Post #243683 by donhonyc on Tue, Jul 18, 2006 4:04 PM

On 2006-07-18 13:31, aquarj wrote:
However, there are a lot of fallacies in the reasoning provided above, especially for a discussion purportedly in praise of real science. Legitimate studies on global climate present assessments about likely trends and causes, not certainties. Unfortunately, popular reasoning is that when a large majority of studies reach similar probabilistic conclusions, then this essentially increases those probabilities to a level where dissenting minority opinions can be discounted at face value. This kind of reasoning is the stuff of junk science, which itself makes a bad name for real science and in fact is only a diversion from the actual investigation of observable facts and evidence. Dismissing anyone who would dare question such consensus, or even attacking them as luddites, is in fact the opposite of scientific method. True scientific inquiry should always welcome the opportunity to investigate contrary data or analysis, with the goal of either disproving it or modifying conclusions to accommodate it.

Wow! Are you the mayor of Rhetoric City or what?? I like the part when you say 'that when a large majority of studies reach similar probabilistic conclusions, then this essentially increases those probabilities to a level where dissenting minority opinions can be discounted at face value. This kind of reasoning is the stuff of junk science.'

Well...'when studies are done' doesn't that imply that the people that are doing the studies might be AUTHORITIES on the subject? Why the heck else would they be doing 'the studies'? Do you think that it's maybe...I don't know.. every frat house on fraternity row at XYZ University working on this stuff between bong hits and keg parties during rush week? Call me naive, but usually when these kinds of 'studies' are done and they all reach the same conclusion...it's usually a fact or very, very close to fact. Especially on global warming. Why would this kind of information be released? For fun?

I haven't seen either of these movies. I did however have the privelige of seeing Al Gore do a short lecture covering the topics in an 'Unconvinient Truth' about two years ago. That hour or so of talking and slides was enough for me to get the message COUPLED with the fact that what he's saying is NOT nonsense. He's a well spoken individual, a statesman, and a visionary with concern for the world way after he and all of us are gone. Contrast that with someone who amounts to nothing more than some fortunate son, special interest stooge, New England born guy with a fake Texas drawl, that could give a rats ass about the future. Sorry...but there. I said it. HOWEVER, politicians don't have to lecture us on these things, just pay attention to the weather conditions in the last ten years, particularly the last two years or so and maybe, just maybe it'll dawn on you that there are some very real problems with the environment. There isn't much to say except that something needs to be done, not just from politicians but from all of us. I applaud you Lucasvigor for your thoughts. It's actually made me think more about this topic and what I can do.

If we had a leader who was a forward thinking individual that payed attention and stopped the national hemorrhaging that we currently deal with in more than one area, not just global warming, we might be able to get back on track here.

[ Edited by: donhonyc 2006-07-18 18:27 ]