In the Rush to Help - Global Warming

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Nope...I think he is likely still on the road on his way back to Texas...

AHA! Well that explains that, then! Hurry up and get your diatribes in, folks, before the hammer comes down!

Steve

[dartay]

YouTube - Tryphorgetin

Here's the newest in designer pharmaceuticals

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by dartay

YouTube - Tryphorgetin

Here's the newest in designer pharmaceuticals

Well hey, if it's good enough for Bush & Cheney to use on such a regular basis, why not!

Steve

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Well then it's hundreds against thousands, I guess (edit: which pretty much defines the point involving preponderance, actually).

Psssst -- you guys -- I think I hear Scott coming!

Steve

So, science now comes down to a vote? By that logic, it was a fact (but no longer is) that whites are superior to blacks in matters of intelligence and the Sun rotated around the Earth. An Earth which is flat, by the way.

Cien Mexicanos Dijeron has made its way to the research lab.

[ryberg]

It's not a vote. It's a question of the preponderance of the evidence.

Actually my comments earlier about what I saw as the problem with the skeptics' approach in this debate is just a variation on that same issue, I think: the implication (it seems) is that one case of counterevidence unseats the whole theory, that there is no such importance to the preponderance of the evidence being important (as if there are some perfect theories out there that absolutely account for everything, outside of the realm of, say, pure mathematics or something). I'm guessing the failure to consider the preponderance issue is responsible for that being satisfied with one such alleged counterexample and failure to follow up with a better theory.

Dunno, just thinkin'.

Steve

[PlayadelSoul]

I asked for evidence, you gave me the IPCC summary report. The IPCC summary report was written by a body of policy makers. An interesting, and fair, article is here.

Emotionalizing Climate Change: Is the IPCC Doing Harm to Science? - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by ryberg

It's not a vote. It's a question of the preponderance of the evidence.

Actually my comments earlier about what I saw as the problem with the skeptics' approach in this debate is just a variation on that same issue, I think: the implication (it seems) is that one case of counterevidence unseats the whole theory, that there is no such importance to the preponderance of the evidence being important (as if there are some perfect theories out there that absolutely account for everything, outside of the realm of, say, pure mathematics or something). I'm guessing the failure to consider the preponderance issue is responsible for that being satisfied with one such alleged counterexample and failure to follow up with a better theory.

Dunno, just thinkin'.

Steve

When referring back to the original thread on this topic, from the initial post until it was closed, you put a strong emphasis on "consensus". A consensus arises from a vote. The article I posted shows the negotiations behind the scenes of the IPCC. Science cannot be negotiated. It either is or isn't. I can see wanting to change the focus from "consensus" to "preponderance of evidence", but there is neither.

The better theory is the one that is proven, with evidence. Climate changes naturally. It always has and always will. It did when man was not even on the planet and it will when man leaves. Thats just the way it is.

[kirbyfan]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

When referring back to the original thread on this topic, from the initial post until it was closed, you put a strong emphasis on "consensus". A consensus arises from a vote. The article I posted shows the negotiations behind the scenes of the IPCC. Science cannot be negotiated. It either is or isn't. I can see wanting to change the focus from "consensus" to "preponderance of evidence", but there is neither.

The better theory is the one that is proven, with evidence. Climate changes naturally. It always has and always will. It did when man was not even on the planet and it will when man leaves. Thats just the way it is.

[Cosmo]

It is unfathomable to me that anyone could doubt the fact that mankind and it's baggage has a negative effect on the environment and climate. Billions of beings and their support animals, vehicles, power plants etc. Even during a "natural" warming up cycle it seems logical our existence adds some amount of stress to the situation. No link, just common sense....

[roni]

Theories are built upon hypotheses.

Hypotheses are never proven. They are either rejected or there is failure to reject them.

See research hypotheis, null hypothesis etc....

Of course, there are other interesting views in the philosophy of science that could be considered.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn could be an interesting starting point.

Personal Knowledge by Michael Polyani is reported to be good, but it was too dense for me when I tackled it as an undergrad.

The mathematician turned philosopher Alfred North Whitehead wrote Science and Modern World.

Here is what Sir Karl Popper had to say:

These considerations led me in the winter of 1919-20 to conclusions which I may now reformulate as follows.

1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory - if we look for confirmations.

2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory - an event which would have refuted the theory.

3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.

4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.

5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.

6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.")

7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers - for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem.")

One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.


More here

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

It is unfathomable to me that anyone could doubt the fact that mankind and it's baggage has a negative effect on the environment and climate. Billions of beings and their support animals, vehicles, power plants etc. Even during a "natural" warming up cycle it seems logical our existence adds some amount of stress to the situation. No link, just common sense....

I see Kirbyfan's of Mark's comment and raise you a for Cosmo's.

As I say, Mark, then your view is so outside what I see as reality that it does not seem reasonable to try to proceed with discussion.

Originally Posted by roni

Of course, there are other interesting views in the philosophy of science that could be considered.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn could be an interesting starting point.

An extraordinarily appropriate suggestion on that point, I would have to concur! So a big to that, too. Kuhn will straighten you out, baby!

Steve

[JEZ]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Greenland, a lush forest full of plant life and insects. Today, a block of ice. Not too hard to deduce that Greenland was warmer then (when there were no humans to emit greenhouse gasses).

And I thought Greenland was named by an exiled Viking type named Erik the Red who named it to attract badly needed settlers....

PS I am unsure if these settlers were or were not emitting gas !

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

It is unfathomable to me that anyone could doubt the fact that mankind and it's baggage has a negative effect on the environment and climate. Billions of beings and their support animals, vehicles, power plants etc. Even during a "natural" warming up cycle it seems logical our existence adds some amount of stress to the situation. No link, just common sense....

I have stated thousands of times that man hurts the environment in a variety of ways, and can do better in living cleaner. It takes a large leap of faith to go from that to man's changing the climate moreso than nature. A large leap of faith and an even larger ego.

[PlayadelSoul]

Some other historical theories, many of which were accepted by the "consensus".

Superseded scientific theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[melliedee]

Tell it to the polar bears, they are waiting for a study we can all agree on.

"This study is the smoking gun. Skeptics, polluting industries and President Bush can't run away from this one," said Philip E. Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust. He added the study showed "concrete evidence that global warming pollution is already having serious impacts."

Study Says Polar Bears Could Face Extinction (washingtonpost.com)