Quote:
Originally Posted by cleatis
More or less, yes that is what I mean. We don't understand enough to KNOW.
|
Agreed, all we can do is follow the evidence while we keep changing the hypothesis to fit the data. Problem is as I have been linking, this has not been the behavior of some of the researchers. Many do approach this scientifically (if you get past the media and propaganda sites), though these people are not in the spotlight and their approach is less desirable to the public than those that are. That is, those who are in the spotlight are willing to act unscientifically (placing PR and politics above ethical science) in order to satisfy the demands of absolute parties in the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleatis
Yes, again, I am still on the same page, just a different corner. It's like being an agnostic, I am not going to buy into it, but I am surely not going to rule it out.
|
Certainly we shouldn't disregard any evidence that suggests it, but we also should not hold on to the position when the evidence does not suggest it. The problem is, some refuse to follow the science while insisting on following the position. It results in many unethical practices such as ignoring discrepancies and deviations within the research in order to cling to a particular position. It leads to self serving data and fallacious conclusions.
Keep in mind that some of the leading scientist supporting this theory have a very heavy investment in its position. James Hansen for instance has been pushing the AGW theory for more than 20 years now. This has been a direct project of his from even before he received his credentials. I am not saying that is conclusive evidence of wrong doing, but that combined with the fact that he has been found extremely questionable in his research methods, data archiving, collection and analysis, as well as conflicting interest in policy and administration of the science and you can start to see a suggestion of self served research creeping in.
We should only look at the data though and in the case of these researchers who are heavily invested, they are also showing to be very weak in their claims when that research is scrutinized. To the point that they are hostile to colleagues that question them.
The honest research is not supporting the AGW position very well. That doesn't mean we should throw out the possible relation to it as it may (or may not) play a part somewhere, but we certainly can not use it to make any conclusions, much less solutions to the inconclusiveness of the research.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleatis
I see this as a problem because both sides of the political spectrum want answers, getting politics involved in something like this will muck up the finest science.
I don't think that I know more than scientists when it comes to this, but can we really count on politics to give us honest conclusions?
|
Politics can answer nothing. Politics is nothing more than a bureaucratic staging to force people to stop and take interest into a topic. Past that, they provide nothing of any usable result.
The problem is, and people I think should take this into consideration when looking at things (to a point, not a conclusive premise though), but those who have pushed the AGW position in the field of science were the ones who stepped outside of the bounds of normal scientific process and brought politics into it. That is, they were the ones that ran to the governments and political organizations in order to obtain support for their position.
Politics do not measure by facts. A person doesn't win a debate in politics by being right, but by making the other "appear" wrong. Since the introduction of politics into this field (and to be honest, it has been in it for a very long time if you followed the global cooling claims in the 70's) the position has been exactly that, make the other side "appear" wrong.
Personally, the only reason I even started following this topic is because of most of the "political issues" out there, this one can be quantified the most. That is, I can if I am so inclined, look up the research and read the details myself. I don't have to rely on news papers, word of mouth or even vague summaries of proclaimed conclusions by administrations such as the IPCC (it really is a vague summary and not really a conclusive research paper in many areas).
For instance, with the AR4, I can look up authors of the research within the report and see exactly what they found by going to the research they submitted (not the summary in the IPCC report) and reading it myself (if it is made public as it should be) I can see if the "summary" of the IPCC on that researchers work matches the analysis they made in their actual research.
To be honest, that is really a big part of the issue here (among many others). That is, the administrative summaries are not matching the researchers results consistently. Which is dubious at best for a scientific organization, but business as usual for a political one.
Top it all off though and we have a public that is so confused on the issue that they are easily mislead, which is a direct goal for politics. Confuse people, tell them you have the answers and since they are so confused, they out of lack of interest or frustration will simply agree and go along with things. So, you get bogus science being used for propaganda to influence policy to the people who if they knew the facts of the issue, would tell them to stick their policy proposals where the sun doesn't shine.
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.
