Jump to content
Will it snow? 7 day forecast Weather Radar Will it be cold?
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?

The Penguin

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,196

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by The Penguin

    Global Warming

    in Space, Science & nature

    Posted

    surely lots of accepted science though deals in probabilities? Also things like newtons laws of motion etc. are just approximations and so therefore not 'right'. Many physicists expected the standard model to be proven incomplete (wrong) at some point but it is still science. Quite often todays science is just a best fit to the evidence. Isn't that why science is littered with the word 'theory'? (And the toehold that fans of ID use). No matter how often something happens one way it doesn't prove it won't happen a different way the next, just that given the evidence so far it is the best fit to our understanding of the way things occur?

    Trev, actually I don’t really disagree with that in a very general sense. But you make what I believe is an important distinction. I’m not against ‘work in progress’ being put forward as scientific theory, whereas I don’t like it being stuffed down my throat as scientific fact. Until it’s proven to be so through the ability to pass a predictive test.

    Global Warming

    in Space, Science & nature

    Posted

    I don’t agree that the example you chose is a parallel. The study of plate tectonics has a reliable history of theory being tested and proved against experience and further, importantly, is able to identify probable locations of effect and prepare the way for prediction. I, and I submit most people, would categorise that as science.

    In relation to RS and hockey sticks, I didn’t say or suggest that one adheres solely to the other. Your two examples ‘this’ and ‘this’ are pieces of work dated Dec.2004 and Jan.2005. I will therefore forgive the fact that both have been overtaken by further study. I will not forgive them their obvious bias however, one being a simple ‘double negative’ type proof of it’s preferred starting point, and the other choosing spurious ‘myths’ to dispel in a manner that points strongly to the thought that they’re only chosen so the writer can make the point he wanted to in the first place.

    On science being right or not right, what I actually said was that ‘it’s either right or it’s not science. There is possibly a clash of definitions going on here, but are you trying to propose that science could be defined as a collection of endless perhapses? I suppose in the pursuit of truth going through that process is valuable, but it’s not finished science at that stage. Nobody, as far as I’m aware, ever got a prize for saying “Maybe’s aye, maybe’s naw.” Apart from King Kenny. Whatever the true definition, plate tectonics certainly is, or is very close to, science while AGW is simply ongoing study with real debate still ongoing regarding data, interpretation, and most certainly prediction.

    Global Warming

    in Space, Science & nature

    Posted

    I didn’t see V141 denying the science of plate tectonics. Nor did he deny the sun being the centre of the solar system, not that the earth is spherical. But these are all Premiership scientific facts compared to the Vauxhall Conference status of AGW.

    The RealClimate adherence to the Hockey Stick as a primary proof weakens their case because that bit of science definitely does deserve and is receiving much closer scrutiny. Whether it stands that test remains to be seen, but it is a righteous undertaking motivated by honest curiosity rather than denial.

    I don’t believe that science can be defined as “the best evidence/most likely explanation”; it is either right or it is not science.

    Climate Chaos ? Don't believe it

    in Space, Science & nature

    Posted

    I do not agree. I do not think it takes even a modicom of thought to presume that any writing contains bias that panders to it's expected audience. Tha tabloids, even by those who read them, are still generally conceived to be of the same quality as a comic. You do a great injustice by suggesting that an intellectual precursor is necessary for a gift of discernment.

    Discernment is a good word, an excellent word, which proves my point and defeats yours.

    Discernment is the quality of being able to grasp and comprehend what is obscure: skill in discerning means a power to see what is not evident to the average mind and stresses accuracy. That puts it in the province of intellectuals, though not only of academics.

    I do nobody an injustice because I make no qualitative judgement, and no way did I say that academics are superior to anybody else.

    A complete list of the reasons ...

    in Space, Science & nature

    Posted

    . . . . until the super powers like USA and Australia play ball and reduce emissions there isn't any point in me turning off a light bulb/it can't be all that bad because the USA and Australia don't take it seriously.

    A bit unfair on Australia. Although its certainly large in land mass terms, the population is just over 20 million. That's smaller than most European countries and under a tenth the population of the USA. So as a sparsely inhabited continent with zillions of bits of non-human flora and fauna I'd say it has less to be ashamed of than most.

    Climate Chaos ? Don't believe it

    in Space, Science & nature

    Posted

    You don't tend to find balance from one newspaper imo. Each has it's own clientelle to massage (more than challenge) and, . . . . .

    That’s a thought that, if you don’t mind me saying so, would only occur to an academic. I suppose it’s obvious, now you’ve mentioned it, that most people select their preferred newspaper in the hope of being entertained with only the curious few making that choice in anticipation of being educated. The fact that a very curious few may buy a newspaper to be challenged is almost unbelievable, continuous mental gymnastics being tiring and all.

    I suppose, getting back on topic, that it’s the general public’s unwillingness to be force educated that leads to endemic ignorance on complicated subjects, like global warming for instance. And it certainly doesn’t help if the information they’re given is either misrepresented or misinterpreted.

    Global Warming

    in Space, Science & nature

    Posted

    Why do they think that Kyoto may not be very effective? Do they think that Kyoto is not important and necessary? I'll dig out some commentary.

    :)P

    Hi 3p,

    Kyoto is probably both important and necessary. However it is only a political agreement, and without banging on about politicians again it is fair to say that the substance of the agreement only reflects the various nations’ political expediency at the time. Circumstances change, other deals have to be done, and some of the old deals are swept under the carpet. It’s therefore entirely possible, I think, for the environmental conditions that drove the Kyoto accord to become more pressing at the same time as the political will to follow up on the agreement wanes.

×
×
  • Create New...