Skeptics, warmists, do you understand the scientific method?

Question

I'm curious to what extent "skeptics" and "warmists" actually *understand* the scientific method.

So, please state your best (1-3 paragraph or so) explanation of how, exactly, you think the scientific method works. Please also say whether you accept the scientific consensus on AGW, are skeptical about it but don't completely reject it, or reject AGW entirely.

Answer 1

1. Propose a hypothesis.

2. Deduce an outcome of an experiment if the hypothesis is correct.

3. Perform experiments and/or collect data to test the hypothesis

4. Publish the results.

5. If the results do not exactly match the predictions of they hypothesis, refine the hypothesis.



e-lin-6 gets his scientific evidence not from peer reviewed literature but from a blog.

Answer 2

There isn't a conflict due to the fact that what the Bible states are information which technological know-how ultimately proves to be truly. Now there are undoubtedly issues to which technological know-how has not multiplied enough to have a first-class idea of effortless ways to start watching for answers. As to how existence began out, the hypothesis such a lot proposed is that it used to be as soon as an twist of fate in a few dust puddle someplace. Chiefly, this has easiest been thrown out to the general public as a guess. Science is ready verifying a conception by way of replication of the results under controlled conditions. This has in no way been done in any lab on this planet at any time in historical past. Why? Could or no longer it is the notion is in errors? That might imply official embarrassment for plenty of persons in immoderate positions. They under no circumstances desire to admit to that. But the location the Bible suggestions on folks, locations or issues, technological know-how always proves those to be correct. Eventually, a pot or a laundry price ticket turns up with the title and function loud talkers claimed didn't exist. A giggle how we in no way correct right here any loud speak of admission to being fallacious? So there is contract among the Bible and natural technological know-how.

Answer 3

Firstly, let me state that I accept the scientific concensus on AGW.



The scientific method, in simple terms, involves developing a theory that fits observations. That theory is then either reinforced, modified, or rejected on the basis of futher observations. The theory of AGW is accepted by the scientific community because it is the theory that best fits the observational data. It does not mean that AGW cannot be wrong or that it cannot be disproved, merely that it is currently the theory with the best explanatory power. Within any field of science there will be disagreements, data that seems contradictory, and bits that are not yet well defined, well-understood, or need to be examined in more detail. AGW, like any good theory, should allow us to make predictions that can either be verified or falsified by experiment.



AGW explains a number of observations. It explains why we are observing a CO2 increase, why this has occured since the 1950s, and why the rate of change is as fast as it is - the burning of fossil fuels by humans. One of the predictions of AGW is that, if human activities are responsible, we should observe certain ratios of carbon isotopes in our atmosphere. This has been confirmed experimentally. When an analysis of the expected warming effect of this CO2 is made, it fits temperature data reasonably well. The application of the theory predicts other effects, such as changes in the pH of oceans, changes in hurricane frequency and strength, etc which also have been observed. Whether or not one agrees with AGW, one cannot disagree with the ability of that theory to provide a explanation and reasonably good fit to the available observational data.



In science, fitting the observations is all that matters. To date, no alternative theory has been proposed that has been shown to match CO2 data and temperature data. These 'alternatives' have not made predictions we can test. Therefore, science must go with AGW until a viable alternative theory is formulated, presented, discussed, shown to match the observations, and make predictions. What many people forget is that alternative theories for the same observational data do not simply have to match one another in explanatory power. They must ALSO show why the other alternatives are not valid. In the case of an alternative to AGW, that theory must also explain such things as:



1. Why is the CO2 level rising? If it is a natural response to warming, then what is the mechanism? If it is something to do with plants, then what is changing in the plant-world to cause it? If not plants, then what else is causing it? What data can you present to validate that conclusion?



2. Why are human emissions of CO2 not having the warming effect predicted by AGW? If the amount we are pumping is simply too small to have an effect, where is the mathematical model showing this? How does this model fit the observational isotope data?



and so on. An alternative to AGW must show why AGW is wrong.

Answer 4

I see where this might apply to any area of study. I do not however thing this being specific to global warming or necessarily have anything to do with global warming. Our topic isn't scientific method it is global warming.

Answer 5

The so called "Scientific Method" completely ignores over half of the causes for climate change, especially those related to the main climate drivers, the El Nino and La Nina weather patterns.

The following shows the real causes of our ever changing glaobal climate.

(Even NASA has been caught lying about the Greenland ice melts.)



The biggest effect on the Worlds climate comes from the El Nino and La nina systems in the major oceans. The changes in ocean surface temperatures are what causes the weather in various parts of the world to change.

What is not known, or not really understood, is how these systems are formed. The common "guess" is that the changes are caused by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, a very poor and non proven theory.

The real, (and deliberately ignored due to political posturing of the CO2 protagonists), reason, is the thousands of volcanic vents on the floor of the oceans. These vents at the margins of the tectonic plates are continuously sending water heated to over 300 degrees centigrade into the oceans. The the heated water forms thermal layers called temperature inversions. (This is similar to those effects seen over major cities, where still warm air is trapped over the city by cold air above it in the atmosphere, and usually causes a build up of pollution).

When the hot water is carried by the ocean currents into areas of warmer water in the tropics, it rises to the surface, causing the El Nino effect. This effect can most easily be seen in the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic. The cold water from the north polar waters is heated by the vents in the Puerto Rican trench, which reaches nearly all the way to Iceland, and rises to the surface around the Caribbean islands. The Earthquake in Haiti a couple of years ago, plus the Icelandic volcanoes which recently erupted, reduce the pressure of the vents in the trench, resulting in cooler water in the Gulf stream heading back into the North Atlantic, and causing the very bad winters Europe has had over the past two years. A further proof of this is that, due to the cooler Gulf Stream waters, the UK is now suffering drought, because the Gulf Stream waters are not warm and humid enough to cause rain.

The use of carbon dioxide as a "whipping boy" by environmentalists is just a ploy by radicals to disrupt the economies of western countries to meet their anti capitalist agenda. Unfortunately too many politicians have fallen for this subterfuge.

Answer 6

My understanding of the scientific method.



1. Propose your Thesis, document what you have found and what you intend to investigate.

2. Test said Thesis. Porvide ALL data and means of analysis. If your Thesis survies the test then it can, but not necessarily will, graduate to a Hypo-thesis

3. Hypo-thesis in simple terms is a well developed and documented Thesis. You have empirical and experimental data to back up your conclusions. All data and methods are open and published. Others have successfully repeated your results.

4. Theory - A heavily tests and developed Hypo-thesis. Significant testing has occurred and many diverse groups have tested and verified your findings.



The Scientific method involves an open process whereas you put everything out there. You define what you have observed. How you observed it and how you beleive it works.



You define experimental processes which can test your stated belief, generally sets of equiations meant to define how a process interacts and works, the equitions should take a given input and accurately predict a given result. i.e. F=MA force = mass * acceleration with a given and known force on a known mass you will be able to accuratly predict the acceleration on said mass.



The scientific Mehtod is also the "scientific process" as it is a basically defined method/process for seeking to explain and/or understand the natural forces/processes around us.





As true science demands, I am a skeptic of most things. This being said I do NOT beleive AGW has met the requierements stated above to meet the formal definaition of Hypothesis. this is due to two things.

1. The concept is so large and so complex that it is difficult in the extreme to develop testable experiments for the whole concept.

2. No model has yet been developed which has been accurately able to predict long term (10 + years) weather trends i.e. climate trends.





Until we reach the point where 1 or 2 above are achieved, we can only state that we see things happening. However we do NOT fully understand what or why. this is besause if we truely understand what or why then 1 and/or 2 above would have been successfully accomplished.

Answer 7

Simple put, the Scientific Method is all about coming up with a hypothesis then doing testing to either proof or disproof this without bias.



Currently a lot of scientists not just climate scientists that are not following the Scientific Method since they come up with what they want to believe then use only the research that gives them the desired outcome.



I am one of those that reject AGW because they have to ignore past warming that occurred over all of the known Northern Hemisphere at the time (Medieval Warming Period, Roman Optimum, etc). They also forget to remind people that we are coming out of a known cool period called the Little Ice Age. Finally, they tend to use scare tactics and you are either for us or against us philosophy which is all anti-Scientific Method.

Answer 8

I'm not a scientists but I do understand the math.



The math doesn't work! Consider that the human population of the planet takes up approximately 38% of one cubic mile. If you can fathom that, then all of the other contributing factors tell me that we couldn't even come close to affecting the climate. They keep talking about tons of CO2 emitted into the air every day or every year due to the use of fossil fuels, yet measuring all of the other contributors hasn't been truely defined. There's too many of them to accurately measure! They have tried to seperate them into types of CO2, but it is all theory and speculation.



There are more trees in Yosemite National Park than there are people on the planet.



It's all theory and speculation to me.



Try climatedepot.com

Answer 9

Me?

Nope.

I use Rush Limbaugh for my science facts because he's really smart.

Answer 10

Peter, I like to think I understand it but I always leave plenty of room for new information. I think I probalby generally understood it when I was 10 years old and gobbled up all of the books in our library in the 500s and many of them twice. My upbringing as an agnostic helped me remain skeptical of nearly everything until I evaluated the evidence and made my own evaluation as to what was most likely true. I learned many of the pitfalls studying paleoanthropology which is another young science that has undergone many theories and consensuses (consensi?). My college work in geology was pretty good at keeping us honest and scientific.



The scientific method isn't about scientists knowing everything. Particularly in fields where our knowledge is rapidly increasing, it is mostly about developing theories and trying to falsify them. I liked the definition that Mike gave.



It certainly isn't about political factions taking the scientific theories they like and using them to push their pet agendas

Answer 11

I'm still not sure what the scientific consensus is for AGW specifically. I think there is wide agreement that man is affecting the climate by causing warming through land use, urbanization, deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions. As for exactly how much, well it gets very fuzzy and ambiguous. And then there's the assessment of the various benefits and harms of a changing climate. Again, there are lots of different opinions. And then there's projection for natural variation. We may want warming if natural variability is predicted to be a cooling trend. And finally, we need to assess whether whatever we think we can do to reduce future warming is actually a positive from a cost/benefit analysis. So I guess my skepticism resides in what actually significant CO2 reductions will give us as far as gains versus costs.



As for the scientific method, I defer to Karl Popper who I think summarizes is best. To paraphrase: A scientific hypotheses should be both clearly formulated and testable by experiment, and the strength of a hypothesis depends on the failure of rigorous investigation to falsify it rather than on evidence which apparently supports it.



When looking at climate science in general, one of the reasons for my skepticism of (catastrophic) AGW is that I believe there has not been enough "rigorous investigation to falsify it". It seems to me that all studies are trying to prove it (well that seems to be where the grant money is). And many studies are presented as further proof of AGW when that's not what they are doing at all. To be fair, many studies are presented as falsifying AGW when that's also not exactly what they are doing.

Answer 12

Do you? Only reason I ask is the "scientific Method" doesn't mean to exclude data to reach a conclusion, not does it mean to ignore new findings.

Answer 13

Global warming is happening because we all keep ripping a$$. If we ate less proteing and fiber we'd be fine

Answer 14

The Scientific method is where you question the Theory that CO2 drives MGT if you notice one is rising but the other is not.



As opposed to Pathological Science where you just call anyone who disagrees with your Theory a denier.

Answer 15

"accept the scientific consensus on AGW"



So it has been established that there IS a consensus? Let's see your methodology on that.



You seem to think we are a bunch of ignorant knuckledraggers. The truth is is that it isn't even warming, but you can't handle the truth.



Look at the UNADJUSTED data, and ask yourself why the data is even adjusted in the first place, and notice what direction the data is adjusted to and by whom.



Any scientist looking seriously at the conclusions would be doing this.

Answer 16

I want to finally get a thumbs up on an alarmunist question, so here goes:



1) Listen to scientists who support the AGW theory.

2) Agree with them.

3) Spread the word.



Really -- you think Jim Z doesn't understand the scientific method? How patronizing can you get?