Is Science Insufferably Arrogant?

[Anselm33]

“We find, based upon the best available scientific and commercial information, that polar bear habitat–principally sea ice–is declining throughout the species’ range, that this decline is expected to continue for the foreseeable future, and that this loss threatens the species throughout all of its range. Therefore, we find that the polar bear is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.”

**Anthropogenic climate change is a fact. ** Why do you muddy the waters so?

It’s neither a fact nor a good scientific theory. I, along with many other physicists and scientists dispute your claim. It is in fact, a politically based religious faith, replacing true religious faith.
I won’t bother giving you all the web sites, the links to climategate, to the refutations by Lindzen and other scientists, since evidence, logic and scientific reasoning is not taken into account by the AGW faithful.
anselm.

 

[Ismael]

Here’s the latest explanation for all our fault-ridden behaviors thanks to so-called scientific studies.

theweek.com/article/index/210065/infidelity-and-12-other-things-we-blame-on-our-genes

Any comments?

I do not think Science is arrogant. Science simply tries to answer questions from an ampirical and naturalistic point of vew… It’s it boundary and limit. To step outside of it it’d be ‘bad science’.

At the end of the day you have data and interpretation of the data. Assuming the data is true, does not mean that the interpretation always is.

 

[StAnastasia]

It’s neither a fact nor a good scientific theory.

On the contrary, it’s a strong theory – that’s why so many climatologists support it.

I, along with many other physicists and scientists dispute your claim.

That’s the nature of science.

It is in fact, a politically based religious faith, replacing true religious faith.

No, it’s not a religious faith

I won’t bother giving you all the web sites, the links to climategate, to the refutations by Lindzen and other scientists, since evidence, logic and scientific reasoning is not taken into account by the AGW faithful.

Just like climate science is not taken seriously by AGW deniers.
anselm.

 

[Anselm33]

On the contrary, it’s a strong theory –

that’s why so many climatologists support it.

Are you talking about chaired meteorology science (Lindzen at MIT),Ball, and all the scientific members of the IPCC who reject the alarmist claims?
The climategate leak shows that the proponents of AGW have corrupted science, they have gone against every tenet of scientific research that I was taught as a graduate student…weather stations near air conditioners, fudged data, attempts to keep contrary views from publications. It is a scandal, promulgated by politicians and people who know nothing about real science.
anselm

 

[Anselm33]

On the contrary, it’s a strong theory – that’s why so many climatologists support it.

 

[vz71]

Anthropogenic climate change is a fact. Why do you muddy the waters so?

I submit that it is not science that is insufferably arrogant, it is people.
My evidence?
The below quote is referred to as muddying the water…

In other words…NO.
Polar bears are not endangered.

So apparently a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ is no longer acceptable to answer a question.

 

[vz71]

On the contrary, it’s a strong theory – that’s why so many climatologists support it.

Well that is certainly one conclusion.
Of course, there is another conclusion supported by the facts.
That there is economic gain to be had on the part of many climatologists to keep the public alarmed about this.

No, it’s not a religious faith

If something is not based 100% upon the provable facts, what exactly should we call it?
I believe ‘faith’ is a proper term to be used.

Just like climate science is not taken seriously by AGW deniers.

It is difficult to take anything that is based on faulty science seriously.

Allow me to be the first to lament…

Another perfectly good thread thrown off the rails by global warming stories.
It is a shame.

 

[kimmielittle]

It’s neither a fact nor a good scientific theory. I, along with many other physicists and scientists dispute your claim. It is in fact, a politically based religious faith, replacing true religious faith.
I won’t bother giving you all the web sites, the links to climategate, to the refutations by Lindzen and other scientists, since evidence, logic and scientific reasoning is not taken into account by the AGW faithful.
anselm.

 

[kimmielittle]

On the contrary, it’s a strong theory – that’s why so many climatologists support it.

It is an unproven hypothesis, which because it can not meet Mr Popper’s rule of falsifiability, puts it in a category of pseudoscience. The very same science category as all Religions come under, including Catholicism.

The difference between having “Faith” in Catholicism and “Faith” in AGW, is Catholicism has a protection of infallible teaching. Nothing exists within the unproven hypothesis / pseudoscience of AGW to protect the “science / scientists” behind the AGW movement.

                              **FALSIFIABILITY.**

Karl Popper (1902–1994) made falsifiability the key to his philosophy of science. It became the most commonly invoked “criterion of demarcation” of science from nonscience.
According to the simple, hypothetico-deductive (H-D) model of scientific inquiry, a law claim, theory, or hypothesis H is falsifiable when a potentially checkable prediction O can be logically deduced from it, that is, when H → O. If O is observed to be true, then H passes this predictive test (although it may fail other tests). If O tests false, then H must also be false, since no true statement can logicaly imply a falsehood. For example, Isaac Newton’s (1642–1727) theory of gravitation predicts a slow rotation of the orbit of the planet Mercury different from what astronomers observe. Thus Newton’s theory is not only falsifiable (empirically vulnerable) but also actually

                                  http://www.encyclopedia.com/img/TopicTabs/link_readmore.gif

Making it a “soft science” reliant on “Faith” in the unproven hypothesis.

It is O’kay to have “Faith” in unproven hypothesis and pseudosciences as long as they pseudoscience / scientists ] hold their “science / claims” above reproach.

Especially, when that pseudoscience tries to become “Authoritarian” - Thou shalt do this, is it important these preachers be accountable and held to accountability.

In the past, scientists were generally neutral on questions of what to do. Instead, they just told people what they found, such as “we have discovered that smoking vastly increases your risk of lung cancer” or “we have discovered that some people will have adverse health effects from consuming high levels of salt.” Or “we have found that obesity increases your risk of coronary heart disease.” Those were simply neutral observations that people could find empowering, useful, interesting, etc., but did not place demands on them. In fact, this kind of objectivity was the entire basis for trusting scientific claims.
But along the way, an assortment of publicity-seeking, and often socially activist, scientists stopped saying, “Here are our findings. Read it and believe.” Instead, activist scientists such as NASA’s James Hansen, heads of quasi-scientific governmental organizations such as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, editors of major scientific journals, and heads of the various national scientific academies are more inclined to say, “Here are our findings, and those findings say that you must change your life in this way, that way, or the other way.”

american.com/archive/2010/july/science-turns-authoritarian

ALL preachers / Priests are held to a higher standard – To whom much is given - much is owed.

 

[StAnastasia]

StAnastasia;7365783:

as in the following?

HeyAnselm, there are people who believe Galileo was wrong and the Church was right (galileowaswrong.blogspot.com/), and they gathered for a conference in November. They are dissenters from heliocentrism, analogous to your dissent on the issue of climate change. But there are many more who do not disagree with Galileo, as there are many more who do not agree with the majority of the world’s climatologists.

I respect your right to dissent, but in this case I’m siding with the majority, and with my Church (catholicsandclimatechange.org/church_teaching/vatican_messages.html):

“The Coalition accepts overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change. There is nearly unanimous agreement that human actions are creating a warming planet. As stewards of all creation, we must identify wise, careful actions that will reverse this climate change and avoid its potentially dangerous impact on all life—especially human life.”

StAnastasia

 

[Anselm33]

Anselm33;7366403:

H

I respect your right to dissent, but in this case I’m siding with the majority, and with my Church (catholicsandclimatechange.org/church_teaching/vatican_messages.html):

“The Coalition accepts overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change. There is nearly unanimous agreement that human actions are creating a warming planet. As stewards of all creation, we must identify wise, careful actions that will reverse this climate change and avoid its potentially dangerous impact on all life—especially human life.”

StAnastasia

The Church has never pretended to be an authority on science, and the same clerical ones who go for the AGW political screed are trying to be politically aware. The science is against you; are you a scientist? and when you say a “majority” I’d like to see the data. And, even if that were true, the majority doesn’t determine what is scientifically valid. It took 50 years to convince the majority of scientists (from 1860 to 1910) that that atomic/molecular hypothesis was valid, and that was because one scientist, Perrin, brought 10 different lines of evidence for a correct calculation of Avogadro’s number.
It is ignorant academicians, politicians and power hungry pseudo-scientists who are promoting this. When you can cite the actual science, including empirical evidence other than GIGO computer simulations, I’ll put some credence in your arguments.
(PS: the Church, until the 20th Century, was wrong about Galileo)
and PPS–what the Church proclaimed about Galileo and now (for certain officials) says about AGW, is not a matter of doctrine. If it were, I’d have to convert to Orthodoxy.
The data used to promote the AGW notion is confounded by error, weather stations near air conditioners and on asphalt, neglect of rural sites; the computer simulations are fudged–GIGO–as the Harry readme.txt files from Climategate show. There are over 500 papers published in peer reviewed journals refuting the AGW nonsense.
Cite me some science to show that I am wrong! You can’t, so you resort to an appeal to authority.
As I said, the AGW warmists are the new faithful who will not be convinced by facts or reason. In that respect it is you who have a psychological kinship to the geocentrists.

Anselm
.

 

[StAnastasia]

The science is against you.

Sorry Anselm, you’re just plain wrong here.

Nowhere in the 321 page report (bit.ly/ekATZF) is there a complete list of signatories. Without that, we’re forced to “take their word” that they have 1000 scientists. Show me all the signatories and their qualifications. As we know from the Oregon Petition, the number of signatories (31k ) was greatly augmented by too-broad inclusion criteria. In other words, anyone with a bachelor’s degree in any field counted as a “skeptic scientist.” I suspect a similar thing is happening here.

When we have a look at qualifications, we can narrow down this number. We can accept people who work as geologists, meteorologists, oceanographers. But we need to be more critical of the qualifications of those who are listed as (these are from a list of 100 in the report):
–aeronautical engineers
–Air resources engineer
–communications director
–Engineer
–Horticulturalist
–agricultural scientist

Although everyone is entitled to have an opinion, one needs actual expertise in the subject if one is going to make meaningful criticisms. If you ask people in the field – people I know who have worked in areas greatly affected by warming, such as Greenland – they’ll tell you there is compelling evidence they see in their work, changes in Greenland they note on a year to year basis. In other words, AGW doubters and haters should go spend a few months working on a research vessel in the Arctic before offering sweeping pontifications about a field in which they have no expertise.

The report summarizes a number of journal papers. I would be interested to know if these summaries were accurate reporting of what these papers said. Polls, petitions, and public opinion count for nothing in science. It’s the evidence that counts, and the evidence is that the global mean temperature is getting warmer by the year.

StAnastasia

 

[kimmielittle]

I respect your right to dissent, but in this case I’m siding with the majority, **and with my Church ** catholicsandclimatechange.org/church_teaching/vatican_messages.html

Fixed above link ]
Bolding mine ]

Are you sure? Meaning are you sure that is a Catholic Church teaching / position?

What do you know about that link / organization?

How much are you willing to place your Religious “faith” in this organization?

Do you know who “funds” it?
Do you know who founded the group that “funds” it?
Do you know who “funds” the “funders”?
Do you know the philosophies behind the funding groups?

The Coalition is funded with generous assistance from the National Religious Partnership for the Environment.

catholicsandclimatechange.org/index.html

Who funds the National Religious Partnership for the Environment.

$475,000 of this money went to the National Religious
Partnership for the Environment (NRPE), which funneled the grant to the ECI.25

theird.org/Document.Doc?id=67

The foundation aggressively seeks out groups that share its point of view. In the first two months of 2006, the Hewlett Foundation granted $13.7 million towards population control efforts. 24 All but a few million of that went to organizations supporting women’s “reproductive rights”—programs that almost always include the right of abortion. During the same period, the Foundation awarded $12.1 million for its environmental program, of which $8 million went to global warming and energy efforts. And $475,000 of this money went to the National Religious Partnership for the Environment (NRPE), which funneled the grant to the ECI.25
The NRPE bills itself as “an association of independent faith groups across a broad spectrum.” But in fact, it has consistently advocated radical environmental policies, from the misanthropy of James Lovelock to the atheism of Carl Sagan to various and sundry versions of New Age pantheism.26

** The United Nations Association of the US (UNA-USA), "the premier pro-UN lobby group in America claims . … a 135 member Council of Organizations and operates in New York and Washington, D.C. . . . and is now ‘creating a powerful national constituency for an even better UN/ Some of the 135 member groups include the American Humanist Association, Planned Parenthood Federation and the U.S. Catholic Conference."67 **
The willingness of the USCC (the civil arm of the Bishops’ Conference) to be “politically correct,” as mentioned previously in regard to its membership in the National Religious Partnership for the Environment, and its incredible endorsement of “sustainable development” is indicative of a lack of scholarship.
** John Paul II’s Address To Un General Assembly **

                    In contrast, our Holy Father's message of October, 1995, delivered             to the United Nations General Assembly imparts profound wisdom and             encouragement for American Catholics. He stated, "The United             Nations Organization needs to rise more and more above the cold             status of an administrative institute and become a moral center             where all the nations of the world . . . develop a shared awareness             of being, as it were, a 'family of nations'" (n. 14).                                   "The politics of nations, with which your organization is             principally concerned, can never ignore the transcendent spiritual             dimension of the human experience and could never ignore it without             banning the cause of man and the cause of human freedom" (n. 16).           
                    "We must overcome our fear of the future. . . . The answer to that             fear is neither coercion nor repression, nor the imposing of one             social 'model' on the entire world. The answer to that fear . . .             is the common effort to build the civilization of love. . ." (n.             18).68

George Weigel writing in Crisis magazine December, 1995, noted: “The Holy Father knows full well that the UN bureaucracy and its functional agencies . . . are shot through with corruption. Then there was the attempt by the international lifestyle Left, aided and abetted by the UN bureaucracy, to highjack the 1994 UN population conference at Cairo, the 1995 Copenhagen ‘Social Summit,’ and the Beijing world conference on women . . . the Pope knew to whom he was talking at Turtle Bay. And as one who believes that his own peacemaking efforts in the Balkans have, at times, been obstructed by the UN, John Paul knows all about the organization’s deficiencies in fulfilling its charter’s basic mandate. . . .”

Well worthy of time to read

 

[kimmielittle]

When we have a look at qualifications, we can narrow down this number.

ABSOLUTELY

Although everyone is entitled to have an opinion, one needs actual expertise in the subject if one is going to make meaningful criticisms.

Could you please quote the qualifications of the 52 who authored the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers.

For the sake of argument, let us say we can dismiss 500 signatures. That will still be 10 times the amount of the IPCC authors.

In June 2010, Climate Scientist Mike Hulme took apart a key claim. Hulme noted that claims such as “2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate” are disingenuous. Hulme noted that the key scientific case for Co2 driving global warming was reached by a very small gaggle of people. “That particular consensus judgment, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields.” Note: Hulme is not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.]

In another blow to the UN IPCC’s carefully crafted image, was Scientist Dr. William Schlesinger admission in that only 20% of UN IPCC scientists deal with climate. Schlesinger said, “Something on the order of 20 percent [of UN scientists] have had some dealing with climate.” By Schlesinger’s own admission, 80% of the UN IPCC membership has no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies. Also note, that climate requires a wide range of disciplines: See: ‘There are more than 100 expert sub disciplines involved in climate change studies’ & Science magazine confused about who is a ‘prominent climate scientist’ – ‘there is no specific climate discipline’ & Claims of ‘overwhelming majority’ of scientists exposed as laughable! ‘There are just 94 authors responsible for compiling the report in which…the [UN IPCC’s] modeling case for alarm rests’

climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims–Challenge-UN-IPCC–Gore

The report summarizes a number of journal papers. I would be interested to know if these summaries were accurate reporting of what these papers said. Polls, petitions, and public opinion count for nothing in science. It’s the evidence that counts,

Some NON EXISTENT "Newspaper" Articles within IPCC report

 

[kimmielittle]

Allow me to be the first to lament…

Another perfectly good thread thrown off the rails by global warming stories.
It is a shame.

Allow me to be the first to apologize

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Science is (for the most part) NOT Arrogant------it is the Followers of SCIENTISM (Dawkins, Harris, Dennet, et al) who are Truly Arrogant.

 

[Anselm33]

Sorry Anselm, you’re just plain wrong here.

Nowhere in the 321 page report (bit.ly/ekATZF) is there a complete list of signatories. Without that, we’re forced to “take their word” that they have 1000 scientists. Show me all the signatories and their qualifications. As we know from the Oregon Petition, the number of signatories (31k ) was greatly augmented by too-broad inclusion criteria. In other words, anyone with a bachelor’s degree in any field counted as a “skeptic scientist.” I suspect a similar thing is happening here.

The report summarizes a number of journal papers. I would be interested to know if these summaries were accurate reporting of what these papers said. Polls, petitions, and public opinion count for nothing in science. It’s the evidence that counts, and the evidence is that the global mean temperature is getting warmer by the year.

StAnastasia

I’ll cite some qualifications of doubters, and for a science you don’t have to depend on anecdotal accounts of greenpeace advocates. Fred Lindzen, chaired professor of metereology at MIT, Seitz, former president of the NAS. And for this, which analyzes statistics and complex second differential equations, I’d be more inclined to trust the judgment of physicists than weather forecaster or economists. My own qualifications are 57 years in the field as a physicist (Ph.D. Harvard, long ago when it was easier to get in).
Published papers, refereed papers, sat on federal funding boards. What are your qualifications in science, pray tell? I can spend all day citing the scientific papers, that show solar activity is the principal source of climate change. I can cite the fraud, the deception that was shown in the leaked climategate emails and programs, and all that wouldn’t convince you because you, and your fellow warmists, have taken your anti-immunity shot against rational discourse. don’t preach to me about belonging to the geocentrists. You’re their soul-mate.
You talk about the arctic ice melting. Let me ask you to look up some history and ask what the climate was like during the Medieval Warm Period (which the warmist scientists tried to dismiss), when Greenland was green, and settled by the Norseman. How are you going to dismiss historical warm periods, when man-made CO2 was not a factor?

I’m out of here… There’s no point wasting energy on those who are immune to rational discourse.
anselm.

 

[Anselm33]

Although everyone is entitled to have an opinion, one needs actual expertise in the subject if one is going to make meaningful criticisms. If you ask people in the field – people I know who have worked in areas greatly affected by warming, such as Greenland – they’ll tell you there is compelling evidence they see in their work, changes in Greenland they note on a year to year basis. In other words, AGW doubters and haters should go spend a few months working on a research vessel in the Arctic before offering sweeping pontifications about a field in which they have no expertise.

I’ve waited 10 hours and have calmed down a bit. You’re citing anecdotal evidence, which of course is not valid science. Were any of the “people I know” around during the Medieval Warm Period, when Greenland was green and colonized by the Norse? (no man-made CO2 then to cause warming). Have any of your “people I know” done a statistical analysis (long term) to confirm their qualitative impressions? (and over more than a year-to-year basis)…
Finally, are you a scientist? or an academic who can be convinced by the mainstream media and green organization. As a physicist (57 years experience, papers published, refereed, on federal granting review boards) I can see a fish crawling with maggots, and don’t have to eat it to know that its rotten. and that’s the story with the AGW propagande (not science) that’s put out. Even if I were not able to read any of the 500 papers (or more) published during the past five years (in spite of the efforts of the warmists to keep them out of journals), I would still trust the judgment of scientists like Lindzen (chaired professor of meteorology at MIT), Seitz (former president of the National Academy) in preference to scientific bureaucrats like Hansen and politicians like Gore.
Have you read any of the Climategate literature that shows how computer models were fudged, how weather stations were lost, how data was misplaced? Do you have any notion of how real science should be done? I have serious doubts, looking at what you’ve posted.
At any rate, I’m not going to try to convince you of the foolishness of AGW any more than I will try to convince Cassini that geocentrism is not valid, and that the universe doesn’t revolve around the earth.
anselm
anselm.

 

[StAnastasia]

I’ve waited 10 hours and have calmed down a bit.

Good.

You’re citing anecdotal evidence, which of course is not valid science. Were any of the “people I know” around during the Medieval Warm Period, when Greenland was green and colonized by the Norse? (no man-made CO2 then to cause warming). Have any of your “people I know” done a statistical analysis (long term) to confirm their qualitative impressions? (and over more than a year-to-year basis)…

No, it’s not anecdotal evidence.

Finally, are you a scientist? or an academic who can be convinced by the mainstream media and green organization.

I am a theologian, working in an interdiscipinary institution with many scientists.

As a physicist (57 years experience, papers published, refereed, on federal granting review boards)

But evidently you’re not a climate scientist!

I would still trust the judgment of scientists like Lindzen (chaired professor of meteorology at MIT), Seitz (former president of the National Academy) in preference to scientific bureaucrats like Hansen and politicians like Gore.

Naturally you see your “experts” as credible; I see mine as credible.

Have you read any of the Climategate literature that shows how computer models were fudged, how weather stations were lost, how data was misplaced?

Yes, I’ve read it, and it’s largely irrelevant. Numerous of those e-mails have been misrepresented by global-warming skeptics eager to find evidence of a conspiracy. Even if they showed what the critics claim they show, ample evidence remains that the earth is getting warmer. But you won’t read this evidence, or if you did you would just deny it.

Do you have any notion of how real science should be done?

Yes. Do you have any idea how real science should be done? I just checked the program for this week’s American Geophysical Union annual conference, and the keywords “global warming” and “climate change” returned dozens of abstracts and session notifications. I didn’t see a single session supporting your climate change denial position. Could that be because professional scientists view that position as uninformed and irrelevant?

At any rate, I’m not going to try to convince you of the foolishness of AGW any more than I will try to convince Cassini that geocentrism is not valid, and that the universe doesn’t revolve around the earth.

Good, because I suspect that either of us trying to convince the other would be ultimately unproductive. Anselm, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one!

StAnastasia

 

[buffalo]

I am a theologian, working in an interdiscipinary institution with many scientists.

But evidently you’re not a climate scientist!

Anselm33, remember, in StA’s world you cannot apply your brain outside your specific credentials. Only she can. :nope: But you will be attacked and challenged. Sounds like the gnostics.

(you need this secret decoder ring http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cobwx4DWgm8/SJyiOxKQz_I/AAAAAAAAASQ/Y6QwSzGycPQ/s320/200_Decoder_Ring.jpg)