Gore isn't a scientist. Listen to what the scientists are saying. Unless you've studied the subject in detail you are in a poor position to argue with people who have!
Scepticism of all published science is a required feature of all scientists.
Without going into the philosophy in any detail, scientists observe and measure phenomena, from which they deduce some sort of relationship. This is called a theory.
Sometimes it is not possible or practical to make a true induction, particular when there are conditions to the observation and measurement that cannot be perfected. These are what you would call induction and would be formed as a more general form of theory.
This second type of theory formation tends to be the norm when considering biological systems, simple or complex. We are not dealing with a simple causal relationship like heating and cooling, expanding and contacting. Here the subject being observed reacts to different changes in the environment in complex ways that are not fully understood but there appears to be a reasonable form of relationship we can observe and measure but only under strictly defined condition.
Finally there is a form of theory called inference which is even less categorical than the first two.
This would be most appropriate describing individual things or organisms but complexes of these like who populations of organisms or animals. You cannot understand a forest by just looking at a tree for example but generally one can draw inference from enough observations and make some sort of theory about oak forests that could infer similar possibilities in walnut forests but maybe not in tropical forests
Always, the science is not settled. It must always be opened to challenge for all comers. To do this the methods and raw data MUST be made available to all as part of that scientific process.
If any theory can be disproved or cannot be reproduced following the method stated the theory is viewed to be falsified and thus disproved. This is a scientific definition of falsifiable not the general one of faking, although some of the stuff fro the EAU looks to be truly fraudulent. One disproval or falsification of the theory is enough for it to fall,just one.
Newton's Law of Gravity was really always a scientific theory which for 3 hundred or so years was not disprovable or falsifiable, as is the scientific terminology. The theory cannot be faulted. Einstein did Newton down but Newton still stands effectively for most needs.
Climate science, by its very nature seems to follow into the inferred/induction category where there is so much that is not hard and factual.
However, to refuse to publish the raw data and the methodology used to reach the induced or inferred theory confines these prognostications to the category of inspired guesswork and by no means is it settled science never mind anywhere near a scientific theory.
In fact I would argue that the whole Climactic Science jamboree could be better described as a "social study involving some scientific method"
Place this lot in the hands of politicians looking for the main chance is like giving the keys of the bloodbank to Count Dracula.
Making these "scientists" dependent on continuing to produce more of the same, in order to feed themselves, and it is no wonder that the science become corrupt.
Sometimes it is not possible or practical to make a true induction, particular when there are conditions to the observation and measurement that cannot be perfected. These are what you would call induction and would be formed as a more general form of theory.
should read
Sometimes it is not possible or practical to make a true
deduction
, particular when there are conditions to the observation and measurement that cannot be perfected. These are what you would call induction and would be formed as a more general form of theory.
I am a trained scientist (PhD chemistry). I don't have detailed knowledge to argue with climate change scientists. If overwhelming majority of CCS think we have a problem then I would argue that the sensible course of action is to believe them. They may not be right but the probability is they are.
Whatever the truth is that the data wants to tell us (all the data, not just the stuff that advances one side's agenda), these guys know that *now* is the time to go all out with the fearmongering, so that the masses will give up more of their freedom and hand over taxes to a global cabal of bankers, industrialists and bent politicians.
And *now* is their time, because they won't know which of their other lies will be uncovered next.
It is a matter of trust, and they don't have one iota of mine. People need to earn trust, and hiding data and telling lies is not the way to go about it.
Ooops CH, meant to say, once all the UEA data has been shared among ALL climate scientists and reports made, then I may be less sceptical. I'm not being difficult, I just find the political interference is all this has made me wary.
I am with you SB on politicians using it as a revenue stream but that doesn't mean that we ignore what is actually happening to the planet.
Climate scientists aren't saying that we are the cause of GW but that we are influencing the rate of change which will hit the poorest hardest yet they are the most innocent and voiceless.
If AGW had no political input then I believe people would more readily accept the science but like everything else in this world politicians are the problem not the solution.
I am not a scientist but I do understand that science, like history (of which I know rather more), is never "settled" and it is that oft repeated outrageous lie that forms the basis of my scepticism.
Happily Her Gore is being widely ridiculed for "misspeaking" on the issue of polar ice disappearing. Bring it on Al baby, spout some more ever shriller nonsense to bring your cash-cow down before the next junket in Mexico.
I usually admire your posts, but I have to agree with Strathturret on your most recent - what a lot of half-digested nonsense. The Popperian notion of 'falsifiability' of a statement isn't a test of whether the statement is true or false, but a test of whether it is a scientific statement. This is not a matter of science, but of the philosophy of science. So when you say:
Newton's Law of Gravity was really always a scientific theory which for 3 hundred or so years was not disprovable or falsifiable
..you are spouting arrant nonsense. If the theory was not falsifiable, then it was not a scientific theory - Popper requires only that falsifiability is possible in principle. The theory was falsifiable in many ways - for example by conducting an experiment to show that a falling body in a vacuum did not accelerate at 23 ft/sec/sec. Einstein's relativity was falsifiable in principle, although it was many years before the falsification could be attempted (by measuring the predicted deflection of light from distant stars around the edges of the solar disk at an eclipse). Relativity did not suddenly become scientific when this test was performed - it was always scientific, because the test was possible to envision.
I think you might also benefit from an examination of Hume's discussion of induction and Popper's answer to it. Sorry, no link - you'll find it as the Chapter One of his 'Objective Knowledge'.
I bear no brief for Al Gore, and I am not a dewy-eyed naif who believes that scientists are immune to coercion, bribery or foolishness just as much as the rest of us. But there is a difference - a big one - between individual scientists and Science. Individual scientists can be foolish, corrupt, or misguided, but in the end the process of science gets there in spite of them.
Richard Feynmann tells a story of historical attempts to measure a particular physical constant (I forget the details). The first measurement, made by a scientist very eminent in the field, was wildly wrong. Subsequent measurements moved away from this initial measurement towards the true value, but only a little at a time, so that graphed over time the value seemed to follow a curve. Of course the true value had never changed - scientists were conservative, and unconsciously adjusting their results so that they did not disagree too violently with reputable previous work. But (and this is the important thing)in the end the true value was found.
The behaviour of the people at Hadley seems quite indefensible, but that is only one institution out of the many who support claims of AGW - in fact no scientific institute (other than a few easily demonstrated to be bogus fronts for the fossil fuel industry) disputes AGW. Individual scientists may be found who do not support AGW, but they can also be found who dispute the link between HIV and AIDS, and between smoking and lung cancer.
SUBROSA - Please contact me if you have any ideas, stories or complaints: subrosa.blonde AT yahoo.co.uk Replace AT with the @ symbol. My profile can be viewed here.
Posts
20 comments:
That video says it all
Gore isn't a scientist. Listen to what the scientists are saying. Unless you've studied the subject in detail you are in a poor position to argue with people who have!
Indeed it does killer.
The problem is many folk believe this man strathturret.
Strathturret
I am a scientist, albeit not one of the Climactic persuasion.
I have not read all the science and I doubt if many people actually have.
However I know scientific method and philosophy and a lot of what I have been reading, albeit in précis, is not settled.
Scepticism of all published science is a required feature of all scientists.
Without going into the philosophy in any detail, scientists observe and measure phenomena, from which they deduce some sort of relationship. This is called a theory.
Sometimes it is not possible or practical to make a true induction, particular when there are conditions to the observation and measurement that cannot be perfected. These are what you would call induction and would be formed as a more general form of theory.
This second type of theory formation tends to be the norm when considering biological systems, simple or complex. We are not dealing with a simple causal relationship like heating and cooling, expanding and contacting. Here the subject being observed reacts to different changes in the environment in complex ways that are not fully understood but there appears to be a reasonable form of relationship we can observe and measure but only under strictly defined condition.
Finally there is a form of theory called inference which is even less categorical than the first two.
This would be most appropriate describing individual things or organisms but complexes of these like who populations of organisms or animals. You cannot understand a forest by just looking at a tree for example but generally one can draw inference from enough observations and make some sort of theory about oak forests that could infer similar possibilities in walnut forests but maybe not in tropical forests
Always, the science is not settled. It must always be opened to challenge for all comers. To do this the methods and raw data MUST be made available to all as part of that scientific process.
If any theory can be disproved or cannot be reproduced following the method stated the theory is viewed to be falsified and thus disproved. This is a scientific definition of falsifiable not the general one of faking, although some of the stuff fro the EAU looks to be truly fraudulent. One disproval or falsification of the theory is enough for it to fall,just one.
Newton's Law of Gravity was really always a scientific theory which for 3 hundred or so years was not disprovable or falsifiable, as is the scientific terminology. The theory cannot be faulted. Einstein did Newton down but Newton still stands effectively for most needs.
Climate science, by its very nature seems to follow into the inferred/induction category where there is so much that is not hard and factual.
However, to refuse to publish the raw data and the methodology used to reach the induced or inferred theory confines these prognostications to the category of inspired guesswork and by no means is it settled science never mind anywhere near a scientific theory.
In fact I would argue that the whole Climactic Science jamboree could be better described as a "social study involving some scientific method"
Place this lot in the hands of politicians looking for the main chance is like giving the keys of the bloodbank to Count Dracula.
Making these "scientists" dependent on continuing to produce more of the same, in order to feed themselves, and it is no wonder that the science become corrupt.
Simple really but not science, not real science.
Sometimes it is not possible or practical to make a true induction, particular when there are conditions to the observation and measurement that cannot be perfected. These are what you would call induction and would be formed as a more general form of theory.
should read
Sometimes it is not possible or practical to make a true
deduction
, particular when there are conditions to the observation and measurement that cannot be perfected. These are what you would call induction and would be formed as a more general form of theory.
http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/fff17f8947aba3f5e502f0ed30adb9ee.html
FauxCax
Rarely read such nonsense.
I am a trained scientist (PhD chemistry). I don't have detailed knowledge to argue with climate change scientists. If overwhelming majority of CCS think we have a problem then I would argue that the sensible course of action is to believe them. They may not be right but the probability is they are.
I'm afraid I don't buy conspiracy theories.
Whatever the truth is that the data wants to tell us (all the data, not just the stuff that advances one side's agenda), these guys know that *now* is the time to go all out with the fearmongering, so that the masses will give up more of their freedom and hand over taxes to a global cabal of bankers, industrialists and bent politicians.
And *now* is their time, because they won't know which of their other lies will be uncovered next.
It is a matter of trust, and they don't have one iota of mine. People need to earn trust, and hiding data and telling lies is not the way to go about it.
Thanks for the link CH. Hasn't this type of climate change gone on for centuries though? That's why I'm a sceptic about it being called man-made.
Ooops CH, meant to say, once all the UEA data has been shared among ALL climate scientists and reports made, then I may be less sceptical. I'm not being difficult, I just find the political interference is all this has made me wary.
Stewart, I've just said much the same to cynicalHighlander, although you said it better. :)
Subrosa, I just spent more time on it, because I've got time to kill till my pizza is ready!
Time goes fast when blogging and I nearly always pull a burnt wreck of a pizza out the oven. I'd better go...
Stewart, it's after midnight. You'll surely never sleep if you eat pizza now.
Then again, being young, you possibly will. :)
I often sleep after feeding my face. Probably explains why I often don't sleep too well!
(That and worrying about the Arctic ice!)
I'm not as young as I used to be, but thanks. :-)
I am with you SB on politicians using it as a revenue stream but that doesn't mean that we ignore what is actually happening to the planet.
Climate scientists aren't saying that we are the cause of GW but that we are influencing the rate of change which will hit the poorest hardest yet they are the most innocent and voiceless.
If AGW had no political input then I believe people would more readily accept the science but like everything else in this world politicians are the problem not the solution.
I am not a scientist but I do understand that science, like history (of which I know rather more), is never "settled" and it is that oft repeated outrageous lie that forms the basis of my scepticism.
Happily Her Gore is being widely ridiculed for "misspeaking" on the issue of polar ice disappearing. Bring it on Al baby, spout some more ever shriller nonsense to bring your cash-cow down before the next junket in Mexico.
Faux cu
I usually admire your posts, but I have to agree with Strathturret on your most recent - what a lot of half-digested nonsense. The Popperian notion of 'falsifiability' of a statement isn't a test of whether the statement is true or false, but a test of whether it is a scientific statement. This is not a matter of science, but of the philosophy of science. So when you say:
Newton's Law of Gravity was really always a scientific theory which for 3 hundred or so years was not disprovable or falsifiable
..you are spouting arrant nonsense. If the theory was not falsifiable, then it was not a scientific theory - Popper requires only that falsifiability is possible in principle. The theory was falsifiable in many ways - for example by conducting an experiment to show that a falling body in a vacuum did not accelerate at 23 ft/sec/sec. Einstein's relativity was falsifiable in principle, although it was many years before the falsification could be attempted (by measuring the predicted deflection of light from distant stars around the edges of the solar disk at an eclipse). Relativity did not suddenly become scientific when this test was performed - it was always scientific, because the test was possible to envision.
I think you might also benefit from an examination of Hume's discussion of induction and Popper's answer to it. Sorry, no link - you'll find it as the Chapter One of his 'Objective Knowledge'.
I bear no brief for Al Gore, and I am not a dewy-eyed naif who believes that scientists are immune to coercion, bribery or foolishness just as much as the rest of us. But there is a difference - a big one - between individual scientists and Science. Individual scientists can be foolish, corrupt, or misguided, but in the end the process of science gets there in spite of them.
Richard Feynmann tells a story of historical attempts to measure a particular physical constant (I forget the details). The first measurement, made by a scientist very eminent in the field, was wildly wrong. Subsequent measurements moved away from this initial measurement towards the true value, but only a little at a time, so that graphed over time the value seemed to follow a curve. Of course the true value had never changed - scientists were conservative, and unconsciously adjusting their results so that they did not disagree too violently with reputable previous work. But (and this is the important thing)in the end the true value was found.
The behaviour of the people at Hadley seems quite indefensible, but that is only one institution out of the many who support claims of AGW - in fact no scientific institute (other than a few easily demonstrated to be bogus fronts for the fossil fuel industry) disputes AGW. Individual scientists may be found who do not support AGW, but they can also be found who dispute the link between HIV and AIDS, and between smoking and lung cancer.
Oops - typo: 23 should be 32
Post a Comment