delegitamizing science

[code1211]

Absolutely and I based that on an analysis of the predictive models that demonstrates that they are unscientific.

Quoted from Toro:

For example?

Forecasting weather changes five years out is like forecasting who is going to win the Super Bowl in five years. Forecasting is inherently unstable in most professions. When someone says that the earth will be three degrees warmer 100 years from now, you should be highly skeptical. However, that does not necessarily invalidate the central thesis.

End Quote from Toro


When the central thesis is that the climate CAN be forcast 100 years into the future, demonstrating an inability to do so would seem to invalidate the Central Thesis. In 1988, the leader of the NASA Global Warming Alarmists, Dr. James Hansen, made 3 predictions based on 3 scenarios. The scenarios were based on the possibility that CO2 would increase, stay the same or decrease.

He then attached corresponding rises in temperature to the scenarios. The increase in CO2 produced the highest rise, the decrease in CO2 produced the lowest rise.

Reality, which was not on his radar screen, followed a highest rise of CO2 for the CO2 side of the prediction. The actual change in temperature was below ALL of his scenario predictions.

Conclusion? He didn't know what he was talking about. His Central Thesis was that CO2 drives temperature and that he could predict the rise of temperature based on the cause effect relationship between CO2 and the Climate.

He was wrong. His central thesis is invalid.

Below is a link to an article with that set of scenarios graphed along with the actual temps measured both by goround stations and by satelite. Please note that Hansen proffers a prediction of dire consequence and sticks to it even though it is also proven to be wrong.

A "scientist" that bases his opinion on his own beliefs rather than his research has departed from the scientific method. If a person considers himself a violinist, but can only play the flute is a floutist, not a violinist. If a person considers himself a scientist, but is unable to use the scietific method, is he still a scientist?

Please review this article.

A little known 20 year old climate change prediction by Dr. James Hansen – that failed badly « Watts Up With That?

 

[Toro]

Read what I wrote. Your poll was taken before the exposure of a scandal. I see little relevant to it at this point. I always have, too, as science is not voted upon to decide science. Finally, the CRU database was developed and pitched as a centralized location for climate data.

I posted the poll because Allie said there was no proof that most climatologists supported global warming. Most climatologists do support global warming. That might change, but for now, that is true.

That is a strawman thus it holds little interest to me.

It is irrelevant if it is of interest to you. What is relevant is the data and the empirical evidence.

I will reiterate: When data is manufactured, there is no scientific integrity. When the peer-review process is manipulated, there is no scientific integrity. When colleagues and publications are marginalized for asking valid scientific questions, there is no scientific integrity. When data is ignored for reasons other than scientific (statistical, irrelevant, etc.), there is no scientific integrity. Etc.

Again, this is wrong on several fronts. First, a body of knowledge is advanced on its entirety, not on the data of a select few. The studies that have been suppressed do not necessarily invalidate the conclusions already reached. It might, but you (nor I) are in no position to make this determination mere days after the disclosure. You and I have no idea the volume of research nor what does or does not invalidate it through this disclosure.

Climatologist Roger Pielke has publicized one such analysis (unfortunately the media did not pick up on it and that is not a surprise.)

"One" is the appropriate word. He might be correct, but it is just one. What is your understanding of climatology to make the determination that he is correct and most other climatologists are wrong? It isn't because of "critical thinking" because I know some extremely smart people who think otherwise, and I can assure you that they are deeply engaged in critical thinking.

They are not always correct, but there is a good chance that they are correct in their field of expertize, if they have integrity, that is. The burden of falsifying models (the principle of scientific discovery, by the way) has been met over and over and over, even before the apparent manipulation of the science was exposed. Somehow that doesn't make it to the popular blogs and press, though.

You are essentially saying that most of the scientists who disagree with you do not have integrity.

What is important is for those who would make a conclusion about climate change would do so with a thorough analysis of the science, not what the press filters and feeds you.

I agree completely, and that includes filtering what one reads in the right-wing press.

 

[Si modo]

Read what I wrote. Your poll was taken before the exposure of a scandal. I see little relevant to it at this point. I always have, too, as science is not voted upon to decide science. Finally, the CRU database was developed and pitched as a centralized location for climate data.

I posted the poll because Allie said there was no proof that most climatologists supported global warming. Most climatologists do support global warming. That might change, but for now, that is true. ....

No, for January of this year, it is true, if one actually makes a decision about science based on a poll.

....

That is a strawman thus it holds little interest to me.

It is irrelevant if it is of interest to you. What is relevant is the data and the empirical evidence. ....

It is irrelevant because I never said that nor implied that. YOU did. Argue that point with yourself. I don't play with strawmen.

.... Again, this is wrong on several fronts. First, a body of knowledge is advanced on its entirety, not on the data of a select few. ....

I never said that. YOU did.

However, you are contradicting your defense of their lack of scientific integrity. The body of knowledge depends on the integrity of the peer-review process and there is an apparent abuse of that process, thus a major setback in the growth of scientific knowledge.

.... The studies that have been suppressed do not necessarily invalidate the conclusions already reached. ....

I never said that they did. I said it goes to lack of scientific integrity.

.... It might, but you (nor I) are in no position to make this determination mere days after the disclosure. ....

Which is why I, who value accuracy and reality, have been careful to say apparent scandal insulting scientific integrity (even though the CRU has said the emails are genuine).

.... You and I have no idea the volume of research nor what does or does not invalidate it through this disclosure. ....

Actually I do have a good grasp of the volume of data that has been apparently corrupted.

.... "One" is the appropriate word. He might be correct, but it is just one. ....

And one is all that is needed. That is the principle of falsifiability, the foundation of scientific discovery.

.... What is your understanding of climatology to make the determination that he is correct and most other climatologists are wrong? It isn't because of "critical thinking" because I know some extremely smart people who think otherwise, and I can assure you that they are deeply engaged in critical thinking. ....

Science is not only my career but it is my education. I suggest you read about the principles of scientific discovery because you are shooting your own argument down quite effectively.

....

They are not always correct, but there is a good chance that they are correct in their field of expertize, if they have integrity, that is. The burden of falsifying models (the principle of scientific discovery, by the way) has been met over and over and over, even before the apparent manipulation of the science was exposed. Somehow that doesn't make it to the popular blogs and press, though.

You are essentially saying that most of the scientists who disagree with you do not have integrity. ....

Not at all what I am saying. You need to grasp the logic of scientific discovery. Start with some Cliff's notes about Karl Popper.

....

What is important is for those who would make a conclusion about climate change would do so with a thorough analysis of the science, not what the press filters and feeds you.

I agree completely, and that includes filtering what one reads in the right-wing press.

After this tedious exchange, I will add that the dilettantes in science actually understand the bare-bones basics of science and the logic of it.

 

[anakin]

It's amazing the liberals continue the "global warming is a scientific consensus" lie. There are thousands of scientists who disagree with the notion of global warming.

The burden of proof is on those who say man-made global warming is happening. And they have not proven it. They can claim they have all they want, but the facts say otherwise.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's amazing the liberals continue the "global warming is a scientific consensus" lie. There are thousands of scientists who disagree with the notion of global warming.

The burden of proof is on those who say man-made global warming is happening. And they have not proven it. They can claim they have all they want, but the facts say otherwise.

It's the Joseph Goebbels Schools of Settle Climate Science

 

[Si modo]

It's amazing the liberals continue the "global warming is a scientific consensus" lie. There are thousands of scientists who disagree with the notion of global warming.

The burden of proof is on those who say man-made global warming is happening. And they have not proven it. They can claim they have all they want, but the facts say otherwise.

The burden is not of proof, rather it is of support. Hypotheses and theories in science are not proven, they are supported and accepted as valid until the time that they are falsified. Once falsified (one time is all it takes), the hypothesis and/or theory is modified or even tossed out completely.

However, before any of this takes place, the theory and/or hypothesis must be falsifiable to be scientific. If it is not, then it is not a scientific theory. It is something else, and few scientists really care about it at that point.

 

[rdean]

rdean, I'm not familiar with the reference to this thread. Was someone who posted on here a "Creationist"?

The name of the thread is, "Delegitimizing science".

The most famous instance of delegitimizing science is pushing mystical creation over the "science" of evolution.

All science is connected. Every branch supports every other branch. They are not separate little trails of knowledge, but rather like branches on the tree of creation. When on branch of science is "delegitimized", they all are.

I'm so glad I could clear that up.

 

[Si modo]

rdean, I'm not familiar with the reference to this thread. Was someone who posted on here a "Creationist"?

The name of the thread is, "Delegitimizing science".

The most famous instance of delegitimizing science is pushing mystical creation over the "science" of evolution.

All science is connected. Every branch supports every other branch. They are not separate little trails of knowledge, but rather like branches on the tree of creation. When on branch of science is "delegitimized", they all are.

I'm so glad I could clear that up.

The only thing you've cleared up is providing more support for your myopic inanity. When real scientists push creationism in place of biological sciences and manipulate the scientific process to do so, you will have a point. But, as usual, you don't.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

rdean, I'm not familiar with the reference to this thread. Was someone who posted on here a "Creationist"?

The name of the thread is, "Delegitimizing science".

The most famous instance of delegitimizing science is pushing mystical creation over the "science" of evolution.

All science is connected. Every branch supports every other branch. They are not separate little trails of knowledge, but rather like branches on the tree of creation. When on branch of science is "delegitimized", they all are.

I'm so glad I could clear that up.

What crap! Chemistry, biology and physics are all still on solid footing, while Climateology remains the termite infested branch of science.

 

[Si modo]

rdean, I'm not familiar with the reference to this thread. Was someone who posted on here a "Creationist"?

The name of the thread is, "Delegitimizing science".

The most famous instance of delegitimizing science is pushing mystical creation over the "science" of evolution.

All science is connected. Every branch supports every other branch. They are not separate little trails of knowledge, but rather like branches on the tree of creation. When on branch of science is "delegitimized", they all are.

I'm so glad I could clear that up.

What crap! Chemistry, biology and physics are all still on solid footing, while Climateology remains the termite infested branch of science.

Although we are as this apparent scandal did not involve any of us, if the public doubts findings in those fields, they cannot be blamed for that doubt. Not at all. We also depend on peer-review to exchange and thus grow knowledge. These climatologists have shown the public that this process can be abused if a scientist chooses to sellout their integrity. This is not good for any of the sciences.

 

[rdean]

rdean, I'm not familiar with the reference to this thread. Was someone who posted on here a "Creationist"?

The name of the thread is, "Delegitimizing science".

The most famous instance of delegitimizing science is pushing mystical creation over the "science" of evolution.

All science is connected. Every branch supports every other branch. They are not separate little trails of knowledge, but rather like branches on the tree of creation. When on branch of science is "delegitimized", they all are.

I'm so glad I could clear that up.

The only thing you've cleared up is providing more support for your myopic inanity. When real scientists push creationism in place of biological sciences and manipulate the scientific process to do so, you will have a point. But, as usual, you don't.

It wouldn't occur to most "real" scientists to push "magical creation" over evolutionary science, so your point doesn't make much sense.

However, I suspect your point is that you are trying to compare the science of "climate change" to right wingers pushing "mysticism" as real science. The difference is that "climate change" IS real science. We know the climate will change, whatever the agent of that change, it WILL change. It's inevitable. It's the nature of the earth.

So, a few scientists are found to be "lying" because they have an agenda. Oh well, it happens. How many Christians do that to support their case against the gays? How many right wingers do that to support a case against Obama with lies of "death panels" and "kill grandma"?

There is a right wing war on science in this country. It exists. Rather than demanding that funding be increased and the science of climate change legitimized so we know exactly what is happening, the right wants to throw scientists under the bus. Science had done a lot more for this country than the "occult" and will continue to do so. It's the "super-naturalists" that lead the charge against scientists. Of course, that is not in their best interests, but that's never stopped them before.

 

[Si modo]

The name of the thread is, "Delegitimizing science".

The most famous instance of delegitimizing science is pushing mystical creation over the "science" of evolution.

All science is connected. Every branch supports every other branch. They are not separate little trails of knowledge, but rather like branches on the tree of creation. When on branch of science is "delegitimized", they all are.

I'm so glad I could clear that up.

The only thing you've cleared up is providing more support for your myopic inanity. When real scientists push creationism in place of biological sciences and manipulate the scientific process to do so, you will have a point. But, as usual, you don't.

It wouldn't occur to most "real" scientists to push "magical creation" over evolutionary science, so your point doesn't make much sense. ....

That IS my point, idiot. Your point doesn't even parallel the thread topic. Not even close.

Your myopic inanity again has you very confused.

 

[Liability]

The only thing you've cleared up is providing more support for your myopic inanity. When real scientists push creationism in place of biological sciences and manipulate the scientific process to do so, you will have a point. But, as usual, you don't.

It wouldn't occur to most "real" scientists to push "magical creation" over evolutionary science, so your point doesn't make much sense. ....

That IS my point, idiot. Your point doesn't even parallel the thread topic. Not even close.

Your myopic inanity again has you very confused.

rdean is unlikely to even yet see how much of a douche he has proved himself to be.

NAILED his stupidity to the wall you did, even though he IS unable to grasp this obvious fact. Nicely done.

 

[AllieBaba]

Read what I wrote. Your poll was taken before the exposure of a scandal. I see little relevant to it at this point. I always have, too, as science is not voted upon to decide science. Finally, the CRU database was developed and pitched as a centralized location for climate data.

I posted the poll because Allie said there was no proof that most climatologists supported global warming. Most climatologists do support global warming. That might change, but for now, that is true.

That is a strawman thus it holds little interest to me.

It is irrelevant if it is of interest to you. What is relevant is the data and the empirical evidence.



Again, this is wrong on several fronts. First, a body of knowledge is advanced on its entirety, not on the data of a select few. The studies that have been suppressed do not necessarily invalidate the conclusions already reached. It might, but you (nor I) are in no position to make this determination mere days after the disclosure. You and I have no idea the volume of research nor what does or does not invalidate it through this disclosure.




"One" is the appropriate word. He might be correct, but it is just one. What is your understanding of climatology to make the determination that he is correct and most other climatologists are wrong? It isn't because of "critical thinking" because I know some extremely smart people who think otherwise, and I can assure you that they are deeply engaged in critical thinking.

They are not always correct, but there is a good chance that they are correct in their field of expertize, if they have integrity, that is. The burden of falsifying models (the principle of scientific discovery, by the way) has been met over and over and over, even before the apparent manipulation of the science was exposed. Somehow that doesn't make it to the popular blogs and press, though.

You are essentially saying that most of the scientists who disagree with you do not have integrity.

What is important is for those who would make a conclusion about climate change would do so with a thorough analysis of the science, not what the press filters and feeds you.

I agree completely, and that includes filtering what one reads in the right-wing press.

Actually, what your quote said was that most earth scientists involved in research claims that the globe was warmning, and of those the majority (87 percent) thought human were a factor.

That's not exactly the overwhelming, wide-spread support you claimed in the original post I said wasn't proven. All you proved is that earth scientistists involved in research were theorizing it's caused by humans.

 

[code1211]

quote]

That is true. And skepticism is a good thing. However, a body of knowledge is usually advanced by experts arriving at empirical conclusions, not by a general consensus amongst a population because the population is generally unknowing in the area of expertise. That does not mean the experts are always correct. However, they are usually correct. The doctor is usually correct in his diagnosis. The mechanic usually understands what is wrong with your car. The accountant usually knows how much taxes you should pay. The experts are not always correct. Sometimes the experts are dead wrong. That is why dissenting voices should always be heard and never squelched. But the experts are usually correct, and the onus is on the dissenters to show why the experts are wrong.
Most people who dissent on climate change do so because of their political predisposition. In fairness, most people who agree with climate change also do so. That is why it is important to listen to what the experts tell us.

In the area of climate change, the experts in both the US and Britain are continuously changing the raw data, the methodology, the projections and the stated conclusions. The experts who are in favor of the thesis are in as much "dissent" as the "dissenters".

As of now, however, the case that the climate is warming since the point in time that that the "experts" have chosen to begin the measure seems to be apparent. The cause of the increase, and THAT is the conclusion that is being challenged, is what is at issue.

The cause as yet is not proven and is not apparent. There has been an increase in CO2 which is very consistant. There has also been an increase in temperature which is not at all consistant.

During the time of temperature increase, there have also been increases in cute, fuzzy kittens, black and white photographs and recorded music. As far as I know, none of these have been blamed for Global warming and yet the increase in these is probably greater than the increase in CO2. The point is that correlation is not cause-effect.

There is also the problem that in all cases, increased warming causes increased CO2, not the other way around which is what the "experts" are now telling us is happening.

The experts you cite above, hopefully, have hte experience and the education to make the predictions that they make. They are greatly aided by the technology that supports their efforts and a fairly complete understanding what makes the systems go.

Climatologists do not have this education, experience or technology to support their efforts. The system they study is far more complex and the tools they use are either akin to reading tea leaves, almost literally so, or so new that the data tracks have only been "enhanced" a very few times.

The case that doubters doubt is so shakey that anyone who supports it is either driven by agenda or paid to believe like a salesman would be. That is why so much of the "proof" reads like a sales presentation.

 

[Toro]

Actually, what your quote said was that most earth scientists involved in research claims that the globe was warmning, and of those the majority (87 percent) thought human were a factor.

That's not exactly the overwhelming, wide-spread support you claimed in the original post I said wasn't proven. All you proved is that earth scientistists involved in research were theorizing it's caused by humans.

This is what you said.

Nor is there evidence that most scientists or climatalogists support the man-made global warming theory.

You said there was no evidence that the most scientists or climatologists support man-made global warming. Clearly, that is not the case as 82% of scientists and 97% of climatologists do support the theory, which, by any definition, is overwhelming, wide-spread support.

Now, Si makes a good point. That was before the revelation of data being withheld, so maybe less will support the theory in the future. It also doesn't measure the degree of support, as the poll doesn't say whether scientists strongly or mildly agree, or if they strongly or mildly believe it is a problem. But scientists and climatologists do support the theory.

 

[The T]

The name of the thread is, "Delegitimizing science".

The most famous instance of delegitimizing science is pushing mystical creation over the "science" of evolution.

All science is connected. Every branch supports every other branch. They are not separate little trails of knowledge, but rather like branches on the tree of creation. When on branch of science is "delegitimized", they all are.

I'm so glad I could clear that up.

What crap! Chemistry, biology and physics are all still on solid footing, while Climateology remains the termite infested branch of science.

Although we are as this apparent scandal did not involve any of us, if the public doubts findings in those fields, they cannot be blamed for that doubt. Not at all. We also depend on peer-review to exchange and thus grow knowledge. These climatologists have shown the public that this process can be abused if a scientist chooses to sellout their integrity. This is not good for any of the sciences.

Yep. And the larger this scandal becomes? The more distrust will be sewn against science of any stripe.

 

[Si modo]

What crap! Chemistry, biology and physics are all still on solid footing, while Climateology remains the termite infested branch of science.

Although we are as this apparent scandal did not involve any of us, if the public doubts findings in those fields, they cannot be blamed for that doubt. Not at all. We also depend on peer-review to exchange and thus grow knowledge. These climatologists have shown the public that this process can be abused if a scientist chooses to sellout their integrity. This is not good for any of the sciences.

Yep. And the larger this scandal becomes? The more distrust will be sewn against science of any stripe.

Exactly.

 

[The T]

Although we are as this apparent scandal did not involve any of us, if the public doubts findings in those fields, they cannot be blamed for that doubt. Not at all. We also depend on peer-review to exchange and thus grow knowledge. These climatologists have shown the public that this process can be abused if a scientist chooses to sellout their integrity. This is not good for any of the sciences.

Yep. And the larger this scandal becomes? The more distrust will be sewn against science of any stripe.

Exactly.

And it will happen. The ORDERED way of things (Science, in this case), has been given a black eye...the PERPS of this are doing their best for damage CONTROL. thus their denial/Deflection of the lifted E-Mails.

They KNOW they may not soon, *IF EVER* recover from it. Thus the MAD DASH continues. I'd say it was way too late and a few TRILLION short thanks to them...(Or NO THANKS, as the particuliar case may warrant)...

 

[Chris]

The name of the thread is, "Delegitimizing science".

The most famous instance of delegitimizing science is pushing mystical creation over the "science" of evolution.

All science is connected. Every branch supports every other branch. They are not separate little trails of knowledge, but rather like branches on the tree of creation. When on branch of science is "delegitimized", they all are.

I'm so glad I could clear that up.

The only thing you've cleared up is providing more support for your myopic inanity. When real scientists push creationism in place of biological sciences and manipulate the scientific process to do so, you will have a point. But, as usual, you don't.

It wouldn't occur to most "real" scientists to push "magical creation" over evolutionary science, so your point doesn't make much sense.

However, I suspect your point is that you are trying to compare the science of "climate change" to right wingers pushing "mysticism" as real science. The difference is that "climate change" IS real science. We know the climate will change, whatever the agent of that change, it WILL change. It's inevitable. It's the nature of the earth.

So, a few scientists are found to be "lying" because they have an agenda. Oh well, it happens. How many Christians do that to support their case against the gays? How many right wingers do that to support a case against Obama with lies of "death panels" and "kill grandma"?

There is a right wing war on science in this country. It exists. Rather than demanding that funding be increased and the science of climate change legitimized so we know exactly what is happening, the right wants to throw scientists under the bus. Science had done a lot more for this country than the "occult" and will continue to do so. It's the "super-naturalists" that lead the charge against scientists. Of course, that is not in their best interests, but that's never stopped them before.

The Bush administration was leading the fight against science.

Thank God, they are gone.