User Controls
Aliens Cause Global Warming
-
2019-03-06 at 10:05 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.
So, I have been alive for 12,605 days now.
So far, every single one of those 12,605 days has been followed by a sequence of nighttime (where there is no sun to be seen).
However, I am fairly confident that the sun will return tomorrow.
Why is that?
I can't say with absolute certainty that such will be the case.
But I can safely assume that it will.
Science is all about drawing probabilistic conclusions. Everybody is a "scientist" of sorts. I have not personally measured the distance to the sun, nor have I studied it's orbits in any detailed capacity. But I have collected 12,605 data points, and henceforth draw probabilistic conclusions from those data points.
Measuring climate change, as any other area of inquiry does, follows the exact same line of reasoning.
Originally posted by Obbe Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.
The special and general theories of relativity are, at the end of the day, still theories.
E=mc^2 might be an entirely antiquated obsolete mathematical model at some point in the future.
This whole notion that we use consensus in some areas of science and not others is just totally incorrect.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2019-03-06 at 11:31 PM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks This whole notion that we use consensus in some areas of science and not others is just totally incorrect.
This speech is like 10 years old.
I don't know what to make of it. I posted it here so people like you can help inform my opinion. I want to hear what you have to say about climate change.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2019-03-06 at 11:36 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe This speech is like 10 years old.
I don't know what to make of it. I posted it here so people like you can help inform my opinion. I want to hear what you have to say about climate change.
I think that article provides an interesting perspective. I'm not trying to dismiss it as being utter garbage or anything.
I mean, Michael Crichton might mostly be known as a world-renowned author of fiction and T.V. shows / movies, but he's also a trained medical doctor on top of that.
What worries me, though, is that it can become so easy to take what he's saying as some kind of proof positive that climate change is completely false.
Or even that he is somehow "anti-science". -
2019-03-06 at 11:36 PM UTCAs far as my own personal position on climate change goes, I err on the side of "consensus" simply because of how strong that consensus is. Something like 97% of climate scientists polled agree that climate change is occurring, and that it is a result of human activity.
-
2019-03-07 at 12:08 AM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks I think that article provides an interesting perspective. I'm not trying to dismiss it as being utter garbage or anything.
I mean, Michael Crichton might mostly be known as a world-renowned author of fiction and T.V. shows / movies, but he's also a trained medical doctor on top of that.
What worries me, though, is that it can become so easy to take what he's saying as some kind of proof positive that climate change is completely false.
Or even that he is somehow "anti-science".
That's not the impression this speech left on me. Climate seems to obviously be changing. His speech doesn't seem to be in denial of that, or anti-scince. Rather, his speech seems to be pointing out opportunism. The issue is not about whether human activity is causing global warming, rather that science is used to establish authority, and therefore policy, and therefore power. Certain groups seem to be able to use "science" to push their agenda as if they were a business selling a product, and they seem to be able to do it quite effectively, even if the science is quite poor. I feel like this may not be a good thing.
Originally posted by gadzooks As far as my own personal position on climate change goes, I err on the side of "consensus" simply because of how strong that consensus is. Something like 97% of climate scientists polled agree that climate change is occurring, and that it is a result of human activity.
It seems obvious that the climate is changing and that fossil fuels contribute to that. What do you think about their predictions of the future 30, 50, or 100 years from now? Predictions made using computer models based on equations similar to the Drake Equation mentioned at the beginning of his speech. What are your thoughts on these? -
2019-03-07 at 12:40 AM UTCAdmittedly, I have not scrutinized that entire article, it's pretty long so I saved it for later and just kinda skimmed certain parts so far.
I was mainly responding to the part that you quoted here, and that was even bolded in the article itself, about the nature of consensus in science.
And regarding that particular point, I see what he's getting at, but my problem with it isn't the underlying point, but the fact that most of the opponents of climate change will use nearly identical arguments, and that's why I see a need to refute that central thesis.
It's totally true that science is consensus based, but climate change deniers can't use that as an argument against climate change.
Originally posted by Obbe It seems obvious that the climate is changing and that fossil fuels contribute to that. What do you think about their predictions of the future 30, 50, or 100 years from now? Predictions made using computer models based on equations similar to the Drake Equation mentioned at the beginning of his speech. What are your thoughts on these?
When it comes to using mathematical prediction models, the results are only as good as the data fed into them.
i.e. Garbage in, garbage out.
I haven't taken a super close look at the data, but obviously thousands of respected, highly-specialized climatologists have reviewed the data and are satisfied with it.
As to the accuracy of these predictions, it's all a numbers game. The more data points you feed into a model, the more accurate your predictions can become. But then there's also specificity of predictions. If you want to take thousands of years of global temperature data and use that to try and predict global temperature data for a few years from now, it should be pretty damn accurate.
But if you want to predict something way more complex, such as isolated weather phenomena within specific geographic regions... That's going to be a lot trickier.
Similarly, the Drake equation is a similar such estimation, but it's a LOT more difficult to verify since we can't exactly load up a rocket ship full of space exploring astronauts and just launch them into every neighbouring galaxy. -
2019-03-07 at 12:50 AM UTC
-
2019-03-07 at 12:57 AM UTC
-
2019-03-07 at 1:35 AM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks If you're referring to WHAT we research, then yes, that's absolutely true.
But if you mean to imply that THE RESULTS we get from research are biased, that is vastly false.
No, it's not, because "interpreting" of the results also relies on the "interpreter's" motivation and agenda. Sorry, but "scientists" lost any and all credibility long ago. They made their bed, now they need to lie in it.
ie:
Coffee is good for you!
Coffee is bad for you!
Sugar is good for you!
Sugar is bad for you!
Global warming!
Oops.. I mean climate change!
Which is when I usually reply to them, 'how about go fuck yourself!?' -
2019-03-07 at 4:27 AM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks If you're referring to WHAT we research, then yes, that's absolutely true.
But if you mean to imply that THE RESULTS we get from research are biased, that is vastly false.
this wrong.
for example, an archeological piece needs its age to be radiocarbon dated. the range of c14 dating is about roughly +-500 years.
now, any archeologist who have an agenda to put a piece of artifact to his or her preffered dynasty would have no problem of doing so and still be able to say his or her claim is scientific facts.
the same goes for ice core samples. -
2019-03-07 at 4:38 AM UTCThat's why we use uranium-lead dating to date ice cores. Much farther scope. More than enough to go back a few million years and see objective, clear evidence that we are fucking up the planet.
But all anyone wants to talk about is CARBON DATING like that's the best and only thing we've got. -
2019-03-07 at 4:39 AM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL No, it's not, because "interpreting" of the results also relies on the "interpreter's" motivation and agenda. Sorry, but "scientists" lost any and all credibility long ago. They made their bed, now they need to lie in it.
ie:
Coffee is good for you!
Coffee is bad for you!
Sugar is good for you!
Sugar is bad for you!
Global warming!
Oops.. I mean climate change!
Which is when I usually reply to them, 'how about go fuck yourself!?'
That's because of incorrect THEORIES, not incorrect DATA.
Theories change over time.
Data does not.
Nobody lied when they said the former in each of your scenarios.
They presented the best possible interpretation of the FACTS at the time. -
2019-03-07 at 4:41 AM UTC
Originally posted by GGG That's why we use uranium-lead dating to date ice cores. Much farther scope. More than enough to go back a few million years and see objective, clear evidence that we are fucking up the planet.
But all anyone wants to talk about is CARBON DATING like that's the best and only thing we've got.
which is just as subjective and speculative as c14. -
2019-03-07 at 4:41 AM UTCAlso the term 'climate change' has been around since the 70's.
-
2019-03-07 at 4:41 AM UTC
-
2019-03-07 at 4:41 AM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny this wrong.
for example, an archeological piece needs its age to be radiocarbon dated. the range of c14 dating is about roughly +-500 years.
now, any archeologist who have an agenda to put a piece of artifact to his or her preffered dynasty would have no problem of doing so and still be able to say his or her claim is scientific facts.
the same goes for ice core samples.
Yeah, an INDIVIDUAL could totally fudge up their data... But then when that same study is scrutinized by others in the field, or new evidence comes to light, then that PARTICULAR SCIENTIST will be shown for the fraud that they are.
For ENTIRE scientific fields to pull this shit off would require a little thing called a conspiracy.
And the second anyone started dropping that particular C-word, I'm out.
I'll debate reality, not wild and unsubstantiated speculation.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2019-03-07 at 4:46 AM UTCNevermind that our planet's temperatures are actually changing for the dramatic, and we are having record lows and highs all of the fucking time.
Nevermind that it is currently effecting the planet.
Nevermind that the majority of the world is actively fighting climate change.
It's obviously just an elaborate scam to ruin the oil industry and push faggot solar panels, or something. Probably the jedis. -
2019-03-07 at 4:57 AM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks Yeah, an INDIVIDUAL could totally fudge up their data… But then when that same study is scrutinized by others in the field, or new evidence comes to light, then that PARTICULAR SCIENTIST will be shown for the fraud that they are.
i dont you understand what im saying, its not the fudging of the data. its the interpretation of it.
say an artifact is 6000 years old according to c14 dating technique. that means it could be either 5500 years old or 6500 years old, now your free to place this piece of artifact as to belong to the reign of this pharoa or that, and youll still be right.For ENTIRE scientific fields to pull this shit off would require a little thing called a conspiracy.
not really. scientists are people too, and have their biases due to their personal beliefs or financial needs.
scientists are no more different than your typical politicians, and the only difference between them is instead of working with lesgilation and legislating, they work with data and the intepretation of it. -
2019-03-07 at 5 AM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny i dont you understand what im saying, its not the fudging of the data. its the interpretation of it.
say an artifact is 6000 years old according to c14 dating technique. that means it could be either 5500 years old or 6500 years old, now your free to place this piece of artifact as to belong to the reign of this pharoa or that, and youll still be right.
not really. scientists are people too, and have their biases due to their personal beliefs or financial needs.
scientists are no more different than your typical politicians, and the only difference between them is instead of working with lesgilation and legislating, they work with data and the intepretation of it.
-
2019-03-07 at 5:11 AM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny i dont you understand what im saying, its not the fudging of the data. its the interpretation of it.
say an artifact is 6000 years old according to c14 dating technique. that means it could be either 5500 years old or 6500 years old, now your free to place this piece of artifact as to belong to the reign of this pharoa or that, and youll still be right.
Any scientist worth their salt is going to include the raw data in either the paper's publication, or in an appendix, or will make it available for verification.
Then, a few years later, another scientist will perform a meta-analysis on the raw data, and they will find that the data tells a different story, and they will then proceed to publish that observation.
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny not really. scientists are people too, and have their biases due to their personal beliefs or financial needs.
scientists are no more different than your typical politicians, and the only difference between them is instead of working with lesgilation and legislating, they work with data and the intepretation of it.
Scientists absolutely are just like any other human being. Biases creep in. That is 100% true.
BUT, the degree to which that hinders or blemishes science is nowhere near as high as you're trying to make it seem.
The peer review process is yet another mechanism by which scientific discoveries are monitored.
For every paper published in a reputable journal, there are like 5-10 respected PhD'd scholars in the same field reviewing that paper.
Of course blips will sneak by from time to time, but eventually they are discovered and refuted.
In academia, if you can actually demonstrate that a long-held assumption in your field is actually false, you will become like the Britney Spears or Backstreet Boys of the academic world. The incentive to find these flaws in existing theories is FUCKING HUGE.
