Page 40 of 111 FirstFirst ... 3035363738394041424344455090 ... LastLast
Results 781 to 800 of 2209
  1. #781  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    The subject was not changed at all. The Science article, which you agree with, supports the AP article's reporting of the scientific consensus and refutes the Republican congressional memo.
    The AP article is about Gore's movie and the view of scientists about the accuracy of the movie.

    The Senate memo is about the article's inaccurate reporting of reactions from scientists about the movie.

    The Science article has nothing to do with the movie or the accuracy of the AP article in reporting about the movie.



    If we were the scientific editors of this article, I would agree with you that it would be a fair call that use of the word reality in the conclusion is overstepping. However deleting that word would not have any impact on the data presented in the article which accurately show the consensus of the climate science community on anthropomorphic climate change.
    IMO, this "overstepping" is the central problem in the debate on global warming. It seems that virtually every proponent believes there is a scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change is proven fact.



    Science is seldom absolute and always subject to modification based on new data. The burden of proof or opportunity, however you want to put it, now falls on future studies to disprove the current scientific consensus.
    I agree with your first statement. But I think the burden must always be on scientists to prove what they believe.
  2. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #782  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    The AP article is about Gore's movie and the view of scientists about the accuracy of the movie.

    The Senate memo is about the article's inaccurate reporting of reactions from scientists about the movie.

    The Science article has nothing to do with the movie or the accuracy of the AP article in reporting about the movie.
    Nicely done. However, the Senate memo does cross over and point out that Oreskes' article in the science journal was flawed, or at least, repudiated.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  3. #783  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    The AP article is about Gore's movie and the view of scientists about the accuracy of the movie.

    The Senate memo is about the article's inaccurate reporting of reactions from scientists about the movie.

    The Science article has nothing to do with the movie or the accuracy of the AP article in reporting about the movie.
    Actually the larger issue here is anthropomorphic global warming, and in that respect all of the articles are related. That is what I was focusing on, I apologize if that was not clear.

    At any rate, I agree with you, even though I have not yet seen the movie I anticipate that it will be impossible to prove a scientific consensus on every statement and point addressed in the movie. Scientists are a naturally skeptical group, and we question everything. While the evidence for anthropomorphic climate change is compelling, the anticipated consequences of it vary quite a bit. I think getting every scientist to agree on everything in the movie is going to be a little like herding cats.

    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    IMO, this "overstepping" is the central problem in the debate on global warming. It seems that virtually every proponent believes there is a scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change is proven fact..
    I think you are also correct about this. There has been an unfortunate decline in interest in science in our younger generations. It seems like so many people are turned off to science either by the popular media which portray scientists are nerds or Jerry Lewis-like nutty professors. Or poor teaching approaches where the first exposure to science is a dissected frog or cow eyeball, which grosses some kids out so much that they resolve right then and there that they hate science.

    This lack of interest in science has led to a lack of insight into how scientists operate. The right leaning media would like to portray us as trying to make our data fit our preconceived notions. Actually the best scientists question their data and are the most ready to revise their original hypothesis based on the new data. The fact is, most key scientific discoveries come by accident, and the good scientists are the ones who can recognize when something does not fit in the data and have an open enough mind to immediately revise their thinking to accomodate these changes.

    For example conducting research which would agree with the current consensus that man contributes to global warming would be lower impact, and published in the middle tier rather than higher tier journals from here on out. The reasons for this are that the conclusions reached would not be novel anymore, but just reiterating what is already widely believed. On the other hand if one could publish convincing data which refutes the current consensus and proves that global warming is not connected to human activities, that would be extremely high impact and novel, because no one has done this to date. This would be really hot stuff so to speak.

    Bucking the trend and disproving a widely held hypothesis is the epitomy of being cool in the scientific community. It is hard and you have to address stubborn criticism, but if you overcome it, everyone respects you for it. So you can be sure that many scientists will be working on trying to debunk anthropomorphic global warming because the impact of the findings would be so significant. I know if I were a climate scientist, that is what I would be looking at. So this image of scientists as mindless liberal lemmings ignoring data which do not fit their political leanings is a fantasy which plays well in the right wing media.

    At any rate, if you have no idea about how scientists think, then naturally you will not understand difference between science and other professions such as law or politics, and think that scientists see everything in black and white terms. This is certainly not the case. I would argue that this leads to misconceptions on the left like you point out, but also allows for the right to twist the portrayal of scientists as acting like politicians, as if you could resolve scientific questions by debate and whoever out yells the other wins the argument. This seems like a great deal of what is done in off topics and it is of course very misguided.

    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    I agree with your first statement. But I think the burden must always be on scientists to prove what they believe.
    Actually that is what I was saying when I said the burden of proof was on future studies to disprove the current scientific consensus. By "studies" I meant convincing scientific studies conducted by competent scientists. Like I said before, given the current consensus and current volume of data supporting the likelihood of anthropomorphic climate change, this would be needed to convince the scientific community at large. But who knows, it could happen.
  4. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #784  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    The right leaning media .....
    What right leaning media? You mean Fox News?

    (j/k - couldn't resist!)

    I think you nailed it. The media (of any direction of leaning) can always find scientist and 'data' to support a story. Its kind of like polls. You can make a poll say whatever you want.

    Gore's movie was all about reshaping Gore's image, and I think it was brilliantly done. He went from 'angry whacko' to 'concerned democrat' in a matter of weeks. I think they're going to play a couple of more coins. A book maybe, a couple of rounds on the talk show, and then if the water is the right temp, he'll throw his hat in.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  5. #785  
    like you say you can always find some fringe scientist to suport whatever view you want.

    unfortunately it is easy to use fringe scientist opinions to confuse the public and keep them from understanding the true scientific consensus.
  6. #786  
    as far as Gore is concerned, his views on global warming can most easily be discredited if he can be portrayed as self serving as you are making him out to be. personally I think he is not going to run, but instead is doing this movie because this is an important issue to him.
  7. #787  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    Gore's movie was all about reshaping Gore's image, and I think it was brilliantly done. He went from 'angry whacko' to 'concerned democrat' in a matter of weeks.
    What I can say about Gore from personal experience is that his talk was very good and full of humor, that he has a firm handshake, AND that he uses a Treo. So he cannot be that bad a person altogether...
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  8. #788  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    There has been an unfortunate decline in interest in science in our younger generations. It seems like so many people are turned off to science either by the popular media which portray scientists are nerds or Jerry Lewis-like nutty professors.
    But now there is CSI Las Vegas, Miami etc., showing how cool science really is!
    At any rate, if you have no idea about how scientists think, then naturally you will not understand difference between science and other professions such as law or politics, and think that scientists see everything in black and white terms. This is certainly not the case. I would argue that this leads to misconceptions on the left like you point out, but also allows for the right to twist the portrayal of scientists as acting like politicians, as if you could resolve scientific questions by debate and whoever out yells the other wins the argument. This seems like a great deal of what is done in off topics and it is of course very misguided.
    Exactly! Also the language of science doesn't help: it is very cautious and not absolute, totally different e.g. from political jargon (the "but it's just a theory" argument comes to mind).

    I guess in the US you have the additional problem of far too many people believing Genesis being word by word true (and hence scientific evolution wrong), or that earth is only a couple of thousands of years old. This doesn't help in a scientific debate, and it is easy to manipulate public opinion about scientific results in such an environment.

    The problem is that reality doesn't go away just because some people don't believe in it, but I thing I've said that before...
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  9. #789  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Exactly! Also the language of science doesn't help: it is very cautious and not absolute, totally different e.g. from political jargon (the "but it's just a theory" argument comes to mind).
    The language of science is properly cautious, and doesn't support those who think in absolute terms.

    Those who use words like "reality" are pushing politics, not science.
  10. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #790  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    as far as Gore is concerned, his views on global warming can most easily be discredited if he can be portrayed as self serving as you are making him out to be. personally I think he is not going to run, but instead is doing this movie because this is an important issue to him.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    What I can say about Gore from personal experience is that his talk was very good and full of humor, that he has a firm handshake, AND that he uses a Treo. So he cannot be that bad a person altogether...
    I didn't mean to portray him as uncaring or bad. Ask yourself, though, who is standing just off camera....

    Gore is a vehicle (as caring and as good or as evil and bad as he will be) of a socialist agenda. He could have just as easily been the "revoke the second amendment" vehicle. You'd paint him as a caring, humorous, treo packing good guy who just doing it because its important to him. THIS is why he was chosen. And this is why I'm saying its a test of the 'running waters'. Don't fool yourself.

    But this diverts from my original point, which I think you both agreed with... metrics and 'experts' can be found to paint any story you want to paint.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  11. #791  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    The language of science is properly cautious, and doesn't support those who think in absolute terms.

    Those who use words like "reality" are pushing politics, not science.
    Fact is, the US National Academy of Science wrote, in a very recent report written in response to a request by the US Congress, that there are "multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities" (see above for quotes).

    That looks like quite a clear statement to me.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  12. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #792  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Fact is, the US National Academy of Science wrote, in a very recent report written in response to a request by the US Congress, that there are "multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities" (see above for quotes).

    That looks like quite a clear statement to me.
    Clear of what? Agenda and bias?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  13. #793  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    Clear of what? Agenda and bias?
    Clear as in "free from obscurity or ambiguity, easily understood" according to Merriam Webster.

    Who do you, as an American, want to trust in scientific questions if not the US National Academy of Sciences?
    The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a corporation in the United States whose members serve pro bono as "advisers to the nation on science, engineering, and medicine."

    The Civil War caused a need for a national academy and the Act of Incorporation, signed by President Abraham Lincoln on March 3, 1863, created the National Academy of Sciences and named 50 charter members. The Act states that "the Academy shall, whenever called upon by any department of the Government, investigate, examine, experiment, and report upon any subject of science or art, the actual expense of such investigations, examinations, experiments, and reports to be paid from appropriations which may be made for the purpose, but the Academy shall receive no compensation whatever for any services to the Government of the United States."

    The National Academy of Sciences as of spring 2003 includes about 1,922 members, 93 members emeritus, 341 foreign associates, and employs about 1,100 staff. The current members annually elect new members for life. Election to membership is one of the highest honors that can be accorded to a scientist and recognizes scientists who have made distinguished and continuing achievements in original research. There are more than 170 members who have won a Nobel Prize. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...emy_of_science
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  14. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #794  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Clear as in "free from obscurity or ambiguity, easily understood" according to Merriam Webster.

    Who do you, as an American, want to trust in scientific questions if not the US National Academy of Sciences?
    I, as an American, would trust my own eyes, in each and every case. The government if full of well educated, experienced, well meaning, professionals. Do you trust them fully?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  15. #795  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    Gore is a vehicle (as caring and as good or as evil and bad as he will be) of a socialist agenda.
    wow
  16. #796  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Fact is, the US National Academy of Science wrote, in a very recent report written in response to a request by the US Congress, that there are "multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities" (see above for quotes).

    That looks like quite a clear statement to me.
    In your own words, it's clear that the statement is "cautious" and "not absolute," just like the IPCC statement. You ignore that because of your politics. You insist that it's "safe to assume" that the certainty of science is greater than what the consensus of scientists claims.
  17. #797  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    In your own words, it's clear that the statement is "cautious" and "not absolute," just like the IPCC statement. You ignore that because of your politics. You insist that it's "safe to assume" that the certainty of science is greater than what the consensus of scientists claims.
    It's not about what I say, it's about what the US National Academy of Sciences says. They say that there are "multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities" (see above for quotes).

    You disagree? Anybody else? Got better data than them? Better ability to interpret the data? Better overview over the state of research in that field?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  18. #798  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    It's not about what I say, it's about what the US National Academy of Sciences says. They say that there are "multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities" (see above for quotes).

    You disagree? Anybody else? Got better data than them? Better ability to interpret the data? Better overview over the state of research in that field?
    I don't disagree with them. I disagree with you. Their statements don't support your positions.
  19. #799  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    Ask yourself, though, who is standing just off camera....Gore is a vehicle (as caring and as good or as evil and bad as he will be) of a socialist agenda.
    Even if Gore were the reincarnation of Joseph Stalin, it is not going to change the scientific evidence on global warming.
  20. #800  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Even if Gore were the reincarnation of Joseph Stalin, it is not going to change the scientific evidence on global warming.
    Even if you were the reincarnation of mother earth, and brought the evidence down in a bolt of lightning from heaven, you would not convince those who base their beliefs on their ideology, not on the facts.

Posting Permissions