Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3111213
Results 121 to 126 of 126
  1. #121  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,301
    Quote Originally Posted by The Night Owl View Post
    The peer review system is not perfect but it is the best system we have for assessing science. If you want to throw up your hands and give the same amount of consideration to everything written about global warming then go right ahead... but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
    Since I am not a climatologist, my opinion is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things as is yours. You may feel that you opinion has more weight than others but youíd be wrong about this. If anyone is taking either of our opinions seriously or basing their decisions on what we think I have to question their critical thinking skills. You and I are just disseminating information that we acquired from others who did the same thing. We merely have opinions based on which set of facts we choose to believe. The choice of facts we make is based on some biased point of view that we harbored before any concept of climate change entered our mine. If you choose not to believe this then donít be surprised if a lot of people donít take you seriously

    As for the peer review process, one can only put faith in it if contains a cross section of beliefs which is not the case for the issue of global warming. Because of that any research that they put their seal of approval on is suspect. How many articles have been peer reviewed and published that were later determined to be dead wrong? Many of Fred Hoyleís articles for the steady state theory of the universe where peer reviewed and yet we now believe that the big bang theory is the correct theory.

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #122  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by AmPat View Post
    If the evidence is there, we should be able to see it. If we are around a sufficient amount of time to gather meaningful data, we are obviously not in danger of extinction.
    Extinction? I think it would take a lot. Hardships, and unpleasantness? Thats a lot easier.

    We cannot validate the present and future average temps against a historical constant. What is the right temperature?
    We can validate present temperatures vs historical ones to a sufficient degree a long ways back, by our standards. We can also detect spikes and major up or downswings of global temperatures in the past. The upswing in the late 20th century was unprecedented.

    I don't advocate catastrophism or hysteria, but I do advocate action on our part, but not at the expense of liberties or our ability to maintain our status as economic leader of the world.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #123  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Woodland Park, Colorado, United States
    Posts
    8,563
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Extinction? I think it would take a lot. Hardships, and unpleasantness? Thats a lot easier.



    We can validate present temperatures vs historical ones to a sufficient degree a long ways back, by our standards. We can also detect spikes and major up or downswings of global temperatures in the past. The upswing in the late 20th century was unprecedented.

    I don't advocate catastrophism or hysteria, but I do advocate action on our part, but not at the expense of liberties or our ability to maintain our status as economic leader of the world.
    We're not that far off philosophically. I too believe we should be proactive and responsible with all our resources. I don't have much patience with enviro-whackos.
    Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.
    C. S. Lewis
    Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:
    Ayn Rand
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #124  
    Senior Member The Night Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by FlaGator View Post
    How many articles have been peer reviewed and published that were later determined to be dead wrong? Many of Fred Hoyle’s articles for the steady state theory of the universe where peer reviewed and yet we now believe that the big bang theory is the correct theory.
    It goes without saying that accepted science can always be overturned by some new discovery but science which has been subjected to professional scrutiny is usually more trustworthy than science which has not been subjected to professional scrutiny.
    Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #125  
    Senior Member LogansPapa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Surf City, USA
    Posts
    3,782
    "Belief" in a theory in the scientific community is analogous with a "Subscription" to same. Us commoners are put off by the latter and "Belief" is what we more readily relate to: Hence Joe Publicís perspective that all scientists are "Eggheads", ego driven and pompous.

    Reference Curtis LeMayís opinions of Robert Oppenheimer prior to the "Gadget" actually working.;)
    At Coretta Scott King's funeral in early 2006, Ethel Kennedy, the widow of Robert Kennedy, leaned over to him and whispered, "The torch is being passed to you." "A chill went up my spine," Obama told an aide. (Newsweek)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #126  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,301
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    But it should matter little what their opinion is, if they rigorously examine it scientifically. It does require a little trust on our part that they approach things honestly.
    I tend to read a lot about any particular subject that interests me and then I determine what I believe to be true. I also understand that I have biases that predispose me to certain views over others.

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    I really didn't already agree with the global climate change thing. It's only in the past two years or so that I've gained interest in it. I was just as skeptical as most here, but in a disinterested sort of way... more from a lack of actually knowing anything about it, and hearing healthy doses of conservative media skepticism than being outright opposed to the idea. My opinion can (and has) changed on this issue... I strive to be intellectually honest enough for that to be the case with any issue.
    I accept as fact that there is climate change going on. I don't believe that it is a man made crisis and I don't believe that we are the tipping point either. The odds are greatly against the fact that we just happen to be so close to the imaginary edge of some unknown value that our contribution will cause the climate change to be substantially worse than what it is going to be any ways.

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    When it comes to scientific issues, I trust the scientific framework... indeed it is the only option. Quite every other method for 'gaining' knowledge has all it's flaws, but not all of its benefits. In other words, it sucks less.

    Science gets things wrong no doubt about it. However, given the built in self-correcting mechanisms of the scientific method and peer review, we can be reasonably sure (as non-scientists) that the current scientific consensus on a well researched hypothesis/theory is the most likely the most reasonable position given the current body of knowledge, even though we know the theory or hypothesis is necessarily incomplete. At the very least, we know something might not be true, or only partly true, but there are well established, empirical, and rational reasons for the idea. Someone may be more correct, simply by guessing, but that is not knowledge... it is a faith based belief. However untrustworthy the scientists and the scientific method may be, faith based beliefs are worse. They suck more... at least in a universe that, as far as we can tell, operates by uniform rules.
    There are self correcting mechanisms in scientific research. Unfortunately only time gives us the true answer to any scientific issue. We make assumptions and base policy and actions on the often incomplete data at hand and only later find out how wrong our scientists got it. The peer review process only tells us that something is possible and makes logical sense. It doesn't tell us if it is true or no. Unicorns are possible their existence doesn't contradict logic. That doesn't change the fact that they aren't real.

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    While we tend to start throwing around terms that would imply a personal position of certainty on issues like this, I wouldn't seriously take that position... its more of a laziness thing.. it gets to be to cumbersome to actually type out disclaimers before every sentence. I take the scientific position here... speak with certainty out of laziness, with the understood assumption that any fact or point is subject to revision in light of new knowledge. I have no personal attachment to AGW. I think it is the most probable explanation at this point, not incontrovertible fact. In fact, I think most, including myself, would prefer it, if it were junk science. However, if you are going to disagree with the scientific consensus, you better have some really good empirical evidence backing it up.

    As it seems around here, the most anyone really has are lists of engineers, mcarthy-istic like cries of "socialist!", or the hysterical anti-hysteria stance.
    Man isn't perfect and is often prone to error, especial when his emotions and biases come in to play. It's hard to know what is true and what is misinterpretation of facts. I tend to believe scientists, but when things are as up in the air as they are about climate change I tend to hold a skeptical attitude about what is being told to me.

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •