Interesting theory since "peak oil' was a big motivation for those striving to create alternative energy options.Quote:
He called the notion of 'Peak Oil ' a conspiracy by the fossil fuel industry to keep prices high.
|
Interesting theory since "peak oil' was a big motivation for those striving to create alternative energy options.Quote:
He called the notion of 'Peak Oil ' a conspiracy by the fossil fuel industry to keep prices high.
Consensus is an important part of science without consensus science could not progress that's just the way it works.
A good example of this can be found in Newton's gravitational theories. Newton's Universal Gravitational Theory, for a long time was accepted as the complete explanation for the orbit of the planets. It became a consensus science.
It was later discovered that Mercury did not obey Newton because it had an unusual orbit. The first thing that consensus science did was to try and modify the theory in order to explain Mercury's orbit.
When this failed other postulates were proposed. The last thing anyone wanted to do was deny the validity of accepted orthodoxy.No doubt anyone who suggest that Newton was wrong would have been looked upon with a deal of skepticism.The problem was finally resolved when Einstein came onto the scene.
The point I am making is that consensus science is an essential process that science goes through. Science will try just about anything to keep the prevailing orthodoxy. The last resort being the modification of the hypothesis in the hope that theory will match the observations. If this also fails then there is nothing left except to find a new theory.
In terms of global warming science is just doing what it has always done. Just going through the process.
Consensus is important, but science does not dismiss evidence that contradicts. Period.
but is consensus and group think a valid scientific argument ? Let's face the facts ... it's already proven that the leading climate scientists manipulated their data to achieve predetermined results. How many of their results have been verified and duplicated without using the same fraud (see the East Anglia e-mails ) . Those results should've been immediately dismissed by the 'consensus ' scientific community instead of embraced as gospel truth .
Again, exactly right. True science does not manipulate data for a preferred outcome or dismiss evidence that contradicts.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
look global warming is pseudo science, what we know for sure is something is happening, we have consensus on that, we have paleoscientists tell us this is just part of a longer cycle, we have politicians telling us we must act to stop it immediately, we have computer modellers telling us the sky is falling, no wait it's not falling, the ocean is rising, well at least they got that one right, but the oceans have been rising for thousands of years personally I don't think anything is happening that wasn't happening before we noticed it is happening
Politics, and money often muddy the waters of facts.
the opposite of politics is fact or truth depending upon your point of view but politics is the science of dogooding at someoneelses expense, they have a term for it; political science
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Oddly enough it does. Anomalies appear in most levels of scientific study and for the most part they are accepted or tolerated. They are usually put down as acceptable levels of error or dismissed all together.
Clearly such a situation must eventually reach the point where it becomes intolerable, and there is a need to recognize that the theory is inadequate or completely wrong. This is where a modification of the hypothesis usually becomes the first resort.
As far as the scientists who falsify data are concerned they see the best resort as scientific dishonesty. Clearly such people are not prepared to modify anything and certainly are not prepared to consider a new theory when or if it becomes apparent.
At this stage it appears that the working hypothesis of global warming is not delivering suitable predictions. As usual science will probably go through its usual process as outlined earlier.
No, it's not a valid scientific argument, but it is a valid psychological argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Both arguments play an important role in science.
I don't know the answer to that and I would suggest not many people do. The information is out there somewhere. Herein is a good research project for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
That's not all that is out there somewhere but it as apt description of what is suggested is climate "science"Quote:
The information is out there somewhere
Apparently the NY Slimes thinks skeptics should just be eliminated. They just published a cartoon depicting a guy getting stabbed in the chest by an icicle - aka "self-destructing sabers for dispatching climate change deniers."
Attachment 45714
Not funny. One scientist has had enough and about damn time. Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D., a former NASA climatologist and now the Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, is pushing back.
Time to push back against the global warming Nazis
Outrage over cartoons?
Just like those Islam folks who are outraged at Mohammed cartoons.
The comparison you're looking for would be the climate change extremists to those outraged over the Mohammed cartoons.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Like the cartoon, it's just another political rave devoid of anything useful that could be considered useful to the debate. I blame the media.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
imagine if a conservative posted a cartoon of a skeptic stabbing a global warming cult believer with an icicle ? They went nuts when they though Palin had a target in one of her political ads . They blamed her for a mass shooting .
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tom I am not sure why you are complaining. Aren't you a great supporter of your media? Irresponsible journalism is Ok?
What debate? That's the problem, there is no debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
Let that sink in, only one side to a 'debate.'Quote:
And there are some stories which do not have two sides. The climate change debate is one of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Again, it's like I said before. It is a media problem you have. Only airing one side of the debate. You need a balanced media.
I'm in favor of a free press (unlike our emperor who is tying still to sic his FCC on a free press) . If the Slimes wants to publish the cartoon I have no issues .But I reserve the right to call out their BS .Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
Thank you for the article from Roy Spencer
Global Warming « Roy Spencer, PhD
He makes a clear case for climate change caution
I have no qualms agreeing we need more balance in the media, but this attitude goes deeper than media bias. In fact, the "consensus" people think it's the media's fault that anyone believes there is still any debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
I choose not to believe everything I am told, that is the media's fault because so often what they have told me is B/S, neither is it their fault since so often what they are told is B/S and they have no way of checking the facts. We have here FactCheck a service the media have developed themselves and most of the results indicate the "facts" are not facts but we are still regailed with this B/S before the truth is revealed
http://www.abc.net.au/news/factcheck/
That just goes to show you how out of touch I have been with Australian politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I didn't realize that the ABC was doing such a thing.
Let's face it Australian politics is so boring.
That's pretty much correct. However, this situation is not unique to global warming. One would need to read Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of scientific Revolutions" to gain a full appreciation.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
There's a bit of holiday reading.
The left posts BS and the right calls them on their BS. The rights posts BS and the left calls them on their BS.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
That's bound to lead to a reasoned debate on any topic your choose.
If american politics is anything like the discussions here then I have to say you have no idea of boring, the most daring thing you have done lately is restrict the military budget. We might be boring but we do have action a word so foriegn to american politics it is buried in antiquityQuote:
Let's face it Australian politics is so boring.
Did you realise that lately we had an election overturned and the voters sent back to the poles, if that had happened there there would be no end to the recriminations and protest but here we take it in our stride and accept a resignation, this is what true democracy is about but then you don't have a democracy, you have a Republic
As I said the other day, CNN declared the debate is over, not once, but twice. Charles Krauthammer wrote a column on this subject last week. The opening paragraph:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
You can read and judge the rest for yourself. The response to his column however was pressure on WaPo to silence him.Quote:
I repeat: I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier. I've long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I also believe that those scientists who pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30 or 50 years are white-coated propagandists.
Yes, both sides spew BS, but only one side wants there to be no debate to the debate. Why might that be?Quote:
Charles Krauthammer says it right up front in his Washington Post column: “I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier.”
He does, however, challenge the notion that the science on climate change is settled and says those who insist otherwise are engaged in “a crude attempt to silence critics and delegitimize debate.”
How ironic, then, that some environmental activists launched a petition urging the Post not to publish Krauthammer's column on Friday.
Their response to opinions they disagree with is to suppress the speech.
Brad Johnson (@ClimateBrad), the editor of HillHeat.com and a former Think Progress staffer, boasted on Twitter that 110,000 people had urged the newspaper “to stop publishing climate lies” like the Krauthammer piece.
I understand that many people are passionate about global warming and consider skeptics to be flat-earthers. Those who don't like the arguments by Krauthammer, a Fox News contributor, should by all means criticize, dispute, denounce and otherwise go at him. That's how debate takes place in a country with a vibrant media culture.
Instead, these folks believe that censorship is preferable. Why engage Krauthammer when they might just be able to employ pressure tactics to silence him? And what's the difference between this and shouting down a speaker at a town hall?
Krauthammer told me the petition-signers “showed up just in time to make precisely the point I made in the column.”
When it comes to free speech, he says, “they don't even hide it anymore. Now they proudly want certain arguments banished from discourse. The next step is book burning. So the question of the day is: Can you light a Kindle?
“Is there anything more anti-scientific than scientific truths being determined by petition and demonstration?”
Maybe this reflects a broader trend in which people want to wall themselves off from contrary information — and wall off others as well. Debating a complicated subject like climate change — and, equally important, what to do about it — is difficult. Attempting to silence the other side is the easy way out.
Of course, most climate-change proponents are perfectly willing to argue their case on the merits. Unfortunately, that doesn't apply to everyone.
That's probably because one side has far too much to loose if it turns out that something other than global warming is happening. No doubt too many politicians, scientific organizations and business interests have invested lots of money in the long term viability of global warming.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
The long term viability of global warming? I Have some idea what you mean but would you like to run that by us again? I never thought I would see the words viability and global warming in the same sentence, Global Warming, if it exists in the configuration suggested by pseudo science, makes the viability of our existing industries obsolute, and I cannot not see renewables as we know them being viable in the long term
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Sure. The green energy push has gained momentum year after year. Big business is increasingly investing money and resources into both renewable energy and clean energy.
I suspect that such industries are not going to invest long term in something that is not regarded as a settled science.
Tut I respectfully disagree. Another reason for investing in it is that they garner huge tax credits from it thereby reducing the amount owed and it is a good checkmark to put on the company PR sheet.
Exactly right.Quote:
Originally Posted by cdad
Yes, that's a good point I didn't look at that angle.Quote:
Originally Posted by cdad
I guess that goes back to my earlier claim in terms of partnership.Big government, big business and a supportive media.
Tutt there are always industries that respond to government initiatives. I worked in the energy sector when government imposed targets on state owned utilities and are now doing it on privately owned utilities. This is the only reason there has been the uptake of renewables there has been. It is imposed by government, the returns just arn't there
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Fair enough, you guys would know more about economics than myself.
Profiteers shapes the science. Doesn't matter what the science says.
yup ;we spent $528 million in stimulus money for Fisker to develop clean energy ...so they could be sold to the Chinese.Quote:
Originally Posted by cdad
Obviously you don't get it, so you throw money away. The "free" market would not waste their money developing clean energy unless they were either forced to or given incentive. This why governments all over the world have been coerced into forcing such development. Commercial development of anything means it can and will be sold to the highest bidder. Commercial development means it will be exploited
Dealing with climate change is aspirational, it is not science. The "science" of how to respond to climate change is not settled and one size does not fit all
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:36 PM. |