Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , André
Coutanche wrote:
Cynic wrote:
Scientists can be very similar to detectives. Find a theory
(suspect) and try to prove it. Just like detectives, except right at
the beginning, they tend to look for evidence that supports their
theory (suspicions) rather than deliberately looking for alternative
explanations and things that would disprove the theory. So evidence
of guilt is dug for, and dug deep. Evidence to the contrary would
have to hit them in the face before it was found - nobody is looking
seriously for any of that.

That is precisely wrong. You totally misunderstand how the scientific
method works.

Indeed. For reasons of the kind Andre gave.

The scientific method is founded on carrying out tests (experiments) that
are carefully designed to have the ablity to 'falsify' the theory / idea /
hypothesis being considered. Ideas become established in academic science
because they 'survive' such 'attacks'.

The scientific method is founded on no such thing - it's founded on a
variety of methodological
rules, and not techniques.


But the attack has to be basied upon evidence, not on opinions, wishful
thinking, or faith. And the evidence has to be from well designed and run
tests which can be shown to be relevant, etc. The methods used also have
to avoid the many well-known types of problems which can make poor
experiments worthless.


Defining what counts as evidence is key?

The experimental tests and observations therefore employ carefully designed
and run sets of protocols, etc, specifically aimed to be used as outlined
above.

There is no real academic credit in simply finding cases that support an
established view. That is regarded as too easy. What wins respect in
academic science is being able to find key 'refutations' based on evidence
which is assessable and stands up to critical scrutiny - and then come up
with a 'new' idea that shows greater ability to survive similar experiments
which could refute it is the idea is not reliable.


I wouldn't argue with that as an approach. There remains the possibility
that scientists
cherry pick theories and practice to suit fashion, pragmatism,
commercial concenrs, and
prejudice (their own education and knowledge). 'Respect' isn't
necessarily the product of
clean and rational experiments.

Rob

In article , Rob

wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article ,
André Coutanche wrote:
Cynic wrote:
Scientists can be very similar to detectives. Find a theory
(suspect) and try to prove it. Just like detectives, except right
at the beginning, they tend to look for evidence that supports their
theory (suspicions) rather than deliberately looking for alternative
explanations and things that would disprove the theory. So evidence
of guilt is dug for, and dug deep. Evidence to the contrary would
have to hit them in the face before it was found - nobody is looking
seriously for any of that.

That is precisely wrong. You totally misunderstand how the scientific
method works.

Indeed. For reasons of the kind Andre gave.

The scientific method is founded on carrying out tests (experiments)
that are carefully designed to have the ablity to 'falsify' the theory
/ idea / hypothesis being considered. Ideas become established in
academic science because they 'survive' such 'attacks'.

The scientific method is founded on no such thing - it's founded on a
variety of methodological rules, and not techniques.

Not quite. Scientific research and academic study *uses* a variety of
techniques and experimental/analytical methods, depending on what specific
point is being tested or examined. You design the experiment, measurement
system, and protocol, to be fit for specific purpose. But if you wish to
establish if a given idea/hypothesis/theory/law is reliable or not, then
the above is required. And since you need to determine if a given idea *is*
reliable or not if you wish to use it, then you either need to do such
tests, or satisfy yourself that others have done so in a satisfactory
manner. Thus this is the foundation upon which the scientific method
proceeds or builds.

[snip]

There is no real academic credit in simply finding cases that support
an established view. That is regarded as too easy. What wins respect
in academic science is being able to find key 'refutations' based on
evidence which is assessable and stands up to critical scrutiny - and
then come up with a 'new' idea that shows greater ability to survive
similar experiments which could refute it is the idea is not reliable.


I wouldn't argue with that as an approach. There remains the possibility
that scientists cherry pick theories and practice to suit fashion,
pragmatism, commercial concenrs, and prejudice (their own education and
knowledge). 'Respect' isn't necessarily the product of clean and
rational experiments.

ahem You are now talking about 'scientists' not 'science'. :-)

I'm sure there are academic scientists who tend to work on the basis that
they are trying to make their pet theories 'work'. Indeed, I've seen more
than one research grant final report that showed this in action. ...And
written my 'peer referee' opinion on them. :-) But TBH I have found such
examples are rare.

I'd agree, though, that a lot of research work is relatively humdrum and
unlikely to excite anyone except for a few specialists in the same tiny
area.

Hence I am also fairly sure, based on experience, that what I said above
about how most gain academic credit above the norm is as I described. The
point here is that if a given academic shoves a theory which is easy to
refute, then someone will find it easy to refute it. The result then tends
to be like a game of conkers. The larger the 'reputation' of the idea
falsified, the bigger the qudos of the person/experiment that shot it down.
:-)

FWIW I've never worked in climate science, so have no particular experience
of that area. But I have worked in other areas, both as a member of
research groups, and running them. My experience is that most researchers
in physical sciences behave in accord with what I've written - even if
they've never read any Popper or any other theorists of the scientific
method.

I therefore tend to doubt assertions to the effect that the bulk of climate
scientists are trying to pull wool over the eyes of everyone to push what
Bob claims is "their rubbish theory", or that they are all willfully
deluded or stupid. You will, I hope, pardon me if I also doubt that Bob
Latham and various others here know more about these topics than the said
bulk of professionals. I include myself in this. :-)

Above said, if people want to argue about these issues, I am sure there are
more appropriate usenet groups for doing so. ahem Perhaps even one where
some participants have an established academic research background in
climate work, and know what they are talking about. ;-

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
Perhaps even one where
some participants have an established academic research background in
climate work, and know what they are talking about. ;-

Nay lad! That would take all the fun out of it!

Bill

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
Perhaps even one where
some participants have an established academic research background in
climate work, and know what they are talking about. ;-

Nay lad! That would take all the fun out of it!

Bill


Bloody hell! Only one new posting on this thread? Don't tell me it's
actually dying (at last). Come on Turkey Fart, stir the Sh1t again and keep
it going for another fortnight............

"Chas Gill" wrote in message
...
Bloody hell! Only one new posting on this thread? Don't tell me it's
actually dying (at last). Come on Turkey Fart, stir the Sh1t again and
keep it going for another fortnight............

Right, well let's look at the way the global warming fiasco has provided an
excuse for holding all these Live Aid outdoor pop concerts all over the
world. So they make out they're bothered about CO2 emissions but all the big
stars arrive by private jet! And think of the pollution caused by all the
people travelling about providing goods and services for these shows, and
then there's the audience! What a hypocritical load of ****e! They say
they're 'offsetting' the CO2 but as we all know carbon offsetting is total
********.

It turns out that every bit of the CO2 emissions saved in the last ten years
by makings cars emit less of it has been dwarfed by the increase in
emissions from vans, due partly to people buying via the internet. The
reduction was only 3% mind you. All that hassle for a measly 3%!

There's a story in the paper about a firm that makes a lot of dosh by acting
as a 'carbon reduction consultancy'. Leaving aside the fact that this must
be the best example ever of making money from talking ********, it seems
that this firm has banned all its employees from using bikes, for H & S
reasons! Tee hee! It's nice when one aspect of the poking-its
nose-into-private-affairs nanny state crashes into another! Hilarious!

It turns out that 56% of the public are sceptical about global warming.
Let's hope this means that the politicians tread very warily when they
consider what further stealth taxes they can impose in the name of Saving
Der Planet.

Of course, there'll never be any serious attempt to reduce CO2 emissions in
China (and such places) because the commie government there knows that the
people are looking to the west. They know that they have to placate them by
keeping prosperity on the boil, otherwise there'll be big trouble. Even
though they censor the internet the Chinese people know they there standard
of living is well behind that of Europe, Japan, and Australasia, and they
won't put up with it indefinitely.

Bill

Steve Firth wrote:
The Magpie wrote:

Current climate change is utterly unlike any previous change

cough ollocks.
Fact. But feel welcome to prove otherwise.

Cynic wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 23:31:00 +0100, The Magpie
wrote:

Show me that any of the above statements are factually incorrect.

Global warming has occured 5 times in recorded history

Wrong. Global warming has never occurred in recorded history. Cooling
has - when there were mega-volcanoes.

Good Grief! There has been cycles of warming and cooling.

No it has not. YOu are still wrong. Feel free to prove otherwise.

in a regular cyclical pattern.

Wrong. There is no cyclic pattern of terrestrial climate. There are
however several pericycles which have an effect on climate.

I ask any objective reader to look at the graphs I posted a link to
(which I do not believe are in dispute), and decide for themselves
whether they show a regular cyclical pattern of warming and cooling or
not.

Post them again and I'll look - but you will be wrong.

Perhaps "The Magpie" would like to dispute that there is a regular
cyclical pattern of day and night as well?

No - merely in cases where there is not.

Sn!pe wrote:
The Magpie wrote:

[...] There is no cyclic pattern of terrestrial climate. There are
however several pericycles which have an effect on climate.

Please explain how a thin layer of plant tissue between the
endodermis and the phloem affects climate.

It doesn't - it was finger-trouble. I meant epicycles.

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 23:24:16 +0100, The Magpie
wrote:

I ask any objective reader to look at the graphs I posted a link to
(which I do not believe are in dispute), and decide for themselves
whether they show a regular cyclical pattern of warming and cooling or
not.

Post them again and I'll look - but you will be wrong.

I have posted then twice in this thread. I am not wasting my time
posting them again.

--
Cynic

Cynic wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 23:24:16 +0100, The Magpie
wrote:

I ask any objective reader to look at the graphs I posted a link to
(which I do not believe are in dispute), and decide for themselves
whether they show a regular cyclical pattern of warming and cooling
or not.

Post them again and I'll look - but you will be wrong.

I have posted then twice in this thread. I am not wasting my time
posting them again.

Very wise. They won't be any more convincing the third time around.