Originally posted by Sparko
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
‘Alarming’ Study Claiming Global Warming Heating Up Oceans Based on Math Error
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostIf something is true a lot of scientists will believe it is true, but a lot of scientists believing something is true doesn't make it true. Two different things. You keep arguing it is true because it is the scientific consensus. The scientific consensus has been wrong over and over in the past, that is how science advances. Like plate tectonics, or germ theory. At one point the new theory that destroys the consensus is a minority view that the consensus fights against. .“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostScientific consensus is the collective judgment and opinion of the community of scientistsin a particular field of studyon climate...The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostIf something is true a lot of scientists will believe it is true, but a lot of scientists believing something is true doesn't make it true. Two different things. You keep arguing it is true because it is the scientific consensus. The scientific consensus has been wrong over and over in the past, that is how science advances. Like plate tectonics, or germ theory. At one point the new theory that destroys the consensus is a minority view that the consensus fights against.
you keep putting the cart before the horse and calling that science.
Now, could there be a flaw in the underlying physics or data gathering methods that could be leading the consensus the wrong way? Yes. But so far there is no new physics, and there has been no argument made of sufficient scientific strength to convince a sizable portion of the scientific community that the data itself is flawed enough to lead to a different conclusion.
In fact, most of the anti-AGW argumentation is very similar to the YEC argumentation. That the scientific community is biased and effectively engaged in a willful ignorance of the 'true' data as a consequence of their own biases.
JimLast edited by oxmixmudd; 12-17-2018, 05:39 PM.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post...and applies to no other scientific topic on the planet.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post...and applies to no other scientific topic on the planet.
Of course, I am sure you'll leap at the fact that he also wrote about "paradigm shifts", and how he documented cases where science had been previously wrong in consensuses and then the consensus changed. But it's notable that paradigms shift in certain ways - the new paradigm (e.g. "it's the earth that spins, not the sun that actually moves across the sky, each day") always has to be able to explain the old data (e.g. "I observe the sun rise in the east and set in the west each day"). It's never that the empirically recorded data is found to be wrong (it's not that I didn't with my own eyes see the sun moving across the sky), its that the hypothesized mechanisms leading to the recording of that data are found to be different (i.e. the reason I see the sun moving across the sky turns out to be because the earth is spinning, and not because the sun itself is actually moving).
With regard to climate change, the data we have been observing is that over time our thermometers are recording higher and higher temperatures on average, and over time we are recording more and more CO2 in our atmospheric measurements. The scientific paradigm is the consensus that the CO2 is causing the increasing temperatures. If there is a paradigm shift in future, it might come because we discover some other cause of the increasing temperatures. But it won't invalidate the actual data we observed (the higher temperatures across time in the 19th-21st centuries), but will instead give a different explanation for why we observed that data (perhaps we might find that more magma from the earth's core was reaching the crust and leading to hotter temperatures at the bottom of the oceans which were causing an overall hotter atmosphere). So yes, there is a scientific consensus/paradigm, and yes this is how science usually works.Last edited by Starlight; 12-17-2018, 11:52 PM."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostOf course, I am sure you'll leap at the fact that he also wrote about "paradigm shifts"The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostThis is just wrong. Scientists accept theories and reach consensus when the data demand that they do so e.g. Galileo’s Heliocentrism, Einstein's Relativity theory, Darwin’s Evolutionary theory. There is scientific consensus on all of these scientific topics. Just as there is on Global Warming, which is supported by virtually all scientists.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostI suppose you're not a supporter of client deniers either, CP.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostAh, that's actually funny.
Obviously I meant climate change denier.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostScientific consensus is the collective judgment and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study...global warming in this instance. Certainly there have been scientific disagreements in the past, but when the consensus is virtually unanimous as it is here, it behoves us to take it seriously. Especially considering the probable dire consequences for the planet and our children if we don't.
Again, you are arguing that the consensus is the evidence that it is true. If it is true there will be a consensus, but a consensus doesn't make it true. That is agumentum ad populem. That is the cart before the horse. So just stop arguing about the consensus. It makes you look like an idiot.
Comment
-
Man, take a couple of months off and this thread goes to 30 pages.
Anybody want to talk about the scientific background of the original results, or are we committed to arguing over the proper role of consensus in science at this point?
I'm sure you will all be shocked to find i have things to say about both. :P"Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostMan, take a couple of months off ...The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
|
48 responses
135 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
03-20-2024, 09:13 AM
|
||
Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
|
16 responses
74 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-08-2024, 03:12 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
|
6 responses
47 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-08-2024, 03:25 PM
|
Comment