The Problem With Science: It's Not Credible

[pogi]

but history tells us that many agreements were just assumptions. We do not care about assumptions, we care about scientific theories that survive years of scientific scrutiny. We care that the 97% are telling us that the evidences are strong, we do not care about their personal beliefs or assumptions. 

 

Would you please read the link before responding further to things that you are not informed about.  

[MormonFreeThinker]

Would you please read the link before responding further to things that you are not informed about.  

 

I agree that new ideas are important and that we may be completely wrong. 

It doesn't mean we should not be worried about anything the scientists are warning us about. . 

Edited March 16, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[pogi]

It doesn't mean we should not be worried about anything the scientists are warning us about. . 

 

Caution is good, placing yourself in a box is bad.  All I am asking is that you stop using the popularity of a theory as evidence of its validity.  That is just bad logic.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Caution is good, placing yourself in a box is bad.  All I am asking is that you stop using the popularity of a theory as evidence of its validity.  That is just bad logic.

 

Can I say that 97% of scientists concluded that the evidences are strong? It is not proof, but it is a good reason to take the claim seriously. 

 

Remember, they are doing the scientific research, not us.

Edited March 16, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[pogi]

Scientific evolution comes about very slowly because there are not enough scientific researchers. 

We need a bigger army of scientists. . 

Nofear:

The problem with science is there are too many scientific papers. 

 

http://science.slash...entific-studies

 

[pogi]

Can I say that 97% of scientists concluded that the evidences are strong? It is not proof, but it is a good reason to take the claim seriously. 

 

Remember, they are doing the scientific research, not us.

 

You really think that 97% of scientists are "doing" global warming research?  Do you really believe that 97% of biologists are "doing" evolution research?

 

97% of scientists believe what they are taught in school and are no where near up-to-date on the publications (there are far too many to keep up with), and so they follow the popular crowd.  That is human nature.  They believe in popularity without really understanding every angle of the science and without really doing any research on the subject.  From the link that I doubt you have read yet based on your answers:

 

If a paradigm consists of basic and incontrovertible assumptions about the nature of the discipline, what questions are left to ask?

 

1. When they first appear, paradigms are limited in scope and in precision.
2. "Paradigms gain their status because they are more successful than their competitors in solving a few problems that the group of practitioners has come to recognize as acute" (23).
   1. But more successful does not mean completely successful with a single problem or notably successful with any large number (23).
   2. Initially, a paradigm offers the promise of success.
   3. Normal science consists in the actualization of that promise. This is achieved by
      1. extending the knowledge of those facts that the paradigm displays as particularly revealing,
      2. increasing the extent of the match between those facts and the paradigm's predictions, 
      3. and further articulation of the paradigm itself.
   4. In other words, there is a good deal of mopping-up to be done.
      1. Mop-up operations are what engage most scientists throughout their careers.
      2. Mopping-up is what normal science is all about!
      3. This paradigm-based research (25) is "an attempt to force nature into the preformed and relatively inflexible box that the paradigm supplies" (24).
         1. no effort made to call forth new sorts of phenomena.
         2. no effort to discover anomalies.
         3. when anomalies pop up, they are usually discarded or ignored.
         4. anomalies usually not even noticed (tunnel vision/one track mind).
         5. no effort to invent new theory (and no tolerance for those who try).
         6. "Normal-scientific research is directed to the articulation of those phenomena and theories that the paradigm already supplies" (24).
         7. "Perhaps these are defects . . . "
            1. ". . . but those restrictions, born from confidence in a paradigm, turn out to be essential to the development of science. By focusing attention on a small range of relatively esoteric problems, the paradigm forces scientists to investigate some part of nature in a detail and depth that would otherwise be unimaginable" (24).
            2. . . . and, when the paradigm ceases to function properly, scientists begin to behave differently and the nature of their research problems changes.
      4. Mopping-up can prove fascinating work (24). [You do it. We all do it. And we love to do it. In fact, we'd do it for free.]
3. The principal problems of normal science.
   1. Determination of significant fact. 
      1. A paradigm guides and informs the fact-gathering (experiments and observations described in journals) decisions of researchers?
      2. Researchers focus on, and attempt to increase the accuracy and scope of, facts (constructs/concepts) that the paradigm has shown to be particularly revealing of the nature of things (25).
   2. Matching of facts with theory. 
      1. Researchers focus on facts that can be compared directly with predictions from the paradigmatic theory (26)
      2. Great effort and ingenuity are required to bring theory and nature into closer and closer agreement.
      3. A paradigm sets the problems to be solved (27).
   3. Articulation of theory. 
      1. Researchers undertake empirical work to articulate the paradigm theory itself (27)—resolve residual ambiguities, refine, permit solution of problems to which the theory had previously only drawn attention. This articulation includes
         1. determination of universal constants.
         2. development of quantitative laws.
         3. selection of ways to apply the paradigm to a related area of interest.
      2. This is, in part, a problem of application (but only in part).
      3. Paradigms must undergo reformulation so that their tenets closely correspond to the natural object of their inquiry (clarification by reformulation).
      4. "The problems of paradigm articulation are simultaneously theoretical and experimental" (33).
      5. Such work should produce new information and a more precise paradigm.
      6. This is the primary work of many sciences.
4. To desert the paradigm is to cease practicing the science it defines (34).

[Nofear]

Ooh, more fuel to add to the fire:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2015/03/15/is-science-broken-lets-ask-karl-popper/

[MormonFreeThinker]

You really think that 97% of scientists are "doing" global warming research?  Do you really believe that 97% of biologists are "doing" evolution research?

 

Yes, I have the evidence, just look at the scientific literature. 

Here is a research of the published scientific research. 

 

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (Oreskes, 2004)

"That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change”. The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point. This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies"

 

I just proved that climate scientists agree because of their research, not because of indoctrination. 

 

Nofear:

 

Many theories out there are not useful, that is why they can't see them all. 

We need more scientists to review all the theories out there. The more scientists, the better chances for progress. 

Edited March 16, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[Nofear]

(For the record, I quite agree that more scientists would be a good thing. Not everything I link is necessarily representative of my opinion.)

Edited March 16, 2015 by Nofear

[pogi]

"That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change”. The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

 

I just proved that climate scientists agree because of their research, not because of indoctrination. 

 

First, you left out this part:

 

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. 

 

Second, the only thing that you proved is that scientists are doing a lot of "mopping up":

 

 

1. 1. In other words, there is a good deal of mopping-up to be done.
      1. Mop-up operations are what engage most scientists throughout their careers.
      2. Mopping-up is what normal science is all about!
      3. This paradigm-based research (25) is "an attempt to force nature into the preformed and relatively inflexible box that the paradigm supplies" (24).
         1. no effort made to call forth new sorts of phenomena.
         2. no effort to discover anomalies.
         3. when anomalies pop up, they are usually discarded or ignored.
         4. anomalies usually not even noticed (tunnel vision/one track mind).
         5. no effort to invent new theory (and no tolerance for those who try).
         6. "Normal-scientific research is directed to the articulation of those phenomena and theories that the paradigm already supplies" (24)

Third, this article only talks about those doing research, but your 97% of scientists claim includes more scientists than just those doing the research. 

[pogi]

For the record, I believe in climate change.  I am agnostic as to wether it is human caused, but I will vote for clean air every time because I am sick and tired (literally) of the nasty Utah inversions. 

 

My only point is that using the popularity of a theory as evidence is not a good argument for a theory.

[strappinglad]

I will just add this link and hope for the best.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111005/full/478007a.html

Some pertinent parts: "The fuss over mistakes in the 2007 reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change highlights a related problem: a claim of scientific consensus creates a public expectation of infallibility that, if undermined, can erode public confidence. And when expert consensus changes, as it has on health issues from the safety of hormone replacement therapy to nutritional standards, public trust in expert advice is also undermined.

The very idea that science best expresses its authority through consensus statements is at odds with a vibrant scientific enterprise. Consensus is for textbooks; real science depends for its progress on continual challenges to the current state of always-imperfect knowledge. Science would provide better value to politics if it articulated the broadest set of plausible interpretations, options and perspectives, imagined by the best experts, rather than forcing convergence to an allegedly unified voice."

Edited March 16, 2015 by strappinglad

[mfbukowski]

I agree that new ideas are important and that we may be completely wrong. 

It doesn't mean we should not be worried about anything the scientists are warning us about. . 

If you had read the link, you would not have used that terminology.   Dead giveaway.

[mfbukowski]

 

You really think that 97% of scientists are "doing" global warming research?  Do you really believe that 97% of biologists are "doing" evolution research?

 

97% of scientists believe what they are taught in school and are no where near up-to-date on the publications (there are far too many to keep up with), and so they follow the popular crowd.  That is human nature.  They believe in popularity without really understanding every angle of the science and without really doing any research on the subject.  From the link that I doubt you have read yet based on your answers:

 

If a paradigm consists of basic and incontrovertible assumptions about the nature of the discipline, what questions are left to ask?

 

1. When they first appear, paradigms are limited in scope and in precision.
2. "Paradigms gain their status because they are more successful than their competitors in solving a few problems that the group of practitioners has come to recognize as acute" (23).
   1. But more successful does not mean completely successful with a single problem or notably successful with any large number (23).
   2. Initially, a paradigm offers the promise of success.
   3. Normal science consists in the actualization of that promise. This is achieved by
      1. extending the knowledge of those facts that the paradigm displays as particularly revealing,
      2. increasing the extent of the match between those facts and the paradigm's predictions, 
      3. and further articulation of the paradigm itself.
   4. In other words, there is a good deal of mopping-up to be done.
      1. Mop-up operations are what engage most scientists throughout their careers.
      2. Mopping-up is what normal science is all about!
      3. This paradigm-based research (25) is "an attempt to force nature into the preformed and relatively inflexible box that the paradigm supplies" (24).
         1. no effort made to call forth new sorts of phenomena.
         2. no effort to discover anomalies.
         3. when anomalies pop up, they are usually discarded or ignored.
         4. anomalies usually not even noticed (tunnel vision/one track mind).
         5. no effort to invent new theory (and no tolerance for those who try).
         6. "Normal-scientific research is directed to the articulation of those phenomena and theories that the paradigm already supplies" (24).
         7. "Perhaps these are defects . . . "
            1. ". . . but those restrictions, born from confidence in a paradigm, turn out to be essential to the development of science. By focusing attention on a small range of relatively esoteric problems, the paradigm forces scientists to investigate some part of nature in a detail and depth that would otherwise be unimaginable" (24).
            2. . . . and, when the paradigm ceases to function properly, scientists begin to behave differently and the nature of their research problems changes.
      4. Mopping-up can prove fascinating work (24). [You do it. We all do it. And we love to do it. In fact, we'd do it for free.]
3. The principal problems of normal science.
   1. Determination of significant fact. 
      1. A paradigm guides and informs the fact-gathering (experiments and observations described in journals) decisions of researchers?
      2. Researchers focus on, and attempt to increase the accuracy and scope of, facts (constructs/concepts) that the paradigm has shown to be particularly revealing of the nature of things (25).
   2. Matching of facts with theory. 
      1. Researchers focus on facts that can be compared directly with predictions from the paradigmatic theory (26)
      2. Great effort and ingenuity are required to bring theory and nature into closer and closer agreement.
      3. A paradigm sets the problems to be solved (27).
   3. Articulation of theory. 
      1. Researchers undertake empirical work to articulate the paradigm theory itself (27)—resolve residual ambiguities, refine, permit solution of problems to which the theory had previously only drawn attention. This articulation includes
         1. determination of universal constants.
         2. development of quantitative laws.
         3. selection of ways to apply the paradigm to a related area of interest.
      2. This is, in part, a problem of application (but only in part).
      3. Paradigms must undergo reformulation so that their tenets closely correspond to the natural object of their inquiry (clarification by reformulation).
      4. "The problems of paradigm articulation are simultaneously theoretical and experimental" (33).
      5. Such work should produce new information and a more precise paradigm.
      6. This is the primary work of many sciences.
4. To desert the paradigm is to cease practicing the science it defines (34).

 

"This paradigm-based research (25) is "an attempt to force nature into the preformed and relatively inflexible box that the paradigm supplies" (24)."

 

This process is essentially a creative process and is literally the CREATION of reality AS WE KNOW IT.

 

This is in effect a godly activity.  Humans as gods in embryo create worlds from "matter unorganized".   Indeed this can be seen as the essence of science- as seen here by Kuhn- the forcing of nature into a humanly created model.

 

Kuhn did not originate any of these ideas- they were developed much before he even lived.   In fact there is quite a lot of controversy about where he got them.

 

But Kuhn's great strength is found in the fact that he popularized these ideas and became known as their originator.  Ultimately he is key to this precisely because he was able to take the ball and run with it, and turn some very esoteric philosophical notions into ideas that "every educated person knows"

 

 

Although they used different terminologies, both Kuhn and Michael Polanyi believed that scientists' subjective experiences made science a relativized discipline. Polanyi lectured on this topic for decades before Kuhn published The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Supporters of Polanyi charged Kuhn with plagiarism, as it was known that Kuhn attended several of Polanyi's lectures, and that the two men had debated endlessly over epistemology before either had achieved fame. The charge of plagiarism is peculiar, for Kuhn had generously acknowledged Polanyi in the first edition of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.^[13] Despite this intellectual alliance, Polanyi's work was constantly interpreted by others within the framework of Kuhn's paradigm shifts, much to Polanyi's (and Kuhn's) dismay.^[14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn

 

Polanyi in turn, was influenced by and influenced the Pragmatists like Dewey and William James.

https://books.google.com/books?id=tnZ5jEeUSPsC&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149&dq=Polanyi+pragmatism&source=bl&ots=q-jjpCl8d_&sig=qO93pmnvtO3HgIMB3trHuDdr58Q&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CZEHVYHOOYqzogSOroKIBA&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Polanyi%20pragmatism&f=false

 

The ideas of William James and the pragmatists, including Rorty, are extremely close to Mormonism

https://www.google.com/search?q=william+james+closet+mormon&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

Indeed as an atheist, I studied William James and pragmatism and that is what ultimately led me to the church.  I would not be a Mormon today if it were not for William James because I would have never even investigated the church.

 

Any Mormon who is interested in the philosophy of science should know Kuhn well, and that should be any thinking Mormon.

 

Thanks for bringing this into the discussion- it is a very valuable point.

[mfbukowski]

I will just add this link and hope for the best.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111005/full/478007a.html

Some pertinent parts: "The fuss over mistakes in the 2007 reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change highlights a related problem: a claim of scientific consensus creates a public expectation of infallibility that, if undermined, can erode public confidence. And when expert consensus changes, as it has on health issues from the safety of hormone replacement therapy to nutritional standards, public trust in expert advice is also undermined.

The very idea that science best expresses its authority through consensus statements is at odds with a vibrant scientific enterprise. Consensus is for textbooks; real science depends for its progress on continual challenges to the current state of always-imperfect knowledge. Science would provide better value to politics if it articulated the broadest set of plausible interpretations, options and perspectives, imagined by the best experts, rather than forcing convergence to an allegedly unified voice."

But what is interesting about this all and what we can learn from it is that science is a creative enterprise driven by social forces and not "scientific results"

 

In essence it shows science to be very much like religion- forcing data into a pre-conceived model so that the human mind can make sense of its surroundings.

 

Theories are created, not "discovered" and the data is made to fit into the theory.  We take matter unorganized and organize it into a world-view.

 

We believe the bible, and it mentions a worldwide flood.  Both this view and science must be harmonized because we believe both of these ideas are "true" and therefore must be harmonized.   Same with evolution.   "Intelligent Design" is born.

 

The importance of Kuhn is that he shows that science in fact goes through this same process of essentially "rationalizing" preconceived ideas

 

"There are no facts, only interpretations".   That was said probably 50 years before Kuhn was even born.

[MormonFreeThinker]

 

First, you left out this part:

 

It is a 2004 paper, most authors that disagree don't seem to be publishing peer-reviewed scientific papers. 

 

"Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point. This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies"

 

 

Some pertinent parts: "The fuss over mistakes in the 2007 reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change highlights a related problem: a claim of scientific consensus creates a public expectation of infallibility that, if undermined, can erode public confidence. And when expert consensus changes, as it has on health issues from the safety of hormone replacement therapy to nutritional standards, public trust in expert advice is also undermined.

 

Sure, I agree that there are mistakes, but it doesn't mean the CO2 caused climate change theory is wrong because it has survived years of scientific scrutiny. 

 

 

The very idea that science best expresses its authority through consensus statements is at odds with a vibrant scientific enterprise.

 

You guys are misrepresenting what I am saying. I am saying that we should take the scientific theory seriously because most scientists are saying that the evidences are strong, they are doing the scientific research, you are not. "Seriously" is not 100% certainty. 

 

 

 

 I am agnostic as to wether it is human caused

 

If 97 out of 100 doctors tell you that you have the flu, would you be agnostic about that and do nothing? Again, we don't have to be 100% certain to be worried and take them seriously. 

 

 

I have seen evidence that Volcanic activity and other acts of nature are WAY more of a threat to global warming than humans.

 

but the scientific literature (the scientists that are doing research) disagree with you 

See the evidence 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011EO240001/abstract

 

 

You made it seem that 100% of published articles agree that climate change is man made, but did not include the context that we don't really know what the 25% believe.

 

Please read it again. The 25% didn't have a position There are many articles that challenge the theory, but not that many peer-reviewed papers that challenge it because they don't survive scientific scrutiny. 

 

Here is more evidence that climate scientists are doing their research, not getting indoctrinated 

 

"Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers" 

 

"The objective of our study presented here is to assess the scientific consensus on climate change through an unbiased survey of a large and broad group of Earth scientists."

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (Doran 2009)

Edited March 17, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[thesometimesaint]

Another nail in the coffin of the deniers.

SEE http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/16/the-melting-of-antarctica-was-already-really-bad-it-just-got-worse/?hpid=z1

[pogi]

It is a 2004 paper, most authors that disagree don't seem to be publishing peer-reviewed scientific papers. 

 

 

Hogwash.  This just goes to show how mis-leading the analysis is that you posted.  It says "this analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies"

 

Here are 80, yes 80, peer reviewed scholarly journal articles that cast doubt on human caused global warming. 

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php

 

You guys are misrepresenting what I am saying. I am saying that we should take the scientific theory seriously because most scientists are saying that the evidences are strong, they are doing the scientific research, you are not. "Seriously" is not 100% certainty. 

 

 

 

Here is the problem, you think that we are ignorant because we are not doing the research.  What research have you done?  Have you read the 80 peer reviewed scholarly journal articles to know what you are talking about, or are do you have your blinders on reading only one side of the story from the media.  I am guessing that you have not read one peer reviewed journal article on global warming.  Let me guess, you are taking the medias word for it that "scientists publishing in peer reviewed journal article agree."  That is pure deceit my friend and you have been deceived.  You have so much faith in the popular opinion that you don't even understand what you are disagreeing with (as is probably the case with 90% of scientists).  Why would I take anything you say seriously when you are so one-sided?

[ERayR]

Hogwash.  This just goes to show how mis-leading the analysis is that you posted.  It says "this analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies"

 

Here are 80, yes 80, peer reviewed scholarly journal articles that cast doubt on human caused global warming. 

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php

 

 

 

Here is the problem, you think that we are ignorant because we are not doing the research.  What research have you done?  Have you read the 80 peer reviewed scholarly journal articles to know what you are talking about, or are do you have your blinders on reading only one side of the story from the media.  I am guessing that you have not read one peer reviewed journal article on global warming.  Let me guess, you are taking the medias word for it that "scientists publishing in peer reviewed journal article agree."  That is pure deceit my friend and you have been deceived.  You have so much faith in the popular opinion that you don't even understand what you are disagreeing with (as is probably the case with 90% of scientists).  Why would I take anything you say seriously when you are so one-sided?

 

You need more than one rep point for this but one is all I can give at a time.

[JLHPROF]

Another nail in the coffin of the deniers.

SEE http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/16/the-melting-of-antarctica-was-already-really-bad-it-just-got-worse/?hpid=z1

 

I think I'll go with "who cares"?

 

To worry about global warming (or anything else destroying the world) is the provenance of unbelievers.

 

I believe the prophecies that tell me the earth and the people on it will be redeemed following a 1000 year millennial period that comes at the end of a 7000 year temporal timespan that started around 6015 years ago.

We may not know when the Millennium will start but it's a safe bet to say that the human race isn't going to destroy itself before the Millennium gets here.

 

But then I don't live in Boston - (thanks Pres. Woodruff ) 

[MormonFreeThinker]

Here are 80, yes 80, peer reviewed scholarly journal articles that cast doubt on human caused global warming. 

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php

 

I agree, it is not 100% certain, the only certainty is that there is no conspiracy like some skeptics claim. 

However, "Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers"  (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences). I said "most authors".

 

How many papers by skeptics are published in respected Journals? Not that many. 

 

 

Here is the problem, you think that we are ignorant because we are not doing the research.  What research have you done?  

 

None, I have nothing to offer, but it makes more sense to take the 97% of the researchers more seriously. It makes more sense to be more skeptical of the 3%.. Have you read all the papers of both sides?

 

 

 Let me guess, you are taking the medias word for it that "scientists publishing in peer reviewed journal article agree."  That is pure deceit my friend and you have been deceived.  

 

Please read what I been saying, I linked to 3 scientific papers that prove most of the scientific literature agrees. 

I don't care about the media, I don't watch Fox News or MSNBC. I care about the scientific literature. 

 

I can also name many researchers and link to their profile. 

Edited March 17, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[pogi]

I agree, it is not 100% certain, the only certainty is that there is no conspiracy like some skeptics claim. 

 

I don't think you are understanding my point.  MFT, you have not read ANY of the peer reviewed journals that shed doubt on human caused global warming.  Ask yourself this question: Am I doing science a favor or a disservice by propagating a theory where I have not even considered the opposing view?  MFT that is blind and ignorant faith and is not scientific at all.  It is an illogical and religious approach to science based entirely on trust without any first-hand knowledge of evidence from both sides.  To be informed on a subject does not mean that you have only studied one side.  That is ignorance my friend.  You are in the herd of sheeple blindly following whatever is popular.  You have admitted that the minority view might be right, it would be foolish of you to not give them equal study.

 

None, I have nothing to offer, but it makes more sense to take the 97% of the researchers more seriously. It makes more sense to be more skeptical of the 3%.. Have you read all the papers of both sides?

 

 

Again, read Kuhn and you will see that it does not always make more sense to trust the popular opinion.  It is not always pure science and logic that make a theory popular.  No, I have not read ALL the papers from both sides, but I have read some papers from both sides, I have watched Gore's documentary, and after studying a little from both sides I can confidently say that "I don't know".  I am agnostic.  It doesn't really matter to me because I believe in green energy for many many reasons, but global warming is not one of them.  Even if I knew for certain that it was human caused, it would not change anything for me.  We are on the same team (I hate to admit it) for different reasons. 

Edited March 17, 2015 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

I think I'll go with "who cares"?

 

To worry about global warming (or anything else destroying the world) is the provenance of unbelievers.

 

I believe the prophecies that tell me the earth and the people on it will be redeemed following a 1000 year millennial period that comes at the end of a 7000 year temporal timespan that started around 6015 years ago.

We may not know when the Millennium will start but it's a safe bet to say that the human race isn't going to destroy itself before the Millennium gets here.

 

But then I don't live in Boston - (thanks Pres. Woodruff ) 

 

God can do whatever he wants.

 

BTW Joseph Smith believe the earth was 2.5 billion years old.

http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/27/2555000000/

 

I never said that humanity will destroy itself. But some of us may have to move to a higher elevation.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Again, read Kuhn and you will see that it does not always make more sense to trust the popular opinion. 

 

and you don't understand what I am saying, I don't care about popular opinion. I care that most researchers are saying "the evidence is strong", that is not popular opinion. There are no authorities in science, the researchers don't care about what others think. 

 

I don't think you are understanding my point.  MFT, you have not read ANY of the peer reviewed journals that shed doubt on human caused global warming.  Ask yourself this question: Am I doing science a favor or a disservice by propagating a theory where I have not even considered the opposing view? 

 

I am open about the opposing view, I said many times that I am not 100% certain. The theory may be wrong, but I think it is more likely to be true.

Have you read the papers that agree with the consensus? 

 

I'll tell you what, send me a paper that disagrees, and I will read it now.

 

 

It is not always pure science and logic that make a theory popular

 

I agree, for example the static universe theory was popular, but there was no strong evidence to back that up, it was an assumption. 

However, most researchers agree that common descent and CO2 caused climate are true because of the strong evidence they say exists. I don't think they are lying to us. 

 

PS Kuhn has his critics too. 

Edited March 18, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[pogi]

I'll tell you what, send me a paper that disagrees, and I will read it now.

 

I gave you 80.  Will you also read Kuhn?  Click on the link and the name of the researcher.  From there you can link to their peer reviewed articles directly. 

 

"Strong evidence" is subjective and relative to what we think we know.  I am sure the skeptics consider their evidence to be "strong".  Or is this all about popularity again?  There are more articles therefore the evidence is strong?  All that proves is that the scientists of a particular paradigm are doing their job of "sweeping up". 

Edited March 18, 2015 by pogi