP needs to cut out and dismiss the social conservatives and the neo-con warmongering nation builders. If not, they're done. Might as well join the Democrats...it looks like they're the winners instead of the losers. Elections have consequences. Too bad, so sad.
Übercon
good golly gosh as caribou
November 7, 2008 - 15:11 ET by patmac49good golly gosh as caribou barbie would say...these guys do not accept defeat graciously..a majority,even though small a majority noentheless said OUT....
What exactly is your
November 7, 2008 - 15:44 ET by Jack BauerWhat exactly is your point?
good golly gosh as caribou
November 7, 2008 - 15:14 ET by patmac49good golly gosh as caribou barbie would say...these guys do not accept defeat graciously..a majority,even though small a majority noentheless said OUT....
The RNC is sending a RepoMan for the clothes!
November 7, 2008 - 16:01 ET bypatmac49,
Po' Wasillibillies took the clothes with them...now the RNC is wantin' them back...Sendin' a lawyer or two to retrieve the items! I guess that's what you meant by "OUT..." as in "Get out of the GOP!"
What is it about the GOP embracing the backwoods types runnin' up to an election and then kickin' them back down afterwards? Po' wittle Wasillibillies and their elitist handlers...
Übercon
all joking aside,i do not
November 7, 2008 - 17:38 ET by patmac49all joking aside,i do not see the republican party inviting them back to the big show anytime soon..and you cannot blame the palins they were told to go spuce up and they sure did...which basically what anyone would do..the election comittee should have had more oversite...BLAME IS ON THEM
Agreed...
November 7, 2008 - 17:42 ET bypatmac49,
They were props. The GOP deserved everything they got. Expensive, wasn't it?
Übercon
Uber... You are a MORON.
November 7, 2008 - 17:47 ET by Clear thinkerUber...
You are a MORON. Nobody is going after any clothes because the Palins left them behind.
Obama Teacher Shames North Carolina
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Hmmm...
November 7, 2008 - 18:25 ET byCT,
Not all the clothes were left behind...calling me a "moron" for reporting the truth? I'll be the first to say I erred...will you?
"Reporting from Phoenix -- Sarah Palin left the national stage
Wednesday, but the controversy over her role on the ticket flared as
aides to John McCain disclosed new details about her expensive wardrobe
purchases and revealed that a Republican Party lawyer would be
dispatched to Alaska to inventory and retrieve the clothes still in her
possession."
Übercon
uber ... ???
November 7, 2008 - 17:10 ET by LionKing"Current global temperatures are warmer than they
have ever been during at least the past five centuries..." -- IPCC
How do they know what the temperatures were 5 centuries ago?
LionKing...
November 7, 2008 - 17:34 ET byLionKing,
Good question...did you read the report?
"The main reason for the current concern about climate change is the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide
(CO2) concentration (and some other greenhouse gases), which is very
unusual for the Quaternary (about the last two million years). The concentration of
CO2 is now known accurately for the past 650,000 years from antarctic
ice cores. During this time, CO2 concentration varied between a low of
180 ppm during cold glacial times and a high of 300 ppm during warm interglacials. Over the past
century, it rapidly increased well out of this range, and is now 379 ppm (see Chapter 2). For comparison,
the approximately 80-ppm rise in CO2 concentration at the end of the
past ice ages generally took over 5,000 years. Higher values than at present have only occurred many
millions of years ago."
Also...
"Much warmer times have also occurred in climate history during most of the past 500 million years,
Earth was probably completely free of ice sheets (geologists can tell from the marks ice leaves on
rock), unlike today, when Greenland and Antarctica are ice-covered. Data on greenhouse gas abundances
going back beyond a million years, that is, beyond the reach of antarctic ice cores, are still rather
uncertain, but analysis of geological samples suggests that the warm ice-free periods coincide with
high atmospheric CO2 levels. On million-year time scales,
CO2 levels change due to tectonic activity, which affects the rates
of CO2 exchange of ocean and atmosphere with the solid Earth."
Übercon
uber...this is not science
November 7, 2008 - 17:50 ET by LionKingHow exactly do ice cores record atmospheric CO2 levels? Assuming that they are accurate, all we have established is a correlation; there has not been a cause-effect relationship which has been scientifically established, i.e., science has not proved that CO2 causes anything. For all we know, CO2 changes are the result of climate changes.
"...but analysis of geological samples suggests that the warm ice-free periods coincide with high atmospheric CO2 levels."
This conclusion is anecdotal at best, certainly not scientific.
One more question
November 7, 2008 - 13:41 ET by dboOh yeah, and one other trivial little detail. Why in the last ten years are temperatures going down while co2 is going up?
http://icecap.us/ima...
Temperatures have not "gone
November 7, 2008 - 13:50 ET by lotrTemperatures have not "gone down" over the last 10 years, although the short-term warming trend has leveled off some.
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
Real Satellite Readings
November 7, 2008 - 14:05 ET by dboIs the above graph wrong?
Yes, degradation of it's orbit...
November 7, 2008 - 14:16 ET bydbo,
... created incorrect data collection. Watch the video.
Übercon
I was referring to planet Earth
November 7, 2008 - 14:40 ET by dboOh yes. How silly of me. The ole "degradation of orbit caused incorrect satellite data gathering but only since 1998 but it didn't affect GISS data" scientific certainty. You're kidding, right. Your whole video is 10 minutes of coulda, woulda, shoulda theory by a former science correspondent who doesn't leave his name.
Your turn for an education. Allow me to leave you some reading courtesy of Pop Tech just for sarters.
Climate Audit (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, Canada)
ICECAP (International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, USA)
Junk Science (Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Sciences, M.S. Health Sciences, USA)
Planet Gore (National Review Online)
The Reference Frame (Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist, Czech Republic)
Watts Up With That? (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, USA)
- SurfaceStations.org
Scientists:
Benny Peiser (Benny Peiser, Ph.D. Professor of Social Anthropology, UK)
- Cambridge Conference Network (CCNet)
Climate Police (Joseph Conklin, M.S. Meteorology, USA)
Climate Science (Roger A. Pielke (Sr.), Ph.D. Meteorology, USA)
Climate Skeptic (Warren Meyer, B.S. Mechanical Engineering, USA)
CO2 Web (Tom V. Segalstad, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, Norway)
Comment & Information on Climate Change (Robert (Bob) M. Carter, B.Sc. Geology, Ph.D. Paleontology, Australia)
EcoMyths (Graham Smith, Associate Professor of Geography, Canada)
Global Warming Comments (Hans Erren, M.Sc. Geophysics, The Netherlands)
Global Warming Issues (John McLean, Climate Data Analyst, Australia)
Global Warming Politics (Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus of Biogeography, UK)
Greenie Watch (John J. Ray, Ph.D. Psychology, Australia)
Johnston's Archive - Environmental Topics (Wm. Robert Johnston, B.A. Astronomy, M.S. Physics, USA)
Number Watch (John Brignell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Electronics & Computer Science, UK)
Prometheus - The Science Policy Blog (Roger A. Pielke (Jr.), Ph.D. Political Science, USA)
Ross McKitrick (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, Canada)
Science & Environmental Policy Project (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, USA)
ScienceBits (Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Israel)
Science is Broken (Gary Novak, M.S. Microbiology, USA)
The Global Warming Challenge (J. Scott Armstrong, B.A. Applied Science, B.S. Industrial Engineering, Ph.D. MIT, USA)
The Politics and Environment Blog (Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D. Biology, Australia)
William M. Briggs (William M. Briggs, B.S. Meteorology and Math, M.S. Atmospheric Science, Ph.D. Statistics, USA)
World Climate Report (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, USA)
Carbon Sense Coalition
Climate Change Fraud
Climate Debate Daily
Climate Resistance
CO2 Science
CO2 Skeptics
E-Team
Environmental Capital
Environmentalism is Fascism
EnvironmentNC
Facts on Energy
False Alarm
Global Warming.org
Global Warming and the Climate
Global Warming Debunking News and Views
Global Warming Petition Project
Global Warming Heartland
Global Warming Hyperbole
Global Warming Hysteria
Global Warming Information Center
Global Warming Science
Global Warming Skeptics
Models, Methods, Software
Not by Fire but by Ice
NC Media Watch
Omniclimate
Ponder the Maunder
US Senate Environment & Public Works Committee
Spiked - Environment
Still Waiting for Greenhouse
TCS Daily - Energy and Environment
- Science Roundtable
The Blackboard
The Carbon Sense Coalition
The Global Warming Hoax
Warming Scare Tactics
Warwick Hughes - Free Lance Science Research
- Errors in IPCC Climate Science Blog
Organizations:
AccuWeather - Global Warming (USA)
American Enterprise Institute - Climate Change (USA)
American Land Rights Association (USA)
Business & Media Institute - Environment (USA)
Canada Free Press - Global Warming (Canada)
Cato Institute - Global Warming (USA)
Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change
Competitive Enterprise Institute - Climate Change (USA)
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE) (USA)
Friends of Science (Canada)
Frontier Center for Public Policy - Climate Change (Canada)
George C. Marshall Institute - Climate Change (USA)
Grassfire.org (USA)
Heartland Institute - Global Warming (USA)
Institute for Energy Research - Climate Change (USA)
International Climate Science Coalition (Canada)
John Locke Foundation - EnvironmentNC (USA)
National Center for Policy Analysis - E-Team (USA)
National Center for Public Policy Research - Environment (USA)
Natural Resources Stewardship Project (Canada)
New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (New Zealand)
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (USA)
Pacific Research Institute - Environment (USA)
Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) (USA)
Science & Public Policy Institute (USA)
The Association of British Drivers - Environment - Global Warming Links (UK)
The Australian APEC Study Centre - Environment (Australia)
The Center for Science and Public Policy (USA)
The Fraser Institute - Environment (Canada)
The Heritage Foundation - Energy and Environment (USA)
The Independent Institute - Environment (USA)
The Lavoisier Group (Australia)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Ouch...
November 7, 2008 - 15:05 ET bydbo,
PT is my buddy! Don't tell me you're a denier of Climate Science...you're clinging to the edge of the cliff thinking you're going to fall into an abyss when the ground is only inches from the bottom of your feet. Make the jump. Stop clingin'. Allow yourself to enjoy the science. Eventually, you'll realize this isn't about saving the world, it's about possibly saving our future generations from extinction from the problems we've created and the continuing problems in the present. We need to study the problem and try to see if there are ways to slow it down or stop it. Thinking it's a natural occurrence and proceeding without caution is foolish and stupid. If you show symptoms for a possible life threatening rare disease, don't rely on science to study it and a solution on how to cure it, get an opinion from your faith healer and snake oil salesman...
Study and get educated...don't be a fool.
Übercon
I also believe the world is flat
November 7, 2008 - 15:39 ET by dboDon't tell me you're a denier of Climate Science
denier - one who denies- a person who disputes:root word deny;denied
e.g.
Michael Mann denied the extent of the Medieval Warm Period
Michael Mann denies he purposely underestimated the Little Ice Age
When confronted about his hockey stick theory, Michael Mann denied he withheld information in a file marked " Censored Data"
Or how about James Hansen denied he was funded by George Soros, or
James Hansen denied that he changed historical data, or
Gavin Schmidt denies he is funded by Fenton Communications, or
Al Gore....well that would be longer than PT's list.
As for all those other nice comments about me...Yeah, whatever. That first thing you said.
I know reading is hard...
November 7, 2008 - 14:11 ET bydbo,
A quick video...
Good one for starters. About 4 minutes into the video answers your question...please continue watching though, it's a good video.
Übercon
dbo...?
November 7, 2008 - 14:32 ET bydbo,
You still there?
How was that video?
Übercon
What a mess
November 7, 2008 - 14:45 ET by dboYou still there?
I'm still here. In spirit, anyway. I just had to go change my underwear after watching that video.
LK...?
November 7, 2008 - 14:35 ET byLK,
Still readin'?
I've got videos if you want...
Übercon
There's no such thing as a "settled science."
November 7, 2008 - 13:37 ET by CobraMan"It's a settled science and continues to evolve..."
There's no such thing as a "settled science" when it continues to "evolve." You can't even compose a single sentence without contradicting yourself!
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Ohhh....I keep forgetting the audience...
November 7, 2008 - 13:54 ET byCobraman,
I know it's tough "Learning is hard". The foundations to Climate Science are well substantiated and solid. As Climate Science progresses/evolves, as with any science, the understanding matures. Some studies are proven wrong and updated. Has man added to greenhouse gases since the dawn of the industrial era? The answer is yes. Are there ways to slow down the rapid build up of gases adding to the "greenhouse effect"? Possibly, as part of this grand experiment I don't want to continue on the wrong path and find out it's too late. Should we try to reduce and slow down the process...we might as well try to stop the snowball then the avalanche. What's the problem with trying?
Übercon
How many lives would you
November 7, 2008 - 15:09 ET by dtaHow many lives would you sacrifice for the precautionary principle?
Right now you only have a modeling exercise which has known errors. Such as: it failed to predict the lack of warming over the last 10 years, and the lack of pronounced mid-troposphere warming.
You're not following...
November 7, 2008 - 15:35 ET bydta,
Go back, watch, read, stop the denials...
We covered it up above...
As for those who are wondering what the the precautionary principle is...here's the link.
Excellent question...fallacious in it's approach.
I applaud you!
Übercon
Well, I went and reread,
November 7, 2008 - 16:25 ET by dtaWell, I went and reread, and found the back and forth that I have seen at all AGW debates. Since we cannot create a control earth and test earth to draw some experimental verification, AGW will remain a debate primarily centered on faith rather than evidence.
In my mind, 10 years of flat temperatures while CO2 has risen implies that the AGW premise is false. I concede "something" could have masked the warming for these 10 years. But again, we're back to faith without a falsifiable experiment.
So it comes back to whether we should do something as a precaution. My own opinion is that we should not take any measures until clearer evidence is available. I doubt the motives of those pushing CO2 control. Control over free energy is control over life. I think increased CO2 will be a good thing for plant life. I think the cost of limiting CO2 will be extraordinarily high. Limiting CO2 will cost jobs, personal wealth, and yes, will take many lives.
Faith is not science...
November 7, 2008 - 17:02 ET bydta,
Scientists can prove facts to be incorrect by using science. I have a problem with using faith as an argument to prove or disprove scientific facts. Climate science is complex. I will rely on the findings of the climate scientists who study climate science. I will question those who are not climate scientists making bold inaccurate statements on climate science. If the deniers want to question the climate scientists, by all means, present your findings and argue your case. A scientific debate is not a political debate. Are more scientists being more vocal on their findings? Yes. They are engaging those who have no scientific backgrounds. That is what's happening. I do not have a problem in trying to understand the scientists. I do question the antics and tactics of the ignorant, the uninformed, and the rest of the followers of the deniers.
Übercon
science is faith it
November 7, 2008 - 17:16 ET by TruthMongerscience is faith
it cannot prove anything
only generate compelling evidence
just like faith does:)
Truthmonger, Actually...
November 7, 2008 - 17:50 ET byTruthmonger,
Actually...
Science can only prove something to be wrong as it questions the faithful.
Faith relies on never being wrong and never questioned by science.
Übercon
uber...Speaking of Faith
November 7, 2008 - 18:48 ET by LionKingHow do you feel about the science of macro-evolution? Talk about mixing science and faith, yet, the public schools teach it as though it is fact.
LionKing, If a teacher in
November 7, 2008 - 18:52 ET by hydrodynDMLionKing,
If a teacher in a school teaches that any scientific theory is "fact", then they are doing science a disservice. And they are flat out wrong.
Don't chastise science and scientists just because some so called science teachers don't have a basic understanding of the philosophical basis of science.
I make a point in my science class to point out to my students that the theories we go over - whether it's Newton's Laws or Relativity - are just that - theories. Empirical evidence is the ultimate truth as far as science is concerned.
hydro...
November 7, 2008 - 18:57 ET by LionKingFar from me to chastise science or scientist...I support the scientific model, strongly. That is exactly the issue I have with some of the so-called science which is being espoused.
LionKing, I respect your
November 7, 2008 - 19:14 ET by hydrodynDMLionKing,
I respect your response.
As far as evolution goes - I don't work with the theory so if it was thrown out tomorrow, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
But I'm inclined to give those who do work with macro-evolutionary theories a break. Any honest scientist will acknowledge that it is just a theory. But at the same time, it's currently the only scientific theory around for dealing with the origin and development of organic systems (and please don't bring up ID - it incorporates supernatural agents and so can't be a part of science).
If they abandon evolution - they have nothing to work with.
I say give them time. All theories evolve or get replaced by better ones. Evolution is still a young theories and it deals with a very difficult subject.
hydro...
November 7, 2008 - 19:20 ET by LionKingLikewise, I have alwyas respected your opinions.
ID does not have to involve the super-natural; it could just be something out-of-this-world. Do you think that we are alone in this universe?
ID does not have to be about Creationism. It is certainly another theory if you get past the religious aspect.
Both ID and macro-evolution require faith to accept their viability.
LionKing, See - I asked
November 7, 2008 - 19:29 ET by hydrodynDMLionKing,
See - I asked you not to bring up ID and you did :)
If ID involves something "out-of-this-world" then it involves supernatural agents. Just to be clear, I'm using that term to mean any agent that falls outside of what can be studied empirically.
Not sure what you mean by "alone in this universe." If you mean other intelligent life forms, I'd be willing to be that there are. But introducing them into ID just shifts the line - where did they come from then?
I know that ID tries to distinguish itself from Creationism, but as far as I can tell (and I'm certainly no expert on ID) all it really does is swap out "god" for "intelligent". Either way, it incorporates supernatural agents and that's a no-no for science.
I agree that both ID and macro-evolution require faith on some level. But then, believe in just about everything does.
don't mean to nitpick, but....
November 7, 2008 - 19:54 ET by lotrActually, Newton's "theory" is summarized by three "Laws" along with the inverse-square Law of Universal Gravitation.
General Relativity is indeed a fact. So are Newton's Laws when applied to macroscale objects and speeds much slower than light (everyday). Anyone who does not think so is invited to "transgress" the Laws of Gravity from the deck of the Golden Gate Bridge.
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
lotr, Go back and read my
November 7, 2008 - 20:08 ET by hydrodynDMlotr,
Go back and read my post again - I said "Newton's Laws". I was referring to his three laws of motion (although the specifics of which laws I was talking about is kind of irrelevant to the point I was making so I was didn't feel the need to be specific). His law of gravity is a separate thing as are all of the other things he did work on (optics comes to mind).
GR isn't "fact". No scientific theory is. As I mentioned to Ubercon in this threat, Newton's law of gravity was accepted for over a hundred years and then Einstein came along and his theory "replaced" it. (I say "replaced" since in reality, as you mention, we still use Newton's laws in cases where the gravitational fields aren't very large).
There is no reason to think something like that can't happen again. In fact, a ton of scientists are trying to do just that with quantum gravity theories (and others).
I get your point but you I don't think you are using the right terms. A given theory will have a range of phenomenon to which it is suited. It will give results to an acceptable accuracy for those phenomena. I'd hardly use the word "fact" to describe something like that.
hydrodynDM
November 7, 2008 - 20:21 ET by lotrCool name, BTW. Please see my post below (which refers you to my post above.....) that elaborates more what I mean.
I honestly don't think we can be in big disagreement -- I think it's more getting at what you and I mean by "fact." That's why I said I was "nitpicking." In my world, where I deal with macroscale "classical mechanics," Newton's Laws are considered to be the "first principle," which I translate as "fact." And I am a bit of a crusader against any suggestion, whether intentional or not, that we cannot know the "true nature" of things.
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
lotr, Agreed. If you
November 7, 2008 - 20:27 ET by hydrodynDMlotr,
Agreed. If you refer to my post below... :)
Yea, I was just hung up on the word "fact".
Regarding "true nature", I don't know. I think I've read too much philosophy and confused myself enough to not be sure anymore.
But I am sure there's a beer waiting for me in the fridge. I plan to get in touch with its true nature.
Take it easy. I'm off to be stupid.
Oh, and if "lotr" stands for "Lord of the Rings", then that's totally cool.
hydro
November 7, 2008 - 23:03 ET by lotrWell, it's been fun, but I've gotta shut down for the eve. Yes, beer too has a true nature, one that also proves there is a God. I think it's called Beer's Law..... Enjoy!
And oh yes, you're parleying with the Lidless Eye, so you just watch yourself. Just check out my Resume if you have any doubts....
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
lotr, Thanks for the
November 7, 2008 - 23:11 ET by hydrodynDMlotr,
Thanks for the chat. Have a good night.
And very cool icon.
"I will take the beer... though, I do not have a can opener." - Frodo
They've PROVEN General Relitivity?
November 7, 2008 - 20:37 ET by CobraMan"General Relativity is indeed a fact."
They've PROVEN General Relativity? I don't know how anyone can make that claim since we have NOT be able to travel outside the sun's gravitational field to conduct gravitational experiments. Until we can do that, conduct experiments that will NOT be affected by the most massive object our solar system, the theory will remain just that, a theory.
BTW, why does general relativity FAIL to account for the observed motions of the outer stars in our own galaxy? You know, that ones that are orbiting the center of our galaxy FASTER than theory can account for?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
CobraMan, I agree that GR
November 7, 2008 - 20:46 ET by hydrodynDMCobraMan,
I agree that GR isn't proven. But that isn't really saying much since almost no scientific theory can be "proven" (since most use inductive reasoning).
But to be fair, GR is a good theory - it's more accurate than Newton's gravitational theory. It accurately explained the precession of Mercury's orbit and its predictions about light being bent around objects have been verified. In fact, the GPS system requires GR corrections to its time keeping to work properly.
And technically, you can't "escape" anything's gravity since gravity is an infinite range force.
One possible reason for our not being able to account for the orbital speeds of stars in galaxies is that there is unseen mass present in those galaxies. Very few scientists take this unexplained phenomenon to suggest that GR is fundamentally flawed.
I agree, it is good theory
November 7, 2008 - 21:02 ET by CobraManI agree, it is good theory. It's not complete, and it's hardly FACT, but, at this time, it is the best theory available in that tends to match most observations. Will it remain the best theory? I doubt that as very few theories last more than a few generations. Nature has this nagging tendency to prove our pet theories wrong, over an over again.
"And technically, you can't "escape" anything's gravity since gravity is an infinite range force."
That's not entirely true as gravity's effect decreases over distance. There is a point where the gravitation field strength drops below the point of detection, and the effects of that gravitational field on mass OUTSIDE of this range will no long be observed. This is why the gravitational effects of far distant galaxies DO NOT interact with any mass in THIS galaxy.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
CobraMan, Agree with
November 7, 2008 - 21:20 ET by hydrodynDMCobraMan,
Agree with everything you said, except...
Regarding gravity - its affects go to zero at infinite distance. So, yes, at far enough ranges, you can ignore it. But technically at finite ranges, there is still a (maybe very small) interaction.
So distant galaxies do interact with ours - just not very much. At least that's what the theory says.
They dont ineract with us at all
November 7, 2008 - 21:53 ET by CobraManI agree that a gravitational field POTENTIALITY extends forever (this, too, hasn't been proved, just theorized), but the effects of that field is, in universal distances, relatively local.
I'm not trying to say ZERO gravity for far off objects, I'm trying to say that, after a few thousand light years, even massive objects, or groups of objects like a galaxy, has virtually no effect on other, outside masses.
The mass of galaxies a few thousand light-years away in NO WAY affect the motions of mass in this galaxy as the mass of a single atom in this galaxy has more effect on the local gravitational fields than the combined mass of all other, far distant objects. If this wasn't true, then the galaxies (and solar systems, stars, planets, ect.) themselves would never have formed as they have, and everything would be contained within single, self contained mass, a single hyper-massive object.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
CobraMan, I agree - it's
November 7, 2008 - 21:58 ET by hydrodynDMCobraMan,
I agree - it's just that the math person in me says, "well, technically, it isn't zero until you get to infinity."
But yea. I'm sure when astronomers do their models they pretty much ignore anything thats outside a certain distance as far as gravity goes.
There is just to much we dont know.
November 7, 2008 - 22:20 ET by general companyI just dont understand how anyone can make this claim, how would one get this info? It just isnt possable yet.
The mass of galaxies a few thousand light-years away in NO WAY affect
the motions of mass in this galaxy as the mass of a single atom in this
galaxy has more effect on the local gravitational fields than the
combined mass of all other, far distant objects.
If this was true we would have NO chance to detect "Gravity Waves". Now, while we may not ever be able to detect static Gravity of far of Masses, we should be able to detect colossal events millions of light years away. Things such as Black Holes or collisions between large Masses. This is a young science, we should not dare claim absolutes here yet. We cannot yet say what effects Galaxies millions of light years have on our own.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Not sure we know this CM
November 7, 2008 - 21:36 ET by general companyThis is why the gravitational effects of far distant galaxies DO NOT interact with any mass in THIS galaxy.
They very well could have enough energy to have directional impact on masses as they travel through space. Einstein believed that gravity could very well travel though space as a ripple much like a stone hitting a pond. We should know much more about this in the next few years. But their is certainly no consensus on the topic. There are many Physicist who believe that the very first "Gravity Waves" left over by the Big Bang may still be out their.
Dont mean to butt in, but I have been doing some work in the area of detection.
Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
You're not "butting in."
November 7, 2008 - 21:58 ET by CobraManYou're not "butting in," you joining the discussion and that's a good thing. The more people discuss something, the more viewpoints they offer, the more we all learn. It's when a given subject is "settled," and all debate stops, that learning also stops and we all suffer from a lack of understanding.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
There's is something wrong with this model
November 7, 2008 - 22:09 ET by CobraManThere's is something wrong with this model, and that's the effect of of inertia on a moving object. The mass and speed of any given object determines it's inertia. The very mass of that moving object will generate an inertial field that's stronger than even a relatively close object like a planet. This is why you can escape earth's gravity. After reaching a certain point, your inertia exceeds the gravitational effect of the entire planet.
The same is true with inertia and any other mass. The farther away you get from the earth (for example) , the weaker the earth's gravitational field becomes. There is a point, relative to your inertia and the earth's mass, where even the mass of the earth itself is negated by your own inertia.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
CobraMan, Not sure which
November 7, 2008 - 22:30 ET by hydrodynDMCobraMan,
Not sure which theory you are commenting on. Gravity waves are a possible consequence of GR. As far as I know, no one has detected them yet - but they are trying. There is indirect evidence. Some binary star systems seem to lose energy over time. It's thought that the energy is escaping from the system via gravity waves. But it's just conjecture at this point.
I also have to ask what you mean by inertia and "inertia field". Strictly speaking, there is no universally accepted definition for "inertia". That is, if you ask a physicist to write down the definition of inertia in the form of an equation, he can't. He'll probably ask you what I'll ask you - do you mean momentum? You mention mass and speed so it seems like it.
Most folks would describe what you're talking about (in classical mechanics terms) as just a combination of Newton's First Law (objects move at constant speed when not acted on by forces) and Newton's Second Law (when objects are acted on by forces, they change their speed). Or you can do it in terms of energy - give an object enough kinetic energy (speed related) and it can escape a planet despite its loss in kinetic energy as it acquires gravitational potential energy. Or something like that.
I guess my point is that classical gravity and GR have no real problem describing what you're talking about (in fact, asking students to find the escape velocity for Earth is a pretty standard freshman year kind of thing), but neither theory does it in the terms you are using.
If you are talking about so new theoretical idea of inertial fields (and some guys do introduce stuff like that into GR), then, well, I know next to nothing about that.
Gravity waves are a
November 7, 2008 - 23:13 ET by general companyGravity waves are a possible consequence of GR. As far as I know, no one has detected them yet - but they are trying.
Yes we are trying to detect them. And no they have yet to be detected. We have built and have been operating a fantastic detector for a few years. We are currently able to see about 15-18 Mega Parsec (approximately 52 million light years) and will very soon be increasing its range by a factor of 10 which will take us into the Virgo Cluster which will add thousands of more galaxies for us to look at. We are very excited. This is not an easy feat, very complicated and we often have to invent our own equipment.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
general company, I
November 7, 2008 - 23:18 ET by hydrodynDMgeneral company,
I remember hearing a guy give a talk about this some years back.
Pretty cool stuff - both theoretically and experimentally.
Very good Hydro
November 7, 2008 - 23:42 ET by general companyI would be suprised if I did not know him, we are a small group.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Inertia is everything
November 7, 2008 - 22:42 ET by general companyThere is a point, relative to your inertia and the earth's mass, where
even the mass of the earth itself is negated by your own inertia.
Very good, but how about a bit of a wrench, as you move further away from the Earth and continue out of our Solar system are we more influenced by the closest large Mass or by the combination of all of the large Masses?
This is a wonderful science, full of unknowns and possibilities. Can you imagine being able to detect Gravity Waves? Being able to find their origins, imagine the sights. Think of what we could learn about how the Universe moves, and where it is heading. How old it is.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Now hold on a second.
November 7, 2008 - 22:38 ET by lotrNow hold on a second. General Relativity has been "proven" in the sense that it has explains observable gravitational and inertial phenomena with precision surpassing our measurements, that could not be explained otherwise. This is the business of science. hydrodyn even gives examples. The bending of light about the sun is proof. Since light is has an observed limiting speed, measured AND predicted with extraordinary precision, this can only be explained by curvature of space. Although it is not considered a "final theory" in that it does not explain "everything" (e.g., quantum mechanics, electrodynamics, etc.) it nevertheless describes a demonstrable "fact" about the nature of spacetime.
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
lotr, Substitute "proven"
November 7, 2008 - 22:45 ET by hydrodynDMlotr,
Substitute "proven" with "supported by a mountain of evidence" and I totally agree.
hydrodyn
November 7, 2008 - 22:55 ET by lotrYes, but in the realm of "natural philosophy," I consider "supported by a mountain of evidence" = "proven".
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
General Relativity is far
November 7, 2008 - 22:50 ET by lotrGeneral Relativity is far more than just just a "good theory." It is a fact, for it is demonstrably true for the range of known phenomena. Any would-be successor to this theory would have to explain just why the theory "worked" for its range of phenomena; even then, this will not have proven it to be "false," but rather define its range of applicability, which we now hold to be universal.
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
lotr, Well, I'll lay out
November 7, 2008 - 23:07 ET by hydrodynDMlotr,
Well, I'll lay out my understanding about theories and models in science so you can see where I'm coming from.
Empirical evidence is accepted as fact in science. Theories are models created to mimic the empirical world. These theories typically use inductive reasoning which means that, unlike mathematical models, they are not truth preserving. So scientific theories can't be proven in the way that mathematical ones can.
Deciding how good a scientific theory is comes down to (among other things) how accurately its predictions (or descriptions) fit empirical evidence and the scope of phenomena it applies to.
Contrast Newton's and Einstein's theories of gravity. For small masses (and at low speeds), both theories give essentially the same results (any differences are beyond the ability of measuring instruments to pick up). For large masses, GR does a better job of describing things than Newton's theory.
However, GR does fall short in some areas. The fact that you get singularities for certain objects (black holes) is typically seen as a problem. Also, on a larger scale, GR doesn't deal with forces in the same way that Quantum Field Theory does - that's more an aesthetic thing, but still, it bothers a lot of people. At some point, GR will probably be replaced with something better.
So when you use the word "fact", I know what you are basically saying but I have to disagree about the use of that word.
quick reply
November 8, 2008 - 13:47 ET by lotrI don't suppose I disagree with anything you've just written, other than a theory is generally considered stronger than a model, although I know what you are getting at. This has actually been a topic of recent discussion in the journal Physics Today. The issue being raised, one that I concur with, is that the term "theory" has been somehow demoted in the popular mindset to something more akin to "hypothesis." There is also the issue with folks on the Left who want to deny any objective truth. In response to this, some scientists, for example, have argued that we should start calling the modern theories "Laws" (e.g., the Law of Relativity). And, not to dredge up another whole can of worms, but all theories are not created equal -- GR is far, far more rigorous than say, macroevolution.
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
lotr, I'm pretty loose
November 8, 2008 - 14:35 ET by hydrodynDMlotr,
I'm pretty loose about the terms "theory" and "model" - I don't really distinguish between the two so I tend to use them interchangeably.
I would be interested in reading that discussion in Physics Today - could you tell me what issues? I have a stack of them by my desk - they come in the mail and I put them in a pile thinking I'll eventually get to them and, of course, I never do.
When it comes to comparing different theories or models (or whatever), I tend to think about comparing ones within the same field of science. Comparing GR to macroevolution doesn't seem fair, since the later deals with (in my opinion) much more complicated systems than the former.
hydrodynDM
November 8, 2008 - 20:56 ET by lotrThe "discussion" in Physics Today has occurred over several months from the past year or two. I skim through every issue, read and clip articles that interest me (and there are a lot of them), then throw them out, so unfortunately I can't point you to the exact issues (and I'm always lagging be many months). Sorry I couldn't be more exact.
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
relativity
November 7, 2008 - 20:43 ET by porpoiseboyit is still the "theory of relativity" it is not the "law of relativity". even the lord of mordor know that.
Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.
porpoiseboy, I've heard
November 7, 2008 - 20:50 ET by hydrodynDMporpoiseboy,
I've heard comments like yours before from folks. I find it very odd that people outside of science think that scientists assign certain terms like "law" and "theory" as a way of designating how accurate or good or accepted or whatever some scientific model is.
We don't.
As an example, Newton's "law" of Universal Gravity is less accurate than Einstein's "theory" of General Relativity.
hyro confusion
November 7, 2008 - 20:57 ET by porpoiseboyso all you really do well is make a good argument that many "laws" of science should be "theories" not the opposite. we tend to find as many of the "facts" we believed to be questionable as the opposite. that is the nature of science. including relativity. maybe you should read some of michael crichton's non fiction stuff.
i am not even saying that i do not tend to believe relativity...just that there is not irrefutable scientific proof of the opposite.
cheers!
Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.
porpoiseboy, Since I'm
November 7, 2008 - 21:03 ET by hydrodynDMporpoiseboy,
Since I'm not sure what you mean by "law" and "theory" - you aren't using them in the way that science does - then I can't really address your comment.
If you read my other my other posts in this thread, you would see that my main point has been that scientific theories can't be "prove" as 100% true (or at least the ones that use inductive reasoning, and that's most of them).
I've been in physics for about 20 years - I don't really need to read Michael Crichton to get a handle on science. But thanks for the suggestion anyways. (Sorry if that last comment came across as arrogant - I'm really suggesting that I've grown lazy over the years).
crichton
November 7, 2008 - 21:17 ET by porpoiseboyi only suggested that as a tribute to a really good scientist who was almost exclusively known as an author and tv show creator. who of course recently passed. as far as theory and law (and for that matter postulate ) i was probably way below your paygrade with the laymen's definition that a law is understood as "fact", while the others are less so but in the realm of inductive reasoning are all used as the basis of "proofs".
anyway sorry to be so obtuse in your wheelhouse.
Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.
propoiseboy, Yea, I get
November 7, 2008 - 21:26 ET by hydrodynDMpropoiseboy,
Yea, I get what you're saying - the thing about the difference between "theory" and "law" is a pretty common misconception about how those words are used in science.
And it doesn't help that most scientists aren't much interested in explaining this stuff to others.
Take it easy.
LionKing...
November 7, 2008 - 18:53 ET byLionKing,
First...are you a creationist who doesn't believe in evolution?
Übercon
uber...
November 7, 2008 - 19:01 ET by LionKingMy beliefs are irrelevant to the discussion. Either answer what I asked or I will assume you cannot.
The question is about mixing faith and science which respect to macro-evolution.
btw, why did you not answer my questions about AGW?
That's what I thought...
November 7, 2008 - 19:13 ET byLionKing,
Your beliefs are relevant in this discussion. Your beliefs blind you. As with all faiths, question the Authority and you will be shown the door.
As for science, question the experts, prove them wrong, you are now the expert waiting to be proven wrong. Try not to mix up the definition of authorities and experts...Religion has its "trickle down" structure in place whereas science is solely based on a "trickle up" apparatus. Hydro, do you agree?
As for AGW, humans have contributed to an increase in greenhouse gases. Those greenhouse gases contribute to the overall warming of our climate. I kept it simple for you.
Übercon
Ubercon, I more or less
November 7, 2008 - 19:19 ET by hydrodynDMUbercon,
I more or less agree with your point (regarding science, not faith). Every grad student has to do original research for their thesis. There isn't a grad student (or post doc or tenured prof) who doesn't dream of coming up with something revolutionary.
Einstein did it and from what I hear, it made him a chick magnet.
Chick Magnet?
November 7, 2008 - 21:44 ET by BlondeTouche, hydro.
That was GREAT!
Hey Blonde, I was
November 7, 2008 - 22:00 ET by hydrodynDMHey Blonde,
I was wondering if anyone caught that.
My humor is so unappreciated :(
Well.....
November 7, 2008 - 22:07 ET by BlondeI don't know if you are quite up to writing for Jay Leno....but get a hold of Lorne Michaels....that was WAAAAY better than anything I've seen on SNL for quite a while.
uber...you failed
November 7, 2008 - 19:26 ET by LionKingYour dismissive attitude does not serve you well.
I asked about macro-evolution because it is based on the assumption that one species can mutate into another species...yet, there is no emprircal evidence to support this. No model exists either. To accept this theory, you must have FAITH that one species can evolve into another.
Just when I thought you wantedto play with the big boys, you wimp out withan unsubstantiated statement.
Ohhh...
November 7, 2008 - 19:53 ET byLionKing,
I'd be impressed if you got through the first video.
1st Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 1)
Playlist: Transitional Fossils I and II
I'm sure you'll just ridicule it and be on your way...
Übercon
uber...Got Meds
November 7, 2008 - 21:29 ET by LionKingTime for ritalin. Your attention defiicit syndrome is manifesting itself. You cannot seem to stay on track.
[ btw...Interesting videos. ]
uber meds
November 7, 2008 - 21:41 ET by porpoiseboyi may not be much of a scientist, but i am a pretty good amateur philosopher. i just don't understand how anyone who holds to absolute atheism can even live a life where they would ever bother with say......well writing on a blog like this. if there is no yhwh, and no absolute moral authority, and no accountability at "the end"; then it makes no sense to me to do anything but to "eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die". nothing else makes sense to me under that scenario. trying to live any kind of "good, moral life" that does not elevate yourself to the top " GODrole" seems absolutely crazy to me. i am glad i have a faith to keep me from that insanity.
Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.
"As with all faiths,
November 7, 2008 - 19:59 ET by lotr"As with all faiths, question the Authority and you will be shown the door."
Nothing like stating the obvious. If one subscribes to a belief system, then one shows oneself "the door" when one questions the belief system that he is supposedly subscribing to. And let's be perfectly clear: We all have a belief system (or world-view, if you will) that we subscribe to.
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
The "experts" need to question ther theories
November 7, 2008 - 22:13 ET by CobraMan"As for science, question the experts, prove them wrong,"
It's not up to anyone to "prove " an expert wrong, it's up to the 'expert" to prove their theories are valid. That's the basic principle behind scientific experimentation.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Ubercon, You don't seem
November 7, 2008 - 17:43 ET by hydrodynDMUbercon,
You don't seem to really understand how science operates. For one, facts are facts - they don't need to be proven.
For another, science accepts empirical observations as its basis for facts. From these, theories or models are created. These are then tested against other empirical observations to see how good they are. But since scientific theories generally involve inductive reasoning, they can't be "proven".
As far as I know, there is no empirical fact (or set of facts) free of theory that "proves" AGW. The arguments for and about AGW are based on computer models. Computer models are not reality - they try to mimic it. That isn't to say that there isn't value in these models, but to suggest that the issue is settled tells me you have never worked with scientific models.
Are you a denier, too?
November 7, 2008 - 18:00 ET byhydrodynDM,
"Computer models are not reality - they try to mimic it."
As the data is collected and corresponds to the computer modeling...would you be able to extrapolate a set of future data points, that do not exist presently, and with a certain amount of precision be able to accurately predict a possible outcome. Why I ask...most physicists use computer modeling to create thermonuclear warheads without actually testing their "theories" yet we rely on their predictions to keep our stockpiles secure and "up-to-date".
Übercon
Ubercon, I don't have
November 7, 2008 - 18:13 ET by hydrodynDMUbercon,
I don't have much of an opinion either way about AGW - it's not part of my area of work.
I can create a model to predict just about anything. You don't know if the model is good until you actually get to a situation or a time when you can check if what the model predicts is correct (or reasonably accurate).
The models used the mimic the Earth's atmosphere use simplified representations of the Earth, incorporate a number of free parameters (some of which are based on empirical measurements) and involve simplifications and approximations to both the actual equations and in translating those equations into code.
Given all of that - I'll wait to see if they end up predicting what they say they do - you know, checking them against reality - before moving out to the woods and living a green life.
Your warhead analogy doesn't work. The technology and models used to create those devices have been tested. In fact, your example supports my point. After the physicists came up with their theoretical model for how to build the first atomic bomb, guess what they did. They built one to test if it worked. Empirical evidence is the basis of science - not models and theories.
Again, you don't appear to understand how science works.
hydro...
November 7, 2008 - 18:50 ET byhydrodynDM,
Did I forget to say the testing of "new generation" thermonuclear devices is prohibited. With the advances in computing capabilities, scientists are able to use more precision in their models to advance the capabilities of our nuclear stockpiles. Science progresses with better tools and better models built upon empirical evidence. Look out the window and question why the leaves in the trees move...you're on your way to understanding the atmosphere...Now predict how each molecule of gas moves each leaf? It's a little harder, isn't? Too hard you can always say "It's God's breath gently blowing upon one of his creations..." Trying to insult my intelligence about science gets us nowhere.
"I don't have much of an opinion either way about AGW - it's not part of my area of work."
So who do believe- the majority of scientists who study climate science or the deniers who want to debate it as if it were a political football? Are you going to wait it out?
Übercon
Ubercon, If the new
November 7, 2008 - 19:07 ET by hydrodynDMUbercon,
If the new generation of thermonuclear devices has never been tested, then the theories upon which their design was based are untested and might be flawed.
You seem to be arguing that reality is what theory says it is. I know that can't be the case, since that would be me insulting your intelligence about science. And I sure don't want to do that.
If your point is that our ability to explain things with science has improved over time - well, da.
If you are suggesting that I'm one of those who might fall back on using supernatural explanations to address difficult empirical problems, you might want to note that I work in a scientific field. So no, I'm not inclined to take that approach.
And by the way, trying to predict how a macroscopic number of molecules behaves isn't just "a little harder", it's basically impossible given our present computers. That's why we have statistical physics.
As far as AGW goes - I respect those in other areas of science and respect their work. But some of them (on both sides) have overstated the certainty of their predictions. It's the kind of thing that makes me and my colleagues roll our eyes. Which side is right? I don't know. No one will until sometime in the future when the predictions can be checked against empirical evidence.
If you want to be a believer in AGW - go ahead. But I work with computer models and there's no way I would ever say that something I wrote up is 100% accurate. Neither would most other scientists.
I never said 100% accuracy...
November 7, 2008 - 19:33 ET byHydrodynDM,
Somehow, you've gotten the impression I wholeheartedly agree with everything pumped into the public forum on Climate Change. I reserve the right to be able to change my opinions when warranted and based on evidence pertaining to the contrary. When I first stated Climate Change is settled science would be about the same as thinking gravity exists. Its a theory whereas there are laws on gravitation. I appreciate the discussion...I'm on your side. I'm more inclined to "believe" a majority of scientists than cockamamie bullcrap from non-scientists aka snake oil salesmen. If the skeptics can prove the majority wrong than by golly let's hear what they have to say from their evidence.
Übercon
Ubercon, Your point about
November 7, 2008 - 19:50 ET by hydrodynDMUbercon,
Your point about accepting the opinion of a majority of scientists seems reasonable. But the minority of scientists who disagree with some or all of the AGW supporters are just that - scientists. I don't care about what politicians say about science. But the opinions of those dissenting scientists shouldn't be dismissed. And the fact that there is debate within the scientific community over this topic shows that it isn't settled.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. There is the empirical observation that objects tend to attract one another in a way that's related to their mass (or their energy). We call that "gravity". Our first quantitative theory for describing it was Newton's action at a distance theory. The vast majority of scientists accepted it for over 200 years.
Then guess what happened? Einstein came along with a completely different theory which proved to be more accurate. His theory replaced Newton's.
Guess all those scientists for those 200 years were wrong.
Look, my point is that the AGW guys might be right - but maybe not. Just because the majority of scientists working in that field might support it, doesn't prove it.
See my above commentary.
November 7, 2008 - 20:09 ET by lotrSee my above commentary. Newton's Laws are still valid, as demonstrated by practically all modern marvels of engineering (e.g., rockets, satellites, airplanes, ships, cars, skyscrapers, suspension bridges, etc., which are all based on fluid mechanics, statics, dynamics, etc., which are all elegantly based on Newton's Laws!) However, what has changed in light of 20th Century findings is that the range of applicability is not as universal as originally postulated. Newton's Laws are not correct when applied to atoms.
Oh, and for what it's worth, Newton himself took the existence of "laws" to be postive proof for the existence of a "Lawgiver"... And Newton was no dope.
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
lotr, I saw your comment
November 7, 2008 - 20:18 ET by hydrodynDMlotr,
I saw your comment and acknowledged it in my response. I guess I was just being nitpicky about your use of the term "fact". "Valid" has a much better ring to it. I would prefer "applicable', but whatever.
Most scientists (at least in past decades) held some faith in a supreme being. But those are just their personal opinions. Newton might have personally felt that his understanding of physics gave proof to his belief in a "Lawgiver", but he didn't reach that conclusion using science. Just good old faith.
You may want to rethink that assessment
November 7, 2008 - 20:20 ET by CobraMan"Learning is hard"
It sure is, and I think you need to go back
to school and learn just how your vaunted "settled" sciences are
nothing of the kind.
"The foundations to Climate Science are well substantiated and solid."
You may want to rethink that assessment. There's been several sciences who's foundation were once considered "solid." And those sciences later discovered that their foundation was about as "solid" as quicksand.
A perfect example is biological sciences. Back before the 70's all biological sciences were founded on the central 'truth' that ALL life was, in one way or another, dependent upon the Sun as an energy source. The theory stated that all lifeforms were ether photosynthetic lifeforms or were dependent upon other photosynthetic lifeforms. This theory was the bedrock of all biological sciences until the mid-70's, when deep sea submarines discovered that there are life forms that do NOT depend upon solar energy for metabolism, but, instead, depend upon geothermal energy.
Despite being "settled science," biology was suddenly unsettled and new theories HAD to be created to describe the new biological observations. Over 200 years of "settled" science was, in a few days PROVEN to be incorrect in it's determinations, PROVEN to be less than settled.
Since the 70's HUNDREDS of non-solar dependent lifeforms have been discovered. Since the 70's, the "settled" science of biology has been"evolving" in order to understand and new theories are made every few year about the observations being made and the discoveries being uncovered.
So, what makes you think that the rather NEW science of climatology is any more "settled" than the OLD science of biology? And what makes you think that, someday soon, the "settled" science of climatology will NOT become "unsettled," just like biology?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
cobra you are very much on the right track
November 7, 2008 - 20:34 ET by porpoiseboyif the "science" were so settled why did over 30,000 scientists sign a petition questioning the so-called science? and only the msm and grant dependant scientific community could ignore and try to poo-poo such a thing. not that i only get my info from here but http://junkscience.com/ is a great site for the "other side" of the argument. the fervor of the "pro-warming" community is very facistic. a good starting point is the pro statements on this blog.
on the same subject and in honor of the late great michael crichton i would suggest that skeptic research his website. and them tell me what his predisposition to skepticism was. he was not particularly conservative nor anti much of anything except those same facistic attitudes in "science"
Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.
Neather Hologram nor Tomogram
November 7, 2008 - 13:13 ET by CobraManIt was nether a Hologram or a Tomogram. It was, instead, Virtual Reality.
"A computer simulation of a real or imaginary world or scenario, in which a user may interact with simulated objects or living things in real time." Source
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Hologram, tomogram, monogram, mammogram...
November 7, 2008 - 12:06 ET by semolina_filcherUber, welcome to Obama's "Zeitung Amerikaner". That's how you guys on the left wanted it, that's how you're going to get it. Fortress America--no way out.
Add these to your list as well
November 7, 2008 - 13:24 ET by CobraManDon't forget to add:
Neocons being Conservative, Capitalists being Imperialists, Conservatives being Fascists (interesting transposition there, eh?), and the all time favorite, Nazism being Right Wing.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
I'm with Bal on this one...
November 7, 2008 - 12:04 ET by BosTarusI'm not sure why even you guys care... this is hardly any sort of bias issue... its just a stupid media trick... AND it was hardly misrepresented. Wolf even said at the beginning of one of these segments that even though he can't see her it appears like she's right in front of him... Only dummies actually thought she was standing in front of him in the studio. And they probably only called it a hologram because they didn't want to bother explaining what a tomogram is.
Definitely not a case of CNN pulling the wool over our eyes... just them showing off their stupid toys that have nothing to do with anything. No one's reporting it because no one cares.
Define "misrepresented"
November 7, 2008 - 13:29 ET by CobraManThe V.R. trick was presented as a Hologram when it was not a Hologram. That's "misrepresentation" in anyone's dictionary.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Still don't see it...
November 7, 2008 - 13:47 ET by BosTarusOne of the other anchors even called it "our version of the hologram"... CNN was in no ways trying to claim they've invented the first fully functioning hologram. But they called it that, because that was the illusion they were creating-not to cover up some elaborate lie. If they replaced Wolf with a CG animated wolf, they wouldn't call it "our 3D modeled CG construct of a wolf," they'd just call it a wolf. Aside from the complete lameness and total lack of necessity... I don't think CNN did anything ethically wrong here... just silly.
I agree, it was just a silly
November 7, 2008 - 15:11 ET by dtaI agree, it was just a silly attention grabber. No big deal.
Tell that to Wolf
November 7, 2008 - 20:50 ET by CobraMan"CNN was in no ways trying to claim they've invented the first fully functioning hologram"
You may want to explain that to Wolf, who stated: " Jessica, you're a terrific hologram." AFTER stating that "you've never seen anything like this on television." They tried to claim that they were using holograms, when they were not. They tried to claim that V. R. hasn't been used on television before, when it has. In doing so, they were misleading the viewing audience, they were being deceitful. Why is this so hard for some people to understand?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
»→ Hologram not new.
November 7, 2008 - 12:13 ET by Cool ArrowThis stupid parlor trick was predated by several by Katie Couric's onscreen hologram. Or was that a colonoscopy?
Mad Cow. Denny Crane.
----
November 7, 2008 - 20:44 ET by dahliatraversYoohoo. Ubercon. Over here. Seeing you've started a parallel conversation thread, let me ask you some things. Do you know how much of the total greenhouse gas on planet Earth man is responsible for generating? Mmm?
Give up? 6%. Six Percent. Mother Nature generates the other 94%.
So. The United States alone is responsible for 25% of man-generated greenhouse gases. One quarter of six percent is 1.5%. Never mind the extremely expensive half measures Al Gore and the enviro-nut cases want us to undertake. Let's say the United States shut down everything - everything: cars, food delivery, heat, AC, electricity, manufacturing and we lived like cavemen. So then, man would be generating/contributing 4.5% of greenhouse gases.
Even by the undertaking of these most draconian of measures, how do we know that global warming would be stopped or slowed? In fact, it probably wouldn't.
At 6%, how do we know that if the entire planet returned to caveman days (which China, India and Russia have made clear they will never do), global warming would be stopped or slowed?
See, ya gotta deal in reality. No one denies that the planet has been warming (except that 2007 wiped away all gains, but never mind that for now). The problem is that when one party - man - plays such a small role in the hypothesized cause - generation of greenhouse gases - it is impossible to make the case that that is the tipping point for global warming. Because if it is the tipping point, nothing more than the shutting down of EVERY GREENHOUSE GENERATING ACTIVITY OF MAN would ensure that global warming would stop.
Sorry, such a solution doesn't interest me. More importantly, it doesn't interest the Chinese, the Indians or the Russians.
Just wait until they use
November 8, 2008 - 16:48 ET by GregEJust wait until they use this to put Obama amongst the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.