 |
|
| Browse | Ask | Answer | Search | Join/Login |
|
|
||||
|
And the fear campaign begins
I was wondering how long it would take for the climate change apologists to crawl out of their hole and use the Yasi cyclone and other weather events to tell how we must take urgent action to stop the unstoppable
Cyclone Yasi | Future cyclones could be more extreme: Garnaut Last month we had Bob Brown, leader of the Greens, blaming the El Nina on climate change and now we have Garnaut, the Australian government adviser on Climate Change using Yasi as an excuse for fear tactics. Climate Change has been off the agenda in recent months and the government has moved to drop their cherished environmental initiatives in order to deal with something more immediate, the devistation of half the continent and the doom and gloom merchants are starting a fear campaign. I like the end of the video clip at least one commentator isn't taken in Always remember people are important, more important than political agendas |
||||
|
||||
|
The Goracle wrote on his blog site that the unusual snow pattern in NY was due to global warming . Al's Journal : An Answer for Bill What the Goracle forgets is that this same crowd of 'concensus Scientists' (was there ever a more revealing oxymoron) used to predict that snow would disappear because of Global Warming .
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the
Climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said. Hmmmm East Anglia... where did I hear that before?? Oh yeah, That's where the fraudsters disguised as climate scientists;who's Emails about manipulating,witholding ,and corrupting the climate data, was leaked in 'Climategate' worked . Simply stated ,if it doesn't snow it's due to global warming . But if it does snow... you guessed it... global warming... .. and my refrigerator is really an oven. |
||||
|
||||
 Originally Posted by TUT317
|
||||
|
||||
|
Modern science was developed to challenge consensus orthodoxy . The role of science has been to debunk the consensus ;not to build one . It is also a completely irrelevant concept. All it takes is one scientist's research to disprove the consensus to debunk the collective opinion of the consensus science community. It's happened before. Actually ,when you think about it... the greatest scientists have been the ones who broke with the consensus . |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hi Tom, Even if what you say is true this doesn't mean than 'consensus science' is an oxymoron. I also think there is a basic misunderstanding how science developed in recent history.I would argue that modern science didn't come about to debunk consensus. I would say that it largely came about as a reaction to logical positivism. In other words, for scientific knowledge to be valid it must conform to empirical observation. As strange as it may seem the consensus ( right or wrong) is that scientific realism is the best way for scientific knowledge to grow in modern times. Without scientific realism String Theory would not be possible. When it comes to these types of theories there is nothing to observe in order to confirm or disprove the theory. Because climate change (formally global warming) is only a theory evidence against it only serves to modify the theory. My guess is that climate change science is a form of scientific realism. I'm not saying this is a good thing. I am only saying this is the way science is done today. Besides, I would doubt (even sixty years ago) that science actually worked by some type of 'debunking process'. Tut |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by TUT317
The fact that climate change caused by CO2 emissions is only a theory doesn't move it into the area of realism. For centuries science held that the Earth was flat or that the Sun and stars revolved around the Earth. This was the consensus. We now know from observation that this consensus was absolute BUNK, mere wishfull thinking. Climate science is really in its infantcy, with not much more than a hundred years of observations with which to establish a norm and a range of variability. Many of the predictions associated with climate change have already been demonstrated to be a long way off in various directions, because these predictions are based on computer generated models which may not have all the variables identified and be subject to erronous data. What we have seen is a rush to contribute to this new science because it is a source of funding. More than anything research scientists need funding. While the theory remains contraversial funding will be poured into it, but once the theory is proven, the funding will evaporate. It is like Moon exploration, very exciting until you have been there, but dead in the water once we really know it is not made of cheese. In fact this whole debate could be overturned if we turned our efforts in finding ways of exploiting the energy source we found on the Moon. |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by paraclete
Sorry, I should have provided a better explanation of 'scientific realism' It doesn't really pertain to anything that is 'real', i.e tangible things. Roughly speaking you could view it as having the opposite meaning. It actually means that observations at best are only an approximation. The reason for this is probably because the term has been borrowed from philosophy. Probably a bit misleading the way I expressed it. Tut |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by paraclete
You probably know a lot of this stuff but I will give a rough synopsis. Observation doesn't actually point to the truth. Observations are always contingent. In other words, we can make use of any number of observations that 'prove' the earth goes around the sun but in the end it is possible (but extraordinarily unlikely) that one day the sun will go around the earth. This has for a long time been known as Hume's empirical skepticism. Popper has pointed out that while it is not possible to prove empirical science with any type of certainty it is possible to disprove a scientific theory with one counter example. This one counter example should serve to bring the whole theory down (according to Popper anyway). When you and Tom refer to science as not being of a consensus type but rather is an individual who pushes the boundary in order to prove a theory wrong is probably not how science works in reality.Popper also though this but he was reacting to logical positivism( my previous post). As far as global warming is concerned all these examples, whereby it seems as though the earth is getting colder rather than warmer is not a deterrent to scientific realism. This is probably because observations are only regarded as an approximation to the 'truth' On this basis observations, 'don't cut the mustard'. There is probably an argument for saying that scientific realism is an attempt to 'get round' Hume's problem. My guess is that when it comes to modern science 'realism' is the trend. Again, I am not saying this is a good thing. The best example I can think of to explain scientific realism is String Theory. When it comes to strings no observations are possible (too tiny). The theory is based on mathematical constructs. If we are looking for the 'truth' then String Theory provides, 'the truth'. Mathematics doesn't lie. String theorists have worked long and hard to build up a mathematical system which explains the underlying structure of the universe.There is however one small problem. The theory may have absolutely nothing to do with the underlying structure of the universe. This is because there are no observations to confirm or deny. As I said before my guess is that climate science makes use of a similar idea, but not to the same extent. From my point of view climate change scientists probably make us of abductive reasoning (if you want to Google this) This is related to my earlier claim that observations are only regarded as, 'an approximation'. Regards Tut |
||||
|
||||
|
Thanks Tut getting back to climate science what we have is statistical analysis which is severely flawed because the data used is both the result of flawed observations and extrapolation. What this leads to is widely differing conclusions depending upon the disciple of the scientist doing the analysis and a political approach which at best says we cannot disprove this so it must be true and we must act or we will be judged by posterity. This is the chicken little syndrome
So put me in the skeptic category, data I have seen places what is happening within the scale of variability when viewed from a paleologiocal viewpoint, a view point which has been widely ignored |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by TUT317
What we have in the climate sciences is the pecular idea that mathematical projections are reality |
||||
|
||||
|
How does the Goracle explain the Blizzard of 1888 ?blizzard of 1888 - Google Search Great Blizzard of 1888 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
||||
Not your question?
Ask your question
View similar questions
| Question Tools | Search this Question |
Add your answer here.
Check out some similar questions!
And so the fun begins
[ 30 Answers ]
Well its winter(not officially of course, but there is snow on the ground and that counts for something) and since my dog is a husky well you just know he'll want to be outside a lot not to mention how we are going to start skijoring soon. My question is I bought booties for him to protect the pads...
The Republican campaign
[ 55 Answers ]
Conservatives and Republicans Does the endorsement of Mitt Romney by National Review (long time publication founded by William Buckley ) mean anything to you ? Will it have any influence on who you support ?
Credit card s.o.l. Begins when ?
[ 1 Answers ]
Does the credit card statute of limitations begin running from the last payment made or from the right off date.opinions seem to differ and I can't find any law or statue to clarify this. Help, steve55
Campaign money
[ 1 Answers ]
When an candidate decides to no longer run for office either drops out or isn't running for the next term, does he/she get to keep the money raised on their behalf? If not, what happens to it? Thank you.
View more questions Search
|
