It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fewer Than 1 Percent Of Papers in Scientific Journals Follow Scientific Method

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2017 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Outlier13

Byrd - the first part of your post I tend to agree with. There must be multiple verifiable methods versus a single method. However, with respects to a scientist claiming a direct correlation to man and substantial impact on global climate change you are talking about a causation approach which can only be verified via the scientific method.

That is exactly what the "Scientific Method" is that the article in the OP is talking about. It's very clear that they don't understand which research methodologies are used and how they are used.


They must prove causation.

They have. But not by the "scientific method" which is the wrong method.


The purpose of my OP is it has been proven that the majority of "scientific claims" where causation is the premise there has been no verifiable or repeatable evidence to support those claims.


...again, which indicates that these people don't actually understand how science is done.

To do it the way they're talking about, you need several hundred Earths including an uninhabited one. Instead you use other methodologies (including investigations of smaller areas), local research, and a lot of other things which demonstrate human impact (and not in a positive way) on smaller and larger areas.

In order to aggregate this kind of information (which shows through observational science what kinds of changes have happened) and analyze it, you have to do climatology, which involves a science called chaos theory. This gets into concepts like fractals and concepts like "the coastal paradox"

You can't do the "scientific method" on fractals or chaotic systems.

You have to do another method to determine if they are true or not.

Saying "it doesn't meet the scientific method" is like saying "concrete is something you can't ever cut because you can't cut it with a steak knife."

You don't use steak knives to cut concrete. You don't use "the scientific method" to study weather.




posted on Apr, 12 2017 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Greven
The memo got a few things right and a few things wrong.

Yes. Climate Change is a subject that can seize the imagination of persons normally indifferent to projects of apocalyptic change.

No. There was not a 25 percent increase in C02 by the year 2000, it was more like 14 percent. In the memo's defence, the paper referenced by the memo does indicate 14 percent was the low estimate for the year 2000, so they did get it right.

No. The temperature has not risen 7 degrees.

No. The Sea level has not risen 10 feet, there has been no change in the rate of increase at the tidal stations.

At least thats better than the apocalyptic predictions in the video that talk about sea level changes of 150 feet lmfao.




Here's the report "Restoring the Quality of the Environment' if you are interested. Well worth a read.
It's from 1965 and talks about C02.
link

Maybe you should read the thread I linked in the post you quote.

I covered much of that there, along with the report it was based on.

The memo references figures 1950s reports, so uh... 25% was actually exceeded.

The 7 degrees Fahrenheit increase is mis-characterized in the memo - the range was 0.6 Celsius to 4 Celsius increase, and we met the 0.6 Celsius increase, albeit just barely.

I don't even know where the 10 ft of sea level rise comes from - I don't believe that to be in the report.

Regarding the apocalyptic 150 feet of sea level rise...? Yeah uh, sea levels have been 200 feet higher... note, the video didn't say when it would happen - it's a slow process.
edit on 18Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:55:37 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago4 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2017 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
The majority of papers draw no conclusion as to the cause because there just isn't enough evidence to draw a conclusion.


This isn't correct. The majority of papers on climate change are about the impact of climate change since it's already a given that humans are causing it. So you don't get a million papers on "how humans are causing climate change" but instead you get papers like:



  • Li, Li‐Juan, et al. "Assessing the impact of climate variability and human activities on streamflow from the Wuding River basin in China." Hydrological processes 21.25 (2007): 3485-3491.
  • Kalkstein, Laurence S. "A new approach to evaluate the impact of climate on human mortality." Environmental health perspectives 96 (1991): 145.[/li]
  • Stebich, Martina, et al. "Vegetation history, human impact and climate change during the last 700 years recorded in annually laminated sediments of Lac Pavin, France." Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 133.1 (2005): 115-133.
  • Zillén, Lovisa, et al. "Past occurrences of hypoxia in the Baltic Sea and the role of climate variability, environmental change and human impact." Earth-Science Reviews 91.1 (2008): 77-92.
  • Bargagli, Roberto. Antarctic ecosystems: environmental contamination, climate change, and human impact. Vol. 175. Springer Science & Business Media, 2006.

(etc)

And they all start with the premise that "humans are causing climate change."


Then they take the minority papers and state something like "90% of the papers that state an opinion as to the cause of global warming attribute humans as a significant contributor."

I used a neutral search engine (scholar.google.com) and entered "human impact on climate". I get over 3 million results.


However, in a scientific frame of reference, "significant" basically just means non-zero. It doesn't mean it's a lot. 1% is significant, it means you can't ignore it in your calculations, but it doesn't mean it's the crux of the issue.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Here's an article explaining it in fairly simple terms I know that AGW worshipers will claim the source can't be trusted and that I'm lying or don't understand it, but if you read it with an open mind and actually read the studies for yourself, you'll see what they're saying makes perfect sense. It's a classic case of manipulating statistics to say what you want.

I checked out what he said, and checked HIS sources and then looked at the paper by Cook, which analyzed 11, 944 papers written by 29,083 authors that were published in 1980 journals. Cook's paper is here.

As he says, the discussion of whether "do humans cause climate change" is not an ongoing one because it's accepted that we do (as he says in the conclusion and as I said above, it's a "consensus situations where scientists '...generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees'."

The guy in the Forbes article (and the other article he quotes) clearly didn't read that part.



posted on Apr, 12 2017 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr



No alarming sea level rise
You find this alarming?
No statistically significant change in the rate of sea level rise in a century.





No alarming temperature rise
The CRU graph. Note that it is calibrated in tenths of a degree Celsius and that even that tiny amount of warming started long before the late 20th century. The horizontal line is totally arbitrary, just a visual trick. The whole graph would be a horizontal line if it were calibrated in whole degrees.





No alarming increase in hurricanes



early prediction from flawed climate models.
You don't need models to show that hurricanes are not on the increase.
Accumulated Cylone Energy




Most definitely an increase especially in the troposphere .
Heres the raw data if you want to check it out found this interesting
There appears to be only 15 years of data there, 30 years is the minimum for making a correlation with climate.
This is what the IPCC has to say.

The IPCC fifth assessment report concluded "Although there have been substantial methodological debates about the calculation of trends and their uncertainty, a 95% confidence interval of around ±0.1°C per decade has been obtained consistently for both LT and MT (e.g., Section 2.4.4; McKitrick et al., 2010). In summary, despite unanimous agreement on the sign of the observed trends, there exists substantial disagreement between available estimates as to the rate of temperature changes in the tropical troposphere, and there is only low confidence in the rate of change and its vertical structure."




Well ive seen studies that say mankind is somewhere between 25 and 30 percent of the co2 emissions. We know it does indeed effect climate were still learning to what extent. However if we know it makes changes shouldnt we try to limit the amount we produce and not hope and pray the earth can handle it?
Where?
The IPCC in 2001 gave us an idea of how much on a per year basis was released by manmade sources as opposed to natural sources.

The IPCC 2001 estimations (Table 3) of total sources and absorption of CO2, the IPCC gives Natural sources as 770,000 MMT and Anthro sources as 23,100 MMT for the 90s.

Another way of looking at that is that 97 out of 100 C02 molecules agree, they are not man made.
edit on 12-4-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2017 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

You have a misunderstanding of the purpose of the scientific method. The idea that man dramatically impacts and ultimately alters the global weather patterns of Earth is precisely why you would use the scientific method. To test those ideas. That is the primary purpose of the scientific method. To test ideas. Any research that does not follow scientific methods is doomed to fail as authenticity of the results does not stand chance against scientific inquiry and analysis.

You are citing micro climate studies on areas heavily trafficked and 100% occupied by humans. That's a pretty poor example considering humans only inhabit between 7-11% of the Earth's surface. With up to 90% covered by oceans, deserts, ice, plains, and rain forests.

The point these guys are making is pretty clear and simple. We have climate scientists making claims that are unsubstantiated . Last time I checked for a scientific claim to carry weight it had to pass the scrutiny of the scientific method and peer review to substantiate the claims. Again, the burden is on the climate scientists to prove causation because they are the only ones making these ridiculous claims.

edit on 12-4-2017 by Outlier13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 12:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Outlier13

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: The GUT

False.
On both counts.


You're either trolling or genuinely know nothing about the global warming agenda and especially Al Gore.

You think Al Gore came up with climate change?

WH Memo 9/17/1969: "It is now pretty clearly agreed that the C02 content will rise 25% by 2000.”

Older still is this 1958 video about it - Al Gore was all of 10 years old when this aired:


Another lib who cannot connect the dots proving most people only comprehend 60% of what they read. The operative word in my sentence is "agenda". Al Gore falsely promoted "man made global warming". That was the moniker at that time. "Climate change" is the most recent moniker now used by the left. No one denies climate change because climate change is naturally occurring. The Earth has been undergoing climate change since its birth.

None of you libs genuinely know what ole Al has been up to do you? It's amazing how obtusely blind people want to be.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

Yeah you're completely misunderstanding what's going on here. Your google scholar results? Really? Ok, punch in "climate change naturally occuring" and you get nearly 3 million results. It's ok, you can admit that was the wrong road to take.

The quote you're pointing out is Cook trying to cover his ass because he knows it's going to be glaringly obvious to anyone who reads his biased nonsense that he threw out the vast majority of the papers because they don't toe the line. There are scientists quoted in the article complaining that Cook conveniently didn't include their dissenting papers and misrepresented their conclusions in their papers that he did include. He arbitrarily grouped papers into categories that he himself defined, for his own purposes. It's a bogus study, plain and simple. If you analyze others that purport to survey papers on the subject they all use similar methodology to produce this bogus result. The new trick now is starting from the premise that humans are causing it because if they had to prove humans are causing it they can't, so they just skip that part.

Step away from the altar.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Outlier13

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Outlier13

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: The GUT

False.
On both counts.


You're either trolling or genuinely know nothing about the global warming agenda and especially Al Gore.

You think Al Gore came up with climate change?

WH Memo 9/17/1969: "It is now pretty clearly agreed that the C02 content will rise 25% by 2000.”

Older still is this 1958 video about it - Al Gore was all of 10 years old when this aired:


Another lib who cannot connect the dots proving most people only comprehend 60% of what they read. The operative word in my sentence is "agenda". Al Gore falsely promoted "man made global warming". That was the moniker at that time. "Climate change" is the most recent moniker now used by the left. No one denies climate change because climate change is naturally occurring. The Earth has been undergoing climate change since its birth.

None of you libs genuinely know what ole Al has been up to do you? It's amazing how obtusely blind people want to be.

A) I'm not a "lib"
B) Not everyone who disagrees with you is the 'other.'
C) This isn't the Mud Pit and you are slinging insults without regard to fact.
D) It's always been broadly called 'climate change' - you know the IPCC? Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? Founded in 1988 under that name. Other things related to the topic were founded even earlier.

You do not care about facts and reality. I would suggest that it is you who are 'obtusely blind' as you put it.

It's clear you didn't watch the video, because you're babbling on about Al Gore still. Do you know what that video says? It says we, yes we humans, have altered the chemistry of the atmosphere by dumping CO2 into it the atmosphere, leading to warming and fairly dire predictions.

Who else did that? Oh, hm... guess that was Al Gore. But I don't think a 10yr old was behind that video in 1958.
edit on 22Thu, 13 Apr 2017 22:26:49 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago4 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 10:14 PM
link   
LOL

You had me until I did a double take and saw it was from the Heartland Institute. That's very biased in favor of oil and coal companies. That's probably the worst thing you could quote about anything scientific.

It would be like asking Bill Cosby for dating advice or Jeffrey Dhamer for advice on how to eat healthy or United Airlines on how to generate good PR to increase profits. LOL



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Whats from The Heartland Institute?



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Hold on chief. You're the one creating thread drift with your Gore reference. If you can't handle the rhetoric then don't troll the thread. And you for sure are a lib if you have even the slightest bit of support for the BS Gore has been promoting for the past decade +. The guy is so full of BS. This thread has nothing to do with Al Gore, however, you prove the point of the entire thread by referencing ole Al because none of the BS he promotes has EVER been supported by verified science.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 11:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Outlier13
a reply to: Greven

Hold on chief. You're the one creating thread drift with your Gore reference. If you can't handle the rhetoric then don't troll the thread. And you for sure are a lib if you have even the slightest bit of support for the BS Gore has been promoting for the past decade +. The guy is so full of BS. This thread has nothing to do with Al Gore, however, you prove the point of the entire thread by referencing ole Al because none of the BS he promotes has EVER been supported by verified science.

Are you serious?

I don't give a # about Gore, 'chief,' but many of your posts in this thread mention him - so I don't see how I am behind thread drift here:

originally posted by: Outlier13

Ask Al Gore. He can give you tons of "scientific evidence".


originally posted by: Outlier13
You're either trolling or genuinely know nothing about the global warming agenda and especially Al Gore.


originally posted by: Outlier13
Gore is worse than a shill. He's the guy that starts a windshield repair business and walks around parking lots cracking people's windshields while leaving his business card under their wiper blade.

Hmm, let's see... that was the first page of this thread?

originally posted by: Outlier13
Oh, I already gave you the BEST example. Your buddy Al Gore. And since you self admittedly know more about ol' Al than anyone else then by default you already have access to all the "scientific evidence" you could ask for. What part of this are you not comprehending?


originally posted by: Outlier13
My responding with the Al Gore reference is all you need to know. Since you self admittedly know Al Gore better than me then why would I spend time reiterating what it is you already know? If you know Al Gore better than me then what could I possibly contribute that would ad to what you already know? Eh?

Al Gore is so full of BS and has long promoted a false narrative to serve a massive global agenda. Gore has personally profited off of this false narrative for a very long time. I don't need to provide evidence of this because it's in the public domain free for your reading pleasure. He is hypocrisy personified. But this thread isn't about ol' Al and his hypocrisy. It's about the glaring fact that if you don't employ the scientific method when promoting "scientific evidence" then you don't have any evidence at all. Regardless of the subject matter. It's all just BS.

You seem quite obsessed with the man for some reason.

My point is that 'climate change' is a very old subject, predating his involvement in it. It isn't 'his' thing, as it seems like you believe - given your repeated mention of him.

Human-induced climate change is fairly simple to understand from physics:
The Sun emits radiation, some of which strikes the Earth.
Some of this radiation is reflected, but much is absorbed by the surface and then re-emitted.
The Earth is much cooler than the Sun, so the radiation is at longer (less-energetic) wavelengths.
We know from observation that this happens.

We also know from observation that carbon dioxide, water vapor, and methane (among other things) absorb some of this re-emitted radiation in the infrared range. Without this effect, we wouldn't have weather; indeed, we probably wouldn't be around - the atmosphere would be more uniform in temperature, but that temperature would be 255 K (-18C) (Stefan-Boltzmann law).

That absorbed infrared radiation is partially sent back towards the surface. This is the greenhouse effect, which alters the distribution of heat in the atmosphere towards the surface, giving us quite a bit higher surface temperature than we ought to have. If you look at any measurement of the stratosphere, although you won't find it publicized much, you will also see a corresponding trend of decreasing temperature there.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is essentially beyond reproach, that's why it's a law. We have observed the greenhouse effect from space and through spectography. There is no real debate on the matter of more CO2 = warmer surface temperatures, nor is there a real debate on whether or not we are emitting enormous quantities of CO2 - we are.

Again, you're naive notion that I must be some 'lib' because I disagree with your position is simply absurd. Based on your posts in this thread and then this last post, well... it's kind of insane.
edit on 23Thu, 13 Apr 2017 23:43:19 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago4 by Greven because: missed a Gore!



posted on Apr, 14 2017 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven
Not sure if you are aware of the woodfortrees website?

Has most all of the datasets, tools for analysis and graphing of time series data, and an interactive graph generator where you can play with different ways of analysing data.

Thought you might like to take a look.

Link




posted on Apr, 14 2017 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
The Stefan-Boltzmann law is essentially beyond reproach, that's why it's a law.


If I may suggest, it would be wise to be careful with this type of assertion. There's a common misconception among the public that in science a law is on firmer ground than a scientific theory, and this is not true. I'm not sure if that's what you were trying to imply, so don't take this as an attack, it's more of a PSA. If you weren't implying that and you're aware of what I'm explaining now, I offer a friendly suggestion to be more choosy with how you describe that in the future. When you say things like that it leaves most people with the impression laws are "more correct" than scientific theories, which is where the misconception comes from.

Scientific theories can be more accurate and have more evidence than laws, for example the Theory of Relativity more accurately describes how and why gravity works than Newton's Laws of Motion do. Newton's Laws can produce inaccurate results in some instances, yet they are still called Laws. Laws can be proven wrong and later superseded, for example for a few hundred years there was such a thing as Ptolemy's Law of Diffraction, which was later proven to be inaccurate and replaced by Snell's law.

Here's an explanation for anyone interested.



posted on Apr, 14 2017 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: amazing

Whats from The Heartland Institute?


The Video in the OP. The whole thread is based on "research" from the Heartland institute.



posted on Apr, 14 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Greven
The Stefan-Boltzmann law is essentially beyond reproach, that's why it's a law.


If I may suggest, it would be wise to be careful with this type of assertion. There's a common misconception among the public that in science a law is on firmer ground than a scientific theory, and this is not true. I'm not sure if that's what you were trying to imply, so don't take this as an attack, it's more of a PSA. If you weren't implying that and you're aware of what I'm explaining now, I offer a friendly suggestion to be more choosy with how you describe that in the future. When you say things like that it leaves most people with the impression laws are "more correct" than scientific theories, which is where the misconception comes from.

Scientific theories can be more accurate and have more evidence than laws, for example the Theory of Relativity more accurately describes how and why gravity works than Newton's Laws of Motion do. Newton's Laws can produce inaccurate results in some instances, yet they are still called Laws. Laws can be proven wrong and later superseded, for example for a few hundred years there was such a thing as Ptolemy's Law of Diffraction, which was later proven to be inaccurate and replaced by Snell's law.

Here's an explanation for anyone interested.

Yes, laws can be superseded. Laws are observations of specific phenomena - sometimes, with the incremental increases we have in technology, newer observations may necessitate changes to our existing laws.

Newton's Laws of Motion do not explain how gravity works, but rather describe what is observed. As we have been able to make more careful observations, we've discovered that they are excellent approximations for day-to-day observations. They can break down under less general circumstances, such as: small scales, high speeds, or high gravity.

As is the case with the Stefan-Boltzmann law, laws are frequently mathematical representations for what we observe.

What we up to this point observe is what the Stefan-Boltzmann law states. If we find something in the future to increase our precision - great! That's what I meant, anyway - there's no 'opposing view' here, to date.
edit on 16Fri, 14 Apr 2017 16:59:59 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago4 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Outlier13
a reply to: Byrd

You have a misunderstanding of the purpose of the scientific method.


I don't think so. I'm a scientist.


The idea that man dramatically impacts and ultimately alters the global weather patterns of Earth is precisely why you would use the scientific method.

Do we have different ideas of "the scientific method"? "Scientific method" is a way of teaching science that divides a research project into seven simple steps. It's great for chemistry and some types of science. It's lousy for paleontology and so forth.


Any research that does not follow scientific methods is doomed to fail as authenticity of the results does not stand chance against scientific inquiry and analysis.

There are many methods of doing authentic science.


Last time I checked for a scientific claim to carry weight it had to pass the scrutiny of the scientific method and peer review to substantiate the claims.


They do.



new topics




 
17
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join