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.
I agree the use of AGW as a mechanism to fuel a global carbon derivatives market could be very impactful. However, any "errors" regarding Quantum Mechanics I assure you could be just as impactful, if not more so... (LOL)
The observer phenom actually points to the idea of perception. As humans, we cannot remove it from our so-called reality. Ultimately, that appears to be at the heart of all debates.
This is an old argument and why those of traditional sciences scoff at theoretical sciences.
It isn't that perceptive and assumptive evaluation is with out merit, it is the conclusive consensus of such that is dangerous as only assumptions can be molded into culminations of power.
We are in a high-tech age of the inquisition, driven by fanatics who subscribe to their own perception of reality and dictate the adherence to such.
This is an old argument and why those of traditional sciences scoff at theoretical sciences.
It isn't that perceptive and assumptive evaluation is with out merit, it is the conclusive consensus of such that is dangerous as only assumptions can be molded into culminations of power.
We are in a high-tech age of the inquisition, driven by fanatics who subscribe to their own perception of reality and dictate the adherence to such.
Well can't say I agree w/ your description.
However, I didn't say that perception is w/o merit. Just that as far as humans are concerned it simply is.
However, I didn't say that perception is w/o merit. Just that as far as humans are concerned it simply is.
The point is that anything, be it theoretical physics, biology, medicine practice, etc.... making conclusions and instituting policy based on such is not folly, an error, it is stupidity.
This is why there is such division between the application fields and the theoretical fields. It is not to say that a theoretical field can not provide benefits over time, but it is the application fields to which validate such and to jump such process is nothing more than a lotto bet which has nothing to do with science.
The point is that anything, be it theoretical physics, biology, medicine practice, etc.... making conclusions and instituting policy based on such is not folly, an error, it is stupidity.
This is why there is such division between the application fields and the theoretical fields. It is not to say that a theoretical field can not provide benefits over time, but it is the application fields to which validate such and to jump such process is nothing more than a lotto bet which has nothing to do with science.
I see your opinion, I think, but don't see much relevance to what I stated other than perception.
Both fields involve perception. In fact, everything a human is involved in involves perception. Conclusions, policies, application...all of it.
I see your opinion, I think, but don't see much relevance to what I stated other than perception.
Both fields involve perception. In fact, everything a human is involved in involves perception. Conclusions, policies, application...all of it.
Science is not a simple concept of perception though. Yeah, yeah, you can get into the philosophical position that everything is a perception and even the scientific is just a variation of such to which even our own processes have shown to change (Proven theories have been shown to be flawed, aka slippery fact).
The thing is, in this issue, it isn't the process of a rigorously tested perception to which consistently shows the same result and is verified through the same process by others.
The difference between the fields is that one perceives and then assumes its occurrence, while the other perceives and verifies, validates, and replicates its occurrence. There is a distinct difference.
Science is not a simple concept of perception though. Yeah, yeah, you can get into the philosophical position that everything is a perception and even the scientific is just a variation of such to which even our own processes have shown to change (Proven theories have been shown to be flawed, aka slippery fact).
The thing is, in this issue, it isn't the process of a rigorously tested perception to which consistently shows the same result and is verified through the same process by others.
The difference between the fields is that one perceives and then assumes its occurrence, while the other perceives and verifies, validates, and replicates its occurrence. There is a distinct difference.
Just wanting to make clear my comment on the "reality" of perception in anything a human is involved in, is different than your apparent attempt to make a generalization about what you perceive as 2 different fields of study.
In this particular situation, I don't see the relevance. Supposedly, actual measurements, observations etc...have been taken and used to support some "recommended action".
The different "groups" show different information and studies they also appear to make different conclusions and recommendations. All of the "studies" involved theory, observation, analysis and application. Even if you want to break it into 2 groups, AGW believers or non-AGW believers, seems both sides have involved all the criteria I listed.
Just wanting to make clear my comment on the "reality" of perception in anything a human is involved in, is different than your apparent attempt to make a generalization about what you perceive as 2 different fields of study.
It is as I said above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDusr
In this particular situation, I don't see the relevance. Supposedly, actual measurements, observations etc...have been taken and used to support some "recommended action".
They have not properly applied the scientific method. Their data is not verified, their methods not validated, their applications not replicated. They have relied on "models" and assumptions mostly to the "perception" of AGW. That is, they are using Theoretical means (extremely poorly as they are not basing their findings on existing validated theories) to establish their position. That is, nothing is tested, nothing is validated, nothing is verified, its just "blackboard posturing"
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDusr
The different "groups" show different information and studies they also appear to make different conclusions and recommendations. All of the "studies" involved theory, observation, analysis and application. Even if you want to break it into 2 groups, AGW believers or non-AGW believers, seems both sides have involved all the criteria I listed.
that is because in "application" science, their "theoretical" assumptions are not showing to be true. Their "perceptions" aren't matching up with the observed trends. That is, they are operating on assumptive positions, not tested and verified ones. Hence the age old issue of "Theoretical" versus "applicative" science. One "believes" it is true, the other "knows" it is (relatively speaking, yes, I understand that some theories are shown eventually to be "slippery" in their facts). Do you understand what I am getting at?
Once again, those that think they can model future climate change have been shown to be way off base.
Maybe some day scientists will admit that they cannot accurately model climate change. This world is way too complex to model with any credibility at all.
"NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed."
Poor Al Gore. But, on the other hand he has made his millions off this scam.
Thanks, I appreciate this article. Michael chrichton made a valid point years ago. He indicated that we do not know what we do not know. It's something to think about.
Thanks, I appreciate this article. Michael chrichton made a valid point years ago. He indicated that we do not know what we do not know. It's something to think about.
*chuckle*
I particularly liked when he evaluated the SETI equation and essentially proved to them that they were pulling rabbits out of their arse.
I do see what you are getting at I believe, but I did see studies involving the scientific method on both sides.
Maybe you could say their initial theories aren't substantiated by the observations in their experiments.
Perceptions are part of observation. All of the scientific method involves perception.
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.
