Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

EndGame

Golden Member
Dec 28, 2002
1,276
0
0
LOL! This is what was being taught in US schools in the early/mid 70's........then everything went to "Man Made Global Warming"! Please decide on one or the other!

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age
11.01.2009

The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.

Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record, and studies of ancient plant and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age glacial maximums which each last about 100,000 years, separated by intervening warm interglacials, each lasting about 12,000 years.

Most of the long-term climate data collected from various sources also shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles which are together known as the Milankovich cycles. The three Milankovich cycles include the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000 year period; the shape of the earth?s orbit, which changes over a period of 100,000 years; and the Precession of the Equinoxes, also known as the earth?s ?wobble?, which gradually rotates the direction of the earth?s axis over a period of 26,000 years. According to the Milankovich theory of Ice Age causation, these three astronomical cycles, each of which effects the amount of solar radiation which reaches the earth, act together to produce the cycle of cold Ice Age maximums and warm interglacials.

Elements of the astronomical theory of Ice Age causation were first presented by the French mathematician Joseph Adhemar in 1842, it was developed further by the English prodigy Joseph Croll in 1875, and the theory was established in its present form by the Czech mathematician Milutin Milankovich in the 1920s and 30s. In 1976 the prestigious journal ?Science? published a landmark paper by John Imbrie, James Hays, and Nicholas Shackleton entitled ?Variations in the Earth's orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages,? which described the correlation which the trio of scientist/authors had found between the climate data obtained from ocean sediment cores and the patterns of the astronomical Milankovich cycles. Since the late 1970s, the Milankovich theory has remained the predominant theory to account for Ice Age causation among climate scientists, and hence the Milankovich theory is always described in textbooks of climatology and in encyclopaedia articles about the Ice Ages.

In their 1976 paper Imbrie, Hays, and Shackleton wrote that their own climate forecasts, which were based on sea-sediment cores and the Milankovich cycles, "? must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends - and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted... the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate."

During the 1970s the famous American astronomer Carl Sagan and other scientists began promoting the theory that ?greenhouse gasses? such as carbon dioxide, or CO2, produced by human industries could lead to catastrophic global warming. Since the 1970s the theory of ?anthropogenic global warming? (AGW) has gradually become accepted as fact by most of the academic establishment, and their acceptance of AGW has inspired a global movement to encourage governments to make pivotal changes to prevent the worsening of AGW.

The central piece of evidence that is cited in support of the AGW theory is the famous ?hockey stick? graph which was presented by Al Gore in his 2006 film ?An Inconvenient Truth.? The ?hockey stick? graph shows an acute upward spike in global temperatures which began during the 1970s and continued through the winter of 2006/07. However, this warming trend was interrupted when the winter of 2007/8 delivered the deepest snow cover to the Northern Hemisphere since 1966 and the coldest temperatures since 2001. It now appears that the current Northern Hemisphere winter of 2008/09 will probably equal or surpass the winter of 2007/08 for both snow depth and cold temperatures.

The main flaw in the AGW theory is that its proponents focus on evidence from only the past one thousand years at most, while ignoring the evidence from the past million years -- evidence which is essential for a true understanding of climatology. The data from paleoclimatology provides us with an alternative and more credible explanation for the recent global temperature spike, based on the natural cycle of Ice Age maximums and interglacials.

In 1999 the British journal ?Nature? published the results of data derived from glacial ice cores collected at the Russia ?s Vostok station in Antarctica during the 1990s. The Vostok ice core data includes a record of global atmospheric temperatures, atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and airborne particulates starting from 420,000 years ago and continuing through history up to our present time.

The graph of the Vostok ice core data shows that the Ice Age maximums and the warm interglacials occur within a regular cyclic pattern, the graph-line of which is similar to the rhythm of a heartbeat on an electrocardiogram tracing. The Vostok data graph also shows that changes in global CO2 levels lag behind global temperature changes by about eight hundred years. What that indicates is that global temperatures precede or cause global CO2 changes, and not the reverse. In other words, increasing atmospheric CO2 is not causing global temperature to rise; instead the natural cyclic increase in global temperature is causing global CO2 to rise.

The reason that global CO2 levels rise and fall in response to the global temperature is because cold water is capable of retaining more CO2 than warm water. That is why carbonated beverages loose their carbonation, or CO2, when stored in a warm environment. We store our carbonated soft drinks, wine, and beer in a cool place to prevent them from loosing their ?fizz?, which is a feature of their carbonation, or CO2 content. The earth is currently warming as a result of the natural Ice Age cycle, and as the oceans get warmer, they release increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Because the release of CO2 by the warming oceans lags behind the changes in the earth?s temperature, we should expect to see global CO2 levels continue to rise for another eight hundred years after the end of the earth?s current Interglacial warm period. We should already be eight hundred years into the coming Ice Age before global CO2 levels begin to drop in response to the increased chilling of the world?s oceans.

The Vostok ice core data graph reveals that global CO2 levels regularly rose and fell in a direct response to the natural cycle of Ice Age minimums and maximums during the past four hundred and twenty thousand years. Within that natural cycle, about every 110,000 years global temperatures, followed by global CO2 levels, have peaked at approximately the same levels which they are at today.

About 325,000 years ago, at the peak of a warm interglacial, global temperature and CO2 levels were higher than they are today. Today we are again at the peak, and near to the end, of a warm interglacial, and the earth is now due to enter the next Ice Age. If we are lucky, we may have a few years to prepare for it. The Ice Age will return, as it always has, in its regular and natural cycle, with or without any influence from the effects of AGW.

The AGW theory is based on data that is drawn from a ridiculously narrow span of time and it demonstrates a wanton disregard for the ?big picture? of long-term climate change. The data from paleoclimatology, including ice cores, sea sediments, geology, paleobotany and zoology, indicate that we are on the verge of entering another Ice Age, and the data also shows that severe and lasting climate change can occur within only a few years. While concern over the dubious threat of Anthropogenic Global Warming continues to distract the attention of people throughout the world, the very real threat of the approaching and inevitable Ice Age, which will render large parts of the Northern Hemisphere uninhabitable, is being foolishly ignored.

 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,112
930
126
No body really knows what the fuck is going on. :laugh:

Only your undertaker knows for sure. ;)
 

EndGame

Golden Member
Dec 28, 2002
1,276
0
0
It's rumored that Al Gore is hastily retooling his worldwide speaking tour on "Man Made Global Warming" and preparing a new movie to be released soon...... :shocked::Q;)
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Every time I see a sentence like this, "Make up your mind already....", I get the strong feeling that we need to do a better job teaching science in schools. Changing theories to fit new facts or new ideas is the hallmark of GOOD science...it's only political tools with an agenda that demand and present absolute certainty in all situations. I think climate scientists should "make up their mind" when they have the facts and evidence to support it, NOT because people who want to argue politics are unable to deal with issues that aren't black and white.
 

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
Make up your mind already.........

The whole point of science is that you don't make up your mind but follow wherever the data takes you. As technology and methods improve theories are proved wrong, replaced, refined, and then proved wrong again. It's the only way to make progress towards the truth. At the moment most of the data points to Earth's continued warming, but maybe this theory will be proved wrong just as the 70s cooling theory was. Lets hope so.

Having said that, your article has nothing to do with science, and has clearly been taken from some laughable propeganda website, which is why you have provided no link to the original source. No good scientist would ever speak with that kind of certainty - nobody knows the future for sure. All we have are our scientific theories but hey, those got us as far as the moon, and they got us these computer thingies here, so they're good enough for me.


/edit: Rainsford beat me to it by 1 minute :)
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Oh nooos, not other global warming thread. Lots of good science, lots of bad science, but no consensus yet. C02 is not the only factor in global warming, I happen to believe global warming is a real danger, I am vain enough to think I know a thing or two, but I am not stupid enough to think forums like this will shed anything but heat and little light on the subject.

Breaking news, the sun will turn into a red giant and incinerate the earth in a few billion years, avoid the rush, beam up on the nearest passing comet.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,748
6,319
126
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Obviously man has changed his ways and thus staved off GW for a couple more decades...

Hey... it's just a theory... ;)

Actually, that isn't a Theory.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,748
6,319
126
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Obviously man has changed his ways and thus staved off GW for a couple more decades...

Hey... it's just a theory... ;)

Actually, that isn't a Theory.

Actually it is. I theorize that man has staved off GW due to changing his ways.

Not scientifically speaking. AKA, you missed quite a few steps, Data gathering, Paper Writing, and Peer Reviewing
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Obviously man has changed his ways and thus staved off GW for a couple more decades...

Hey... it's just a theory... ;)

Actually, that isn't a Theory.

Actually it is. I theorize that man has staved off GW due to changing his ways.

Not scientifically speaking. AKA, you missed quite a few steps, Data gathering, Paper Writing, and Peer Reviewing

:roll: Yeah - I claimed it was a scientific theory...
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Every time I see a sentence like this, "Make up your mind already....", I get the strong feeling that we need to do a better job teaching science in schools. Changing theories to fit new facts or new ideas is the hallmark of GOOD science...it's only political tools with an agenda that demand and present absolute certainty in all situations. I think climate scientists should "make up their mind" when they have the facts and evidence to support it, NOT because people who want to argue politics are unable to deal with issues that aren't black and white.

Scientist should also have the smarts to look at the data and see that they don't have enough data to come to a conclusion.
 

EndGame

Golden Member
Dec 28, 2002
1,276
0
0
Originally posted by: Atheus
Make up your mind already.........

The whole point of science is that you don't make up your mind but follow wherever the data takes you. As technology and methods improve theories are proved wrong, replaced, refined, and then proved wrong again. It's the only way to make progress towards the truth. At the moment most of the data points to Earth's continued warming, but maybe this theory will be proved wrong just as the 70s cooling theory was. Lets hope so.

Having said that, your article has nothing to do with science, and has clearly been taken from some laughable propeganda website, which is why you have provided no link to the original source. No good scientist would ever speak with that kind of certainty - nobody knows the future for sure. All we have are our scientific theories but hey, those got us as far as the moon, and they got us these computer thingies here, so they're good enough for me.


/edit: Rainsford beat me to it by 1 minute :)

Really? Hmm, well, it's a WSJ/BBC article today and it originated from PRAVDA Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

I'll also agree with others, while everyone knows science is NOT an exact thing, they too could be a bit more sure of their predictions for the future before making claims that they are sure of something like GW and encouraging nations to spend unspeakable amounts of money on something which is only a therory. Sure, politics/money play into it but, why not just be clear and tell them and everyone that they are NOT sure this is what is taking place. I mean has anyone ever considered that perhaps, just perhaps all this is nothing more than the cyclical events that the earth goes through and nothing man can do will change it whichever direction it ends up going?

 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Every time I see a sentence like this, "Make up your mind already....", I get the strong feeling that we need to do a better job teaching science in schools. Changing theories to fit new facts or new ideas is the hallmark of GOOD science...it's only political tools with an agenda that demand and present absolute certainty in all situations. I think climate scientists should "make up their mind" when they have the facts and evidence to support it, NOT because people who want to argue politics are unable to deal with issues that aren't black and white.

Scientist should also have the smarts to look at the data and see that they don't have enough data to come to a conclusion.

That IS what they are doing. You're using the current debate to judge the scientists studying the issue, but the problem is that our current debate really doesn't involve many scientists. It's Al Gore and Bill O'Reilly screaming at each other, and while Al Gore is closer than old Bill to having a scientific perspective, don't confuse EITHER of them with actual climate scientists.

If people were listening, what they'd see is scientists studying the data and saying "...BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW RIGHT NOW, this is the issue as we see it." Science doesn't wait for absolute certainty, because there IS no such thing. And that would be fine if both sides of the debate didn't treat science like it SHOULD BE (or already is) at that point.
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Every time I see a sentence like this, "Make up your mind already....", I get the strong feeling that we need to do a better job teaching science in schools. Changing theories to fit new facts or new ideas is the hallmark of GOOD science...it's only political tools with an agenda that demand and present absolute certainty in all situations. I think climate scientists should "make up their mind" when they have the facts and evidence to support it, NOT because people who want to argue politics are unable to deal with issues that aren't black and white.

Scientist should also have the smarts to look at the data and see that they don't have enough data to come to a conclusion.

That IS what they are doing. You're using the current debate to judge the scientists studying the issue, but the problem is that our current debate really doesn't involve many scientists. It's Al Gore and Bill O'Reilly screaming at each other, and while Al Gore is closer than old Bill to having a scientific perspective, don't confuse EITHER of them with actual climate scientists.

If people were listening, what they'd see is scientists studying the data and saying "...BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW RIGHT NOW, this is the issue as we see it." Science doesn't wait for absolute certainty, because there IS no such thing. And that would be fine if both sides of the debate didn't treat science like it SHOULD BE (or already is) at that point.

The problem is that government is making LAWS costing us MONEY based on these flawed studies. Scientists should be held held responsible for their incorrect findings if it costs this country billions of dollars.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Every time I see a sentence like this, "Make up your mind already....", I get the strong feeling that we need to do a better job teaching science in schools. Changing theories to fit new facts or new ideas is the hallmark of GOOD science...it's only political tools with an agenda that demand and present absolute certainty in all situations. I think climate scientists should "make up their mind" when they have the facts and evidence to support it, NOT because people who want to argue politics are unable to deal with issues that aren't black and white.

Scientist should also have the smarts to look at the data and see that they don't have enough data to come to a conclusion.

That IS what they are doing. You're using the current debate to judge the scientists studying the issue, but the problem is that our current debate really doesn't involve many scientists. It's Al Gore and Bill O'Reilly screaming at each other, and while Al Gore is closer than old Bill to having a scientific perspective, don't confuse EITHER of them with actual climate scientists.

If people were listening, what they'd see is scientists studying the data and saying "...BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW RIGHT NOW, this is the issue as we see it." Science doesn't wait for absolute certainty, because there IS no such thing. And that would be fine if both sides of the debate didn't treat science like it SHOULD BE (or already is) at that point.

The problem is that government is making LAWS costing us MONEY based on these flawed studies. Scientists should be held held responsible for their incorrect findings if it costs this country billions of dollars.

Nobody has proved that the studies certain laws are based on were "flawed", or for that matter that they cost a substantial amount of money. Another problem with this debate is people like you who try to paint everything with the widest possible brush, generalizing very complex issues into some bumper sticker bullshit.

So try thinking about this instead of just posting someone else's talking points. What laws do we have, specifically, that cost the country billions of dollars based SOLELY on scientific findings proven to be incorrect? For that matter, how many laws do we have based only on the idea of global warning? Emissions laws are based on a lot more than the idea that we might be warming the planet, it's a good idea not to pollute for all sorts of reasons.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Obviously man has changed his ways and thus staved off GW for a couple more decades...

Hey... it's just a theory... ;)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry Cad, in science speak, what you have is best described as a hypothesis. Missing in action is anything to advance that hypothesis into a barely supported
theory.

But I love it anyway, lets see, if anti global warming folks can just generate enough hot air, global warming can be staved off forever, please try your next trick at the nearest
ocean you can find, stand by the seashore and will the tides not to come in or out for a extended period of time longer than 3 hrs.

If you can do that, I will sing your name and declare you the greatest scientist of all time.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Every time I see a sentence like this, "Make up your mind already....", I get the strong feeling that we need to do a better job teaching science in schools. Changing theories to fit new facts or new ideas is the hallmark of GOOD science...it's only political tools with an agenda that demand and present absolute certainty in all situations. I think climate scientists should "make up their mind" when they have the facts and evidence to support it, NOT because people who want to argue politics are unable to deal with issues that aren't black and white.

Scientist should also have the smarts to look at the data and see that they don't have enough data to come to a conclusion.

That IS what they are doing. You're using the current debate to judge the scientists studying the issue, but the problem is that our current debate really doesn't involve many scientists. It's Al Gore and Bill O'Reilly screaming at each other, and while Al Gore is closer than old Bill to having a scientific perspective, don't confuse EITHER of them with actual climate scientists.

If people were listening, what they'd see is scientists studying the data and saying "...BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW RIGHT NOW, this is the issue as we see it." Science doesn't wait for absolute certainty, because there IS no such thing. And that would be fine if both sides of the debate didn't treat science like it SHOULD BE (or already is) at that point.

The problem is that government is making LAWS costing us MONEY based on these flawed studies. Scientists should be held held responsible for their incorrect findings if it costs this country billions of dollars.

You FAIL at understanding the scientific method. Scientific theories are drawn from available data. If extra data is obtained, then these theories change, or are disproved. You want to hold science accountable for the lawmakers? This is a BAD idea. Lets see why:

The Scientific Method: (wikipedia)

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Where does LAW* and POLITICS fit in? Hopefully nowhere. If you start holding scientists hostage to public policy, then you add extra bias into the system thereby holding scientific knowledge back. This happens because scientists will, like any other profession, try to cover their ass, in this case by viewing their data through the prism of politics. Results will only be published if politically expedient, or if it agrees with what the politics of hte day is. We have had a few centuries (or more) of that, and we as a society should not be eager to return there.

In short, politicians are the ones who make those decisions with your taxdollars and they should do so based on the best available scientific theory. If it turns out to be incorrect, science will correct itself and policy will follow suit. Changing this will only cause more $$ to be wasted in the long run.

*Edit: some restrictions can be made due to ethical concerns, but these often only refer to performing certain types of experiments. There are plenty of examples here, but I won't delve into that as Godwin's Law will ultimately be invoked.
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Every time I see a sentence like this, "Make up your mind already....", I get the strong feeling that we need to do a better job teaching science in schools. Changing theories to fit new facts or new ideas is the hallmark of GOOD science...it's only political tools with an agenda that demand and present absolute certainty in all situations. I think climate scientists should "make up their mind" when they have the facts and evidence to support it, NOT because people who want to argue politics are unable to deal with issues that aren't black and white.

Scientist should also have the smarts to look at the data and see that they don't have enough data to come to a conclusion.

That IS what they are doing. You're using the current debate to judge the scientists studying the issue, but the problem is that our current debate really doesn't involve many scientists. It's Al Gore and Bill O'Reilly screaming at each other, and while Al Gore is closer than old Bill to having a scientific perspective, don't confuse EITHER of them with actual climate scientists.

If people were listening, what they'd see is scientists studying the data and saying "...BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW RIGHT NOW, this is the issue as we see it." Science doesn't wait for absolute certainty, because there IS no such thing. And that would be fine if both sides of the debate didn't treat science like it SHOULD BE (or already is) at that point.

Really they base their opinion on the data they have today? And Here I was think they had a time machine. Like I said they should know enough to look at the data and come to the conclusion they don't have enough data to come to a conclusion.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Obviously man has changed his ways and thus staved off GW for a couple more decades...

Hey... it's just a theory... ;)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry Cad, in science speak, what you have is best described as a hypothesis. Missing in action is anything to advance that hypothesis into a barely supported
theory.

But I love it anyway, lets see, if anti global warming folks can just generate enough hot air, global warming can be staved off forever, please try your next trick at the nearest
ocean you can find, stand by the seashore and will the tides not to come in or out for a extended period of time longer than 3 hrs.

If you can do that, I will sing your name and declare you the greatest scientist of all time.

Do you not read? I did not state I had a scientific theory so try again junior.
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Every time I see a sentence like this, "Make up your mind already....", I get the strong feeling that we need to do a better job teaching science in schools. Changing theories to fit new facts or new ideas is the hallmark of GOOD science...it's only political tools with an agenda that demand and present absolute certainty in all situations. I think climate scientists should "make up their mind" when they have the facts and evidence to support it, NOT because people who want to argue politics are unable to deal with issues that aren't black and white.

Scientist should also have the smarts to look at the data and see that they don't have enough data to come to a conclusion.

That IS what they are doing. You're using the current debate to judge the scientists studying the issue, but the problem is that our current debate really doesn't involve many scientists. It's Al Gore and Bill O'Reilly screaming at each other, and while Al Gore is closer than old Bill to having a scientific perspective, don't confuse EITHER of them with actual climate scientists.

If people were listening, what they'd see is scientists studying the data and saying "...BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW RIGHT NOW, this is the issue as we see it." Science doesn't wait for absolute certainty, because there IS no such thing. And that would be fine if both sides of the debate didn't treat science like it SHOULD BE (or already is) at that point.

The problem is that government is making LAWS costing us MONEY based on these flawed studies. Scientists should be held held responsible for their incorrect findings if it costs this country billions of dollars.

You FAIL at understanding the scientific method. Scientific theories are drawn from available data. If extra data is obtained, then these theories change, or are disproved. You want to hold science accountable for the lawmakers? This is a BAD idea. Lets see why:

The Scientific Method: (wikipedia)

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Where does LAW* and POLITICS fit in? Hopefully nowhere. If you start holding scientists hostage to public policy, then you add extra bias into the system thereby holding scientific knowledge back. This happens because scientists will, like any other profession, try to cover their ass, in this case by viewing their data through the prism of politics. Results will only be published if politically expedient, or if it agrees with what the politics of hte day is. We have had a few centuries (or more) of that, and we as a society should not be eager to return there.

In short, politicians are the ones who make those decisions with your taxdollars and they should do so based on the best available scientific theory. If it turns out to be incorrect, science will correct itself and policy will follow suit. Changing this will only cause more $$ to be wasted in the long run.

*Edit: some restrictions can be made due to ethical concerns, but these often only refer to performing certain types of experiments. There are plenty of examples here, but I won't delve into that as Godwin's Law will ultimately be invoked.

I think your confused about the scientific method. It is:
1. Pick a topic that might have grant money
2. Write grant proposal.
3. Write paper, making sure to cite any paper write by anyone approving said grant or may approve next grant.
4. Publish.
Repeat.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Every time I see a sentence like this, "Make up your mind already....", I get the strong feeling that we need to do a better job teaching science in schools. Changing theories to fit new facts or new ideas is the hallmark of GOOD science...it's only political tools with an agenda that demand and present absolute certainty in all situations. I think climate scientists should "make up their mind" when they have the facts and evidence to support it, NOT because people who want to argue politics are unable to deal with issues that aren't black and white.

Scientist should also have the smarts to look at the data and see that they don't have enough data to come to a conclusion.

That IS what they are doing. You're using the current debate to judge the scientists studying the issue, but the problem is that our current debate really doesn't involve many scientists. It's Al Gore and Bill O'Reilly screaming at each other, and while Al Gore is closer than old Bill to having a scientific perspective, don't confuse EITHER of them with actual climate scientists.

If people were listening, what they'd see is scientists studying the data and saying "...BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW RIGHT NOW, this is the issue as we see it." Science doesn't wait for absolute certainty, because there IS no such thing. And that would be fine if both sides of the debate didn't treat science like it SHOULD BE (or already is) at that point.

Really they base their opinion on the data they have today? And Here I was think they had a time machine. Like I said they should know enough to look at the data and come to the conclusion they don't have enough data to come to a conclusion.

Circulism! Saying that "we don't have enough data" when it comes to GW amounts to the same hill of beans that it does when it is applied to evolution. If you want to argue semantics, science is not designed to reach true "conclusions" as new data will ALWAYS be available to be obtained. Science advances hypothesis based on available data, which if backed up/reviewed enough are generally accepted as solid scientific theory. The theories that hold to the best available data and experimentation are what we should base policy on. Scientists don't have a time machine to see the ultimate conclusions humanity makes about the universe from ALL the available data it will obtain as they don't yet have enough information to rule out time travel as a pollibility. :laugh:
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Every time I see a sentence like this, "Make up your mind already....", I get the strong feeling that we need to do a better job teaching science in schools. Changing theories to fit new facts or new ideas is the hallmark of GOOD science...it's only political tools with an agenda that demand and present absolute certainty in all situations. I think climate scientists should "make up their mind" when they have the facts and evidence to support it, NOT because people who want to argue politics are unable to deal with issues that aren't black and white.

Scientist should also have the smarts to look at the data and see that they don't have enough data to come to a conclusion.

That IS what they are doing. You're using the current debate to judge the scientists studying the issue, but the problem is that our current debate really doesn't involve many scientists. It's Al Gore and Bill O'Reilly screaming at each other, and while Al Gore is closer than old Bill to having a scientific perspective, don't confuse EITHER of them with actual climate scientists.

If people were listening, what they'd see is scientists studying the data and saying "...BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW RIGHT NOW, this is the issue as we see it." Science doesn't wait for absolute certainty, because there IS no such thing. And that would be fine if both sides of the debate didn't treat science like it SHOULD BE (or already is) at that point.

The problem is that government is making LAWS costing us MONEY based on these flawed studies. Scientists should be held held responsible for their incorrect findings if it costs this country billions of dollars.

You FAIL at understanding the scientific method. Scientific theories are drawn from available data. If extra data is obtained, then these theories change, or are disproved. You want to hold science accountable for the lawmakers? This is a BAD idea. Lets see why:

The Scientific Method: (wikipedia)

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Where does LAW* and POLITICS fit in? Hopefully nowhere. If you start holding scientists hostage to public policy, then you add extra bias into the system thereby holding scientific knowledge back. This happens because scientists will, like any other profession, try to cover their ass, in this case by viewing their data through the prism of politics. Results will only be published if politically expedient, or if it agrees with what the politics of hte day is. We have had a few centuries (or more) of that, and we as a society should not be eager to return there.

In short, politicians are the ones who make those decisions with your taxdollars and they should do so based on the best available scientific theory. If it turns out to be incorrect, science will correct itself and policy will follow suit. Changing this will only cause more $$ to be wasted in the long run.

*Edit: some restrictions can be made due to ethical concerns, but these often only refer to performing certain types of experiments. There are plenty of examples here, but I won't delve into that as Godwin's Law will ultimately be invoked.

I think your confused about the scientific method. It is:
1. Pick a topic that might have grant money
2. Write grant proposal.
3. Write paper, making sure to cite any paper write by anyone approving said grant or may approve next grant.
4. Publish.
Repeat.

No, that is the politicking of academia, not the scientific method. You need resources to gather data or perform experiments. Scientists also need $$ to live off of so they aren't working double shifts at 7/11 so they can actually be scientists and do said experiments, publish, repeat.