4 ms·

Perhaps. But the IPCC is sold (and mostly accepted) as a sort of bible of climate change science. The article you linked appears to me not to claim such broad a

Perhaps. But the IPCC is sold (and mostly accepted) as a sort of bible of climate change science. The article you linked appears to me not to claim such broad authority, but to advocate skepticism. It seems to me like items in the first category need to be held to a higher standard. Indeed, the scientific method itself tells us that those putting forward a theory (such as AGW) bear the burden of proof.

ugh 17y ago
>Perhaps. But the IPCC is sold (and mostly accepted) as a sort of bible of climate change science. Oh, come on. Really? Sure, most people won't question the IPCC. But most people also won't question other similar institutions. The real question is whether scientists feel that the IPCC is their bible. And I don't think they do.
- yters 17y ago
  I read the FOIA feedback on the IPCC's report and it was full of really incredulous scientists' comments about the innacuracy and question begging nature of their report. To substantiate what I said, check in the documents folder: ipcc-tar-master.rtf ipcc-tar-master2.rtf
Retric 17y ago
In the scientific communality IPCC is mostly viewed as reasonably accurate if watered down for political reasons.
lutorm 17y ago
Anthropogenic global warming is not a theory being put forth, it's the logical consequence of physical principles that are well established. It's not at all like Einstein proposing General Relativity. What (serious) people are arguing over is details of the analysis and the magnitude of effects. Those uncertainties are real, but it is no different from any other scientific debate. The article I linked, if you actually read it, does not advocate skepticism at all. It claims in no uncertain language that the greenhouse effect violates all kinds of established principles, but it's hogwash. I saw that article cited in The Nation, and it aggravated me enough that I wrote up a response (http://www.familjenjonsson.org/patrik/research/greenhouse http://www.familjenjonsson.org/patrik/research/greenhouse, if you are interested).
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  Anthropogenic global warming is not a theory being put forth, it's the logical consequence of physical principles that are well established. It's not at all like Einstein proposing General Relativity. I'm sorry to be blunt, but this is just plain wrong, and shows a profound misunderstanding of the scientific method. First, do you think that Einstein was just making stuff up from whole cloth? No, he was working from well-established physical principles, building onto it using logical reasoning. Despite the fact that his reasoning was logical, there was still every reason for requiring verification (and indeed, Einstein insisted on it) because there could be alternative explanations. Similarly, AGW builds on known principles like the "greenhouse effect". But the way it seeks to apply these to a hideously complex, chaotic system requires extensive verification. What's known to be true at the micro level might not be applicable to the entire system at all. Thus, the theory of AGW is precisely like that of General Relativity in that it absolutely requires verification. (Unfortunately, it's unlike GR in that it's not so easily experimented upon) The scientific method requires that the burden of proof is on the claimant. The one proposing a theory has the responsibility to prove it; the world at large need not disprove it. It must work this way, because it's generally not possible to prove the opposite. When you say you saw Elvis, you can't require that I prove that you didn't. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof#Burden_of_proof_in_epistemology_and_scientific_methodology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof#Burden_of_proof... [Edit: spelling fix] [Edit #2: I'm really dismayed to see the parent post getting up-voted. I can't fathom how you can assert that AGW is not a "theory being put forth", and thus escapes the requirement of proof.]
  - lutorm 17y ago
    Sorry, but if you think that AGW and General Relativity are statements of similar stature, you need to learn more physics. General Relativity could not be derived from the prevailing paradigm at the time (Newtonian physics). It was a completely new framework proposed to explain certain observations that could not be explained in Newtonian physics. In contrast, AGW was not proposed to explain any observation. It was derived from accepted physics. Not that I ever said that you don't need to subject either to tests. You absolutely do. But if you think you can "prove" a scientific theory, I think it is you who is showing a profound misunderstanding of the scientific method. You can never prove a scientific theory, you can only disprove it. You can confirm a theory a million times but that does not imply that it will work the next time. It does however give us some amount of confidence that it will. My point is that as far as scientific statements go, that AGW happens is like saying "I think the ball will fall", while to say that it doesn't happen is to say "I think the ball will fall, but imperceptibly slowly.". Both should be tested, but given that one agrees with known physics and one does not, I think the latter should be viewed with more suspicion. But maybe that's just me.
LargeWu 17y ago
Telling that you use the word bible, as the Holy Bible, to which this is a simile, is usually accepted by its believers based on faith, regardless of how outlandish its claims of truth might be. I'm not saying global climate change isn't real and isn't a threat, but I think there's a lot more religion and faith behind the idea then there ought to be from the scientific community, and especially the media.

ugh 17y ago

>Perhaps. But the IPCC is sold (and mostly accepted) as a sort of bible of climate change science. Oh, come on. Really? Sure, most people won't question the IPCC. But most people also won't question other similar institutions. The real question is whether scientists feel that the IPCC is their bible. And I don't think they do.

yters 17y ago
I read the FOIA feedback on the IPCC's report and it was full of really incredulous scientists' comments about the innacuracy and question begging nature of their report. To substantiate what I said, check in the documents folder: ipcc-tar-master.rtf ipcc-tar-master2.rtf

Retric 17y ago

In the scientific communality IPCC is mostly viewed as reasonably accurate if watered down for political reasons.

lutorm 17y ago

Anthropogenic global warming is not a theory being put forth, it's the logical consequence of physical principles that are well established. It's not at all like Einstein proposing General Relativity. What (serious) people are arguing over is details of the analysis and the magnitude of effects. Those uncertainties are real, but it is no different from any other scientific debate. The article I linked, if you actually read it, does not advocate skepticism at all. It claims in no uncertain language that the greenhouse effect violates all kinds of established principles, but it's hogwash. I saw that article cited in The Nation, and it aggravated me enough that I wrote up a response (http://www.familjenjonsson.org/patrik/research/greenhouse http://www.familjenjonsson.org/patrik/research/greenhouse, if you are interested).

CWuestefeld 17y ago
Anthropogenic global warming is not a theory being put forth, it's the logical consequence of physical principles that are well established. It's not at all like Einstein proposing General Relativity. I'm sorry to be blunt, but this is just plain wrong, and shows a profound misunderstanding of the scientific method. First, do you think that Einstein was just making stuff up from whole cloth? No, he was working from well-established physical principles, building onto it using logical reasoning. Despite the fact that his reasoning was logical, there was still every reason for requiring verification (and indeed, Einstein insisted on it) because there could be alternative explanations. Similarly, AGW builds on known principles like the "greenhouse effect". But the way it seeks to apply these to a hideously complex, chaotic system requires extensive verification. What's known to be true at the micro level might not be applicable to the entire system at all. Thus, the theory of AGW is precisely like that of General Relativity in that it absolutely requires verification. (Unfortunately, it's unlike GR in that it's not so easily experimented upon) The scientific method requires that the burden of proof is on the claimant. The one proposing a theory has the responsibility to prove it; the world at large need not disprove it. It must work this way, because it's generally not possible to prove the opposite. When you say you saw Elvis, you can't require that I prove that you didn't. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof#Burden_of_proof_in_epistemology_and_scientific_methodology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof#Burden_of_proof... [Edit: spelling fix] [Edit #2: I'm really dismayed to see the parent post getting up-voted. I can't fathom how you can assert that AGW is not a "theory being put forth", and thus escapes the requirement of proof.]
- lutorm 17y ago
  Sorry, but if you think that AGW and General Relativity are statements of similar stature, you need to learn more physics. General Relativity could not be derived from the prevailing paradigm at the time (Newtonian physics). It was a completely new framework proposed to explain certain observations that could not be explained in Newtonian physics. In contrast, AGW was not proposed to explain any observation. It was derived from accepted physics. Not that I ever said that you don't need to subject either to tests. You absolutely do. But if you think you can "prove" a scientific theory, I think it is you who is showing a profound misunderstanding of the scientific method. You can never prove a scientific theory, you can only disprove it. You can confirm a theory a million times but that does not imply that it will work the next time. It does however give us some amount of confidence that it will. My point is that as far as scientific statements go, that AGW happens is like saying "I think the ball will fall", while to say that it doesn't happen is to say "I think the ball will fall, but imperceptibly slowly.". Both should be tested, but given that one agrees with known physics and one does not, I think the latter should be viewed with more suspicion. But maybe that's just me.

LargeWu 17y ago

Telling that you use the word bible, as the Holy Bible, to which this is a simile, is usually accepted by its believers based on faith, regardless of how outlandish its claims of truth might be. I'm not saying global climate change isn't real and isn't a threat, but I think there's a lot more religion and faith behind the idea then there ought to be from the scientific community, and especially the media.