I sure would hate to have you as a member of the jury if a person that actually committed the crime and had reasonable evidence to put him/her away. I don't think you'd ever be able to draw your very own conclusion that the person would actually be guilty.
You're confusing the two circumstances. The scientific method is not a court of law.
Sometimes science doesn't have to be THAT complicated to understand and be proven that it exists and will exist in reasonable future. Believe it or not, science has absolutes. Some people just doesn't want to accept the fact that it doesn't need to be dissected any further for general knowledge.
Yes, science is complicated. Things like the theory of gravity do not simply state that gravity exists and will exist. Science is not about making simple statements on what happens, science is about explaining
how things happen. Of course we know gravity exists but even gravity has a number of things about it we don't understand.
No, science does not have absolutes. Mathematics has absolutes and that's about the only thing in the world that does. But science is always either supporting or disproving, never merely proving. There could
always be something in the future discovered that could contradict everything we know about an issue. Until that time we focus on where the evidence points us. When the overwhelming majority of the evidence leads to one set of conclusions we tend to trust that those conclusions are accurate and until they are falsified by new information they are considered scientific fact.
You can stake claim all you want the "vast majority" of scientists have a "consensus" that GW is on the horizon. I disagree.
That's fine because the scientific community does not require your agreement nor mine to do its job.
Contrary to your assumption, I have done the research needed to form my own opinion.
You've done the research yet unless I'm mistaken you stated that you haven't read the report that is considered the authority on the issue, released merely a year ago with the most up to date information. No matter what you say about the research you've done, if you don't know what that report says then you're not getting the full story.
It's like arguing about gun control and completely refusing to look at the set of statistics that disagrees with your point of view.
Just like Musketeer has posted, time and time again there are other scientists that actually disagree with the GW fiasco. You can go on and on about the higher number of scientists for GW. But, the facts remain that there's plenty of other studies out there that provide telling evidence that argues the case against GW.
And those scientists still make up a small minority in the community, those studies still make up a small minority compared to the vast amount of evidence supporting man-made climate change. If you choose to only look at your preferred data, fine. But I can't do that. I have to follow the scientific method, I have to obey the dictates of rigor, I have to look at evidence on
all sides of the issue and consider every possibility that my limited knowledge on the subject allows. And in the end I have to trust that the quality control build into the system is working as it has worked every single time.
And this is my point of assertion that you automatically invalidate claims that are made just because they have hard evidence that shows you might be wrong. Just because one year (2005) was the hottest doesn't negate the evidence presented that the OVERALL temperature has been declining. Talking about cherry picking...
I'm not saying it negates the evidence, I'm saying
the way it's phrased is misleading and dishonest.
No, you're building an outhouse with brick and mortar. The explaination of gravity doesn't just stop at Newton's Laws. I'll give you that. But, you don't have to take everything into account to believe in common sense. Did you drop that ball? I'm sure you didn't. We both know that my meager "common sense" equation would prove my point...unless you have nuclear forces that would make that ball shoot straight through the window and put an eye out...
Common sense is not a scientific analysis. Your common sense equation proves your point but so what? What has that accomplished? Yes, we know gravity exists and will work. Wonderful. And? Does that tell you
how gravity works? Does that tell you why gravity is so weak compared to the nuclear forces? Does that tell you what particles are affected by gravity and what particles have an effect on gravity? Does it give you insight on how gravity functions in a singularity? At the subatomic level? At the quantum level? Does dropping a ball in any way glean new information on the universe in which we live?
No, it doesn't. Gravity is not a closed book. There are things about it we still don't understand. General relativity is solid but it doesn't have all the answers. Read up on Brans-Dicke, TeVeS, dark matter, black holes, M-theory and tell me that we know everything there is to know about gravity.
Maybe I do. Even if I didn't read the entire report one can still dispute the point of it by knowing what the claims are. Did you read ALL of Al Gore's writings and stats before stating your opinion of him and his claims?
My mistake, I thought you'd stated that you hadn't read it and didn't know what it said.
When his little movie came out I read up on what he presented. Most of the data is reliable since it doesn't come from him but it's his conclusions and methods of scaremongering (which eerily reminded me of another brand of scaremongering going on) and worst of all his politicizing of the issue that form my opinion of him.
No, they aren't qualified to answer the question. Just because they have a degree hanging on the wall, doesn't qualify them to tell me what the climate is supposed to be. The climate was quite different many years ago than today and it will probably be different in the future. Nobody can tell what a normal climate is supposed to be because there isn't one. The scientists that can claim this is out to lunch. And, since you've read their reports I'll take it as you can't answer the question either...
If you don't think that experts in a field are qualified to report on their particular field then there's no where else to go. There is a staggering amount of data and collection methods that tell us with highly reasonable certainty what the climate is supposed to be.
You don't want to trust the science, fine. But this idea that the climate is simply too complex for human minds to understand is laughable. Unfortunately I deal with this attitude in my own field and I've learned that it's nigh impossible to reason someone out of a position they haven't reasoned themselves into.
And that's why we'll probably never agree. Discussion of science also should include common sense.
The problem with that idea is that common sense is no universal. Common sense is not scientific at all.
Didn't drop that ball, did you? And, since you and I agree on that noone knows, how can scientists say GW is on an unnatural state when they can't even provide a baseline on what's a normal climate? Ever thought the climate was actually abnormally cool and we SHOULD be warmer? What life on this earth actually NEEDS CO2? What life on earth actually NEEDS a warmer climate to better survive? Guess they didn't actually think if that since they're trying to dissect problem #1 on the board when my questions are in the 100's....
Can't provide a baseline? You're not really getting how climatology works. You're oversimplifying the issue just like the gravity issue.
Yes, I've thought about that. And guess what? So have the people working on the issue. Many, many times. It's a fundamental part of the research and it's been examined and reexamined over and over and over again. The climate cycle isn't simply a guess, it's the best possible analysis given all the information - and there's a LOT - available.
You can't just point to life that thrives in warm climates and pretend everything is hunky dory. Once again, the issue is not simply about temperature, it's the
rapid warming causes instability in the climate. So while there is plenty of life on this planet that would thrive in warmer climates there is also plenty that would go extinct because of it.
Maybe I lied.... Besides, like I said, I'm just a knuckle dragging hillbilly. What do I know?
If you did then I'm quite confused.
Why get into a discussion only to say you haven't looked at information that you
have looked at?
If you are truly trying to minimalize the profound information of George Soros, then I really think it's time for me to bow out. I honestly don't know what else to say to this one.
I just happen to not be a paranoid nut that freaks out at the mere mention of his name and I realize that his opinions I find disagreeable have absolutely zero impact on the science of the matter.
But, unlike some other members here, I also enjoy the main reason why the boards are here.
I spent $60 at the range on Thursday only to learn that my Kimber doesn't like those Golden Saber rounds very much.
But nice try.
It gives the impression that the trend has reversed and we've been cooling for every year since 1998 and that's simply not true.
Besides, like I said, I'm just a knuckle dragging hillbilly. What do I know?