Scientist misuses science
Scientist misuses science in argument
Models embody out best estimates of what we know. They constantly require calibration by experiment. This interplay has been proven powerful by many examples, beginning with the design of functioning nuclear weapons in the 1940s.
Models give us glimpses into variables we can’t measure but the models must always be calibrated and made consistent with good experiments and observations.
Models of climate are very difficult because they involve complex physics.
Because of this they must be used with care.
Science prefers good practice which involves the back and forth between modelling and experiments/observations.
Laboratory experiments are also good but not always definitive for many of the same reasons that models are not always definitive. They may not include all the variables that are important in the real world.
Good experiments/observations rule, but models and lab experiments clarify when used correctly.
This letter has not been edited.
Get ready for it. Here come the posts from people that can see CO2 in the air and that we should do something anything just in case. John you must understand that the only truly reliable models are those that prove that mankind in general and the USA in particular are hurting the environment. Seriously, you got to hand it to the left. They've found an issue with the effects decades away. How can you possibly refute their claims with measurements? Here is an example. By 2050, I will have invented a machine that cancels out gravity. Prove me wrong based on measured data.
Posted by on November 9, 2007 02:36 PMI pretty much agree with everything Mr.Watson said, and I am as Left as they come.
02:36 said "By 2050, I will have invented a machine that cancels out gravity. Prove me wrong based on measured data"
It's not for us to prove you wrong. Since what you say goes contrary to current understanding and theory, it is for you qua claimant to offer evidence and proof.
So go ahead, show why we should accept what you claim.
Why don' t you show evidence to the contrary bingo skunk ? - there is a lot more data out there every day that is debunking your scary tactics on the sham that is global warming. So for you to tell 2:36 to prove it means that your argument is weak.
Global warming theories are starting to crumble via speakouts and published papers by legitimate scientists not in it for the grant money - it looks like your firm global warming icebergs are melting bingo.
8:26,
No those "ligitimate" scientists you fools like to quote are "in it" for the money from Exxon, Shell, British Petroleum (or BP as they would like us to believe).
President Carter was right, we should have switched over to clean, renewable energy sources 30 years ago, but YOUR Saint Reagan made sure it didn't happen.
And your children are paying the price for it, with increased asthma, and other respiratory ailments right here on the front range.
We're only a microcosm of what's happening worldwide.
You right-wingers owe us all, especially your children, an apology for your short-sighted ,profit-driven greed.
dmz - what store do you buy your tin foil from?
Yes all of the scientists that beleive that human caused global warming is a sham are paid for for by petroleum companies. Do you read anything than environmental defense propoganda? I doubt it, You're too much of an idiot and agenda driven left winger to ever listen to the other side of an argument.
The right wingers owe you all an apology ?- eventually I think the apoligist will be you left wingers forcing this AGW theory down everybodies throats and for what, higher taxes and feel good propoganda that is bogus from top to bottom?
The right wingers don't owe you jack S. let alone an apology for not buying into this massive sham of an agenda?
I suppose since most of the so called "Rich" are also supposedly "right wingers" you'd just assume tax them into oblivion for building businesses that pay the taxes that support your welfare programs. Once they are put out of business and taxed into the poor house where would your welfare check funds come from every month?
freak
3:04 coward,
My, my we certainly hit a nerve, didn't we?
I'm still waiting for an apology.
Cons of your ilk can't provide anything constructive to say because your kool-aid bloated brains stopped functioning after Reagan began the slide into fascism.
What possible motive does the left or any REPUTIBLE scientist have for pointing out the obvious? We ain't getting rich trying to make this planet worth inheriting for future generations.
On the other hand, it's also obvious that you own stock in Fossil-fuel industries that are killing us all.
Name-calling is all you and your ilk have left, since, for the last 7 years of corporate controled Bush league "leadership" has resulted in a failed foreign policy, Iraq, dead troops, Blackwater, a runaway deficit, a plunging dollar ,polluted air, water, and your kids health .
And your corporate welfare(dividend) check is shrinking daily . btw, how's your portfolio lookin'? Try working for a living, for a change.
I suggest you take a pill, turn off Foxaganda,
and take a long drive in your Hummer off a short pier.
But first, kiss my ass.
So let’s deconstruct a bit of what 08:26 has to offer.
”Why don' t you show evidence to the contrary bingo skunk ? - there is a lot more data out there every day that is debunking your scary tactics on the sham that is global warming.”
If there is data that debunks the proposition that the planet is undergoing a warming event driven by human activity, then those data are not being reported in the science journals, and in theories to explain them. I read a fair number of the main journals, and I haven’t seen anything that contradicts the proposition of global climate change. You are welcome to go check for yourself, Nature and Science are both available at the library.
”So for you to tell 2:36 to prove it means that your argument is weak.”
Your concept of proof seems to be a bit tenuous bub, as is your grasp of who was arguing what. I agreed with Mr.Watson’s letter, and 02:36 demonstrated a lack of understanding of how science works. He thought that he can just make a claim and then stand back with a “prove me wrong” air of superiority.
As I pointed out, the claimant has the burden of proof.
The theories that posed human activity as a significant force behind a global warming event also had that burden, and they demonstrated through proper science.
This is why it is now the default position.
”Global warming theories are starting to crumble via speakouts and published papers by legitimate scientists not in it for the grant money - it looks like your firm global warming icebergs are melting bingo.”
Far from crumbling, there is a consistent and continual confirmation going on. So if you think that there are lots of published papers that hold the opposite view or undermine the position of anthropogenic global warming, where are they, why aren’t they represented at all in the science journals, and why are none of the science bodies taking that view?
As to your pathetic ad hominem about grant money, the day of wealthy “gentlemen-scientists” is long gone - we now have orders of magnitude more scientists at work, and the grant system provides them a livelihood, just like any other salaried person, as well as a way to fund the costs of doing science.
Doing science isn’t cheap, and as flawed as the grant system may be, it’s faults lie mainly in what gets studied, not is what the findings of the study will be.
There is always more that should or could be studied than available funds, and grants is one way to fund at least some.
If you want to pony up more in taxes or be a benefactor so that more can get studied that would be great, I just don’t see it happening though, do you?
Researchers get paid to do two kinds of research. One is to find out something that someone wants to know. The other kind is to prove something that someone wants proven.
A researcher who consistently finds out things that the people paying him don't want him to find out, stops getting money.
If Al Gore is elected president, is there anyone who doesn't believe that global warming scientists will make lots of money?
Disinterested scientific research is a myth.
Posted by Yaakov Watkins on November 10, 2007 07:44 PMYaakov, your classification is incomplete and misses something important.
Sometimes the greatest discoveries have nothing whatsoever to do with somebody doing the two kinds of research you pose.
Here are two examples:
The guy who invented the chip-sized laser had no idea that it could be used for anything whatsoever, and the facility that funded him didn’t either.
He not only didn’t know, but also didn’t care whether it had any practical application, all he wanted to do was solve a problem of how to shorten the resonant chamber and still get a laser. Nobody commissioned him to prove anything, and nobody asked him to invent such a laser.
That technology enabled the CD, the DVD, laser checkout scanners, bar-code scanners, and a host of other things.
Berners-Lee developed hypertext markup and started the web as part of the CERN atom-smasher project. The basic research into particle physics in no way predicted the invention of the web. Nobody gave him a grant to do this, and nobody told him to prove something.
Some companies like Xerox pride themselves on inspiring staff to be innovative and set aside time for people to just follow ideas that they find interesting. Some discoveries hang about for years before somebody else figures what to do with them – like the glue for sticky-notes.
” A researcher who consistently finds out things that the people paying him don't want him to find out, stops getting money.”
Luckily, basic research is still a major part of science and needs to remain so.
If researchers only worked on the two avenues you spell out, a major source of innovation would disappear.
These days there are so many studies that are cherry picked to prove one side or the other of an issue or the studies are focused on only what serves an agenda driven purpose, and neither of these methods follow anything even resembling true scientific methods.
Where methodology is questionable and scientists can be hired to prove a specific end or bought off by money by mecantile, political and agenda driven purposes, or are motivated by their own preconcieved ideas, all findings must be questioned.
But it seems the public will buy any lie if it is told often enough and when they fail to investigate what's behind those lies presented as truth. All that is necessary is for zealots to use their old, tired and fraudulant mantra that it is for the wellbeing and good of the public.
Case in point: House Speaker Nancy and the tax driving congress want to impose, yet again, a new .61 cents tax on cigarettes to fund the farce of SCHIP health care for 25 year old "kids" and those making up tp $81,000 a year. Doesn't anybody see the problem in this whether you're a smoker or not? That increase will never come close to paying the projected $35,000,000 cost and it is only a tyrannical tax on smokers to pay for middle class health care, which they could and do pay for themselves anyway in the first place.
That health plan will invititably be payed for by another tax increase on everyone and It is nothing more than taxing the minority in a certainly failing attempt to fund health care for the majority and is, ipso facto, both another fisically irresponsible action by a congress out of touch with reality and what is in the publics best interest as well as a tyrannical tax imposed on smokers that will not work to pay for a farcical health proposition in the first.
And, we don't need anymore lying, irressponsible politicians, we need less tax, less governmental regulation of our lives and less lies and deceptive programs from our elected representatives and public officials.
Posted by Allen Campbell on November 11, 2007 10:10 AMAnyone who thinks this isn't about money needs to do some serious research. Between the scientists getting paid to say this is all manmade to the various government entities who are looking to increase tax revenue in the name of saving the planet, there are billions to be made off this junk science.
Why do you think California (and other states) are suing the federal gov insisting they be allowed to "regulate" (tax) greenhouse gases?
Even the mayor here wants to get in on the act.
Posted by KW on November 11, 2007 12:42 PM"the scientists getting paid to say this" and "government entities who are looking to increase tax revenue"
these are common myths that are used to attempt to rationalize one's disregard for science. do you have a link to support these statements KW?
Posted by jay on November 11, 2007 01:27 PMTed Bundy was a registered Republican, and traveled around the country killing women between engagements as a Republican campaign worker.
That fact really has nothing to do with global warming, but I wanted to mention it so people won't forget, and as an example of a typical, sadistic so-called "conservative" behaves.
Posted by dmz on November 11, 2007 07:27 PMKW, if you think money is the prime motivator for scientists on the whole, then you obviously don’t know the breed very well.
Grants are a major source of irritation to most scientists, and most see the wheeling and dealing around getting funding as at best a distraction, but more like prostitution.
However, there is more research to be done than funding to do it with – especially when government funding is cut by tax-averse politicians. This results in a tooth and nail fight for survival that is to nobody’s benefit except those politicians who play the taxation violin.
I suggest you stop attributing your character traits to scientists, and grasp that unlike politicians and lawyers, scientists mostly just want to find out how nature really works, they don’t want to argue a partisan side.
The payback is discovery and recognition amongst one’s peers.
Paul Ehrlich earned a B.A. in zoology in 1953 at the University of Pennsylvania, an M.A. in 1955 at the University of Kansas, and a Ph.D. in 1957 at the University of Kansas.
In 1959 he joined the faculty at Stanford, being promoted to full professor of biology in 1966.
Ehrlich wrote an article that appeared in New Scientist in December 1967. In that article, Ehrlich predicted that the world would experience famines sometime between 1970 and 1985 due to population growth outstripping resources. Ehrlich wrote that "the battle to feed all of humanity is over ... In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now." Ehrlich also stated, "India couldn't possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980," and "I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks that India will be self-sufficient in food by 1971." These specific predictions did not actually come to pass, and his later book The Population Explosion is much more cautious in its predictions.
For further reading google Thomas Malthus.
Posted by James Jones on November 12, 2007 06:33 AMSkank - I was refering to the so called "science" of GW, not of science as a whole. You know, the topic of this thread. If you need to change someones words and meaning to make an argument then you're right up there with jaybird.
Are you two related?
jay - If you haven't read ANYTHING about the our beloved mayor wanting to raise taxes in the name of saving our planet then you need to try getting your news somewhere other than moveon.
Posted by KW on November 12, 2007 09:42 AMKW, same applies.
There isn't some kind of separate "science of GW" that uses different and inferior techniques, and the scientists involved are not some different kind of being.
You have an ideological resistance to climate science, just as I would imagine you have towards evolution. These are irrational and belief-based obstacles that you have to understanding nature.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with the science being any different to any other part or field of science.
James, why are you bringing up Malthus?
If it is to demonstrate that scientists are often wrong, I doubt that anybody will dispute that.
Still waiting for that link to substantiate your tinfoil hat conspiracy theories KW.
Posted by jay on November 12, 2007 06:54 PMWhere do the scientists that are pitching AGW get their money from?
Organizations or Governments that want to hear that this is a reality so they can blame human kind and tax us into oblivion.
All of you pro AGW honks are real quick to discredit any scientist that is against this scam by saying they are paid off by the oil companies yet never provide proof of this. You same people are real quick to defend the pro AGW scientists that survive and live off of grants form government and environmental organizations funding the propoganda that is global warming.
The hypocrisy is comical .
Al Gore, the king of this hypocrisy sells carbon credits for profit while living in an inefficient mansion and flying around the world in private jets preaching this garbage. Al Gore wins a Nobel peace prize and he is not even a scientist. Al Gore provides verifiable false data in his movie - anybody remember the hockey stick analogy? How about 20' sea level rises?
CO2 does not hold heat and is only about 3% of our atmosphere. All those pretty pictures of cooling stacks in his movie - STEAM - you cannot see CO2.
Plants and trees use CO2 to create the oxygen they exude - plant a freakin' tree. CO2 is not warming the atmosphere - Al Gore's hyperbole is.
Global Warming is a scam - how are all of you honks going to look when the earth starts to cool?
the sky is falling the sky is falling.
09:41, I don't give a tinker's about hypocrisy, I care about which is the most reliable scientific position and what is the most trustworthy reflection of nature and reality.
In my books it is more important that a truth claim is right, than whether the person uttering it is a hypocrite or not.
I don’t care what Gore lives in or where he travels, but I do care that the science is done properly and that decisions are made on the best science.
The best science of the day indicates a very strong likelihood that the current warming event is due to human activity, so that is the bet to put your money on.
To do the opposite to spite Gore isn’t just stupid, but insane.
BS, You have to admit the hypocrisy kind of smells of something and knocks the arguments of valid pro-AGW scientists down a notch as this is supposedly where he gets his data.
You go ahead and put your own money on it BS. I'll stand on the sidelines and hope that you are wrong.
l'll still live as energy efficient life as possible but from what I've read over the years I still have to disagree with you.
Good luck
Jack, it degrades the person, not the argument.
Living an energy-efficient life as you do is laudable, and if you want to see more confidence to be shown on the science before you agree to large-scale federal efforts to be undertaken, then that is fine and understandable.
My only question is who you are looking to for that signal.
All the science bodies are convinced enough to make AGW the default position, so if not them, who are you watching?
still
waiting
KW
you folks on the far right have got to wonder why there are no credible, peer-reviewed, field-appropriate scientists on your side of this argument.
Posted by jay on November 14, 2007 10:07 AM