| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » Clean Energy? Yes. But Only For The Right Reasons
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| 0NBZ0 |
 Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Nancy Salvato
April 22, 2008
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2726
QUOTE: "If scientists say they are 100% sure, or that they are
absolutely certain about the cause and effect and ignore variables which
might show that they could be wrong, they are practicing junk science.
Junk science happens when scientists believe something based on just
some of what they see."
Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich are featured together in a television
commercial which focuses on how conservatives and liberals can come
together to find solutions for problems caused by climate change.
Mr. Gingrich's explanation for joining this $300 million dollar
advertising campaign is to force conservatives into debating liberals
about the ways our country should best promote alternative energy
sources. This in itself is a fine idea because I don't know any person
who wants our country to continue relying on oil for fuel. Most would
agree that cleaner sources of energy are preferable.
While there should be robust debate about how best to pursue alternative
energy, I believe this ad is misleading because it presents these two
political adversaries as working together to find solutions to the
problem of climate change in and of itself, as if there is a scientific
consensus that climate change truly poses the problems outlined in Al
Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth. Speaking of Al Gore, he is the
person who is funding this effort and hired the advertising agency known
for their caveman and talking lizard/Geico ads to produce these
commercials.
Certainly, Gore has become a master of hyperbole in order to draw
attention to his cause. While becoming a great promoter, he has done a
great disservice to true science. The global warming argument is based
on two assumptions. The first is that it's caused by man and that we can
stop it. While we may contribute to global warming, it is difficult to
conclude that our activities can substantially affect the changes in
temperature. The second assumption is that global warming is inherently
bad. We cannot ignore dramatic climate shifts that have occurred in the
past and declare that all climate changes are due to human activity and
bad.
A true scientific investigation begins with a hypothesis, or assumption.
Scientific findings are not based on one. Here's why.
Have you ever held a ball in front of a dog and moved it up and down and
sideways so that the dog moves its head in the same direction? Now, have
you ever asked the dog yes and no questions while doing this so that it
appears as if the dog is answering yes or no to your question? It would
be wrong to believe the dog is really thinking about what you are
saying. The dog is simply following your hand. This can be proved
because if you asked the dog the same questions without moving your
hand, you'll find that the yes and no movement will stop. You have in
effect stopped one variable, moving your hand, in order to determine
whether it is your questions or hand movement that influences the dog.
This is how scientists try to find out the answers to why some things
happen.
Do you know anybody with allergies? Allergies can make people feel like
they have a cold or as if they are feeling sick. Sometimes doctors will
tell the patient to stop eating certain foods to determine whether the
allergy symptoms, such as a runny nose, will stop. This is called
isolating the variables that might cause something to happen to
determine which one is at work. Some people can't drink milk, others can't
eat peanuts. If a person stops doing both at the same time, and the
symptoms stop, that person cannot be sure which food is causing the
allergy because they have not isolated (testing their effect separately)
all the variables.
Usually more than one variable must be considered when determining the
cause of a situation. Sometimes we can't know all of the variables. Let's
pretend there are chocolate and vanilla cupcakes at a birthday party.
You notice that your friend takes two chocolate cupcakes. Does this mean
that your friend loves chocolate more than strawberry flavored cupcakes?
Do you have enough information to decide this to be the truth? Of course
not, because strawberry wasn't one of the choices. You might think that
your friend likes chocolate more than vanilla. But what if your friend
loves chocolate but can't eat it because it gives him headaches? You don't
have enough information to be sure. Sometimes you cannot know all the
variables in a situation.
In science, in order to determine the cause for something to happen, you
must isolate all the variables in order to determine their influence on
or how they affect what happens. We don't always know all the variables;
therefore, like magic, sometimes things are not all they appear to be.
Kids and adults sometimes assume, or believe, that they are the most
important variable in any situation. What if you came home and found
your mother blowing her nose and with tears in her eyes. And what if the
last time you spoke with her she asked you to put your skateboard away
so she wouldn't trip and fall over it. Glancing around, you notice your
skateboard in the middle of the floor.
Instantly, you decide that your mom fell down and hurt herself on the
skateboard. Before you start apologizing, look around. There is an onion
on the counter and mom is cooking dinner. She might have been chopping
onions. Often, we jump to the conclusion that we are the cause for
something we have absolutely no control over. We could move the
skateboard but mom is still going to react to the onion. We cannot
change the effect of the onion.
Scientists theorize or hypothesize about what might cause something to
happen or about what might change something so that it won't happen.
When scientists theorize, they can never be 100 % certain about what
they believe unless they can take into account all the variables. This
is why scientists think in percentages. They might say they are 80% sure
and leave 20% to the possibility that they may be wrong. They don't say
they know all the answers, but that they know most of them. If
scientists say they are 100% sure, or that they are absolutely certain
about the cause and effect and ignore variables which might show that
they could be wrong, they are practicing junk science. Junk science
happens when scientists believe something based on just some of what
they see. This is because this is not using the scientific method
correctly.
There is no scientific consensus on global warming. And there is no
scientific consensus on man being the cause of global warming.
According to a study published by the Heartland Institute, there are 500
scientists with documented doubts about man made global warming. The
summary of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC),
"...largely ignores the uncertainty in the report and attempts to
present the expectation of substantial warming as firmly based science.
The summary was published as a separate document, and, it is safe to say
that policymakers are unlikely to read anything further."
In science, the goal of true science is to test hypothesis to reveal
supporting or non-supporting evidence for the idea in order to bring us
closer to the truth.
I'm disappointed in Newt Gingrich. His motivation may have been genuine
but the means does not justify the end. The issue of global warming has
everybody's attention but mostly for the wrong reasons. It is time to
correct the misinformation and place this issue into the proper
perspective so that our energy is focused not on the distracting shiny
thing but on the best ways to become energy independent so we don't
provide petro dollars to terrorist
--
Regards
Bonzo
"What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude the
principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich
countries?...In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the
only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn't it our responsibility to bring this about?" Maurice Strong,1990 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Bob Hawke |
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"0NBZ0" <0NBZ0@doooooooooooooooodoooooooooo.com> wrote in message
news:480ed656@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Quote:
SNIP - All demented Le-Turd crap !!
If you believe this crap, Le-Turd, then you also believe in the fairies at
the bottom of the garden.
Maybe it is Horus and Titi trying to communicate with you.
You should go down and have a good talk to them. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ouroboros_Rex |
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
0NBZ0 wrote:
Quote: Nancy Salvato
April 22, 2008
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2726
QUOTE: "If scientists say they are 100% sure, or that they are
absolutely certain about the cause and effect and ignore variables
which might show that they could be wrong, they are practicing junk
science. Junk science happens when scientists believe something based
on just some of what they see."
Yep - like Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen, Lubos Motl, etc., etc., etc. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| 0NBZ0 |
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 8:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Ouroboros_Rex" <its@casual.com> wrote in message
news:funi9l$vt$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
Quote: 0NBZ0 wrote:
Nancy Salvato
April 22, 2008
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2726
QUOTE: "If scientists say they are 100% sure, or that they are
absolutely certain about the cause and effect and ignore variables
which might show that they could be wrong, they are practicing junk
science. Junk science happens when scientists believe something based
on just some of what they see."
Yep - like Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen, Lubos Motl, etc., etc., etc.
No like your buddies J. Hansen et al.
--
Regards
Bonzo
"IPCC staff is working feverishly on a theory that supports global
cooling as proof of global warming. Stay tuned." Addison Gardner |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ouroboros_Rex |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 1:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
0NBZ0 wrote:
Quote: "Ouroboros_Rex" <its@casual.com> wrote in message
news:funi9l$vt$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
0NBZ0 wrote:
Nancy Salvato
April 22, 2008
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2726
QUOTE: "If scientists say they are 100% sure, or that they are
absolutely certain about the cause and effect and ignore variables
which might show that they could be wrong, they are practicing junk
science. Junk science happens when scientists believe something
based on just some of what they see."
Yep - like Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen, Lubos Motl, etc., etc.,
etc.
No like your buddies J. Hansen et al.
As usual, the denialist simply lies. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| V-for-Vendicar |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Ouroboros_Rex" <its@casual.com> wrote
I have had some contact with Lubos Motl.
I rapidly concluded that like many mathematicians he is mentally ill. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:20 pm
|
|
