Forum Thread
(Clear Lake Specific)
0 messages
Updated
Lakes Online Forum
64,093 messages
Updated 12/15/2019 1:48:13 AM
Lakes Online Forum
5,014 messages
Updated 10/28/2019 11:39:26 PM
(Clear Lake Specific)
0 messages
Updated
Lakes Online Forum
3,935 messages
Updated 12/14/2019 8:06:42 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,172 messages
Updated 12/9/2019 10:06:09 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,911 messages
Updated 11/14/2019 9:31:06 AM
Lakes Online Forum
77 messages
Updated 4/15/2019 10:08:33 AM
Clear Lake Photo Gallery

    
Name:   MAJ USA RET - Email Member
Subject:   On Confirmation
Date:   8/6/2019 11:43:05 AM (updated 8/6/2019 11:43:34 AM)

This is true: We seek confirmation. That is to say that we prefer the perceived condition which validates our position.

But… can that position change?

If you are a true scientist, it can. Experimentation either confirms or dispels a thesis. If the numbers confirm your belief, then you are satisfied. BUT… if the numbers do not support your thesis… then what? NOW, you have a divergent choice. You can either change your belief… change the numbers… or gather more data.

Changing the numbers is ethically deficient. It means that your audience is more important that the truth. That is… you are more concerned with your “aspect” than your credibility… as a true scientist.  Perhaps you have another... less scientific... goal.

The scientific method provides the defining truth. If your thesis survives the scrutiny of your peers, then you have validation of your theory. If you cannot defend your thesis… if your raw data… and consequent manipulation… does not survive your defense… then you have failed to support your thesis. The TRUE scientist can admit, “I was mistaken.”

But, the pseudo-scientist manipulates the argument… and declares his jury to be “DENIERS.”

To a true scientist, ALL data is worthy of consideration. But, data must be both reliable and valid. In defense of one’s thesis, “reliable and valid” are legitimate questions.

If one begins with a dubious position… and needs to skew facts to support that position… then one risks… on the consideration of his defense… the scorn of his peers. If you have to editorialize your defense, then there are facts which you have not presented in support of the thesis.

Scorn is reserved, by scientist, for the ethically bankrupt.

ANTHROPOLOGICAL GLOBAL WARMING is ethically bankrupt. It fails to truthfully consider documented history. It cannot survive the defense proscribed by the scientific method.

AND… for example… THAT, is why AGW is scorned by true scientists.

- LMF Curmudgeon





Name:   Carlson - Email Member
Subject:   On Confirmation
Date:   8/6/2019 3:43:46 PM

Thanks for that.

so 99% of scientists have sold their to the devil called man made global warming?  I remember your previous posts and resolution but it gets no press.  





Name:   MartiniMan - Email Member
Subject:   On Confirmation
Date:   8/6/2019 5:21:23 PM

And this is the problem with our current crop of self-proclaimed "climate" scientists.....of which there is really no such thing.  They are pre-disposed to want to prove anthropogenic ACC.  Some for benign reasons but most because of the desire for grants and not to be branded a "denier" (age old root sins of greed and vanity).  After all my reading and studying the subject I have come to believe that while man may have an influence on the climate, it pales in comparison to other, natural factors (sunspot activity, cloud cover, natural cycles, etc.).  And I further do not believe for a second all the prognostications of doom with warming. In fact, I am far more concerned about a cooling cycle and the impact it will have on growing crops, especially further north.  

But if there is better evidence based on unmanipulated data and the remedies don't do more harm than good I will certainly change my view.  But the theory that CO2 influences global climates is based almost entirely on models that have been proven fantastically wrong.  A normal, sane person would look at that failure and possibly rethink their position.  But not the zealots......for them no data, no argument, no evidence will be enough to sway them from their usual prescriptions of redistribution of wealth, more government control and a lowering of our standard of living.  And sadly, their solutions will do far more harm, especially to the poor and lower middle class, than any climate change ever would.  But it is their religion.





Name:   Carlson - Email Member
Subject:   On Confirmation
Date:   8/6/2019 5:47:50 PM

So that’s a yes?





Name:   MartiniMan - Email Member
Subject:   On Confirmation
Date:   8/6/2019 9:10:44 PM

Yep.....if and when real data and science say so.  Until then I leave the religious fervor to the zealots who are impervious to facts.





Name:   Old Diver - Email Member
Subject:   They Sold Their Soul
Date:   8/6/2019 9:30:54 PM

Global Warming is Lysenkoism at it's best.





Name:   MrHodja - Email Member
Subject:   They Sold Their Soul
Date:   8/6/2019 10:42:51 PM

Have to admit you sent me searching but when I found it I came to the conclusion you may be right!







Quick Links
Clear Lake News
Clear Lake Photos
Clear Lake Videos

About Us
Contact Us
Site Map
Search Site
Advertise With Us
   
Clear.USLakes.info
THE CLEAR LAKE WEBSITE

Copyright 2019, Lakes Online
Privacy    |    Legal