• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Manmade Climate Change: The Deeper Agenda

Poptech said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
An excellent question.

A link to Professor Richard Lindzen's 2010 address to the Heartland Institute's Fourth International Conference on Climate Change:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/lindzen_heartland_2010.pdf

Watt principles? :lol:
So you have nothing to support your allegations? Typical.
Apart from the content of the link to which Pietro posted?

I think I'm beginning to see the patten here. Any content contrary to your opinion is deemed invalid by default, but every link to which you subscribe has to be taken by everyone else as gospel? Even your own content (linking to your own site to substantiate claims is decidedly non-u, by the way)?

Anyway, I think we'd all appreciate it if you were to not show such clear disdain for those that fail to share your opinion. Debate the idea.
 
stuneville said:
Poptech said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
An excellent question.

A link to Professor Richard Lindzen's 2010 address to the Heartland Institute's Fourth International Conference on Climate Change:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/lindzen_heartland_2010.pdf

Watt principles? :lol:
So you have nothing to support your allegations? Typical.
Apart from the content of the link to which Pietro posted?

I think I'm beginning to see the patten here. Any content contrary to your opinion is deemed invalid by default, but every link to which you subscribe has to be taken by everyone else as gospel? Even your own content (linking to your own site to substantiate claims is decidedly non-u, by the way)?

Anyway, I think we'd all appreciate it if you were to not show such clear disdain for those that fail to share your opinion. Debate the idea.

I agree, but would like to point out the same could be said of some posters on the other side - and in pursuit of objectivity you might consider addressing this to them too. But yes, let's look at the "idea". It won't take long.


A glance at the link P posted will show Lindzen is not being accused of 'going against the basic principles of science.' The passage asserts RSL - in the opinion of the authors - "does a disservice to the scientific method" by conflating ignorance with uncertainty. This is not a claim his science is invalid, as is clear if one reads the entire text. So this is a debate based on mis-reading and is pointless. It has nothing to say about the validity or otherwise of AGW theory.

Jerry B seems to have gone (don't blame him). The discussion is intellectually barren at this point unless someone can find something better to do than squabble over a misquotation.
 
Does Charles have an agenda?

Rio+20: Prince Charles in climate change warning
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18479724

The prince has often taken a keen interest in environmental issues

Related Stories

Rio +20: Joining the ecological dots
Rio+20: What is there to talk about?
Charles attacks climate sceptics

The Prince of Wales has warned of the "catastrophic" consequences of inaction on issues such as climate change, at a UN sustainability conference in Brazil.

Prince Charles said he had "watched in despair" at the slow pace of progress on the "critical issues of the day," in a pre-recorded video address in Rio.

He urged world leaders to adopt a more integrated approach to issues such as climate change and food security.

Waiting for the worst to happen would be "too late to act at all", he said.

Rio+20, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, is attended by heads of state and representatives from governments, non-governmental organisations and the private sector.

In his address, the prince said scientific evidence showed the potential consequences of ignoring the risks.

'Sceptical reluctance'
"Like a sleepwalker, we seem unable to wake up to the fact that so many of the catastrophic consequences of carrying on with 'business-as-usual' are bearing down on us faster than we think, already dragging many millions more people into poverty and dangerously weakening global food, water and energy security for the future," he said.

"One thing is clear. We need to be much more informed about the actual state of the planet.

Continue reading the main story

Start Quote

It is, perhaps, a trait of human nature to act only when the worst happens, but that is not a trait we can afford to rely on here”

Prince of Wales
"We do not have nearly enough knowledge on which to base the decisions that will be the best for the long term.

"Until we do, we expose ourselves to the mounting danger of major shifts in policy that are not well conceived, but come as panicked responses to crises that could have been avoided."

He said the "outright, sceptical reluctance" by some to engage with these issues had often slowed progress "to a standstill".

Pointing to the work of his International Sustainability Unit, a foundation set up to campaign on global sustainability, the prince said a better picture of environmental problems was needed before effective policy could be implemented.

'Don't have long'
He said data on energy, water, biodiversity, forestry and soil, which is collected separately, needed to be combined and analysed as a whole.

"If this could happen, at least then we would know what the state of the planet actually is - and then plan accordingly," he said.

He went on: "We do not have long to capture such a comprehensive picture, and so I would appeal to you as you meet here in Rio to make an even greater and concerted effort to persuade policy and decision-makers to act before it is finally too late.

"It is, perhaps, a trait of human nature to act only when the worst happens, but that is not a trait we can afford to rely on here.

"Once the worst does happen, I am afraid that this time around it will be too late to act at all."

The conference marks the 20th anniversary of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil's second largest city
 
AngelAlice said:
...


A glance at the link P posted will show Lindzen is not being accused of 'going against the basic principles of science.' The passage asserts RSL - in the opinion of the authors - "does a disservice to the scientific method" by conflating ignorance with uncertainty. This is not a claim his science is invalid, as is clear if one reads the entire text. So this is a debate based on mis-reading and is pointless. It has nothing to say about the validity or otherwise of AGW theory.

Jerry B seems to have gone (don't blame him). The discussion is intellectually barren at this point unless someone can find something better to do than squabble over a misquotation.
I urge everybody who's interested to read the original text of the critique of Lindzen's talk.

https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/cl...nion pieces/Critique of Lindzen's lecture.pdf

The main points are pretty comprehensible.

Don't take my, or AngelAlice's word for it.

See also Lindzen's apology admitting to a major error in one of the slides he used during the talk.
http://repealtheact.org.uk/blog/apo...d-haydens-nasa-giss-data-interpretation-error
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
AngelAlice said:
...


A glance at the link P posted will show Lindzen is not being accused of 'going against the basic principles of science.' The passage asserts RSL - in the opinion of the authors - "does a disservice to the scientific method" by conflating ignorance with uncertainty. This is not a claim his science is invalid, as is clear if one reads the entire text. So this is a debate based on mis-reading and is pointless. It has nothing to say about the validity or otherwise of AGW theory.

Jerry B seems to have gone (don't blame him). The discussion is intellectually barren at this point unless someone can find something better to do than squabble over a misquotation.
I urge everybody who's interested to read the original text of the critique of Lindzen's talk.

https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/cl...nion pieces/Critique of Lindzen's lecture.pdf

The main points are pretty comprehensible.

Don't take my, or AngelAlice's word for it.

See also Lindzen's apology admitting to a major error in one of the slides he used during the talk.
http://repealtheact.org.uk/blog/apo...d-haydens-nasa-giss-data-interpretation-error

Better still - if you contend there's anything in it that amounts to Lindzen being accused of flouting basic science then post it here. You can easily copy and paste from the pdf.
 
Just a point. Computers do not 'help undertstanding of data'. Computers do not understand anything. A program which analyses data or extrapolates from it reflects the mind - and prejudices - of the programmer, nothing else.
 
stuneville said:
Poptech said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
An excellent question.

A link to Professor Richard Lindzen's 2010 address to the Heartland Institute's Fourth International Conference on Climate Change:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/lindzen_heartland_2010.pdf

Watt principles? :lol:
So you have nothing to support your allegations? Typical.
Apart from the content of the link to which Pietro posted?

I think I'm beginning to see the patten here. Any content contrary to your opinion is deemed invalid by default, but every link to which you subscribe has to be taken by everyone else as gospel? Even your own content (linking to your own site to substantiate claims is decidedly non-u, by the way)?

Anyway, I think we'd all appreciate it if you were to not show such clear disdain for those that fail to share your opinion. Debate the idea.
Do you even follow the conversations you comment on? Dr. Lindzen was accused of "attacking ...some of the most basic principles of science," by Pietro. Linking to a speech he gave is not support for this argument. That is some sort of insanity plea.

stuneville said:
Any content contrary to your opinion is deemed invalid by default, but every link to which you subscribe has to be taken by everyone else as gospel?
Again another strawman argument. You actually have a problem following the "pattern" of injections of red herrings and strawman arguments into the conversation every time I successfully rebutted an argument because you do the same thing.

I show disdain for those who spread misinformation and are not intellectually honest about what they are talking about.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
AngelAlice said:
...


A glance at the link P posted will show Lindzen is not being accused of 'going against the basic principles of science.' The passage asserts RSL - in the opinion of the authors - "does a disservice to the scientific method" by conflating ignorance with uncertainty. This is not a claim his science is invalid, as is clear if one reads the entire text. So this is a debate based on mis-reading and is pointless. It has nothing to say about the validity or otherwise of AGW theory.

Jerry B seems to have gone (don't blame him). The discussion is intellectually barren at this point unless someone can find something better to do than squabble over a misquotation.
I urge everybody who's interested to read the original text of the critique of Lindzen's talk.

https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/cl...nion pieces/Critique of Lindzen's lecture.pdf

The main points are pretty comprehensible.

Don't take my, or AngelAlice's word for it.

See also Lindzen's apology admitting to a major error in one of the slides he used during the talk.
Here we go again, you just completely ignore the rebuttal to your red herring and just continue to filibuster,

http://thegwpf.org/the-climate-record/5 ... cture.html

While my slide 12 contained an error in failing to notice the difference in two downloaded files, the increase in warming that this error pointed to was 0.14C/century not 0.14C/decade (as stated by the critics). The error did nothing to change my main stated point: with uncertainties on the order of 0.2C, adjustments could be made that were well within the realm of possibility, but that such changes, while frequently argued about with great intensity, do not alter the primary fact that such changes are small. That an error that has no impact on an argument is nonetheless taken to be major seems a bit of a stretch.

Why are you being intellectually dishonest?

I will post again the actual paper I posted not your red herring about his speech,

Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? (PDF) (36pgs) (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT)
Abstract: For a variety of inter-related cultural, organizational, and political reasons, progress in climate science and the actual solution of scientific problems in this field have moved at a much slower rate than would normally be possible. Not all these factors are unique to climate science, but the heavy influence of politics has served to amplify the role of the other factors. By cultural factors, I primarily refer to the change in the scientific paradigm from a dialectic opposition between theory and observation to an emphasis on simulation and observational programs. The latter serves to almost eliminate the dialectical focus of the former. Whereas the former had the potential for convergence, the latter is much less effective. The institutional factor has many components. One is the inordinate growth of administration in universities and the consequent
increase in importance of grant overhead. This leads to an emphasis on large programs that never end. Another is the hierarchical nature of formal scientific organizations whereby a small executive council can speak on behalf of thousands of scientists as well as govern the distribution of ‘carrots and sticks’ whereby reputations are made and broken. The above factors
are all amplified by the need for government funding. When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research. This paper will deal with the origin of the cultural changes and with specific examples of the operation and interaction of these factors. In particular, we will show how political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of.
 
Poptech said:
Do you even follow the conversations you comment on?
I do, as it goes.
Poptech said:
stuneville said:
Any content contrary to your opinion is deemed invalid by default, but every link to which you subscribe has to be taken by everyone else as gospel?
... You actually have a problem following the "pattern" of injections of red herrings and strawman arguments into the conversation every time I successfully rebutted an argument because you do the same thing.
I have no such "problem" - I've been following similar discussions for a long time.
Poptech said:
I show disdain for those who spread misinformation and are not intellectually honest about what they are talking about.
I've said once, and will say once again - you're straying very close to ad hominae: flaming is strictly not allowed. Keep your disdain towards anyone to yourself, and kindly stick to arguing the point and not the person, or you will be warned.
 
stuneville said:
I have no such "problem" - I've been following similar discussions for a long time.
Lets see how well you do. Did Pietro state this,

"Lindzen is basically being accused of attacking not just proponents of AGW. but also some of the most basic principles of science"

Please provide Pietro's evidence that he cited and quoted where Dr. Lindzen was "attacking some of the most basic principles of science". These are very serious allegations. Please show me who made these allegations and what were the specifics of the allegations.
 
Poptech said:
stuneville said:
I have no such "problem" - I've been following similar discussions for a long time.
Lets see how well you do.
Bless!

You'll have to do much better, I'm afraid. Show me, not citing yourself, how Pietro's statements are wrong.
 
stuneville said:
Poptech said:
stuneville said:
I have no such "problem" - I've been following similar discussions for a long time.
Lets see how well you do.
Bless!

You'll have to do much better, I'm afraid. Show me, not citing yourself, how Pietro's statements are wrong.
Are you serious? Am I really having this conversation? Pietro just made an unfounded allegation that he has been unable to support. I am asking you to support it. I never made this allegation so I do not have to support it.

Did Pietro state this?

"Lindzen is basically being accused of attacking not just proponents of AGW. but also some of the most basic principles of science"

Please provide Pietro's evidence that he cited and quoted where Dr. Lindzen was "attacking some of the most basic principles of science". These are very serious allegations. Please show me who made these allegations and what were the specifics of the allegations.
 
stuneville said:
Poptech said:
stuneville said:
I have no such "problem" - I've been following similar discussions for a long time.
Lets see how well you do.
Bless!

You'll have to do much better, I'm afraid. Show me, not citing yourself, how Pietro's statements are wrong.

Pietro is wrong because he misquotes the pdf - as I said above. The statement in the pdf says that Lindzen does a "disservice to science" by conflating ignorance and doubt, it does not state or imply that Lindzen's work violates the "most basic principles of science", which is what Pietro claims. In fact the document makes it clear they aren't claiming any such thing.

But if Pietro or you disagree then all you need to do is copy and paste the part of the document that supports your view.

It's really that simple and not at all important.
 
They concluded:
https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/cl...nion pieces/Critique of Lindzen's lecture.pdf


...

A pervasive aspect of RSL’s presentation was the conflation of uncertainty with ignorance; in his view, because we are uncertain about some aspect, we therefore know nothing about it and any estimate of it is mere guesswork. In this way we believe RSL does a disservice to the scientific method, which seeks to develop understanding in the face of inevitable uncertainties in our knowledge of the world in which we live. The scientific method has served society well for many hundreds of years, and we see no reason to doubt its validity for trying to quantify the risk of climate change and its impacts on society this century. ...
I summarized: ""Lindzen is basically being accused of attacking not just proponents of AGW. but also some of the most basic principles of science"

Which I'm pretty sure means the same thing as: "does a disservice to the scientific method"

If not quite as polite. :lol:
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
They concluded:
https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/cl...nion pieces/Critique of Lindzen's lecture.pdf

...

A pervasive aspect of RSL’s presentation was the conflation of uncertainty with ignorance; in his view, because we are uncertain about some aspect, we therefore know nothing about it and any estimate of it is mere guesswork. In this way we believe RSL does a disservice to the scientific method, which seeks to develop understanding in the face of inevitable uncertainties in our knowledge of the world in which we live. The scientific method has served society well for many hundreds of years, and we see no reason to doubt its validity for trying to quantify the risk of climate change and its impacts on society this century. ...
I summarized: ""Lindzen is basically being accused of attacking not just proponents of AGW. but also some of the most basic principles of science"

Which I'm pretty sure means the same thing as: "does a disservice to the scientific method"

If not quite as polite. :lol:
Not it does not mean the same thing, talk about a massive distortion. Again Dr. Lindzen addresses this false claim,

http://thegwpf.org/the-climate-record/5 ... cture.html

In their concluding comments, the critics accuse me of doing a disservice to the scientific method. I would suggest that in questioning the views of the critics and subjecting them to specific tests, I am holding to the scientific method, while they, in exploiting speculations to support the possibility of large climate change, are subverting the method. As one begins to develop more careful tests, there is, contrary to the claims of the critics, ample reason to cast doubt on the likelihood of large risk. While the critics do not wish to comment on policy, they do a disservice to both science and the society upon whose support they depend, when they fail to explain the true basis for their assertions.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
They concluded:
https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/cl...nion pieces/Critique of Lindzen's lecture.pdf


...

A pervasive aspect of RSL’s presentation was the conflation of uncertainty with ignorance; in his view, because we are uncertain about some aspect, we therefore know nothing about it and any estimate of it is mere guesswork. In this way we believe RSL does a disservice to the scientific method, which seeks to develop understanding in the face of inevitable uncertainties in our knowledge of the world in which we live. The scientific method has served society well for many hundreds of years, and we see no reason to doubt its validity for trying to quantify the risk of climate change and its impacts on society this century. ...
I summarized: ""Lindzen is basically being accused of attacking not just proponents of AGW. but also some of the most basic principles of science"

Which I'm pretty sure means the same thing as: "does a disservice to the scientific method"

If not quite as polite. :lol:

So, "does a disservice to the scientific method" means, in your view "attacking the proponents of AGW and some of the most basic principles of science".

Okay, well here's a suggestion. Why don't you contact the authors of the critique and ask them if they agree with your paraphrase, and are prepared to stand by a statement that Lindzen is guilty of malpractice in the way you claim?

Otherwise - we're discussing your interpretation of a single sentence, which seems to take "pointless diversion' to a whole other level.
 
Poptech said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
They concluded:
https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/cl...nion pieces/Critique of Lindzen's lecture.pdf

...

A pervasive aspect of RSL’s presentation was the conflation of uncertainty with ignorance; in his view, because we are uncertain about some aspect, we therefore know nothing about it and any estimate of it is mere guesswork. In this way we believe RSL does a disservice to the scientific method, which seeks to develop understanding in the face of inevitable uncertainties in our knowledge of the world in which we live. The scientific method has served society well for many hundreds of years, and we see no reason to doubt its validity for trying to quantify the risk of climate change and its impacts on society this century. ...
I summarized: ""Lindzen is basically being accused of attacking not just proponents of AGW. but also some of the most basic principles of science"

Which I'm pretty sure means the same thing as: "does a disservice to the scientific method"

If not quite as polite. :lol:
Not it does not mean the same, talk about a massive distortion. Again Dr. Lindzen addresses this false claim,

http://thegwpf.org/the-climate-record/5 ... cture.html

In their concluding comments, the critics accuse me of doing a disservice to the scientific method. I would suggest that in questioning the views of the critics and subjecting them to specific tests, I am holding to the scientific method, while they, in exploiting speculations to support the possibility of large climate change, are subverting the method. As one begins to develop more careful tests, there is, contrary to the claims of the critics, ample reason to cast doubt on the likelihood of large risk. While the critics do not wish to comment on policy, they do a disservice to both science and the society upon whose support they depend, when they fail to explain the true basis for their assertions.
And in that quote he is quite clearly, 'attacking the proponents of AGW'.

Just because Lindzen denies that he is doing 'a disservice to the scientific method', it doesn't mean that he isn't, 'attackng the most basic principles of science'.

It just means that he is rather disingenuously accusing his critics of what he stands accused of, instead.

:rofl:
 
I note, P that you keep avoiding my point - is that because you find it less easy to deal with?

Contact the authors and ask them if they intended the meaning you claim to see. And post here any examples where they criticise L's science for being in violation of scientific principles.

if you don't do either of these things people can draw their own conclusions.


PG - I don't think you're helping your cause by bellowing and stomping quite so much.
 
AngelAlice said:
I note, P that you keep avoiding my point - is that because you find it less easy to deal with?

Contact the authors and ask them if they intended the meaning you claim to see. And post here any examples where they criticise L's science for being in violation of scientific principles.

if you don't do either of these things people can draw their own conclusions.


PG - I don't think you're helping your cause by bellowing and stomping quite so much.
Is English your first language?
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
AngelAlice said:
I note, P that you keep avoiding my point - is that because you find it less easy to deal with?

Contact the authors and ask them if they intended the meaning you claim to see. And post here any examples where they criticise L's science for being in violation of scientific principles.

if you don't do either of these things people can draw their own conclusions.


PG - I don't think you're helping your cause by bellowing and stomping quite so much.
Is English your first language?

Now now, I could read that perfectly well.
Stay cool, people! :)
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
AngelAlice said:
I note, P that you keep avoiding my point - is that because you find it less easy to deal with?

Contact the authors and ask them if they intended the meaning you claim to see. And post here any examples where they criticise L's science for being in violation of scientific principles.

if you don't do either of these things people can draw their own conclusions.


PG - I don't think you're helping your cause by bellowing and stomping quite so much.
Is English your first language?

Enough, P. Either show your evidence or stop making the claim.
 
AngelAlice said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
AngelAlice said:
I note, P that you keep avoiding my point - is that because you find it less easy to deal with?

Contact the authors and ask them if they intended the meaning you claim to see. And post here any examples where they criticise L's science for being in violation of scientific principles.

if you don't do either of these things people can draw their own conclusions.


PG - I don't think you're helping your cause by bellowing and stomping quite so much.
Is English your first language?

Enough, P. Either show your evidence or stop making the claim.
You are doing a great disservice to the subtleties of the English language.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
AngelAlice said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
AngelAlice said:
I note, P that you keep avoiding my point - is that because you find it less easy to deal with?

Contact the authors and ask them if they intended the meaning you claim to see. And post here any examples where they criticise L's science for being in violation of scientific principles.

if you don't do either of these things people can draw their own conclusions.


PG - I don't think you're helping your cause by bellowing and stomping quite so much.
Is English your first language?

Enough, P. Either show your evidence or stop making the claim.
You are doing a great disservice to the subtleties of the English language.

I am guessing you have gone through the pdf desperately trying to find one instance where the authors actually do accuse Lindzen of violating scientific principles - and you couldn't find any. It would be better if you could simply admit that and move on.
 
AngelAlice said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
AngelAlice said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
AngelAlice said:
I note, P that you keep avoiding my point - is that because you find it less easy to deal with?

Contact the authors and ask them if they intended the meaning you claim to see. And post here any examples where they criticise L's science for being in violation of scientific principles.

if you don't do either of these things people can draw their own conclusions.


PG - I don't think you're helping your cause by bellowing and stomping quite so much.
Is English your first language?

Enough, P. Either show your evidence or stop making the claim.
You are doing a great disservice to the subtleties of the English language.

I am guessing you have gone through the pdf desperately trying to find one instance where the authors actually do accuse Lindzen of violating scientific principles - and you couldn't find any. It would be better if you could simply admit that and move on.
What do you understand the term, 'the scientific method', to mean?
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
AngelAlice said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
AngelAlice said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
AngelAlice said:
I note, P that you keep avoiding my point - is that because you find it less easy to deal with?

Contact the authors and ask them if they intended the meaning you claim to see. And post here any examples where they criticise L's science for being in violation of scientific principles.

if you don't do either of these things people can draw their own conclusions.


PG - I don't think you're helping your cause by bellowing and stomping quite so much.
Is English your first language?

Enough, P. Either show your evidence or stop making the claim.
You are doing a great disservice to the subtleties of the English language.

I am guessing you have gone through the pdf desperately trying to find one instance where the authors actually do accuse Lindzen of violating scientific principles - and you couldn't find any. It would be better if you could simply admit that and move on.
What do you understand the term, 'the scientific method', to mean?

Look, I don't "understand" the terms those authors used to mean what you think they mean. But maybe I'm wrong and they did mean it in the way you think. The only way to find out is to ask them. But even if they did intend to convey Lindzen was violating "scientific principles" they'd still have to prove that with some examples of him doing so, or it's just ad hom.

So, ask them and post examples, or give it up.
 
AngelAlice said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
...

What do you understand the term, 'the scientific method', to mean?

Look, I don't "understand" the terms those authors used to mean what you think they mean. But maybe I'm wrong and they did mean it in the way you think. The only way to find out is to ask them. But even if they did intend to convey Lindzen was violating "scientific principles" they'd still have to prove that with some examples of him doing so, or it's just ad hom.

So, ask them and post examples, or give it up.
For what it's worth:
http://www.uic.edu/classes/bios/bios100/labs/scimethod.htm

The Principles of Science

As this is a science class, it would be beneficial to start out with a discussion on just what is "science." Science is a methodical process which seeks to determine the secrets of the natural world by using the scientific method.

The Scientific Method The scientific method is a process scientists must follow in determining the workings of the universe. There are five basic components to the scientific method:

From observations of the natural world, determine the nature of the phenomenon that is interesting to you (i.e. ask a question or identify a problem).

Develop one or more hypotheses, or educated guesses, to explain this phenomenon. The hypotheses should be predictive - given a set of circumstances, the hypothesis should predict an outcome.

Devise experiments to test the hypotheses.

All valid scientific hypotheses must be testable.

Analyze the experimental results and determine to what degree do the results fit the predictions of the hypothesis.

Further modify and repeat the experiments.

It is impossible to prove something to be true (this dips deeply into philosophy, but Truth is an ever-elusive principle.) One can create a theory with an overwhelming amount of support, but one valid piece of contrary evidence can strike it down. As such, science and scientific theories are an ever-evolving as new ideas and technologies allow us to create and test hypotheses in new and exciting ways.
I hope that clarifies the situation.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
AngelAlice said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
...

What do you understand the term, 'the scientific method', to mean?

Look, I don't "understand" the terms those authors used to mean what you think they mean. But maybe I'm wrong and they did mean it in the way you think. The only way to find out is to ask them. But even if they did intend to convey Lindzen was violating "scientific principles" they'd still have to prove that with some examples of him doing so, or it's just ad hom.

So, ask them and post examples, or give it up.
For what it's worth:

Well if we were disputing what the scientific method was you'd have a point. But what's actually happening is you are claiming some people meant their words to be taken as a serious allegation that is not implicit in the words themselves, and you are also claiming or implying the allegations to be true.

In order to validate that claim you have to a) ask the people if your interpretation is correct and b) demonstrate that the allegations you claim they're making are true by posting supporting data.

Nothing else you can do - including posting long screeds from irrelevant websites - can possibly do anything to validate your position.
 
Ah the wordless smiley - last resort of the evidentially bankrupt.
 
Back
Top