 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
^ Yep, except the cartoonist/Charles M. Schulz enthusiast has taken an extremely strict definition of proof that would also apply to nearly any field of scientific research. What I should have written is that the similarities between religious belief and acceptance of scientific data are almost all trivial.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
 |
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | Gravity was discovered* 300 years ago. It took quite a while for the knowledge to be accepted.
Evolution was discovered about 170 years ago. It took quite a while for the knowledge to be accepted and, as usual, those former "experts" who were unable to modify their ideas in the face of strong new evidence had to die off and be replaced by younger, more flexibly minded men. Even today, there are still loony die-hards bravely denying overwhelming evidence - many of these loons are also prominent climate deniers - but very few scientists, and practically no scientists with relevant expertise.
Germ theory was discovered about 150 years ago. It took quite a while for the knowledge to be accepted and, as usual, those former "experts" who were unable to modify their ideas in the face of strong new evidence had to die off and be replaced by younger, more flexibly minded men. It has slowly won broad acceptance amongst the general public, but to this day there are weird people who still don't get it.
Continental drift was discovered about 100 years ago. It took quite a while for the knowledge to be accepted and, as usual, those former "experts" who were unable to modify their ideas in the face of strong new evidence had to die off and be replaced by younger, more flexibly minded men. It wasn't fully accepted by scientists until about 30 years ago, and still hasn't fully percolated through into the popular mind. These things take time.
Quantum physics was discovered less than 100 years ago. It took quite a while for the knowledge to be accepted. It was massively controversial for the first 50 years or so and remains disputed to this day, albeit to a rapidly diminishing extent. Partly this can be ascribed to the overwhelming success of all manner of technologies which depend on the understanding of quantum interactions for their very function (including, for example, the screen you are reading these words on), but as always, a very large part of the modern consensus stems from the mere passage of the years and, one by one, the death of the old guard physicists who couldn't get their minds around it. (Einstein himself, despite having possibly the finest mind of the century, was just a little bit too old for quantum theory and never quite managed to come to terms with it.) Practically no-one without scientific training is able to understand erven the basics of quantum physics and it is perhaps unreasonable to expect it to ever enter the public consciousness unless we somehow dramarically improve the standard of secondary science education.
Climate science was discovered less than 50 years ago, and only accepted by most scientific experts around 20 years ago. Some - a remarkably small number given the recent nature of the discoveries - continue to hold fast to their old views despite the mountain of evidence and, as always, we will have to wait for them to die off. As with so many other great discoveries, the public understanding lags well behind that of the experts.
* I'm using the term "discovered" as shorthand for "first understood in terms recognisably similar to modern scientific understanding". |
Now if you explained everything like that I could give up my platinum level Google subscription. That's a brilliant post and makes one hell of a lot of sense (though I may still Google quantum physics, but by the sound of it I'd be in good company!) and yes I did read it all! To prove it there's one little spelling mistake!
Cheers
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
KenH 
Joined: 24 Jan 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | Tannin wrote: | Gravity was discovered* 300 years ago. It took quite a while for the knowledge to be accepted.
Evolution was discovered about 170 years ago. It took quite a while for the knowledge to be accepted and, as usual, those former "experts" who were unable to modify their ideas in the face of strong new evidence had to die off and be replaced by younger, more flexibly minded men. Even today, there are still loony die-hards bravely denying overwhelming evidence - many of these loons are also prominent climate deniers - but very few scientists, and practically no scientists with relevant expertise.
Germ theory was discovered about 150 years ago. It took quite a while for the knowledge to be accepted and, as usual, those former "experts" who were unable to modify their ideas in the face of strong new evidence had to die off and be replaced by younger, more flexibly minded men. It has slowly won broad acceptance amongst the general public, but to this day there are weird people who still don't get it.
Continental drift was discovered about 100 years ago. It took quite a while for the knowledge to be accepted and, as usual, those former "experts" who were unable to modify their ideas in the face of strong new evidence had to die off and be replaced by younger, more flexibly minded men. It wasn't fully accepted by scientists until about 30 years ago, and still hasn't fully percolated through into the popular mind. These things take time.
Quantum physics was discovered less than 100 years ago. It took quite a while for the knowledge to be accepted. It was massively controversial for the first 50 years or so and remains disputed to this day, albeit to a rapidly diminishing extent. Partly this can be ascribed to the overwhelming success of all manner of technologies which depend on the understanding of quantum interactions for their very function (including, for example, the screen you are reading these words on), but as always, a very large part of the modern consensus stems from the mere passage of the years and, one by one, the death of the old guard physicists who couldn't get their minds around it. (Einstein himself, despite having possibly the finest mind of the century, was just a little bit too old for quantum theory and never quite managed to come to terms with it.) Practically no-one without scientific training is able to understand erven the basics of quantum physics and it is perhaps unreasonable to expect it to ever enter the public consciousness unless we somehow dramarically improve the standard of secondary science education.
Climate science was discovered less than 50 years ago, and only accepted by most scientific experts around 20 years ago. Some - a remarkably small number given the recent nature of the discoveries - continue to hold fast to their old views despite the mountain of evidence and, as always, we will have to wait for them to die off. As with so many other great discoveries, the public understanding lags well behind that of the experts.
* I'm using the term "discovered" as shorthand for "first understood in terms recognisably similar to modern scientific understanding". |
Now if you explained everything like that I could give up my platinum level Google subscription. That's a brilliant post and makes one hell of a lot of sense (though I may still Google quantum physics, but by the sound of it I'd be in good company!) and yes I did read it all! To prove it there's one little spelling mistake!
Cheers |
Jo, not sure if you did read it all as there is more than one spelling mistake!(but it will probably take about 100 years for people to believe it. We need the old people to die and new ones to take their place) 
_________________
Cheers big ears |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Hehe I was waiting for that! I said a little one! I can't spell big words either!
Killing tannin off however, is probably a bridge too far!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Climate change to hit Australia hardest: CSIRO
Tuesday 27 January 2015 6:36AM
The CSIRO has released new research saying that Australia is getting hotter than the rest of the world, and that extreme weather events will be more common.
The report is the organisation's most detailed and comprehensive climate projection to date, and shows a doubling in the frequency of El Nino and La Nina weather events.
CSIRO knows less about Climate Science than the Baldfacts, Pa Marmo, Wokko, Lord Monkton, Alan Jones, Tony Abott & Skids 
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/australia-getting-hotter-csiro/6047754
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
Pa Marmo
Side by Side
Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Location: Nicks BB member #617
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| watt price tully wrote: | Climate change to hit Australia hardest: CSIRO
Tuesday 27 January 2015 6:36AM
The CSIRO has released new research saying that Australia is getting hotter than the rest of the world, and that extreme weather events will be more common.
The report is the organisation's most detailed and comprehensive climate projection to date, and shows a doubling in the frequency of El Nino and La Nina weather events.
CSIRO knows less about Climate Science than the Baldfacts, Pa Marmo, Wokko, Lord Monkton, Alan Jones, Tony Abott & Skids
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/australia-getting-hotter-csiro/6047754 |
WooHoo, finally some recognition, I know as much as you, Tannin, 1061 or my darling JoJo,.........nothing. As none of us are climate scientists, we read the published info, and make decisions on what we read.
_________________
Genesis 1:1 |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
It's a climate projection, doesn't mean jack shit. We've been getting incorrect climate projections from everyone from the IPCC to CSIRO to NASA for 20 years.
The CSIRO has form on misleading, incorrect projections.
http://www.principia-scientific.org/new-global-warming-report-scientists-lied-to-australian-parliament.html
Nice headline from the ABC though, looks like evidence, only projections and predictions are not evidence (who knows, the CSIRO might even broken clock one of these climate models and be right at some stage). |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
|
|
|
|
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | It's a climate projection, doesn't mean jack shit. We've been getting incorrect climate projections from everyone from the IPCC to CSIRO to NASA for 20 years.
The CSIRO has form on misleading, incorrect projections.
http://www.principia-scientific.org/new-global-warming-report-scientists-lied-to-australian-parliament.html
Nice headline from the ABC though, looks like evidence, only projections and predictions are not evidence (who knows, the CSIRO might even broken clock one of these climate models and be right at some stage). |
Roberts is a card carrying tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy nut whose 'climate report' is laughable. Are you seriously trotting out this bullshit? |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| What does evidence projections and predictions not evidence who knows the CSIRO might broken clock one of these climate models and be right at some stage are not evidence who knows the CSIRO might look like? |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| nomadjack wrote: | | Wokko wrote: | It's a climate projection, doesn't mean jack shit. We've been getting incorrect climate projections from everyone from the IPCC to CSIRO to NASA for 20 years.
The CSIRO has form on misleading, incorrect projections.
http://www.principia-scientific.org/new-global-warming-report-scientists-lied-to-australian-parliament.html
Nice headline from the ABC though, looks like evidence, only projections and predictions are not evidence (who knows, the CSIRO might even broken clock one of these climate models and be right at some stage). |
Roberts is a card carrying tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy nut whose 'climate report' is laughable. Are you seriously trotting out this bullshit? |
What a stunning rebuttal. Shouting "You're a nutter" at someone doesn't disprove their research, doesn't nullify their conclusions nor does it offer anything useful to the debate. I happen to think there a lot of nutters and scumbags on the other side of the debate, but I prefer to look at their claims rather than caring if they're a bit of a dick. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
While it's probably true that most of these dissenters are cranks or hustlers (or both), I would also like to see a little more engagement with the actual science from defenders of the mainstream view.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Thats a laugh....Have you read Robert's report wokko? Are you seriously arguing it is a genuine contribution to the climate change debate? |
|
|
|
|
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | While it's probably true that most of these dissenters are cranks or hustlers (or both), I would also like to see a little more engagement with the actual science from defenders of the mainstream view. |
Read the report David. Roberts is a one world government conspiracy theorist who uses climate change to push the same old bullshit agenda that is pushed by all the anti-illuminati, Rockefeller, bildeburg, Mount pelerin society, money power fearing fruitcakes. It is the modern day equivalent of the protocols with a sprinkling of populist pseudo science on top.
Genuine scientific, evidence-based questioning of climate change theories and modeling is desperately needed. This is not even close unfortunately. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | While it's probably true that most of these dissenters are cranks or hustlers (or both), I would also like to see a little more engagement with the actual science from defenders of the mainstream view. |
Er David, what science? None of the deniers in this thread has managed to post anything that hints of anything to do with science yet. And I'm not going to bother wasting hours posting useful stuff only to see it buried in this thread which consists of little bar loopy denier trolling and occasional barfs of laughter or contempt from those with at least a little scientific understanding.
Don't forget, you can always look up any of the denialist claims on any number of science-based sites. A particularly convenient one is http://skepticalscience.com which lists all the standard denial myths together with the appropriate verifiable scientific information on the same topic.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
