Am I on drugs?

[Timothy W.]

Am I high?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsFsn8ekyhw&feature=player_embedded

Did a United States Congressman really just express concerns that an island will tip over and capsize? Really? Seriously?

Eddie, did you put something "special" in my cigars?

[Ali Samana]

All I know is that "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"

[Timothy W.]

Did you just try to apply the scientific method to the theory of tipping an island...in an effort to sound smart?

Sounds like an excerpt from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy....

[Timothy W.]

Originally posted by Ali Samana:

All I know is that "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"

Sadly, not in all 58 states.

[J Scott]

Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:

Did you just try to apply the scientific method to the theory of tipping an island...

Wow, that comment is almost as ignorant as the one we've been discussing from the politician...

Clearly you don't understand what the scientific method is, or else you wouldn't have asked that ridiculous question...

Sorry Tim, but you really embarrass yourself when you make comments like that...it's really, really, really sad how uneducated the average American is...

[Timothy W.]

Originally posted by J Scott:

Clearly you don't understand what the scientific method is, or else you wouldn't have asked that ridiculous question...

Yuhuh... Now say that in Klingon. That will make you sound so much smarterer.

[J Scott]

Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:

Yuhuh... Now say that in Klingon. That will make you sound so much smarterer.

You can try to deflect all you want, but the truth is you came here to disparage someone else who is clearly uneducated, while at the same time proving you don't understand what is probably THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT concept in modern science...

Sorry Tim, but that pretty much epitomizes what is wrong with the educational system in this country...

And the worst part is, you just want to turn it into a joke...

I'm embarrassed for you, Tim...

[Timothy W.]

Originally posted by J Scott:

[And the worst part is, you just want to turn it into a joke...

It is a joke. I said Geology 101, which would answer a simple question of "What is an island?"

You went on with a physics soliloquy on why an island would not tip over based on a premise (an island tipping over) that can only be described as a congressional acid trip. You wanted to apply physics to science fiction in an effort to make yourself look smart. I am merely encouraging you and having a ball watching you nerd this up. :lol:

We have an amusing saying about engineers in the construction industry. Engineers pursue a course of learning more and more about less and less until they achieve knowing absolutely everything about absolutely nothing.

[J Scott]

Originally posted by Tom Cullen:

Too bad the global warming alarmists don't put the "Scientific Method" to more rigorous. Especially the step involving the unbiased testing and reporting of data.

Is this a serious question? Or are you just trolling?

While I'm pretty sure this isn't a serious question, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and provide a serious answer...perhaps you'll find it interesting/useful...

It's nearly impossible to apply the scientific method to climate science. The reason being, it is (at the present time) impossible to carry out *controlled* scientific experiments on a global scale. And one basis of the scientific method is controlled experiments.

Notice I highlighted the term "controlled." A controlled experiment is one where just one variable (the "independent variable") is fixed, and it is that variable that is being evaluated to determine its effect on the entire system.

A good example is the testing a new drug -- two groups of people are tested, one group gets the drug, and one group gets a placebo. The control variable here is the drug/placebo, as it is the only variable that is fixed among the groups. Therefore, if there is a statistical difference in the reaction of the two groups, it can statistically be linked to the drug (the controlled variable).

Unfortunately, when it comes to climate science, there are what-are-known-as confounding variables. These are variables that correlate to all other variables in the system, both dependent and independent, and cannot be controlled for, which can lead to what are known as "type 1" errors (essentially "false positive" correlations). Having confounding variables in your experiment basically means the experiment's results can lead to inaccurate interpretation.

In terms of global climate science, the earth is an open system (a system that cannot be controlled for confounding variables), where things outside the planet (radiation, debris, light, etc) impact the system, not to mention that the system itself is changing (the earth gives off light, radiation, debris, etc). These are things that can't be controlled for.

That's why it's difficult (or even impossible) to apply the scientific method to climate science and global warming.

That said, there are plenty of peer reviewed journals that provide the raw data on global warming, and many scientists are doing their best to interpret the data in useful ways.

One additional problem is that people don't understand the difference between *correlation* and *causation*. It's possible that there is a correlation between global temperatures and inherent weather patterns, but that doesn't mean there is any causation. Unfortunately, the popular news media doesn't understand this distinction either, and therefore will often draw inaccurate conclusions.

While I'm sure there is a lot of politics and "dirty science" going on with respect to global warming, my guess is that most of the debate is due to the fact that people don't understand the core scientific issues being investigated, and certainly don't understand the difficulty of investigating those issues.

Again, not sure if you really cared about a serious answer, but knowledge is never a bad thing...

[Timothy W.]

Tom, I know you're a smart guy and you were being facetious. I will say though that they can and have done controlled experiments but what Jason isn't telling you here is the controlled experiments just didn't giving them the results they want so they're creating computer models based on virtual controls they are creating. Jason also is not mentioning the biggest variable to controlled experiments that is affecting climate science today - researcher bias. He used a lot of scientific terminology to not tell you the two key things about the whole debate.

But that's another thread. We're talking about something more plausible than man made global warming - islands tipping over into the sea.

[J Scott]

Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:

I will say though that they can and have done controlled experiments but what Jason isn't telling you here is the controlled experiments just didn't giving them the results they want so they're creating computer models based on virtual controls they are creating.

Tim -

For someone who just a few posts above this proved that he didn't even understand what the scientific method was, I find it interesting that you'll so easily opine on its application to one of the most complex scientific issues of our time.

If you hadn't shown your lack of understanding of 8th grade science earlier in this thread, your ability to regurgitate information you hear on Fox News might have been better received.

At this point, you should probably stick to debate about Literature...

Speaking of which, you might want to take some advice from George Eliot: "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

[Steve Babiak]

Originally posted by J Scott:

...
Notice I highlighted the term "controlled." A controlled experiment is one where just one variable (the "independent variable") is fixed, and it is that variable that is being evaluated to determine its effect on the entire system.

...

Boy, the quoted statement is just so wrong - so I will try to provide some clarification. Here is a straightforward definition for "controlled experiment":

Controlled experiment

An experiment in which one, and only one, variable is changed in order to assess its effect.

The source for that definition is here:
http://www.fossweb.com/modules3-6/Variables/vocab.html#Controlled_experiment

So, to be clear, it is not one variable that is "fixed" for a controlled experiment; it is where one variable is "varied" for a controlled experiment, and all other possible variables are kept fixed.

Disinformation / misinformation is a bad thing ...

[Timothy W.]

Originally posted by Steve Babiak:

Disinformation / misinformation is a bad thing ...

Very true. It reminds me of a quote by George Eliot: "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

[J Scott]

Originally posted by Steve Babiak:

Originally posted by J Scott:

...
Notice I highlighted the term "controlled." A controlled experiment is one where just one variable (the "independent variable") is fixed, and it is that variable that is being evaluated to determine its effect on the entire system.

Controlled experiment

An experiment in which one, and only one, variable is changed in order to assess its effect.

Yes, thank you for correcting my error, Steve!!!

I said "fixed" when I meant "changed"...and there's certainly a HUGE difference in meaning...serves me right for not going back and proof-reading that long post...

Thanks again!

[J Scott]

Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:

Very true. It reminds me of a quote by George Eliot: "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Hmmm...reminds me of another quote: "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."

Luckily, the mistake in my long post was only one word (and thanks again to Steve for correcting it)...it's not like I missed a whole 10 years of basic science...because THAT would be embarrassing...right?

[Timothy W.]

Originally posted by J Scott:

from a physics standpoint though, adding a relatively small amount of weight to the land mass wouldn't increase the likelihood of the event)...

Steve, do you think I should tell him that what he said here is a hypothesis? Observed phenomenon of the island remaining upright explained by the proposed explanation of the small proportion of weight added to it? Nah, let's let him keep edjamacating us.

[J Scott]

Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:

...what he said here is a hypothesis? Observed phenomenon of the island remaining upright explained by the proposed explanation of the small proportion of weight added to it?

Wow, just when I give you credit for having an 8th grade understanding of science, you go and prove that you don't even understand that much (assuming I interpret your awkwardly worded sentence correctly)...

While the Amish might have some great food, I'd highly recommend you stop asking them to tutor you in science...

Is this the point in the discussion where you look up a bunch of science terms and try to string them together into another sentence that doesn't make any sense?

[Timothy W.]

:lol: Did everyone catch how super smart Jason said he is? If you didn't, I'm sure he'd be happy to repeat it for you. :roll: :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9qYF9DZPdw

[Rich Schroeder]

Anyway, back to the original topic. Hank is a good representation of modern day liberals. It is a shame that they aren't smarter, even though they go to the best schools. There is a disconnect somewhere.

[Timothy W.]

Originally posted by rich23s:

It is a shame that they aren't smarter, even though they go to the best schools. There is a disconnect somewhere.

ACHHHHAFFIRMATIVEACTIONCHOOOO! Excuse me. Allergy season.

[J Scott]

Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:

Did everyone catch how super smart Jason said he is?

Tim -

I love the progression (digression) in your mentality throughout recent threads...

You started out trying to portray yourself as intelligent and intellectual, and then when someone pointed out your ignorance, you switched tactics to making fun of people who are intelligent.

You actually remind me of those big fat bullies in elementary school who are so insecure that they need to make fun of the smart, nerdy kids.

The difference is, most of those big, fat kids grow up and gain some level of maturity by the time they reach adulthood. In fact, I was one of those idiot bully kids myself. But, like most, I grew up and realized that intelligence is a good thing, not something to be made fun of.

Clearly you haven't matured to that stage yet. And this explains a lot about you, and what I imagine you can likely expect in your life...

Now go hang out with the cool kids and find some nerdy kid to give a wedgie to...

[Timothy W.]

Originally posted by J Scott:

you switched tactics to making fun of people who are intelligent.

Not really. I was just making fun of you. You can stop helping me at any point. :lol:

[J Scott]

Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:

Originally posted by J Scott:

you switched tactics to making fun of people who are intelligent.

Not really. I was just making fun of you. You can stop helping me at any point. :lol:

Biff from "Back to the Future"!!!

That's who you have been acting like...and that's what I'm going to start calling you...

Go ahead, call me McFly and tell me that you're going to beat me up...

You know, if you focused more on increasing your intelligence as opposed to making fun of intelligence, who knows what you might accomplish...now, isn't it about time you got back to your job...

[Timothy W.]

Hank Johnson has issued a statement about his comment.

"The subtle humor of this obviously metaphorical reference to a ship capsizing illustrated my concern about the impact of the planned military buildup on this small tropical island."

http://hankjohnson.house.gov/2010/04/rep-johnsons-statement-on-guam-comments-in-an-armed-services-committee-hearing.shtml

Allow me to elucidate. What he's saying is that calling it a metaphor this is the best his staffer could pull out of his *** to explain this.

[Timothy W.]

Originally posted by J Scott:

Go ahead, call me McFly

Actually you remind me a lot more of a tertiary character from that movie:

"Did you just take that guy's wallet? I think he took that guys wallet. Hey, I think he took your wallet. (Looks aside and nods solemnly.) I think he took his wallet."

[J Scott]

Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:

Actually you remind me a lot more of a tertiary character from that movie:

Okay, Biff...