Quote:
Originally Posted by August
(Post 1590496)
So IOW you're saying that sediment layers can't really substitute for a real diary with recorded readings? :DL
|
Sdiment layers - just an example, btw - can be like a diary, like the year rings in trees can tell you what years were especially dry or especially wet.
Quote:
Let's not confuse petrified seeds etc with actual recorded readings my friend.
|
You have to, live with that this - also an exmaple, ac tauilly plenty of more matter can be analysed and not only enforces but almost enforces causal conc´lusions that created conditioons that made the found meterial in the searched area at the time ra the sediment layer dates aback possible.
You're a dial-freak, which means that you negate all history and also all future and thus only belpieve what you read on a dial in the present moment. We are lucky, all of us, that science thankfully does not function that narrow-eyed.
Quote:
Anything that requires large amounts of interpretation and guesswork vastly increases the chances of misinterpretation and inaccuracy.
|
Which gets reduced in probability by making more supportive findings. No serious scientist claims a theory to be the only truth if it is not proven perfectly, and is suppoprted opnly by one or two indices. But when you can suppoort your theory by more and more data, and from differen t, various fields of science, maybe even can show data that falsifies earlier theories as being wriong, then you increase the valdity of that theory. Sorry August, but Occam'S razor still is an important method in the sientific process - and it hzas served us so very very damn well so far.
Quote:
Then there are the gaps in those records, some many thousands of years of years long. With such spotty coverage it's no wonder they can't tell the immediate future with any degree of accuracy.
|
A gap is not the same like "proven wrong" or contradicting evidence. A gap just says: "about this phase of time, we still cannot make statements". A gap in excplanations can be for many reasons. One has not c hecked for certain things. One has exmained the wrong place. One'S topols and sensors were not sensitive, one'S methody were not adequate enough. Evidence has been stolen (archeologists can sing a song of this). Manifestations have been eroded and destroyed by natural processes, by time. Etc. etc. Can we claim that there is no intelligent life just becasue we have not found a sign of it? Hardly.
I think you try to take the nature of science itself in order to try to delay conclusions. And also you seem to think that man in general should noit decide and act even when he only has reasonable theories and logical conclusions, no evidence that god himself has written into everlasting never eroding stone. But science is not like that, it does not make final statements, it only fits together the pieces in the one way that at a given time makes more sense in order to form the overall picture from the pieces, than any other. Certain conclusions on the climatic coinditions in past eras are made because the findings that were colelcted so far make best sense this way, and not in any other way.
Uncertainty is part of our life, and is part of science. It is like a captain on a ship getting order to plot course to another harbour and in dangerous waters of an unknown ocean, with areas of increased risks for disaster. He can never be sure that he has plotted the shortest possible course. Either he plotted a course that let the ship survive and itr reaches thew destination harbour, then he only knows that the course he has choosen, served its purpose. Or he has choosen a course that led the ship into disaster, the ship sinks and all aboard lose their lives. In no case he will ever knopw if there were better, safer, shorter routes possible.
In scinece at least altering the "course" is possible. This is done by showing old theories wrong by evidence and logical demoisntration, or by coming up with a new theory that explains the exiosting hints and data and assumptions in an easier wqay than the old theory, and/or explains more single data and hints and observations than the old model which needed to leave pout these no included elements. This is how it is done - and it served us well to use this model of science, since the ancient Greeks. They set the fundament for this thinking.
Just vague suggestions, and believing different, is not good enough in this process.
For eternal, totally secure statements about the absolute truth, you should not look at science, but at relgions - they do stuff like that, and they do not even ask questions and do not even question they quality of their arguments, becaseu they have no arguments at all, nor do they have evidence or hints or observations: They just have the virtue of believing blindly. Taking this as the ultimate truth - that is the dogma of theirs. You shall believe, not question and not exmaine - that is the dogma of almolst every relgion there is, no matter the text of what you should believe.
Climate sceptics for the most leave it to just bringing others into miscredit, and I see a hilarious ammount of misqutring, quiting out of context, even forging statements and data, and often you also see a massive exaggeration of details born from lacking understanding of the matter. On the other hand, claims they make for the most can be and have been shown to be wrong. If it is as far as this, then the next defence mechansim sets in: ignoring it.
In the end, to bring this talking in circles to an end, you do not need dials and sensors to assure yourself that climate and environment is chn aging, and that this is caused by a general warming trend in global climate. All ypou need is your eyes and an active mind. Then you can see the biological indices that I mentioned at the beginning of this thread: that species, who all can live only in a certain range of temperature, either died out, or move into new places where before they could not have surviuved, which eans living conditons have chnaged recently, in the past decades. You only need your eyes to see chnages in the landscape and the massive change in geographical and geological fetaures of places. You can compare it to eye witness reports from old people who can tell ypou how it was 70 years ago, you may even be able to find old photographies that show oyu a lake and meadows where now there is a desert, and you see on the photot that that valley of severl kilometers 50 years ago was filled with ice 40 meters and more high, where now you have a dry place and loose rubble and tourists walking around in shorts and T-shirts. Etc etc etc.
