Local Blogs - Guy Midkiff
What is science? I decided to pay a visit to my online Merriam Webster Dictionary and see how they described science. According to them, science means the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.
In order to know something, it must be proven. To me, science is a proposition that has been proven by demonstrable processes that leave no doubt as to the truth of the proposition. For example, Copernicus did not hold as most scientist of his time, that the earth was at the center of the universe. This was the medieval period where science was fashioned and bent to powerful influences from the church and contemporary philosophers.
But true scientific findings should be free of external influences. Religion, money, philosophy, peer pressure, and politics have no roll in scientific determination. When these corrupting influences entwine themselves in the scientific process, the ultimate result is solutions before research - which is sham science.
To make my point, I recently entered into a discussion about global warming with a young man that was convinced of the phenomena. I asked him how he could be so sure that global warming existed and his admonishment to me was, "Don't you watch the news?" Well, he had me there. I actually don't watch the national news much anymore because they lost credibility with me, years ago.
I expressed my concern to him and he said it was the law of averages. So many scientists and politicians are on TV telling us about global warming, it must be true, he said. An then he said it... the "c" word, the bane of science.... " global warming is the consensus of thousands of scientist" he said enthusiastically.
I asked him if it was more important for 10,000 scientists to have consensus on global warming or that just one of them, through scientific processes, could actually prove or disprove global warming. The conversation ground to halt. It was like a Lost in Space episode where the robot was overwhelmed and could only babble..."that does not compute, that does not compute."
We parted ways with him shaking his head and me hopeful that I had planted at least a small seed of question in his young, malleable mind.
To the point of "consensus science," it simply can't be made better than the late Michael Crichton: "Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels: it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled."
And while historic temperature reading can be determined through various core sampling technologies, the reasons for ancient global temperature variances can not be reconciled any more than can future rates.
With respect to vaunted computer modeling, we are led to believe these impressive and powerful computer programs can tell us what global temperatures will be in 50 and 100 years, but ask them to use their computer software to predict the weather in one week and ... well, you know the story.
Global warming has become a cause celebre for powerful politicians and media giants. Actual scientific findings have not (and probably never will) caught up with the consensus and settled science groupies, though. And now we are to believe these same prophets of environmental doom that were preaching global cooling 3 decades ago?
Fiendishly, our pop-culture uses peer pressure to intimidate the un-believers. We are called polluters, heretics, and uneducated. How could we not "know" that global warming exists? We must have been dropped on our heads at a young age.
Ironically, I do believe that global warming does exist, though...just as global cooling exists. The earth does not have a thermometer. You can't set the perfect temperature. Our temperature has fluctuated wildly over millions of years. Was George Bush the reason for 15 degree warming oceans, 2 million years ago? Unless you are Michael Moore, your answer is probably no.
Should we do everything possible to be good stewards of the environment? Of course we must and America has improved greatly over the last 50 years. Our air should be clean and water pure. But that should have nothing to do with actual science and how scientific "facts" are derived.
Human being is destroying himself by his own hands: http://inspirationwriting.blogspot.com/2009/07/scientific-studies-showed-where-there.html
In order to know something, it must be proven.
No, science does not deal in "proof".
Science deals with evidence.
To me, science is a proposition that has been proven by demonstrable processes that leave no doubt as to the truth of the proposition.
No. All things in science are tentative.
So many scientists and politicians are on TV telling us about global warming, it must be true, he said.
Getting your science from TV is a bad idea.
The media is a clumsy and frequently flawed medium for science information.
The only place where people should get their science information is from science sources.
...global warming is the consensus of thousands of scientist" he said enthusiastically.
There's nothing wrong with a scientific consensus. It's not a "bane". There's a scientific consnensus that the Earth revolves around the sun. No bane. There's a scientific consensus that the Earth is billions of years old. No bane there either.
There's also a scientific consensus that global warming is real and that human activity is responsible.
...that just one of them, through scientific processes, could actually prove or disprove global warming.
Science does not deal in "proof".
The scientific process, however, is important.
The scientific community has followed the scientific process. There have been no short-cuts. No cheating. No naked assertions.
Just boring, old-fashioned science in the traditional manner.
Once upon a time, the jury was out on global warming. Now, all scientific communities on the planet are in agreement. Global warming is real.
That process of the scientific community changing it's collective mind took decades to achieve. Every step in the process is recorded and freely available to the public.
If you don't know about how it happened, then do some research.
...than the late Michael Crichton.
I don't care what Crichton said. He was entitled to give his uninformed opinion. He was not qualified to give it.
Yes, it's a story promoted by the ignorant.
Climate computer model deal with the climate.
Asking about the temperature next week is about...the weather.
Weather and climate are not the same.
Meterology and Climatology and Paleo-Climatology are different scientific disciplines.
Don't conflate them
Total pigswill. There has been a mountain of peer-reviewed scientific research over the last few decades. None from the global warming denier side of things. None.
One thing that is consistent with all global warming deniers: They are work-shy.
They are happy to go to conventions.
They have no problems is writing opinion pieces in newspapers.
More than eager to give an interview on TV.
Yet they do no work. They refuse to enter the scientific arena and conduct peer-reviewed research. There is more research on alien abductions than there is on global warming denierism.
And now we are to believe these same prophets of environmental doom that were preaching global cooling 3 decades ago?
Actually, they didn't. That was the media.
There was never a scientific consensus on global cooling in the seventies. It's a myth.
They even made a very funny video
about how wrong this is...
Our temperature has fluctuated wildly over millions of years. Was George Bush the reason for 15 degree warming oceans, 2 million years ago?
No but that has nothing to do with the fact that global warming is happening now and that we are triggering this event and that this is not good.
How much do you actually know about the history of global warming? When did it start? How did the scientists do their work? Where do the deniers come from?Get informed.
I'll take terrorism over totalitarianism
Heyy, Found your blog on Bing and I am so glad I did! Keep it up! =)
In response to Mr Katesby's comments on Global Cooling, the IPCC AR4 WG1 report does feel fit to mention this, so it is part of the historical record, rather than a myth.
Quote:
In the mid-1970s, several articles about possible global cooling
appeared in the popular press, primarily motivated by analyses
indicating that Northern Hemisphere (NH) temperatures had
decreased during the previous three decades (e.g., Gwynne,
1975). In the peer-reviewed literature, a paper by Bryson
and Dittberner (1976) reported that increases in carbon
dioxide (CO2) should be associated with a decrease in global
temperatures. When challenged by Woronko (1977), Bryson and
Dittberner (1977) explained that the cooling projected by their
model was due to aerosols (small particles in the atmosphere)
produced by the same combustion that caused the increase in
CO2. However, because aerosols remain in the atmosphere only
a short time compared to CO2, the results were not applicable
for long-term climate change projections. This example of a
prediction of global cooling is a classic illustration of the selfcorrecting
nature of Earth science. The scientists involved were
reputable researchers who followed the accepted paradigm of
publishing in scientifi c journals, submitting their methods and
results to the scrutiny of their peers (although the peer-review
did not catch this problem), and responding to legitimate
criticism
We loved your writing style, please keep it up!