Quote:
Originally Posted by TheU
Science is not: Conclusion > data > data doesn't fit try again > data > data doesn't fit try again
Science is Observe > postulate a theory > test > does it match the data? if no, try a new theory
If science can show with peer reviewed observations that our co2 is driving climate change, and not the sun and clouds, then I'll be happy to do my part and encourage legistlation that will crippled the economy but at least save the Earth for our future generations. This data, however, doesn't exist. The hacked CRU emails and the hockey stick graph show climate change zealots are bypassing the peer review process for their own personal gain, and to ensure their cushy lifestyles funded by government grants.
|
I find it hilarious that someone who likely does not have significant scientific training is lecturing us on the nature of science, supporting garbage that can't produce a single decent piece of peer-reviewed primary literature. Where exactly did you do your PhD?
Peer-reviewed literature supporting the concept of anthropogenic climate change is common. Go to a science library and sift through the Science and Nature articles from the last year and you can read these sorts of papers until your eyes cross. Post actual peer reviewed PRIMARY literature supporting your argument, not links to blogs, or news stories, or more secondary review hack jobs. I dare you.
It is one case, in a field of thousands of scientists, and you are arguing that it invalidates an entire field of work. Absolutely absurd.
The whole notion of you arguing this on the basis of what you read on a bunch of blogs is a joke. When your grandmother goes in to the hospital to get her hip replaced, do you argue with the surgeon, saying that's not the way you read it should be done on a blog? That's what you're advocating.
And finally, the whole personal gain/cushy lifestyle notion you have is hilarious. Grant money, especially in the UK, does not prop up academic salaries. Academics in science are generally underpaid and overworked given their talents and years of training. If they wanted money, they are more than smart enough, with valuable skills, to pursue a career in industry or other avenues. Academics choose to stay in pure science, more often than not, because they genuinely love science, and they hope to contribute to society by providing some insight as to how the physical world works. Find an academic in cutting edge science and ask him or her if they are in it for the cushy lifestyle. If they don't slug you first, they will laugh themselves to tears.