reply to post by Animal
No Red, the above argument is a game intended to try to detract from my point which is focused on the QUALIFICATIONS. Why would I listen to
someone who studied veterinary science on the issue of climate change?
I don't know; why wouldn't you?
Science is science. The only difference between the disciplines are the fields in which they specialize. Thus, a climatologist would be more likely to
discover something concerning climate, while a veterinarian would be more likely to discover methods of treating a particular disease in animals.
But once the discovery is made, the veterinarian should be able to understand the science behind the climatologists discovery, and the climatologist
should be able to understand the science behind the treatment discovered. The only thing that is different is the application of science, not science
My area of expertise is not climate. Instead it is electromagnetic and chemical. Yet, I can read a paper on metallurgy and understand it just fine.
The same goes for a paper on meteorology. The same goes for a paper on optics, Relativity, or even quantum mechanics. The same carbon dioxide I use in
chemical research occurs with the exact same physical characteristics in climatology. The key to all of these branches is an understanding of the
basic principles of physics and mathematics. Everything else is focus, not foundation.
So yes, if a veterinarian explained why a paper on climatology was wrong, it would at least behoove me to investigate his claims before simply
you are entitled to your 'opinion' or 'belief' but why would i take your word over those who are much more 'qualified' to make
"Qualified to make assumptions"? Are you serious?
An assumption is the one area of science that no one is 'qualified' to make; yet a part of science is making the correct assumptions. If there is an
error, rarely is it in the mathematics of a published article. Instead, it is the assumptions that contain errors in practically all of the cases
where errors exist. Newton's Laws of Motion contain an error in that they fail when one approaches the speed of light. The error had nothing to do
with Newton's math or reasoning; he assumed that 'everyday' motion was all that existed. He never investigated the problem of light speed
Einstein found the error and developed Relativity. Perhaps someday we will discover that relativity itself contains assumptive errors; perhaps not.
But if errors are found, it is irrelevant if the finder works in classical physics, quantum mechanics, optics, or even if he's the janitor at a local
factory that had an inspiration.
As for taking my word... don't do it. Research for yourself, thoroughly, with the intent of either proving or disproving present theories. The facts
will speak for themselves. But they won't search you out; you have to search them out. That's just the way things work.
why not answer the question directly?
Because it is a moot question
Consensus means nothing.
#1 yes science searches for 'truths'.
#2 until then the prevailing 'belief' is what is commonly accepted.
#3 the science that the current belief is built upon is checked and verified.
I'll grant that. But who 'checks and verifies' the claims? Those who put them out? Those who work with those who put them out?
No. A theory is checked and verified by the entire scientific community.
That includes scientists from any and all disciplines, as well as
those who are not even actively working in a branch of science! Never make the mistake of assuming someone doesn't know what they are talking about
simply due to their station in life. The greatest minds on the planet are not somehow automatically sequestered into research facilities. Albert
Einstein worked as a lowly Patent Clerk for many years.
I can not answer for anyone but myself, and I would say no. I have admitted repeatedly that there is obvious dissent within the scientific
community and that there is obviously work left to be done to prove the anthropogenic link as fact. however, i see more evidence to support the
anthropogenic link than not. and so i choose to follow the general consensus.
That statement is fair enough. But I ask you, is the evidence you mention overwhelming enough to change the entire societal structure of man for
That is what is being attempted in the political circles.
when i question posts such as this, it is because the information presented is weak. do you deny this in the case of this thread and the
this sadly tends to be the norm for the skeptical crowd as well, and it does this crowd a disservice.
I will grant you that any effort to prove a side of any issue will reflect on those who are also on that side of the issue. But you should remember
that this same principle applies to AGW supporters as well. I have seen quite a few laughable attempts on that side. Witness the poster above who
claims that carbon dioxide has a wider absorption spectrum than water vapor.
do you think the source cited int he OP is a rigorous source worth citing? how would citing this type of source work out for you in school or
any academic setting?
I would cite nothing in a scientific paper without first verifying everything stated. By that I do not mean only how many degrees in what the author
has (although I would mention that if applicable), but more the statements he/she has made.
I have not verified the sources in the OP; I have, however, verified many of the claims, and have found those to be sound. In a scientific paper, I
would present each claim as the work of someone else; all that has been done here is to correlate data which already existed. Such has merit,
especially in the political realm AGW has entered, but is not worthy of scientific recognition outside of that.
Still, the claims have a ring of truth to them.
[edit on 12/10/2009 by TheRedneck]