That's the exact logic these scientists have used to make their decision. Oooh 2 graphs match. Must be fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Printable View
That's the exact logic these scientists have used to make their decision. Oooh 2 graphs match. Must be fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
So you're seriously saying that you're as much of a scientist as them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Yes of course that's what I'm saying. :rolleyes: All I'm saying is what i've said 1000 times before. I feel their logic is flawed and they haven't proved their theory.
How would you know whether they have or haven't? Not having studied this to any depth at all, the truth is that you can't. Instead, you make statements about the quality of their work that many of them would surely find rather insulting, without knowing the first thing about it. I don't know any more than you, but I'm not dismissing a lot of scientific opinion on the basis that I somehow think they've been slapdash in their approach. As I've said a thousand times before, go and ask a climate scientist your unanswered questions.
And, incidentally, you still haven't answered my question as to which other scientific theories you think are flawed in the same way. Why single this one out?
Interesting, you are accusing me of not being rational. Being that I am a professional mathematician, I tend to consider myself more or less on the "rational" side ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieJ
In any case, and this has been said many times, what is questioned is not the fact that some warming is happening (after all that's about measuring and some elementary statistics), but its possible cause and it's possible consequences. And when you get there you move from fact to speculation.
Being an active scientist also gives me some perspective on how the publishing/funding works. There are trends, and usually the people deciding on the funding/publishing on each area tend to be a few. This means that if your research project contradicts the "accepted model" your chances of being funded are slim, and the same happens with your attempts to publish your articles (assumming you finally got some money to do your research, and that you still have a job).Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
There are many examples of this. To mention one that is far removed from climatology, consider Physics. Theoretical particle Physics this day has to go around String Theory, or you'll be kind of removed from the establishment, risking your career. This, when String Theory - beautiful as it is - has not shown any concrete value as a scientific theory. I have this in mind because just today I was reading the review of the book "The trouble with physics : the rise of string theory, the fall of a science, and what comes next", by Lee Smolin.
OMFG the ozone hole is bigger than ever!!!!! Wait a moment!!!!! :rolleyes: No it's not Something frigging random happened and it's smaller. I thought we understood the atmosphere and how it worked well enough to predict what was going to happen in the next 50 years? Seems we don't understand it as well as we thought we did. It seems things can change in a surprisingly short period of time.
I don't doubt the science behind ozone depletion because you can put Ozone in a jar and see the efects that CFC's have on it. How the hell do you replicate an atmosphere and test the effects of a particular gas???????
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/04/ozone_hole/
I know the hole in the Ozone layer isn't linked directly to the greenhouse effect but this is just an indication of how n00bish scientists can be at times and how we don't actually know how the atmosphere works. Anything you've seen on a graph showing how we're going to have rainforests in the UK soon is just a guestimate at best in my uneducated and not-trying-to-get-funding-by-merely-publishing-alarmist-and-unproven-theories-so-I-can-have-a-job opinion. I was accused of being biased by BDunnell :) How can someone be impartial when they're job depends on being alarmist?
Perhaps it's man made global warming that caused the hole in the ozone layer to get smaller? :laugh:
Whose jobs depend on being alarmist? Have you undertaken independent scientific analysis of their research? No, wait — you're just commenting from afar again, with no knowledge at all of their research processes or anything more to do with this topic than what you've read in a few places. What do you think gives you the ability to know better than scientists? I simply don't get this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
I didn't say I know better than them. I'm simply pointing out yet-frigging-again that scientists don't actually understand how the atmosphere works.
And you do? How do you know they don't understand the atmosphere? Spoken to many about it, have you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
If they knew how it worked then why would they be so frigging wrong a good deal of the time? I liken modern climate change study to the study of aerodynamics back before WW2. Yeah they knew a bit but in the big scheme of things they knew sod all. Like I said before. This is not like Ozone depletion where you can merely put some ozone in a jar with some CFC's and see what happens. It's not even like making a scale model of an aircraft and using luminescent dye on the surface of the aircraft to see if the airflow is as you'd expect it. It's a whole frigging planet and no matter how arrogant you want to be about how intelligent we as a race of pathetic unintelligent morons who think we know everything there's still a helluva lot of room for error, ignorance and stupidity.
I don't claim to know better than samples which show that CO2 levels were significantly higher during periods of ice age. Do you? Do these scientists?