You-Read-It-Here-First Forum Index You-Read-It-Here-First
A collection of textual novelties
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
If you want to read the articles here, go ahead, just click on a forum and find a thread that interests you...no need to register! If you want to post something... either new or in response to someone here, then click the Register link above. It's free... and it's fun to write your ideas here. You can even create a "blog" by starting a personal thread in the Daily Life Every Thread A Diary section...

"Scientists"

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    You-Read-It-Here-First Forum Index -> Climate Change
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 9:25 am    Post subject: "Scientists" Reply with quote

I often argue with people who talk about a "consensus" among the scientific community about anthrogenic global warming. They often says things like "The Scientists Say..."

I retort there is no such thing as Scientists -- as in the pluralized, herded form. There are persons of science, all of whom, even if they ascribe to some general theory, have their own spin on it, and many times that spin is meant to overturn the theory or to propound the exact opposite!

Global warming zealots are stifling scientific debate
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/07/11/1183833595634.html?from=top5

Quote:
Science is married to evidence, scepticism and dissent. This evidence is from experiment, measurement, observation and calculation. Scientists hotly debate the methods of acquisition of evidence. Once the evidence is validated, a scientific theory is offered as an explanation. This theory must be in accord with all previous validated data and can be changed with new data. Science has no consensus, science is anarchistic as it submits to no authority, and the latest scientific view is only transitory. Science is apolitical, and when it has submitted to political pressure in the past, it has been at great human cost. Noise, political pressure or numbers of converts does not validate a scientific concept. When the president of the Royal Society says the science on human-induced global warming is settled, one is reminded of a previous president who said it was impossible for heavier-than-air machines to fly!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Visit the Instant Postcard Collection @ http://instant-postcard-collection.com
Looking for postcards of that favorite place? Family origins? Or that perfect vacation, except for the photos?
Researching your dissertation? Serious collector? Just looking for something neat?
You've found the right place to add to your existing collection, or to start a new one.
brian-hansen
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 712
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 3:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think I recognize myself as one with whom you make this argument.

The fact is that you yourself admitted to believing in the notion of a
"scientific consensus" when you admitted that you believed that "Pluto
exists" even when you have no direct evidence, nor even, I strongly
suspect, the knowledge of how you would test the existing evidence.

As someone who has not devoted my career or even much of my
spare time to astronomic research, I accept, and believe that you
accept the "consensus" of scientific inquiry, that Pluto does indeed
exist.

Honestly, as a published scientist, I don't need a refresher lecture
in the fact that all scientific conclusions are provisional. There is a
process by which far-out scientific theories (like anthropogenic global
warming) become widely accepted. As someone who has not devoted
my career of even much of my spare time to climatological research,
I note the increasing agreement within the scientific community that
global warming is real (near 100% agreement), and that it is largely
human-caused (65-95% agreement/certainty).

If I were a betting man (and I am), I'd bet on my 2 pair over your
hitting that inside straight on the river (tho I lost that bet).

-Brian
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    You-Read-It-Here-First Forum Index -> Climate Change All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group