Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2010 - 06:48pm PT
|
But just to take a break from my cranky remarks aimed at other posters, here's a personal note. Right now I'm multitasking. In other windows on this computer I've got tide-gauge and weather-station and NASA GISS data, not other people's analyses but my own (using other people's data, but from small and large sources). It's for some paper about Maine that I'm writing. Work in progress, not earth-shaking but very much reality based. So personal experience is a big part of my sense of what science "is", and why the cartoon versions posted by bluey, cc, bookworm and others look so unclued.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2010 - 06:49pm PT
|
you mean.... like... proven wrong in the same way we will eventually prove that god doesn't exist?
or bigfoot....?
exactly...
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2010 - 06:52pm PT
|
So personal experience is a big part of my sense of what science "is", and why the cartoon versions posted by bluey, cc, bookworm and others look so unclued.
And maybe you wonder why I call you f*#ks arrogant....
|
|
nature
climber
Tucson, AZ
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2010 - 06:54pm PT
|
exactly...
are you serious?
|
|
nature
climber
Tucson, AZ
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2010 - 06:55pm PT
|
And maybe you wonder why I call you f*#ks arrogant....
Naw... we just assume it's because you've been drinking since 11:30AM ;-)
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2010 - 06:57pm PT
|
Look, Doug, if you're gonna troll, expect unexpected results....
|
|
nature
climber
Tucson, AZ
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2010 - 07:07pm PT
|
I wasn't trolling
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2010 - 07:30pm PT
|
I f*#king hate it when threads degenerate this way.....So Doug implies that I'm drunk at 11;30 am and I must've lost my point. I can't be right, I'M DRUNK!!!!
I'm so weak...and Doug is so right on!!!! You are so cool, Doug!
|
|
nature
climber
Tucson, AZ
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2010 - 07:35pm PT
|
naw... not really... I started early too! though I didn't start until 12:15PM which at the very least is after noon. So I got that going for me....
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2010 - 08:26pm PT
|
"F*#king schmuck nazi environmentalists."
No, from my experience, they're not nazis by definition, they're most often socialists or leftists. And that has nothing to do with whether they're good scientists or not. Good science does not cater to ideology. Although I consider myself a conservative, I'm an environmentalist, whatever that means. And I was trained to be a GUD scientist.
What's ironic, is that socialists and leftists typically support public support and programs. Environmentalism is very expensive and actually takes away funding from such programs or it's sacrificed when budget cuts loom. Just like Labor traditionally supporting the Dems and the Dems are doing everything they can to kill jobs in the manufacturing sector. Ironic, no?
Reproducible results. A hypothesis and testing that hypothesis. The data should speak for itself. That's good science.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2010 - 09:09pm PT
|
Reproducible results. A hypothesis and testing that hypothesis. The data should speak for itself. That's good science.
Mimi, I don't see the politics like you do but reproducible results certainly are key.
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2010 - 09:11pm PT
|
Yes, Chiloe, despite our personal beliefs, a common understanding prevails.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2010 - 09:24pm PT
|
so this is about elitism?
No, Ed. Far from it. I'll read the rest of your post in a sec. I got the boy running around between me and Mom....
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2010 - 09:42pm PT
|
The fact that people like chiloe, who is a scientist, are willing to discuss this on a web site where he has no real reason to communicate at all is an example of a scientist who believes that people are capable of understanding some of these rather arcane bits of information that go into the complex science of climate.
How can someone willing to explain these things to you be accused of arrogance? It is a stupid accusation. A scientist is interested in learning about science, and science is not a democratic process... you can have an opinion about it, but it comes down to data, and prediction, and agreement and disagreement of the two... your opinion, once disproved, is mostly useless.
Science is not a court of law, nor a court of public opinion, even if the public were limited to scientists. The character of the scientist is not an important consideration in the science that the scientist produces, that science can be checked, independently, against experiments and observations looking to see if the hypotheses generated by that science is false. That is the way science is done... and fabrications of science are discovered by scientists doing independent work.
You have a problem with climate science, let's see the science that your problem is based on... that would be an interesting discussion.
You have an opinion, well, probably not as interesting a discussion.
Oh, man...I thought you might be different. You ARE one of the arrogant ones.
So anybody that is not a scientist cannot have a legit dissent in this matter. The whole f*#king matter is up to 'climate scientists' to decide? The fate of many things lies in the hands of some scientific theories that are slowly unraveling to be false or distorted?
It's well documented that the sun undergoes 2 different cycles of solar flares. Been happening for centuries apparently, explaining the 'little Ice Age'. Have you guys ruled this out yet????
EDIT: And don't ask me for links, apparently you guys are way smarter than everyone else and can figure out how to access the data....
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2010 - 09:54pm PT
|
Unfortunately, despite the 'character' of scientists, etc., the fact that there has been such interference from politics and the mere term 'consensus' polluting what is going on regarding climate change has severely damaged the scientific interpretation of the data.
Politics have totally clouded the science on this subject. How can we expect the layman to understand what is going on when the scientists can't agree? Just like the politicians. How many of them ever took a biology class beyond highschool and how many of us have studied climatology to understand what is being reported in the literature?
I would wager that most of us believe yay or nay on anthropogenic climate change based on our predisposed bias from a political viewpoint.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2010 - 09:58pm PT
|
I would wager that most of us believe yay or nay on anthropogenic climate change based on our predisposed bias from a political viewpoint.
That's prolly true. But question is...why?
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2010 - 10:06pm PT
|
Why? The ultimate goal and objective based on believing that we are actually able to 'save the planet' is a powerful one. Believing that man is causing the climate to change feeds the fire of idealists that have the arrogance to believe that we can control the climate of planet earth.
Developing a political moneymaking machine around this premise is even more tantalizing. A tax engine that is based on urgent planetary salvation or else. How powerful is that? The UN is all over that fundraiser.
I affirm that these are not necessarily my personal thoughts on the subject. Mere observations perhaps.
|
|
nature
climber
Tucson, AZ
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2010 - 11:38pm PT
|
14 beers later and blue really has his panties in a bunch...
nice pose Ed.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2010 - 03:45pm PT
|
Informed dissent or skepticism is one thing, but what we have here and elsewhere are a lot of folks who aren't very well informed taking potshots at something they don't understand very well. THAT is arrogance.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!