Meow, kitty! Could you please point out where I display my lack of understanding of the scientific method?
I think, you don't fully understand (or perhaps credit) the importance of consensus in science. The inherent belief behind the scientific method is that anyone who is correct will have a persuasive argument for their view merely by providing proofs. One person will provide some proof, others will read it and do additional research and in the end the majority of researchers will agree. Consensus is important because it is the final stage of scientific process.
Ten years ago, there was no GW scientific consensus. Now, there is. That is an important thing to note. It doesn't mean people (especially researchers) should just believe the consensus. And it doesn't mean that new research should be disregarded just because it conflicts with the consensus. What it does mean, is if you are not that interested in science (aka the vast majority of Americans) then now is a reasonable time to accept that GW is man-made.
You said there was no such thing as Microevolution. I disagreed and gave authoritative proof. Beyond that, we can argue the definition of the word "is" ad nausium. Or we could always fall back on the ol' "it's not a theory, it's a hypothesis!" argument. Or we could argue about the price of Sarah Palin's wardrobe.
These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the IPCC position that "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."
That's the consensus opinion. That's what it's been for a few years now. The consensus is that humans are likely the primary cause, and the certainty is strong enough that action should be taken to reduce greenhouse emissions. This new finding will undoubtedly produce new research, which is how the scientific method works. You like analogies, so how about I use the only one you seem to understand (I feel so dirty)?
By March 1938, people had enough information to know that Hitler was going to be trouble. There was consensus that he was dangerous, but everyone was too worried about the cost of acting. That's how we got WWII.
There you go, In global warming you are Neville Chamberlain; denying a problem even when it's obvious, because there is just enough doubt that you think you can wish the problem away.
Never, EVER go to Wikipedia on a controversial subject. It is worthless in such a case.
1) Form a testable hypothesis.
2) Construe experiments which will test the hypothesis.
3) Run experiments.
4) Examine results to discover if they prove or disprove your hypothesis
5) Publish the results.
Looks like someone is skipping step four, or at least ignoring the last part. And step 5 cannot be only selectively adhered to.
Is there confusion regarding what consensus is? Consensus is not the same as 100% agreement. It also does not mean (nor should it) that there are no dissenting opinions. That dissenting opinions have a voice is in fact essential. A similar argument is made against the consensus opinion of evolution.
Here's a longer list of scientists who's names are Steve, Stephanie, or some non-English equivalent who confirm evolution.
The consensus is clear, and the dissenting opinions are vitally important. The problem is, when dissenters behave as though there position is equally validated, and argue for equal time in public discussion and such. The public should be taught GW and evolution for the same reason it is taught relativity and quantum mechanics. Those who are truly fascinated should by all means read the less recognized dissenting opinions.
It doesn't mean people (especially researchers) should just believe the consensus. And it doesn't mean that new research should be disregarded just because it conflicts with the consensus.
It appears you now agree with my original statement that "consensus does not equal proof."
I guess that means like me you must not understand the scientific method.
It appears you now agree with my original statement that "consensus does not equal proof."
I guess that means like me you must not understand the scientific method.
Bah! You ignored the rest of my post about the implications of scientific consensus in how we should make policy decisions. That's what this entire debate is really about. On the one side are people who do not want a single carbon emissions tax or cap-and-trade until someone has literally traveled back in time and explained how we destroyed the world while the other side has people who think if the evidence is there we should be proactive because the cost of inaction will only be greater if we are wrong.
When I said you shouldn't just take the consensus for it's word, I meant that only if you have the intellectual curiosity, like Lamont (I think), to go out there and fully understanding consensus opinion first. This is why Robroy is so confused. Once you fully grasp consensus opinion, you won't believe statements like "There is no evidence that extra CO2 can trap extra heat" (that's an actual Robroy paraphrase).
To answer your question/assertion, in science there is no such thing as proof because the goal is a theory not a proof of something. A theory is the best model we have for how the world works. It should always be assumed a better more accurate model will be created in the future. Even if physicists were to produce a unified theory it would still be a model and not a proof. Even if that unified theory were tested in a trillion different ways and proven to be 100% accurate in every case, it would still be nothing more and nothing less than an excellent model, because you can never prove that the world works the way your model suggests it does. And that's why consensus around a theory is actually more valuable than a proof...because you can only make proofs in simple worlds like mathematics, whereas consensus around a theory allows you to make statistically likely decisions in a much more complex (real-world) environment.
Is there confusion regarding what consensus is? Consensus is not the same as 100% agreement. It also does not mean (nor should it) that there are no dissenting opinions. That dissenting opinions have a voice is in fact essential.
Yeah, I agree. I also believe we don't have consensus.
And some sort of consensus supported by actual facts is critical if one is going to use it as evidence for radically changing our culture/economy. That is what makes this so devisive today. Opinions are swell and should be treated with respect, until those opinions are used to justify kicking me out of my business and making me wear an armband.
Is there confusion regarding what consensus is? Consensus is not the same as 100% agreement. It also does not mean (nor should it) that there are no dissenting opinions. That dissenting opinions have a voice is in fact essential.
Yeah, I agree. I also believe we don't have consensus.
And some sort of consensus supported by actual facts is critical if one is going to use it as evidence for radically changing our culture/economy. That is what makes this so devisive today. Opinions are swell and should be treated with respect, until those opinions are used to justify kicking me out of my business and making me wear an armband.
Right, because environmentalists are Nazis. I get it already Rob. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a Nazi and wants to steal your stuff/beat you up/kill you/gas you/etc.
Sorry guys. The fact is that when this GW circle jerk became outed as the power (and money) grab that is is, people started noticing. You can have a consensus on the nuttiest stuff if nobody else really cares. It is more difficult, as they are finding out, when suddenly thinking people realise the stakes - that these people want to actually enact controlling LAWS based on this nonsense.
With every passing day, the "consensus" evaporates like a piece of dry ice on a hot sidewalk.
Sorry guys. The fact is that when this GW circle jerk became outed as the power (and money) grab that is is, people started noticing. You can have a consensus on the nuttiest stuff if nobody else really cares. It is more difficult, as they are finding out, when suddenly thinking people realise the stakes - that these people want to actually enact controlling LAWS based on this nonsense.
With every passing day, the "consensus" evaporates like a piece of dry ice on a hot sidewalk.
Sorry Robroy, you can be as deluded as Michael Jackson but nobody is going to listen to you even if you are "really super serious" about the matter.
You ignored the rest of my post about the implications of scientific consensus in how we should make policy decisions.
I didn't respond to it since I don't think we're in disagreement.
In my opinion, consensus is a double-edged sword. It allows you to make assumptions based off of previous work so you may more forward, and advance an idea you may have. However consensus often limits our thinking and hinders advancement. I think history can attest to that. The innovators are those who question and challenge consensus, instead of merely blindly going along, as we so often do. Breakthroughs often occur when one steps back, ignores consensus, and sees the problem in a completely different frame of mind. Today we're doing things that were considered impossible merely ten years ago because there are those who challenge long held beliefs. It is consensus that leads intelligent people to deride and even ostracize innovators, at least until experimental verification begins rolling in, then the consensus adjusts to accept these new ideas.
Again, I really don't think we disagree over this, but I think you may have interpreted my admonition as an attack.
Again, I really don't think we disagree over this, but I think you may have interpreted my admonition as an attack.
You are right, and I was wrong to launch into you. Sorry. There are some really nuts people on here, and somehow in scanning your original query I interpreted it as one of those kind. Yes, we are in agreement. To summarize, consensus is essential if we want to make progress, but it is also essential that some number of people continue to challenge the consensus.
Again, I really don't think we disagree over this, but I think you may have interpreted my admonition as an attack.
You are right, and I was wrong to launch into you. Sorry. There are some really nuts people on here, and somehow in scanning your original query I interpreted it as one of those kind. Yes, we are in agreement. To summarize, consensus is essential if we want to make progress, but it is also essential that some number of people continue to challenge the consensus.
As you can see by my photo here, that I certainly am not one of those nuts!
I just wanted to add that with the election settled, we will finally make some scientific progress in this country again. The Bush version was to encourage businesses to make incremental (read profitable) discoveries while discouraging most other inquisitive lines of investigation.
This article sums up nicely one of the most important reasons for electing Obama, which most American's probably don't even realize was important at all.
Also, the author of The Republican War On Science declares Mission Accomplished.
I just wanted to add that with the election settled, we will finally make some scientific progress in this country again. The Bush version was to encourage businesses to make incremental (read profitable) discoveries while discouraging most other inquisitive lines of investigation.
This article sums up nicely one of the most important reasons for electing Obama, which most American's probably don't even realize was important at all.
Also, the author of The Republican War On Science declares Mission Accomplished.
Few people really realize how important this issue is, not just for progress sake, but also for the economic future of our country.
My sister in law does research on the dogs at Fred Hutch. Even though human embryonic stem cell research is illegal, the research is not illegal on dogs. They are so far ahead right now on stem cell research that by the time it becomes legal, embryonic stem cells may not even be necessary, because they've been able to make stem cells without embryos at Hutch.
Few people really realize how important this issue is, not just for progress sake, but also for the economic future of our country.
I think the problem is simply that the average citizen does not realize the long time frame required to turn cutting edge research into the kind of advancements that create jobs and improve our world. That timeline is generally in the range of 30 years. All the internet/cellphone technology that has revolutionized our lives the last 10 years came out of 1970s research. We won't really see the harm done on this front during the Bush administration for probably another 15+ years.
Regardless, I personally am relieved that we're breaking through again.
Few people really realize how important this issue is, not just for progress sake, but also for the economic future of our country.
I think the problem is simply that the average citizen does not realize the long time frame required to turn cutting edge research into the kind of advancements that create jobs and improve our world. That timeline is generally in the range of 30 years. All the internet/cellphone technology that has revolutionized our lives the last 10 years came out of 1970s research. We won't really see the harm done on this front during the Bush administration for probably another 15+ years.
Regardless, I personally am relieved that we're breaking through again.
Yeah, me too. People in general tend to be very short-sighted. Sort of a hand to mouth mentality most people tend to have.
This mentality is what led to our banking crisis after all. Execs worried about current bonuses and golden parachutes rather than the long term financial stability of the company.
Comments
Meow, kitty! Could you please point out where I display my lack of understanding of the scientific method?
I think, you don't fully understand (or perhaps credit) the importance of consensus in science. The inherent belief behind the scientific method is that anyone who is correct will have a persuasive argument for their view merely by providing proofs. One person will provide some proof, others will read it and do additional research and in the end the majority of researchers will agree. Consensus is important because it is the final stage of scientific process.
Ten years ago, there was no GW scientific consensus. Now, there is. That is an important thing to note. It doesn't mean people (especially researchers) should just believe the consensus. And it doesn't mean that new research should be disregarded just because it conflicts with the consensus. What it does mean, is if you are not that interested in science (aka the vast majority of Americans) then now is a reasonable time to accept that GW is man-made.
One of these things is not like the others...
http://nov55.com/gbwm.html
And a favorite of mine, peer review:
http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2003/2/1-2/de ... policy.php
http://nov55.com/prv.html
http://landshape.org/enm/peer-censorshi ... fic-fraud/
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/?cat=5
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show ... 6495.shtml
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/resu ... rtId=17568
http://tadcronn.wordpress.com/2008/05/2 ... -disagree/
http://www.theclimatescam.com/tag/consensus/
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=41
In a previous post, RCC said:
Looks like someone is skipping step four, or at least ignoring the last part. And step 5 cannot be only selectively adhered to.
But then, nobody wants to lose that grant money!
Is there confusion regarding what consensus is? Consensus is not the same as 100% agreement. It also does not mean (nor should it) that there are no dissenting opinions. That dissenting opinions have a voice is in fact essential. A similar argument is made against the consensus opinion of evolution.
Here's a well publicized list of a small number of scientists who dissent.
Here's a longer list of scientists who's names are Steve, Stephanie, or some non-English equivalent who confirm evolution.
The consensus is clear, and the dissenting opinions are vitally important. The problem is, when dissenters behave as though there position is equally validated, and argue for equal time in public discussion and such. The public should be taught GW and evolution for the same reason it is taught relativity and quantum mechanics. Those who are truly fascinated should by all means read the less recognized dissenting opinions.
It appears you now agree with my original statement that "consensus does not equal proof."
I guess that means like me you must not understand the scientific method.
Bah! You ignored the rest of my post about the implications of scientific consensus in how we should make policy decisions. That's what this entire debate is really about. On the one side are people who do not want a single carbon emissions tax or cap-and-trade until someone has literally traveled back in time and explained how we destroyed the world while the other side has people who think if the evidence is there we should be proactive because the cost of inaction will only be greater if we are wrong.
When I said you shouldn't just take the consensus for it's word, I meant that only if you have the intellectual curiosity, like Lamont (I think), to go out there and fully understanding consensus opinion first. This is why Robroy is so confused. Once you fully grasp consensus opinion, you won't believe statements like "There is no evidence that extra CO2 can trap extra heat" (that's an actual Robroy paraphrase).
To answer your question/assertion, in science there is no such thing as proof because the goal is a theory not a proof of something. A theory is the best model we have for how the world works. It should always be assumed a better more accurate model will be created in the future. Even if physicists were to produce a unified theory it would still be a model and not a proof. Even if that unified theory were tested in a trillion different ways and proven to be 100% accurate in every case, it would still be nothing more and nothing less than an excellent model, because you can never prove that the world works the way your model suggests it does. And that's why consensus around a theory is actually more valuable than a proof...because you can only make proofs in simple worlds like mathematics, whereas consensus around a theory allows you to make statistically likely decisions in a much more complex (real-world) environment.
Yeah, I agree. I also believe we don't have consensus.
And some sort of consensus supported by actual facts is critical if one is going to use it as evidence for radically changing our culture/economy. That is what makes this so devisive today. Opinions are swell and should be treated with respect, until those opinions are used to justify kicking me out of my business and making me wear an armband.
Right, because environmentalists are Nazis. I get it already Rob. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a Nazi and wants to steal your stuff/beat you up/kill you/gas you/etc.
pffft
TheMightyQuinn, this is the attitude I was worried about, not people doing real research.
With every passing day, the "consensus" evaporates like a piece of dry ice on a hot sidewalk.
Sorry Robroy, you can be as deluded as Michael Jackson but nobody is going to listen to you even if you are "really super serious" about the matter.
I didn't respond to it since I don't think we're in disagreement.
In my opinion, consensus is a double-edged sword. It allows you to make assumptions based off of previous work so you may more forward, and advance an idea you may have. However consensus often limits our thinking and hinders advancement. I think history can attest to that. The innovators are those who question and challenge consensus, instead of merely blindly going along, as we so often do. Breakthroughs often occur when one steps back, ignores consensus, and sees the problem in a completely different frame of mind. Today we're doing things that were considered impossible merely ten years ago because there are those who challenge long held beliefs. It is consensus that leads intelligent people to deride and even ostracize innovators, at least until experimental verification begins rolling in, then the consensus adjusts to accept these new ideas.
Again, I really don't think we disagree over this, but I think you may have interpreted my admonition as an attack.
You are right, and I was wrong to launch into you. Sorry. There are some really nuts people on here, and somehow in scanning your original query I interpreted it as one of those kind. Yes, we are in agreement. To summarize, consensus is essential if we want to make progress, but it is also essential that some number of people continue to challenge the consensus.
Robroy, that's definitely not you. The guy in the photo is unarmed and thus unprepared for the imminent Nazi invasion.
I'm pretty sure this is you:
LMAO
Any proper Pythonite knows that's Tarquin Fintimlinbinwhinbimlim Bus Stop F'tang
F'tang Ole Biscuit-Barrel (Silly Party). Good post for election day!
This article sums up nicely one of the most important reasons for electing Obama, which most American's probably don't even realize was important at all.
Also, the author of The Republican War On Science declares Mission Accomplished.
Few people really realize how important this issue is, not just for progress sake, but also for the economic future of our country.
My sister in law does research on the dogs at Fred Hutch. Even though human embryonic stem cell research is illegal, the research is not illegal on dogs. They are so far ahead right now on stem cell research that by the time it becomes legal, embryonic stem cells may not even be necessary, because they've been able to make stem cells without embryos at Hutch.
I think the problem is simply that the average citizen does not realize the long time frame required to turn cutting edge research into the kind of advancements that create jobs and improve our world. That timeline is generally in the range of 30 years. All the internet/cellphone technology that has revolutionized our lives the last 10 years came out of 1970s research. We won't really see the harm done on this front during the Bush administration for probably another 15+ years.
Regardless, I personally am relieved that we're breaking through again.
Yeah, me too. People in general tend to be very short-sighted. Sort of a hand to mouth mentality most people tend to have.
This mentality is what led to our banking crisis after all. Execs worried about current bonuses and golden parachutes rather than the long term financial stability of the company.