SR 120
[IN THE CENTRAL CALIFORNIA AREA]
IS CLOSED FROM CRANE FLAT TO 5 MI WEST OF THE JCT OF US 395 /TIOGA PASS/
(TUOLUMNE, MONO CO) - DUE TO SNOW
The Moon is Waxing Gibbous (58% of Full)
Re: Tioga Road is closed
All posts are those of the individual authors and the owner
of this site does not endorse them. Content should be considered opinion
and not fact until verified independently.
October 04, 2009 11:47AM | Admin Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 17,050 |
October 04, 2009 11:59AM | Admin Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 17,050 |
October 04, 2009 01:19PM | Moderator Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,347 |
RATs!! This does NOT bode well for a couple of really neat trips tht I have planned over the next two weeks. Waddya think, Rick, was this just a freak system passing thru (I got out just in time as it was roaring in) or are we in for a early closure?
Can you dredge up some statistics for the Tioga closure over the past years? I need to pass thru there on 15-17th October.
B
Can you dredge up some statistics for the Tioga closure over the past years? I need to pass thru there on 15-17th October.
B
October 04, 2009 01:29PM | Admin Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 17,050 |
October 04, 2009 04:04PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,232 |
October 04, 2009 04:25PM | Moderator Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,347 |
October 04, 2009 04:35PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,232 |
Global warming? Yeah, a little. Anthropogenic? No.
The earth has been warming for 10,000 years. It's called an inter-glacial period. In other words, it's gonna get real cold again, maybe soon.
Ancient Lake Lahontan
The earth has been warming for 10,000 years. It's called an inter-glacial period. In other words, it's gonna get real cold again, maybe soon.
Ancient Lake Lahontan
October 04, 2009 04:37PM | Admin Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 17,050 |
October 04, 2009 04:40PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,232 |
October 04, 2009 04:42PM | Admin Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 17,050 |
|
Re: Tioga Road is closed October 05, 2009 07:23AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 20 |
And your view ISN'T political, Eeek? Yeah, right.
30 years ago the same "so-called" experts were predicting the coming Ice Age. You can look that up. It was a major topic in the 70s in almost every publication of the decade. Now thirty years later with more books needing to be sold, these experts have flipped 180 degrees. In 50 years people will be laughing at the idea of man-made global warming.
Is the earth warming? Well, it depends on what period you are talking about. Some studies show the globe has actually cooled over the past decade. Some cities have experienced record low temperatures over the past decade. Earlier snow. More snow. Of course, to all the true Al Gore followers, EVERYTHING is caused by global warming. Record high temperatures are caused by global warming. Record low temperatures are caused by global warming. Hurricanes every day? Global warming. No hurricanes? Global warming. How can you lose when no matter what happens, it's all global warming? I suppose if the earth cools by 3 degrees, that would be global warming too.
By the way, what happened to all those hurricanes that were predicted because of warming oceans? On average, we've had fewer hurricanes in the past decade than before all this global warming nonsense started.
At one time glaciers covered most of the midwest as far south as Memphis. Long before man came along the glaciers were gone. Man didn't cause that. The earth warms. The earth cools. I just don't need to pay Al Gore millions of dollars because climate changes. It always has changed. It always will change. By the time this is proved to be a hoax, Al Gore will have passed his millions down to his descendants and they will all be living in luxury. In the meantime, we'll all be paying carbon tax, losing millions of jobs to China and India, and becoming a third world country.
I hate to tell you Eeek, but it's ALL political. I guess like Al Gore, you want to say "the debate is over." Just like it was in the 70s when we were all going to be living in an Ice Age by today. How'd that work out?
I guess this forum is only for the true believers. Sorry to see that happening. Anyone that doesn't toe to your political view is simply un-educated, I presume. I hope you live a very long life where you may be able to admit that the earth's climate changes regardless of what we do.
One more thing. Just because I don't swallow Al Gore's junk science doesn't mean I don't love the planet just as much as you do. I want clean air, clean water, and lots of wide open spaces. There are a lot of things we can do (and have done) to protect the earth. We should do more. That doesn't mean I have to be a true believer in the global warming science.
30 years ago the same "so-called" experts were predicting the coming Ice Age. You can look that up. It was a major topic in the 70s in almost every publication of the decade. Now thirty years later with more books needing to be sold, these experts have flipped 180 degrees. In 50 years people will be laughing at the idea of man-made global warming.
Is the earth warming? Well, it depends on what period you are talking about. Some studies show the globe has actually cooled over the past decade. Some cities have experienced record low temperatures over the past decade. Earlier snow. More snow. Of course, to all the true Al Gore followers, EVERYTHING is caused by global warming. Record high temperatures are caused by global warming. Record low temperatures are caused by global warming. Hurricanes every day? Global warming. No hurricanes? Global warming. How can you lose when no matter what happens, it's all global warming? I suppose if the earth cools by 3 degrees, that would be global warming too.
By the way, what happened to all those hurricanes that were predicted because of warming oceans? On average, we've had fewer hurricanes in the past decade than before all this global warming nonsense started.
At one time glaciers covered most of the midwest as far south as Memphis. Long before man came along the glaciers were gone. Man didn't cause that. The earth warms. The earth cools. I just don't need to pay Al Gore millions of dollars because climate changes. It always has changed. It always will change. By the time this is proved to be a hoax, Al Gore will have passed his millions down to his descendants and they will all be living in luxury. In the meantime, we'll all be paying carbon tax, losing millions of jobs to China and India, and becoming a third world country.
I hate to tell you Eeek, but it's ALL political. I guess like Al Gore, you want to say "the debate is over." Just like it was in the 70s when we were all going to be living in an Ice Age by today. How'd that work out?
I guess this forum is only for the true believers. Sorry to see that happening. Anyone that doesn't toe to your political view is simply un-educated, I presume. I hope you live a very long life where you may be able to admit that the earth's climate changes regardless of what we do.
One more thing. Just because I don't swallow Al Gore's junk science doesn't mean I don't love the planet just as much as you do. I want clean air, clean water, and lots of wide open spaces. There are a lot of things we can do (and have done) to protect the earth. We should do more. That doesn't mean I have to be a true believer in the global warming science.
|
Re: Tioga Road is closed October 05, 2009 08:05AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 179 |
Quote
wbmyosemite
And your view ISN'T political, Eeek? Yeah, right.
30 years ago the same "so-called" experts were predicting the coming Ice Age. You can look that up. It was a major topic in the 70s in almost every publication of the decade. Now thirty years later with more books needing to be sold, these experts have flipped 180 degrees. In 50 years people will be laughing at the idea of man-made global warming.
Is the earth warming? Well, it depends on what period you are talking about. Some studies show the globe has actually cooled over the past decade. Some cities have experienced record low temperatures over the past decade. Earlier snow. More snow. Of course, to all the true Al Gore followers, EVERYTHING is caused by global warming. Record high temperatures are caused by global warming. Record low temperatures are caused by global warming. Hurricanes every day? Global warming. No hurricanes? Global warming. How can you lose when no matter what happens, it's all global warming? I suppose if the earth cools by 3 degrees, that would be global warming too.
By the way, what happened to all those hurricanes that were predicted because of warming oceans? On average, we've had fewer hurricanes in the past decade than before all this global warming nonsense started.
At one time glaciers covered most of the midwest as far south as Memphis. Long before man came along the glaciers were gone. Man didn't cause that. The earth warms. The earth cools. I just don't need to pay Al Gore millions of dollars because climate changes. It always has changed. It always will change. By the time this is proved to be a hoax, Al Gore will have passed his millions down to his descendants and they will all be living in luxury. In the meantime, we'll all be paying carbon tax, losing millions of jobs to China and India, and becoming a third world country.
I hate to tell you Eeek, but it's ALL political. I guess like Al Gore, you want to say "the debate is over." Just like it was in the 70s when we were all going to be living in an Ice Age by today. How'd that work out?
I guess this forum is only for the true believers. Sorry to see that happening. Anyone that doesn't toe to your political view is simply un-educated, I presume. I hope you live a very long life where you may be able to admit that the earth's climate changes regardless of what we do.
One more thing. Just because I don't swallow Al Gore's junk science doesn't mean I don't love the planet just as much as you do. I want clean air, clean water, and lots of wide open spaces. There are a lot of things we can do (and have done) to protect the earth. We should do more. That doesn't mean I have to be a true believer in the global warming science.
Actually, the near-term ice age prediction was a flash in the pan based on a major jump to a conclusion. That lasted about a scant year, and was never seriously contemplated by a consensus of scientists.
The artificially-induced global climate change concept, however, is around 100 years old, seriously postulated since the early 1900's, already of significant concern in the 1950s, and since the 1970's accepted by more than half of the climatologists and meterologists who were studying the issue. In the last 20 years or so, a strong scientific consensus has emerged that Al Gore has FOLLOWED - he didn't invent the Artificial GCC concept, conrary to what you have said. It is real, it is demonstrable, measurable and already causing problems. The bonafide scientific evidence is strong, has been acquired and analyzed for almots a century, and the only thing that keeps it from being ironclad is that it is hard to experiment with on less than a decades-long basis. Now, however, the decades are passing, and even that obstacle is dropping. You and the oil-industry scientists may call it junk science, but a huge proportion of critical independent scientists worldwide accept the theory. Our current CO2e level in the atmosphere is demonstrably very high, it has never risen so high so quickly as since humans have been buring old sunlight, glaciers and icecaps are melting at an alarming rate as heat is carried to the poles, and the sea level has gone up measurably in the last century/decade (about an inch every ten years at this point, and accelerating).
More snow and precip does not mean the globe is cooling. It means that in some places, a shift in weather patterns is noted. You cannot take a couple of years' worth of data and extrapolate that into a long-term theoretical prediction. In every single study of long-term changes, it is abundantly obvious that old snow is melting with reckless abandon and ocean levels have gone up pretty fast.
Yes, in geologic time this warming may be a blip, and another ice age may descend upon us - but the for the next several hundreds of years, we humans are forestalling that cooling with the massive burning and conversion of 100's of millions of years' worth of stored carbon-based fossil energy. Someday, when we need it the most, it may not be there for us.
October 05, 2009 09:30AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 2,321 |
October 05, 2009 12:16PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,942 |
These arguments about observation and conclusions are impossible to resolve unless the basic observational questions are answered first:
Has there been more change in the average global temperature during the last 300 years than any other 300 yr interval that can be studied?
All the evidence I have seen indicates that the recent changes in temperature exceed any similar interval studied.
If one doesn't look at any of the science, then the argument becomes an opinion or religious discussion (waste of time). The science alone should drive the discusssion. If you don't agree with the science, show us some studies that show the temperature change during the last few centuries is not different from prior intervals of time. One cannot compare changes that took millions of years with changes occuring in centuries.
One might argue about role of CO2 or sunspots or asphalt parking lots and the relative contributions, but these are theories not observations.
Empiricism Rocks!
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2009 12:25PM by Frank Furter.
Has there been more change in the average global temperature during the last 300 years than any other 300 yr interval that can be studied?
All the evidence I have seen indicates that the recent changes in temperature exceed any similar interval studied.
If one doesn't look at any of the science, then the argument becomes an opinion or religious discussion (waste of time). The science alone should drive the discusssion. If you don't agree with the science, show us some studies that show the temperature change during the last few centuries is not different from prior intervals of time. One cannot compare changes that took millions of years with changes occuring in centuries.
One might argue about role of CO2 or sunspots or asphalt parking lots and the relative contributions, but these are theories not observations.
Empiricism Rocks!
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2009 12:25PM by Frank Furter.
October 09, 2009 05:42PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,876 |
For those who may be interested, a quick websearch for the words “scientific method” yielded, among others, the following two links:
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Scientific_method
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node3.html
Besides the traditional exposition of the scientific method, these two discussions are of especial interest for the following reasons. The first addresses a topic which is rarely mentioned explicitly but is of fundamental importance in the method's functioning, namely the peer review of articles which appear in reputable scientific journals. (Unlike the mindless statements of opinion which nowadays masquerade as news on media babble shows, publication in a scientific journal requires that the article undergo a review/audit by several other members of the scientific community who are working in the same field.) The second touches upon the topic of fraud. (See comment above re. media babble shows and replace the words “mindless statements of opinion” with “deliberate distortions and misrepresentations.”)
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Scientific_method
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node3.html
Besides the traditional exposition of the scientific method, these two discussions are of especial interest for the following reasons. The first addresses a topic which is rarely mentioned explicitly but is of fundamental importance in the method's functioning, namely the peer review of articles which appear in reputable scientific journals. (Unlike the mindless statements of opinion which nowadays masquerade as news on media babble shows, publication in a scientific journal requires that the article undergo a review/audit by several other members of the scientific community who are working in the same field.) The second touches upon the topic of fraud. (See comment above re. media babble shows and replace the words “mindless statements of opinion” with “deliberate distortions and misrepresentations.”)
October 18, 2009 11:27AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,876 |
Quote
szalkowski
For those who may be interested, a quick websearch for the words “scientific method” yielded, among others, the following two links:
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Scientific_method
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node3.html
Besides the traditional exposition of the scientific method, these two discussions are of especial interest for the following reasons. The first addresses a topic which is rarely mentioned explicitly but is of fundamental importance in the method's functioning, namely the peer review of articles which appear in reputable scientific journals. (Unlike the mindless statements of opinion which nowadays masquerade as news on media babble shows, publication in a scientific journal requires that the article undergo a review/audit by several other members of the scientific community who are working in the same field.) The second touches upon the topic of fraud. (See comment above re. media babble shows and replace the words “mindless statements of opinion” with “deliberate distortions and misrepresentations.”)
As opposed to the business and financial worlds, scientific fraud is virtually nonexistent because of the checks and balances of the scientific method... but it is not unknown:
http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/2009/08/book_review_plastic_fantastic.php?utm_source=networkbanner&utm_medium=link
http://ebook30.com/science/physics/124923/plastic-fantastic-how-the-biggest-fraud-in-physics-shook-the-scientific-world-macmillan-science.html
Added note: the (publicly) better-known controversy about cold fusion 20 years ago was not fraud but rather the result of some stupid people bypassing the peer review process and going directly to the news media because they thought that they had indeed achieved a breakthrough and wanted to establish priority to the claim:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
October 04, 2009 04:50PM | Admin Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 17,050 |
|
Re: Tioga Road is closed October 07, 2009 08:00PM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 190 |
My concerns are with the way the research is carried out. Who studies climate change. Is it a group of oil drillers? No it is Climatologists, what is their personal viewpoint? Most of them I would guess got involved in the subject because they are interested and perhaps concerned about ecology and the earth's climate. When you study the distant past you are often left with lots of gaps in the data. How do you fill in those gaps to complete the experiment? Most people tend to fill those gaps with your own personal point of view. If you are a strong ecologist and think factories and cars and freeways and human impact is bad, you might tend to lean toward man made causes.
Then I worry about research grant bias. If you did the early studies and come to the conclusion "there is no problem" your study and your grant income come to an end. On the other hand if you find there is a major problem that needs years more of study you now have a lifetime of grant income to study the problem. The system encourages an outcome.
Then you have all the carbon footprint stuff. Obama wants us to cut our carbon footprint. When he wants to go give the Olympic sales pitch his crew takes two jets instead of one. I am sure they felt they needed both jets. When Al Gore needs to go somewhere he has been know to fly private jets. I am sure he feels he needs the private jet. That is the problem. Everyone feels their use of fossil fuels is OK. It's the other guy that needs to change. My need is truly important and necessary. How many people that worry about global warming have stopped driving to far away places to backpack? Have you gotten rid of your cars and heaters and air conditioners and computers and lights etc. If the end of the world is at hand shouldn't everyone that believes do everything possible in their own lives?
I am all for trying to prevent global warming. I just don't want to take a negative approach. There are positive things we can do. Make things more efficient is a good start. Start a massive national program to supply all of our household electricity from nuclear power in 25 years. Follow that with replacing 50% of auto energy with nuclear generated electricity. I don't think crawling back into a cave is the answer to global warming. I sure don't think paying Al Gore's company for my energy use will make a difference in how much warming that CO2 does or does not cause.
Then I worry about research grant bias. If you did the early studies and come to the conclusion "there is no problem" your study and your grant income come to an end. On the other hand if you find there is a major problem that needs years more of study you now have a lifetime of grant income to study the problem. The system encourages an outcome.
Then you have all the carbon footprint stuff. Obama wants us to cut our carbon footprint. When he wants to go give the Olympic sales pitch his crew takes two jets instead of one. I am sure they felt they needed both jets. When Al Gore needs to go somewhere he has been know to fly private jets. I am sure he feels he needs the private jet. That is the problem. Everyone feels their use of fossil fuels is OK. It's the other guy that needs to change. My need is truly important and necessary. How many people that worry about global warming have stopped driving to far away places to backpack? Have you gotten rid of your cars and heaters and air conditioners and computers and lights etc. If the end of the world is at hand shouldn't everyone that believes do everything possible in their own lives?
I am all for trying to prevent global warming. I just don't want to take a negative approach. There are positive things we can do. Make things more efficient is a good start. Start a massive national program to supply all of our household electricity from nuclear power in 25 years. Follow that with replacing 50% of auto energy with nuclear generated electricity. I don't think crawling back into a cave is the answer to global warming. I sure don't think paying Al Gore's company for my energy use will make a difference in how much warming that CO2 does or does not cause.
October 07, 2009 08:29PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 2,321 |
Traildad,
You make very good centrists arguments. I think we need more of that. I'm kind of a nuke believer myself. My brother has been in the nuke field for over 30 years and is an avid nuke fan. (He has been working at the Diablo Canyon plant since it opened in various capacities from metallurgical studies, operations, tech writing, to now plant reliability) I believe that the byproducts of nuclear electricity production while highly "toxic" can be contained and monitored even if need be for 25,000 years. Virtually every other method of electricity production puts the uglys into the environment in real time. I will give hydro and wind a pass as they have no direct toxic byproduct. Modern batteries scare me. They are supposed to be recyclable but there has got to be some exotic stuff in them. I wonder what sort of mining is taking place to get those exotics. Enough. I rant. Let the games begin.
Old Dude
You make very good centrists arguments. I think we need more of that. I'm kind of a nuke believer myself. My brother has been in the nuke field for over 30 years and is an avid nuke fan. (He has been working at the Diablo Canyon plant since it opened in various capacities from metallurgical studies, operations, tech writing, to now plant reliability) I believe that the byproducts of nuclear electricity production while highly "toxic" can be contained and monitored even if need be for 25,000 years. Virtually every other method of electricity production puts the uglys into the environment in real time. I will give hydro and wind a pass as they have no direct toxic byproduct. Modern batteries scare me. They are supposed to be recyclable but there has got to be some exotic stuff in them. I wonder what sort of mining is taking place to get those exotics. Enough. I rant. Let the games begin.
Old Dude
October 07, 2009 08:48PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,942 |
No true scientist would allow personal bias to enter the data collection or the experimental process. The interpretation of the data or "findings" may differ just as different groups may differ on the cause or long term implications of global warming, but the measurements of or indicators of temperature change should be verifiable and the methodology understandable and impartial.Quote
traildad
My concerns are with the way the research is carried out. Who studies climate change. Is it a group of oil drillers? No it is Climatologists, what is their personal viewpoint? Most of them I would guess got involved in the subject because they are interested and perhaps concerned about ecology and the earth's climate. When you study the distant past you are often left with lots of gaps in the data. How do you fill in those gaps to complete the experiment? Most people tend to fill those gaps with your own personal point of view. If you are a strong ecologist and think factories and cars and freeways and human impact is bad, you might tend to lean toward man made causes.
Then I worry about research grant bias. If you did the early studies and come to the conclusion "there is no problem" your study and your grant income come to an end. On the other hand if you find there is a major problem that needs years more of study you now have a lifetime of grant income to study the problem. The system encourages an outcome.
The "methods" portion of a paper should describe how the investigation was carried out. Extreme effort is made to eliminate bias in scientific papers as a rule. Is it ever eliminated completely? Possibly not, but it is minimized. Key to scientific studies is to describe the process sufficiently clearly that others can duplicate the work and verify its authenticity. Is there ever fraudulent work? Yes. Hopefully that is picked up by others who attempt to duplicate the work.
Many scientifc investigations actually do show "no effect" and are valid studies to do. It is generally quite difficult to prove a "negative" so the absence of a predicted effect or finding is important. The goal of most scientists is to find the exception or prove the prevailing thought wrong by finding the "thing that doesn't fit" (like the bacteria that is NOT killed by penicillin or the star that wobbles and does NOT move as predicted). As the prevailing theory is that CO2 is producing global warming, many scientists are trying to "test" that by looking at the geologic record or other sources of data. There is little opposing data because the investigations keep showing the same findings about global warming and changes to the earth.
The global warming critics have not, to my knowledge, presented scientific data to show that average global temperature changes have occured during other similar time periods with the sustained rapidity of the changes noted in the last several hundred years. If CO2 rise has occured similarly, that is suggestive of a relationship. If a model (like trapping heat) can be proposed to explain how CO2 rise might influence world average temperature, the argument becomes very strong. If it is not correct, it needs proof to be refuted; to say (as some folks do) that global warming is not occuring, because "I don't believe it is occuring" is just not persuasive. The issue is not going be decided by a vote or popular opinion-- it is going to be decided by measured and predicted changes in the global climate and land/sea conditions. If they occur, global warming is occuring; if they don't occur, global warming is not occuring.
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
|
Re: Tioga Road is closed October 08, 2009 08:14PM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 190 |
Quote
Frank Furter
No true scientist would allow personal bias to enter the data collection or the experimental process. The interpretation of the data or "findings" may differ just as different groups may differ on the cause or long term implications of global warming, but the measurements of or indicators of temperature change should be verifiable and the methodology understandable and impartial.
Well no "true" scientist should allow personal bias to enter the data collection. Yes this is true. I am not sure I was suggesting that is where the bias might be getting in. It is in the filling in the blanks where the possible problem exists. We can't simply measure temps. and look at fossil records and say the 'data' proves the case. The scientists are interpreting the data, interpreting the changes from past years etc.
I once heard about a study of human behavior in parking lots. Someone watched how people acted driving their cars in the parking lot. They noticed that when people were leaving their spot they took a longer time to leave if another car was in the lane waiting for their spot. That was the data that was collected without bias. The clock said it took longer for the people to leave the parking spot if someone was waiting. They concluded that it was some sort of feeling possessive that caused the people to delay giving the parking spot over to the next person. The conclusion is the part where the bias can creep in. Intentional or not they can only fill in the blank of "why" by using their own thought process.
When I heard about the study I thought their conclusion was wrong. If I am in a parking spot and I see another car in the lane I hesitate to determine if that car is waiting for my spot or leaving the parking lot and driving past me. The car in the lane has the right of way and I can't pull out in front of them. So which is the reason for the delay? Possessiveness or caution?
I worry that these scientists can't help but fill in the blank with "human caused". It is not intentional, it is the only way they can see it and it can be no other way. It's not like the "real" reason for climate change is written upside down on the back side of the last page.
|
Re: Tioga Road is closed December 03, 2009 11:09PM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 190 |
December 04, 2009 05:02AM | Moderator Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,942 |
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html
Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute
Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change...
One hates for objectivity and empiricism to be displaced by bias and conceit. Email chat is more like graffiti and gossip than a scientific presentation and discussion of data, however. Any scientific theory should be subject to continuous evaluation and testing. I have not read the emails but doubt that the casual conversations between average researchers is much more than tavern talk or locker room gossip. Data are just pixels in the bigger picture and a person should look at the overall image. True scientists, acting professionally, would look at all data skeptically including the bias behind what is essentially an opinion. It seems that there is much more inherent bias in those favoring resource exploitation (the Bush Administration) who deny even the event of global temperature change, regardless of the cause than those interested in conservation and resource management, for example. That said, even scientists can behave badly sometimes and demonstrate behavior more appropriate to philistines and luddites.
As Carl Sagan said:
The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age.
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute
Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change...
One hates for objectivity and empiricism to be displaced by bias and conceit. Email chat is more like graffiti and gossip than a scientific presentation and discussion of data, however. Any scientific theory should be subject to continuous evaluation and testing. I have not read the emails but doubt that the casual conversations between average researchers is much more than tavern talk or locker room gossip. Data are just pixels in the bigger picture and a person should look at the overall image. True scientists, acting professionally, would look at all data skeptically including the bias behind what is essentially an opinion. It seems that there is much more inherent bias in those favoring resource exploitation (the Bush Administration) who deny even the event of global temperature change, regardless of the cause than those interested in conservation and resource management, for example. That said, even scientists can behave badly sometimes and demonstrate behavior more appropriate to philistines and luddites.
As Carl Sagan said:
The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age.
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
October 07, 2009 08:45PM | Moderator Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,347 |
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
