The fundamental principles of science are (1) the physical universe is knowable and (2) everything we need (all of the evidence) that we need to know the universe exists EXCLUSIVELY within the physical universe. The scientific method then tells us what evidence we need, where we should look to find the evidence, and how to know (test) whether the evidence that we find is the correct evidence or false evidence.
Learning to become a scientist (i.e., learning scientific skepticism) means learning to trust what the science says the data mean – not what they seem to mean, should mean, or could mean – and that is all that they mean.
For example, regardless of how obvious, clear, simple, and certain plots of the last 18 years of temperature may seem to mean something – it is not scientific evidence of any change (up. down, or sideways) in overall global warming or in the atmospheric- or geo-physics that drive the process. It is evidence that for this temporal period surface land warming has slowed, surface sea temperature has slightly declined, and that lower tropospheric temperatures are parallel and slightly lower than land surface temperatures. However, it is not evidence of any explanation – nor does it say anything (because it does not contain any information) about the increase in deep ocean temperatures or the multiple lines of independent environmental evidence, including the various inter- and multi-decadal cyclical sources of variability.
Similarly, climate model temperature projections are not – and have never been – used as scientific evidence supporting AGW theory. On the other hand, model backcasted temperatures have been and are used that way. And the ever-popular “climate sensitivity” provides no information on long-term global temperature or the course it will follow.
=====
Raisin Caine –
>>There are levels of certainty. Scientists are far more certain that the first law of thermodynamics is correct then they are about string theory. <<
How so – especially since you are comparing things that are completely different?
The first Law of Thermodynamics is a simple equation that describes how energy behaves in a closed system at a macro level. It does not tell you anything about why it works or what it means. And even the law loses certainty at the quantum level.
Maybe a better example is Newton’s law of Universal Gravitation and Einstein’s Theory of Gravity. Newton’s Law describes the force attraction between two objects as a function of their mass product and inversely proportion to the squared distance between them, The equation also contains a variable G to account for the uncertainty when the law does not give quite the correct answer. Newton’s law also does not say what gravity is – or even if there is any such thing.
Einstein used Newton’s Law to develop a theory or gravity that explains what gravity is and how it works - hardly the same thing as Newton's law.
====
Jeff Engr –
>>Per my 8th Graders Science text book. elements of Scientific thinking. <<
Good point – since everything that most Deniers know about science they learned in the 7th or 8th grade. There is a reason that you do not see a lot of 13-and-14 year old scientists. And the fact that – unlike Denier’s – most 8th graders do not pretend to know more than they do certainly makes them both more honest and intelligent .
I would agree until your third paragraph. There are levels of certainty. Scientists are far more certain that the first law of thermodynamics is correct then they are about string theory.
I have no problem with uncertainty and dealing with uncertainty. That is why we have statistics, to deal with uncertainty. If there were no uncertainty, then we would simply have math.
My problem with AGW is simply that the uncertainty is not being stated. They use words like "a scientific study shows" and the headlines (what most people read) are horrific misinterpretations of the actual studied.
My other point of contention is with the scientists and that they are neither admitting to, nor dealing with their obvious bias. When you have 95% of your models overestiamating and almost all of your corrections to the data favoring warming, that is OBVIOUS BIAS.
Even some of the studies I have read. They have a study where the crop production was increasing, yet they seemed to want to show that AGW negatively affected crop production. So they took the derivative of crop production and treated it as the actual crop production. If they would have used the actual crop production, their results would ahve been the exact opposite of the results they obtained. Can you say BIAS?
So we have biased scientists placing out information that is already skewed towards warming, then we have the media taking the that information, taking the worst case scenarios and reporting it as if it is a certianty.
And all of this is used to justify actions. Some of those actions include spending 48 trillion dollars globally. TRILLION!!!! This is not chump change. This is not money we throw away because it MIGHT help. This is a serious commitment that takes money from other causes. Such decisions need unbiased and accurate data, not media-manipulated scare-mongering.
Edit:
Also, while the common sense approach does not always work in science, in my experience it works MUCH MORE than it doesn't. The acceleration of gravity being constant is not against common sense.
Gary F,
What are you talking about? The first law of thermodynamics does not lose certianty at the quantum level. It is shown false if at the quantum level, energy is either created or destroyed. this has never been shown to occur under any circumstance.
Your counter examples are no better and are indeed the same thing. A theory that boils down to an equation that does not explain what gravity actually is, jus tthe effect of gravity.
So why are you giving no better of a counter-example in such a manner as to suggest I stated something that was in error.
As far as our confidence in a theory, that has to do with how many experiments and how long the theory has been tested and not shown false. If you think for a minute scientists place as much faith in The Deep sea vents theory for the origin of life as they do Einstein's TOG, you would be dead wrong.
I also have more certainty that the earth revolves around the sun, than Hillary getting elected president. The fact that these are different does not obviate the comparison.
Also Einstein never explained what gravity is. There are still many theories abounding including gravity simply being anti-energy.
I think one problem I have with alarmists is that their willingness to be open to the possibility that they could be wrong seems to non-existent.
<<
I have stated similar things as well. Stating things as if they are factual rather than saying that they are based on such and such and or this theory is also extremely irritating to me and very unscientific. I personally don't reject AGW. I am skeptical of the amount and the harm.
(such as that light is both a particle and a wave)
I don't think you can state that. All you can say is that it behaves as both a particle and wave. That doesn't mean it is both a particle and a wave IMO
Does JC know who Ted Bundy is? Apparently he has mistaken him for someone else. He was a sociopathic serial killer. I must confess, I figured JC was a scientist, not that I agreed with him on everything, so I was surprised he said he wasn't. I think you can actually be a scientists without a degree if you have an interest and a scientific outlook. Maybe not technically but sometimes the degrees aren't worth the paper they are written on IMO.
I think that generally, you're right on.
I think that there's an interesting difference between AGW deniers, and those of us who are concerned about global warming.
AGW deniers don't want to be wrong.
People concerned about global warming would like to be wrong.
At least on some level.
It sure would be nice if we didn't have to worry about the consequences of burning fossil fuel.
Clearly it is warming, and we'd not be happy if there was a different cause that we couldn't change.
It sure would be nice if the warming that we've seen is just an abnormality, and would reverse itself w/o our having to do anything.
In that respect, we'd sure like to read that CO2 is not a problem.
While AGW deniers will refuse to believe anything that contradicts their, "It's not warming, or it's not our fault, or, we just can't fix it" view.
There's a difference when we're thinking about our own theories and someone else's idea.
When looking at someone else's idea, typically we want to know how it works, and what scientific principles it agrees with, or disagrees with. When we think about our own ideas, we tend to think about what additional implications there might be.
The discipline of "if" is difficult for some. Spoken andwritten premise of any deliberating of ideas is frightful to some, anxious for most, and for them, any suggestion of working from a conditional presumption is far from the sanctuary of human creativity tha t i value as a scientist.
It is crucial to make clear the premises of any utulization of scientific method at an onset of a healthy debate of integrities within it to be further interpretted. It is sciences greatest testimony that one can know without understanding as one can believe in truth and not know what it is exactly. We as careful violatorsof the sacred rely on thatthis is a sacred musing based on what could follow a well-placed if. If it wasn'tfor my name, i would hesitate to say that only if is sure. Trout?
Quote by John Dewey: “Scepticism: the mark and even the pose of the educated mind.”
Quote by Gerrit van der Lingen, scientist: “Being a scientist means being a skeptic.”
Flunky: You are so full of baloney that you could put a deli to shame. For instance, "When an idea that seems intuitively obvious (such as that heavier things inherently fall faster) is proven false, they should reject it."
OK CO2 controls the earth's temperature. True or false? For over a decade The Earth's temperature has fallen for over a decade.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
Yet during this same time period the CO2 has risen. Yet I don't see any of you yokels rejecting your totally debunked CO2 theory. So, according to your own formula, how scientific is that? Not very.
You also said, "It seems to me like a lot of people--particularly the kind who deny AGW--are deeply uncomfortable with that kind of uncertainty." Just who are you to judge whether I feel 'uncomfortable' about my stand. You are attempting to think for the true scientists and now you ineptly try to tell us what our emotions and thoughts are. Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! That has to do more with Psychology not the exact science you claim.
What does 'instinctive uncertainty have to do with exact science? I would suggest, nothing.
"Also, when confronted with an idea that seems absurd (such as that light is both a particle and a wave), they should accept it, as long as the evidence supports it."
Here is an absurdity put forth that great scientist Trevor,
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...
“Because CO2 reacts to temperature AND temperature reacts to CO2, it doesn’t matter which one increases first, the other will always follow. “
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! And yet you suggest that we all should bow down to that blow hard and accept his inane illogical bunch of crap!
You have proven that you are no scientist at all. I suggest you drop your phony communist teacher's teachings and break down and buy the Mr. Wizard series on DVD and then learn your basics. Then you might be able to come and run with the big dogs. You arrogant views are just too insane for a real scientist to even take halfway seriously.
The difference between a real scientist and the climate change deniers here is that scientists have a very keen understanding and appreciation for how much they don't know. Scientists are trained to be skeptics.
The geniuses clinging to the "It can't be Global Warming because I needed my blankee last night" have no clue about how much they don't know.
I agree with you, at first I believed in global warming because I just accepted what I was told, after some skeptics pooh poohed the idea I started to do some research, mainly with the idea of proving the skeptics wrong, however what I found out sowed seeds of doubt in my mind, and eventually I became a skeptic myself.
I agree there is still a huge amount of uncertainty over the climate change hypothesis, and not enough evidence to support it, there are now more than 20 scientific papers showing that the Earths sensitivity to CO2 is a lot less than previously thought http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/1... plus actual global temperatures are not rising (the hiatus) no tropical tropospherical hotspot has been observed, global sea ice is back to normal (slightly above average) sea level rise has not accelerated since the first reliable measurements have been taken (in fact they have slowed slightly since 2004.
The amount of uncertainty about AGW is now so big, that believers must be now feeling very uncomfortable.
Edit.
Chem if you continue to believe in a theory that does not have sufficient supporting evidence, that amounts to faith not science.
No I do not accept your musings as they relate to climate change. It is OK to accept an hypothesis without ALL information as long as confidence limits have been statistically determined via a sound SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Without this, it is unscientific to accept an hypothesis of man made CO2 as being the principal driver of rising temperature. Consequently, it is a COMPLETELY FALSE statement to claim any validity of this type. But this is what AGW advocates do every time attempts are made to obtain the abundance of scientific investigations into natural forcings of climate change needed to come anywhere close to deriving any meaningful level of confidence relative to man made CO2 impacts to temperate.
Top this off with the unrelenting spin, abuse, diversion from the issue, that always happens when this type of information if requested, and it makes it VERY, VERY, CLEAR that there is a massive rat in the system when it comes to the claims of AGW advocates. The spin is just noise to divert attention from the fact that no such valid science exists of this type.
Top this off with senior officials and decision makers in the IPCC being more economically and financially orientated people that objective scientists and it becomes clear that science is NOT the priority of that Organisation. Top that off with claims that all scientists are in agreement with and advocate AGW, when significant scepticism prevails (or dominates) amongst scientists, and a very distorted picture emerges.
Top all this off with the fact that both the Rothschild AND Rockefeller families that make up a very significant proportion of the global banking cartel have invested massive funds and divested from oil into renewable energy. This makes it very clear that BANKSTER money is behind everything to do with Climate Change. Top this off that any questions put to this effect in the global warming section of Yahoo Answers receives absolutely no response. So nothing whatsoever adds up. At the very least, it would be good if you and others here could explain this phenomenon of Bankster money flooding its way into Climate Change. Why on earth do BANKSTERS have principle financial interest in Climate Change?
https://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/in...
So no your musings are not acceptable. I like your ongoing motivation for what I think you think is a good, noble cause. But I also don't think you are as poor a scientist as the AGW claims that are made within this Climate Change section of Yahoo Answers. So something fishy is going on but I do not know what it is. I know good science when I see it and I certainly have not seen it here or associated with IPCC. I therefore just come to the conclusion that you and other AGW advocates here are DELUDED for whatever reason when it comes to the science of climate change.
I want to end by saying you ask excellent questions and contribute highly toward good discussion. This is good value. I do not agree with your views on the science of climate change and most definitely the carbon tax and industry control. Renewable energy can only be a good thing. I believe it is also possible to achieve free energy but this has been suppressed right throughout history by the very people (Banksters) that are financing and supporting AGW. Banksters seek metered energy and suppress whatever cannot be controlled with meters.
There is an abundance of information out in alternative media about Bankster control and energy. I will provide a link to the THRIVE movie below not because it is the best but it provides a decent summary of energy and its suppression. It is also well funded by Foster Gamble who chose to remove himself from Corporate controlled life with Proctor and Gamble and do something meaningful with his life and what he believed in.
Per my 8th Graders Science text book. elements of Scientific thinking.
- Curiosity
- Open minded
- Honest
- Skeptical
- Creative
As far as having "all of the facts". You are correct, we almost NEVER have "ALL" of the facts. This is where open minded, skeptical and creative come in. Yes you have to balance them and you always have to understand a very basic tenant in science.
In Science, NOTHING is EVER settled. Anyone who says otherwise is either undereducated or they are lying to you.
Being a good scientist requires a mental balancing act that I think doesn't come naturally to a lot of people. Ideally, a scientist never fully accepts any idea until they have all the facts. Since it's impossible to have *all* of the facts, and anyone living in the real world has to make decisions on the information they have available, a good scientist will treat the most likely conclusion (based on the evidence) as provisionally true, while keeping open to the possibility that they're wrong.
Also, when confronted with an idea that seems absurd (such as that light is both a particle and a wave), they should accept it, as long as the evidence supports it. When an idea that seems intuitively obvious (such as that heavier things inherently fall faster) is proven false, they should reject it. In either case, their beliefs should be based on the evidence, not "common sense".
It seems to me like a lot of people--particularly the kind who deny AGW--are deeply uncomfortable with that kind of uncertainty. This is probably at least part of why they reject AGW.
Do you agree or disagree with my musings? Do you think you're capable of that kind of instinctive uncertainty? Can we do anything to explain this issue to the people who fear uncertainty? Any other thoughts?
Sounds good, except it does not include most self-proclaimed 'scientists'.
Have you read H.P. Lovecraft? He nailed by saying that some things are too much for people to comprehend. We are limited, and so is our understanding. No matter the evidence.
I think you have a good sense of what it takes to be a scientist. Always go with the evidence, and if better evidence becomes available, go with the better evidence.
You're being a little more philosophical when the underlying theme is actually about people NOT thinking like scientists. But, the things that trip up scientists might be expected to double down on non-scientists on a much more basic level. Trying to account for variables, for example.
On a more fundamental level in the NOT thinking like a scientist theme, in many instances it is almost painfully obvious that very basic pieces of information are missing from conclusions-that are prematurely reached. Or not grasping time scales. Lack of any sort of familiarity with statistical analysis. Clear breakdowns in basic logic.
None of this means that Climate Science is sufficiently advanced to determine the course(s) of action that need to be followed for the next...five generations (for example) of humanity. And that is where politics begins to intrude. Climate aside, in the face of growing global population do we need to become more energy efficient? Do we need to become ever more vigilant about pollution? Do we need to attend more closely to things that foment conflict and confrontation as burgeoning populations of humans compete for space and resources? Do we need to manage our economies more carefully to adapt to the increasing costs associated with all of the issues that become more pressing as population increases, including the R&D that gives rise to the technology that will help accommodate the expotential increase in humanity?
HELL yes.
But it isn't a black and white issue, although some people want to make it so. In a rather obtuse way of illustrating, compare Ted Bundy and his ideological companions in their armed confrontation with the U.S. Government with recent protests elsewhere-Wall Street, Climate Change. Some would present Bundy as an heroic patriot and the other protestors as Communists. Others consider Bundly little less than a terrorist and their favored protestors as lovely, lovely people. And I suppose there is a middle ground that sees Bundy as someone who intends to profit off taxpayers money invested in the land he wants to use for free and the protestors who want to save the earth environmental hypocrites for mindlessly leaving mountains of trash in their wake. The middle ground is a little more nuanced than the over-simplified and more extreme ends of the spectrum. And for every group of people, from protestors of government extravagance and overreach to environmental activists, there are going to be scoundrels, thieves, slobs and general a******s. In fact, there are enough of them out there to create governments which eventually collapse under their own weight. Seeing everything in black and white accelerates that process, whether it is politics, economics, morality and ethics...or science.
So you raise interesting philosophical points-the psychology of the emotions that swirl around Climate Change are a different matter, which some very emotional people are in denial about (OMG, there it is again, that awful, awful word that so many people who claim to be so in control of their emotions get so bent out of shape over).
Technically, you raise some points I would have to mull over a little more, not being a scientist myself. But I would simplify your outlook on non-scientists a little more with one more example-I doubt that any real scientists think of climate as a microwave oven, where you push the CO2 button then click start and 30 seconds later the planet is defrosted. Or, in a more historical sense, that someone pushed the erosion button on a cosmic microwave, clicked start and 6,000 years later a mile deep canyon was cooked up. That isn't science at all, despite all the protests to the contrary.
CLIVEN Bundy. Not TED the serial killer. Oh Geez...that's embarrassing. Haha. Thanks JimZ for pointing that one out.
You know you are not a "true scientist," so good luck getting meaningful feedback here.
Your musings about scientists needing to be comfortable with uncertainty make sense.
It is also true that climate science probably has more uncertainty associated with it than most other branches of science. It is undoubtedly broader, more complicated and more interdisciplinary than most scientific fields.
And there are also far too many examples of intellectually lazy or mentally challenged environmentalists/"progressives" who make up or repeat wild exaggerations about climate change.
None of which excuses the many thousands of deliberately deceptive anti-science posts copy-pasted here from two-decades old fabrications and trickeries conceived and promulgated by fossil fuel industry funded and ideologically extreme front groups such as Marshall Institute.
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergenera...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_cha...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_o...
http://www.sharonlbegley.com/global-warm...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._M...
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011...
I was thinking about being a GW scientist as well. ill peer review your report, and you peer review mine. Ok?
We'll give each other high marks ok?
< 48 trillion dollars> is scaremongering.
