It's religion.

I'm not sure that we teach that.

Not to hijack your thread, but psychology seems to be Mormons' least favorite science. They don't like to be called on their shit.

And anyone who does not fully accept certain dogma is to be excommunicated or marginalized?

It's hard to argue with the validity of vaccines and their amazing impact on our national health.

But ask serious scientists who happen to uncover evidence that global warming is caused by forces other than humans, and is perhaps not best remedied by transferring billions of dollars to third world nations, and you'll feel like an exMormon discussing your doubts about Joseph Smith at a Sacrament Meeting.

Yes.

Except again for the fact that the Paris accord would have hit China's and India's economic growth far harder than that of the United States. It in fact represented a transfer of wealth from the developing world to the first world.

More generally, the skeptics on global warming are ascendant in the United States right now, in case you haven't noticed, so it isn't a good time to portray oneself as a victim.

I believe that the recent surge in global warming has been caused by human activity. Having said that, I am not a fan of the Paris accord. I believe that the only meaningful improvements will come through technological advances.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/2017 02:07AM by summer.

A reasonable perspective.

I'd add, though, that there is a feedback mechanism. Pollution control standards rise, and that creates financial incentives that encourage the development and adoption of new technologies. The reason Enron and other energy-intensive American companies opposed Trump's rejection of the Paris Accord is that they have a competitive advantage in energy technology and saw an opportunity to increase their global revenues and profits.

Historically California drove a lot of the global improvement in auto emissions. The state market was so big that if it adopted higher standards, the US and foreign auto manufacturers had no choice but to change their designs and production processes to ensure they could continue to sell there. The better cars became popular across the country, however, so the California standards quickly became the national and even the international norm.

What will happen now is that a number of big states and cities will adopt Paris standards independently. (California has already written laws that effectively require all sales to be of electric vehicles within a decade or so.) The auto and energy companies will adjust to those new regulations, and the United States will come close to meeting the Paris commitments.

The rejection of Paris is thus pretty close to irrelevant economically and technologically. The only thing that has changed is that the US won't get political credit for what is in effect global leadership.

Global warming is a religion, not a science.

In religion you form a belief (hypothesis) and then you look for information that reinforces your belief and discredit information that goes against your belief. This is what the global warming alarmists do. This is why they won't debate skeptics and try and claim the science is settled.

In science you form a hypothesis and then try to disprove your hypothesis. As you try hard to disprove your hypothesis and cannot, it takes on more credibility. The alarmists do not do this and instead try and discredit all credible scientists that do not toe the line.

By your definition, climate change denial is also a religion and not science.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's hard to argue with the validity of vaccines
> and their amazing impact on our national health.

Mwoah, there's a whole load of highly educated people out there who would disagree. Not me, btw.


> But ask serious scientists who happen to uncover
> evidence that global warming is caused by forces
> other than humans

Serious, truly Scottish scientists have known this for centuries, there is little left to uncover there. The science hasn't changed much since Manabe & Wetherald's 1967 paper.

Regardless of the causes, one thing is observable scientific fact: for every time the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere doubles, global temperature rises between roughly 1.5 and 2.5C. That should be a simple enough concept to grasp.

From there, it follows that if the CO2-levels in the atmosphere increase or decrease, so will the temperature. Again, not that hard to follow.

Human activity produces large amounts of CO2, which contributes to global warming. If we reduce our CO2-emissions, we slow global warming.

Now, one can argue about the best way to reduce emissions, but while we're arguing, global warming continues, slowly but surely.

So climate change occurs gradually and cyclically. It is largely a natural phenomenon. Human activity is a marginal factor but is having a major effect since the industrial revolution and could tip the balance.

It is hard to argue with that logic, which lifts the debate above the politics and focuses attention on remedial efforts. I wish more of the discussion were this balanced.

rt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Human activity produces large amounts of CO2,
> which contributes to global warming. If we reduce
> our CO2-emissions, we slow global warming.
>
> Now, one can argue about the best way to reduce
> emissions, but while we're arguing, global warming
> continues, slowly but surely.


And therein lies the rub. There is a majority who believe this, but not a complete consensus. There are scientists who believe that solar activity is likely the overwhelming driver of global climate change. If they are correct, we're pissing on a prairie fire if we think we can actually make a difference.

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/10/07/scientist-carbon-dioxide-doesnt-cause-global-warming

https://phys.org/news/2017-03-sun-impact-climate-quantified.html

These are well-respected scientific groups presenting this evidence, but there is still a political movement among us that uses such anti-scientific terms as "Deniers!" and "Doubters!" to label those who simply want to entertain findings contrary to the orthodoxy. I can understand those labels inside a church, but that's not science.

You realize, I hope, that once again you are citing a source that says precisely the opposite of what you claim?

"According to project head Werner Schmutz . . . [the solar] reduction in temperature is significant, even though it will do little to compensate for human-induced climate change. 'We could win valuable time if solar activity declines and slows the pace of global warming a little. That might help us to deal with the consequences of climate change.' But this will be no more than borrowed time, warns Schmutz. . ."

You ascribe to him the belief "that solar activity is likely the overwhelming driver of global climate change." He actually says the opposite.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And therein lies the rub. There is a majority who
> believe this, but not a complete consensus. There
> are scientists who believe that solar activity is
> likely the overwhelming driver of global climate
> change.

I guess I have not made myself clear. Consensus on the cause is irrelevant to my argument. Nobody cares what a diet book writer thinks about the causes of global warming.

Consensus on the effect is what drives the desire to reduce CO2-emissions. This effect is extremely simple, as I tried to explain:

CO2 x 2 => Temperature rises 1.5-2.5C

I can simplify this even more, if you want: CO2 up => temperature up

This relationship can and has been theorized, hypothesized, modeled, tested, and measured (verified). Just look at any long-range temperature chart and you can see it happening. And you don't have to rely on meteorological data alone, you can go back hundreds of thousands of years in the geological record and find the correlation between CO2 and temperature.

This is not up for debate. Consensus is irrelevant. It is fact.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/12/2017 01:45PM by rt.

rt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is not up for debate. Consensus is
> irrelevant. It is fact.


Is that so? You're unaware of any science to the contrary?

One significant problem that is virtually universally accepted is that the increase of CO2 always lags behind the increase in temperature historically. It creates a very real problem to argue that the driver of a phenomenon lags behind the phenomenon itself. But as you're likely aware, arguments are made to support this.

But there are also well reasoned explanations that the temperature increases are caused by other factors and the CO2 increase is an effect, not a cause of the increased temperature.

A recent study by CERN produced modeling that shows about a third of all aerosols in the atmosphere can be traced to cosmic rays: https://home.cern/about/updates/2016/10/cloud-experiment-sharpens-climate-predictions

A study released several months ago out of the University of Wisconsin at Madison shows a correlation between planetary orbits, solar radiation, and millions of years of global climate impact: http://news.wisc.edu/from-rocks-in-colorado-evidence-of-a-chaotic-solar-system/

A simple formula here shows CO2 is an effect, not a cause of warmer temperatures.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/09/a-study-the-temperature-rise-has-caused-the-co2-increase-not-the-other-way-around/

Are you unaware of these studies, or somehow believe they should be dismissed as nonexistent?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/13/2017 08:05PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

Aerosols caused by cosmic rays?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cosmic-rays-not-causing-climate-change/


Warm weather increases atmospheric carbon dioxide levels?
From where?
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/co2-and-rising-global-temperatures
https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2017/01/18/hottest-year-on-record/96713338/
Warm weather DOES relase trapped methane in permafrost:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions

It's not planetary aliment or small orbital changes that's doing this
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


We did this. Humans. We caused the problem and we have to fix it.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

Do you understand that different, highly qualified groups of scientists disagree on this? That alone destroys any contention that there "one true science" to be had in all this. Unless you embrace it like a religion, right?


> Aerosols caused by cosmic rays?
>
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cosmic-
> rays-not-causing-climate-change/
>
>

This study is 3 years older than the one I cited from CERN. CERN's model has been proven to actually match real world conditions. But you should at least acknowledge there is a diversity of findings. Are you saying the scientists at CERN fabricated their findings? If not, it must be factored into the discussion.


> Warm weather increases atmospheric carbon dioxide
> levels?
> From where?
> http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/co2
> -and-rising-global-temperatures
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2017/01/18/
> hottest-year-on-record/96713338/
> Warm weather DOES relase trapped methane in
> permafrost:
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emi
> ssions
>

This is actually pretty well accepted. Those who believe CO2 is the driver are usually forced to admit that an initial, small amount of CO2 must be the "seed" for a later increase AFTER the warming occurs.


> It's not planetary aliment or small orbital
> changes that's doing this
> https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
>
>

Again, you're citing old evidence. The University of Wisconsin study was released just several months ago. It's an amazing study, and you should read it. For millions of years, slight variations in our orbit and those of surrounding planets can be shown to have a direct correlation on our climate conditions. No humans needed at all.


> We did this. Humans. We caused the problem and
> we have to fix it.

And there's plenty of contrary evidence if you're willing to examine it. But this is your new religion, isn't it?

Ceteris paribus

Or if our freind Koriwhore is posting we might get something from Heraclitus.

Or the age old adage, shit happens.

However it is said. All things being equal, whatever happens, is probably what was going to happen anyways.

I'm no prophet, but I do know that many of our greatest technological advances are the product of carrots and not sticks. The insanity of the Paris accords was its massive wealth transfer to developing nations. Far better that we keep that money on our shores and encourage the type of R&D that creates massive change.

If you just look at how technology has dramatically increased crop yields just within our lifetimes, it's amazing. And new studies are showing ways to continue that growth. When the doomsayers of the 60's and 70's predicted global famine, they didn't account for the ingenuity and intelligence we had available. I think that in the next 40 years we'll look back on today's climate hysteria with the same condescension. If we just keep encouraging new technologies and as private industry finds ways to capitalize on the global desire for renewable energy, those forces will continue to produce results.

Carbon taxes, huge wealth transfers and bigger government will all serve to hamstring the actual remedies needed to see this improve. We should also start working toward developing lifestyles that cope better with warmer climates. It's likely true that even the best efforts of man will only delay the inevitable, not cancel it out. We would be wise to keep a multi prong attack active to unleash industry to create new and better energy sources and develop ways to live with a gradually warming planet.

I wish that some of the deep pockets who are currently demonizing the energy sector would instead realize that sector is very well equipped to create better resources. I would love to see eco-billionaires put their money where their mouths are and create new versions of the Ansari-X prize that actually spurs the private sector with private money to create great strides in renewable energies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansari_X_Prize

And as we work better energy sources, let's keep using the ones we have. Tens of thousands of people die each year across the UK simply because they cannot afford their fuel bills. This is a direction we are heading as we cut off cheap energy and force more expensive on consumers. We need to allow technology to take its course and try not to kill too many people as we declare our desire to save the lives of their children.

This article highlights the importance of good insulation, but energy prices also play a role.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/fuel-poverty-killed-15000-people-last-winter-10217215.html



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/13/2017 11:04PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

If you think the Syria situation is bad now, just wait.

I don't want any of this to happen but to poo-pooh it and dismiss the current sort climate change as just a normal cycle makes no sense given what we know.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/13/2017 10:38PM by anybody.

You just aren't getting the point. A piece of data is like the letter B. It is meaningless, and has no need of being faked. And three points of data B A and D don't have to spell BAD even if they do. No one is debating the data, they are debating the conclusions. Things might be BAD, and they might just be three points of data that happen to spell bad if arranged properly.

From your first reference:

"The results also show that ionisation of the atmosphere by cosmic rays accounts for nearly one-third of all particles formed, although small changes in cosmic rays over the solar cycle do not affect aerosols enough to influence today’s polluted climate significantly"

Regarding your second reference, it does not directly support or refute current climatic change predictions. It does state that orbital resonance may affect climate, but does NOT state that the results refute global warming. It does contain the following statement: "The impact of astronomical cycles on climate can be quite large,” explains Meyers, noting as an example the pacing of the Earth’s ice ages, which have been reliably matched to periodic changes in the shape of Earth’s orbit, and the tilt of our planet on its axis. “Astronomical theory permits a very detailed evaluation of past climate events that may provide an analog for future climate.”
This is presumably a reference to the Milankovitch cycles. For a different perspective on the relationship between Milankovitch cycles and current climactic conditions, see the following:

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/milankovitch-cycles

http://history.aip.org/climate/cycles.htm

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2001/jun/28/physicalsciences.highereducation

Do you even read the sources you post? Or do you not understand what you read?

Really Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From your first reference:
>
> "The results also show that ionisation of the
> atmosphere by cosmic rays accounts for nearly
> one-third of all particles formed, although small
> changes in cosmic rays over the solar cycle do not
> affect aerosols enough to influence today’s
> polluted climate significantly"

There are several other accounts of CERN's findings that show the significant impact of their findings. Perhaps most important, is they found the current UN calculations to be significantly skewed in the wrong direction. Cosmic rays causing clouds will lead to a cooler planet, actually working against warming forces. The UN models are doomsday stuff. CERN shows they're pretty significantly wrong. Here are some other links:

http://notrickszone.com/2016/05/30/though-media-refuse-to-admit-cern-results-vastly-strengthen-svensmarks-cosmic-ray-climate-theory/#sthash.VpIBfYkE.dpbs

Here's a more complete excerpt on this impact:

"Jasper Kirkby, CERN particle physicist and originator and spokesperson of the CLOUD experiment, said: "We found that nature produces particles without pollution.

"That is going to require a rethink of how human activities have increased aerosols in clouds."

The results may turn the whole climate change debate and projected temperature increases upside down, they said.

Climate change projections had always taken it that the amount of aerosol seeded clouds in the pre-industrial age would have been much less than since industrialisation.

But the findings mean the amounts could have been the same or just slightly less.

An abundance of clouds in the preindustrial era - something the new study hints at - would mean less warming in the future.

This means current estimates of projected warming in the 21st century could be reduced, the study concluded."

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/674557/Has-climate-change-been-disproved-Large-Hadron-boffins-cast-shock-DOUBT-on-global-warming



>
> Regarding your second reference, it does not
> directly support or refute current climatic change
> predictions. It does state that orbital resonance
> may affect climate, but does NOT state that the
> results refute global warming. It does contain the
> following statement: "The impact of astronomical
> cycles on climate can be quite large,” explains
> Meyers, noting as an example the pacing of the
> Earth’s ice ages, which have been reliably
> matched to periodic changes in the shape of
> Earth’s orbit, and the tilt of our planet on its
> axis. “Astronomical theory permits a very
> detailed evaluation of past climate events that
> may provide an analog for future climate.”

The point here is the correlation between climate events and astronomical forces. It's verifiable historically without any human causation whatsoever. This is problematic to those claiming humans are the significant driver when astronomical forces can be proven as the cause in the past. Maybe CO2 lags warming because it truly in an effect of warming, not a cause.



> Do you even read the sources you post? Or do you
> not understand what you read?

Yes, I read them. I believe I have a fair understanding of them. Feel free to discuss it with me, however.

The notrickszone is not a scientific site. It is a well known climate change denier blog. Sorry, I will give no credibility to it.

Regarding your Wisconsin study... again it does not relate directly to the current climate debate. It does conclude that astronomical factors can affect earth's climate. Most climate scientists accept that - see Milankovitch cycles. As noted in my references above, however, those cycles do not predict current global warming. In fact, they predict that we have passed the peak of the current interglacial episode and should be moving into a cooling period.Note also that those changes occur over periods of thousands of years. The main point of the Wisconsin article relates to orbital resonances between Earth and Mars, and does not even conclude that such resonance has any bearing on current climate change.

Again, read the links I posted.

Would you insist that everything proposed by subsequent teachers from that religion should be embraced without question?

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor writing in 1970

“By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people,” he claimed. “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 and give ten to one that the life of the average Briton would be of distinctly lower quality than it is today.”
Paul Ehrlich, author of "The Population Bomb," in a 1971 speech at the British Institute for Biology.

"In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) warned that imminent sea-level rises, increased hurricanes, and desertification caused by “man-made global warming” would lead to massive population disruptions. In a handy map, the organization highlighted areas that were supposed to be particularly vulnerable in terms of producing “climate refugees.” Especially at risk were regions such as the Caribbean and low-lying Pacific islands, along with coastal areas.
[...]
by 2010, population levels for those regions were actually still soaring. In many cases, the areas that were supposed to be producing waves of “climate refugees” and becoming uninhabitable turned out to be some of the fastest-growing places on Earth."
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry

When his Pentagon-sponsored report listed a series of dire climate predictions that virtually all failed, Doug Randal defended his hysterics as an essential element to motivate people. The point of these predictions is alarmism, not accuracy:
“When you are looking at worst-case 10 years out, you are not trying to predict precisely what’s going to happen but instead trying to get people to understand what could happen to motivate strategic decision-making and wake people up,” Randall said. “But whether the actual specifics came true, of course not. That never was the main intent.”
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18418-pentagon-ridiculed-for-debunked-climate-report

and science isn't like religion. There's a lot less uncertainty now.

It's not a case of what Dr X. says versus Professor Y. Science is an open book for all to read.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/10/2017 10:14PM by anybody.

But that are those of us ("me") that do believe science is a religion.....

There is no doubt the Earth is a three dimensional spheroid.

It doesn't matter what you or I or anyone "believes."

I may have a desire to go faster than light but there is no way known at the current time that it is possible so the answer for now is no. That's that.

Facts are stubborn things.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/13/2017 05:16PM by anybody.

The communication with god is clearer now with the current leaders than it was with Brigham Young. Just ignore the failed prophesies of before and keep believing in us as prophets.

by 2015 billions of people will instantly communicate across thousands of miles by video conferencing on hand held devices.

Al Gore, 1963

Gore, the leading crazy on man-made global warming, has gone from ridiculous to 'religious crazy'.

Scientist/alarmist/crazy is now 'claiming' God told him, not Joseph Smith or Monson, He wants US to 'fight global warming'.

Let's all bow and say amen now that God has clearly 'spoken' through Al Gore the worst prophet since JS!

https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=yset_ie_syc_oracle-s&p=god+wants+us+to+fight+global+warming#id=3&vid=80e062fb70ee37e670a4b8ba29222694&action=click



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/13/2017 09:38PM by spiritist.

Science is denied when religious beliefs conflict with it. The accepted view, by religious believers is that there is a higher law that supersedes science. No proof needed. Just belief by faith.

There is no way to force others to think the way they "should."

Everyone has a right to believe any dumb or smart way that suits them. That's part of living in a diverse world.

and the future of billions of others?

You think you can force people to believe what you say is right and that will somehow save billions of others?

No. Diverse beliefs is a good think because it prevents stagnation of thought which doesn't help anyone. Lock step thinking doesn't save lives. It only prevents a free interchange of ideas.

Claiming the thinking has been done halts progress.

It's not about "forcing" other people to believe anything.

But denial of reality is something else all together. Other people's lives are at stake -- not just theirs.

If they are intent on walking over a cliff they can do so -- but I'm not going to follow them.

And it's just going to make life harder for me after they are gone.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/2017 12:43PM by anybody.

Today at 2:00?

I take it you are completely carbon neutral yourself and not responsible for the burning of any fossil fuels in anyway by your existence.

I suppose if you are so concerned about the lives of others and the world is overpopulated then you should remove yourself from it for the good of everyone else. Isn't that what you want others to do for you?

and what is too many? 1 in 10,000? 1 in a 1000? 1 in 100? 1 in 10? too many is a subjective term -

What to do about that **bad** religious evil thinker? I guess the answer would be, "Don't worry about them, just let them die."

Its much more complex an issue most people do not think about deeply. Science in many instances has been made into a suedo-religion. Certain results cast an array of implications which effects are guess work and spculation in many instances. Science is true is a hasty generalization of an idiot, how long ago was it the food priamid was sunk? Science is politicized, monetized, and in many cases dogmitized just like religion. However in many cases it our portrayed as a pure search of understanding. Assumptions, group think, and cognitive bias play a huge role. The idea of objective truth finding is great until it destroys or challenges someone's or an establishment's worldview. Its called incomenserability of science. This problem goes to the root of our education system and grammar. Yes grammer, not being taught properly. Look around, see the word play used in everyday life, science, religion, popular media. There is very little coherency. You need coherency to find truth.

The fact that absolutely everyone can now Google the Dunning-Kruger effect is one of the telling ironies of our times.

Here is a comprehensive list of scientific theories which were overturned by religious means:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

This list, again, is COMPREHENSIVE.

HH =)

Perhaps it's plain apathy.


https://www.thoughtco.com/nuclear-weapons-computers-using-floppy-disks-4060269

The accuracy, and killing power doesn't dimish. There is a reason why for the disks. It works and can't be hacked. If its not broke, don't fix it. This is propoganda for more offence, I mean defence, spending. I've worked with many "Navy Nukes", dozens. Asked the same question. This is why its not upgraded, while everything else in our military is a vortex of spending.

I basically agree with the article's authors--the situation is more complex than meets the eye. People will believe the portions of the sciences that don't conflict with 1) their personal and religious beliefs; 2) how they earn money; and 3) the beliefs of others around them. Regarding the last point, the sciences have shown that we humans are social animals, and, for the most part, we are willing to do anything to maintain (or even advance) our positions within our social groups.

I see no reason why we should continue to allow disagreement. I say that we immediately create laws that would allow us to label disagreement as a mental illness and then institutionalize and rehabilitate the poor souls.

Science map ...


http://www.crispian.net/CrispiansScienceMap.html

journalism would appear to be getting worse and worse...

The proper title is "Why Some Americans Deny Science".

We don't deny science; We just accept only TRUE science. TRUE
science and TRUE religion will never conflict, so whatever
conflicts with my religious beliefs is not TRUE science and can
be safely dismissed. Along with history, and logic.

The foundation of TRUE science is to open mindedly test all scientific ideas. Does 1+1 really equal 2? Well test it with a completely open mind and then draw your conclusions. When we start with the answer in scientific research rather than start with the question then we're not doing real science honestly.

The major PR problem with the "Global Warming" dogma right now is that there seems to be an incredible amount of closed-mindedness when it comes to doing actual analysis/reporting on anything but the "humans cause global warming and thus we are going to destroy the earth pretty soon" dogma. There needs to be much more open-mindedness, humility, exploration of all facts, and honest about the criticisms.

Do Americans deny science? Yes some do. But the majority do try to follow real science. The challenge is sorting out the truth vs. error in the ideas that get floated. This is especially made difficult by the incredible amounts of dishonesty and constantly-changing conclusions that many so-called scientists produce. I certainly do believe that most scientists are completely honest most of the time. Its the outliers on honesty that cause the most problems for us all.

an exmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The foundation of TRUE science is to open mindedly
> test all scientific ideas. Does 1+1 really equal
> 2? Well test it with a completely open mind and
> then draw your conclusions. When we start with the
> answer in scientific research rather than start
> with the question then we're not doing real
> science honestly.

I'd prefer to not use a no-true-scotsman fallacy when it comes to describing science ("...TRUE science..."). :)

> The major PR problem with the "Global Warming"
> dogma right now is that there seems to be an
> incredible amount of closed-mindedness when it
> comes to doing actual analysis/reporting on
> anything but the "humans cause global warming and
> thus we are going to destroy the earth pretty
> soon" dogma. There needs to be much more
> open-mindedness, humility, exploration of all
> facts, and honest about the criticisms.

That's actually not a "problem" at all in science. It might be a "PR problem" among some (but not all) journalists, or among some "science promoters," but there is a massive amount of "actual analysis/reporting" involved in climate science that includes all of the data and all hypotheses, without any "dogma" whatsoever, and full of honest criticism.

> I
> certainly do believe that most scientists are
> completely honest most of the time. Its the
> outliers on honesty that cause the most problems
> for us all.

You don't have to deal in "belief" when it comes to whether or not scientists are being honest. Inherent in the scientific method is verifiability/replicability. If someone's results aren't verified/replicated, they're considered worthless. No "belief" in some individual's honesty needs to be involved. In any way.

If we're specifically discussing climate change, there are really a series of questions.

1. Is the climate changing?
2. Is it caused by human actions?
3. Is it the CO2?
4. Does it matter?
5. Can it be stopped?
6. Will "my" way stop it?
7. Will you agree "my" way is the best/only way to stop it?

Proponents of curbing CO2 emissions through things like the Paris Accord have said "yes" to each question.

Some of them vilify anyone who says "no" at any step. These people become dogmatic, dare I say religious, in their zeal that "yes" is the only acceptable response to each.

Some reasonable and educated people will say "no" at each step. They become "deniers" or uneducated rubes. Then conversation and attempts at understanding stop. Compromise isn't possible any more, and we get threads like this.

Refusing to talk is the first step to fighting. The world needs less fighting.

And I don't mean conspiracy theories. It's not about "suppressing" different views. It's about having evidence that supports what you are saying.

I mean real, valid science that's been tested and reviewed by mutliple invesigators using the same data.


I'm waiting...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/13/2017 04:48PM by anybody.

I would respectfully submit that different views have nothing to do with the data or evidence. It is entirely possible to view the same data and come to different conclusions.

What this specific poster is asking for is the data to back up the policies, which is a totally different matter than just is the earth warming. It seems a fairly established fact that the earth is warming and anyone familiar with the data wouldn't dispute that the warming is happening. They might dispute.

The primary cause.
The potential solutions or lack of solutions.
The role of specific people, parties, and groups in implementing the solutions.
That anything should be done.
And so forth.

The real tragedy in this discussion is not that there are some out there who are willful about their opposition to reality. The real tragedy is that those of us, myself included, who need to rely on others to help us understand this issue are left in a quagmire of obvious machinations and ulterior motives.

There is something to be said for despising the level of vilification and hatred that has infiltrated the issue. It is hard to solve problems when those that would be most helpful in solving the problem are consumed with proving their view of the problem.

Back in the eighteenth century, people from Europe couldn't believe that black sub-Saharan Africans were human beings like they were. Now modern science and research tells us that all modern humans were from Africa. Mormonism even incorporates this type of racism in its theology and many of them can't accept that racial differences in humans are just adaptations to different climatic conditions.

Many people still think that human sexuality is binary and there's no inbetween. Now we know it's a spectrum and infants don't look at their genitals to figure out what they are. Sexuality is based in the brain and develops in utero. Just as with race issues, many people can't accept this and don't want to change what they thought was true when they learn new facts.

Things change. In religion you can make up whatever you want. Science doesn't work that way.

I hope I don't offend, plus I'm going to ramble.

I think you are right. The comparison might be valid. The origins of humanity and the spectrum of how humans feel and express themselves are undoubtedly mostly constant. Certainly there is the chance that further evolution could add to humans and their expressions but it is impossible to change the past and thus their origins.

But as you have astutely pointed out what reality is and what it is perceived to be doesn't' always line up. Not many decades ago it was widely accepted that humanity was made up of various subspecies, that isn't the case. Very respected, intelligent, learned people had data to back up their assertion that there were subspecies of Homo Sapiens. We think so highly of their work that it is still the standard in biological classification. So how did they get it wrong? They didn't have enough data? Likely, but why did they get it right with other animals? They really really wanted humanity to be divided into subspecies? Seems realistic, but the same classifiers that they incorrectly used with humanity they correctly used with other animals. They were right? Not really an option, but it might be the truth. 1,000,000 years from now the likelihood that humanity will be divided into hundreds of subspecies isn't that far off. So why is it far off now?

The point is that in the past it has been realistic to argue, using data, that humanity is genetically diverse enough to classify races as subspecies. And today it is ridiculous to argue the same point using data.

The great thing about science and how it works is that it doesn't have to discard the old to accept the new. Every data point is valid. In science one new point of data doesn't change the old point, but it can reframe the discussion in an instant.

So please answer the overarching question. Why would anybody, in their right mind, claim that anything is for certain?

You stated that traveling faster the the speed of light was impossible according to facts today. Do you not see the irony in that statement? The possibility of something doesn't hinge on what we think we know, it hinges on reality. If in 1,000 years it is possible to travel the speed of light than it is possible today.

Things change as you say.