is this good for science?
- Thread starter Doug MacIVER
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
- Status
kennyp2339
Minister of Fire
literally every scientific fact starts out as a theory. seems these days more theories are generated that are accepted as fact whether the data that supports the theory is anywhere near complete
Circus
Feeling the Heat
Disinformation from deep pockets is rampant and there should be penalties against blatant lies threatening all our of lives. Whitehouse subverted the intent of an existing law in an act of desperation knowing policing legislation would never pass.
What's needed is more cursed Ford Model A owners that have to tell the truth. Twilight Zone.
What's needed is more cursed Ford Model A owners that have to tell the truth. Twilight Zone.
Social networks and 24/hr news are no longer that concerned about facts. Innuendo and rumor are much juicier topics and sell more ads. Rupert Murdoch figured this out years ago.
![[Hearth.com] is this good for science?](https://www.hearth.com/talk/data/attachments/161/161962-b16a7083ddea2c5c660cf040c4296c8d.jpg?hash=AJfYNYy-UE "[Hearth.com] is this good for science?")
politicians discussing climate change
http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html
The hypothesis that man-made carbon dioxide production increases global temperatures cannot be tested experimentally. Thus, we have to rely on (weaker) supporting evidence. We are happy to accept such supporting evidence for a lot of other "theories" but not when it seems to affect our own personal comfort.
The hypothesis that man-made carbon dioxide production increases global temperatures cannot be tested experimentally. Thus, we have to rely on (weaker) supporting evidence. We are happy to accept such supporting evidence for a lot of other "theories" but not when it seems to affect our own personal comfort.
If you don't know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, please keep your head in the sand and leave science to scientists.
TE
the law is under continual appeal, witness Tom Brady. Is science under continual question? is bringing rico into agw as these scientists petition against skeptical opinion, good for science?
Science is definitely under continual question. The best way for a young scientist to make a name is to disrupt the status quo, not reinforce it. The signatory scientists on the RICO letter are members of the NAS and IPCC, none of them are the youngsters that create new science. They are the older graybeards that have ALWAYS been asked for direction by policy makers regarding the 'current consensus', and have always provided an opinion. At least until recently when policy makers have decided that the (fat and happy) graybeards of the NAS have somehow all been bought out by an unnamed international conspiracy.
That current consensus is that AGW is very real, and the range of likely projected outcomes (40-80 years from now) from a society fueled predominantly by fossil fuels are economically and morally unsustainable. If some young scientist has a breakthrough that indicates that that will not be the case (requiring reasoned evidence of course), he will get it published in a top journal and become internationally famous and get tens of millions of dollars in research money practically overnight for follow-up work. He or she would be 'set for life' by that one discovery. Every other young scientist in the field would literally drop what they were doing to get a piece of that action the next day, and become a force for overturning the previous consensus.
The fact that that hasn't happened (yet) is usually evidence that the consensus is correct. That has been known to happen from time to time.
The system that is 'broken' is not science, it is the policy sphere that creates science-informed policy. The NAS is doing exactly what it is charged to do, summarize the science. Many in the policy sphere have washed their hands.
That current consensus is that AGW is very real, and the range of likely projected outcomes (40-80 years from now) from a society fueled predominantly by fossil fuels are economically and morally unsustainable. If some young scientist has a breakthrough that indicates that that will not be the case (requiring reasoned evidence of course), he will get it published in a top journal and become internationally famous and get tens of millions of dollars in research money practically overnight for follow-up work. He or she would be 'set for life' by that one discovery. Every other young scientist in the field would literally drop what they were doing to get a piece of that action the next day, and become a force for overturning the previous consensus.
The fact that that hasn't happened (yet) is usually evidence that the consensus is correct. That has been known to happen from time to time.
The system that is 'broken' is not science, it is the policy sphere that creates science-informed policy. The NAS is doing exactly what it is charged to do, summarize the science. Many in the policy sphere have washed their hands.
Last edited:
Well said Woodgeek.
Whether we do anything about AGW is a valid topic for political and social debate.
But debating whether it is happening is a distraction, driven by heavily invested interests.
Political debate vs. physics; sooner or later, physics wins.
And, as an aside, the NAS is one of the greatest glories of the USA, renowned around the world.
Each of NAS members that I know is a brilliant intellect.
Whether we do anything about AGW is a valid topic for political and social debate.
But debating whether it is happening is a distraction, driven by heavily invested interests.
Political debate vs. physics; sooner or later, physics wins.
And, as an aside, the NAS is one of the greatest glories of the USA, renowned around the world.
Each of NAS members that I know is a brilliant intellect.
Last edited:
![[Hearth.com] is this good for science?](https://www.hearth.com/talk/data/attachments/161/161999-3ec519df931c6281e8ef8b81d7860ab9.jpg?hash=L8SLA1yTwJ "[Hearth.com] is this good for science?")
No, I think it's politics. Woodgeek gave a thoughtful and educated response that doesn't need descriptive embellishment.
not from me, my opinion is that there is a real battle in the science community. i'll leave it at that.
Sorry Doug, I don't even know what a 'battle in the science community' would look like...scientists go with the evidence, and change their minds when new, more significant and compelling evidence is found, or when significant amounts of earlier evidence is found to be flawed.
Neither of these things has happened in the field of AGW. In fact, it has been downright boring....better studies, more data, more detailed models, all brought to bear to.....reduce the size of the uncertainty (i.e. the error bar) on the future magnitude of the effect. Yawn.
The scientists on the AGW 'skeptic' side are paid shills. This is well documented. Their lack of publication is not due to stonewalling by AGW 'believers', its due to their arguments and data not passing the sniff test. AS I said earlier, if they had compelling evidence AGW was not real, 100s of young scientists (who are currently not skeptics) would jump on it and in short order we'd have a paradigm shift (if the new data held up). If this came to pass, the govt funding agencies would happily fund the new, 'skeptical' work.
I am in the science community and their battles are not fought in newspapers, TV shows and blogs. They have discussions at academic symposia and publications with differing data in scientific magazines. I am sure there is plenty of funding available to find evidence against man-made climate change. But even scientists that did not believe in it have to change their mind when looking at the data themselves: http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/20...e-change-denier-now-admits-he-was-wrong-video
Everything you read online or see in TV shows is a smokescreen. The data are clear and the mechanism is actually pretty simple:
1. CO2 blocks infrared radiation. (already shown more than 100 years ago: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Tyndall/)
2. Burning of hydrocarbons (oil, gas) and carbon (coal) adds to the total CO2 content in the air. (simple chemistry)
3. In order to maintain its temperature the earth needs to radiate energy back into space or it would warm continuously due to incoming solar radiation: http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-2/energy-budget.php
Put those 3 together and you know how man-made climate change works. The rest is simply discussing magnitudes.
Everything you read online or see in TV shows is a smokescreen. The data are clear and the mechanism is actually pretty simple:
1. CO2 blocks infrared radiation. (already shown more than 100 years ago: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Tyndall/)
2. Burning of hydrocarbons (oil, gas) and carbon (coal) adds to the total CO2 content in the air. (simple chemistry)
3. In order to maintain its temperature the earth needs to radiate energy back into space or it would warm continuously due to incoming solar radiation: http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-2/energy-budget.php
Put those 3 together and you know how man-made climate change works. The rest is simply discussing magnitudes.
Thanks for the bit about Tyndall. He was from my home town, a local hero to us science geeks. Several amazing discoveries by a teacher from a one-room schoolhouse. His lifetime provides several examples of how science is more than willing to accept new ideas or proof that the old ones are wrong.
TE
TE
- Status
Similar threads
