Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
I'm not sure I can get on board with the consequences of this type of thought process - it effectively undermines all scientific research.
"Getting cancer from asbestos? F- it - hand of God! Can't prove it isn't a natural cycle to kill off poor people in high-rise apartments! Here, eat lead paint chips."
The point of the scientific method is to understand the underlying reasons and consequences of phenomena - so we can do more than postulate that man can't affect the Earth (and, once again, natural systems have shown NO ability to adapt to man past a certain point - where are all the new-growth rainforests popping up to replace species' habitats, etc.?) from the seat of our pants.
These, however, are totally valid questions to ask - and the reason why a "Hand of God"/deus ex machina view of nature is neither ideal nor useful. These are things that should be explored - will a rise in temperature reduce the amount of arable land? How will rising oceans and fracturing ice caps affect climate?
And, perhaps most importantly: WHETHER OR NOT climate change is natural, since humans are essentially no longer subject to macroevolutionary forces due to technology, can we adapt fast or efficiently enough to offset the changes? I find that those who deny global climate change just assume the answer to that question is "yes" - without realizing that the reliance on industry to handle this is the real money trail. You're robbing Peter to pay Paul, except Paul doesn't give a shit about anything but the bottom line.
|
If you falsify data and omit data that is contrary to what you wish to prove you have poisioned your own well. That is what undermines scientific research. Good grief! I have done enough research in my career to know that a good scientist tries to disprove their hypothesis. You look for all the points that are contrary to what you wish to prove and then take the data gathered both pro and con to build a statistical case for your hypothesis.
Do you not believe that there is a natural ebb and flow of temperatures throughout the epochs on Earth? I do believe there was an ice age. I do believe that there was also a time when it was exceedingly warm in the upper reaches of what is now North America and the Artic. I do not believe that man caused the ice age nor did he cause the warming during the Jurrassic period.
Are you sure there is a precipitous rise in the overall temperature of our planet? The timeframe in these "studies" are too small and do not take in all the natural variations of our climate and the effect the Sun and Sunspots have on our temperatures. You cannot focus on just 50 to 100 year timeframes and point to that as evidence that man has caused the Earth to warm. Especially if you changed or omitted data!