We previously saw a Fox News pie chart that had a couple extra slices (here). Now, fair and balanced math adds up to 120 percent of voters indicating that they view the science on global warming to be rigged.
This is an interesting Rasmussen poll when you add up the number and discover that you are in a parallel universe.
The question is: “In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?” According to the poll, 35 percent thought it very likely, 24 percent somewhat likely, 21 percent not very likely, and 5 percent not likely at all (15 percent weren’t sure).
This rather dubious poll is offered to show that people are dubious about the science and math of global warming experts.
For the full story, click here
Bob said:
“My apologies, it wasn’t an appeal to authority but simply an explanation as to why I find physics to be intuitive and why I initially chose it as my major.”
I have to say that you made a good decision changing majors – I don’t think you would have made a very good physicist and you are clearly a brilliant lawyer.
Bob said:
“Slartibartfast has been arguing that he can have the PE of the building converted to Ke (and thence into heat energy by a conversion mechanism he’s yet to reveal)”
The mechanism is inelastic collision. Wikipedia says:
“In inelastic collisions, kinetic energy is dissipated as: heat, sound, binding energy (breaking bound structures), or other kinds of energy.”
Do you think that they listed heat first because its insignificant? Do you think that the rubble bounced?
Bob said:
” he [Slartibartfast] never accounts for the net Work necessary to shred the building into said rubble”
17.4% of the GPE or 100,000,000,000 joules went into shredding the building into rubble.
Robert,
You said:
“If you cannot calculate how much energy had to be expended to break a floor loose, you cannot calculate the remaining energy available to perform other work.”
I calculated that 100 billion joules was expended in each building to collapse and pulverize its structure (17.4% of its total GPE). Even though this energy ultimately becomes heat in the rubble, I did not include this energy in my heat calculation. The rest of the energy (400 billion joules, was tied up in kinetic energy of the rubble.
Gyges: “There’s errors and there’s errors. I could play a wrong note during a song and it’d be an error, or I could play the wrong song and it’d still be an error. Thus the “nit pick,” to show what class of error I think you’ve been pointing out.”
Gyges, Ignoring the fact that the change in the kinetic energy of an object is equal to the net work done on the object is not a ‘wrong note’ on a piano; it’s feedback and distortion without a harmony.
Slartibartfast has been arguing that he can have the PE of the building converted to Ke (and thence into heat energy by a conversion mechanism he’s yet to reveal) to create the molten metal in the debris. In making his assertions using “all that energy in the towers,” he never accounts for the net Work necessary to shred the building into said rubble; as if it were a free lunch. Furthermore, he doesn’t account for the disparity between the conditions of Towers 1 & 2 collapsing and the collapse of WTC 7. All three had molten metal and WTC 7’s debris pile, NOT CREATED BY 1.6 BILLION JOULES OF ENERGY, etc., was shown in the NASA thermograph as being the second highest hot spot in all of ground zero (more than 1300 degrees Fahrenheit)
This sounds like ‘nitpicking’ to you?
Gyges: “You should know by now that appeals to authority don’t really impress me as much as facts.”
My apologies, it wasn’t an appeal to authority but simply an explanation as to why I find physics to be intuitive and why I initially chose it as my major.
Slartibatfast,
If you cannot calculate how much energy had to be expended to break a floor loose, you cannot calculate the remaining energy available to perform other work.
Try this. Drop a one lb book from a height of 6 ft on to a chair.
The height of the chair is 18 inches. Since the chair didn’t break, and the one lb book is now sitting on the seat of the chair, 4.5 ft of PE is lost. Where did it go? Are you claiming that it was converted to thermal energy? Other than the one lb of mass by which the chairs mass increased, and the negligible temperature increase in the temp of the seat, where did that energy go?
Gyges,
Second on the good news in re WHT. No one likes having a sick baby and I have it on good authority the babies aren’t crazy about it either.
Slart,
My son’s been sick the past few days, and having a snot leaking toddler on my lap has taken away my drive to edit for clarity.
Gyges,
I think you’ve probably been the clearest of all of us. 😉 I don’t know who the ‘World’s Happiest Toddler’ is and I don’t want to make any more assumptions that I have to defend, but that sounds like good news.
Slart,
Thank you for emphasizing the point I was trying to make. I was pointing out that I don’t think they add any actual proof to your argument. They add weight to your ability to argue the subject (as does Bob’s test scores), but none to the argument itself. It’s a fine distinction, and my wording’s been a bit off of late so perhaps it wasn’t all that clear.
For those who care, the World’s Happiest Toddler is on the road to recovery.
Gyges,
My papers (one of them, anyway) is relevant only in that it shows that I make simplifying assumptions in order to analyze complex systems (and that I have scientific credentials in general – Bob goes as Bob, esq., I just wanted to make it clear that it’s Dr. Slartibartfast). I don’t believe that I have represented any more than this.
Bob,
There’s errors and there’s errors. I could play a wrong note during a song and it’d be an error, or I could play the wrong song and it’d still be an error. Thus the “nit pick,” to show what class of error I think you’ve been pointing out.
Also, I never said that you were all style an no substance. Just that in this debate your style was better, and Slart’s substance was better. I don’t know what accounts for what I consider an intellectual blind spot for you on this subject, but I still think it’s there. Your test score adds no more proof to your theory than Slart’s papers add to his (assuming they’re not on subjects relevant to the discussion). You should know by now that appeals to authority don’t really impress me as much as facts.
And you even got the umlaut in Gödel’s name!
Go Buddha Go!
Robert,
Again, see control theory. Your analysis isn’t reality. Neither is mine, Slarti’s or Bob’s. Or Hawking’s or Penrose’s either for that matter. It’s all models. We “decode” what reality we are capable of rationally understanding but we do not make the reality other than operating as points of observation – observation that as a matter of operations set a reality ONLY AS RELATIVE TO THE POSITION OF THE OBSERVER. Even then you can only know position or momentum, but not both. Or you can take it up with Heisenberg and Bohr if you disagree. As a model, it is incapable of absolute precision and certain assumptions must be made to make any model work: see the Incompleteness Theorems of Gödel. Law may be the shadow of justice but science is the shadow of nature. Models are called models because they are not the real thing. And that is that. Your infinite regressions, real or not, are an anathema to getting a usable answer.
Bob said:
“You don’t suppose I started out in college majoring in physics for two years, before switching to philosophy, because I missed a perfect score on my high school physics regents exam by two points simply because I was so jacked up on caffeine that I forgot to re-invert my calculations from a lens formula; do you?”
You don’t suppose I started out in college majoring in physics for two years before the funding for the research project on high-temperature superconductors that I was conducting was cut off, killing the project and sending me into mathematics where I earned a BS and MS in mathematics from Michigan State University and an MA and a Ph.D. in mathematics from Duke University after which I spent 5 years as a post-doc at the Lineberger Cancer Center at the University of North Carolina, do you?
(Go Spartans! Go Devils! Go to hell Carolina!)
Now back to answering Buddha…
Robert,
I said nice things about Bob’s debating skills (which I meant), but yours are not on the same level. While Bob has some fundamental flaws in his understanding of physics, his arguments are extremely well crafted (like fine British humor). Your arguments are not nearly as well crafted and show huge gaping wounds in your understanding of physics. This being the case, I’m going to spend my time on refuting Bob’s arguments rather than yours. I’ll let others clear up your misunderstandings if they choose to (as Buddha has been ably demonstrating), but for the most part I’m going to ignore them. I’m sorry, but I don’t have unlimited time to do this and it’s not a trivial exercise to answer even ignorant questions (in fact it’s harder since you have to alleviate the ignorance before you can address the question).
Gyges: “Bob’s a brilliant debater, and while you are schooling him on actual science and math, he wins for style. His greatest strength comes in never acknowledging that simply pointing out errors in others arguments in no way proves he’s correct.”
Gyges,
Exactly how would I be capable of pointing out errors in a physics problem if I needed to be schooled in the topic by the person I’m ‘nit picking?’ Why would Byron say “I am enjoying this, although I think Bob has some physics and calculus under his belt. Not all attorneys just studied political science or Latin.”
You don’t suppose I started out in college majoring in physics for two years, before switching to philosophy, because I missed a perfect score on my high school physics regents exam by two points simply because I was so jacked up on caffeine that I forgot to re-invert my calculations from a lens formula; do you?
All style, no substance; that’s me.
Gyges,
You said:
“Nah I meant the standby “What would convince you?” test. The danger in that tactic is it switches the burden of proof. However since you just spent the past few days giving a refresher course on physics 201, I think the burden already got switched early in the conversation. Bob’s a brilliant debater, and while you are schooling him on actual science and math, he wins for style.”
I agree with this analysis and it actually lies at the root of why I’m spending so much time on this debate. It’s actually the one I’ve been looking for since I found this blog. Bob could run circles around me in a courtroom. When it comes to debate I’m hardly even a novice and he is a master. His rhetorical skills are immense (he convinced Buddha and its probably going to take me better than an hour to write a post to persuade him that I’m right again). On my side, I’ve got my own meager writing skills (which are improved by this exercise ;-)), but I’ve also got science on my side (if I didn’t Bob would have destroyed me days ago). Bob is adept at finding the most difficult concepts where my explanations are least clear and attacking them – he’s identifying where my arguments need to be improved, forcing me to do just that – like I said, good exercise. If Bob wasn’t as formidable an opponent as he is (and I wasn’t as solid on the science as I am) this wouldn’t be nearly as entertaining (or frustrating…)
In an unexpected segue, I’ve decided that this isn’t an off-topic digression after all – it’s relevant to the climate change debate because it illustrates the difficulties inherent in scientists and non-scientists discussing science. We’re just doing a re-write of Scopes v. The State of Tennessee. (Bob, can I refer to you as William Jennings Bryan for the rest of this discussion? 😉 Don’t think of me as Clarence Darrow, think of me as Darrow’s expert witness.) Sometimes these things go like Scopes, sometimes they don’t (like Kitzmiller v. Dover) I think the result says more about the ability of the audience to understand science (and the scientist’s to communicate it), than it does about the merits of the science in question. In any case, I’ll keep this up at least a while longer…
BobEsq:
why do you think thermite would retain heat any longer than anything else? And why do you think it keeps on putting off heat after the reaction is complete?
The thermite reactions I have seen end quickly and the heat dissapates quickly as well at least in the open. If thermite is responsible for the heat at the site why wouldnt it dissapate at the same rate as any other heat source? If something is a 1000 degrees C it cools at a set rate depending on insulation, ambient air temperature, material, etc. Are you saying that the thermite kept reacting for the duration of the time the site was hot?
So what you are saying is that not all the thermite was used up in the initial reaction at the columns and that excess thermite fed the “flames” so to speak. Wouldnt someone have taken notice as they were moving debris from the site?