An inconvenient truth

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Flint

Science?

No, grant money.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Flint

Science?

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

No, grant money.

To do . . . science ???

[Hippikos]

Originally Posted by Flint

To do . . . science ???

Opposed to what you think, many scientists are not as objective as they should be...

[xoxoxoBruce]

TW, you were wrong on Oct 2nd at 1603 hours and you still are. You link to a chart with nothing to back it up. Cherry picking an unsubstantiated chart, even if it shows what I've been saying all along about the natural swings in the temperature, is not evidence. It's bullshit, you keep telling the same lie over and over, hoping to convince people by repetition, just like Bush & Company.
How about some real evidence, if you believe that chart, back it up. Where do you get the temperature, 400,000 years ago within 5 degrees? One wild ass guess is not evidence. That's why there is only a chart and nothing to back it up. Ignore the numbers? Yes, when they come without evidence.
Show me the evidence, Rush. :p

Why is that chart an attachment, but linked to, like it was in an article somewhere other than here?

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Opposed to what you think, many scientists are not as objective as they should be...

That's why we have peer review. Bad science will be exposed and dis-credited.
The scientific community is a self-correcting system with an expansive web of checks and balances.

In order to for "science" to have a "bias" it would require a monolithic agreement among 100% of all scientists, to "pretend" to have proven something and "fool" the rest of us. That's a laughable premise. Occam's Razor...

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Flint

That's why we have peer review. Bad science will be exposed and dis-credited.

Peer reviewers have their own agendas, hobby horses, and pet theories, and woe be to the researcher who presents solid research that goes against conventional wisdom.

Most of those articles don't see print.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by wolf

Peer reviewers have their own agendas, hobby horses, and pet theories...

I don't dispute that. However, statistically, the system is designed to root out flawed ideas (eventually).

I just read an interesting bit in Scientific American, in a review of two books which are critical of String Theory, which said that young Physiscists who don't even believe in String Theory, feel pressured to pursue it, because they feel they can get a Professorship that way. Apparently "that's the way the wind blows" by and large in the scientific community, right now. However, the fact that people are writing books expressly to criticize String Theory, and the books are getting press in Scientific American, indicates, to me, that a shift is taking place. In other words, science, the institution in principle, is rising above science, the institution in practice, exactly as it is designed to do.

Originally Posted by wolf

...woe be to the researcher who presents solid research that goes against conventional wisdom.

I don't dispute that, either. Science, like all human endeavors, can move at a glacial pace.

However, another thing that happens alot is something like an untrained hobbyist claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine in his garage, and then complains that the scientific community won't take him seriously. Usually there are fundamental errors in this type of "research" that a first-year college student could spot from a mile away. (Not to say that the guy might not be right, and the college coursework might be wrong, and this might all come to light, eventually...)

Also, another thing that happens alot is that those who criticize science as having an "agenda" have an even bigger agenda themselves.
Such as: religious dogmatists attacking evolution, etc. etc. etc.

[Flint]

So...your point was...???

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Opposed to what you think, many scientists are not as objective as they should be...

Remember this? We were discussing the inner workings of the scientific community. Then you dumped a copy/paste about "the impact of solar eruptions on weather and climate" with no commentary as to how you feel this relates to the subject at hand, or explanation as to which subject you were commenting on, and I've asked you to clarify but you refuse. ...oookay...nice talkin' to ya :::wanders off:::

[Hippikos]

Remember this? We were discussing the inner workings of the scientific community. Then you dumped a copy/paste about "the impact of solar eruptions on weather and climate" with no commentary as to how you feel this relates to the subject at hand, or explanation as to which subject you were commenting on, and I've asked you to clarify but you refuse. ...oookay...nice talkin' to ya :::wanders off:::

Oh... I'm sorry Flint dear, did you feel left out? For my intermediate message, please read the thread title.

[Hippikos]

I know that and many reports used are not peer reviewed. And what does peer review means if peers themselves don't know? I remember Hawking's theory was widely peer reviewed and accepted, however he was forced to admit decades later that his theory was incorrect. Hawking's persona has been constructed and marketed, his story manipulated and controlled, for the purpose of his own glorification and selling his book, and this has occurred, as it could only occur, with his cooperation or at least acquiescence. Many scientists do have their own agenda, being it glorification or or for monetary reasons.

The scientific community is a self-correcting system with an expansive web of checks and balances.

To be correct, one has to be sure what's right and as far as I know re global warming everything is still out.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

And what does peer review means if peers themselves don't know?

It means the chance of mistakes being discovered is statistically much greater when information is widely distributed.

Originally Posted by Hippikos

I remember Hawking's theory was widely peer reviewed and accepted, however he was forced to admit decades later that his theory was incorrect.

Chalk one up for the system working! Rather than hanging on to entrenched ideas, when they were found to be incorrect, they were rejected.

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Many scientists do have their own agenda, being it glorification or or for monetary reasons.

And their public shame will be that much greater when their science is found to be faulty. There is no Hollywood career for these guys.

[Hippikos]

The editors of the journal Science (2002), however, comment on the increasing number of publications that point to varying solar activity as a strong factor in climate change: “As more and more wiggles matching the waxing and waning of the sun show up in records of past climate, researchers are grudgingly taking the sun seriously as a factor in climate change. They have included solar variability in their simulations of the past century's warming. And the sun seems to have played a pivotal role in triggering droughts and cold snaps.”

The impact of solar eruptions on weather and climate:





New Ice Age in 2030?

[headsplice]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

To be correct, one has to be sure what's right and as far as I know re global warming everything is still out.

Here's the real problem:
climactic research is incredibly complex. There are literally millions of variables that make up global climatalogical changes, which are built on suppositions of regional climatological changes.
Earlier, when I stated that there isn't any causational proof, but there is correlational, this is what I meant:
There are lots of things that are changing on our planet extremely quickly (as such things go): receding glaciers (Mt. Kilamanjaro no longer has a white peak), increasing land and sea surface temperatures, increasing deep-sea temperatures. Simultaneously, there is also proof that the particulate count of CO2 is way higher than it's ever been, and THAT is a direct result of humans burning petroleum and petroleum-based products. So, you have Trend's A-Q (measurable environmental issues) and Trend Z (increase in SO2) and Trend Z should affect the others. However, since there isn't direct causational proof, scientists won't say that's true (that's how science works). The fact that Trend Z is still the most likely cause of the others.
The lack of proof comes down to the fact that all of this data is interpreted and modeled on computers, and we won't get 'real' proof (i.e., more data to prove or disprove the modelling data) until our environment is well and truly fucked because that's how research works.
Oh, and here's some links for people to peruse (a warning, like most scientific data, IT DOES NOT DRAW CONCLUSIONS. It states the data and explains a lot of what I just said, in different language):
Woods Hole Research Center
NOAA's global warming FAQ
National Academies of Science
There's lots more info inside those links. Enjoy!

[Flint]

Cool, you can <Ctrl+V>

[Hippikos]

It means the chance of mistakes being discovered is statistically much greater when information is widely distributed.

That took 20 years! And I remember those who doubted Hawking's theories were widely ridiculed same as those who currently question the "climate change" (many scientists changed from "global warming" already years ago).

And their public shame will be that much greater when their science is found to be faulty. There is no Hollywood career for these guys.

Well there ya go! Remember Fleischmann and Pons? They had their agenda....