|
U-Know! Forum » God demands emissions? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Edited May 09, 2006, 22:04
May 09, 2006, 22:02
|
||
|
> > You haven't understood my post have you? Or science. > That's fairly arrogant of you to say. I spent a decade working as an industrial engineer. A more than adequate understanding of science was a prerequisite for the job (the year spent studying The Philosophy of Science as part of my degree probably didn't hurt). > > The fundamental principle of science are the creation of > hypotheses which are tested. You isolate the variable you think > is responsible and leave EVERYTHING else the same (or near > as damn it) and see the effect (gross simplification of the > scientific method). Has this been done with the whole complex > system that makes up the Earths climate? No. Can it be done? > No. Unless you are a god.... > That definition seems to exclude astronomy, astrophysics (indeed huge swathes of advanced physics) and all other "sciences" which rely upon mathematical modelling. Einstein's theory of relativity did not qualify as "science" by your definition until 14 years after it was formulated and the bending of light was observed during a solar eclipse. And even then, the inability to isolate all elements of this complex system mean that no physicist - not Newton, not Einstein, not Mach, not Lorentz, none of them were engaged in scientific work. This is a mind-boggling assertion. What you have actually done is to take a single narrow definition of "science" and dismissed anything which falls outside it as "not scientific". This is despite the fact that your definition is clearly neither exhaustive nor exclusive. See any dictionary definition of the word to confirm this: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science Or else read the writings of Einstein, Planck, Bohr or Feynmann. All of whom discuss definitions of science which are at some variance to the one you provide. Does your arrogance extend to insisting they, like me, also "don't understand science". I would point you towards Einstein's "Principles of Research", "Geometry and Experience" and "Physics and Reality" as examples of perfectly plausible alternate views of science (these essays are available in most "collected writings" - check out "Ideas & Opinions" which is one of the more complete collections). "Laws concerning variables connected more directly with experimental facts (for example; temperature, pressure, speed) were deduced from the fundamental ideas by means of complicated calculations. In this manner physics (at least part of it), originally more phenomenologically constructed, was reduced, by being founded upon Newton's mechanics for atoms and molecules, to a basis further removed from direct experiment, but more uniform in character". - Albert Einstein, Physics and Reality. I'm not saying that your definition cannot be considered *a* definition of science, but do you genuinely want to insist that Einstein was not engaged in science when developing the theory of relativity? Fair enough if so; but I'd suggest that far from taking the "agnostic" / objective view, you've simply retreated into denial using a definition of a word that's almost exclusive to yourself.
|
|||
|
DarkMagus 170 posts |
May 09, 2006, 22:25
|
||
|
Read back: I said I was simplifying! If you want a COMPLETE theory of science read some books! The development of a theory is part of the scientific process. But only part. It is a theory until it is tested. I have not said otherwise. Until then theory is all it is, whether it be relativity or the appearance of money under the pillow of a toothless child. Or CO2 causing global warming..... Understand??? I think Einstein would agree. In fact I'm certain. Maybe I'm wrong who knows. We can't test that theory and make it FACT because he's dead..... How that for science?! That is my point which you are missing by a mile. You're nitpicking response was disappointing.
|
|||
morfe 2992 posts |
Edited May 09, 2006, 23:26
May 09, 2006, 23:21
|
||
|
Dark Magus responds: "The belief that carbon dioxide emissions are responsible for global warming is about as much of a faith position as belief in god. Or papal infallibility." Phew, eh? Luckily I was just mocking his papeness for his assertions that we were godless, scared and hence infertile. But your response seems uncommonly heated? "Before you all start ranting about "but scientists say", it is ONLY a theory which cannot be proved or disproved." No need to shout. I'm not the one ranting here. "I say all this as someone trained in science." Good show. I respect Many Things Scientific. But then you go on to say: "If you don't like this, tough. It means you don't understand what science is..." Are you arguing with yourself now? It does rather seem like you are pre-empting my response (to jump on your soapbox and rave, and this before I even get a chance to reply?) "Before you get really angry" I'm not even mildly irritated, just bemused. Is that wrong? "The one real qualm I have is carbon capture. Potentially, this is wasting energy for no benefit. We just don't know for sure. If you think YOU do, then you are deluded." Pleasant discussing with you, Dark Magus. I feel strangely absent *from*, yet nonetheless judged *by* your curious response. Onwards...
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Edited May 09, 2006, 23:46
May 09, 2006, 23:44
|
||
|
Well I'm sorry you found my "nitpicking" disappointing. But I was responding to what I consider ill-informed twaddle. So perhaps it's no surprise that you aren't pleased with what I wrote. And as long as you compare climate scientists who claim the existence of anthropogenic global warming to people who claim the existence of santa claus or the tooth fairy, then I'm afraid I'll consider your grasp of scientific principles to be rather tenuous. You describe yourself as "someone trained in science" but make statements like: > > "The belief that carbon dioxide emissions are responsible for > global warming is about as much of a faith position as belief in > god." > That's plain ridiculous. There is a vast amount of scientific data which supports the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. There is no equivalent body of evidence to support the existence of god. To describe both beliefs as 'almost equivalent acts of faith' is to discount completely the role that empirical evidence plays in establishing truth. And lest you decide to patronise me again and suggest I don't understand you; let me state this clearly: I understand completely what you are saying. You are claiming that anthropogenic global warming is a matter of faith and not scientific reality. That unless something can be reproduced, isolated, under laboratory conditions that it is not "proven". That without "absolute proof" the belief in man-made global warming is delusion (equivalent to a belief in the tooth fairy). It's a nonsense. It's not even scientific absolutism, as you are discounting the existence of huge amounts of empirical data, which an absolutist position would at least grant was relevant and elevates one belief far beyond another. Also, I find it a bit rich for you to lecture me about "reading some books" when I'm the one providing references, quotations and the titles of the books which support my position while you dismiss anything you don't like with patronising sneers about people being deluded or beliefs in Santa Claus. But ultimately, leaving aside your dubious views on the scientific method, I find your attitude dangerous and itself delusional. When a theory is supported by an overwhelming body of evidence. When - despite extraordinary time and resources being spent by vested interests to gather contradictory data - none can be found which stands the test of peer-review. When the vast majority (over 98% of the IPCC) of the world's climate scientists draw identical conclusions. When those conclusions point towards the possibility of widespread human death and suffering should they be borne out; then those who describe attempts to ameliorate the problem (however misguided the methods may be) as "deluded" because "we just don't know" are promulgating a dangerous line. As has been already pointed out... * We know the atmosphere contains carbon dioxide. * We know atmospheric carbon dioxide retains heat that would otherwise be lost from the atmosphere. * We know that more atmospheric carbon dioxide will induce more warming (even taking into account the several negative-feedback factors that have been identified). * We know that the burning of fossil fuels emits carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. There is perfectly adequate scientific proof of all four assertions. To claim otherwise is deluded.
|
|||
|
DarkMagus 170 posts |
May 10, 2006, 08:15
|
||
|
There you go again missing the point. I thought I made it clear I am not arguing for or against the theory, just the fact we can't tell for sure in scientific terms. I thought it should be obvious from that that I would not engage in that arguement pro/against the CO2 theory, so your presentation of the pro arguements is futile to this discussion of my position i.e. so far on the fence I've got splinters up my arse. As for scientific absolutism, I certainly don't believe in that & can't see how you got that idea. Yeh, the sun rotates round the Earth. Duh. Einstein was right on everything. Double duh. You clearly have too much faith in current scientists which, oddly enough, seems to prove my point.
|
|||
|
DarkMagus 170 posts |
May 10, 2006, 08:22
|
||
|
As trained in science I know the limitations. I was not criticising myself, merely accepting that scientists do not have all the answers and those who do, or think scientists do, are as bad as religious followers. This is not a radical position to anyone in the field. But a current pet theory takes on all the trappings of religious faith when it becomes the orthodox. It usually takes a generation plus to resolve such issues if ever. The strong tone was in anticipation of the inevitable pro CO2 arguements from zealots. My post was written not to provoke arguement, just state a position of belief that we don't know for sure. The strong tone was in anticipation of the inevitable pro CO2 arguements coming which, entirely misses my point: see above.
|
|||
Rolling Ronnie 1468 posts |
May 10, 2006, 08:28
|
||
|
I think that there is value in what you both say, but perhaps you are both taking positions on the extremes of your beliefs instead of working for common ground. There is certainly a vast amount of research that has been produced recently that supports the theory that we are in a period of Global Warming that is exascerbated by Man. However, there is apparently no acceptance of other factors that may be contributing to Global Warming such as recovery from Krakatoa, natural cycles etc. There is also, in my view, a requirement to display healthy scepticism for the evidence produced by a percentage of said scientists who have a vested interest through either beliefs or funding in producing the 'right' conclusions. It should also be said that any evidence is subject to interpretation, which can usually be relied upon to produce a spread of possible results rather than one conclusive result. Finally, it should be remembered that the massed might of the scientific world in 2006 is still unable to give us an accurate weather forecast for this afternoon.
|
|||
Vybik Jon 7720 posts |
May 10, 2006, 11:35
|
||
|
"As trained in science" But not in grammar. "My post was written not to provoke arguement" Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!! An entertaining discussion, gentlemen. Thank you and carry on. DarkMagus - you're fantastically patronising and rude. Doesn't help your arguments one bit, but it adds spice and gives us something to laugh at.
|
|||
PMM 3155 posts |
May 10, 2006, 12:00
|
||
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleister_Crowley
|
|||
|
morfe 2992 posts |
May 10, 2006, 12:04
|
||
|
"The strong tone was in anticipation of the inevitable pro CO2 arguements from zealots. " Well, luckily no offence taken, and obviously no apology was offered so I can't accept it. I like your spooky, mystical name. Is that why you are so rude? Because you are otherwordly and 'above' 'zealots' like me? Then you must be forgiven, o Dark One. (falls to floor and sobs) Ciao baybies, I'm off to look up what 'zealot' means.
|
| Pages: 6 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
