| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mat-ty
Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 7850
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:07 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| coboardhead wrote: | | GURGLETROUSERS wrote: | C.B. That's very interesting, but I take it that he was very much the senior expert in his field in charge of that discussion, and that it took place some time ago in an age of awe and respect for apparent authority. I wonder if such an obvious contradiction of that other persons expertise would go unchallenged today?
The 50's and 60's saw a big change in the automatic respect shown in earlier times. There were many theories in geology which were fairly clearly outdated, yet still clung to be a determined minority. I attended a lecture by a prominent expert on some peculiarities during the ice age. (One of my main interests.) He cited a curious case where an ice gauged U shaped valley cut clean across a mountain range watershed, with an explanation of how that may have taken place.
At the time of his presentation (the late 50's) there was still arearguard movement of Protectionist geologists. ( Ice cover protected the land beneath, not eroded it.) They offered some ingenious explanations of how U shaped valleys may have formed by means other than ice scouring. Rather foolishly, as a naive geology student, I asked how the Protectionist School of Thought explained this anomaly? I got a very irate and decidedly pointed answer that Dr. Garfield and his cohorts were all washed up, and done with! (Along with a glare that spoke volumes!)
It is amazing how scientific research in all fields has mushroomed over our life time, and has now become so intense and specialised that it is impossible for those of us who are non expert in any particular field to understand. Perhaps that in part explains the rejection by growing numbers who simply long for simple certainties and beliefs, however simplistic and backward looking they may be. But isn't that a dangerous delusion! |
GT I was having a similar discussion with a mathematician this weekend. He is of the school that there is no such thing as settled science. Everything is in a state of change. Of course you understand this. His point was that, regarding the discussion of global warming, was that he is much less Al Gore-like and more into the camp of discussions with "non believers" (I'm using this as a bit tongue in cheek") that are centered around the concept of theory vs certainty. He claims that he gets beyond the belief system that many have regarding climate change.
Where this approach falls apart, on many discussions regarding scientific issues including geology, is when religion is thrown into the mix. In the US, in my lifetime, we are regressing on this this. I was educated in a era where we were taught about evolution. Now, that same school system teaches intelligent design along side evolution. So, students are being taught that belief is a science. This is a disturbing trend IMO.
As far as my experience where a belief showed up by a leader in this field. I would guess that he would be more likely challenged these days. At least in that environment. But, I would guess he would get away with it as, or more easily, if he expressed that opinion in the general population.
I believe that scientists and scientific process are no longer respected in this country. |
The problem is the over exaggeration and fear mongering that comes from the left has destroyed the credibility. But it's all over in 12 years, so who cares? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17749
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nothing expected, nothing delivered. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mat-ty wrote: | | coboardhead wrote: | | GURGLETROUSERS wrote: | C.B. That's very interesting, but I take it that he was very much the senior expert in his field in charge of that discussion, and that it took place some time ago in an age of awe and respect for apparent authority. I wonder if such an obvious contradiction of that other persons expertise would go unchallenged today?
The 50's and 60's saw a big change in the automatic respect shown in earlier times. There were many theories in geology which were fairly clearly outdated, yet still clung to be a determined minority. I attended a lecture by a prominent expert on some peculiarities during the ice age. (One of my main interests.) He cited a curious case where an ice gauged U shaped valley cut clean across a mountain range watershed, with an explanation of how that may have taken place.
At the time of his presentation (the late 50's) there was still arearguard movement of Protectionist geologists. ( Ice cover protected the land beneath, not eroded it.) They offered some ingenious explanations of how U shaped valleys may have formed by means other than ice scouring. Rather foolishly, as a naive geology student, I asked how the Protectionist School of Thought explained this anomaly? I got a very irate and decidedly pointed answer that Dr. Garfield and his cohorts were all washed up, and done with! (Along with a glare that spoke volumes!)
It is amazing how scientific research in all fields has mushroomed over our life time, and has now become so intense and specialised that it is impossible for those of us who are non expert in any particular field to understand. Perhaps that in part explains the rejection by growing numbers who simply long for simple certainties and beliefs, however simplistic and backward looking they may be. But isn't that a dangerous delusion! |
GT I was having a similar discussion with a mathematician this weekend. He is of the school that there is no such thing as settled science. Everything is in a state of change. Of course you understand this. His point was that, regarding the discussion of global warming, was that he is much less Al Gore-like and more into the camp of discussions with "non believers" (I'm using this as a bit tongue in cheek") that are centered around the concept of theory vs certainty. He claims that he gets beyond the belief system that many have regarding climate change.
Where this approach falls apart, on many discussions regarding scientific issues including geology, is when religion is thrown into the mix. In the US, in my lifetime, we are regressing on this this. I was educated in a era where we were taught about evolution. Now, that same school system teaches intelligent design along side evolution. So, students are being taught that belief is a science. This is a disturbing trend IMO.
As far as my experience where a belief showed up by a leader in this field. I would guess that he would be more likely challenged these days. At least in that environment. But, I would guess he would get away with it as, or more easily, if he expressed that opinion in the general population.
I believe that scientists and scientific process are no longer respected in this country. |
The problem is the over exaggeration and fear mongering that comes from the left has destroyed the credibility. But it's all over in 12 years, so who cares? |
No. The problem is that too many in this country cannot tell the difference between fear mongering and scientific study. So, political agendas can be built on both the idea that science is BS (your team). Or, those that twist it for personal benefit (Al Gore).
This is a failure of our educational system that allows this. This failure is not, necessarily because of the educators. It is because education continues to be a political pawn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mac wrote: | Peer review is an accepted element of responsible research. I’ve served on the board of research institutes, and I know the difference between peer-reviewed literature and grey literature. I would expect that any geologist also knows the difference in credbility. Obviously NW does not.
|
That's because I don't profess to be as educated in the sciences of climate and weather, as the so called scientists are. So I cannot, in all good conscience, totally eat up all that just one side of the research is offering, but apparently you do (as GT challenged you with). "A man's got to know his limitations", I do, you don't.
"Board member" big woop, I was a board member also, on the State board of Landscape Architect's, which later blended with the board of Architect's. Does that make me an expert on any kind of architecture? Hell no. Was I chosen to be on the board because of my expertise? Hell no, my name was submitted by a friend of the administration (w/o my knowledge at first) and was accepted, due to my basic qualifications. Served for seven years, got to fly and stay all over the state for free, it was quite an experience, among other things, I learned all about boards.
But, BFD, this is the first time, and will probably be the last time I mention it. Why? Because it's completely irrelevant. But I've noticed that you've mentioned your membership a number of times over the years, and I've always bit my tongue, knowing it was a hanging curve ball. So what do you want? A feather for your anti-MAGA hat? Not from me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17749
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Obviously, NW does not understand either why peer review is the gold standard for science, or what value it adds.
But he cues up “I scare myself” every day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 2:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
 ……………..  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GURGLETROUSERS
Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2643
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you C.B. I agree with you.
It is a very disturbing trend, (equating religion with evolution in particular), and a part of the trend I was trying to articulate. I regret letting it 'get to me' yet again!
Thank's again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17749
Location: Berkeley, California
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17749
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
A little more on the Russian scientist who predicted an ice age in 2014:
| Quote: | Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov is right out there on the fringe. He denies the existence of a greenhouse effect. He is not a climate scientist.
Habibullo Ismailovich Abdussamatov is a Russian astrophysicist of Uzbek descent. He is the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station and the head of Space research laboratory at the Saint Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
He is a global warming skeptic.
Abdussamatov claims that "global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy—almost throughout the last century—growth in its intensity."
This view contradicts the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change as well as accepted reconstructions of solar activity.
He has asserted that "parallel global warmings—observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth—can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."
This assertion has not been accepted by the broader scientific community, some of whom have stated that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations" and that it "doesn't make physical sense."
Abdussamatov also contends that the natural greenhouse effect does not exist, stating "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated."
He further states that "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."
He has stated that more work is needed to model the effect. However, this effect cannot happen because the mean free path of molecules in the atmosphere is very short, transferring energy by collisions and preventing greenhouse gases from retaining the excess energy they absorb.
In early 2012, Abdussamatov predicted the onset of a new "mini-iceage" commencing 2014 and becoming most severe around 2055 |
We have peer-reviewed science on the magnitude of temperature anomalies associated with sunspot activity. They are not sufficient to cause an ice age. The min-ice age was caused by the Maunder minimum--another well established scientific observation that is understood.
The more recent study is about sunspot activity--which may well be headed for a low. Doesn't change the science of global warming a bit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J64TWB
Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 1685
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
