Just out of curiosity, who here believes that there is no scientific consensus on the following?
a. Human-caused climate change
b. Evolution
Define “science.”
.
define “consensus”
.
define “define”.
That has to be the best series of replies I’ve ever read!
As for the original question, I can have a pointless argument anytime I want at work. Think I’ll skip this one.
My point here is that people often fall into a fallacy of equivocation when they use “science” and “evolution” or “creation” in the same thought. I contend that “science” – in the way we use that word everyday – is far removed from the way most evolutionists or creationists use it.
In other words, when we normally use the word “science” we mean “observational science” (e.g., genetics, natural selection, chemistry, etc.), which is what one can observe and experiment in the present, and then repeat the observations and experiments). However, evolutionists and creationists use “science” to mean “historical science,” which is one’s beliefs concerning the past that cannot be directly observed (e.g., evolutionists believe in the big bang, matter giving rise to life millions of years ago; creationists, however, believe the history in Genesis concerning origin of the universe and life).
You see that if by “science” you mean evolution, then in the strictest sense, evolution is outside of what I would consider science because it cannot be observed. So, to trio_jeepy’s question of consensus among scientists re: evolution, it is nearly irrelevant for most scientists who are trying to figure out biology, cures for diseases, astronomy, a dog salivating at the sound of a bell, etc. because those scientists are dealing with what can be observed in the present and repeated. Any viewpoint on historical science for the biologist – whether consensus or majority – is of no moment.
However, directly to trio_jeepy’s question of consensus among scientists re: evolution, clearly there is no consensus, if by “consensus” he means general agreement, anymore than among triathletes there’s consensus re: evolution. In fact, I’d be hard-pressed to find an issue that is more contentious among both scientists and triathletes – maybe 700 v. 650 wheels.
Your post reminds me of Michael Crichton’s lecture, Aliens Cause Global Warming.
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html
I think the important distinction is that a consensus of scentists about what they believe isn’t itself science. Science is based on what they observe.
Just out of curiosity, who here believes that there is no scientific consensus on the following?
Just out of curiosity, how many people here equate scientific consensus with definite knowledge?
Just ot of curiousity, what the heck has everyone been talking aobut?
e.g., evolutionists believe in the big bang, matter giving rise to life millions of years ago
Was this a test to see how many unrelated topics could be fit into one sentence?
bush sucks.
kerry lost.
tom demerly has odd issues with women.
slowman is fat.
A: Humans have altered the environment FAR less than Asteroids, Volconos, and Storms. We still make less Co2 than nature it self (I once read that the Everglades were #1 on that list). I am about sure that forest fired from lightning has ALLOT more smoke than most large cities too (as you can see that smoke from space). I am nost saying that we have NO effect, just not as big as the tree huggers want you to think.
B: Proven…we are taller, fatter, slower, and have larger peni than men even 100 years ago.
You should read (and I doubt you will), the latest article on climate change in the New Yorker this week. It’s part III of a 3 part series, which is pretty comprehensive, as the New Yorker tends to be. It covers a lot of geology study, anthropology, climate science, etc.
Basically, in a nutshell, climate change is cyclical, as our past Ice Ages has told us. However, other phenomena, including ice samples in Greenland which help us track CO2 levels, tells us that CO2 levels have changed faster in that last 100 years than they have in the last 10,000.
In addition, the article also talks about the government’s view of climate science, from the EPA to the White House, who seem to have very different views. Given that the EPA actually employs scientists and the White House (under any administration) is a bunch of hacks, I think one should probably go with the scientists. In any case, it talks about the scientific consensus amongst those who study atmospheric science and paleohistory, and the sources and nature of any disagreement. It’s really quite interesting in that pretty much all of the disagreement about it comes from the American Petroleum Institute and the mining lobby.
If you want to take your information about these issues from them, that’s fine. One might want to do more research and carefully consider the sources of that research.
I understand your point regarding “observational” versus “historical” science.
However, it suggests that “historical” science is barely science and is subject to all sorts of wild hypotheses when in fact it is still subject to the scientific method as we know it in our other endeavors.
As for there being general agreement amongst scientists about evolution, from what I’ve read, that simply isn’t even a question. The alternative hypothesis being forwarded of “intelligent design” has not been advocated by credible scientific authorities, nor more importantly, is there even a course of study or scientific inquiry regarding it.
Simply put, it is a rebuttal theory with no research, no academic inquiry, and evidence to support other than a philosophical assertion, which in itself is empirically weak.
So we can continue to erode what we have historically called science, inject it with politics and religion, or simply wait for science to work, and let the chips fall where they may.
Basically, in a nutshell, climate change is cyclical, as our past Ice Ages has told us. However, other phenomena, including ice samples in Greenland which help us track CO2 levels, tells us that CO2 levels have changed faster in that last 100 years than they have in the last 10,000.
I would like to read that article but do not get the New Yorker. I am curious how anyone knows what the level of CO2 was 10,000 years ago and not to say that who ever said that is wrong, the science behind that will be certainly squed to the thoughts of the “scientist” making the claims.
I think that is is a strech to blame the current white house for anyting. These are all actions that have happened for decades…imagine the folks in Nevada today if we did the tests in the sand from the 50’s. Hell imagine if we knew then what we know now with things from agent orange to sunbathing. The white house is just one place in one country…that is NOT the largest producer of polutants on this plantet…maybe we shoud send Greenpeace to China, Russia, Africa and a few other nice places for the environment.
The entire article is available at www.newyorker.com. It’s in 3 parts, so it will take awhile to read, but it’s worth it.
As for CO2 levels, it’s actually pretty established science on how they do it. If I read it correctly, Greenland is the second largest ice sheet in the world, and has been for like 10,000 years. As a result, it just keeps snowing on layers of ice, trapping CO2 bubbles in the air in it. Drill down and take samples and you can find air from a long time ago. This is not hairy edge science type stuff - it’s the established way as I understand it, having heard about it years ago.
I don’t the blame the White House for the current situation. I do blame them for putting politics above science, including their own science advisors. I know the realities of electoral finance being what they are, but at some point you have to look at science and let the chips fall where they may. Its intellectually dishonest to do anything but, and I think they have simply been that. I think it’s a sad statement.
As for pollution, we are still the world’s largest producer of CO2, in toto and on a per capita basis. But you are correct - India and China are catching up, although I suspect in some ways it may be easier for them to control it, especially China, having a much stronger state-management component to their economy. But time will tell.
I guess it just pays to have lived a little longer. When I was at the age I am guessing you are now, the established scientific consensus was one of global cooling.
Hmm. The same scientists point out that 100,000,000 years ago, the earth was about 10 degrees hotter than it is now. I doubt that was the result of human triggered global warming. Anyone want to take bets that after this all settles out, we might conclude that the temperature of the earth is largely controlled by the sun?
At the beginning of the 20th century, physicists thought their work was basically done except for making pedestrian and more accurate measurements. They were still in search of the omnipresent ether which constituted the absolute inertial reference frame against which things like the speed of light could be measured. In 1905, Einstein changed that thinking a bit.
20 years leader, that same guy with the bad hair rejected quantum theory. No problem though, since the ether we seek now is called dark matter that accounts for most of the material in the universe but that no one can actually find. Got that?
Speaking of the universe, scientists are now finding evidence of a fifth force, after the strong and weak forces, electromagnetism and gravity that is affecting the expansion of the universe. By the way, that fifth force might be greatly affecting those measures of the age of the universe that scientists thought they had pegged. This time, for sure, they will get it right, maybe.
Until they discover the sixth, seventh and eighth forces that is.
Do you think maybe we could reach a consensus that a lot of times scientists don’t know diddly squat but can’t bring themselves to admit it because they are way too arrogant?