Page 100 of 111 FirstFirst ... 50909596979899100101102103104105110 ... LastLast
Results 1,981 to 2,000 of 2209
  1. #1981  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Do you think that's a fair analogy? Or would a better way to express that analogy be that the leadership of the organizations to which the 950 belong signed a document stating agreement with a set of results but the 950 don't necessarily agree?
    I'm not at my computer (yay, Pre!) but the short answer is no. If you go back a couple of pages, I posted a survey of the general public vs climatologists on the subject of man-made global warming. The opinion of climatologists was overwhelmingly in support of the evidence of global warming (97%, IIRC).

    I don't think this was the link from earlier, but the graphs summarize the same study (again, yay Pre!):

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php

    So no, I'm not speaking just of organizations, but of the consensus of experts in the field. If I were to compare organizations, I'd have listed the dissenting number at 0.

    But I think the question is being skirted: what (other than politics) causes you to deem your sources more credible than the consensus of the other 95% of the scientific community?
    Last edited by Bujin; 12/24/2009 at 01:00 PM.
  2. #1982  
    Interesting article that gives a good view from really both sides of this issue. Bujin, take a few minutes and read it, seriously. I'd be interested in your thoughts. And by the way, yes, I know it is a couple of years old.

    Global Warming: Is it Real, are Humans the Cause, & can Anything be Done?
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  3. #1983  
    just ran across this on Digg

    How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles


    I am sure it's just a biased antileftist rambling with no substance.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  4. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1984  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I'm not at my computer (yay, Pre!) but the short answer is no. If you go back a couple of pages, I posted a survey of the general public vs climatologists on the subject of man-made global warming. The opinion of climatologists was overwhelmingly in support of the evidence of global warming (97%, IIRC).

    I don't think this was the link from earlier, but the graphs summarize the same study (again, yay Pre!):

    97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming : Deltoid

    So no, I'm not speaking just of organizations, but of the consensus of experts in the field. If I were to compare organizations, I'd have listed the dissenting number at 0.

    But I think the question is being skirted: what (other than politics) causes you to deem your sources more credible than the consensus of the other 95% of the scientific community?
    Not 95% of the scientific community, 97% of the individuals who were identified as climate scientists who work for academic research institution. The number there? A much smaller 77 individuals.
  5. #1985  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    just ran across this on Digg

    http://How Wikipedia’s green doctor ...articles<br />

    I am sure it's just a biased antileftist rambling with no substance.
    If the entirety of the scientific consensus was based upon the work of a couple of scientists, I'd be more likely to agree with you. Even discounting their miniscule participation in the data / research set as a whole, the preponderance of data still points overwhelmingly in one direction.

    It's easy to say "well, if those couple of scientists fudged data, maybe they all did", but that's like saying "maybe since a few cops beat up Rodnet King, all cops are guilty of the same act".

    To use a more relevant example, the Heartland Institute came out with a list of 500 scientists that they claimed had doubts about man-made climate change. About 50 of them have come out and said that they neither knew they were on that list, nor agreed with its contents. One could use your same reasoning to state that, if those 50 were invalid, then the other 450 must be invalid as well. But I'm sure we'd all agree that this conclusion isn't necessarily true.....or is it?
  6. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1986  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    It's easy to say "well, if those couple of scientists fudged data, maybe they all did", but that's like saying "maybe since a few cops beat up Rodnet King, all cops are guilty of the same act".
    Interesting that you mention the King incident. While only a few officers were involved, the LAPD enacted major reforms within the entire department. I look forward to seeing similarly strong reforms in the "scientific community".
  7. #1987  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Interesting that you mention the King incident. While only a few officers were involved, the LAPD enacted major reforms within the entire department. I look forward to seeing similarly strong reforms in the "scientific community".
    Which is a commendably snarky way to avoid the entire issue, of course. Congrats!
  8. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1988  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Which is a commendably snarky way to avoid the entire issue, of course. Congrats!
    Do you think my history on this thread has shown avoidance of the issue?
  9. #1989  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Do you think my history on this thread has shown avoidance of the issue?
    Maybe avoidance is the wrong word..."distraction from valid points with remarks like the one above" might be better.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  10. #1990  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Not 95% of the scientific community, 97% of the individuals who were identified as climate scientists who work for academic research institution. The number there? A much smaller 77 individuals.
    The 97% referred to climatologists alone, but if you look at the study, there was still 90% of those not specifically climatologists. Studies of scientists cognizant of the field (climatologists, meteorologist, geologists) have pretty consistently been at approximately 90-95% agreement with the theory of man-made climate change.

    But it could be 99.99%, and some will point to the .01% and state with certainty that they are more credible. Which brings us back to my original question earlier: what evidence do you have that your sources are more credible, other than the fact that their conclusion matches yours. I'm pretty open with my thought process: it's based upon the preponderance of scientific conclusion of the experts in the field. What's the criterion on the other side?
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  11. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1991  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Maybe avoidance is the wrong word..."distraction from valid points with remarks like the one above" might be better.
    I think it was quite valid to state that the Climategate articles, as well as other problems within the political arm of the scientific community similar to those shown on this thread, should raise concerns within the community leading to reforms. Now, admittedly, there is no overarching governing body here like the LAPD but the lengths to which certain individual organizations have gone to dismiss these incidents is, in itself, very troubling to me.
  12. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1992  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    The 97% referred to climatologists alone, but if you look at the study, there was still 90% of those not specifically climatologists. Studies of scientists cognizant of the field (climatologists, meteorologist, geologists) have pretty consistently been at approximately 90-95% agreement with the theory of man-made climate change.

    But it could be 99.99%, and some will point to the .01% and state with certainty that they are more credible. Which brings us back to my original question earlier: what evidence do you have that your sources are more credible, other than the fact that their conclusion matches yours. I'm pretty open with my thought process: it's based upon the preponderance of scientific conclusion of the experts in the field. What's the criterion on the other side?
    Bujin, it's not just the number of scientists who agree or disagree that's at play here. It's the large, and growing number of scientists who claim that there's collusion within the debate. That collusion leads to mistrust and could undermine the authority of supposedly non-partisan organizations in the future. I'd think this would be troubling to you.

    .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.
  13. #1993  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    I think it was quite valid to state that the Climategate articles, as well as other problems within the political arm of the scientific community similar to those shown on this thread, should raise concerns within the community leading to reforms. Now, admittedly, there is no overarching governing body here like the LAPD but the lengths to which certain individual organizations have gone to dismiss these incidents is, in itself, very troubling to me.
    Although that issue is certainly red meat for those who doubt man-made climate change, and has been used as a bat to beat them with. However, there's a big difference between dismissing the incidents and throwing out decades of other research. Bad data should be thrown out, but for folks to use this one incident to invalidate the overwhelming evidence would be scientific malpractice.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  14. #1994  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Bujin, it's not just the number of scientists who agree or disagree that's at play here. It's the large, and growing number of scientists who claim that there's collusion within the debate. That collusion leads to mistrust and could undermine the authority of supposedly non-partisan organizations in the future. I'd think this would be troubling to you.

    .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.
    What makes you think that this list of scientists is any more valid than the original list? It was found to contain significant numbers of scientists who state that they disagreed with its contents, and yet the Heartland Institute refused to remove those scientists. In other words, they're cooking the books: http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scient...land-institute

    A sample of responses from scientists still on that list:

    I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite." - Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh

    I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there." - Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University

    I don't believe any of my work can be used to support any of the statements listed in the article." - Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford

    "Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!!" - Dr. Svante Bjorck, Geo Biosphere Science Centre, Lund University

    "I'm outraged that they've included me as an "author" of this report. I do not share the views expressed in the summary." - Dr. John Clague, Shrum Research Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Simon Fraser University
    It appears you are assuming total credibility of this source, while denying credibility of other sources supporting the scientific consensus. Are you open to the fact that they may actually be the fringes of opinion?

    FactCheck has also taken a position on the ClimateGate issue: “Climategate” | FactCheck.org
    Last edited by Bujin; 12/24/2009 at 02:03 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  15. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1995  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    What makes you think that this list of scientists is any more valid than the original list? It was found to contain significant numbers of scientists who state that they disagreed with its contents, and yet the Heartland Institute refused to remove those scientists. In other words, they're cooking the books: Richard Littlemore | 500 Scientists with Documented Doubts - about the Heartland Institute?

    A sample of responses from scientists still on that list:
    Are we talking about the same list here?
  16. #1996  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Are we talking about the same list here?
    I honestly don't know - that's why I referred to the original list as separate from this one. My point is that you seem to consider this list credible, while dismissing other data out of hand. There seems to be little basis for your judgment of their credibility over scientists not on the list.

    I'm trying to get you to see that, just as the Heartland list was inherently flawed, you can't just give credence to these scientists just because they happen to agree with you.

    I hope you recognize that 700 scientists in the entire world does not constitute a huge number it's actually extremely small when compared to the entire cohort of scientists. Their data becomes part of the collective judgment of the profession. It comes down to the question of whether you agree with 95%, or the dissenting 5%, given no other information.

    To me, this discussion has nothing to do with climate change itself (we can substitute virtually any other topic) - it's totally about how to use scientific reasoning to determine validity. Despite my current job, I'm still at heart a science guy.

    At times I worry, just as we need science and technological reasoning to compete in a global marketplace, we're becoming a culture that not only doesn't prize scientific reasoning, we're actively anti-science.
    Last edited by Bujin; 12/24/2009 at 02:37 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  17. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1997  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I honestly don't know - that's why I referred to the original list as separate from this one. My point is that you seem to consider this list credible, while dismissing other data out of hand. There seems to be little basis for your judgment of their credibility over scientists not on the list.

    I'm trying to get you to see that, just as the Heartland list was inherently flawed, you can't just give credence to these scientists just because they happen to agree with you.
    Yet you take on the Heartland list without knowing if it has anything to do with the list I posted. So, my question is why you would dismiss out of hand any list of scientists that disagreed with the majority position? Is that a good scientific method?

    I hope you recognize that 700 scientists in the entire world does not constitute a huge number it's actually extremely small when compared to the entire cohort of scientists. Their data becomes part of the collective judgment of the profession. It comes down to the question of whether you agree with 95%, or the dissenting 5%, given no other information.
    But still nearly 10 times your list of 77. As long as we're giving credence to numbers.

    To me, this discussion has nothing to do with climate change itself (we can substitute virtually any other topic) - it's totally about how to use scientific reasoning to determine validity. Despite my current job, I'm still at heart a science guy.
    Agreed. So, when a scientific organization becomes political advocacy group are they staying true to the scientific method?

    At times I worry, just as we need science and technological reasoning to compete in a global marketplace, we're becoming a culture that not only doesn't prize scientific reasoning, we're actively anti-science.
    I don't agree. I think the problem is that this science is being used (abused) to push a political agenda that was decided before the science was even known. This is what people are lashing out against.

    So, rather than argue polls that don't really address the issue, show me a poll asking whether scientists believe 1) anthropogenic climate change will lead to almost certain impending disaster, 2) there's anything humans can do about it, and 3) if the answer to 2 is yes, do any of the Rio/Kyoto/Copenhagen proposals have anything ultimately to do with reducing global greenhouse gasses to the point that climate change will be reversed?

    After all, that's what we're debating here, isn't it?
  18. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1998  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I hope you recognize that 700 scientists in the entire world does not constitute a huge number it's actually extremely small when compared to the entire cohort of scientists.
    The rest of the cohort know better than to get mixed up in political and idealogical debates that have nothing to do with science.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  19. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1999  
    Hello Everyone,

    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    I don't agree. I think the problem is that this science is being used (abused) to push a political agenda that was decided before the science was even known. This is what people are lashing out against.

    So, rather than argue polls that don't really address the issue, show me a poll asking whether scientists believe 1) anthropogenic climate change will lead to almost certain impending disaster, 2) there's anything humans can do about it, and 3) if the answer to 2 is yes, do any of the Rio/Kyoto/Copenhagen proposals have anything ultimately to do with reducing global greenhouse gasses to the point that climate change will be reversed?

    After all, that's what we're debating here, isn't it?
    I think you ask good questions here. I'm afraid that it remains very difficult to have a substantive discussion, when faced not only with the very problematic claims of the global warming crowd, but those who willfully and inexplicably actively deny what science is. I provide the following example:

    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Again--let me point out the FACTUAL FLAW in your "reasoning. MOUNTAIN--in other words VOLUME does not equate to validity. Get it? VOLUME does not equal science, nor does it trump even ONE contrary piece of evidence to disprove a theory.

    ONE Piece of evidence is all it takes to Disprove a theory.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    My degree indicates that I actually understand what science is, despite your insults to the contrary. Your assertion that a single "fact" overwhelms all other scientific conclusions is simply not correct. And what deniers present are alternative theories, usually minimally supported by evidence, and certainly not facts. I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong on the scientific concept - all global warming arguments aside.
    Well, the fact is that this person is wrong--not because I think so, but because facts outside of my views define it as such. This person has been wrong about this point all along, and for some reason, they insist on sticking to this story, that ANY person claiming to be trained in science would know is wrong.

    From 'A Brief History of Time' by Stephen Hawking Updated and Expanded 10th Anniversary Edition Page 10, 1996
    "Any Physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: You can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory." (emphasis added)

    Now, this isn't to say that Stephen Hawking is always correct, although many if not most would consider him brilliant. Simply, it is highly likely that he understands the scientific method, and what proves or disproves a theory.

    I'm not sure this could be more clear. ONE valid contrary example is all that is required to disprove a theory. "Mountains" of examples in agreement do not stand up to one to the contrary. This is the nature of science--which again people with even a basic familiarity with science MUST understand.

    This is essentially what I've been repeatedly claiming, but which has been nonsensically denied (as demonstrated in the quote above). Now, one can persist with this denial, mirroring the behavior of a child vehemently denying its guilt, despite direct observation by a parent, but I think the adult thing to do would be to simply admit ones error and own up to this blatant and intentional..inaccuracy.

    Of course, this person is claiming that OTHERS are Anti-Science--while actively forwarding claims that are in direct violation of core principles of science. To say that dealing with someone like this is bewildering, would be an understatement, but I am constrained to leave it at that.

    The point is this--What sort of objective discussion is even possible with someone insisting that black is white. Their factually false claims, and insistence on maintaining these false claims, destroys the possibility of having a constructive exchange.

    This is the general attitude and position of many who support the AGW alarmist position. This adherence to factually wrong claims is an indication of their position in respect to actual science. That's Before one starts looking at the evidence and how data has been manipulated, suppressed, etc. I cannot even get AGW advocates to acknowledge how the Scientific Method works, let alone be willing to objectively evaluate global warming claims.

    KAM
  20. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2000  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Why believe 90% of the world's scientists when you can cherry-pick fringe scientists & articles, which you can then proclaim as more credible...based only on the criterion that they agree with you?
    Because an understanding of science tells us that ratio of opinion has no bearing on what is or isn't scientifically valid. Hard data determines this, not what volume of people think.

    For the exact reason I've been telling you all along (which you refuse to believe) that is one valid example (scientific observation) disproves a theory, regardless of how many there are in support of it.

    This is of course required for those who seek to dismiss information that doesn't support their theory. They know that this is not a valid position scientifically, so in order to maintain their position, they must literally deny the existence of contrary observations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    There's not a post I can make here that folks won't immediately dismiss. Reports from scientists (and the concept of science itself) has been continually denigrated on this thread. But opinion pieces from partisan sources as posted as if they're fact.
    Given that you have continually denied the very nature of science, I find your statement to be blatantly contradictory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Let me try one last time for a logical look. (I don't know why...it'll won't result in anything resembling open-minded responses, but I'll try anyway). Try to take the subject away from climate change and into a more generic process:

    If you gather 1000 scientists who are experts in their field. Ask them to study a specific topic in that field, of which you yourself know little to nothing. If 950 of them end with the same result, and 50 of them have the opposite conclusion. Assume that you don't have any knowledge of their backgrounds, so there's no other reason to believe that the 50 have more expertise in the subject. Is it more logical to conclude:

    • The 950 are more likely correct?
    • The 950 all have reasons to be biased, paid off, or otherwise their opinions invalidated, while the 50 are more credible?


    That's the point of scientific consensus, which has been continually denigrated in this thread. There will always be a diversity of opinion, so the combined best thinking of the experts in the field will be considered more credible than those on the fringe.
    No, "scientific consensus" simply isn't accepted in the way that you present it--as a substitute for fact. Valid scientific consensus flows from unbiased use of the Scientific Method. It cannot substitute or override the scientific method in any way. In other words--"Scientific consensus" is a very weak claim when compared to factual evidence within the scientific method.

    Scientific consensus is based on belief that a theory is correct. When a theory is disproved, no amount of consensus can override that. THAT is a scientific reality--one that again, you've chosen to deny repeatedly, while accusing others of being "Anti-science."

    You keep pushing the notion that science is democratically decided, and while it may be more LIKELY if a majority of scientists agree, it DEPENDS on legitimate consideration of ALL valid data. I've heard many accusations of cherry picking, but an attempt to support a theory cannot cherry pick anything--it MUST consider everything to remain valid.

    An attempt to disprove something does not require a comprehensive study--because, again, only one valid observation is needed (contained in the very definition of science, not my opinion) to disprove any theory. Of course, more commonly a theory isn't entirely thrown out--it is modified and then tested again, and again, modified wherever necessary. That's how legitimate science is conducted. A scientific position is not chosen and held onto regardless of contrary data. Legitimate science doesn't manipulate, destroy or select data. Legitimate science doesn't work to block publication of contrary theories or evidence in order to avoid scrutiny of a theory. Science isn't intertwined with political agendas, nor subject to those political agendas.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Put another way: do you believe that fluoride helpsprevent cavities? When many of us were kids, there were these commercials that "4 out of 5 dentists surveyed" believed that fluoride reduced cavities. While that's far weaker than the consensus in climate change, it begs the question of what would make the 20% of dentist holdouts more credible than the other 80%. Barring some knowledge of the background, expertise or other scientific smoking gun that the 20% possess, the uninformed would generally go with the 80%. Not the best example, but generally illustrative of how scientific consensus works.
    And of course, what the General public is convinced to "go with" may be totally incorrect and scientifically invalid--despite majority opinion. The General public "going with" fluoride in toothpaste isn't in the same ballpark as altering the entire economy because of predictions based on a theory. Again history provides us various examples of science being incorrect--contrary to what "scientific consensus" would lead you to believe. Denying this possibility in regards to AGW theory is no more valid than those who claimed that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

    I believe there is sufficient evidence to not end debate, to not put science on the back shelf and to continue analyzing the situation. I'm not demanding that a chosen conclusion be accepted and that all doubt be dismissed. I'm not seeking to exclude all other possibilities, and force the world to accept one view. That is however what AGW advocates demand--that their conclusion be accepted and acted upon, ignoring any contrary view, evidence or theory. It is an exclusionary and extremist position.

    KAM

Posting Permissions