How the scientific process works

[drtom2005]

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...arming.html#q4

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun...glob-warm.html

Please read through all the links like I have in the past before commenting.

[OnePimpTiger]

You are saying that a bunch of scientists are getting together to manipulate data for a political gain.

Have you every been to scientific symposium? People present research and then get questions. People debate the information. The fact that you think a bunch of strong willed people would get together and say "Hey guys, lets lie about this." is laughable.

Sorry science does not work that way. The fact that you ignore the ramifications for a scientists to lie about his data is shocking.

The fact that you ignore the draw of fame and fortune is shocking. Do you honestly believe scientists are beyond the temptation of lots of money and having your name out there as one of the most cited scientists in the world for the chance that they might get caught? Scientists, professors, lawyers, police officers, judges, etc, etc, etc are always caught breaking the law, breaking the rules of their profession for money. To believe the scientists who support "global warming" are so high-minded and noble that they are beyond temptation is extremely naive. And the fact that much of this has already been proved to be exaggerated or forged is proof of that and calls everything into question. You're right, that's not how science works, but everyone doing everything for the right reasons is not how the world works.

If the scientists aren't in it for money, why will they not release their data to the general public? They vehemently fight Freedom of Information requests for their data from other scientists and the public. If they were in it for "pure" science, wouldn't they be willing to make that information public to more conclusively prove their point? Yet they keep the data secret...either they do that for proprietary reason (ie they want to make money off it), the release of the data would go against their claims, or a combination of the two. There's no other logical reason a high-minded scientist who only wants to benefit the world would keep their data and processes secret.

I do not support cap and trade either. I just have a problem with you not checking your posts before showing them to people. I have a problem with you spreading half-truths about science to cover your political stance.

What don't I check? Everything I've posted has been true. Yes, Mann's former employer cleared him of wrong-doing...but they also said further investigation is needed. So obviously the matter isn't settled.

What else? You haven't disproved anything I've posted. You're only proof so far has been you don't believe it, so it can't be true.

By the OPT, the data, the science is on my side with multiple studies in multiple fields, 1000's. If the global warming deniers are correct, they need to publish their data, not opinion about others data. It will compete with the idea that the globe is warming. It will win out in the end if correct.

The opposing group does not have their data or refuses to publish it. I guess this is a conspiracy, too. The scientific community is supressing their data, right? Or maybe, their studies are not good.

There is opposing data out there, the fact that you choose to ignore it does not make it go away.

And for the third time I'll ask: A simple question: Much of the raw temperature data that the formula was applied to was subsequently thrown away, never to be available again for review or proof...is that proper science?

And I'll add this question: Many of the claims and studies quoted in "global warming" science have been exposed as not having been peer-reviewed...is that proper science?

[drtom2005]

The fact that you ignore the draw of fame and fortune is shocking. Do you honestly believe scientists are beyond the temptation of lots of money and having your name out there as one of the most cited scientists in the world for the chance that they might get caught? Scientists, professors, lawyers, police officers, judges, etc, etc, etc are always caught breaking the law, breaking the rules of their profession for money. To believe the scientists who support "global warming" are so high-minded and noble that they are beyond temptation is extremely naive. And the fact that much of this has already been proved to be exaggerated or forged is proof of that and calls everything into question. You're right, that's not how science works, but everyone doing everything for the right reasons is not how the world works.

If the scientists aren't in it for money, why will they not release their data to the general public? They vehemently fight Freedom of Information requests for their data from other scientists and the public. If they were in it for "pure" science, wouldn't they be willing to make that information public to more conclusively prove their point? Yet they keep the data secret...either they do that for proprietary reason (ie they want to make money off it), the release of the data would go against their claims, or a combination of the two. There's no other logical reason a high-minded scientist who only wants to benefit the world would keep their data and processes secret.



What don't I check? Everything I've posted has been true. Yes, Mann's former employer cleared him of wrong-doing...but they also said further investigation is needed. So obviously the matter isn't settled.

What else? You haven't disproved anything I've posted. You're only proof so far has been you don't believe it, so it can't be true.



There is opposing data out there, the fact that you choose to ignore it does not make it go away.

And for the third time I'll ask: A simple question: Much of the raw temperature data that the formula was applied to was subsequently thrown away, never to be available again for review or proof...is that proper science?

And I'll add this question: Many of the claims and studies quoted in "global warming" science have been exposed as not having been peer-reviewed...is that proper science?

OPT, you have yet to answer my questions about this being a conspiracy with scientists. I would like to answer this question directly. Yes or no. If a scientist had conclusive data that global warming/climate change was a natural cycle of the earth, why would they not publish it? You are the one that thinks scientists get paid well. They do not for the work they do.

Where is the the famous scientist with his data?

As for the climatology temperature data, I will change my mind when the experts at a climatology meeting state anything about the data. Either way.

I just do not jump to conclusions without the experts gathering together and rendering a decision. Remember the Pluto question? This is what I would like to see.

Now answer my question, are all of the scientists who are involved in every aspect of the global warming issue conspiring together to get paid or be famous?

The fact that you think this is possible is quite shocking.

If you ever have a tumor, you should go to the average joe off the street and ask them to do the chemotherapy or surgery to remove the tumor.

This is what you are saying. Do you see how strange the concept is? Do not trust the experts. This is the message I am getting from you.

Please show the data, not criticism of data. It should be easy for global warming deniers.

OPT news articles are not science. Blog material is not science. When you show me a wiki article, you ignore obvious statement sentences. Why should anyone believe you? I know who believes you. Those people that think science is a conspiracy right? LOL. I am tired of this. You will get make next post on the scientific process later.

[OnePimpTiger]

Now why would I answer your question when you won't answer mine, one of which I have asked on three separate occasions? You constantly avoid anything and everything that doesn't affirm your preconceived opinions.

And continuously miss the point, which I will repeat for the last time: if "global warming" is based on faulty science, which numerous questions are being raised about, it doesn't matter if there are zero alternative hypotheses and zero contrary data (neither of which are the case). A lack of contrary data does not prove a faulty hypothesis. You're employing a classic example of an argument from ignorance fallacy. To use one of the favorite arguments around here, not being able to disprove God does not prove God. Not being able to disprove "global warming" does not prove "global warming."

[drtom2005]

Now why would I answer your question when you won't answer mine, one of which I have asked on three separate occasions? You constantly avoid anything and everything that doesn't affirm your preconceived opinions.

And continuously miss the point, which I will repeat for the last time: if "global warming" is based on faulty science, which numerous questions are being raised about, it doesn't matter if there are zero alternative hypotheses and zero contrary data (neither of which are the case). A lack of contrary data does not prove a faulty hypothesis. You're employing a classic example of an argument from ignorance fallacy. To use one of the favorite arguments around here, not being able to disprove God does not prove God. Not being able to disprove "global warming" does not prove "global warming."

As usual OPT, you missed my answer. I did answer it. You did not read it as usual. I do not hope for better from you.

When the climatologists get together at their conference and make a statment about the data, I will change my mind. Either way. Answered. I trust the experts on any given topic, not the average blogger.

Now answer mine. Are all of the scientists in all of the different disciplines on the topic of global warming conspiring together for political gain?

Also, if unforunately, you ever get a tumor, are going to ask the average person off the street to treat it or a doctor?

OPT the argument from ignorance only applies when their is no data either way. The fact that you ignore the data completely because it does not go with your politcal views does not make your argument valid. I am sure you will twist it it someway.

Simple questions.

I have answered yours several times now. Please answer mine.

[OnePimpTiger]

As usual OPT, you missed my answer. I did answer it. You did not read it as usual. I do not hope for better from you.

When the climatologists get together at their conference and make a statment about the data, I will change my mind. Either way. Answered. I trust the experts on any given topic, not the average blogger.

Actually, you haven't answered mine:

A simple question: Much of the raw temperature data that the formula was applied to was subsequently thrown away, never to be available again for review or proof...is that proper science?

If you consider what you said an answer, then that leaves me to assume you will not evaluate the processes scientists use in their research unless a governing body says it's ok. In that case, all of the nonsense you spout about critically reading scientific studies is pointless because you would require a governing body's opinion before you accepted it anyway. If you do critically read studies and information as you claim, then you would admit that throwing away raw data in any situation is not proper science.

Now answer mine. Are all of the scientists in all of the different disciplines on the topic of global warming conspiring together for political gain?

That's an easy answer...no. Since not all scientists agree on the topic, there's no way they're all conspiring together.

Also, if unforunately, you ever get a tumor, are going to ask the average person off the street to treat it or a doctor?

No I wouldn't. But I bet there are doctors who would choose different courses of action for treating the tumor. Which is exactly like "global warming," some scientists believe it, some don't. Experts in certain fields disagree all the time. Of course someone as well informed in science as you are already knew that, right?

OPT the argument from ignorance only applies when their is no data either way. The fact that you ignore the data completely because it does not go with your politcal views does not make your argument valid. I am sure you will twist it it someway.

Actually that's incorrect. To quote the link, which you obviously didn't read:

Commonly in an argument from personal incredulity or argument from ignorance, the speaker considers or asserts that something is false, implausible, or not obvious to them personally and attempts to use this gap in knowledge as "evidence" in favor of an alternative view of his or her choice. Examples of these fallacies are often found in statements of opinion which begin: "It is hard to see how...," "I cannot understand how...," or "it is obvious that..." (if "obvious" is being used to introduce a conclusion rather than specific evidence in support of a particular view).
[edit] Argument from ignorance

The two most common forms of the argument from ignorance, both fallacious, can be reduced to the following form:

* Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) true.
* Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven.

Notice it says nothing about a lack of evidence for the first argument, only the second one. And isn't ironic how that second form of the argument from ignorance applies perfectly in this situation? That's quoted from the link, I didn't alter it at all. Seems to be exactly the situation to me!

[drtom2005]

Actually, you haven't answered mine:

A simple question: Much of the raw temperature data that the formula was applied to was subsequently thrown away, never to be available again for review or proof...is that proper science?

If you consider what you said an answer, then that leaves me to assume you will not evaluate the processes scientists use in their research unless a governing body says it's ok. In that case, all of the nonsense you spout about critically reading scientific studies is pointless because you would require a governing body's opinion before you accepted it anyway. If you do critically read studies and information as you claim, then you would admit that throwing away raw data in any situation is not proper science.



That's an easy answer...no. Since not all scientists agree on the topic, there's no way they're all conspiring together.



No I wouldn't. But I bet there are doctors who would choose different courses of action for treating the tumor. Which is exactly like "global warming," some scientists believe it, some don't. Experts in certain fields disagree all the time. Of course someone as well informed in science as you are already knew that, right?



Actually that's incorrect. To quote the link, which you obviously didn't read:



Notice it says nothing about a lack of evidence for the first argument, only the second one. And isn't ironic how that second form of the argument from ignorance applies perfectly in this situation? That's quoted from the link, I didn't alter it at all. Seems to be exactly the situation to me!

OPT, you use nebulous statements like there are other scientists that think differently. The one time you used an example, the person did not publish his data. I mean where are these scientist's data? It should be easy.

Data means something in science. As I have stated, I have reserved my opinion on the climatology data because the experts have not completely explained what is going on.

You go into situations half-cocked and are willing to state that all of the data from other areas is in doubt because of the climate data being in doubt. This is laughable conclusion that follows your belief that anything is possible. If global warming is incorrect, it will be modified or replaced.

I would like to have more data or even a hypothesis which you never show. You say you show it yet you ignore specific parts of the articles.

I am sorry everything is not black and white so it is easy for you to understand.

[OnePimpTiger]

Again with the argument from ignorance. Your whole argument is based on the fact that you refuse to give any credence to anything that opposes your world view, which means there can never be evidence for an opposing possibility (because you won't accept it when there is), and if you can't prove an opposing hypothesis (which is hard to do if any contrary evidence is automatically incorrect), your hypothesis must be right.

I give up. You're right, 100% infallible, almighty master of science. There are 0 scientists who don't believe in man-made "global warming," it is fact. All the errors, misrepresentations, lies, and cover-ups in "global warming" science are completely explainable. There is nothing on the face of the world that contradicts any of the information presented.

You know that tumor you asked me about earlier? Well congratulations, you've given it to me.

[drtom2005]

Again with the argument from ignorance. Your whole argument is based on the fact that you refuse to give any credence to anything that opposes your world view, which means there can never be evidence for an opposing possibility (because you won't accept it when there is), and if you can't prove an opposing hypothesis (which is hard to do if any contrary evidence is automatically incorrect), your hypothesis must be right.

I give up. You're right, 100% infallible, almighty master of science. There are 0 scientists who don't believe in man-made "global warming," it is fact. All the errors, misrepresentations, lies, and cover-ups in "global warming" science are completely explainable. There is nothing on the face of the world that contradicts any of the information presented.

You know that tumor you asked me about earlier? Well congratulations, you've given it to me.

Good distraction OPT. I have never stated science is infallible. I have stated that it becomes more correct. I am comfortable with being wrong, when the data and experts say so.

You stated that you would trust a doctor if you had illness.

You will not trust scientists on global warming.

Cognitive dissonance anyone. Definition below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

[OnePimpTiger]

Good distraction OPT. I have never stated science is infallible. I have stated that it becomes more correct. I am comfortable with being wrong, when the data and experts say so.

I didn't say science was infallible, I said you, the master of all science, is infallible. Anything you say goes...anything contrary is wrong.

You stated that you would trust a doctor if you had illness.

You will not trust scientists on global warming.

Cognitive dissonance anyone. Definition below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

You absolutely will not accept that there are scientists who disagree with man-made "global warming." It's plain for anyone to see there are many, yet you continue to deny.