Summaries from 4 skeptics for consideration of alternative views
D'Aleo http://www.kusi.com/home/78477122.html?video=pop&t=a
Coleman http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a
Lindzen http://www.kusi.com/home/78477177.html?video=pop&t=a
Soon http://www.kusi.com/home/78477312.html?video=pop&t=a
Showing posts with label Scientists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scientists. Show all posts
Monday, December 7, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
Scientific Approach
A good reminder on science is posted on WattsUpWithThat.com
Consensus climate science: What would Thomas Huxley say?
A couple excerpts include:
Thomas H. Huxley (1825-1895) was one of the first and most vigorous promoters of modern scientific thinking.
Science is never certain
The pretension to infallibility, by whomsoever made, has done endless mischief; with impartial malignity it has proved a curse, alike to those who have made and it those who have accepted it.
-Science and Hebrew Tradition, Preface, p. ix
Huxley wrote: “No man, nor any body of men, is good enough, or wise enough, to dispense with the tonic of criticism”
Science doesn’t operate by consensus
My love of my fellow-countrymen has led me to reflect, with dread, on what will happen to them, if any of the laws of nature ever become so unpopular in their eyes, as to be voted down by the transcendent authority of universal suffrage.
-Science and Christian Tradition, p. 252
Huxley was worried that citizens would decide to vote against, for example, the laws of gravity. Undoubtedly, he would be equally concerned if scientists declared that a scientific assertion was true because, after a vote, a majority of them had agreed it was so, i.e., proof by “consensus.” Just as a vote of citizens doesn’t make a scientific fact true or false, neither does a vote of scientists make a fact true or false. Only empirical evidence does that.
Consensus climate science: What would Thomas Huxley say?
A couple excerpts include:
Thomas H. Huxley (1825-1895) was one of the first and most vigorous promoters of modern scientific thinking.
Science is never certain
The pretension to infallibility, by whomsoever made, has done endless mischief; with impartial malignity it has proved a curse, alike to those who have made and it those who have accepted it.
-Science and Hebrew Tradition, Preface, p. ix
Huxley wrote: “No man, nor any body of men, is good enough, or wise enough, to dispense with the tonic of criticism”
Science doesn’t operate by consensus
My love of my fellow-countrymen has led me to reflect, with dread, on what will happen to them, if any of the laws of nature ever become so unpopular in their eyes, as to be voted down by the transcendent authority of universal suffrage.
-Science and Christian Tradition, p. 252
Huxley was worried that citizens would decide to vote against, for example, the laws of gravity. Undoubtedly, he would be equally concerned if scientists declared that a scientific assertion was true because, after a vote, a majority of them had agreed it was so, i.e., proof by “consensus.” Just as a vote of citizens doesn’t make a scientific fact true or false, neither does a vote of scientists make a fact true or false. Only empirical evidence does that.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Harrison Schmitt doesn’t believe that humans are causing global warming.
Harrison Schmitt, who walked on the moon and once served New Mexico in the U.S. Senate, doesn’t believe that humans are causing global warming.
Boston Herald Feb 16, 2009
A couple excerpts:
"Schmitt contends that scientists "are being intimidated" if they disagree with the idea that burning fossil fuels has increased carbon dioxide levels, temperatures and sea levels."
"Of the global warming debate, he said: "It’s one of the few times you’ve seen a sizable portion of scientists who ought to be objective take a political position and it’s coloring their objectivity."
Boston Herald Feb 16, 2009
A couple excerpts:
"Schmitt contends that scientists "are being intimidated" if they disagree with the idea that burning fossil fuels has increased carbon dioxide levels, temperatures and sea levels."
"Of the global warming debate, he said: "It’s one of the few times you’ve seen a sizable portion of scientists who ought to be objective take a political position and it’s coloring their objectivity."
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
What do Scientist Think
150 Manhattan Declaration endorsers are climate science specialists or scientists in closely related fields
A few excerpts from the International Climate Science Coalition
Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;
Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;
That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.
That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate
A few excerpts from the International Climate Science Coalition
Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;
Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;
That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.
That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)