B
BigBlue
Guest
Am I seeing at least one thing we all agree on, that the Muppets are cool? Wow... 
You can find a scientist to support just about any side of an arguement you want to. Why is this?
Putting it simply... The scientific method is as follows... You start with a hypothesis, which is what you (the scientist or group of scientists) expect to be true. Then, you either gather actual data, or model what you're studying and gather data from the model. Lastly you analyze the data to see if your hypothesis was correct.
So, what can go wrong? Lot's of things - and these aren't counting unethical things which can happen...
If you are using an actual sample, you could get a flawed sample or one which isn't a truly "random". Your control group could be tainted in some unknown way. Your sensors might be faulty and thus you get incorrect readings.
If you're using a model, pretty much all the things in the real samples also apply - and additionally you might make an assumption about what is significant or not and completely missrepresent reality in your model.
In short, really one study is not usually enough to "change" scientists minds... that is why most studies are documented vigorously so that another group of scientists can perform the same tests to validate your results. Often, this is where they find flaws...
Members of the mainstream media, often not at all scietific themselves, will report on the conclusions of one study - sometimes before they have been validated. Politicians can fall in the same trap, especially if they are only given part of the story - as a lobbyist might do intentionally... one hopes our politicians are thorough... but I don't think they always are - and some (most) of them have political agendas.
So, all this arguing about one or two studies... well, the best thing to do is to look at as many studies of whatever theory you want to learn about as you can. The more you know about it, the better you can interpret the results for yourself to decide whether a study is BS or not... or, you can simply tally the results if you don't want to analyze their results more rigorously...
Why do I bring this up? because the preponderance of studies conclude that there is something to global warming at this time. There are dissenting studies out there, and I'm not discounting them flatly because many times in history a pebble dropped in the scientific community can create tidal waves... but in this case, it really seems that the world is warming up in a global sense. Global warming isn't just about "heat" though... one of the other factors is a widening of the range of daily temperatures. That also seems to be happening. Also, look at the occurances and severity of other weather events, hurricanes, tornadoes, typhoons, etc. They are becoming more frequent, and more severe. This could be a climactic cycle... but it could be something else. It could be global warming.
Some of us think that's the case, Some of us think it's something else. And few of us are budging.
Except everyone likes the Muppets, well... Maybe not Nightstalkers - I could see him prefering Fraggle Rock or somesuch...
You can find a scientist to support just about any side of an arguement you want to. Why is this?
Putting it simply... The scientific method is as follows... You start with a hypothesis, which is what you (the scientist or group of scientists) expect to be true. Then, you either gather actual data, or model what you're studying and gather data from the model. Lastly you analyze the data to see if your hypothesis was correct.
So, what can go wrong? Lot's of things - and these aren't counting unethical things which can happen...
If you are using an actual sample, you could get a flawed sample or one which isn't a truly "random". Your control group could be tainted in some unknown way. Your sensors might be faulty and thus you get incorrect readings.
If you're using a model, pretty much all the things in the real samples also apply - and additionally you might make an assumption about what is significant or not and completely missrepresent reality in your model.
In short, really one study is not usually enough to "change" scientists minds... that is why most studies are documented vigorously so that another group of scientists can perform the same tests to validate your results. Often, this is where they find flaws...
Members of the mainstream media, often not at all scietific themselves, will report on the conclusions of one study - sometimes before they have been validated. Politicians can fall in the same trap, especially if they are only given part of the story - as a lobbyist might do intentionally... one hopes our politicians are thorough... but I don't think they always are - and some (most) of them have political agendas.
So, all this arguing about one or two studies... well, the best thing to do is to look at as many studies of whatever theory you want to learn about as you can. The more you know about it, the better you can interpret the results for yourself to decide whether a study is BS or not... or, you can simply tally the results if you don't want to analyze their results more rigorously...
Why do I bring this up? because the preponderance of studies conclude that there is something to global warming at this time. There are dissenting studies out there, and I'm not discounting them flatly because many times in history a pebble dropped in the scientific community can create tidal waves... but in this case, it really seems that the world is warming up in a global sense. Global warming isn't just about "heat" though... one of the other factors is a widening of the range of daily temperatures. That also seems to be happening. Also, look at the occurances and severity of other weather events, hurricanes, tornadoes, typhoons, etc. They are becoming more frequent, and more severe. This could be a climactic cycle... but it could be something else. It could be global warming.
Some of us think that's the case, Some of us think it's something else. And few of us are budging.
Except everyone likes the Muppets, well... Maybe not Nightstalkers - I could see him prefering Fraggle Rock or somesuch...
