Reply to: Horizon: Science under attack

[EternalOptimist]

I don't think it's spit; he got pretty excited at the end there.

jeez, you dont mean ....he's frothing

[SizeZero]

psst pj. you have a bit of spit in the corner of your mouth

I don't think it's spit; he got pretty excited at the end there.

[EternalOptimist]

Are you sure about that? I did a quick survey of the sceptic's favourite blog - WUWT. If you add up the contribution of cosmic rays and other solar explanations, oceanic oscillations, adjustments to the measurements and the Urban Heat Island effect Anthony Watts has accounted for approximately 210% of global warming so far and no need to invoke Co2. What a relief.

psst pj. you have a bit of spit in the corner of your mouth

[pjclarke]

At the moment there are two competing theories, CO2 warming and solar variation

Are you sure about that? I did a quick survey of the sceptic's favourite blog - WUWT. If you add up the contribution of cosmic rays and other solar explanations, oceanic oscillations, adjustments to the measurements and the Urban Heat Island effect Anthony Watts has accounted for approximately 210% of global warming so far and no need to invoke Co2. What a relief.

[BlasterBates]

Science is about a debate, and about who has the best arguments.

Yes there are areas where it is cut and dried, but that is the end result, getting there is messy, there are competing theories, inconclusive results, that's where the debate is; the debate drives further research, some which goes up a cul de sac.

AGW is not conclusive, there are arguments for and against. Which is the most likely?

At the moment there are two competing theories, CO2 warming and solar variation. If the globe warms over the next 10 years, this would more or less knock the solar variation theory into touch. If it cools, the C02 argument would look stronger.

It is unlikely in the forseeable future that some conclusive proof is going to pop up, therefore it will be a debate. That is exactly how it should be.

The debate forces scientists to question their own theories, develop new ones to answer the flaws.

The "science is settled" is just a political argument.

[NotAllThere]

...the sociologist response was to question whether science was actually "science"
can't remember all the arguments but they were along the lines of:

• science is restricted by the knowledge at the time, what is accepted as fact at a particular time in history doesn't necessarily make it so (the world is flat etc)
  
• science is influenced by too many external factors i.e. money, if as a scientist is commissioned to do research into a particular area are they likely to find results that their funder might not necessarily want
  
• there rarely exists a scientific consensus, example a few years ago mass media would have you believe that man made global warming was an irrifutable fact, ignoring over 1000 climatologists who were on record as saying it was a flawed theory

...

That is generally the educated but non-scientistific view. And it is wrong. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is about.

The thing is sociology and other humanities type studies debate, argue, and whoever comes up with the best argument wins. Science doesn't work like that. Scientific truth is not arrived at by debate, but by evidence, experiment and results.

Some theories are stronger than others. Much depends on falsifiability (what experiments can I perform/predictions can I make, which, if my theory is wrong, will show it), and how many points of agreement (the number of experiments/predictions made that have been shown to fit with the theory). A theory with many points of agreement, that's falsifiable but never found to be false, is a strong theory and EXTREMELY unlikely to every be overturned, but may, at some point, be refined. Newton's theory of motion being such a theory.

[RichardCranium]

FFS, if you're going to hijack threads, have the decency to talk about fit birds!

HTH.


Anyway, Mr Vine made a point of teaching O Level Physics in a historical context and each lesson followed on from the previous one in a logical progression of exploration and discovery.

But I think was helped by an excellent Oxford & Cambridge Examining Board syllabus which made it possible.

However, Mr Delhi-Arseholes made A Level Physics spectacularly dull and continuously berated us for not having a degree, whereas he had two. (The 2nd was, of course, his post-graduate teaching certificate.)

[RichardCranium]

They should train diseases to fight other diseases. Like leprosy that makes buboes or cancerous bits fall off.

Or introduce cats to remote islands to keep down the rats we took.

Or myxomatosis to get rid of rabbits.

[Paddy]

WEOS

WRCSAWEOS

[RichardCranium]

Currently reading "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson.

Very good it is too.

How many errors and misconceptions have you found? I reckoned there was about one per page, sometime many more.

A book for idiots, written by an ignorant lay person.

Travel writer: beyond compare.

Science writer: fukcwit.

[sasguru]

I'll tell you whats missing from this debate. Most of us here are experts in our field, some are world class. I have met contractors who are definately world class.
The scientists that we are discussing are just like us, they are not a seperate species. Everyone here makes mistakes, everyone likes praise, glory and being the undisputed authority. We like the dosh, and the guarenteed work, for being 'the expert'.
But we are man enough to admit its a load of bollocks, we might get overturned tomorrow.

Because we are up there (in our niche) we can recognise the BS and the bollocks. I personally would never stoop so low as some of these climate scientists have done

shame on them

You are not world class.
HTH

[RichardCranium]

Surely the reason why the common man is becoming disillusioned by the scientific process is because it is being politicised by failed politicians, hijacked by zealots, milked by unscrupulous researchers, used as a doomsday authority to sell papers and shoddy journals and blamed for everything when someone breaks a nail.

WEOS

[Mich the Tester]

I'll tell you whats missing from this debate. Most of us here are experts in our field, some are world class. I have met contractors who are definately world class.
The scientists that we are discussing are just like us, they are not a seperate species. Everyone here makes mistakes, everyone likes praise, glory and being the undisputed authority. We like the dosh, and the guarenteed work, for being 'the expert'.
But we are man enough to admit its a load of bollocks, we might get overturned tomorrow.

Because we are up there (in our niche) we can recognise the BS and the bollocks. I personally would never stoop so low as some of these climate scientists have done

shame on them

you mean shame on some of them?

[Addanc]

FTFY

Baa baa baaaaaaaaa

[Old Greg]

Not if you want to deliberately create cogs for the capitalist machine.

FTFY