Science isn't determined by consensus. That is faith, just like religion.
Really? Then how is science determined???
In academic publishing, the goal of peer review is to assess the quality of articles submitted for publication in a scholarly journal. Before an article is deemed appropriate to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, it must undergo the following process:
The author of the article must submit it to the journal editor who forwards the article to experts in the field. Because the reviewers specialize in the same scholarly area as the author, they are considered the author’s peers (hence “peer review”). These impartial reviewers are charged with carefully evaluating the quality of the submitted manuscript. The peer reviewers check the manuscript for accuracy and assess the validity of the research methodology and procedures. If appropriate, they suggest revisions. If they find the article lacking in scholarly validity and rigor, they reject it. Please enlighten us Cicero... how is science determined?
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Please enlighten us Cicero... how is science determined?[/b]
The results have to be repeatable. When other scientists test the hypothosis and does not get the same results it is still a theory, hence creating a new hypothesis. You've already agreed that 3% of scientists do not accept the hypothesis. You either don't recognize them as scientists, or you agree that their testing didn't result in proving global warming is man made.
The results have to be repeatable. When other scientists test the hypothosis and does not get the same results it is still a theory, hence creating a new hypothosis.
Quoted Text
The author of the article must submit it to the journal editor who forwards the article to experts in the field. Because the reviewers specialize in the same scholarly area as the author, they are considered the author’s peers (hence “peer review”). These impartial reviewers are charged with carefully evaluating the quality of the submitted manuscript. The peer reviewers check the manuscript for accuracy and assess the validity of the research methodology and procedures.
The independent results of a multitude of scientists conclude... the view that humans are mostly the cause of climate change... is repeatable in 97% of the cases cited.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
The world will reset when it must, it can only supply so much before we tap it clean, we are not in control, politicians are not in control even though they think they are.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
The world will reset when it must, it can only supply so much before we tap it clean, we are not in control, politicians are not in control even though they think they are.
I agree... the world may 'reset'. Humans may or may not survive. In the history of the earth, 97% of all species have gone extinct... Humans may just be the next one to go.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
The independent results of a multitude of scientists conclude... the view that humans are mostly the cause of climate change... is repeatable in 97% of the cases cited.
That's not repeatable by definition. The speed at which an object falls at the rate of gravity is repeatable 100% of the time. The temperature at which water boils and freezes is repeatable 100% of the time. Those are scientific facts. You are trying to pass a scientific theory as fact to push a political agenda. You are bastardizing science to push a political cause.
That's not repeatable by definition. The speed at which an object falls at the rate of gravity is repeatable 100% of the time. The temperature at which water boils and freezes is repeatable 100% of the time. Those are scientific facts. You are trying to pass a scientific theory as fact to push a political agenda. You are bastardizing science to push a political cause.
And the rate of climate change is repeatable all over the world... all scientists find the same results even though they approach the topic from different perspectives. Measuring ice... Measuring sea temperature... Measuring co2... etc.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
And the rate of climate change is repeatable all over the world... all scientists find the same results even though they approach the topic from different perspectives. Measuring ice... Measuring sea temperature... Measuring co2... etc.
The data collected may measure the same, but the cause isn't. In the billions of years the planet has been in existence, there have been many warming and cooling periods the earth went through. And this was well before the industrial revolution. To take a few hundred years of data out of billions and come to the conclusion of man-made global warming would be unscientific. I don't have to be a scientist to understand there is incomplete data to be able to pinpoint the cause of the earth’s warming and cooling cycles.
Just like religion, human nature has a desire to know the absolute truth about the world around them. Religion has many fables that explain the world around them, this is just another man made fable to satisfy those desires.
Cicero is entitled to his misguided opinion. Even those who deny evolution and promote 'creationism' have a right to their opinion. Many cultures have embraced religion as if it were science. Since Cic is anti education, I'm not surprised that he's also anti science.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Cicero is entitled to his misguided opinion. Even those who deny evolution and promote 'creationism' have a right to their opinion. Many cultures have embraced religion as if it were science. Since Cic is anti education, I'm not surprised that he's also anti science.
I'm all for science...Just not your faux science to push your agenda. It is your bastardization of science that is misguided. You really shouldn't redefine scientific theory as scientific fact, it will confuse the truly ignorant(for which you are a part of - so you are excused).
That's not repeatable by definition. The speed at which an object falls at the rate of gravity is repeatable 100% of the time. The temperature at which water boils and freezes is repeatable 100% of the time. Those are scientific facts. You are trying to pass a scientific theory as fact to push a political agenda. You are bastardizing science to push a political cause.
Cissy is so gullible. ~The speed at which an object falls at the rate of gravity is repeatable 100% of the time. Except as we reach the edge of our atmosphere and beyond. The temperature at which water boils and freezes is repeatable 100% of the time. Except in a vacuum The temperature at which water boils and freezes is repeatable 100% of the time. Except it varies at elevation Cicero's "scientific facts" are exactly that... facts but not 100% of the time.
The FACT that climate change is caused in a large part by human actions is as much a fact as the boiling point of water or the rate of gravity.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Cissy is so gullible. ~The speed at which an object falls at the rate of gravity is repeatable 100% of the time. Except as we reach the edge of our atmosphere and beyond. The temperature at which water boils and freezes is repeatable 100% of the time. Except in a vacuum The temperature at which water boils and freezes is repeatable 100% of the time. Except it varies at elevation Cicero's "scientific facts" are exactly that... facts but not 100% of the time.
The FACT that climate change is caused in a large part by human actions is as much a fact as the boiling point of water or the rate of gravity.
Good try box, those are still predictable when subjected to those specific conditions.
The problem with the so-called "science" behind global warming is that there have been numerous occasions when studies were edited, altered or otherwise revised so as to show a connection which really couldn't be scientifically proven. Just the other day, I was talking to someone who was involved in a study of Lake Champlain ( a study funded by New York and Vermont) and when they were preparing the final report -- they were specifically told to eliminate any mention of the fact that the Canadian operators of a damn downstream from Lake Champlain have intentionally (due to a variety of factors)reduced the amount of water that they let through the damn. This reduction in water sent downstream through the damn thus contributed to the increase in water levels on Lake Champlain AND -- the researchers wanted to say they could NOT determine how much of the water level increase was due to climate change and how much was due to the reduction in the water sent downstream. Yet, they were told to eliminate any mention of that in there report and just say that a) water levels are rising and b) it was caused by climate changes.
Cicero and I don't always agree -- but he is right on in saying that the "science" of climate change is questionable at best. We are being buffaloed into accepting that all climate change is caused by humans and we are not being allowed to ask questions nor are many scientists being allowed to show any of the evidence that suggests that there are OTHER CAUSES to the various "symptoms" and to the overall changes in climate being experienced or claimed to being experienced.
It still gets me that some of the loudest pushers of the global warming issue have been very hypocritical in the actions they have supported or taken over the years. A former State Legislator who pushed the global warming band wagon kept saying we need alternative, non-carbon based energy sources yet for two decades dragged his heels when energy companies wanted to build new power supply lines across the state from the Niagara and St. Lawrence hydroelectric power damns to our area and downstate. So for years the cheaper, cleaner hydro power got sent to Canada and the Midwest while we and downstate had to get our power from the "dirty" carbon burning plants.
Then you have folks like Ted Kennedy -- push for wind power to get us off dirty carbon generated power but then raise a fit when someone proposes a wind generating project on the horizon off his summer home at Cape Cod.
It is the bull sh*t hypocrisy like these two examples and the squashing of honestly obtained information (like the account at the beginning of this post) that causes people to wonder ARE THEY (the environmentalists and "green" politicians) TELLING THE TRUTH?
George Amedore & Christian Klueg for NYS Senate 2016 Pete Vroman for State Assembly 2016[/size][/color]
"For this is what America is all about. It is the uncrossed desert and the unclimbed ridge. It is the star that is not reached and the harvest that is sleeping in the unplowed ground." Lyndon Baines Johnson
Scientific Consensus... Cause of Climate Change: Humans
A survey of thousands of peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals has found 97.1% agreed that climate change is caused by human activity.
The survey considered the work of some 29,000 scientists published in 11,994 academic papers. Of the 4,000-plus papers that took a position on the causes of climate change only 0.7% or 83 of those thousands of academic articles, disputed the scientific consensus that climate change is the result of human activity, with the view of the remaining 2.2% unclear.
The Scientific Method has NOTHING to do with consensus. If it did then we could have said 1000 years ago that since 100% of scientists believed in Creationism that Creationism was scientifically proven to be correct.
It has everything to do with proving something scientifically - which means that a theory can be proven by either being replicated/repeated in an experiment/lab setting or proven with some kind of verifiable evidence.
At best global warming is an unproven theory.
George Amedore & Christian Klueg for NYS Senate 2016 Pete Vroman for State Assembly 2016[/size][/color]
"For this is what America is all about. It is the uncrossed desert and the unclimbed ridge. It is the star that is not reached and the harvest that is sleeping in the unplowed ground." Lyndon Baines Johnson
Logged
