Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This single article from Forbes has nearly nothing to do with the body of AGW work.
Anyone who denies man's climate forcing might as well deny gravity.
I don't think anyone is "denying" anything, rather they are objecting to the evidence provided. One who would make such claims that one is "denying" when objecting is simply "denying" the ability to actually debate the issue and you know how much we despise "deniers". /boggle
Edit:
Oh, and if you had bothered, you might have noticed that the article was not the research, it was merely talking about the research.
Sorry, I don't accept excuses, which is what you are providing.
Science is a detailed process, not an art form of speculation and assumption to which one simply pulls ideas out thin air and simply justifies them with "because I said so" or "good enough for me".
1. Hypothesis
2. Test Hypothesis.
3. Replicate and validate
4. Theorized conclusion.
That is the very basic aspect of the method, if that is not met, it isn't science, but garbage.
There is no argument here.
Like I said, if you think things are that cut and dry in such an extremely uncertain and complex field, you don't really know what you are talking about. This is specifically about point 3. Question, beyond posting on internet forums and reading an article or two, do you have any experience with climatology? Because throwing around buzzwords such as scientific method, that no actual scientist ever refers to, reeks more of someone who gets his information from blogs and the news than someone with a background in science.
Last edited by SoggyBottoms; 07-29-2011 at 07:48 PM..
Like I said, if you think things are that cut and dry, you don't really know what you are talking about. Question, have you ever been part of a research group and seen how actual science works?
And you are simply making an argument of hot air as you have not defended your position, only made excuses that attempted to confuse the concept and muddle it with relativistic dogma. Again, that is not science.
A hypothesis must be tested. If it is not, it is simply a baseless assumption.
A hypothesis in order to properly be validated, must be replicated outside of the scope of the original maker. That is, tests are made using the same hypothesis by others and compared to original tests for consistency.
To claim such is not necessary is to argue a case for bias, which you seem to be trying very hard at.
Again, we are talking science, not drama, art, or various pseudo-sciences.
You have no defense here. You are grasping at straws.
Edit: What I would be interested to know though is what your comments are concerning this research? Maybe you care to comment on it considering it is the topic of the thread? Or was your purpose to derail?
Edit: What I would be interested to know though is what your comments are concerning this research?
I have not looked into it. It might very well be true. Or it might not. The fact is that climatologists are still practicising valid science regardless of whether they turn out to be correct or not, a point that was being contested by you earlier and my reason for entering this thread.
Edit: The fact you ignored my question is telling. It's rare to find a skeptic who's basis for information isn't internet blogs.
Last edited by SoggyBottoms; 07-29-2011 at 08:29 PM..
the report you linked me is an adaption editorial created by the Science editorial staff to which specifically refers to the IPCC AR4 (its reference is the AR4). It is an assumption piece, nothing more. The IPCC AR4 is a speculative position, not even a remote certainty and it is an organization to which has been in much hot water recently for passing off over 5000 references of grey literature as "peer reviewed".
I find it odd that you would reference such as this is old material and the specific OP's research provided by Dr. Roy Spencer actually shows the flaws in the position of this particular research provided by the IPCC and is the entire issue of the discussion of this thread (ie, the IPCC far over estimated the effects of Co2 on our atmosphere). You did read the initial link given by the OP did you not?
Or were you simply attempting to make the point that there is conflicts in opinion within the field? That I would not disagree with, but more pertinent to our discussion, which was concerning the scientific method and its applications, the issue of the assumptions made by the IPCC are simply loosely speculated assumptions based on models and estimations of validity, which is not an appropriate means of validating a hypothesis.
Ok simply put I linked to that as a simple example of using the scientific method. (i.e. simple hypothesis) As stated, I couldn't find the more detailed study in Nature. I posted it since you asked.
You can disagree w/ components, intents, methods etc.., but still it can follow the scientific method. I admit that link isn't a good clear example, but by that standard most of what is published isn't either. You would have to actually go through the actual research data and experiments to have a better idea.
All of that said, as I stated, the science on both sides that most read is simply editorials or articles. Some certainly better than others.
I actually don't think the premise of AGW can be proven or disproven as I stated. Too many variable and factors.
As an example.
You hypothesis a relationship w/ CO2 and Global temp increase. Say you track carbon emissions, which you can, this has been done. You see a direct simple relationship w/ this and temperature increase globally. That is following the scientific method. Does it prove AGW? No.
You can debate accuracy, methodology etc.. of course, that can be debated w/ anything.
Only in America, land of the stupid, are people still arguing the reality of a globally warmer planet. Or the cause. What does it matter what the cause is?
H
Duh! If you don't know the cause, how can you work on the fix?????
Kinda grade school logic .....
"America, land of the stupid????" You should get out of your village and see the world. Maybe you would learn something.
Personally, I am more concerned about other environmental problems such as man-made radiation.
And that is the sad part of the AGW hoax. People like Al Gore will make their millions and the rest of the world will waste their money and resources on this pursuit. Meanwhile, other pressing environmental issues will be ignored.
Ok simply put I linked to that as a simple example of using the scientific method. (i.e. simple hypothesis) As stated, I couldn't find the more detailed study in Nature. I posted it since you asked.
You can disagree w/ components, intents, methods etc.., but still it can follow the scientific method. I admit that link isn't a good clear example, but by that standard most of what is published isn't either. You would have to actually go through the actual research data and experiments to have a better idea.
All of that said, as I stated, the science on both sides that most read is simply editorials or articles. Some certainly better than others.
I actually don't think the premise of AGW can be proven or disproven as I stated. Too many variable and factors.
As an example.
You hypothesis a relationship w/ CO2 and Global temp increase. Say you track carbon emissions, which you can, this has been done. You see a direct simple relationship w/ this and temperature increase globally. That is following the scientific method. Does it prove AGW? No.
You can debate accuracy, methodology etc.. of course, that can be debated w/ anything.
And now you are getting to the point. It can not be proven to the conclusion of AGW. Why? As you stated, there are too many variables to which can not be accounted for or that we do not understand.
Now normally, when you practice applied science, you take what you do know, and attempt to use that to test your hypothesis. At this stage, you are simply fleshing out the errors in your assumptions. You test and then you take the results (as you know you are not truly testing the hypothesis completely due to the fact that you can't account for all of the important factors) and you use the results as a means to possibly show consistencies to which you may be able to learn about those unknowns or create different hypothesis to test from.
At this stage, it is simply a learning stage, not a process of conclusive analysis. This is where models come in. They are simply perceived beliefs (to which you use statistical means to try and fill in the holes of understanding) and then you attempt to extrapolate possibilities from the results applied. You then test this hypothesis against observed trends (the actual hard data and results) and see if there is any relationship between them that might allow you to understand more about a given relationship or variable that was previously unknown.
In all of this, not once are you actually proving or disproving anything. You are simply stumbling around looking for evidence to get to a point where you can successfully replicate the occurrence through the position of your hypothesis. Until the hypothesis can be tested to which consistent results are shown to be apparent within the grounds of it and all divergence from such can be properly explained, then there is no means to even remotely come to a conclusion. It is simply speculation and while speculation is a component of establishing and testing a hypothesis, it is not a valid means of coming to a theory. That is what testing, validation, and replication is for.
Also note there are many things they think they know, as in your example, but that is partial knowledge and without a full understanding, it is difficult to ascertain if their existing knowledge is actually valid or simply an understanding that seems plausible and is consistent within their test bed to which may be invalid when additional knowledge is found.
The problem here is that they aren't applying methods to learn more, they are taking their hypothesis and then making a model to which is based on what they do know and filling in all of the variables with their perception of what they think they are (which is based on their initial hypothesis). Why is this a problem? Because if you fill in what you don't know, with what you think it should be and then use that as a tester for the validity of your hypothesis (your initial speculation as to what the unknowns are), you will ALWAYS come up with what your hypothesis established. It is self fulfilling prophecy and that is not science. That is exactly why the scientific method exists as it does, to avoid allowing bias of the observer to drive the results of the evaluation.
That is why them using models and claiming the model is evidence to conclude their hypothesis is simply a dog and pony show, not science.
I have not looked into it. It might very well be true. Or it might not. The fact is that climatologists are still practicising valid science regardless of whether they turn out to be correct or not, a point that was being contested by you earlier and my reason for entering this thread.
Edit: The fact you ignored my question is telling. It's rare to find a skeptic who's basis for information isn't internet blogs.
How do you know anything is valid science if you have not looked into if something is valid science?
And as for your question? You mean this one:
Quote:
3. Question, beyond posting on internet forums and reading an article or two, do you have any experience with climatology?
That is a fallicous question. It is one used to attack the one making the argument while ignoring the argument made.
Why would you think it more important to question the motives and knowledge of the person than establish such by the argument they make. If the argument is valid, it is shown to such, if it is not, then it can be reasoned that it is not.
Maybe stick to the argument and less in applying logical fallacies?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
