Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Global Warming - It's Our Fault
- Thread starter Tituscrow
- Start date
You are right and credit should be given where it's due.
Many steps can be taken to minimize bias, though I don't think it can be eliminated as it is an innate part of human nature.
The studies can come up with as much information with as little bias as they want. That does not mean bias does not exist, nor does it mean those with the power to do something on a large scale (make policy, etc.) will not inject their own bias.
Anyway, what people really need to worry about is all this geotech stuff they don't know about. That stuff's way more dangerous than the stuff we do know about. If there's one thing that I learned in the military, it is the fact...yes, fact...that whatever you think is the latest, greatest, biggest, baddest, most technologically advanced thing there is, we're at least two steps ahead of that, maybe more...it's just reserved for the select few. The Navy has sonar weapons now that are killing all the mermaids and nobody cares...
I don't get what he's doing in the discussion except as a strawman. Al Gore has never had anything to do with the science.
If all the dollars used to date to compile the data to reach this conclusion (captain obvious) had been spent on engineering solutions to emissions, instead of spanking us with it, maybe by now we might have been cutting emissions significantly. Now that there is consensus (something laymen already knew and accepted decades ago) maybe the climatologists can study engineering and do something actually useful now. Same goes for all the Sheldon Coopers of the world. Put the chalk down, step away from the chalkboard and do something USEFUL!
Wait, maybe not: The last practical thing your theoretical research made possible destroyed two cities and threw the world into a Cold War that threatens planetary destruction to this day. Trying to understand how the universe was made instead of just working on harvesting the nearest star's free energy is a waste of time, intelligence and money.
Wait, maybe not: The last practical thing your theoretical research made possible destroyed two cities and threw the world into a Cold War that threatens planetary destruction to this day. Trying to understand how the universe was made instead of just working on harvesting the nearest star's free energy is a waste of time, intelligence and money.
Yeah because being a mechanical engineer after being a research climatologist should take a weekend of training at the local college annex. What are you smoking?
You won't ever figure out how to harvest the sun's energy without understanding how it works. This thread is full of misconceptions of what scientists and engineers actually do. What do all you people do for a living?
Proof a scientific mind is contained in a box and has no imagination or humor.
Btw, engineers have made these little things called solar cells that harvest solar energy even though they don't know how the sun actually works. What have you been smoking?
Btw, engineers have made these little things called solar cells that harvest solar energy even though they don't know how the sun actually works. What have you been smoking?
So says the person that thinks climatologists should spend their time being engineers. LOL. Let's talk about how auto mechanics are so close minded and can easily do work as accountants. They should put down the oil can and go do some REAL work, something practical, like doing my taxes.
Solar Cell engineers know what they need to know to design the sensor, are you saying that they just randomly put some stuff together like magic to make a solar cell? Where do you think they got the information needed to even formulate the possibility?
Predictable straw men? Are you denying that humans are fallible and therefore by extension science is also fallible? If science doesn't prove or disprove anything, what does it do?
If I find time, I'll consider reading those books.
I'll agree with this, I am not that smart. Even so, pretty much any available metric puts me way above the vast majority of people.
So add smug, self diluted, and delusions of grandeur to the list?
If you're so much smarter than the average Joe, why waste your time here? Shouldn't you be off saving the world or something?
sci·ence
ˈsīəns
noun: science
1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
"the world of science and technology"
synonyms: branch of knowledge, body of knowledge/information, area of study, discipline, field
"the science of criminology"
2. a particular area of this.
plural noun: sciences
"veterinary science"
3. a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
"the science of criminology"
4. (archaic use) knowledge of any kind.
Origin
Middle English (denoting knowledge): from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scire know.
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
Perhaps he's like me in that his path to world salvation takes a direct route through internet bass forums, dropping nuclear payload smugness along the way.
Of course science is fallible (again, Thomas Kuhn), but unless I'm misreading your position, you're inferring that because science has gotten it wrong in the past, then it should automatically be treated with skepticism, even when it has produced solid research.
It falsifies. Proving something requires a logic statement that under X conditions, Y is always true. Because of realistic problems with sampling, confounding variables, and unknown factors, trying to prove every single case is near impossible. That is why scientific testing involves a decision of whether or not to reject the null hypothesis. Hypothesis testing requires the investigator to accept the null hypothesis unless contradictory data provides evidence otherwise.
Check out this wiki page for more detail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsificationism
I'd bet that past mistakes were built on the solid research of the day. What qualifies as solid research today may well be be viewed as a misstep in the near future.
I believe in what I've heard called a healthy dose of skepticism. As long as there are scientists who disagree on a conclusion (I've yet to see anyone here claim 100% of scientists agree on Climate Change, Global Warming, or whatever the current euphemism is), as far as I'm concerned, the issue is not yet settled.
Admittedly, mine is a passing interest. I'm not sufficiently interested to dedicate time and energy to the accuracy of the claims being made. While it may be not every scientist is in it for profit, being a scientist is how they make their living, no?
As such I'd bet only a precious few would risk their livelihood by standing against the majority in their field.
I don't think anything should just be accepted as truth based on who said it and what proof they claim to have. Think how easy it is for someone with knowledge of something to mislead others who don't have said knowledge.
I will look into that.
What I'm seeing a lot of is "we were wrong then (ie: global cooling 30 years ago), but we're right now". But science is still fallible. I'm sure 30 years ago they said the same thing, and may well be correcting themselves again 30 (or less) years from now.
With all the data manipulation from the IPCC, and Michael Mann in recent years or Al Gore who just happens to be in the green energy business; I'm going to remain a skeptic for now. Many scientific consensus have been wrong throughout the human reigns of time like for example that the sun, moon, and stars rotate around the earth or that the earth was flat. I do believe that the earth climate is changing, but not nearly as bad as some would have you believe, and I certainly don't believe that man is 100% responsible or to what degree (if any). Plants play a major role in the reduction of greenhouse gasses, but we don't ever seem to hear about that aspect.
I will be a lot more apt to believe that man plays a role in climate change after maybe 20 more years or so of research, and I don't want to hear it from politicians selling green energy.
Yes we should keep on working on ways to reduce greenhouse gasses, but not to the point of bankrupting America through crushing cap & tax legislation. Remember ... they call it "global warming" - not United States warming. We can't bankrupt America while the rest of the world - namely China, and India go on their merry way.
My 2 cents.
I will be a lot more apt to believe that man plays a role in climate change after maybe 20 more years or so of research, and I don't want to hear it from politicians selling green energy.
Yes we should keep on working on ways to reduce greenhouse gasses, but not to the point of bankrupting America through crushing cap & tax legislation. Remember ... they call it "global warming" - not United States warming. We can't bankrupt America while the rest of the world - namely China, and India go on their merry way.
My 2 cents.
