The Death of Real Science

[PoliticalChic]

1. "...scientific consensus on global warming."
There is no such consensus, and the term consensus itself is used in social science, not actual science.

That's absurd. A consensus isn't some discrete thing that has to be articulated. It's simply the ability of a majority of scientists to analyze the data and come to an agreement. Consensus also doesn't equate to "can't be challenged".

2. You would reflect a greater degree of learning if you would restrict your posts to terms that you understand.
That would obviate your use of the " scientific method ."

Oh lord. Is this when a liberal arts wonk lectures me on not understanding what the scientific method really is? Do you have any formal training in a scientific field? Or are you just going to bastardize other OPED pieces?

3. For your edification:

1.) State The Problem

2.) Gather information

3.) Form a hypothesis

4.) test the hypothesis

5.) analyze data

6.) draw conclusion

Now, what do you notice is the final step?
Right, the conclusion.

4. As I have documented, the AGW crowd has decided that conclusion belongs at the beginning....
Foolish?
Corrupt?
Or simply a time-saver that you find consistent with your view of wisdom?
I thought so.

Again, you assertions revolve around your opinion on the matter. Like I said, if you want to take the political football that is Global Warming and the fact that you think there is some sort of top secret conspiracy by the majority of scientists in the field and the scientific method had been trashed. Get down with your hyperbole. However, you look a little silly. You can no more than prove that thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed and published papers started first with the conclusion than I can prove the center of Jupiter is a large diamond.

However, I applaud your new found interest in preserving the scientific method.

Where were you when the jackasses on the evangelical right were telling us that a theory that has no workable null hypothesis and can't be tested (i.e. intelligent design) was an equivalent theory to evolution?
5. From the OP:
In his own words, published in the UK Guardian, Professor Hulme, tells the world that in post-normal science we cannot wait to prove global warming, but must ‘trade normal truth for influence’ and must ‘recognize the social limits of their truth seeking.’

6. Still calling this 'science'?

[/QUOTE]

I don't believe that you actually thought this absurd post served as a response to mine...did you?

For if you did, then the fifth rate institutions that you ...I assume...attended, should immediately be boarded up and returned to their original function, abattoirs!

My advice: if you are unable to answer a post, DON"T.
Simply move on. You appear the clown with an answer such as above.

1. There is no such consensus. You say there is because you listen ONLY to left wing propaganda.

The very paucity of evidence to support the terrifying global alarmism, the environmental Armageddon, is the best evidence for the lack of rationality, and, by the same token, the supremacy of ideology, in the scientific community.

a. In a 2003 poll conducted by environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch of the Institute for Coastal Research in Germany, about a quarter of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that “the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases.” About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers. Are climate change investors living in a fool’s paradise?

Is this the consensus of which you speak?

2. "...a liberal arts wonk lectures me on not understanding what the scientific method really is? "
I appreciate the implied, if left-handed, complement.
But a) Why would expertise in one area obviate expertise in another area? b) since you are not able to criticize the six-steps that I have provided as an outline of the standard formulation of the scientific menthod, it is clear that my expertise in this area, science, surpasses yours, and c) your statement, posed as a question, above, shows that logic is another area in which my expertise surpasses yours.

3. "...bastardize other OPED pieces.."
Since I haven't done so, it becomes apparent that this is an attempt by you to obfuscate, deflect, and appear to be parrying...
Actually, to one with more that grade school reading comprehension, it paints your writing ability as ...to repeat what I have said about you before, childish.

4. "...Again, you assertions revolve around your opinion on the matter."
I have provided the actual words of Professor Hulme, a major player on your side of the argument, admitting that truth has no moment for the AGW crowd...and you ignore, and throw up the 'it's only your opinion.'
Again, these are not my assertions.
Professor of Climate Science at East Anglia, Mike Hulme.

Your honesty is now called into question, along with your comprehension.

5. I admit the passage that I linked to the proponents of 'post normal science,' is probablly - philosophically- beyond your ability, so it is understandable that you would ignore it.

6. And as for "...thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed ..." this argument went out the window when the East Anglia emails were released. Is it possible that you haven't bothered to read them...merely plod on believing what has been shown to be fraud.
It appears that, to you, science is the same as faith.

7. "Where were you when the jackasses on the evangelical right were telling us that a theory that has ..."
When you grow up, you will see, one hopes, that this is akin to shouting "I can't intelligently respond to any of the questions, so I'll just pick something extraneous and throw it against the wall...see if it sticks."
It doesn't.



8. Now, forgive me if I add something which, I understand, is clealy beyond you...but I would like to explain the provinance of the 'You Must Accept What I Tell You Is Correct' sophistry. Other readers may find it interesting, dispositive, comprehensive.

Although attributed to Rousseau, it was Diderot who gave the model for totalitarianism of reason: “We must reason about all things,” and anyone who ‘refuses to seek out the truth’ thereby renounces his human nature and “should be treated by the rest of his species as a wild beast.” So, once ‘truth’ is determined, anyone who doesn’t accept it was “either insane or wicked and morally evil.” Himmelfarb, “The Roads to Modernity,” p. 167-68

Get that? In contemporary parlance, "thereby renounces his human nature and “should be treated by the rest of his species as a wild beast.” means to be called a 'denier.'

Direct from the French Revolution we find the antecedents of the AGW movement.


Friend, take this helpful advice...you are not going to be able to deal with this post in any semblance of logical manner: simply move to another.

 

[IanC]

Personally I am on the fence about global warming. But the one thing I am sure about is the period of sunspot inactivity over the last decade. Because of this anomaly I don't think we can give the same weight to recent data. We can't be sure of anything because the unknown factors dwarf what we do know. I think someone already mentioned that the fellow who proposed plate tectonics was ridiculed out his field of study. Someday we will know which side is right onGW but that day is not now.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Personally I am on the fence about global warming. But the one thing I am sure about is the period of sunspot inactivity over the last decade. Because of this anomaly I don't think we can give the same weight to recent data. We can't be sure of anything because the unknown factors dwarf what we do know. I think someone already mentioned that the fellow who proposed plate tectonics was ridiculed out his field of study. Someday we will know which side is right onGW but that day is not now.

Nice to have an open mind on the matter.

For my money, GW is only a small part of the picture. An indepth study of political systems form the Age of Enlightenment casts the discussion in an entirely different light. It is about governments, control, power.

There are forces that brook no opposition...and if you look, you will see that perspective on display here, on the board.

 

[IanC]

Richard Feynman is my hero. His criticsyms of NASA after the Challenger Inquiry are pertinent today. Science in an echo chamber is distorted science. There is much to learn and most of it is on the edges where anomylies and paradoxes exist. We are not even close to figuring what is going on, let alone finding solutions that ameliorate the situation.

 

[edthecynic]

Personally I am on the fence about global warming. But the one thing I am sure about is the period of sunspot inactivity over the last decade. Because of this anomaly I don't think we can give the same weight to recent data. We can't be sure of anything because the unknown factors dwarf what we do know. I think someone already mentioned that the fellow who proposed plate tectonics was ridiculed out his field of study. Someday we will know which side is right onGW but that day is not now.

Yet the last decade was the warmest in the history of direct instrument measurement, therefore the increase in warmth over the previous decade can't be attributed to sunspot activity.

 

[Oddball]

So what?

The magnetosphere is weaker than it has been in decades as well.

 

[FA_Q2]

I have some general problems with GW theory. Everyone here keeps throwing up numbers and temperatures and forgets to realize that they are skirting the larger issue. Over all the information that I have been able to look up covering GW, I have to say that I believe the earth IS warming. That seems quite verifiable through the evidence despite the personal attacks and some cooked data. The thing is that is where everyone rests the debate at and yet that is only HALF of the theory. There IS a general consensus that the earth is warming, there is ABSOLUTELY NO consensus on the actual cause and effect of that warming. That is what I am interested in and that is where the proponents on GW fail to convince me. When I first signed up on this board I did not believe that the earth was warming, hadn't seen any real evidence to prove it but I have to admit that there has been a very good case for a warming earth so I will give the people here the benefit of the doubt. Now, instead of screaming where are the numbers, show us how the increase in carbon has unequivocally caused the growth in warming the earth.

A big part of the problem is that the atmosphere is NOT warming. From all the evidence I have seen it looks as though it is the OCEAN that is actually warming and that ties into the second problem that GW runs into. What is the impact of warming? Truth be told, a warmer earth would be BETTER for life. Cold is not conducive to life in general and the many of the warmest places on earth are the most abundant in life. Granted, the Sahara is very warm and not exactly the garden of Eden but that is not due to the heat but the rainfall. A warmer earth would actually INCREASE rainfall and available water. The doom and gloom segment of GW has little evidence outside of conjecture and computer models that were built by scientist that need bad results to gain funds. I do not prescribe to a conspiracy and generally believe conspiracies are bullshit but there are very real instances where people WANT to believe that the world is in danger and we need to fix it. There are a TON of parallels with GW theory and the Ozone scare. The same case was presented, there WAS a hole in the Ozone - the earth is warming. CFC demonstrably depleted Ozone - Carbon IS a greenhouse gas. There was absolutely no theory on HOW CFC reached the ozone or if they were depleting it - I have yet to see any conclusive facts that tie carbon into the rise of temperatures OR predictable outcomes from GW. GW theory simply makes that jump all on its own just as the ozone alarmists did in yesteryear. There are MANY things that global temperatures are caused by with the LARGEST factor being the sun, by magnitudes.


The sad part about all this is that the grater debate is totally missed with those not being GW's written off because people are so stuck in their conclusions and GW's written off as alarmists for the same. If there is a real threat I damn well want to know it. From what I have seen in the data the only provable threat is the rise in PH levels in the ocean that could cause REAL damage. However, most estimates put that off for 75 years, hardly an emergency and there is still a lack of proof that carbon is the problem. We need REAL science and what we are getting is political infighting.

 

[Gadawg73]

You can either prove your "science" or you can't. Barring that, all you have is a theory.

All the warmist cabal has is a theory, and a pretty shaky one at that....And they know it. Otherwise, they wouldn't be resorting to the tactics of blacklisting, evading FOIA requests, making up data for places where no collection points exist, using opinion pieces as "proof", stacking polls with respondents most likely to give the answers they're looking for, etcetera.

If this was Richard Nixon, y'all would be messing your pants, and rightly so.

All science is theory. You test with the scientific method trying to prove your theory wrong.
So far, the same with the theory of gravity, no one has been able to prove the theory of global warming false.

 

[Gadawg73]

Ignorance is rampant concerning man made global warming. The truly ignorant call it "liberal left wing spin".
I am a life time Republican conservative and knoiw the difference between shit and shinola. A long time diver from the mid 60s, I know the facts and global warming is fact as I have seen it.
Coral reefs that are now dead that I used to float through in the late 60s that are now barren nothing are from the water warming. Even a dumb ass knows that is what caused it. Throw in man made pollution and you have exactly what is going on now.
The very same folks that claim that Obama was born in Kenya, practices as a Muslim and is partnered with Al Qaeda are the ones claiming that global wqarming is false.
Wake up dumbasses. The very scientists that claimed smoking was good for you are the ones now claiming there is no global warming.
All of us long time outdoorsmen know it is fact and we are conservatives. The right has made this a left/right issue to confuse, as the right wing fools are easily confused, to throw you off.
Are there hundreds of big time corporations and politicians tryong to get rich off of it. Of course!
But it is going on as I have sen it over the last 45 years of my life. Anyone that has travled the world as I have, dove, hunted, fished and been all around the planet.
Play the fools game of politics all you want. Facts are in and man causes the earth to warm. Get used to it and change it. Be part of the solution and get your dumb ass head out of the sand.
Either allow Rush and Sean to run your life or listen to scientific fact and personal experiences form world travelers like me.
Next thing we will hear is how the oil on the beaches is not affecting the environment. And you fools will beliee it because Rush and Sean claim it is a "left wing liberal conspiracy". Dumbasses you are.
Yes, we do believe you are stupid if you keep your eyes closed to man made global warming. Go out and put your hand over the exhaust pipe of your car. It is very hot. Multiply that times a BILLION.

 

[Oddball]

Coral reefs that are now dead that I used to float through in the late 60s that are now barren nothing are from the water warming. Even a dumb ass knows that is what caused it. Throw in man made pollution and you have exactly what is going on now.
The very same folks that claim that Obama was born in Kenya, practices as a Muslim and is partnered with Al Qaeda are the ones claiming that global wqarming is false.
Wake up dumbasses. The very scientists that claimed smoking was good for you are the ones now claiming there is no global warming.
<snip>
Yes, we do believe you are stupid if you keep your eyes closed to man made global warming. Go out and put your hand over the exhaust pipe of your car. It is very hot. Multiply that times a BILLION.

I thought you said you knew shit from shinola.

The first paragraph is a glittering example of non sequitur, appeal to authority and ad hominem attacks = Shit X 3.

Second paragraph: Total non sequitur = Shit

When do you get to the shinola part?

 

[midcan5]

I'm always amazed at the total lack of knowledge of the history of ideas and science that OPs like PC's present. I realize ideologues live in a kind of beckian world of interpreted and made up history, but for others I would suggest a perusal of some of books noted below. As America grows dumber one has to wonder if the BS presented by beck and PC is really believed - we can only hope not. Science has always been ideological, life is ideological, we see what we want to see. The pejorative use of word makes it seems like every thought has behind it a new starting point. See Thomas Kuhn's 'structure...' [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-Thomas-Kuhn/dp/0226458083/ref=pd_rhf_shvl_3]Amazon.com: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (9780226458083): Thomas S.&#8230;[/ame]


For those interested in a bit of truth check out Peter Watson's 'The Modern Mind,' he reviews science and its development through the 20th century.
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Mind-Intellectual-History-Century/dp/0060084383/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: The Modern Mind: An Intellectual History of the 20th&#8230;[/ame]


Also another interesting perspective on the relationships of society to science is outlined ins Snow's book. [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Two-Cultures-Canto-C-Snow/dp/0521457300/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: The Two Cultures (Canto) (9780521457309): C. P. Snow, Stefan Collini: Books[/ame]


The OP demonstrates why conservatives partisans are such poor voters, they vote idiocy and thus we get idiots. This book demonstrates that fact. History News Network

"* Although more than 50% of Americans can identify at least two members of the Simpsons Family, only 25% can name more than one right guaranteed by the First Amendment.
* Only 20% of young Americans between the ages 18-34 read a newspaper daily. An astonishingly low 11% report surfing Internet news sites.
* A Washington Post poll in September 2003 found that 70% of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. A majority continued to believe this even after the 9/11 Commission reported that the claim was groundless.

If facts don't drive our politics, what does? Shenkman says it's myths. Politicians tell people what they want to hear. They tell us we're smart, better than others, and God's favorites. To win us over they pretend to be just like us, belting back shots of whiskey and playing pool, in a crude exploitation of the myth of the common man."

 

[Gadawg73]

Coral reefs that are now dead that I used to float through in the late 60s that are now barren nothing are from the water warming. Even a dumb ass knows that is what caused it. Throw in man made pollution and you have exactly what is going on now.
The very same folks that claim that Obama was born in Kenya, practices as a Muslim and is partnered with Al Qaeda are the ones claiming that global wqarming is false.
Wake up dumbasses. The very scientists that claimed smoking was good for you are the ones now claiming there is no global warming.
<snip>
Yes, we do believe you are stupid if you keep your eyes closed to man made global warming. Go out and put your hand over the exhaust pipe of your car. It is very hot. Multiply that times a BILLION.

I thought you said you knew shit from shinola.

The first paragraph is a glittering example of non sequitur, appeal to authority and ad hominem attacks = Shit X 3.

Second paragraph: Total non sequitur = Shit

When do you get to the shinola part?

Any substantive argument from you is always respected Dude.
How long do we have to wait for one?

 

[Oddball]

You get what you give, man.

 

[Gadawg73]

You get what you give, man.

LOL, good answer Dude.
I like your quick witted responses!

 

[IanC]

Personally I am on the fence about global warming. But the one thing I am sure about is the period of sunspot inactivity over the last decade. Because of this anomaly I don't think we can give the same weight to recent data. We can't be sure of anything because the unknown factors dwarf what we do know. I think someone already mentioned that the fellow who proposed plate tectonics was ridiculed out his field of study. Someday we will know which side is right onGW but that day is not now.

Yet the last decade was the warmest in the history of direct instrument measurement, therefore the increase in warmth over the previous decade can't be attributed to sunspot activity.

Actually sunspot minimums are associated with cooling usually. Isn't that what is happening to ocean temps? I am saying that abnormal temporary conditions make forcasting a useless endeavour.

 

[Greenbeard]

You can either prove your "science" or you can't. Barring that, all you have is a theory.

I'm not sure what to make of this. Aside from the obvious fact that in most conceptions of the philosophy of science theories are never proven, I'm left wondering if you're trying to suggest that theories aren't science but rather are "science."

All the warmist cabal has is a theory, and a pretty shaky one at that....And they know it.

Do you accept that atmospheric composition affects surface temperatures? Or do you consider that somehow controversial?

 

[Oddball]

I can prove Bernoulli's principle, in no uncertain terms....Likewise with uncounted other scientific phenomena.

I accept that the planet is a dynamic system, with too may variables to possibly account for. Therefore, the speculation that man's paltry single-digit contribution to global CO2 emissions is the cause of potentially catastrophic results, or that the planet's entire ecology can be positively controlled by minor manipulations in that CO2 output, is just plain laughable.

 

[Greenbeard]

I can prove Bernoulli's principle, in no uncertain terms....Likewise with uncounted other scientific phenomena.

That's not particularly relevant, as we're talking about theories here. If you want to talk about observational fact--i.e. matters of quantitative data gathering--the analogue would be temperature measurements showing a trend of rising global temperature. That data point (or series of data points, as the case may be) gets situated within a broader structure that has some degree of explanatory power; needless to say this new entity is much more significant and powerful than the facts or laws that it incorporates. That broader structure is what we're talking about. Observational facts sit within it and prop it up but they are not identical with it. And that structure can never be definitely proven, it can only be found to be compatible or incompatible with future observational facts.

I accept that the planet is a dynamic system, with too may variables to possibly account for.

As is a fluid made of countless interacting particles. Yet you can "prove" (i.e. experimentally verify to some desired accuracy) Bernoulli's principle. The reason, of course, being that regardless of the complexity involved, a handful of mechanical and thermodynamic laws are overriding factors that allow us to derive the equations of fluid dynamics.

Similarly, a handful of radiation and thermodynamic have significant consequences for the atmospheric regulation of heat (and, ultimately, surface temperatures). But you haven't answered the question I asked: does atmospheric composition affect surface temperatures?

 

[edthecynic]

Personally I am on the fence about global warming. But the one thing I am sure about is the period of sunspot inactivity over the last decade. Because of this anomaly I don't think we can give the same weight to recent data. We can't be sure of anything because the unknown factors dwarf what we do know. I think someone already mentioned that the fellow who proposed plate tectonics was ridiculed out his field of study. Someday we will know which side is right onGW but that day is not now.

Yet the last decade was the warmest in the history of direct instrument measurement, therefore the increase in warmth over the previous decade can't be attributed to sunspot activity.

Actually sunspot minimums are associated with cooling usually. Isn't that what is happening to ocean temps? I am saying that abnormal temporary conditions make forcasting a useless endeavour.

Yes, during low solar activity you should expect to see cooling, but we don't. The most we see from the natural cooling influences is a short term leveling off of the warming trends, not a cooling cycle equal to the previous warming cycle. Once these natural cooling influences pass the warming resumes at higher levels than the previous warming period.

 

[bruzz]

In America, the federal government has gotten to big and is wrongly influencing matters that are not in the jurisdiction of the federal government. See global warming and the 9-11 investigation. Governments job in these cases is to let the scientific community do it's job, then react accordingly to the results in the best intersts of the nation, not fabricate lies as was done by the federal government in both cases.