The Scientific Method and Global Warming

[JerrySeinfeld]

With all of this hullaballoo about the EFFECTS of global warming, shouldn't we be paying a little bit more attention to the CAUSES of Global Warming, or Global Cooling, or Climate Change or whatever they're calling the frequent and historically common changes in global temperature trends.

I stole this from Wikipedia (but I don't think it's copywrited anyway ). It's the SCIENTIFIC METHOD used for proving or disproving hypotheses.

Read it carefully and decide for yourself whether we're using the Scientific Method in our massive fearmongering.

In particular, read about the part about Falsifiability. Science only advances by disproving theories, not by proving them. Therefore the squashing of ALTERNATIVE POINTS OF VIEW on climate change is, in fact, NOT SCIENTIFIC.

Which begs the question about climate change non-scientists: Why are you so adamant about silencing alternative viewpoints. Is this a religion that we must all believe or else? Or is it Science, which not only has the RIGHT to be questioned, but it is required to do so.

The scientific method involves the following basic facets:

Observation. A constant feature of scientific inquiry.

Description. Information must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry).

Prediction. Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment.

Control. Actively and fairly sampling the range of possible occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias.

Falsifiability, or the elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases.

In other words, trying to silence climate change skeptic scientists because of WHERE they recieve funding is not only an ad hominem argument completely ignoring the science they put forth, it also ignores the SCIENTIFIC RESPONSIBILITY that scientists have to present alternative viewpoints.

People who try to shut us up are just EcoNazis.

[Guthrie]

as bombastic a crock of crud as one might imagine --- the quote describing scientific method is quite accurate

but then the jump to:

In other words, trying to silence climate change skeptic scientists because of WHERE they recieve funding is not only an ad hominem argument completely ignoring the science they put forth, it also ignores the SCIENTIFIC RESPONSIBILITY that scientists have to present alternative viewpoints.

is indefensible.

where any of that first applies to Global warming is just here:

"As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases."

Thus we see, the body of knowledge on Global warming has begun bringing predictability and confidence --- it is at that same place that science was at after the return of Columbus --- the evidence for a round earth was there and all but incontravertable --- all that's left is clearing out the last of the flat earthers --- and of course, over 500 years later, there are still flat earthers, just as there are Global Warming deniers

[JerrySeinfeld]

as bombastic a crock of crud as one might imagine --- the quote describing scientific method is quite accurate

but then the jump to:

In other words, trying to silence climate change skeptic scientists because of WHERE they recieve funding is not only an ad hominem argument completely ignoring the science they put forth, it also ignores the SCIENTIFIC RESPONSIBILITY that scientists have to present alternative viewpoints.

is indefensible.

where any of that first applies to Global warming is just here:

"As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases."

Thus we see, the body of knowledge on Global warming has begun bringing predictability and confidence --- it is at that same place that science was at after the return of Columbus --- the evidence for a round earth was there and all but incontravertable --- all that's left is clearing out the last of the flat earthers --- and of course, over 500 years later, there are still flat earthers, just as there are Global Warming deniers

Given that there is plenty of SCIENCE and evidence that the earth has continually warmed and cooled for thousands of years IN THE ABSENCE of any help from humans, I'd say your comparison to "flat earthers" is, at best, a big stretch, and at worst, another obvious attempt to demonize anyone who presents an alternative viewpoint - a technique commonly used in dictatorships and cults.

[Guthrie]

as bombastic a crock of crud as one might imagine --- the quote describing scientific method is quite accurate

but then the jump to:

In other words, trying to silence climate change skeptic scientists because of WHERE they recieve funding is not only an ad hominem argument completely ignoring the science they put forth, it also ignores the SCIENTIFIC RESPONSIBILITY that scientists have to present alternative viewpoints.

is indefensible.

where any of that first applies to Global warming is just here:

"As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases."

Thus we see, the body of knowledge on Global warming has begun bringing predictability and confidence --- it is at that same place that science was at after the return of Columbus --- the evidence for a round earth was there and all but incontravertable --- all that's left is clearing out the last of the flat earthers --- and of course, over 500 years later, there are still flat earthers, just as there are Global Warming deniers

Given that there is plenty of SCIENCE and evidence that the earth has continually warmed and cooled for thousands of years IN THE ABSENCE of any help from humans, I'd say your comparison to "flat earthers" is, at best, a big stretch, and at worst, another obvious attempt to demonize anyone who presents an alternative viewpoint - a technique commonly used in dictatorships and cults.

how does evidence that the earth has, "continually warmed and cooled for thousands of years," help the GW denials?

whereas this - CNN Tech

...This segment, written by more than 600 scientists and reviewed by another 600 experts and edited by bureaucrats from 154 countries, includes "a significantly expanded discussion of observation on the climate," said co-chair Susan Solomon a senior scientist for the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

She and other scientists held a telephone briefing on the report Monday.

That report will feature an "explosion of new data" on observations of current global warming, Solomon said....

argues strongly that the flat earthers are already joined by the GW apologists

[JerrySeinfeld]

as bombastic a crock of crud as one might imagine --- the quote describing scientific method is quite accurate

but then the jump to:

In other words, trying to silence climate change skeptic scientists because of WHERE they recieve funding is not only an ad hominem argument completely ignoring the science they put forth, it also ignores the SCIENTIFIC RESPONSIBILITY that scientists have to present alternative viewpoints.

is indefensible.

where any of that first applies to Global warming is just here:

"As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases."

Thus we see, the body of knowledge on Global warming has begun bringing predictability and confidence --- it is at that same place that science was at after the return of Columbus --- the evidence for a round earth was there and all but incontravertable --- all that's left is clearing out the last of the flat earthers --- and of course, over 500 years later, there are still flat earthers, just as there are Global Warming deniers

Given that there is plenty of SCIENCE and evidence that the earth has continually warmed and cooled for thousands of years IN THE ABSENCE of any help from humans, I'd say your comparison to "flat earthers" is, at best, a big stretch, and at worst, another obvious attempt to demonize anyone who presents an alternative viewpoint - a technique commonly used in dictatorships and cults.

how does evidence that the earth has, "continually warmed and cooled for thousands of years," help the GW denials?

whereas this - CNN Tech

...This segment, written by more than 600 scientists and reviewed by another 600 experts and edited by bureaucrats from 154 countries, includes "a significantly expanded discussion of observation on the climate," said co-chair Susan Solomon a senior scientist for the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

She and other scientists held a telephone briefing on the report Monday.

That report will feature an "explosion of new data" on observations of current global warming, Solomon said....

argues strongly that the flat earthers are already joined by the GW apologists

You're not addressing my point. This is one group of scientists with one hypothesis.

Alternative points of view are credible and factual.

Besides, this reports seems to "confirm" that global warming is occuring - which is entirely possible.

And it - and I quote - "suggests" there may be some human influence. This is far FAR from conclusive.

Nice try, though. You still need to adress why you feel the need to silence the legitimate science on the other side of the discussion. By poopooing - you don't sound very SCIENTIFIC at all.

My other question is this:

Isn't this a vague problem with distant concequences that may or may not be controllable?

Aren't terrorists killing people TODAY? Where do you stand on this very complex, and very REAL issue?

[Guthrie]

you have no point, your claim is false

[JerrySeinfeld]

you have no point, your claim is false

I'm not the one MAKING the claim: you are.

[Black Dog]

Given that there is plenty of SCIENCE and evidence that the earth has continually warmed and cooled for thousands of years IN THE ABSENCE of any help from humans, I'd say your comparison to "flat earthers" is, at best, a big stretch, and at worst, another obvious attempt to demonize anyone who presents an alternative viewpoint - a technique commonly used in dictatorships and cults.

Anti-climate change (or should we call them "anthropomorphic climate change skeptics?") folks don't seem to have much of a problem getting their views out. For every Steven Milloy crying out in the wilderness, there's an Exxon to sign his cheques.

In any case: MLW poster JerrySeinfeld, of all people, complaing about the demonization or ridicule of "alternate viewpoints" is just too fuckin' funny.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Anti-climate change (or should we call them "anthropomorphic climate change skeptics?") folks don't seem to have much of a problem getting their views out. For every Steven Milloy crying out in the wilderness, there's an Exxon to sign his cheques.

You need to read and understand my previous post:

trying to silence climate change skeptic scientists because of WHERE they recieve funding is not only an ad hominem argument completely ignoring the science they put forth, it also ignores the SCIENTIFIC RESPONSIBILITY that scientists have to present alternative viewpoints.

In any case: MLW poster JerrySeinfeld, of all people, complaing about the demonization or ridicule of "alternate viewpoints" is just too fuckin' funny.

This is not only an ad hominem fallacy (something doggy is good at), BUT it also reeks of the left wing bullshit attitude that all things left are "alternative" and "oppressed" views of the world when, in reality, you're fighting battles you've already won long ago. You self-pitying mooks have been the oppressors of war against Terror, Islamic militants, and climate change skeptiks for years.

It's funy that you don't even seem to grasp that is the point of this thread - the religion that is the left which can never be questioned.

Don't you get it? It's now the right wing that is on the outside fighting the power, not you. Wake up already - it's not 1980 anymore.

[Black Dog]

You need to read and understand my previous post:

trying to silence climate change skeptic scientists because of WHERE they recieve funding is not only an ad hominem argument completely ignoring the science they put forth, it also ignores the SCIENTIFIC RESPONSIBILITY that scientists have to present alternative viewpoints.

If it is an ad hominem attack it's one that people from all sides of the political spectrum engage in. Ad hominem attacks, btw, are not necessarily invalid. Plus, in most cases, the arguments are with the science: the bankrolling is a secondary issue, which ties into the science because very few climate change skeptics bother with the usual scientific methods of peer review etc. That's why we get books by hacks like Chricton and Lomborg instead of scientific papers (inevitable conspiracy theory to follow...)

This is not only an ad hominem fallacy (something doggy is good at),

Hmm...

BUT it also reeks of the left wing bullshit attitude that all things left are "alternative" and "oppressed" views of the world when, in reality, you're fighting battles you've already won long ago. You self-pitying mooks have been the oppressors of war against Terror, Islamic militants, and climate change skeptiks for years.

I trust the irony of someone accussing others of self-pity as he whinges on about how "oppressed" he is is not escaping anyboidy here.

It's funy that you don't even seem to grasp that is the point of this thread - the religion that is the left which can never be questioned.

Strange: because I look around and I see people questioning climate change etc all the frigging time. So really the question is this: to what degree are you disconnected from reality and is it an irrevocable condition?

Don't you get it? It's now the right wing that is on the outside fighting the power, not you. Wake up already - it's not 1980 anymore

Yeah because, other than big business, the media and the government, you guys are totally shut out.

[Guthrie]

So, you have a point but not a claim. How did you manage that?

and Global Warming was made up by the religion of, 'the left?'

and you're not on antipsychotic drugs?

and if the Oil Companies want to create their own science, that's ok because they can spend their money any way they want?

[JerrySeinfeld]

Strange: because I look around and I see people questioning climate change etc all the frigging time. So really the question is this: to what degree are you disconnected from reality and is it an irrevocable condition?

Given the absolute religion with which this THEORY has been adopted by ALL patries of the political spectrum I have to wonder what planet you're living on.

But you're right, some minority oppressed people like me do question the CAUSE of climate change.

Yeah because, other than big business, the media and the government, you guys are totally shut out.

"big business" is a vague airy scary term used by lefties that doesn't mean anything - unless you mean the few scientists in the world who don't get gov't gravy to perpetuate climate myths:

As an old PJ O'Rourke quote goes: People with a missino to save the arth want the earth to seem much worse off than it is so their mission will seem more important" my addition: "and get the requisite funding to keep going"

If you're trying to shovel more bullshit my stating that the MEDIA en masse is skeptical of global warming????!!!! you really have lost all credibility DOGGY.

As for government, all I see is governments scrambling to adress the "climate change crisis" - so again, you appear out of touch with reality.

Oh well - 0.01 out of thre ain't bad for a lefty self-pitier.

[Black Dog]

Given the absolute religion with which this THEORY has been adopted by ALL patries of the political spectrum I have to wonder what planet you're living on.

Well, pumpkin, you weren't talking about political parties. You were making it sound like climate change skeptics are getting hearded into cattle cars and shipped off to camps.

Have you considered that the climate change side has simply done a better job of selling their story in the marketplace of ideas? Probably not. To people like you, the only way you lose is if the other side is involved in some conspiracy.

But you're right, some minority oppressed people like me do question the CAUSE of climate change.

You an PolyNewbie should get together and have a "Noone understands us!" party.

"big business" is a vague airy scary term used by lefties that doesn't mean anything - unless you mean the few scientists in the world who don't get gov't gravy to perpetuate climate myths:

Right: because the government is in on it too. Meanwhile Exxon only has the truth at heart.

As an old PJ O'Rourke quote goes: People with a missino to save the arth want the earth to seem much worse off than it is so their mission will seem more important" my addition: "and get the requisite funding to keep going"

Duh. It's called "marketing." You're just sad that no one's buying your snake oil despite the millions of bucks getting thrown at your pet cause by oil companies and right wing think tanks. Newsflash: you are not entitled to have your ideas accepted.

If you're trying to shovel more bullshit my stating that the MEDIA en masse is skeptical of global warming????!!!! you really have lost all credibility DOGGY.

As for government, all I see is governments scrambling to adress the "climate change crisis" - so again, you appear out of touch with reality.

Ah, see, you jump back and forth between climate change in particular and this nebulous concept of "all things left". Find an argument and stick to it.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Given the absolute religion with which this THEORY has been adopted by ALL patries of the political spectrum I have to wonder what planet you're living on.

Well, pumpkin, you weren't talking about political parties. You were making it sound like climate change skeptics are getting hearded into cattle cars and shipped off to camps.

Have you considered that the climate change side has simply done a better job of selling their story in the marketplace of ideas? Probably not. To people like you, the only way you lose is if the other side is involved in some conspiracy.

But you're right, some minority oppressed people like me do question the CAUSE of climate change.

You an PolyNewbie should get together and have a "Noone understands us!" party.

"big business" is a vague airy scary term used by lefties that doesn't mean anything - unless you mean the few scientists in the world who don't get gov't gravy to perpetuate climate myths:

Right: because the government is in on it too. Meanwhile Exxon only has the truth at heart.

As an old PJ O'Rourke quote goes: People with a missino to save the arth want the earth to seem much worse off than it is so their mission will seem more important" my addition: "and get the requisite funding to keep going"

Duh. It's called "marketing." You're just sad that no one's buying your snake oil despite the millions of bucks getting thrown at your pet cause by oil companies and right wing think tanks. Newsflash: you are not entitled to have your ideas accepted.

If you're trying to shovel more bullshit my stating that the MEDIA en masse is skeptical of global warming????!!!! you really have lost all credibility DOGGY.

As for government, all I see is governments scrambling to adress the "climate change crisis" - so again, you appear out of touch with reality.

Ah, see, you jump back and forth between climate change in particular and this nebulous concept of "all things left". Find an argument and stick to it.

None of what you just said has any pertanance to the discussion - it's just willy nilly poopooing.

This discusion is about SCIENCE and those who want to shut up the other side.

You are so adamant to do so.

Just open you mind to alternatives, and life will be better for all of us.

[Black Dog]

None of what you just said has any pertanance to the discussion - it's just willy nilly poopooing.

This discusion is about SCIENCE and those who want to shut up the other side.

Then surely you could provide an example: a link or something.

Otherwise you're just-what's the term?- "willy nilly poopooing."

You are so adamant to do so.

Prove it.

Just open you mind to alternatives, and life will be better for all of us.

I've seen the alternatives and found them wanting. Sorry Charlie.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Then surely you could provide an example: a link or something.

The onus isn't on me to prove anything. If you read the original post, I simply outline the scientific process and point out the simple facts that:

1. Global Warming, or Climate Change is a THEORY which lacks provable evidence and

2. Those who set their minds on one and ONLY one explanation for theories are close minded and compromising the integrity of the scientific process and are bordering more on "belief and religion" than on science.

Now, for those of the "religious" - your arguments about who gets fnuding from where belong on another thread.

For anyone else, please explain which one of the above two do you disagree with and why. Otherwise I'm finished taking your ad hom bait.

Prove it.

Look up.

I've seen the alternatives and found them wanting.

Ahhh - DOGGY the great see-er of all factors climatological has spoken. All other scienntists must now bow down

[Black Dog]

The onus isn't on me to prove anything. If you read the original post, I simply outline the scientific process and point out the simple facts that:

1. Global Warming, or Climate Change is a THEORY which lacks provable evidence and

2. Those who set their minds on one and ONLY one explanation for theories are close minded and compromising the integrity of the scientific process and are bordering more on "belief and religion" than on science.

Now, for those of the "religious" - your arguments about who gets fnuding from where belong on another thread.

For anyone else, please explain which one of the above two do you disagree with and why. Otherwise I'm finished taking your ad hom bait.

Well, toots, if that's all you wanted to say, why get into this rot about how eeeevil lefties are trying to silence those who disagree with them. But you did:

This discusion is about SCIENCE and those who want to shut up the other side.

So, some examples are in order.

Look up.

Where? I see one other person pointing out that the scientific consensus is strongly in favour of the theory of anthropomorphic climate change. What I don't see is any one on the otehr side being silenced.

And no: being called a "falt earther" and having your beliefs dismissed on a web forum is not the same thing as being silenced.

[JerrySeinfeld]

And no: being called a "falt earther" and having your beliefs dismissed on a web forum is not the same thing as being silenced.

Great - and thank you. All I wanted to hear is that the octagonal earthers acknowledge that their theory is not the correct and proven one, but rather simply the one they've chosen to believe.

[Black Dog]

Great - and thank you. All I wanted to hear is that the octagonal earthers acknowledge that their theory is not the correct and proven one, but rather simply the one they've chosen to believe.

Better to say that an overwhelming majority of the scientific community has accepted the conclusion that climate change is occurring, and that there is a discernible human influence on the process.

Here's another thing: alternative theories would probably get a wider audience if those promoting them didn't share so many rhetorical traits with other denialists, such as 9-11 "truthers", Holocaust deniers and Creationists (for example, the accusations of conspiracy, the use of fake "experts" etc.). IOW, when you start talking about a conspiracy of environemntal groups, scientists, the media to perpetuate the anthropomorphic climate change hypothesis, you sound like a nutter.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Better to say that an overwhelming majority of the scientific community has accepted the conclusion that climate change is occurring, and that there is a discernible human influence on the process.

Here's another thing: alternative theories would probably get a wider audience if those promoting them didn't share so many rhetorical traits with other denialists, such as 9-11 "truthers", Holocaust deniers and Creationists (for example, the accusations of conspiracy, the use of fake "experts" etc.). IOW, when you start talking about a conspiracy of environemntal groups, scientists, the media to perpetuate the anthropomorphic climate change hypothesis, you sound like a nutter.

I beg to differ. Think of it form another point of view for a minute - and this is actually the crux of why I started this thread:

It's the mainstream's rush to climate change as a human caused phenomenon that is irration and nutty, not those who step back and listen to sober second thought.

All the "skeptics" are doing is questioning the validity of a theory and presenting alternative viewpoints. That is good, healthy and scientific - as posited by the Scientific Method under the category of "falsifiability".

Some climate change fanatics, like Guthrie, like to call the realists "Flat Earthers". But, using his own analogy, isn't today's climate change "believer" more like the flat earther?:

The flat earthers were in the majority convinced of something so strongly that they refused to listen to any other scientific theories! And what did they do to Galileo when he presented an alternate theory, where he was clearly in the minority?

Well, to quote BLACK DOG, they found his alternate viewpoints "wanting".

[Black Dog]

I beg to differ. Think of it form another point of view for a minute - and this is actually the crux of why I started this thread:

It's the mainstream's rush to climate change as a human caused phenomenon that is irration and nutty, not those who step back and listen to sober second thought.

All the "skeptics" are doing is questioning the validity of a theory and presenting alternative viewpoints. That is good, healthy and scientific - as posited by the Scientific Method under the category of "falsifiability".

I'm sure there's a lively debate within the scientific community on the issue. It's interesting because, for a while, the issue was whether or not climat change/warming was occurring. That premise is widely accepted today: only a fringe now deny that climate change is real. The debate now is primarily about the impact of human activities and whether people can do anything about it.

But the point is: you're wrong. The public or individuals are not obligated to give every single belief a fair hearing. If your side isn't getting its message out, then perhaps one should consider the delivery: ie:

Some climate change fanatics, like Guthrie, like to call the realists "Flat Earthers". But, using his own analogy, isn't today's climate change "believer" more like the flat earther?:

Hmmm. Someone who accepts the scienctific consensus is a "fanatic" and someone who accepts the "alternative" is a "realist" (self-aggrandizement anyone?). With that kind of arrogance and churlishness, it's no wonder people aren't flocking to your side.

The flat earthers were in the majority convinced of something so strongly that they refused to listen to any other scientific theories! And what did they do to Galileo when he presented an alternate theory, where he was clearly in the minority?

Well, to quote BLACK DOG, they found his alternate viewpoints "wanting".

A better analogy would be evolution vs. creationism.

[Electric Monk]

The onus isn't on me to prove anything. If you read the original post, I simply outline the scientific process and point out the simple facts that:

1. Global Warming, or Climate Change is a THEORY which lacks provable evidence and

2. Those who set their minds on one and ONLY one explanation for theories are close minded and compromising the integrity of the scientific process and are bordering more on "belief and religion" than on science.

Now, for those of the "religious" - your arguments about who gets fnuding from where belong on another thread.

For anyone else, please explain which one of the above two do you disagree with and why. Otherwise I'm finished taking your ad hom bait.

I have a problem with number 1 above, take some time to read the explanation here outlining what a scientific theory is.

Number 2 I agree with mostly, but peer review while not perfect, generally weeds out the problems. The only "theory" I can think of right now that comes close to belief or religion is string theory, because we can't test it yet, and may never be able to.