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.
" the highest CO2 level in the last million or so years was below 300ppm"
Who measured it and with what equipment "in the last million years"?
The study of ice core samples. CO2 causes certain reactions in water (Ph level & what amounts to carbonation) that can be studied in ice. More modern observations confirm these theories, which are then observed in more ancient samples. It really is science.
Let's argue for a second that is true. That doesn't address my point. Is that how science is supposed to be done?
Science is observation. You look at data, at evidence, at results of experimentation and develop a question or idea, then look at more data, evidence, results. Then, you share that with others, who look at data, evidence, results, and either agree or disagree. If things are repeatable and consistent, then you have a theory, which invites more data, evidence, results. Often, you make predictions which are either proved or disproved. It IS how science works. You don't know something--you think you may know something--you endeavor to prove something--you get consistent results supporting your idea--and on & on. If a new theory is refuted by scientific evidence that can itself be repeated, then the original theory needs to be evaluated with that new data, evidence, and results.
There are nuances to science. For example, the boiling point of water is 212 degrees F. Fact. But increase altitude or add impurities (such as salt), and the water boils at a higher temp. Does that mean that it isn't a fact that water boils at 212 degrees F? Of course not. It just means that other influences impact how that process works.
Gotta love the internet. Any tin foil hat nutjob crackpot can make a YouTube video and try to peddle any unscientific theory.
Flat Earth, Apollo moon landing conspiracy, global warming denial, chem trails... all peas in the same whack-job pod.
TRANSLATION: I can't refute any of it, but I hate it anyway. So I'll attack the messenger instead, call him names, call the facts names, and try to get somebody to believe me somewhere.
You left out the money factor. Scientists have been paid to come up with certain conclusions. Look at early research into smoking. Those scientists were paid to come to the conclusion that smoking was not harmful. The original research into artificial sweeteners was flawed, but backed up by other scientists. The first research on saccharine said that it caused cancer. Turned out that rats were being fed the equivalent of a human drinking gallons of straight saccharine daily. When they got normal amounts, there was no cancer increase. Several climate scientists have said that they were offered money(grants) to back man-made global warming. Drugs are turned out every year that are dangerous because company-owned scientists are paid to fake or ignore results.
You can go back a few hundred years, the churches pressured scientists to agree with their beliefs.
"Drugs are turned out every year that are dangerous because company-owned scientists are paid to fake or ignore results."
Another serious accusation, completely unsupported by evidence.
But let's go back to your saccharine example. They found a correlation between saccharine intake and bladder cancer in rats. That was real, the data was not falsified. Had they continued to sell saccharine and had people started showing up with tumors, you would have screamed bloody hell. Were they wrong to play it safe and remove saccharine from food and drink? It was later found that the mechanism that caused the tumors in rats would not be operative in humans. OK, with more data we can draw different conclusions, that is called sound science, not fraud.
Science is observation. You look at data, at evidence, at results of experimentation and develop a question or idea, then look at more data, evidence, results. Then, you share that with others, who look at data, evidence, results, and either agree or disagree. If things are repeatable and consistent, then you have a theory, which invites more data, evidence, results. Often, you make predictions which are either proved or disproved. It IS how science works. You don't know something--you think you may know something--you endeavor to prove something--you get consistent results supporting your idea--and on & on. If a new theory is refuted by scientific evidence that can itself be repeated, then the original theory needs to be evaluated with that new data, evidence, and results.
There are nuances to science. For example, the boiling point of water is 212 degrees F. Fact. But increase altitude or add impurities (such as salt), and the water boils at a higher temp. Does that mean that it isn't a fact that water boils at 212 degrees F? Of course not. It just means that other influences impact how that process works.
You have to present your data. Others can not work from there if you don't. "How did you arrive at this conclusion"?
"Drugs are turned out every year that are dangerous because company-owned scientists are paid to fake or ignore results."
Another serious accusation, completely unsupported by evidence.
But let's go back to your saccharine example. They found a correlation between saccharine intake and bladder cancer in rats. That was real, the data was not falsified. Had they continued to sell saccharine and had people started showing up with tumors, you would have screamed bloody hell. Were they wrong to play it safe and remove saccharine from food and drink? It was later found that the mechanism that caused the tumors in rats would not be operative in humans. OK, with more data we can draw different conclusions, that is called sound science, not fraud.
Saccharine is still on the market and used in a lot of things. It was proved that the second researchers lied. They worked for competitors.
I think ethics in science has declined in the last fifty years. Scientists are human, and greedy like many others. If they know an outcome will gain, or continue their funding, then guess what happens?
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.
