Perhaps South Dakota will repeal the law of gravity, next?

[Torvald Von Mansee]

http://www.scientificblogging.com/ch...d_laws_science

[Stealth Hunter]

Omg...

[August]

Well care to point out what is actually incorrect about any of these statements?

(1) That global warming is a scientific theory rather than a proven fact;
(2) That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect world weather phenomena and that the significance and interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative; and
(3) That the debate on global warming has subsumed political and philosophical viewpoints which have complicated and prejudiced the scientific investigation of global warming phenomena

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by August

Well care to point out what is actually incorrect about any of these statements?

(1) Well its all theory, in theory at least. If you want to get really philosophical about it, you can make the valid statement that there is no proven fact at all, we can't even really prove we exist, or that anything we "sense" does.

(2) Its a lot more then simple speculation, there is considerable evidence in support of the theories relating to this topic. This isn't some theory a guy came up with one day on the back balcony having a beer, based on sheer speculation.

(3) I think it has far more prejudiced the greater populace as to its debate on the topic rather than the scientific community itself (notice how the political sides have lined up on the issue?). The scientific community at least has some training in identifying their own biases and trying to control for them. Plus of course the whole thing on the scientific method which is designed to reduce bias as much as possible.


Anyhow sounds like that group has their own agenda, probably pandering to their constituents, or business pressures.

[August]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

(1) Well its all theory, in theory at least. If you want to get really philosophical about it, you can make the valid statement that there is no proven fact at all, we can't even really prove we exist, or that anything we "sense" does.

But some people act like it is indeed proven fact. Skybird does it all the time.

(2) Its a lot more then simple speculation, there is considerable evidence in support of the theories relating to this topic. This isn't some theory a guy came up with one day on the back balcony having a beer, based on sheer speculation.

They said "largely" speculation. YOU are the one changing that to "sheer" speculation and "simple" speculation.

(3) I think it has far more prejudiced the greater populace as to its debate on the topic rather than the scientific community itself (notice how the political sides have lined up on the issue?). The scientific community at least has some training in identifying their own biases and trying to control for them. Plus of course the whole thing on the scientific method which is designed to reduce bias as much as possible.

Well I agree and you'd think the scientific community would have learnt to stay out of politics by now but I guess they have to pander to the alarmists in order to get their funding.

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by August

But some people act like it is indeed proven fact. Skybird does it all the time.

They said "largely" speculation. YOU are the one changing that to "sheer" speculation and "simple" speculation.

Well I agree and you'd think the scientific community would have learnt to stay out of politics by now but I guess they have to pander to the alarmists in order to get their funding.

The main thrust of my 2nd reply was that it is evidence based, not speculative in nature. They are making it sound like the science is pure speculation, which is false.

The scientific community is largely out of the picture, not really pandering to anyone. Most governmental funding comes regardless of the direction of results, they just want an accurate picture. Its these other people that are taking the science and running with it to further their own ends. Just like those on the other side are doing the same thing too. I guess this is why I like scientific discourse most, as it is by in large politics free. Everything else is poisoned by political weighting.

[August]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

Everything else is poisoned by political weighting.

I think that's the main point the SD legislature is trying to address here.

[razark]

Originally Posted by August

Well care to point out what is actually incorrect about any of these statements?

The definition of "theory" in a scientific discussion, for one.

Also, what are the "astrological... dynamics that can effect world weather phenomena"? What does astrology have to do with anything?

That shows that the people passing the laws aren't exactly the best people to deal with the subject. Edit: This last part is a problem with a lot of laws. Politicians are great at PR and getting elected. They're not really experts in anything else. But they make the laws that affect everything.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by The Article

(1) That global warming is a scientific theory rather than a proven fact;

Perhaps they should refresh their memories of junior high on what a scientific theory is exactly... a well-tested theoretical concept confirmed by present facts and evidence gathered by researchers that explains a wide range of observations for whatever specific field of study, or fields. (-The National Science Foundation)

Originally Posted by The Article

(2) That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect world weather phenomena and that the significance and interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative;

Pretty much correct, except for the "largely speculative" part- which, aside from being erroneous (you don't speculate when it comes to the sciences...), they also fail to define this usage of terminology.

Originally Posted by The Article

(3) That the debate on global warming has subsumed political and philosophical viewpoints which have complicated and prejudiced the scientific investigation of global warming phenomena

First half, well that goes without say. This happens with anything when it comes to the public's views. Very rarely, though, does something this large become that political (the majority of the scientific community is in consensus that global warming is at least partially caused by humans; source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...fic_literature) when it comes to the actual scientists who are doing the investigations and research/studies. It's never been proven in this instance that they've been influenced, anyway. The "Climate-Gate" scientists who were supposedly hiding data and discussing it in emails were cleared of all charges and found innocent by the House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...h/387/387i.pdf

[SteamWake]

There is no gravity... the earth sucks

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

The "Climate-Gate" scientists who were supposedly hiding data and discussing it in emails were cleared of all charges and found innocent by the House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...h/387/387i.pdf

Oh good, was wondering when that was going to finish. You should post that to the global warming thread