‘Proof? We don’t need no steenkin proof’*
*With apologies to Treasure of the Sierra Madre.
Rich Trzupek writes:
In a post over at Peter Guest’s blog, Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann is quoted making one of the most remarkable statements that I’ve ever heard coming out of a supposed scientist’s mouth:
“Proof is for mathematical theorems and alcoholic beverages. It’s not for science.”
He goes on to explain that science is all about “credible theories” and “best explanations” and his gosh-darn critics supposedly don’t offer up any of those.
Now it seems pretty obvious that Mann’s attempt to separate proof from science stems from increasing public awareness that the warming predicted by the high-sensitivity models that Mann and others have championed just hasn’t occurred over the last fifteen years. No matter. You don’t need “proof” when you have “credible theories”.
Read more here
Mosher is, unfortunately, ridiculous once again. 2 + 2 = 4 is a correct statement only in base 5 and above mathematics, it is in fact wrong in base 3, thus it’s always correct only in Mosher’s rather limited imagination. The point is, if one plays word games, then definition is all important.
One cannot prove any truly scientific theory, they can only be falsified, correct; so what’s with the emphasis on the 97% then ?
This whole “proof” thing is just a straw man argument anyway, meant to distract from the real issues, such as Mikey’s pathological inability to tell the truth.
Mann CLAIMED he was awarded a Nobel Prize. For proof he offered a nice Xerox containing designs similar to a Nobel which said no such thing.
His detractors CLAIMED he was awarded no such honor, and used statements from the Nobel Committee to support their assertions.
In response, Mann’s NP claims were quickly scrubbed from websites for himself and his university.
This wasn’t math so I guess it’s just a consensus that Mann is a fraud.
Ed pretty much illustrates the point of no proof in science when he says: Mosher is, unfortunately, ridiculous once again. 2 + 2 = 4 is a correct statement only in base 5 and above mathematics, it is in fact wrong in base 3, thus it’s always correct only in Mosher’s rather limited imagination.
4 does not exist in bases below 5, it is not that 2 + 2 = 4 is an incorrect statement, 4 simply does not exist in lower bases. Similarly, scientific statements are always incomplete and one has to understand the limits in which the statements are made, therefore you can’t ever “prove” same.
For example, increasing CO2 atmospheric mixing ratios above 400 ppmV bodes ill for many current biological systems. The rocks pretty much don’t care. . . .(yes there is a trick in there, ever meet a rock that gave a damn). Even equilibrium thermodynamics has limits. Among other things you need equilibrium, which ain’t so easy to reach absolutely. You also need a large enough system observed over a long enough time so that fluctuations are miniscule.
Really you dumb bunny?
10+10=100
In base 2
1 two and zero ones = 2
1 four, 0 twos, and 0 ones = 4
“For example, increasing CO2 atmospheric mixing ratios above 400 ppmV bodes ill for many current biological systems.”
You know bugger all about biological systems. Go back to pretending the Earth is at ‘equilibrium’ and eat your droppings.
Eli Rabett says:
August 3, 2013 at 3:03 pm
For example, increasing CO2 atmospheric mixing ratios above 400 ppmV bodes ill for many current biological systems.
——————-
Please explain this baseless assertion.
For the vast majority of the history of biological systems on Earth, the atmosphere has been far richer in CO2 than now. Higher CO2 levels correlate with more abundant life, in general. At multiples of 400 ppmv, some organisms might begin to suffer, but plants & other photosynthesizers would flourish. Optimum for organisms with high oxygen requirements, like humans, might be lower, however. As I’ve commented before, 1000 ppmv is probably a threshold for humans.
Current, milodonharlani. You know the biosphere we live in, not the dinos.
Brer Rabbut,
“Current, milodonharlani. You know the biosphere we live in, not the dinos”
you leftards are hilarious. First you scream that Christians and others are ignorant losers because we do NOT believe in evolution then you insist that evolution does not matter!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Dear Doc, the number 10 exists in base 2, the number 2 does not. The number 2 base 10 is equivalent but not the same as to the number 10 base 2. See, simple. That was Ed’s point. You wanna fight with him, go on.
Pay no attention to bunniboi, he is just playing word games.
Mathematics is truth. Perverting the truth is typical of climate alarmists. But in fact, no matter what the base used, there is only truth, and not-truth.
The rabbit prefers the not-truth of his word games. But we can handle rabbit intellects here with no problem. Easy-peasy.
Eli Rabett says:
August 3, 2013 at 8:32 pm
Current, milodonharlani. You know the biosphere we live in, not the dinos.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Then why do green houses use 1000 ppm CO2 and submarines go even higher?
KuhnKat,
The problem is that evolution is thought to be quite slow. That’s why relatively rapid changes (including climate changes) in the past have resulted in mass extinction events–many organisms couldn’t adapt fast enough.
Barry Bickmore,
“The problem is that evolution is thought to be quite slow.”
Exactly my point. Virtually everything on the planet evolved in a much higher CO2 environment. It hasn’t had “time” to “evolve” to a lower CO2 environment.
ha ha- eli had cecotropes for breakfast again.
William McClenney who has written about geology and Ice Ages here at WUWT, has an interesting ‘HERESY’ about Hominid evolution.
And 50% of the population has an IQ below 100, many of who are in politics….. /sarc
@ur momisugly Gail Combs says: August 4, 2013 at 8:15 am
Gail, no, no, no! With the new maxim that everyone is a winner, no one has an IQ under 100. Anyone who tests under that is given a bonus score.
Those of you claiming that 2+2=4 is false in different bases confuse use and mention. It is true that “2+2=4” is false in different bases because the quotation marks indicate that we are referring to the symbols themselves, which denote different numbers in different bases; but when written 2+2=4, the unquoted symbols denote the numbers themselves, whose form is independent of the arbitrary symbols used to represent them.
@ur momisugly Gail Combs says: August 4, 2013 at 8:15 am
And 50% of the population has an IQ below 100,
Gail, obviously you are racist. (snicker)
philjourdan,
not to be too insulting of your memory/intellect but, I thought you were right!!! 8>)
Blazing Saddles, like the original Airplane and a couple others, are gifts that keep on giving whether we can remember them all or not!!
Gail Combs says:
August 4, 2013 at 8:15 am
Is this the impact cited? If so, its date is later:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jqs.2571/abstract
IMO the onset of Pleistocene glaciation is pretty well accounted for by the closure of the Isthmus of Panama in late Pliocene time & Milankovitch cycles. But would like to hear an argument for an impact component.
@Kuhnkat – if you thought I was right, then I could not be all wrong. 😉
Everybody watch the pea.
Mann speaks, the pea moves.
Mann, by philosophizing about math and science, is diverting attention away from his own failures in math and science and logic.
“It’s not anti-gravity,” your guy corrected me. Even the transmission rate depends on the frequency that the radio uses.
He said that he has improved a 100+ kilo mass — compact. These features have made
a huge influence current trends, and thus definitely here to help keep.
karen millen black.