Utterly Meaningless » Blog Archive » SCIENTIFIC SMACKDOWN

SCIENTIFIC SMACKDOWN

Filed at 4:23 pm under by dcobranchi

This is how science is done. Take notes, IDers.

And dollars to donuts that the vast majority of ID proponents will reject this, too. Any takers?

6 Responses to “SCIENTIFIC SMACKDOWN”


Comment by
Valerie
June 26th, 2005
at 10:04 pm

I think I’ll turn off my computer now and stop using the electricity.

I wish I could send the URL to the people who sat next to me yesterday at our little community days parade. repatr...t.html

My husband and I were standing, the couple beside us were sitting, in their car, with the engine going, watching the parade in air-conditioned comfort, the day after a local ozone alert.

Think it would do any good to send it to the White House, too?


Comment by
Anonymous
June 27th, 2005
at 1:39 am

I don’t doubt that there’s an effect, attributable to human causes. BUT -this is a good example of influencing techniques, not good science.

An example of science 101 would include (1) A hypothesis that includes numerical measures. (2) Conclusion that either accepts or rejects the hypothesis with some confidence interval. Plus, the example would discuss the methods that were employed, and reasons why the conclusion could be wrong.

What’s your definition of good science? Majority rules? Exigency? Obfuscation of data? Ad-hominem attacks on the opposition? Titles?

So, cutting through all of the rhetoric, what is the measured effect, and with what confidence can that effect be attributed to human causes?


Comment by
roy
June 27th, 2005
at 10:56 am

“…this is a good example of influencing techniques, not good science.”

RealClimate’s mission isn’t to publish peer reviewed scientific literature. It’s to provide a rapid response to mistakes and myth-making about climate science within the popular media. If you want the actual science behind their arguments, follow their links.

“So, cutting through all of the rhetoric, what is the measured effect, and with what confidence can that effect be attributed to human causes?”

Read the IPCC TAR.


Comment by
Chad Boudreau
June 27th, 2005
at 1:30 pm

I personally am not convinced either way.
On one side, humans contribute a very small amount of greenhouse gasses, and so the likelyhood of those amounts being so disasterous is something I have trouble accepting.

On the other side, we do know that small changes can have huge effects in any pattern. Whether or not the human contribution to the greenhouse gas effect is enough to make a noticeably large effect is unknown BY ME.
however, it is certainly possible, and even plausable. However, I am disgusted by the manner which some (namely the most vocal) of the global warming activists present their message. So unfortunately, I do have a gut reaction that inclines me to be sceptical of what they say.

Therefore, my vote is still pending. luckily, my vote doesn’t count for much.

psst, not an IDer
Chad


Comment by
Eric Holcombe
June 27th, 2005
at 2:22 pm

From their discussion of “forcings”, in other words, assumptions:

“defining the forcing is really a function of what feedbacks you allow in the model and for what purpose you are using it”

I find the “my computer model is better than your computer model” argument pretty funny, but I expect them to argue their side. Daryl, honestly, I see no difference in the scientists argument methods here vs. what they do when confronting ID’ers. Quote a bunch of people on your side, the other guys are clueless, yada, yada, yada. All sides are based on assumptions. None can be quantitatively proven.

It was nice to be informed that USA Today is now considered a valid scientific reference though…


Comment by
Anonymous
June 30th, 2005
at 6:07 pm

Richard Feynman said it best over 30 years ago in his essay, “Cargo Cult Science.” (howe.k...an.htm)

“It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty – a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid – not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked – to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.”

Feynman knew what science was.