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
See more
See less

‘Alarming’ Study Claiming Global Warming Heating Up Oceans Based on Math Error

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    If 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.
    And you've been denying the consensus on the continuing evidence for what, 45-50 years now?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      If 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. .
      Scientific 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.
      “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 Post
        Scientific consensus is the collective judgment and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study on climate...
        ...and applies to no other scientific topic on the planet.
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          If 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.
          You need to differentiate between a theory consistent with the known data that is later replaced by a better theory and opinions that are CONTRARY to the data in nearly every way. The consensus in this case is simply saying that the data when passed through the filters of known physics etc. leads to the conclusion of AGW. It is saying that the people that are saying the DATA do not imply AGW based on what we know about the world are in some sense not processing the data correctly.

          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.

          Jim
          Last 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.
            This 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.
            “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 it does, Kuhn is famous for pointing out that it does work this way and that science has historically fallen into consensuses that he labelled "paradigms".

              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 Post
                Of course, I am sure you'll leap at the fact that he also wrote about "paradigm shifts"
                No. And you're just nutty.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  This 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.
                  This is why all scientific journals bypass evidence and trumpet "the vast majority of scientists agree".
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    This is why all scientific journals bypass evidence and trumpet "the vast majority of scientists agree".
                    I suppose you're not a supporter of client deniers either, CP.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      I suppose you're not a supporter of client deniers either, CP.
                      Perhaps you could explain what a "client denier" is.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        Perhaps you could explain what a "client denier" is.
                        Ah, that's actually funny. Obviously I meant climate change denier.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          Ah, that's actually funny.
                          Sure it is.

                          Obviously I meant climate change denier.
                          One of which I am not.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            Scientific 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 Post
                                Man, take a couple of months off ...
                                Welcome back!!!! So good to see you!
                                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 Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X