Quote:
Originally Posted by REASON
Okay, I get it. You don't want to address my bigger picture, general philosophy question. I'm asking it because I actually think others, freezy in particular, have already adequately responded to your questioning the reliability of the data points.
|
Thats because I find the philosophical aspect the lesser of the inquiry when compared to the question of "is the science settled". Philosophy is sooo subjective.
Some of the responses have tried to adequately respond. But when the responses include quotes from the offical agencies in charge of temperature accuracy "counting lights from space to determine UHI" compared to the actual photographs of the stations positions on earth in daylight, I cant help but wonder, How bad does the science have to be before the proponents begin to demand quality?
Quote:
Originally Posted by REASON
In my opinion, it is totally valid to expect that the individual temperature readings be as accurate as possible, and it is valid to identify potential inconsistencies. I don't believe that there exists any real desire to avoid refinement by the researchers, and scientists are willing to acknowledge where there are weaknesses in their data and take them into consideration as they develop their theory.
|
Then you havent been spending much time observing the interactions between the skeptical side of this issue as they try to get data to test the theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by REASON
But to me, to stand on this specific issue as justification for your overall belief about the validity of AGW is like saying that showing statistics that Babe Ruth struck out a lot is all that is necessary to form the belief that he generally wasn't a good hitter, and doesn't deserve to be recognized as such and glorified in the MLB Hall of Fame. If someone told me that, I would tend to think that they are either not using enough information to form their belief about Babe Ruth, they have some particular bias against him, or they just don't know what the hell they're talking about.
|
cute analogy. How would you react if you found out someone in charge of the statistics had altered the numbers for Babe Ruth, 40-50-60 years after the game ended? How would you react if you found out this same org had decided to adjust records of whole teams 40-50-60 years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by REASON
Yes, when you're looking at the science, it's important to be as specific and accurate as possible. But when it comes to forming a belief, sometimes I think it is important to consider the bigger picture, and what it is that motivates our choices. When it comes to this topic, what is it in us that tends to accept or reject scientific information that leads to the conclusion of AGW?
|
I dunno, for some its general skeptism of the ability of science to predict climate changes in the future. Might have something to do with bird flu pandemics. For others it may be they expect more from science than they do from the doomsayers of the religiously indoctrined.
Quote:
Originally Posted by REASON
I'm not convinced that those who reject AGW are doing so because they have more convincing climatological research than has been presented in IPCC reports, but because they have some other bias that keeps them focused on any information that supports the opposite conclusion.
|
Wow. Why cant it be that the IPCC reports themselves are not convincing? Why cant it be the IPCC reports are biased? And those who look no where else for answers are not biased? Strikingly similar to the people who do not look beyond the bible for answers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by REASON
I'm curious about the nature of those biases if they exist, and the influence they have on the way people form their beliefs about climate change in general. I've had the same curiousness about people's biases against the science of evolution in these threads as well, for instance, and I see similarities in the attitudes of those who reject each of these scientific conclusions.
|
Really? How's this then:
Climate changes. Thats a fact. Ice ages come and go and in-between it warms up. It varies, the distance of time between these extremes. Inbetween those extremes we have other climate extremes. Globally and locally. Little ice ages, medieval warmings, times when the ice in the antarctic reduces dramatically leaving open water areas the size of Texas (I expect science to discover this same feature over the arctic as they explore more), times when under the existing glaciers of greenland/iceland, blooming prairies existed. 600k years ago. The Iceman revealed his existence AFTER the glacier melted. He didnt tunnel down into a glacier to die. Only 5000 years ago he walked atop the snow, or maybe at that time it was the ground. Wow. Glaciers have melted (and expanded) before??? Before Man kicked a bit of Co2 into the air??
Climate changes. Adapt or go extinct.
