Scientific Fraud becoming endemic?

Recommended Posts

Do I remember correctly that [Lysenko] preached that you could grow wheat from apple seeds?

I don't think so. He thought wheat could be Lamarckianly modified and the peasants weren't allowed to keep their seed grain, with resultant famine.

I'll look up some details in a bit.

That would be sort of like (biological) alchemy. I don't think L was into that; Newton classically was, but with much greater excuse.


What would be "sort of like (biological) alchemy"? Thinking you could grow wheat from apple seeds or thinking that wheat could be Lamarckianly modified?

Newton needed no excuse for being into alchemy. Anachronistic to think an excuse was needed in Newton's time.


Oh, sorry, the first. As for Newton, I'm thinking of the judging of him from our time, not his.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Okay, I've apparently misunderstood you. You had mentioned that you were an AGWer, and after I asked you to clarify which "consensus" you were referring to, you posted the two links, which I assumed meant that you agreed with their content, and that they represented the "consensus" views that you thought would have to be falsified in order to disprove AGW. Sorry if I got that wrong.

I don't think you have misunderstood me much. Behind the controversy about the size or actuality of a consensus on global warming -- and whether or not it is useful to use the term -- are a few slim statements like I quoted above. I hope we can stipulate that it contains the core of the AGW hypothesis, right or wrong.

Honestly, I really don't care about the "consensus" and what exactly it means, or how one might go about defining it. I only asked because I was interested in discovering your view of AGW.

My view, shucked and cleaned, is subject to further refinements:

You say that you're an AGWer. Okay, to what degree?

I accept that CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas' -- eg, that CO2 through the greenhouse effect tends to 'warm' the Earth; without the GHE, the earth would be noticably cooler. I accept that increasing emissions of CO2 will continue to 'warm' the Earth.

What percentage of global warming or climate change is mankind causing?

I would guess -- without examining particular studies afresh -- human-generated CO2 contributes at least half of the observed warming.

should the globe be at today, as well as one hundred years from now, if mankind wasn't causing it to rise?

The globe, without the GHE of human emisssions, would likely in my mind be about one degree cooler.

What do you think the effects of global warming will be?

I will answer what I believe the effects of global warming are ... sea-level rise, glacier and ice-sheet melting, permafrost melting, disruption of naturally-variable cycles (ENSO, etc), increasing acidification of the world's oceans. And more, if you wanted to split off a side-discussion.

What will happen if nothing is done to stop mankind from changing the global temperature?

I believe that the pace of change will continue, and the effects will become more marked.

Would the effects be negative? Positive? Apocalyptical?

It depends. In some parts of the world (like within Canada), climate change can be seen as positive -- leading to more agricultural land becoming available. At the same time, negative effects will be felt elsewhere -- like on the coasts and in the boreal forests.

What changes, if any, do you advocate in mankind's behavior?

I stay clear of advocacy for particular changes over the whole collectivity of mankind. I hope that we Canadians can mitigate the effects of climate change, or adapt to changes, without widespread social/financial dislocation or disruption. The best I can hope for is that we become more clear-eyed as the years go by.

If your preferred changes were implemented throughout the world, how long would it take for us to measure their beneficial effects?

I don't know.

What would you recommend if it were discovered that your preferred changes didn't result in the conditions that you predicted?

This is too far into speculation for me to answer intelligently.

It might also help if I were to clarify my question a little. I'm not necessarily looking for specific responses to specific arguments, but asking more generally what method you would use in deciding which opposing positions is valid. For example, assuming that you don't have access to the actual computer models that are used by AGW proponents, and you therefore can't run them through tests yourself, and you can't obtain the raw data or access any of the original equipment or files on which it was gathered/stored/edited, and therefore you can't independently verify firsthand any of the materials, processes and conclusions or criticisms, how do you decide what to believe? By what method?

I use the notion of 'converging evidence' to assess the welter of findings that could go under the heading of 'global warming' and 'climate change.'

In some ways this is reflective of a level of trust in a few institutions or fields or general findings. Can I trust the temperature records of the major national efforts? Do I trust scientific explanations of the Greenhouse Effect? Do I trust that a particular study or finding bears a close relation to reality? Do I trust a particular scientist in a particular field -- trust him or her practice good science?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Water vapor as a greenhouse gas = what effect on earth temperature? Call it "X."

CO2 as a greenhouse gas = what effect on earth temperature respecting "X"?: X/1; X/50; X/500? X/10,000???????--or does it swing the other direction?

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, isn't it?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now