global warming

Casual discussion amongst spiritual friends.
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: global warming

Post by danieLion » Tue Apr 09, 2013 7:21 am

Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing....
This is an assumption of those who believe in the "objectivity" and unity of science. The history of science not only shows that some scientists beleive in objectivity and some don't but that science has never been unfied philosophically, theoretically or methodologically.
Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.
This is a naive and uninformed view of science.
But the testing period must come to an end.
Only you if you ignore the principle of iteration.
So a consensus in science is different from a political one.
Science is always political.
"...scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009)
How could it be long-term? The measurements comprise an insufficient sample.
In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.
This not only contradicts the Economist and Forbes articles, but it also shows how naive these ding-a-lings are about epistemology. I wonder how many of them are aware of the distinction between correlations and causes?
Oreskes and Peiser
Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process.
Why do they need to? And when they do, why would they rely on the corrupt peer-review process?

User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 1928
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: global warming

Post by BlackBird » Tue Apr 09, 2013 7:36 am

This not only contradicts the Economist and Forbes articles, but it also shows how naive these ding-a-lings are about epistemology. I wonder how many of them are aware of the distinction between correlations and causes?
Correct me if i'm wrong, but did the forbes article not cite a report that 60 something % of geo scientists disagreed with AGW? There's plenty of consensus from climate scientists - That is, people who study the climate for a living, instead of people who study geology (which I have studied at university myself btw, and had we only skimmed over climate science, and only when it was applicable to geologic process.)

It's quite dishonest of that man at forbes to draw such a conclusion that there is no scientific consensus that AGW is true, because I don't see how a professional journalist could make such a rudimentary error, unless of course he glanced over such an obvious error on purpose in order to push his agenda, which seems in my opinion more than likely.

I don't have the stats on hand, but it's been posted multiple times in this thread, that the vast majority of peer reviewed studies published in reputable scientific journals are in consensus that our current climate change is human driven. If that's not consensus, I don't know what is.

Plenty of consensus:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... sensus.htm
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-chang ... us-on.html
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: global warming

Post by danieLion » Tue Apr 09, 2013 7:56 am

BB,
My point is larger than that: scientists who take comfort is consensus are ignorant of the history of science and method. Believing that consensus is a task of scientists is just one methodoligical belief of some scientists in some sciences.

User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 1928
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: global warming

Post by BlackBird » Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:17 am

danieLion wrote:BB,
My point is larger than that: scientists who take comfort is consensus are ignorant of the history of science and method. Believing that consensus is a task of scientists is just one methodoligical belief of some scientists in some sciences.
I'm sorry but that sounds pretty silly. Scientists who take comfort in consensus are not ignorant of the history of science and the [scientific] method... They're SCIENTISTS after all. :tongue:

I'll quote a fellow skeptic:
A real skeptic always sides with scientific consensus.

This may sound really unsatisfying and self-contradictory at first. Isn’t skepticism about critical thinking? About being open to any idea (or none) as long as it survives rational deliberation? Doesn’t this consensus thing mean that the whole movement is actually just kowtowing to white-coated authority? Well, yes and no.

To begin with, let’s remember that there are many people who are strongly skeptical of certain ideas, but who are not counted as part of the skeptical movement. Take Holocaust skeptics, global warming skeptics and evolution skeptics. In the skeptical community, we call them denialists. Why? Because their views go against scientific consensus.

Science presupposes that all participants have a skeptical frame of mind and arrive at conclusions through rational deliberation. If a large group of knowledgeable people working in this way arrive at a consensus opinion, then there is really no good reason for anybody with less knowledge of the subject to question it. Informed consensus is how scientific truth is established. It’s always provisional and open to reevaluation, but as long as there’s informed consensus, then that’s our best knowledge. Humanity’s best knowledge.
Well I disagree with his point that there's no reason to question it, I agree with the sentiment. Scientific consensus has a lot of value when it comes to the veracity and truth of an issue. As he says, it's Humanity's best knowledge on a subject.

metta
Jack
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 3476
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Post by Alex123 » Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:54 am

I find it strange how some believe in AGW merely due to some people agreeing on it rather than to actual arguments.
BlackBird wrote: I'll quote a fellow skeptic:
A real skeptic always sides with scientific consensus.
А real skeptic sides with evidence.
Take Holocaust skeptics, global warming skeptics and evolution skeptics.
I knew it. Global warming skeptics are put in the same sentence as holocaust skeptics... Great argument!Wow. I am convinced! The case is settled! :tongue:



I have a question to AGW proponents:

What is your best single argument for AGW?
Last edited by Alex123 on Tue Apr 09, 2013 12:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 1928
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: global warming

Post by BlackBird » Tue Apr 09, 2013 12:05 pm

Alex123 wrote:I find it strange how some believe in AGW merely due to some people agreeing on it rather than to actual arguments.
I hope you're not refering to me, because if you are you're quite mistaken.
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 3476
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Post by Alex123 » Tue Apr 09, 2013 12:07 pm

BlackBird wrote:
Alex123 wrote:I find it strange how some believe in AGW merely due to some people agreeing on it rather than to actual arguments.
I hope you're not refering to me, because if you are you're quite mistaken.

What AGW argument do you personally find the most convincing? In your own words, please.
"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 59 guests