Bad Science

Post Reply New Topic

Wow, stellar observation. You also know that if you touch a hot stove it burn you?

Oh, and water is wet to.

Sorry I have other more interesting animal to teach.

Has anyone seen the statistic that only 7% of communication is verbal? That was the result of bad science.

You actually read that?

No. Really my style is telling you that you are an as*hole with a personality disorder.

Besides, their is no place on this anal website to post magical beliefs. I looked. Too many people on here would have a meltdown, and be incapable of dealing with it.

Climate on this planet has been changing for over four billion years. Humans have been around for a quarter of a million years. Yes, humans do influence the climate some, primarily due to CO2 overload in the atmosphere. However most climatic variation is due to natural causes. The big players are oceanic cycles and cloud formation.

I think most people don't actually understand the evidence for and against scientific theories. Instead, people just say whether they believe or doubt whatever authority they're talking about. It's not necessarily about intelligence.

Climate change is a complicated, politically charged issue, and the public seems to hear mostly from policy-makers on both sides and not from real scientists. Added to that are the accusations of agendas on both sides and of clamping down descent from fringe sections of the scientific community. It also makes sense for people who don't have, or don't understand the evidence, to be skeptical about it by default.

There are some disturbing trends in the physical science. There is a tendency to regard any elegant powerful mathematical theory has being correct. This is wrong. For a physical theory to be regarded as correxct it must not only be coherent mathematically but it must also be supported by observation, measurement and experiment. And even his isn't enough. For a theory or hypothesis to be scientific it must be (at least in principle) falsifiable. A logically bullet proof theory incapable of not being refuted by empirical means is not science. It is not even wrong.

Do you think climate scientists didn't take it in account? They did; this is peoples who spend their life studying climate they know what they talking about, and changes on a geological time scale are not good comparisons to changes happening on a scale of decades.

Funny then how the global climate was much warmer just a thousand years ago. And let's not forget how ice caps on Mars are also melting in proportion to Earth's.

The more logical reasoning, until there is more convincing evidence is that humans are responsible for maybe some global warming. However, our sun's natural solar cycles are responsible for the majority.

A real scientist would consider all the variables. But since you have your mind made up that I'm a moron, you have closed your mind to further investigation. This is rather hypocritical, I'd say.

Scientists spent centuries studying the sky and observing our solar system, and only recently in 2011 started finding out that our solar systems planetary formation is not the norm. Thousands of text books were instantly antiquated on their "knowledge" of planets formed in other solar systems.

Yes, scientists who spend decades studying a topic can indeed be wrong, and not find out until much later. Wouldn't be the first time in history.

Now with the EM drive potentially about to force quantum physicists to rethink their theories if it ends up working... yeah, let's try having some intellectual humility here, people!

We have to accept that being wrong on science is not a negative thing, but rather an opportunity to learn something new, and learn from past mistakes.

We could be wrong about our understanding of climate change. When you think like that, you are ready to start being a real scientist.

The science on anthropogenic climate change is evolving. Abusing people by mocking their ignorance is unlikely to succeed as a persuasive tactic.

Nevertheless, the reality is that not all opinions are equally supported by the available evidence.

A "good science" approach is to evaluate that evidence with an open mind. The vast majority of those who do conclude that human beings are having a profound impact on climate change.

The evidence and arguments for this are well documented and readily available to anyone who wants to know:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

The arguments to the contrary are obscurantist and generally follow "bad science" methods to try to shed doubt on the clear evidence that supports the understanding that atmospheric gasses released by humans as a by-product of our industries and use of combustion engines are having a profound impact on the climate.

Given the available data, in full awareness of the large variations in climate that predate the rise of the hominins, it does appear that anthropogenic climate change is a significant and ongoing problem.

DataB4's observations are insightful and accurate, though I would challenge the final thought about what makes sense. If you don't have or don't understand the evidence but the risks are high, it might be prudent to match that natural skepticism with a cautious approach to actions that have a potential to reduce the habitability of the planet.

Thanks, Adamantium. I tend to hear the same basic arguments from people who actively doubt evidence for human-caused climate change, and the NASA site does a good job of showing the interconnected climate system. The people who actively argue against the consensus tend to speak of one aspect or another but don't seem to look at all the processes working together.

Also, it makes some sense to be cautious with policies that might negatively affect our planet, although in the moment, most people will opt for policies that benefit their generation and perhaps their children. I think our best hope is renewable energy and other alternatives that people will eventually invest in. After all, I don't see anyone arguing that our oil wells will go on for centuries in the face of increasing global industry.

the IPCC has decreed that global climate change is primarily due to human caused CO2 overload in the atmosphere. No divergence from this decree is tolerated. This is not science. This is ideology.

Well said.

The earth has been warming up very nicely since the end of The Little Ice Age (1300 - 1850 c.e). When ice ages and cold snaps end then things warm up. But know that we are still in an ice age enjoying a mild interglacial pause. There is permanent ice at both poles we we are still in the last ice age.

Human activities have contributed some to the warming, but there is more than CO2 in the atmosphere at work.

I would definitely concur with both of these comments.

They are finding that there is increased CO2 excretion from ocean water as the Earth heats up. Could it be that our Co2 levels are rising because of increased solar heat? Increased CO2 being the result and NOT the cause of global warming?

It's more that climate change deniers don't offer new data that would contradict the scientific consensus and cherry pick the existing data without regard how that fit within a global perspective and sometime outright lying. If they want to change the science consensus they should do actual work, like collecting data and creating models that fit with what we know, rather that only spreading disinformation; that's how science work.


That humanity is producing a lot of CO2 is without question; combustion of carbonated products produce CO2 and our civilization is burning a lot of carbonated products, which the quantity can be calculated/estimated. The rise of CO2 produced by humanity trap more heat in the atmosphere, which in turn produce various feedback that are increasing further the heat and/or CO2. It should also be noted that the sun is right now becoming cooler, which mean it can't explain the rise of temperature.