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.
Believing an expert on the subject they are experts in is dogmatic?
I think its called common sense. If someone asks me if I think drug resistant microbes are a result of overprescribing antibiotics, Im going to say yes, because its widely heralded as fact.
Im not going to inject staphococcus into pitri dishes for months on end to examine possible mutation.
I understand your argument, but its far from practical.
This is an anonymous internet forum, a non- scientific one for that matter, so please stop with your false pretenses of making this some sort of formal matter worthy for submission for review. For that matter, stop making excuses about the what and who of my question, as it should be clear to anyone remotely aware of this topic that my question was directed to people who deny AGW.
If it wasn't clear, I hope that clears it up.
Well, I think that one needs to apply a certain level of logical process to their discussion when it concerns such a topic. That... or they need to stay on the sidelines and not establish a position due to the fact that it only promotes ignorance and serves no means other than to attend to narcissistic desires.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
No I am seeking clarity on what exactly "significant" means in the context of the way you used, as it seems to imply quantity since we are clarity Nazis. It doesn't take a significant amount of arsenic and cyanide to cause mammalian biological systems to cease to function.
Also, why does CO2 have to be a primary driver? Can you not answer it?
Significance as it is often used according to the CAGW hypothesis is that mans contribution is large enough that it is causing severe effects in the system. That CO2 is a primary driver of global warming, that even though it only accounts for a very small percent of green house gases, it is an amplifier that has positive feedback which greatly increases the process of warming which in turn is primarily responsible for severe super storms, severe droughts, tornadoes, etc...
The above is the explanation of your "only a small amount" position. Problem with that position is that it has not even remotely validated.
I am surprised you did not know this? Don't you make a point to understand something you advocate?
Obviously, you have no concept of the principles of science and have no background in scientific research. One never "goes with your best guess" and rely upon empiric data with valid statistical analysis.
Best guess? That was good for a laugh. I wonder what engineering, medicine, and physics would be if scientists had relied upon "best guesses"?
This is what happens when liberals, with no scientific background, attempt to interpret science, as told by liberal journalists.
Oh god here comes the tidal wave of assumptions.
I dont understand why this is so difficult to comprehend.
Example: Astrophysicists dont know what happens to an object that enters the even horizon of a black hole, so they use what data they to form an hypothesis (a guess). There is no empirical data to establish fact, so theories are all that exist.
If there was empirical data for every question in every facet of science, we would have solved all of our questions by now.
Engineering and medicine have, repeatable, observable experimentation. Physics does to an extent. Not everything in this world can be quantified. Using your logic, psychology doesnt exist as a scientific discipline. Since we cant measure thoughts, or record disorders, we cant be sure they even exist. Maybe schizos are being paid off by George Soros to fake it, in order to garner public support for universal healthcare. After all, how could we know? There isnt any empirical data..
Believing an expert on the subject they are experts in is dogmatic?
I think its called common sense. If someone asks me if I think drug resistant microbes are a result of overprescribing antibiotics, Im going to say yes, because its widely heralded as fact.
Im not going to inject staphococcus into pitri dishes for months on end to examine possible mutation.
I understand your argument, but its far from practical.
Accepting without proof is faith. Faith is dogma.
Science does not accept a given premise based on faith.
so yes, accepting a scientists "opinion" (ie guess, hypothesis) on the grounds that he is an expert without requiring that he validate such... is appealing to dogma.
Actually, my argument is one of science. You are attempting to convince me that I should disregard scientific process and accept an appeal to authority. That is not practical if one wishes to further understanding, though it certainly is useful for one attempting to gain support to a given belief.
I dont understand why this is so difficult to comprehend.
Example: Astrophysicists dont know what happens to an object that enters the even horizon of a black hole, so they use what data they to form an hypothesis (a guess). There is no empirical data to establish fact, so theories are all that exist.
If there was empirical data for every question in every facet of science, we would have solved all of our questions by now.
Jesus...
Astrophysicists don't validate. They create a hypothesis and then look for internal logical consistencies to which they make the basis of their position. Until they have tested such, the are still basically guesses. By the way, there are constant fights going on in that field and the reason they are fighting is because they can't validate their position.
You can be apply many scientific principals in your study, but doing so does not make your position scientifically valid.
See, we can say that man contributes CO2 and that CO2 is a component of warming, but... does that make such significant?
If a strong wind blows by you and you blow with it, is your contribution significant? If you did not add to it with your action, would it make any significance to its occurrence? Certainly you can say it helped, though now we are dealing with "how much" and that is what it all comes down to in this argument.
Man contributes CO2. CO2 is a component of global warming.
How much does man contribute?
How much does CO2 contribute to the process of warming?
You do realize the entire argument for this centers around positive feedback, which they claim that amplifies warming due to CO2. Problem is, this is not a validated position. It is simply an unverified hypothesis.
Now the models they use confirms their claims, but keep in mind they designed the models using assumptions about how our system works and their models try to account for numerous variables they do not even fully understand. Not only that, but their models doe not even consider possible other aspects such as negative feedback.
You know what you get when you test a hypothesis with a model that you designed based on the same assumptions you make with your hypothesis? You get validation. It is called "self fulfilled prophecy".
I am reminded of the time I visited an observatory during an open house. I asked one the experts if the Moon's glow warmed the earth at all. He said that the Moon's glow was simply the reflection of the sun on the Moon and it provided no warmed of any kind to the earth. Well if course that is incorrect and he was informed of his error pretty quickly by a number of people.
Anyhow, I generally assume the data used to measure global warming basically came via thermometers location in locations around the world. I have also gone along with the notion that if most experts believe there is global warming, then there is probably global warming. I use this same process to accept the Theory of Evolution. But I have heard a number of alleged experts state that there is really no good evidence on the negative effects of global warming, or what it would take to reverse it. So I generally go along with the widely accepted notion that there is in fact global warming, and throw what questions I have on the effects, and remedies, of said global warming.
Science does not accept a given premise based on faith.
so yes, accepting a scientists "opinion" (ie guess, hypothesis) on the grounds that he is an expert without requiring that he validate such... is appealing to dogma.
Actually, my argument is one of science. You are attempting to convince me that I should disregard scientific process and accept an appeal to authority. That is not practical if one wishes to further understanding, though it certainly is useful for one attempting to gain support to a given belief.
So, of course, youve applied the scientific method to test every fact youve ever heard.
Like I said, impractical.
Whats your stance on evolution? Because, if you didnt appeal to authority, it must have taken you a decade to form a conclusion.
Astrophysicists don't validate. They create a hypothesis and then look for internal logical consistencies to which they make the basis of their position. Until they have tested such, the are still basically guesses. By the way, there are constant fights going on in that field and the reason they are fighting is because they can't validate their position.
You can be apply many scientific principals in your study, but doing so does not make your position scientifically valid.
So the lack of fights in climatology must mean theyve validated their position.
I am reminded of the time I visited an observatory during an open house. I asked one the experts if the Moon's glow warmed the earth at all. He said that the Moon's glow was simply the reflection of the sun on the Moon and it provided no warmed of any kind to the earth. Well if course that is incorrect and he was informed of his error pretty quickly by a number of people.
Anyhow, I generally assume the data used to measure global warming basically came via thermometers location in locations around the world. I have also gone along with the notion that if most experts believe there is global warming, then there is probably global warming. I use this same process to accept the Theory of Evolution. But I have heard a number of alleged experts state that there is really no good evidence on the negative effects of global warming, or what it would take to reverse it. So I generally go along with the widely accepted notion that there is in fact global warming, and throw what questions I have on the effects, and remedies, of said global warming.
Problem is what the mean when they say global warming, ie AGW or CAGW, etc...
So, of course, youve applied the scientific method to test every fact youve ever heard.
Like I said, impractical.
Whats your stance on evolution? Because, if you didnt appeal to authority, it must have taken you a decade to form a conclusion.
Odd, I don't remember saying that you use the scientific method as a general rule in everyday life. I thought we were talking about the field of climate science, and scientific study in scientific fields?
Don't you think... that maybe... if you are a researcher in a scientific field, that you would be applying that method in your study? You know... because well... it is "scientific research"? Or is that being "too impractical"?
Don't care about evolution. We are talking about climate change, and the science it encompasses. Try to stay on topic.
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.
