CogitatusPrimus, We agree that extrapolating data to theories, to accepted theory is tried and true. Complex theory that is built upon accepted theory is a different thing.
With few exceptions, any extrapolated theory must withstand scrutiny. Abiogenisists had an extrapolated theory, that botulism spontaneously occurred given the right conditions. At the time, it was a widely accepted theory until it was confounded by Pasteur's experiment. Pasteur demonstrated that high temperature kills microbes, a major break through in science. Pasteur's experiment was easily repeatable, and was so convincing that his opponents conceded defeat before it was concluded.
If factors of a theory can proved to be wrong, then it is falsifiable. Any theory is technically considered true, until it is proven false. Obviously, the world hires scientists and consider their theories more credible than a kindergaarten student. But in theory some savant or super genius 10 year old, could produce data that falsifies, or discovers new information that invalidates standing theory. Unless, of course it is AGW, This theory has become so politicized, it is akin to the days before Galileo, or Pasteur. Accepted science must be open to falsifiability. The fact that those who's salaries are paid by tax payers and universities to perpetuate the theory has placed the field in moral jeopardy. Anyone who loves science and bring hypothesis that disagrees is construed to be in the pocket of big oil, thereby neutralizing their counter theory. This might be acceptable if they could produce no data that falsifies, or brings theory into question. There is no excuse for the way this question has been handled by "the establishment"
- A theory is supported by data derived from repeatable experiments that result in the same conclusions.'
Some would suggest that since there is no 2nd Earth to run repeatable experiments on, then anthropogenic climate change can never be 'accepted'.
However, the theory that CO2 and other infrared-active gases do absorb and emit longwave radiation has been proven by lab experiments. Reduced outgoing LW radiation and increased downward LW radiation have been measured.
The effects of various natural forcings have been examined.
Is that approach sufficient?
_____________
In short, no. The data that shows Co2 gasses absorb infrared light, and the determination it does so is good science. It is experimentally repeatable. However to take that determination and extrapolate it to global climate systems is hugely problematic. The global warming advocates refuse to admit that. There are other experimental results that reinforce the AGW theory. For example the experimental fact that CO2 measured in Hawaii is now 392 ppm, compared to 358.4 ppm 20 years ago.
This is good science. Various experiments verify that measurement repeatedly within appropriate margins of error. It is valid and is empirically supported to say atmospheric CO2 levels have increased over the past 20 years. The scientific methodology for both of these understandings is broadly accepted and repeatable. The error margins and conclusions have been accepted by peer review, and are not falsifiable.
The problem is when we erect complex theories around these conclusions. Erecting theories is fine, but to suggest that they are accepted without further study is disingenuous. The problem is multiplied by the way scrutiny is handled, the way questions are shouted down, the way that equally valid measurement is discounted. To say the science is settled on complex theory and anthropogenic global warming is established fact does irreparable damage to the discipline and seriously undermines scientific credibility.
No other field is as intolerant to criticism, skeptical questioning, and scrutiny of datum. - Nice try 77Alethia77 but you are slyly trying to confound an hypothesis and a theory. Other deniers have tried to do this in the past. It is the old 'as soon as some observation that doesn't fit the theory is found the whole thing must be chucked' argument used to dismiss climate change theory by treating it like an hypothesis. Much of what you say is correct, but it is correct about an hypothesis, not a theory, and no, they are not nearly the same thing.
A theory is an intellectual framework which explains as best possible a series of observations of the natural world. As such, a theory may subsume many individual hypotheses which may be tested, and provisionally pass, or fail on their own without necessarily invalidating the entire theory. Almost every theory made has been subject to failure of some aspect of it, followed by closer examination of that failure, followed by further refinement of the theory. Theories are discarded not when they fail to predict and explain all subsequent tests and observations, but when these failures are explained better by a new theory. Even then some aspects of the old theory have their merits, which is why newtonian physics is still taught in school although Newton has been superseded by better theories.
A couple of other points:
Climate change advocates understand very well that extrapolating physics experiments to a global scale is hugely problematic. That is why they have devised methods to check their results.
Questions are not shouted down. The basic open and fair debates happened three decades ago. Your side lost.
Every example of 'equally valid measurements' posted here have turned out to be fraudulent.
I guess you are right about the sad state of education today.
Oh yes, I might add:
There is an entire industry dedicated to bringing on a new dark age. In service to their corporate masters they spread disinformation and confusion about things which interfere with the continued accumulation of wealth and power by the elites, such as science which supports consciousness of environmental damage, climate change, evolution, the link between fast foods and disease, etc. The contrarians who post on these websites post links to the 'shock troops' of this industry (websites of conservative and corporate-funded 'think tanks' with high-sounding names and unscrupulous personnel) all the time, like the Heartland Institute and the ironically-named American Council on Science and Health (which promotes misinformation that will degrade your knowledge of the first and prevent your maintenance of the second) - There is data publicly available that demonstrates fraud in the collecting and graphic evidence that is known to be used by the scientists under the employ of the IPCC, the International Panel for Climate Change. Skeptics, labeled nay-sayers, doubters, stupid, unintellectual, poor scientists, obstructionists, religious, right wing, conservatives, fascists, the list goes on. Giving you the benefit of the doubt cog, I will posit that your baseless charges of fraud were spoken naively. Especially since, with greatest Irony, climate scientists in New Zealand have been declared Fraudsters by the court of law! http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/ The court ruled that temperatures data were manipulated to agree with IPCC opinion.
If the global warming theorists would recognize that their theories must be open to critique, they might have some shred of veracity. But, to lie, commit fraud, manipulate editorial boards of major science publications to agree with "established science" makes the whole matter look all the worse. When ever someone says the jury's out, its all settled now, or this was disproven in the past, and in any other way stifles inquiry, then we are back to the days of Galileo with the New Church: The IPCC calling the shots.
No comments:
Post a Comment