Global Warming - yes, no, maybe?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

vol_scouter writes:

As I recall, I used popular sources for the Cradle of Liberty Council and the city of Philadelphia dispute.

 

That's mostly what I used, but I don't recall any legitimate news organization saying Philly was in violation of the terms of the agreement.

 

When you pointed out that you had read the actual contract and that contract laid out a method to get out of the contract, I acceded to what you had to say.

 

No, you asked me to support my claim, and I did:

 

Merlyn,

 

I did not know about the ability for either party to end the relationship unilaterally with a year's notice. If there are no other requirements to complicate the issue, then Philadelphia can terminate the relationship and has done nothing wrong. Do you happen to have a link to the agreement? I usually do not agree with you on these subjects but it sounds like the Cradle of Liberty Council must accept the decision. Some of us may not like the decision but it is not right to only enforce certain parts of a contract.

 

Here's the resolution ending the agreement; I've never found a copy of the 1928 ordinance itself, but this cites it and the reason for ending it:

http://webapps.phila.gov/council/attachments/3811.pdf

 

I am certain that you cannot judge the science that I have discussed.

 

And since I don't consider you a source of accurate information, I keep asking you to come up with some kind of supporting evidence (other than just your say-so), but you don't.

 

[vol_scouter 365]

merlyn,

 

I refuse to take the time to find the popular sources that I had used in the Cradle of Liberty issues. You seem to have a lot of time to look up things so answer your own question and lookup settled and science and combine the two meanings. Then serve on a consensus committee about a scientific issue - Oh, I forgot that you have no training. You wish to pick at word usage since you cannot argue the facts. Please argue the facts and quite asking me to cite scientific sources to define consensus and settled.

[Beavah 205]

I have based my criticisms on the merits of the science. My major concern is the damage that AGW us doing to science and scinetists. Research is now my career having left medicine. So from a personal and societal standpoint, it is important to me that science and scientists are viewed in a positive light with trust in our work.

 

Ah, I understand.

 

I can agree with that.

 

I think it's always our job to police our own first. A bit like removin' motes from our own communities before criticizin' another. I tend to be very critical of those in communities I belong to who have behaved poorly, so I understand and appreciate your sentiment.

 

At the same time, I tend to be less critical of communities I don't belong to, because I don't understand 'em as well. I just hope that the "consensus" of lots of people is enough to shake things out. That's why I like democracies around the world a lot more than da other sort. There's a good chance that in a democracy the majority will work out a reasonable position, even if I don't understand how.

 

So as an external observer to this dispute, I wish yeh the best as yeh police your own community. But I don't think the rest of us uninformed external observers have the right or responsibility to do that kind of critique. We just don't understand enough, eh? And from where I sit, the large majority of the critics fall into that category. Uninformed folks from outside da field who are pushin' an agenda for political or personal gain.

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

vol_scouter, when you ask me for sources, I give them. When I ask you for sources, all you do is hand out insults. Maybe next time you ask me to back up what I'm saying, I should just repeatedly tell you to stop embarrassing yourself by showing your ignorance, and refuse to support my arguments.

[HICO_Eagle 93]

"We just don't understand enough, eh? And from where I sit, the large majority of the critics fall into that category. Uninformed folks from outside da field who are pushin' an agenda for political or personal gain."

 

We must be reading different sources. I have exactly the opposite reaction. The large majority of critics that I read DO understand enough or could if proponents would release the raw data. AGW has failed to meet the mark in my eyes for the past 20 years precisely because I feel I DO understand the science and it frequently fails the laugh test.

 

AGW proponents like Al Gore are the ones who are uninformed and don't understand and even informed ones like Schneider/Mann/Jones/Briffa are pushing their agenda for political or personal gain EVEN WHEN THEY KNOW THEY ARE MISLEADING. This seems to be precisely why they refuse to release raw data, obfuscate to avoid FOIA requests and even delete data to avoid having to hand it out.

[GernBlansten 10]

Vol,

In a thread a while back, we debated the existance of miracles. You specifically chastised me for not believing the story you told of a Scoutmaster who miraculously regained vision to return scouts safely to their home. In fact, you said I must be calling the Scoutmaster a liar, since I didn't accept his story.

 

So, tell me. How do you balance believing in miracles with your superior experience and knowledge of the scientific method?

[vol_scouter 365]

Gern,

 

Miracles are events that are often unsubstantiated and always not explainable by known science. That does not mean that they are not the result of natural phenomena that has not been explained. For decades, scientists doubted ball lightening that has critically observed and explained. Will all things in the universe be explained by science? That is not clear - physics at this time can predict anything before the big bang. So what was there prior to the big bang? Why is there an universe? Is there a creator? Those are currently answered only by religion and possibly will only be answered by religion. If God exists, then can God interact in a physical sense in a universe that he created? I don't know. So all miracles in the future may be explainable by science. Perhaps, there are things that happen because God exists and intervenes. One can have an opinion but science cannot answer that question at this time. So to be intellectually honest, one must allow for the possibility of a miracle being due to a supreme deity. In my example, the SM relates a story that I, as a physician, cannot explain by known medicine. So the incidence was either not told in a factual manner or it was a miraculous event.

 

merlyn,

 

I asked you factual information. You have asked me to defend word usage which I refuse to do. You have not questioned the science but try to criticize my word usage as a reason to negate an argument. I will not play your games.

[GernBlansten 10]

"In my example, the SM relates a story that I, as a physician, cannot explain by known medicine. So the incidence was either not told in a factual manner or it was a miraculous event."

 

Ah, but when I questioned the accuracy of the SMs tale, you said I must be calling the SM a liar. You seem to fall to the side of miraculous event and not to Occam's razor (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem).

 

So, it seems to me that you are able to set aside your scientific analysis when your faith contradicts it. Is it safe to say that you also set aside your scientific analysis when your political views are challenged too?

[vol_scouter 365]

Gern,

 

No.

[GernBlansten 10]

Perhaps then I can offer you some constructive advice.

When lecturing forum members on their lack of understanding of the scientific process, you shouldn't comment on your dedication to the scientific process when you are willing to set it aside for convenient reasons.

[vol_scouter 365]

Gern,

 

Please read your question and my response. If there exists a scientific explanation that can reasonably explain a phenomena, then I will embrace. I attempt to be intellectually honest which I expect of others. There are natural phenomena that are not understood such as dark matter and dark energy. There are reasonable physical theories which may explain these phenomena. There are other things that happen that defy reasonable explanation that could be due to: poor reporting, our lack of understanding, or some phenomena (such as God) that is far beyond our ability to understand and measure. I try to not allow politics to interfere with science though that is not true for all in science. All of us have a bias but I attempt to examine science as unbiased as I am able.

[GernBlansten 10]

That's one of the more honest posts I've read from you. At least you acknowledge that you "try" to keep your biases from influencing your science. And I agree, everyone has biases. They invade all our thoughts and decisions. One of the toughest things in science is to belay those biases as best we can.

 

However, our previous discussion on miracles indicates to me that you are more than willing to accept a divine cause than just leave things as unknown as most scientists would be more than willing to do. This really makes me think you are able to set aside your scientific analysis when it conflicts with your religious beliefs. Any scientist who is willing to do that, would in my mind also allow his political stances to corrupt his analysis too.

[vol_scouter 365]

Gern,

 

Then you would be incorrect. I have often argued with friends about religious issues taking the side of science over 'religious explanations'. I am rather skeptical about most reports of miracles and other unusual occurrences. As an Eagle scout, I strive for honesty in posts as well as in my life.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

vol_scouter writes:

I asked you factual information. You have asked me to defend word usage which I refuse to do.

 

Well, you claim your usage is common usage, so you ought to be able to support that.

 

You have not questioned the science but try to criticize my word usage as a reason to negate an argument.

 

No, my ENTIRE ARGUMENT has been over your word usage. As I seem to have to keep pointing out, I'm not arguing about AGW per se at all. The ONLY argument I've been trying to "negate" is your "consensus" vs. "settled science" claimed distinction.

[vol_scouter 365]

merlyn,

 

If you have nothing to add to the discussion about AGW, then why are you posting? I have discussed consensus opinions and how they are reached as well as pointing out that I have participated in a consensus opinion. If you do not like settled science, try generally accepted, not fundamentally questioned, or whatever phrase that you choose. I refuse to spend my time defending word usage. If you don't want to post on AGW, then start your own thread on word usage.