Originally posted by TheAvenger
Most of your comments don't merit a response, but my understanding of the nature of science has managed to get me by since 1972 when I began working
in it. Perhaps I can be re-trained.
It wasn't meant to suggest that you are not trained in anal chem. I've found that 'hard' sciences don't always teach the philosophical aspects of
science, such as the differences between scientific fact, hypothesis, and theory.
I have the pleasure of schooling in both 'hard' and 'soft'. and i know from experience that being able to choose the correct column for your HPLC
analyses doesn't necessarily require an understanding of Popper, Kuhn et al. But the social sciences tend to attempt to get this over, mainly because
they have had to defend their scientific credentials more often.
So, in sum, the point was that
no scientific theories are proven fact. None are proven 'once and for all'. All are tentative and open to
reassessment with reliable and valid contradictory evidence. A theory is a logically consistent and repeatedly verified explanation of a series of
scientific facts. So you are expecting more from AGW than is required of other theories.
ABE: and I see we are now turned to attacking the mechanisms of science itself, the last refuge of cranks. Peer review isn't perfect, but it is the
best quality control we have. On occasion, an explicit 'deniers' manuscript makes it through, and sheesh, they are generally crap. The recent paper
on geomagnetism is a great example of this (Courtillot et al), with the editor actually protecting the authors from extensive criticism by removing
particular comments in response, allowing the authors to correct obviously erroneous claims. That's kinda what can be considered borderline editorial
misconduct, indeed claims of fraud have been raised in France.
The idea that peer-review is biased against these guys is BS. Some of these dudes have no problem publishing science. They do tend to massively
exaggerate their claims of their work in the media (you know one recent paper which does this, avenger). Svensmark is a great example, he has just
been funded to the tune of 10m Euros, he is publishing stuff on cosmic rays and climate with little issue, but he does make more expansive claims in
the media which are not supported by his studies.
.................
Oh, and I meant to point out that some, like Pat Michaels, are no longer sceptics of the basic science. He has repeatedly claimed this year that the
science is essentially correct, but that he thinks future projections will be at the lower end. Therefore, he doesn't really belong on your list, he
accepts that humans contributed to a 'substantial' part of warming since the latter 20th :
[S]cientists know quite precisely how much the planet will warm in the foreseeable future, a modest three-quarters of a degree (C) [in 50 years]
All this has to do with basic physics, which isn't real hard to understand. It has been known since 1872 that as we emit more and more carbon dioxide
into our atmosphere, each increment results in less and less warming. In other words, the first changes produce the most warming, and subsequent ones
produce a bit less, and so on. But we also assume carbon dioxide continues to go into the atmosphere at an ever-increasing rate. In other words, the
increase from year-to-year isn't constant, but itself is increasing. The effect of increasing the rate of carbon dioxide emissions, coupled with the
fact that more and more carbon dioxide produces less and less warming compels our climate projections for the future warming to be pretty much a
straight line. Translation: Once human beings start to warm the climate, they do so at a constant rate
The only thing he is ignoring here is the response from feedbacks along with CO2-induced warming. And on O'Reilly he stated that:
I think human beings are warming the planet and they have been doing so for several decades and they are responsible for a substantial part of the
warming since 1975, but there are people out there that are very bright and very good scientists that will argue otherwise.
linky
So he has made a Singer-like move from 'it ain't happening' to 'it is happening, but there's nothing we can do but adapt'. I think more will do
so in the near future.
Look this new UN report comes out and it says human beings are warming the surface temperature. To me that is like a breathless announcement that
there is gambling in Las Vegas.
linky
[edit on 24-12-2007 by melatonin]
