Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #538815 > unrolled thread

Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Earth’s Climate

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Earth’s Climate Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 19:43 -0600
    Re: Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Earth’s Climate gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-12 20:53 -0600
    Re: Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Earth’s Climate jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-13 05:36 +0000

#538815 — Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Earth’s Climate

Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude 
of Human Impact on Earth’s Climate
> https://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/48eb074b-28d5-483f-9824-2650ddbf36ce/0DB035DB53AABC074040069FC10FA827.dr.-david-titley-testimony.pdf


> We know how to do Science: Science is not a simple linear process,
> performed in an isolated, sterile environment, but rather an
> iterative process with continual interaction between exploration and
> discovery, feedback and input from peers, inputs from society, but
> most importantly, testing ideas, called hypotheses and theories, with
> evidence. New evidence can change existing ideas. The better ideas
> fit actual observations, disparate or seemingly unrelated
> observations or previously unknown observations, the more likely the
> idea is to be accepted widely by science. Results are provided in
> many venues, but peer-reviewed journals are especially important.
> Peer-review does not guarantee the ideas being published are correct,
> but the process does ensure the work acknowledges previous work in
> that field, the experiments and methods were well-designed, the
> evidence cited logically leads to the conclusion. If new evidence
> becomes available, or subsequent researchers find errors in the
> methods published, the original ideas are modified. Science is based
> on the cumulative weight of the evidence available. If initially
> published contrarian results stand the test of independent
> confirmation and corroboration, these initially contrarian (or even
> revolutionary) results become part of the accepted body of science.


--

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#538829

On 12/12/2015 7:43 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude
> of Human Impact on Earth’s Climate

>
>
>> We know how to do Science: Science is not a simple linear process,

no, they do not.

this is simply another biased global worming report, without any references.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#538847

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude 
> of Human Impact on Earth?s Climate
>> https://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/48eb074b-28d5-483f-9824-2650ddbf36ce/0DB035DB53AABC074040069FC10FA827.dr.-david-titley-testimony.pdf
> 
> 
>> We know how to do Science: Science is not a simple linear process,
>> performed in an isolated, sterile environment, but rather an
>> iterative process with continual interaction between exploration and
>> discovery, feedback and input from peers, inputs from society, but
>> most importantly, testing ideas, called hypotheses and theories, with
>> evidence. New evidence can change existing ideas. The better ideas
>> fit actual observations, disparate or seemingly unrelated
>> observations or previously unknown observations, the more likely the
>> idea is to be accepted widely by science. Results are provided in
>> many venues, but peer-reviewed journals are especially important.
>> Peer-review does not guarantee the ideas being published are correct,
>> but the process does ensure the work acknowledges previous work in
>> that field, the experiments and methods were well-designed, the
>> evidence cited logically leads to the conclusion. If new evidence
>> becomes available, or subsequent researchers find errors in the
>> methods published, the original ideas are modified. Science is based
>> on the cumulative weight of the evidence available. If initially
>> published contrarian results stand the test of independent
>> confirmation and corroboration, these initially contrarian (or even
>> revolutionary) results become part of the accepted body of science.

There can be no "Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human
Impact on Earth's Climate" as long as it is all just a political football.

Settled science my ass.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web