permian extinction was quick, page-4

"The detractors who point at where science got it wrong, and claim that we therefore shouldn't trust 'science' don't seem to understand that it's a process of 'spiralling towards the truth."

"It seems to me that those who know the least about science or how it works are the most confident at telling the scientists they are wrong"


afternoon all,

I would stand accused as saying at times science has had it wrong in the past ------- there are a zillion examples if necessary.

As to realising that science is a process spiralling towards truth --------- hmmm,

I have no problem with the concept although I would prefer the word knowledge rather than truth - truth is something that you believe, knowledge is different.

Anyway - I understand and agree with the concept.

My doubtful issues are that we sometimes make HUGE decisions thinking that science has the answers already - and that is clearly NOT the case.

And it is not an issue of telling scientists they are wrong - it is telling vested interest groups NOT to make huge economic decisions with OUR money when clearly we do NOT have all the answers.

It is also a problem when we see many scientists researching from a point of assumption - in other words researching from a position of belief.
What are these people - immune from confirmation bias?

Do they take an anti confirmation bias pill before work each day?

We then find out that their models don't work -------- years after we have committed enormous funds to projects which many people suggest won't make a bean of difference anyway.

It is not so much an argument with the science - although it is very clear that a lot of the science is flawed one way or another - it is from the assumptions false or otherwise that are drawn from it and the decisions that arrived at from those conclusions.

In all honesty -- how can we trust science so much to make decisions that will effect us for decades at huge cost - knowing that they are on a 'spiral toward the truth'.

If we trusted them - we would still be bleeding people. We would still be burying people when we thought they stopped breathing.

Lets face facts here - science cannot tell us for sure if it is going to rain tomorrow - nor can it tell us the highest temperature of the next day --------- don't get me wrong here I think they do a sterling job - but, it is far from 100%.
Also I look at Coastal Geomorphology - an entire building full of geologists can't tell you with 100% accuracy - usually anywhere near 100% where the sand on a beach will move if you implement a single change let alone throw in another couple of variables.

If we can't do that for sure - how in the name of god can we predict climate decades into the future?

Now, I have a friend who has a Nobel prize sitting squarely on his mantle piece for measuring CO2 - his name is Dave Lowe - now, do I trust Dave? you bet I do.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10613515

Do I think because his work is great and what he found tells us that we are going to have a warming catastrophe?

No bloody way.

Climate is such a complex thing - if one were to put everything into a model to accurately predict - one would need so many variable measurements with so much accuracy, so much computing power and to be absolutely certain we haven't missed one thing - not one.

At this stage I just see gaps. Huge gaps.

We have only recently factored in wind speed to models - bit of a gap there before then.

The majority of people have never even heard of global dimming - bit of a huge gap there.

The science as far as I know about dimming says we have no accurate data over oceans - and very limited.

Well, how the hell can we know what is happening with phytoplankton then?

Now, since phytoplankton absorb give or take about half the CO2 -------- that is a pretty big gap to have limited knowledge on imo.

This is NOT a reassuring situation to listen to politicians and bureaucrats making major decisions on our economies whilst making noises that they fully accept the science of global warming -------- not just climate change, but global warming.

What is scary is how science is funded - a lot of it is funded as long as it is on the road to PROVE agw and climate change ------------ so much for a spiral towards truth.

Who provides the funds and why is what worries me.

They always have an agenda ------- and it is always -- always a self serving agenda.

And often - if the results don't suit that agenda - then they don't see the light of day.

imo, this isn't about science, nor is it about warming, climate change or whatever - it is about power and politics -

unfortunately they are using OUR money.

have a great arvo

Pinto