Climate-gate

[Photizo]

They are threatening further dire consequences for those who don't convert...sort of like radical islam or the witch trials:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/23/fema-targets-climate-change-denier-governors-could/

 

[Photizo]

If the scientific method was able to operate in a vacuum free of human input I might agree with you..it is this issue of trust that is causing most of the problem hence my questions about how science can regain the trust it has lost due to "it's overly competitive nature" and zeal at discrediting any one who asks the right questions....

*Applause*

 

[Billy T]

So why do you think Crutzen had enough credibility for the world to go though a massive CFC clean up operation?...

Iceaura gave what is the most important reason in post 2098: Alternatives, with greater profit were known,*** but also:

Atmospheric chemistry is complex but sort of a closed field in which Paul was at least one of the leading experts. AGW is a more complex field with many more physical process being important - every thing from Palentology to Power Production and there is no "Leading expert" for even a small fraction of the total field and there no complete agreement on even what are the important factors, (except all do agree the sun is the largest "forcing factor").

For example, I'm more qualified than most posting here, certainly than you with your invented "theory of the month" but have strong disagreement with the ICCP, which is about as close to being an "accepted authoritative group" that exists. My POV aligns much more with the scientists of the "Arctic Emergency Group," AEG, - 30 or so experts, but the main problem is the distorted information / even lies/ put out the multi billion dollar vested interest in keeping civilization based on their oil as fuel, instead of as a chemical feed stock.

Unfortunately even their obviously false lies are widely believed: For example, big oil tells that a switch to sugar cane based car fuel would destroy the world's forests despite the facts: (1) Cane is so bulky and of such low value per truck load than transport of it more than about two hundred miles give negative profit and (2) there is enough abandoned pasture, in climates suitable for growing sugar cane, to supply all the cars needing liquid fuel a decade from now. - I speak of then, as it will take at least that long to get gasoline cars converted or scrapped and also nearly that long to build the dispersed* fermentation / distillation plants needed to produce the alcohol fuel, which can be economically transported much greater distances to the demand centers, (even across oceans in large tank ships).

* Dispersed, means one plant at center of abandoned pasture regions of less than 300 mile diameter. Lots of low skill jobs created in Africa, so people then with salaries will be customers for 1st world products, like iPods, medicines, solar cells, electric motor bikes, etc.

Because AGW is such a complex an multi-faceted problem, any ignorant fool, is easy prey to big oil's lies and their mis-information produced by paid shills like Soon, who can sound like he is correct. These scientifically ignorant are soon posting their ignorance, in completion with other "deniers," for eyeballs on the web. Hell, I bet there is even at least one, quoting you and telling AGW does not exist, as the observed temperature increase is due to a "gravitational instability" in the "great attractor" and several hundred blogging about AGW being mainly caused by air plane exhaust released at high altitudes. etc. (Last month's invented danger, now replaced by dangerous trend to "lethal O2 depletion.") I can hardly wait a month more for your next cause of danger. Why you do this, deny the real causes of AGW, is the bold text starting the next paragraph, I think. If so you are part of a large AGW denying army:

No one likes the fact that if mankind is to survive, a drastic modification to society's energy use and it base is required. - Denying that fact is much more comfortable psychological POV to accept. My fear, and that of the AEG, is that it is already too late to avoid a great extinction event, mainly as the amount of CH4 that is releasable is for practical purposes, unlimited. Its current rate of release is much greate than the rate solar UV can produce OH- which is the main process that removes CH4 from the air. I.e. the OH- concentration is falling and the CH4 is increasing, both because (1) the annual increasing release of CH4, in large part a positive feed back* effect of more CO2's AGW, and (2) each molecule released this year, will, on average, remain in the air for 0.3 years longer than the CH4 molecule released in 2014.

This is because with OH- radical concentration falling it will take about four months longer before half of the CH4 released in 2015 find and react with and OH- ion, destroying both, but for each CH4 molecule destroyed, at least one of CO2 is made. It is a complex multi-step process called the "methane cycle" and described here: https://environmentofearth.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/methane-cycle-in-atmosphere/

* Currently the warming of O2 starved bogs and the permafrost, both of which are rich in organic matter**, are the main CH4 sources, but methane ice, thermally decomposing on the large Siberian centennial shelf with its surface now ice free and waves mixing warmer water down, or mechanically released (minor, local earth quakes and subsea mud slides, etc. especially off New Zeeland now) are an increasing fraction of the global release. Man's relatively insignificant direct contribution is at least static, with most oil wells now flaring off their large CH4 release (That add to the CO2 release) and less leaking from each of the ever increasing number of pipelines. etc.

** "Methane is emitted from the earth’s surface mainly due the activity of methanogenic bacteria ..." This quote from same link above on the methane cycle.

*** There is a cheaper/ per mile driven, renewable, slightly CO2 negative, liquid fuel alternative for cars with huge environmental and economic benefits too, but those benefits are dispersed to all, not just the profits for a few owners of stocks of oil companies for whom paid scientific shills, bribes and paid lobbyists keeping laws friendly (like "depletion allowances," etc.) are a negligible cost to their multi-billion dollar annual profits.

 

[Trippy]

...however due to the scientific irresponsibility in the use of CFC's for refrigeration and other ozone layer damaging gasses

In 1970 it was proposed that human emissions of NO could lead to ozone depletion.
In 1971 James Lovelock discovered that almost all the CFC's that had been manufactured since 1930 were still in the atmosphere.
In 1974 the Rowland-Molina hypothesis was proposed (that CFC's would cause ozone depletion).
The Montreal Protocol didn't come into force until 1989 because, basically, Du Pont were successful in delaying it until their CFC patents expired.

To quote the chairman of the board in response to the at the time: "a science fiction tale ... a load of rubbish ... utter nonsense"

Sound familiar at all?

Even in 1988, after the Montreal Protocol was signed:
"Du Pont stands by its 1975 commitment to stop production of fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbons if their use poses a threat to health. This is consistent with Du Pont's long established policy that we will not produce a product unless it can be made, used, handled and disposed of safely and consistent with appropriate safety, health and environmental quality criteria. At the moment, scientific evidence does not point to the need for dramatic CFC emission reductions. There is no available measure of the contribution of CFCs to any observed ozone change..."

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Science is also asking the right questions and looking at the evidence observed as objectively as possible ( thus subjectively). It takes a human to ask the right questions. If humans do not ask the right questions then the science is useless.

@Quack
again, you are confusing the process with the human
the human may make a mistake, but that does not invalidate the process, nor does it in any way cause the process to immediately absorb any anthropomorphic abilities

So ... what effects the quality of the questions asked?
Hubris perhaps? Politics perhaps? Vested financial interests perhaps?
The quality of the science is thus determined by that hubris. ( especially indoctrination and blind faith and belief )

again, see above
do not keep confusing the process with the interpreter (the human)
you are assuming that the human IS the process, and that is not the case
nor is it the case that the anthropomorphic qualities you are assuming are inherent within the process: you even admit it is the person

BUT, again, you are misinterpreting the entire system of science and the scientific method with the assumption that no bias can be corrected for
that is, in itself, a blatant fallacy
if a bias in known, then it can be corrected for
and THAT is what the scientific method is all about...
not just finding answer A ... but explaining why A is more accurate than B, C or X
It also takes into consideration the known bias and does what it can to mitigate the bias issue
That was something actually stated in the wiki link i gave: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Start by reading the OVERVIEW (especially the part labeled Prediction and Testing)
then read Beliefs and biases (or read again below)

Scientific methodology often directs that hypotheses be tested in controlled conditions wherever possible. This is frequently possible in certain areas, such as in the biological sciences, and more difficult in other areas, such as in astronomy. The practice of experimental control and reproducibility can have the effect of diminishing the potentially harmful effects of circumstance, and to a degree, personal bias. For example, pre-existing beliefs can alter the interpretation of results, as in confirmation bias; this is a heuristic that leads a person with a particular belief to see things as reinforcing their belief, even if another observer might disagree (in other words, people tend to observe what they expect to observe).

A historical example is the belief that the legs of a galloping horse are splayed at the point when none of the horse's legs touches the ground, to the point of this image being included in paintings by its supporters. However, the first stop-action pictures of a horse's gallop by Eadweard Muybridge showed this to be false, and that the legs are instead gathered together.[47] Another important human bias that plays a role is a preference for new, surprising statements (see appeal to novelty), which can result in a search for evidence that the new is true.[2] In contrast to this standard in the scientific method, poorly attested beliefs can be believed and acted upon via a less rigorous heuristic,[48] sometimes taking advantage of the narrative fallacy that when narrative is constructed its elements become easier to believe.[49][50] Sometimes, these have their elements assumed a priori, or contain some other logical or methodological flaw in the process that ultimately produced them.[51]

Are you sure?
You claim that science has no credibility problem yet this entire thread and countless others are just about that...credibility.
If the scientific method was able to operate in a vacuum free of human input I might agree with you.

not only am i sure, but you are also answering a lot of this for yourself.
the issue of "credibility" is assigned to an individual or to a few individuals, not to the methodology, physics or the field
the only (and i really mean ONLY) reason that people are trying to assign credibility issues to the field is:
IGNORANCE
INTENTIONAL OBFUSCATION
POLITICAL MANIPULATION
PROFIT MOTIVATIONS
STUPIDITY

now, you can take your pick as to what reason you would apply any assignment to the field, but it boils down to a few really simple facts
lets look at it LOGICALLY
IF you assign a lack of credibility to Climate science
AND IF said climate science is based upon a foundation of Physics, Thermodynamics, the scientific method and more
THEN logically you are saying that the entire system is noting but one huge flaw, and that can be proven false with a few simple observations as well as some technology that we are using based upon the exact same foundation, from the internet, computers, GPS and anything using computers, technology or transmission of EMF to rockets, cars, engines and everything used in industry.

Now, industry is NOT going to say that their physics, science etc is wrong... we have a long history that proves it correct.

SO the problem MUST, by definition, be a perspective issue
and considering that this issue is concentrated into a very select minority or within the confines of those who are scientifically illiterate, then we can show, by simple observation as well as experimental evidence, that the flaw, problem or credibility issue is not only contrived by an outside skewed perspective with a motivation that is not based upon science, but we can also demonstrate that said delusional belief is also irrational as well as unfounded.

Of course I am as it takes a human being to subjectively interpret the objective data collected and the observations observed. (philosophy 101)

And it takes a rational human with knowledge of bias to create a system of observation which can account for known bias and eliminate it from said experiment with predictions as well as falsifiability in order to create a logical unbiased solution which can be considered factual (the Scientific Method 101)

that is one reason i suggested going back to school and learning the scientific method
by learning it and using it you would see the power of it...

Philosophy is IMHO nothing but bunk: it is not a hard science and it does not comply with the scientific method so it is the reason that one would not be able to comprehend the scientific method

if you try to view the world through philosophy, you leave with more questions then answers, and there is nothing that you can find to be true
I am not a philosopher. i am an investigator. i think like one. that is why i do not get along with philosophers.

The evidence you talk about is immediately anthropogenized as soon it is interpreted by those who may or may not be qualified to do so.
Do you deny this?

within science and the scientific method: yes
within politics, media or other outlets: no- you are correct

Again, until you learn what the scientific method is and how it corrects itself, for bias etc etc etc... then we will simply argue around in circles and you will continue to bring up irrelevant points (like above) because you do not understand the method, science or how to logically differentiate between them.
You are basically observing through intentionally fogged glasses complaining about the view...
Now, there are only THREE things you can do about ANY situation: You can change it, live with it, or walk away from it... but regardless of those three things, you still must know what is going on before you can do anything about it. This will prevent you from circular arguments, treating the symptom or being ineffectual.
in this instance, you need to clear away the fogged glasses (educate yourself) and learn what is going on because until you do, you will always assume conspiracy, or some other irrational belief based upon your internal bias (IOW- without knowledge of how to combat your own bias, you will always use this bias to alter your own world view and you will never have a true visual of reality - Psychology 101)


2B continued

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

cont'd @Quack

however to qualify my position better I would suggest that you take a hard look at the limitations of the scientific method and thus free yourself of it's dogma. The limitation is always the human hubris behind it's use. It is also limited to that which can be predicted thus potentially controlled thus granting the scientist God like ambitions regarding influence over that which the method allows us to predict.

and again, i think you are misinterpreting the scientific method.
The method shows you how to alleviate bias by giving you a methodology for unbiased scientific evidence (the power of the method)
really! read that page again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Anthropogenic caused Climate Change ( if we agree with it's anthropogenic nature) we are experiencing is unprecedented and therefore essentially unpredictable. ( except in a broad anecdotal sense )

Not a broad anecdotal sense, but in a sense of probabilities assigned to the known physics and attributes
will we always get it 100% correct? who knows
are we accurate? we are far more accurate than people give credit for (see the link above to skeptical science)
essentially, this is no different than being able to predict the outcome of a flipped quarter... there are only three possibilities, so we can honestly predict with some accuracy what will happen.

Overly simplistic, and lacking in any real substance IMO other wise quite entertaining.

it IS overly simplistic, but it is very substantial and cogent (which was why i linked it)
you would be surprised just how powerful that simple method is for self correction

Science is not powerful in itself nor is knowledge. They are merely tools that allow us to beat each other over the head with in an overly competitive scientific environment. ( As witnessed in today's confusion over the integrity of science regarding climate change.)

first part is true
the parenthetical section is simply a repeat of a known fallacy as explained above (repeatedly)

challenging climate change means you are willing to challenge all science and throw out physics, thermodynamics, QM, and everything else
that is religion, politics or pseudoscience, not science

Also when Francis Bacon coined the creed "Knowledge is power" he failed to mentioned that one must Trust that knowledge before he can be empowered by it. Trust therefore is the real power and not science , not the scientific method nor the knowledge we think we glean by it's use but Trust. (credibility)

As demonstrated by Governments around the world it is this issue of trust that is causing most of the problem hence my questions about how science can regain the trust it has lost due to "it's overly competitive nature" and zeal at discrediting any one who asks the right questions. ( the questions that the competitor failed to ask)

see above (again)

think about it like this: one powerful tool of the scientific method is the repeatability of the experiment.
it is why cold fusion is considered BS today, and why quantum mechanics is the most highly successful theory that was ever utilized in the history of science
that is not about trust
that is about the scientific method
trust is personal... and can be attributed to the scientist (between them) but not to the science
it either IS or IS NOT

hee hee the irony in this statement...it sounds bit like blaming climate change "entirely" on human activity doesn't it.

Take a look out yonder at the very recent and dramatic changes in "climate" on the various planets of our solar system and go ask the right questions...

Ok, show me the "very recent and dramatic changes in "climate" on the various planets of our solar system" and givem me the empirical evidence that this is not some routine circumstance with a historical breakdown and then we can talk about it
big hint: you will NOT find any historical climate records nor any empirical evidence that shows a current dramatic change in climate in the solar system

You forget that not too long ago Earth was the center of the universe (Geocentrism) waiting to be disproved. ( "The fire of the Inquisition was hot" Galilei was heard to yell!)

nope
again, that simple fact shows the power of the scientific method
it also shows the problem with letting a religion dictate knowledge as well as the problems with allowing unproven, unprovable fallacious statements be spread through fear, terror and lethal circumstances.

you example is actually one of the best examples to demonstrate the power of the scientific method and how to remove bias from science, actually

it is also a warning to our future (about religion, politics and delusional beliefs and their power)

I didn't mention intelligence... you did.

I mentioned science and or the use of scientific method and stated that "with out wisdom the scientific method is insane".

For it takes wisdom to ask the right questions!
And the first bit of wisdom needed is to realize the egocentric human fallibility factor. (Pride)

and i am pointing out that you are (again) confusing the methodology with the person using it

re-read above about how the scientific method fights against bias

support that claim as a true scientist would and I might listen to you.
quote "about that which you absolutely do not understand"

The term absolutely is a very big word don't you know.

first off, i am not a scientist. i am a (now retired) professional investigator (Formerly a Truck Captain in the Fire Department, hence the name)
I am trying to give you logical, well thought out answers in such a manner as to present the information in a relevant, logical fashion and explain the problem that i can see, but you are not able to comprehend as of yet: Your personal bias is not allowing you to understand the scientific method or differentiate between the people and it's methodology

secondly, you have demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge of the scientific method, even though i've linked you a means to brush up on it or to examine it in at least more detail than a simple definition ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method )

Thirdly, you are still repeating your same argument even though it is proven to be illogical and it's been refuted above
One reason i am continuing the discussion is to draw you out and get you talking about the why: so far you've been very circular and it all points to a lack of understanding as well as personal bias (right now that is assigned to fear, conspiracy and possibly religion, although it may be otherwise and there may be other reasons... feel free to include them. this is all part of a psyche study that I am working with)

Ahh Now we are talking...
Talking about "Pride".

Twice now you have linked to MIT and mentioned your studentship there.

nope
not pride... knowledge.
and i've mentioned it far more than twice

also, that link is to free classes: no credit from them unless you pay and take the course and get a grade
(i don't need the grade: i've already gotten my degree's and i'm too old to switch jobs or go back to the work force)

That is another reason i linked them... you can take the classes and enjoy the education for free

Look, Truck... If I were to take your word for it, and you are in fact enrolled at MIT ...congratulations!
It is one of the better places to study I believe.

i didn't say i was enrolled, did i?
and i don't think anyone should take anyone else's word for anything, really.
Even the people i trust don't get a free ride like that from me... i always verify everything that i can
that is something i learned a LONG time ago...
it is all about empirical evidence and the science for me

I also wish you luck as it is up to you and your generation to fix all the stuff ups we older folk have made of this planet. Sincerely, I reckon you are in for a really hard time as the challenges you face are utterly enormous.

uhm... i'm retired
i am in your group, Quack... i am hoping that my Daughters will be the generation who fixes our screw-ups.

You CAN do it. the human races future depends on you and your generation to get it right.
But never forget the nature of the human market you are attempting to support.


May be one day you can earn the Trust needed to make a difference.

well, again.. that is for my children and grandchildren.
i am pushing a few of my grandchildren into science... my granddaughter is especially gifted in that area... almost as much as my middle daughter, who is getting her Electrical Engineering degree (& Aeronautical ) in two months.

and again, about that "trust" issue...
see above
again

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

I'm not crying about anything, pal. You're crying because someone's not paying homage to your 'god'. You go do what you think you have to do.

except you claimed

Assume all you want. Your long winded diatribes do nothing but expose you as a hack. What I have said, I have said concisely and to the point. You think that all your rambling merits credibility. Wrong. "When words are many, transgression is not lacking"... i.e. precisely the opposite.

ok, so you don't like long answers... it is still a whine and sob story and demonstrates you have no evidence to refute anything said

you think i'm wrong: prove it

and i make NO claims to credibility for myself
only to the science

and i will link studies that are far more credible than your personal conjectures
this one is relevant and applies to you very well: http://www.plosone.org/article/fetc....1371/journal.pone.0075637&representation=PDF

 

[Quantum Quack]

@Truck,
Unfortunately we shall have to agree to disagree.

I fail to see how one can remove the human acting scientist from the scientific method. Whether that be in terms of bias correction or any other compensation for the necessarily subjective interpretations made by those human actors.
By taking the above position allows me to understand how we as a race have got ourselves into such a mess where as your approach denies the fallibility of the scientific method and therefore prevents open admission/responsibility and therefor possible change for the better. It may also be the main reason science is in such a mess generally IMO (Differentiating the human from the science or claiming as you have that science is some sort of immaculate altruistic actuality instead of being an ideal )

The scientific method is only as good as the hand (mind) that wields it.

This should be obvious and also why philosophy ~ logic, epistemology, metaphysics etc are an essential per-requisit to quality Mathematics , Physics and other sciences.

With out a proper understanding of logic/reason for example mathematics is merely useless doodles/symbols on a page.

The scientific method is in fact a philosophical method to assist in deriving a self consistent journey towards an ultimately unattainable truth. ( due to the objective/subjective egoistic issue )

 

[Quantum Quack]

Example of stupid science:
Claim: "Plastic toilet seats contribute towards the development of cancer"
Why: ">85% of persons suffering cancer have sat on plastic toilet seats"
Can the above be tested for? yes
Are the results repeatable? yes
Prediction:
If you sit on a plastic toilet seat at any time in your life you have a >85% chance of developing cancer.

Is the claim founded as valid?: Yes

Suggested remedy:
Use our own very special brand of inexpensive non-cancer causing "timber" toilet seats.
"Where splinters in the bum are better than cancer in the...."

 

[sculptor]

the answer t the far right wing
The Birch John society

 

[Quantum Quack]

Hell, I bet there is even at least one, quoting you and telling AGW does not exist, as the observed temperature increase is due to a "gravitational instability" in the "great attractor"

Please don't forget the inexplicable "Dark Flow" phenomena, the cosmic metric expansion acceleration and the discovery of the inexplicable Eridanas Super Void. (CMB Cold spot)


The predictions and causation was published in 2006* and I said at the time that the evidence required to support the contention was evolving and sadly, I am so far vindicated in my position. However on a positive note the death toll has been surprisingly minimal so far. (eg. Cyclone Pam Cat5 - destroys Vanuatu killing only as few as 11 people...)
The opening of sink holes in Russia, the faster than expected ice sheet melt and so on, all more or less according to prediction. Recorded dramatic changes to weather on our planets in the solar system also is evolving.
So , legs up and wait is all I can do...
I am waiting to see if Hubble will release data about star /planet changes in other systems ( but I doubt they will as that would publish/confirm their greatest fears)

* since withdrawn from publication as the web site was repeatedly taken down (hacked) every time I mentioned it here at sciforums ( up to 30 times ) So now I have no detailed publicly published position. ( and happy about it to be honest)

** I believe AGW does in deed exist but in combination with many other factors. We are facing a much bigger issue than just AGW.

AGW is only the bit the world can possibly get it's head around at the moment. (science in particular due to being fixated with the Einstein/Minkowski space time paradigm.)

 

[Quantum Quack]

Unfortunately even their obviously false lies are widely believed: For example, big oil tells that a switch to sugar cane based car fuel would destroy the world's forests despite the facts: (1) Cane is so bulky and of such low value per truck load than transport of it more than about two hundred miles give negative profit and (2) there is enough abandoned pasture, in climates suitable for growing sugar cane, to supply all the cars needing liquid fuel a decade from now. - I speak of then, as it will take at least that long to get gasoline cars converted or scrapped and also nearly that long to build the dispersed* fermentation / distillation plants needed to produce the alcohol fuel, which can be economically transported much greater distances to the demand centers, (even across oceans in large tank ships).

* Dispersed, means one plant at center of abandoned pasture regions of less than 300 mile diameter. Lots of low skill jobs created in Africa, so people then with salaries will be customers for 1st world products, like iPods, medicines, solar cells, electric motor bikes, etc.

I personally think this is a great idea, decentralizing the energy refineries so as to promote local employment. Big oil would certainly not like that....

 

[Quantum Quack]

The Washington Post published some bad news about the Gulf Stream a couple of days ago and is still unavailable to view. Possibly a regional restriction (Australia)
Does any one else have access to the Washington Post web site?
www.washingtonpost.com/

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

By taking the above position allows me to understand how we as a race have got ourselves into such a mess where as your approach denies the fallibility of the scientific method and therefore prevents open admission/responsibility and therefor possible change for the better.

@Quack
well, you have it wrong there
i am not assuming anything to be infallible, for starters
and the power of the Scientific method is its ability to self correct: when new data comes in that refutes or undermines something that has been proven by the method, then the method incorporates it into the new paradigm. That is why it is so effective at finding what is real and dismissing what is not relevant or what is not real

your anthropomorphizing the system is creating an inability to comprehend this
you are assigning the flaws of humans to the systematic method of a system: this is no different than assigning trust and love to a wall. That wall is not standing just because you are the one who put it up, or because you trust it, or because you think it has faith in you, or any other reason than because it abides by the laws of physics.

(Differentiating the human from the science or claiming as you have that science is some sort of immaculate altruistic actuality instead of being an ideal )

Perhaps you should look at this another way: when talking about computers, there is only DATA.
you can program a computer to act upon certain types of data, and you can eliminate the external flow of data from various sources to exorcise noise when trying to determine a flaw in the communications between computers... but there is NO anthropomorphic human attributes in the computer, system or the data. there is only the data.

you cannot assign morality or human attributes to data, or walls, or inanimate objects (or, in the case above, to inanimate methodology). It simply is.
there is no altruism. there is no anything but the DATA

unfortunately, i must say that you might have a point here though:

Unfortunately we shall have to agree to disagree.

 

[sculptor]

The Washington Post published some bad news about the Gulf Stream a couple of days ago and is still unavailable to view. Possibly a regional restriction (Australia)
Does any one else have access to the Washington Post web site?
www.washingtonpost.com/

QQ
no need
the web has several takes on the subject at hand
caveat

There is no reliable observational evidence of the strength of the Gulf Stream over time, since even modern measurements are relatively scarce. To get around this problem, the study's authors created an index based on sea surface temperatures to infer the strength of the current over time. Specifically, they took into account the temperature difference between the area most influenced by changes in the strength of the circulation, which is that telltale cold patch in the North Atlantic, and the rest of the Northern Hemisphere.

There are a lot of assumptions in there.

Great for headlines, not so much so for quantitative data.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Example of stupid science:
Claim: "Plastic toilet seats contribute towards the development of cancer"
Why: ">85% of persons suffering cancer have sat on plastic toilet seats"
Can the above be tested for? yes
Are the results repeatable? yes
Prediction:
If you sit on a plastic toilet seat at any time in your life you have a >85% chance of developing cancer.

Is the claim founded as valid?: Yes

Actually, this is a very good demonstration & example of flawed logic and a few other things...
So far your arguments have run more towards things like the correlation implies causation fallacy and hasty generalization ... not to mention complete lack of evidence
(which is a big one for the "prediction" about plastics above)

they have also demonstrated fallacies from Strawman and Hasty Generalization to Personal Incredulity, Non Sequitur, Ad Hoc and others...

i don't know if that was intended, but you are not making a positive argument for any kind of credibility issues in science so much as the arguments used against science (and the scientific method) are direct from the logical fallacies homepage

think on that a bit

 

[Quantum Quack]

@Quack
well, you have it wrong there
i am not assuming anything to be infallible, for starters
and the power of the Scientific method is its ability to self correct: when new data comes in that refutes or undermines something that has been proven by the method, then the method incorporates it into the new paradigm. That is why it is so effective at finding what is real and dismissing what is not relevant or what is not real

and who does the correcting other than a subjective actor?

your anthropomorphizing the system is creating an inability to comprehend this
you are assigning the flaws of humans to the systematic method of a system: this is no different than assigning trust and love to a wall. That wall is not standing just because you are the one who put it up, or because you trust it, or because you think it has faith in you, or any other reason than because it abides by the laws of physics.

all scientific observations , methods and results are subjectively interpreted by humans...

Perhaps you should look at this another way: when talking about computers, there is only DATA.
you can program a computer to act upon certain types of data, and you can eliminate the external flow of data from various sources to exorcise noise when trying to determine a flaw in the communications between computers... but there is NO anthropomorphic human attributes in the computer, system or the data. there is only the data.

all computers are programmed by humans. All algorithms are subject to interpretation, all data aquisition is subject to human subjective requirements.

Example:What data do I wish to find today?

you cannot assign morality or human attributes to data, or walls, or inanimate objects (or, in the case above, to inanimate methodology). It simply is.
there is no altruism. there is no anything but the DATA

Data only becomes data rather than scrambled egg, because a human mind assigns a quality of utility and order to it.
A simple study into Epistemology would be quite revealing for you.

I would strongly suggest a few course in philosophy as all science is founded on it.

unfortunately, i must say that you might have a point here though:

ahh we finally agree!

 

[Quantum Quack]

QQ
no need
the web has several takes on the subject at hand
caveat

There are a lot of assumptions in there.

Great for headlines, not so much so for quantitative data.

No, I need to know if the web site is restricted or not.
Washington Post tweets appear to be functioning as usual but access to the server is not.

 

[sculptor]

No, I need to know if the web site is restricted or not.
Washington Post tweets appear to be functioning as usual but access to the server is not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...he-oceans-with-potentially-dire-consequences/

 

[Quantum Quack]

Actually, this is a very good demonstration & example of flawed logic and a few other things...
So far your arguments have run more towards things like the correlation implies causation fallacy and hasty generalization ... not to mention complete lack of evidence
(which is a big one for the "prediction" about plastics above)

they have also demonstrated fallacies from Strawman and Hasty Generalization to Personal Incredulity, Non Sequitur, Ad Hoc and others...

i don't know if that was intended, but you are not making a positive argument for any kind of credibility issues in science so much as the arguments used against science (and the scientific method) are direct from the logical fallacies homepage

think on that a bit

No my reason for posting the stupid science was to demonstrate in an extreme way just how much influence the human actor has on the scientific method.
A more relevant example would be associated with cosmologies view of the universe as of today.
They state that the universe is expanding etc and that funky stuff like dark energy and matter are necessary to balance the books.
Problem is they are using data that is billions of years obsolete ( according to Einstein /Minkowski space time) to premise their findings. What is even worse is that there is no consistent definition of energy to begin with.

Accordingly, we actually know very little about today's universe and all we can do is talk about what it was historically billions of years ago and speculate on what it is today. The older the data the more extreme the speculation etc.

If taken to extreme we can not even know what is happening (present tense) to our sun unless we ignore the info time delays involved.

So the scientific method can not tell us what is happening right now in the universe nor can it help us understand the universe in a way that is relevant to today.
(again because light speed info delays can not be ignored but are being ignored)

so again the actor is all important in the use of the scientific method.