Piero Posted February 22, 2007 Author Share Posted February 22, 2007 something makes me think there's more to it than someone simply deciding that 'the sky is falling'. here's a simplification of how the scientific method works - ignore the right side of the diagram, obviously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piero Posted February 22, 2007 Author Share Posted February 22, 2007 the scientific method.... gives me goosebumps. Possibly one of the finest applications of the human brain...a perfect tool for finding truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piero Posted February 22, 2007 Author Share Posted February 22, 2007 Scientific method portal: link The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on observable, empirical, measurable evidence, and subject to rules of reasoning. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, there are features that distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of developing knowledge. Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these predictions for accuracy. Any hypothesis that cannot be subjected to a test is not considered to be scientific. These steps are repeated to refine hypotheses and allow for increasingly dependable predictions of future results. Theories that encompass whole domains of inquiry serve to bind more specific hypotheses together into logically coherent wholes. This in turn aids in the formation of new hypotheses, as well as in placing groups of specific hypotheses into a broader context of understanding. Another facet shared by the various fields of scientific inquiry is that the process must be objective so that the scientist does not bias the interpretation of the results. There is also an expectation that scientists document all of their data and methodology for careful scrutiny by other scientists and researchers. A well documented set of data allows statistical measures of the reliability of the results to be established and allows others to verify results by attempting to replicating them. Did you know... ... that John Stuart Mill's canons form a systematic heuristic for debugging a problem? 1. Method of agreement: If a single common factor exists in all cases where a phenomenon occurs, then we can attribute the phenomenon to that factor. 2. Method of difference: If one set of circumstances leads to a given phenomenon, and another set of circumstances does not, and the sets differ only in a single factor that is present in the first set but not in the second, then the phenomenon can be attributed to that factor. 3. Method of agreement and difference: Also called simply the "joint method of agreement and difference", this principle simply represents the application of the methods of agreement and difference. 4. Method of residues: If a range of factors are believed to cause a range of phenomena, and we have matched all the factors, except one, with all the phenomena, except one, then the remaining phenomenon can be attributed to the remaining factor: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." — Sherlock Holmes in "A Scandal in Bohemia" by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. 5. Method of concomitant variations: If across a range of circumstances leading to a phenomenon, some property of the phenomenon varies in tandem with some factor existing in the circumstances, then the phenomenon can be attributed to that factor. For instance, suppose that various samples of water, each containing both salt and lead, were found to be toxic. If the level of toxicity varied in tandem with the level of lead, one could attribute the toxicity to the presence of lead. more... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reefgeek84 Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Wow, that all is very pretty.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piero Posted February 22, 2007 Author Share Posted February 22, 2007 ...it's the one tool we have to understand the universe, so in a way it is one of the most beautiful things in the universe. Especially since it came from one of the most beautiful manifestations of stardust: the human brain. ok, sry, tangent... Hey who put Dimethyltryptamine in the orange slices?(drooler) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drock59 Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Wow, that all is very pretty.... Reefgeek, whats the beef? YOu seem all worked up? Do you find something wrong with the scientific method? It seems when someone puts forth a good point you kind of dismiss it. Im not trying to get personal, im just wondering whats up with that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piero Posted February 22, 2007 Author Share Posted February 22, 2007 no worries, it made me think about how beautiful the scientific method is, really. I've heard that some theoretical physicists break down in tears upon viewing the simplistic elegance of Einstein's equations, or rather....what they say about the universe... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 I think it is important to remember that there are no 'facts,' just theories backed up by sufficient evidence to make them widely accepted. One can find highly intelligent, well educated scientists who disagree with just about any of the theories the rest of the world takes for granted as fact. And there are crackpots who point at well-supported theories and try to use them as supporting evidence for their own unsupported hypotheses. Those who use the overwhelming evidence for mankind-influenced/accelerated global warming to advance their political agendas are every bit as bad as those who ignore that same evidence for the same reason. However, the existence of either doesn't invalidate the base theory. Certainly, the scientific community has railroaded maverick thinkers with one-true-way-ism in the past, and been proven wrong. The scientific method *requires* those mavericks to exist, right or wrong. However, in the case of mankind-influenced global warming, I agree with those who count the theory as valid. My main reasons for this are: The sheer number and credentials of those who support the theory. I know it is not liked (or even acknowledged) by several in this thread, but an overwhelming number of domain-appropriate scientists support the finding that mankind is influencing and accelerating global climate change. My personal observations corroborate these findings The first point provides a believable foundation for my acceptance of the theory. I have never been to Egypt. I've never met anyone from Egypt. However, enough people who's theories I respect insist there is actually a place called Egypt, and that there is a lot of really cool stuff there. The second point personalizes my acceptance of the theory. In the case of my Egypt example, I've seen relics from ancient Egypt at the museum... the history of Egypt integrates with the history of the rest of the world as I understand it.. Egyptian food is really tasty... all of this supports the theory that there really is a place called Egypt. Is it possible that Egypt is a fraud? Sure. It's really unlikely, but it's possible -- someone could convince me with sufficient evidence. For climate change, I personally see evidence of climate change and observe large-scale behaviors by mankind that would contribute to this following scientific principles I personally feel I understand (for example, the statistically improbably number of warmest-years-on-record occurring within the past decade and a half combined with a huge amount of greenhouse gases being released to the atmosphere). I find the overwhelming support for the theory from multiple scientific disciplines combined with my personal observations to be sufficient. I believe mankind is influencing/accelerating global climate change. Could I be wrong? Sure! But, it is going to take more to convince me than an extremely small contingent of scientists presenting poorly-supported, non-peer-reviewed evidence particularly when they appear to have a strong political motivation. Or, to stick with my example, some guy handing out leaflets in front of the mall isn't going to convince me that there is no Egypt 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reefgeek84 Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Reefgeek, whats the beef? YOu seem all worked up? Do you find something wrong with the scientific method? It seems when someone puts forth a good point you kind of dismiss it. Im not trying to get personal, im just wondering whats up with that? no, but those graphs can work for either side...both sides have their evidence to support their cases... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reefgeek84 Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 I think it is important to remember that there are no 'facts,' just theories backed up by sufficient evidence to make them widely accepted. One can find highly intelligent, well educated scientists who disagree with just about any of the theories the rest of the world takes for granted as fact. And there are crackpots who point at well-supported theories and try to use them as supporting evidence for their own unsupported hypotheses. Those who use the overwhelming evidence for mankind-influenced/accelerated global warming to advance their political agendas are every bit as bad as those who ignore that same evidence for the same reason. However, the existence of either doesn't invalidate the base theory. Certainly, the scientific community has railroaded maverick thinkers with one-true-way-ism in the past, and been proven wrong. The scientific method *requires* those mavericks to exist, right or wrong. However, in the case of mankind-influenced global warming, I agree with those who count the theory as valid. My main reasons for this are: The sheer number and credentials of those who support the theory. I know it is not liked (or even acknowledged) by several in this thread, but an overwhelming number of domain-appropriate scientists support the finding that mankind is influencing and accelerating global climate change. My personal observations corroborate these findings The first point provides a believable foundation for my acceptance of the theory. I have never been to Egypt. I've never met anyone from Egypt. However, enough people who's theories I respect insist there is actually a place called Egypt, and that there is a lot of really cool stuff there. The second point personalizes my acceptance of the theory. In the case of my Egypt example, I've seen relics from ancient Egypt at the museum... the history of Egypt integrates with the history of the rest of the world as I understand it.. Egyptian food is really tasty... all of this supports the theory that there really is a place called Egypt. Is it possible that Egypt is a fraud? Sure. It's really unlikely, but it's possible -- someone could convince me with sufficient evidence. For climate change, I personally see evidence of climate change and observe large-scale behaviors by mankind that would contribute to this following scientific principles I personally feel I understand (for example, the statistically improbably number of warmest-years-on-record occurring within the past decade http://www.pnwmas.org/forums/images/smilies/clap.gif (clap)and a half combined with a huge amount of greenhouse gases being released to the atmosphere). I find the overwhelming support for the theory from multiple scientific disciplines combined with my personal observations to be sufficient. I believe mankind is influencing/accelerating global climate change. Could I be wrong? Sure! But, it is going to take more to convince me than an extremely small contingent of scientists presenting poorly-supported, non-peer-reviewed evidence particularly when they appear to have a strong political motivation. Or, to stick with my example, some guy handing out leaflets in front of the mall isn't going to convince me that there is no Egypt I disagree...however...This is the most well written and thought out response from either side that anyone has ever written,...so you I give you major kodos for it.(clap) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piero Posted February 22, 2007 Author Share Posted February 22, 2007 yes well said. andy can I hire you for translation services? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drock59 Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 no, but those graphs can work for either side...both sides have their evidence to support their cases... Sure, it just so happens that one side is peer reviewed. That is the part of this that I dont understand. Or course there are many people and scientist that say we are not having an impact on Global Warming, but they have no scientifically accepted evidence of such. This is a problem for me. IF someone would come out with top notch, peer reviewed research acknowledging that humans are not the cause, I would love to read it and consider the views presented. Such a piece of literature has not been written to my knowledge. This is the most well written and thought out response from either side that anyone has ever written,...so you I give you major kodos for it. Andy, pretty much what I have been trying to get across in 15 pages of this thread, well said. OH and reefgeek, what exactly are you disagreeing with? This is how you are confusing me....you dismiss the argument without stating what it is that you dont believe or disagree with. My whole motivation in this thread is the understand why/how people refuse to believe GW is happening despite overwhelming scientific evidence. Help me, please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reefgeek84 Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Sure, it just so happens that one side is peer reviewed. That is the part of this that I dont understand. Or course there are many people and scientist that say we are not having an impact on Global Warming, but they have no scientifically accepted evidence of such. This is a problem for me. IF someone would come out with top notch, peer reviewed research acknowledging that humans are not the cause, I would love to read it and consider the views presented. Such a piece of literature has not been written to my knowledge. Andy, pretty much what I have been trying to get across in 15 pages of this thread, well said. OH and reefgeek, what exactly are you disagreeing with? This is how you are confusing me....you dismiss the argument without stating what it is that you dont believe or disagree with. My whole motivation in this thread is the understand why/how people refuse to believe GW is happening despite overwhelming scientific evidence. Help me, please. I have stated what I disagree with the whole time...I disagree with humans causing global warming...I have listened to many people talk about global warming not being human's fault. I have also read a few books that state the same thing. I also watched "An inconvient truth" and he convinced me of nothing. It comes down to, I will not convince you of something different and you will not do the same for me. I really like what Andy, wrote...but the difference with Eygpt, I can go there...global warming is only shown on paper with theories and graphs, that are only well educated guesses. There was a time when the world was considered flat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piero Posted February 22, 2007 Author Share Posted February 22, 2007 I have listened to many people talk about global warming not being human's fault. I have also read a few books that state the same thing. I also watched "An inconvient truth" and he convinced me of nothing. ..and that's all we need to out-think the scientific community? I'm definitely increasingly more aware of the psychological influences driving your reasoning, than I am aware of any logic that may be behind it. I'm just missing the logic. There was a time when the world was considered flat. This fact actually supports my points I thought. man i need a good science quote...where are they? "science teaches us to be skeptical and ignorant" you got the skeptical part down pat... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reefgeek84 Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 ..and that's all we need to out-think the scientific community? I'm definitely increasingly more aware of the psychological influences driving your reasoning, than I am aware of any logic that may be behind it. I'm just missing the logic. This fact actually supports my points I thought. man i need a good science quote...where are they? "science teaches us to be skeptical and ignorant" you got the skeptical part down pat... the funny thing is peiro, I can call you skeptical on the belief that you are skeptical of the people who disagree with your thinking on this issue. as for your first comment, there are scientists who disagree with humans causing global warming...so I am not out thinking anyone...How is me listening to other scientists, including OSU's own climatologist, that say this is just the earth's natural warming and we have nothing do to with it, is any different then your logic in believing the cites report? There is no difference...I have listened to people, read the books and seen evidence to show other then what you believe and drawn my own conclusion...how is that any different then what you have done? You simply want to try and make me look bad, so you keep questioning my logic, in hopes to making me look bad. This comes from the guy who says, we as hobbyists, need to be more careful and not collect coral from the ocean, so that leads to tank raising, but then we are horrible people for using so much electricity, in order to have a lot of tanks to raise these frags in...You need to pick either or... I have said many times...from what I have heard and read, I do not believe this whole thing...from what you and others in this thread have read believe that it is happening...nothing at this point will change either of our minds...but yet you continue to try and cut me down... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piero Posted February 22, 2007 Author Share Posted February 22, 2007 uh, ok, nuff said. As much credit as you gave andy RG, I honestly don't get the impression that you understood what he said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reefgeek84 Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 as much credit as you gave andy RG' date=' I honestly don't get the impression that you understood what he said, unfortunately.[/quote'] I understand completely what he said... The experts provide the evidence, he then looks over the evidence, draws his own conclusions and from what he has read and seen, he believes that global warming is caused because of humans. Its like talking to a brick wall....I am done with you Piero...You read only what you want to and twist it for the way you want it to seem...You should go into politics or media, cause you are exactly who they want writing for them.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piero Posted February 22, 2007 Author Share Posted February 22, 2007 Its like talking to a brick wall....I am done with you Piero...You read only what you want to and twist it for the way you want it to seem...You should go into politics or media' date=' cause you are exactly who they want writing for them....[/quote'] easy there....the only point I've ever made was that there are people more qualified than us whose job it is to do the real research. And those experts do have a current consensus. I think you fail to realize the significance of a United Nations approval, peer review, and the importance of considering the legitimacy of the sources from which you obtain your data. There's a reason we have peer review and entire bodies of science that add credibility or dispute research. There's a reason we don't listen to individuals as much as we respect a consensus from hundreds of experts. I've haven't once attempted to argue a detail of climate science that is clearly the domain of the experts. What specifically did I read and manipulate? I merely pointed out(repeatedly) that the experts know better than we do, and that they clearly DO have a consensus, as evident by the UN reports. Your claims that there is an equal and opposite argument against the current consensus declared by the UN reports, is mistaken, imo. What major scientific bodies, international bodies, or otherwise are you referring to when you point to the equal amount of evidence to the contrary? Given the fact that there clearly is a worldwide consensus of experts, as detailed by the UN report, anyone who claims to refute the current theory has the burden of discounting a HUGE body of work and hundreds of scientists. I'm sorry but like others have said here again and again, I don't see any evidence that there are any major international scientific bodies with peer-reviewed work who are refuting the UN report. And even if there was an equal and opposite claim by an equally respected international body... you and I both would still only be qualified to stand on the sidelines and watch the experts figure it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
180Bob Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Author: SENATOR JAMES INHOFE CHAIRMAN, SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE Im sure there is no spin or bias in that article. Again, find me one peer reviewed article. Piero, well done. Here's a reference to one that took me a whole two minutes to fined: Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics Volume 95, Issue 1-2, January 2007, Pages 115-121 Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years Zhen-Shan, L.Show author details, Xian, S.Show author details Correspondence address The School of Geographic Sciences, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, China Abstract A novel multi-timescale analysis method, Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD), is used to diagnose the variation of the annual mean temperature data of the global, Northern Hemisphere (NH) and China from 1881 to 2002. The results show that: (1) Temperature can be completely decomposed into four timescales quasi-periodic oscillations including an ENSO-like mode, a 6-8-year signal, a 20-year signal and a 60-year signal, as well as a trend. With each contributing ration of the quasi-periodicity discussed, the trend and the 60-year timescale oscillation of temperature variation are the most prominent. (2) It has been noticed that whether on century-scale or 60-year scales, the global temperature tends to descend in the coming 20 years. (3) On quasi 60-year timescale, temperature abrupt changes in China precede those in the global and NH, which provides a denotation for global climate changes. Signs also show a drop in temperature in China on century scale in the next 20 years. (4) The dominant contribution of CO2 concentration to global temperature variation is the trend. However, its influence weight on global temperature variation accounts for no more than 40.19%, smaller than those of the natural climate changes on the rest four timescales. Despite the increasing trend in atmospheric CO2 concentration, the patterns of 20-year and 60-year oscillation of global temperature are all in falling. Therefore, if CO2 concentration remains constant at present, the CO2 greenhouse effect will be deficient in counterchecking the natural cooling of global climate in the following 20 years. Even though the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to re-consider the trend of global climate changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drock59 Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 180Bob, thank you so much! Honestly, I have been waiting for someone to come up with 1. Im going to read this. First impression.....this is talking about a very brief period of time in terms of Earth's history, unless you believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Secondly, "Therefore, if CO2 concentration remains constant at present, the CO2 greenhouse effect will be deficient in counterchecking the natural cooling of global climate in the following 20 years." It wont remain constant if current trends in CO2 production continue....that is the problem methinks. I have stated what I disagree with the whole time...I disagree with humans causing global warming...I have listened to many people talk about global warming not being human's fault. Sure you have, agreed. However when someone presents a very specific argument you dismiss it without referencing anything. That is what I am not understanding. You simply want to try and make me look bad, so you keep questioning my logic, in hopes to making me look bad. For me, i just want to try and understand your logic. That is why I would like to have specific responses. Currently I am still not understanding how people are not buying into the overwhelming scientific, peer reviewed research. That is all I am trying to figure out. This comes from the guy who says, we as hobbyists, need to be more careful and not collect coral from the ocean, so that leads to tank raising, but then we are horrible people for using so much electricity, in order to have a lot of tanks to raise these frags in...You need to pick either or... and you said I was the one always personally attacking people. We have a mountain of peer reviewed evidence compared to proportionally very small amounts of "other" evidence, claiming global warming is happening and is human caused. . I dont understand how you cannot go with Science on this issue? No comprendo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reefgeek84 Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 180Bob, thank you so much! Honestly, I have been waiting for someone to come up with 1. Im going to read this. First impression.....this is talking about a very brief period of time in terms of Earth's history, unless you believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Secondly, "Therefore, if CO2 concentration remains constant at present, the CO2 greenhouse effect will be deficient in counterchecking the natural cooling of global climate in the following 20 years." It wont remain constant if current trends in CO2 production continue....that is the problem methinks. Sure you have, agreed. However when someone presents a very specific argument you dismiss it without referencing anything. That is what I am not understanding. For me, i just want to try and understand your logic. That is why I would like to have specific responses. Currently I am still not understanding how people are not buying into the overwhelming scientific, peer reviewed research. That is all I am trying to figure out. and you said I was the one always personally attacking people. We have a mountain of peer reviewed evidence compared to proportionally very small amounts of "other" evidence, claiming global warming is happening and is human caused. . I dont understand how you cannot go with Science on this issue? No comprendo. none of that was directed at you...I have left you alone, because you can read and have done that. I took a personal shot at peiro, because he does not read anything and only sees what he wants and he continues to try and make me look bad and stupid, but yet can not pull that off. You however have not, you have simply disagreed and you can not understand where I am coming from and you have left it at that. You have taken a couple of personal shots at me, but no hard feelings, you are competent and I will leave it at that... I disagree with your overwhelming community and peer reviewed evidence, because I have heard the same thing from the other side. You ask for people who I listen to...and I have named someone who is possibly losing their job over going against what you are saying. And he is at a very liberal school...OSU's climatologist, says it is natural warming and we have no impact on it. But yet, people still ask who these people are, and I have named them over and over. again, I have my evidence you have yours...I have listened to both sides and drawn my conclusions...not much more to understand besides that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drock59 Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 very liberal school I would have to argue this. There are some liberal areas of OSU but overall I would say it is VERY moderate. I disagree with your overwhelming community and peer reviewed evidence, because I have heard the same thing from the other side. How CAN you disagree.?.?..its out there on behalf of my view and not out there on behalf of your argument. I have my evidence you have yours...I have listened to both sides and drawn my conclusions...not much more to understand besides that... Surely there is! You are implying that all evidence is the same. That hearing someone talk about global warming is evidence, when in the scientific community, it is not. The type of evidence that we talk about and use is what sets us apart. That has been my bottom line from the get go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reefgeek84 Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 I would have to argue this. There are some liberal areas of OSU but overall I would say it is VERY moderate. How CAN you disagree.?.?..its out there on behalf of my view and not out there on behalf of your argument. Surely there is! You are implying that all evidence is the same. That hearing someone talk about global warming is evidence, when in the scientific community, it is not. The type of evidence that we talk about and use is what sets us apart. That has been my bottom line from the get go. how is multiple scientists, talking and writing books about it not happening and saying this is normal climate change, not scientific. There is more then one scientific community out there.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyenna Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 There is more then one scientific community out there.... Really? I'm a microbiology major, which one is more likely to hire me once I graduate? (scratch) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drock59 Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 There is more then one scientific community out there.... But there is the real scientific community that puts its work through the scrutiny of the peer review process. There may be some other "communities" out there but none that can pass for real science through the time tested and tried and true methods. that is my beef. The folks you listen to might have some really good stuff to say, why wont they get it peer reviewed? Maybe the conspiracy?!!!???! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.