Climate Change

Speaking of solutions - Sometimes its the "idiot" on the street that comes up with solutions that work. Edison started working on light bulbs because he - as well as everyone else - was getting reamed by gas companies (as lighting at the time was primarily gas). His background at the time was in the telegraph industry, among other things - but was NOT in lighting at all. He was, in a sense - an "idiot on the street" since he had no real knowledge. Yet over time and with help (as well as purchased patents) - a modern incandescent bulb was born. To discount the contribution that those who may not "know stuff" is a real failure, as many scientific breakthroughs come from entirely unrelated projects and "non-subject matter experts" people.

So someone with a backround in electricity who had been working in the electrical business for years and had invented some electrical items was not in the electrical field at all when he developed a comercially succesful version of an electrical item which people in the same field of expertise had been working on for decades.
If however Edison had been a Lumberjack and spent most of his time swinging an axe before he suddenly developed a supersonic aircraft with assistance from other lumberjacks work then Haplos "issue" might be a valid one

[Fish]

Skeptical Science.

About Skeptical Science

The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what peer reviewed science has to say about global warming. When you peruse the many arguments of global warming skeptics, a pattern emerges. Skeptic arguments tend to focus on narrow pieces of the puzzle while neglecting the broader picture. For example, focus on Climategate emails neglects the full weight of scientific evidence for man-made global warming. Concentrating on a few growing glaciers ignores the world wide trend of accelerating glacier shrinkage. Claims of global cooling fail to realise the planet as a whole is still accumulating heat. This website presents the broader picture by explaining the peer reviewed scientific literature.
Often, the reason for disbelieving in man-made global warming seem to be political rather than scientific. Eg - "it's all a liberal plot to spread socialism and destroy capitalism". As one person put it, "the cheerleaders for doing something about global warming seem to be largely the cheerleaders for many causes of which I disapprove". However, what is causing global warming is a purely scientific question. Skeptical Science removes the politics from the debate by concentrating solely on the science.

More at:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/about.shtml

[Aramike]

The ecosystem will not fail - though it may at some point fail US - that is not a failure by the system. It is rather a correction, and a natural one. When that happens - and resources become so scarce that survival is questionable, mankind will cull itself - not into extinction, but into managable numbers. It will do so through war and violence, sickness and disease, as our history has shown we always do, in a fight for the resources to survive. Unpleasant, damned uncomfortable for those involved, but ultimately unavoidable as this is simply the natural cycle of growth, collapse and rebirth. Our known history shows the cycle repeatedly, and for those that study "pre-history" and the possible civilizations that are suspected to exist at the time - it would seem that the cycle was present then if you believe such a period existed.

Precisely. Such is exactly my point, and what I've been saying for quite some time on here. I agree 100%

Indeed, there are conditions that could cause extinction for humanity. But, even the complete melting of the polar icecaps would simply cut down our numbers.

Purely speaking, the idea of climate change prevention is rooted in this somewhat foolish belief that somehow we can and should attempt to maintain the Earth precisely as it is, in a role that supports a biological system that behaves nearly precisely as it currently does. While perhaps that idea makes sense in some human-centric ideological sense, I believe its foolishness lies in the concept that, throughout its history, the planet has naturally avoided any sort of steady and stagnant state, and why we believe we should begin now makes no sense.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Fish

Skeptical Science.



More at:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/about.shtml

Using the quote you provided, it is very difficult to believe such a site is truly attempting to remove the political dimension, when such an introduction is completely politically one-sided in its nature.

To anyone who cares to be honest, it reads "conservatives nuts; global warming science correct". While I tend to agree with most of the science of climate change, and that humans have made an impact, I still deplore those who attempt to disguise a political statement by way of simply making such a statement than claiming that they're not.

I mean, not to be political, but everyone should vote Democrat.

Yeah, that didn't make sense to you either, did it?

PS: The concept of "peer review" as validation is ludicrous. Science is not a democracy.

[Skybird]

Not so selfless, gentleman. The ecosystem may indeed survive in a changed format, like it has done for a long time - whether or not that formnat allows the further survival of a human civilisation: that is the part mankind must be interested in. The planet does not have a problem, scene that way. WE have a problem.

I often said that we are too many. However, you just cannot simply sit and watch 6 billion people getting wiped out by disease, war, starvation, disaster. Evemn if fruitless, we need to try to help. That is the moral dilemma we are in. Our moral and philosophical seld-descriptions collide with reality.

I also give a prirority to the other species on earth. It is not just about us, it is about many other wonderful animals as well, many of them with a high level os intelligence and even self-awareness. To say "the ecosystem never gets killed, it only chnages", is the same like saying to a the microcosmos a that human body is "this Ebola will not mean ultimate destruction, it only changes the mixtures of your body's cellular life components". Biologically that is correct. ethically it is a heartless offence - and if it is being turned into the basis of medical treatement and research - meaning no treatement at all - then it is being turned into a crime.

You focus much on the few exceptions on the fields of climate arguments, Aramike. You do ignore the vast consensus there is, the majority agreeing on things. By doing so, you distort the proportions, and manipulate the numerical relation between both.

Also, you do not understand that science almost never produces "ultimate understanding" of things. If that is what man is waiting for then I wonder why we do not still sit in a cave and both assemble around but also fear the little campfire. Acting we must, even in the face of an always remaining rest of uncertainty. we must decide oin the baiss of indications. The stronger these indications, the higher the reliability that they point at the right thing. The indications for global climate warming, and it being caused by humans to a very prominent degree, is overwhelming. And that is the huge majority's consensus.

In the end, what you acchieve with your arguing is, that nothing will get done, will get tried, no chnage will be aimed at, no need to adapt our beloved old ways of living to a chnaging world, and no economic procedures must be chnaged, and thus no profit interests are threatened in the short run.

I do not know whether or not trying to make things difference will point us at a "better future". Obviously there is also plenty of lobby interests on the left side, like there is on the right side, but on the right side, the full weight of the huge majorty of economy interests become effective, with amounts of money being invested into campaigning against GW that minimises the monetarian budgets of environmental lobbies. I do not trust green policies blidnly. I think we need to cut energy consummation levels massively, also ressourc e consummation in general, and pollution. I see the conflict with global population size. And I do not think that energy saving lightbulbs and chnaging showerheads and ongoing bureaucratic regulation is the effective tool to tackle the threats of the future, but are just "activism" to keep the crowds pleased and in the belief that things get done that will save us.

A chance that we will not make it if trying to chnage ourselves, remains. The probability for that is high, due to global population size, and the time running out. But I now for sure that the probability of failure turns into a 100% certainty, if we do like you recommend, and waste more time to verify once again those data we already have, and do not do anything to tackle our ways of going.

This is what it comes down to:

Trying different, unknown ways, and maybe failing nevertheless. Doing the same old ways, unchanged, and fail for sure.

Our choice. Our fate, self-made.

[CaptainHaplo]

However, you just cannot simply sit and watch 6 billion people getting wiped out by disease, war, starvation, disaster. Evemn if fruitless, we need to try to help. That is the moral dilemma we are in. Our moral and philosophical seld-descriptions collide with reality.

Herein lies the biggest issue Skybird. Morals and ethics and philosophy are great - but they don't survive a head on collision with reality most of the time.

While I have issues with climate change science, lets play devil's advocate here. Let us move forward in this discussion assuming its true. So what do we do about it? Limit global emissions? Doesn't solve the problem and causes economies to suffer. Get rid of internal combustion engines? Still doesn't sove the problem - and causes economies to FAIL. How about do away with industrialization entirely? Ok - that makes real progress on CO2 production - but also is not realistic for humanity - and still would not "save the planet".

No "half" measures are going to solve humanities climate issues. Because if climate change is truly man-made - then man has gone too far down the road to reverse course. Add in that climate is - when looking at the issue of human survival - not real high on the list of things to worry about - it makes things real clear for people like me.

Even IF climate change is real - those who advocate for humanity to address it are doing so for political power - because none of the changes they have put forth are realistic in having any true impact on the supposed problem - nor are they adressing the bigger and more pressing problems that humanity faces. Want me to think its not purely about politics? Show me any solution that has been realistically offered that can halt man's suspected damage and reverse it. There hasn't been one. Because with 6+ Billion people on earth - there isn't a solution. Yet with no solution - there sure are alot of POLITICAL agenda's out there trying to put their hooks in the lives of people......

That is why its political - because its about telling people how to live and what to do - when in the end - it will make no difference anyway.

Your right when you say "we are too many". Morally and ethically we cannot just kill off 6 Billion people. So what do we do? Reality says that either we do - or the Earth will make us or do it for us. Are we morally and ethically right in trying to fight against that natural occurance? By fighting against it - we are creating more of a problem - so we basically work to hold off disaster until the Earth has to kill 9 Billion people instead? How is being responsible for 3 Billion more people having to die morally or ethically correct? At some point the system WILL fail us - and all fighting that failure does is make more people suffer down the road.

Humanity is likely to survive such a correction - albiet at grossly reduced numbers. The key is - can a correction be prevented PERMANENTLY? Yes - but only if the number of people on Earth is reduced. This is why the exploration and expansion into space is so critical - because only there can Humanity expand without the Earth acting as nature dictates it must. However, space has been neglected for too long.

The answer is simply - there must cease to be "too many of us" - and thus to solve the real issues facing humanity, we have to accept that either nature will fix that for us (or force us to do so ourselves) - or we must find ways to move the greatest portion of humanity off the earth.

Lastly I have to say that one reason I take issue with the environmental movement is the whole "save the earth" bullcrap. The earth doesn't need saving - humanity needs saving from its own superior intellect - and superior stupidity. Environmentalism is political control expressed as touchy feely "I am doing something good" idiocy that accomplishes.......nothing.

[Skybird]

A dilemma (Greek δί-λημμα "double proposition") is a problem offering at least two solutions or possibilities, of which none are practically acceptable. One in this position has been traditionally described as "being on the horns of a dilemma", neither horn being comfortable, "between Scylla and Charybdis"; or "being between a rock and a hard place", since both objects or metaphorical choices are rough.

...

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by Aramike

I've read your response, and ultimately find that we are not too far apart in our recognition of the current science of climate change. Ultimately the difference in opinion is simple: you place far more faith in the current scientific analysis than I do.

Pretty much yes

This point you made was remarkably full of spin. You specifically stated that the geocentric universal view was Biblical. It in fact was NO SUCH THING, as it predated the Bible. Now, in order to haphazardly support that statement you went on to attempt to invalidate that view as though it was not science, which is oddly discriminating. To me it seems to be bad form to invalidate the science of old (or even, antiquity) upon the basis that we know more now. I have never met a scientist or historian (and I know quite a few) who had ever even suggested such a concept. Simply because a concept doesn't fit modern scientific models does NOT MAKE IT NOT SCIENCE.

No what I said was that such references were in the Bible and before the scientific revolution the Church made the position religious law and charged people such as Galileo with Heresy for claiming otherwise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_...cal_references
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo

It is not science as those theories were not developed by following scientific method. Sure philosophy is part of what started science, but those theories you presented were not scientific in nature to begin with. Which is why I labeled them as being philosophical in nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_method

Aristotle's theory was based on very rough observation (I would say mostly anecdotal) and he failed to notice that his theory didn't work. Ptolemy put the cart before the horse and tried to fix the original theory using mathematics to better match the observations. Ptolemy was closer to scientific method, but he didn't do things in the right order among other things.

The reason I point this out is mere basic intellectualism. You suggest essentially that our climate models will never be substantially improved (and thusly different) and yet you imply that our scientific methods are airtight and therefore not subject to improvement (by extension claiming that such methods are too impervious to change that, at some point, a future scientist would then be able to claim that our current methods are not, indeed, "science").

That is incorrect. I never said that the climate models cannot be substantially improved, or that they are air tight and impervious, far from it. I said several times that they are fundamentally flawed due humans being flawed beings, that they would never be perfect or 100% accurate. I however think that the models are not likely to get a whole lot better any time soon, barring a paradigm shift. In the mean time the theories are telling us stuff that we should probably pay attention to.

My point is simple and has been consistant: we don't know enough to make accurate predictions which require such drastic changes to our economies. The science is simply too incomplete and HAS NOT been proven. While I have made it quite clear that I agree with most of the principles of the climate science, I believe that the picture is still far too incomplete.

And my point was we are never likely to get a perfectly accurate model of climate change, or very close due to the incredible complexity of the subject. We will always have flawed theories and flawed models which will fail some of the time but work most of the time. Most of the scientific community (particularly experts in the field) however is against you, and believe it has been sufficiently proven and the science is complete enough to make such a judgment. Our picture will always be incomplete, it is impossible to encompass everything, even in the most simple and basic theories there are little flaws.

And, I think that many scientists have been distorting said picture in order to reach their predetermined conclusions (this has been well-documented).

Your post dismissing early human scientific endeavors as not being scientific is very reminiscent of such a distortion. Perhaps, more well put, you used spin to redefine an understood concept...

...which is specfically was I accuse many climatologists of doing.

Well documented? Well claimed maybe. I keep hearing this yet still have not gotten any strong evidence of such. Yet it is often ignored when coming from the other side of the table where the bias is often blatantly obvious (like oil companies funding counter research).

You accuse me of spinning things, yet you are distorting and failing to understand what I am writing. I did not dismiss those endeavors, I put them in their correct category. For something to be called "science" it has to follow scientific method and principles. If it walks and quacks like a duck its a duck, otherwise it is not a duck.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I know that was not meant as an insult to those who don't have a scientific background, but thats a rather dangerous opinion to have in my view, because the "idiot" on the street is often the one impacted the most by the decisions of those who "know about the subject". For example, a scientific consensus that has real say in the matter may decide that the only way to stabilize the environment is to remove certain CO2 sources - such as internal combustion engines. Now if they are the only ones with "real say" - then they just decided to kill the economic infrastructure of most of humanity.

You are quite correct my friend I do not mean that as an insult to those that do not know. I just get frustrated when lay people throw around terms they do not understand, or make claims that are not supported by the literature. The idiot on the street refers to those you see on TV all the time getting interviewed on the street where they express all kinds of opinions and make it painfully obvious they have zero knowledge to back any of those opinions up. They are the same people who vote for someone because they like the way they dress.

Now before we drift off in the wrong direction, let me clarify what I had said. I mean that only scientists have any say in scientific matters (theory) and consensus as they are the only ones capable of judging such stuff by having the necessary background and education. This does not mean that I think only scientists should dictate real world policy. I will come back to this though.

Perhaps you meant this only in the role of having say in what the scientific conclusions were - which would limit science to a purely "theoretical" advisor type role? This also has dangers, since it would keep scientists from being able to work toward and support (outside of advisement) solutions.

Yes and no. I think we should listen to the scientific community directly and not the sources most people use, ie the media. The media is useless as a source of scientific information, as it is usually presented wrong (they don't generally understand things much better then your average lay person) and is heavily warped by political/financial bias. I honestly don't even watch the news any more, as it is full of so much garbage, nonsense and distortions that it is not even worth trying to untangle the mess.

Speaking of solutions - Sometimes its the "idiot" on the street that comes up with solutions that work. Edison started working on light bulbs because he - as well as everyone else - was getting reamed by gas companies (as lighting at the time was primarily gas). His background at the time was in the telegraph industry, among other things - but was NOT in lighting at all. He was, in a sense - an "idiot on the street" since he had no real knowledge. Yet over time and with help (as well as purchased patents) - a modern incandescent bulb was born. To discount the contribution that those who may not "know stuff" is a real failure, as many scientific breakthroughs come from entirely unrelated projects and "non-subject matter experts" people.

Sure, though he is the extremely rare case. Also he did have a limited background in electricity from the telegraph industry. But in this case I am looking at theory itself, not necessarily solutions. Theory comes from the scientific community, solutions tend to come from outside of it (often based on scientific theory). This is the difference between theoretical science and practical or applied science.

As for worrying about climate change - I think everyone is worried about something that doesn't matter. The ecosystem will not fail - though it may at some point fail US - that is not a failure by the system. It is rather a correction, and a natural one. When that happens - and resources become so scarce that survival is questionable, mankind will cull itself - not into extinction, but into managable numbers. It will do so through war and violence, sickness and disease, as our history has shown we always do, in a fight for the resources to survive. Unpleasant, damned uncomfortable for those involved, but ultimately unavoidable as this is simply the natural cycle of growth, collapse and rebirth. Our known history shows the cycle repeatedly, and for those that study "pre-history" and the possible civilizations that are suspected to exist at the time - it would seem that the cycle was present then if you believe such a period existed.

I know it sounds somewhat cold to speak on those terms and lay it out so starkly, but it is reality - barring an outside event that exterminates us. However, to me, I see it as simply another stage of existence, so its part of the road, not the whole journey, and thus can see it like a roller coaster ride - every part has its ups and down.

I do not doubt that life would continue, with or without us. I think though that the chances for our extinction are quite plausible. My point though is that wouldn't it be better to try to avoid it to begin with? Maybe its just the idealist in me but I think it would be nice if we could find a way to break that cycle, and not wreck the planet in the process.


Anyhow my main point was that I get very annoyed when people present strongly held beliefs on a scientific topic, but do not seem to know the first thing about the scientific topic, or have any evidence beyond media sources to back it up. This does not mean that I think lay people should not have opinions on it, just I wish that they would do some real investigation of their own into it first before forming an opinion. My experience has shown me that most people do not do this, and that their opinions have no validity as they have no base. This is where they start becoming the "idiot on the street" blathering on about something they know absolutely nothing about.

I do think we should listen more to the scientific community, and base our decisions on what they tell us. Though we should always be cautious too, science is not perfect, and they do make mistakes. Ultimately I think we should decide based on the greater good for everything with science (and ethics) suggesting the way forward.


PS If I haven't said it enough yet... don't trust the media

Its funny that there is talk of morality and ethics when it come to what scientists say we may be facing in terms of climate and population.
These "scientific" myths must be treated in the same way as the myth of "evolution" is treated.
It is all gods work as spelt out from literal interpretations of apocolyptic scripture which brings with the ending of "civilisation" and the solving of overpopulation a nice close the story which ran from the start of the earth and humans.
Global warming is just god stoking the furnace getting ready for recieving the billions of people who are not numbered the chosen few.
After all if people want to reject science in favour of a literal interpretation of scripture they should at least be consistant.

[Aramike]

Total, and complete spin. You said, QUOTE:

Umm.. no. That was never the scientific consensus, that was a religious ruling based off of a few verses in the bible.

Geocentric theories and consensus PREDATE the Bible. Flat out, you were wrong.

You're attempting to suggest that a paradigm shift means that previous scientific methodologies were not scientific. If that were the case, any future paradigm shift would invalidate what we currently call "science", and I find that concept about as absurd as the other clear implication that you're making: modern science is impervious to another paradigm shift.

In any case, I think its pointless to continue discussing things with anyone who cannot own up to a simple (and obvious) proven error. That indicates that you have no intentions upon even CONSIDERING the other point of view, but rather merely attempting to invalidate it immediately.

[antikristuseke]

Aramike, go into politics, you would fit right in.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

Aramike, go into politics, you would fit right in.

LOL, I hate politics, I'm too independant.

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Total, and complete spin. You said, QUOTE:Geocentric theories and consensus PREDATE the Bible. Flat out, you were wrong.

You're attempting to suggest that a paradigm shift means that previous scientific methodologies were not scientific. If that were the case, any future paradigm shift would invalidate what we currently call "science", and I find that concept about as absurd as the other clear implication that you're making: modern science is impervious to another paradigm shift.

My statement was correct; during that time period the belief was based on statements in the bible, and enforced by religious law under heresy. There was no scientific consensus at the time on anything as science itself didn't exist (at least in the west), only what the Catholic church dictated was true (for that specific period of time). I never once said that the theories did not predate the church. But there was no scientific consensus back then either.

And like I said, science didn't truly exist at the time; all 'scientific' theories were philosophic or theological theory in nature (though mathematics is another topic). To be considered "science" it needs to follow scientific methodology and practice, otherwise it is not science plain and simple. This has nothing to do with spin, these are basic concepts and definitions. I am not saying that what the ancients did was crap, just that it cannot be called science due to what it is and how it was created. This is why I refer to it as philosophic theory.

I never said that modern science is immune to another paradigm shift (I was the one that suggested that possibility in fact). But I do not think one is imminent at the moment for those fields. Paradigm shifts usually do invalidate the theories that came before it, but they do not invalidate scientific methodology unless it is shown that there is a major flaw in the methodology, in which case the paradigm shift would occur there. Even still I think that the basics would likely still remain as they are so fundamental to what makes science, science.

In any case, I think its pointless to continue discussing things with anyone who cannot own up to a simple (and obvious) proven error. That indicates that you have no intentions upon even CONSIDERING the other point of view, but rather merely attempting to invalidate it immediately.

At this juncture I would agree, though obviously for different reasons. You accuse me of all this, yet you have consistently misread and misinterpreted nearly everything I have written and tried to turn it in directions I never took. You also seem to be using a different set of definitions. I have considered the other side of this debate and I have read some of the more meritorious papers against the subject. I try to invalidate many of your arguments because I either consider them to be flawed, or not valid to begin with. If you want to change my mind you will have to provide hard evidence that supports your argument and invalidates most of the counter evidence available (of which there is a heck of a lot of), not rhetoric and unsubstantiated claims.

[Aramike]

My statement was correct; during that time period the belief was based on statements in the bible, and enforced by religious law under heresy.

But that statement was a direct response to my point, which means that *I* set the context, and said context had NOTHING to do with any time period...

Furthermore, your concept that "science didn't really exist then" is inaccurate. The term is "paradigm".

In any case, you pointed to Wiki pages as validations in a previous post, so therefore surely you'll agree with Wiki here under a page entitled "Superceded SCIENTIFIC theories", which SPECIFICALLY lists the geocentric universe model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superse...tific_theories

Again, I find it interesting how someone such as yourself, who supposedly follows writ scientific as gospel, won't own up to the fact that you were clearly mistaken is something. You're obviously a very bright individual. Yet, I find it quite TELLING and fascinating that, when faced with the obviousness of a mistake, you refuse to simply acknowledge it and move on, instead expecting the rest of us to buy into a clear example of spin.

There's a reason I'm harping this point: this is a PERFECT example of what I consider the arrogance of much of today's scientific community, and there are many, EASILY RESEARCHED examples of this. However, much like you dismiss the science of antiquity and a previous paradigm as not being "science", when faced with the inaccuracies of the observable effects of climate change stacked up against the predictions, you simply make excuses/divert the discussion into the long term/etc.

Essentially, this one minor point has demonstrated so clearly what I find problematic with the scientific community regarding the Earth's climate.

There are two things in life that I'm extraordinarily proud of: the first is being able to admit being wrong when faced with a mistake, and to not follow the knee-jerk reaction of justification. The second is my ability to not be wavered by those who attempt such justifications.

This has become a crystal clear microcosm of my entire point. You are quite guilty of SPECIFICALLY what I find the scientific community-at-large to be guilty of: the belief that, no matter what, you MUST be right.

If you've ACTUALLY been reading my points, on other than the historical information I've really never completely disagreed on anything. Rather, I've merely stated other possibilities which I believe should be explored. In fact, I have STATED, on SEVERAL OCCASSIONS that I generally believe and agree with modern climate science (although I believe your predictions to be SOMEWHAT wrong based upon having incomplete data - and YOU are the one continuously pointing out that our predictive models are flawd). And yet, DESPITE that agreement, you've attempted to dismiss EVERY SINGLE POINT I've made out-of-hand, under the premise that you've read some papers, I haven't, and therefore you must be right, and I should trust that fact.

Furthermore, you've attempted to illustrate that scientific concensus is Holy Writ, and have ignored my links to demonstrate otherwise.

This is what I have a problem with. Not just with you, but the scientific community-at-large.

You have demonstrated this absurd concept that the scientific community should operate on the ad-hominem ideal that, if you're not a scientist, you should simply listen to us and not vice-versa. That's an institutional arrogance, in my opinion. And that is specifically why there is a large measure of distrust.

And yet, to counter that distrust, instead of abandoning the concept of thinking that they are simply more astute than everyone else, those in the climate sciences have made DOCUMENTED EFFORTS to fudge the data in order to moreso illustrate their views. There have been MANY, EASILY found documented cases of neglect and automatic acceptance of any claim made regarding adverse effects of climate change.

I don't have a problem with the science. I DO have a problem with the idea that its somehow "as complete as it will ever get" and we should regard it as the "final analysis", and not even consider that it may be wrong.

That's been my consistant position. Your position has been consistantly otherwise. And the fact that you refuse to even acknowledge an obvious and simple mistake concerns me, and goes far in demonstrating my point: more research, more study, less CONCLUSIONS are needed.

[Skybird]

Thomas Kuhn, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".

Everyone wanting to discuss the term "paradigm" and it's meaning in modern science, cannot get around this work. It is most basic and essential. It is pretty much the explicit and/or implicit fundament of how "scientific paradigm" is being understood today in science.

To claim what somebody says must be taken serious in a scientific context, equalling scientific argument, needs that claim being concluded on the basis of scientific methodology. It needs to be proven. Just claiming something, is not enough. That'S what separates science from political propaganda, and religion, and random private "opinion". People can have opinion. But yet, their opinion can be worth crap if they are unable to well-found it. Just having a precious opinion - means nothing and is nothing that deserves respect in itself. The way that opinion got formed up and is well-founded (or not) is what makes it deserving respect - or not.

Take note of the quantitative relations in data and theories and opinion consensus amongst scientists, Aramike. You focus a lot on exceptions and small minorities - I repeat: exceptions and small minorities - and make so much noise around them that finally you conclude they represent any mainstream group inside the debate. They do not.

It is possible that there are some honest scientists in that minority -I am even sure there are some - who eventually in the future will be able to prove the reasonability of their differing views by academic, scientific standards. And even then it may take another long time before their views get widely accepted and become the new paradigm in sicnece, eventually. Paradigm chnage does not happen often, and frequently, it is not every day practice in science, since the term relates to a meta-level of scientific work and theory-building.

Science does not produce ultimate certainty in data and theories. Responsible scientists also do not claim they could do that. Claiming such certainties is the branch of religion, not science. Sciences thus produces probability-statements, that help us to decide whether we chose this or that option. Certain we never are - we just try to optimise our chances.

The opinion consensus amongst climate scientists is telltaling. At current information level it is a reasonable choice to assume they have a higher probability to point at the right direction, than "sceptics" have. Also, many sceptics are just throwing mud, are no scientists themselves, are not familiar with academic and scientific methodologic procedures, and do no found their objections scientifically solid at all, they often even distort scientific data and conclusions and rip them out of greater contexts and misquote them in order to form the illusion of a scientific argument, but what these people are about is not scientific truth finding, but pushing a political agenda: giving GW a bad name, and discrediting the data basis it is founded upon. They are political strategists, marketing experts, media anchormen, PR specialists. All that stuff - should have no place in science. You complain a lot about data manipulation in GW science, Aramike, but you seem to be very blind towards the massive manipulation among the politically and economically motivated climate sceptics.

However, as I said some time ago, somewhere earlier in this thread, the sloppy work among GW scientists have produced some problems that allowed scpetics to blow these failures and few intentional manipulation ver ymuch beyond their real proportion, alloing a great propaganda coup for "sceptics". But if oyu look at it, you still see that the main section of the IPCC nevertheless remains uneffected by these criticisms, and that the consensus on the report'S data basis is almost completely untouched and undisputed. That also is true for data won separately to the IPCC project and not ecplicitly recognised by the IPCC.

One swallow does not make a summer. One year of weather does not make a climate trend. Some sets of questionable data do not put into question tens of thousands of other data sets.