A Buddhist discussion forum on the Dhamma of Theravāda Buddhism
https://www.dhammawheel.com/
Or you didn't understand the point. If we have trouble to predict how warm/cold it will be 4 days or more in advance, then what can we say about 10-100 years?!Buckwheat wrote:This shows you don't understand the difference between climate and weather..Alex123 wrote:Ron made a good point that climatologists have trouble making accurate predictions more than 4 days in advance.
That's still comparing weather and climate, Alex, which is fallacious in terms of understanding climate science. But this was already mentioned, and you have failed to learn the information. So, you either remain unwilling to learn, or unable.Alex123 wrote:Or you didn't understand the point. If we have trouble to predict how warm/cold it will be 4 days or more in advance, then what can we say about 10-100 years?!Buckwheat wrote:This shows you don't understand the difference between climate and weather..Alex123 wrote:Ron made a good point that climatologists have trouble making accurate predictions more than 4 days in advance.
I am not comparing weather to climate. Of course there is a big difference. But if we can't accurately predict one day, how can we accurately predict daily temperatures over whole period (some say 30 years) in order to say what temperatures and over what range will be?daverupa wrote:That's still comparing weather and climate, Alex, which is fallacious in terms of understanding climate science.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
This petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.
Click here to see this peer reviewed research paper.
once again you've resorted to name-calling via defamation innuendoKim O'Hara wrote:...carefully and sensibly...
You're trying to draw lines in the sand while the tides coming in. Science just means knowledge, so talking about science is not a "foray" into epistemology. It is empistemology! "Suspicion"/scepticism (not to be confused with absolute dout) is a necessary condition for good science. Have you ever taken a course in statistics, resarch methods, philosophy of science, the history of science? I have. I'm not just blowing smoke. That's why it's so easy for me to spot bad science (and my masters degree is a masters of science). Your "point" amounts to no more than an inappropriate use of an argumentum ad populum unlike my appropriate use of an argumentum ad verecundiam.daverupa wrote:There can be no convincing evidence given to one who is suspicious of the standards of evidence being used. Those who disagree with the scientific consensus must argue against either the science itself, or the motives for the consensus. Therefore, this discussion might usefully continue (elsewhere) as a general foray into epistemology with a focus on what it means to have "good evidence" for something.
) we'd still be believing with most scientiists/epistemologists in the 1600s that the earth is motionless. Galileo disproved Aristotle's physics--which held that heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones, in direct proportion to weight--with his famous Tower of Pisa experiments, which flew in the face of the then accepted "scientifc consensus." This devloves to name-calling via defamation innuendo. Scepticism, iteration, critical thinking and counter-induction are necessary for good science/epistemology. Conclusiveness is the enemy of knowledge. So please stop mis-labelling things that appeaar contrary to your precious opinions. Calling things you merely disagree with "conspiratorial" itself inhibits "equanimous conversation."daverupa wrote:Otherwise, I find that conspiracy theories render the individual who holds them incapable of equanimous conversation. It's definitely the third and worst field to hope seed will take root within.
Data is never just data. The fact that we want it to begin with adds one layer of interpreatation, and "gathering it with integrity" is itself another layer of interpretation. Nothing by good science/epistemological methods should be taken as fact. Assuming there's a clear distinction between "trained professionals" and "amateurs" is another layer of interpretation.Buckwheat wrote:How on Eath can one "disagree with data"? Do you mean "not trust the data"? Data is just data. If it is gathered with integrity, it must simply be taken as a fact. The interpretation of data is another thing. Interpretations can be tricky, requiring clever minds and vigorous debate amongst trained prosfessionals, not amateurs like us.Alex123 wrote:I agree or disagree with the data ...
Apples and oranges. In the latter case you at least approximate a sufficent sample, but not in the former. Plus, it ignores the more important scientific/epistemological principles that trust/faith is neither a sufficient nor necessary condition for good science. The Buddha himself encouraged critical, sceptical examination of his very own self and teachings. And I'm not alluding to the Kalama Sutta, which is merely supplemental to the even bolder Vimamsaka Sutta (MN 47).Buckwheat wrote:The trust here comes after the peer-reviewed process for accepting empirical evidence, and can always be overturned by new evidence. It's not any different than "trusting" a senior monk who is well-respected in the monastic community until you have the time / capability to verify his teachings through your own experience.danieLion wrote:Trust like this makes critical thinking unnecessary and the quote shows how Powell thinks the corrupt peer review process trumps replicablity as a principle of sound scientific method. I'm guessing he never took a philosophy of science course.Whether or not you were offended by Muller’s attempt to calm the climate change debate, I’d like to focus instead on Powell’s deeper message. He claims that scientists have a responsibility to trust each other. As he says in the video, “If every scientist said, ‘I’m not going to believe what anybody else did until I do it myself,’ scientists would be at least a century behind where we are right now. That is, if something is done by a reliable lab, passes peer review, you should at least tentatively accept it until somebody shows you some reason why it’s wrong.”
This is a bold statement, and it made me think. As scientists, skepticism is one of our main responsibilities, maybe even our first priority, because we have implicitly agreed to collect knowledge from the physical world rather than myth or superstition. We must be skeptical of claims, unless they are supported by empirical evidence. So how did we end up with a “scientists vs. skeptics” debate, where scientists are compelled to say “don’t worry, just trust me”?
Source: The Berkeley Science Review
Are you assuming there's not a necessary connection between climate and weather?daverupa wrote: That's still comparing weather and climate, Alex, which is fallacious in terms of understanding climate science. But this was already mentioned, and you have failed to learn the information. So, you either remain unwilling to learn, or unable.
I'm utterly flummoxed.
Conclusions. A review of research on past temperatures and variations led us to the following conclusions:
1. Climate is in continual flux: the average annual temperature is usually either rising or falling and the temperature is
never static for a long period of time.
2. Observed climatic changes occurred over widespread areas, probably on the global scale.
3. Climate changes must be judged against the natural climatic variability that occurs on a comparable time scale. The
Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period, and similar events are part of this natural variability. These events correspond to global
changes of 1 - 2 degrees C.
4. Global temperatures appear to be rising, irrespective of any human influence, as Earth continues to emerge from the
Little Ice Age. If the temperature increase during the past 130 years reflects recovery from the Little Ice Age, it is not
unreasonable to expect the temperature to rise another 2 to 2.5 degrees Celsius to a level comparable to that of the Medieval
Warm Period about 800 years ago. The Holocene Epoch, as a whole, has been a remarkably stable period with few extremes
of either rising or falling temperatures, as were common during Pleistocene glacial and interglacial periods. Nevertheless, the
Holocene has been, and still is, a time of fluctuating climate.
5. Climatic changes measured during the last 100 years are not unique or even unusual when compared with the
frequency, rate, and magnitude of changes that have taken place since the beginning of the Holocene Epoch. Recent fluctuations
in temperature, both upward and downward, are well within the limits observed in nature prior to human influence.
https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/Newsletter/ ... wrmw99.pdf
Thank you for the condescending assumptions (I am familiar with all of these topics). I was referring to a trained professional in the topic being discussed (climate). I am an engineer, but also willing to admit that I am an amateur in regard to climate. You mentioned nothing of being fully engaged in studying climate, so I would have to assume you are also an amateur on the topic. If you have specific, verifiable evidence that some data or interpretation are not trustworthy, then by all means present it.danieLion wrote:Ever heard of the Observer Effect, The Copenhagen Interpreation, The Uncertainty Principle? Ever taken a college course in statistics, research methods, philosophy of science, history of science, etc...?
I have. Am I a trained professional or an amateur?
Are you trying to imply that since the article was written by such and such, then it has to be wrong merely through that?Buckwheat wrote:The article you cite is written by the North Dakota Geological Survey, funded by tax dollars paid by the fossil fuel industry.
No, I am just pointing out that we all need to pay attention to who are sources are. Just because somebody cites a source does not make it right or wrong. I don't have time to research this document further. I would rather spend time meditating so that I can develop the will power to stop clicking on this stupid thread. Personally, I am highly skeptical of anything published by the North Dakota gov't, as they are in the process of whoring themselves out to fossil fuel companies.Alex123 wrote:Are you trying to imply that since the article was written by such and such, then it has to be wrong merely through that?Buckwheat wrote:The article you cite is written by the North Dakota Geological Survey, funded by tax dollars paid by the fossil fuel industry.
What about actual arguments, not the people who said it?