Science does not care if you "believe" or not and science does not care if some talkingheads on cable news network disputes it.
Science does not have the capacity to "care" as it is not a living, breathing thing. Rather it is an enterprise populated by scientists. These creatures are human and like you and me imperfect beings.
Yes, they are imperfect, but that is why the peer-review system is in place. It ensures that "bad science" is eliminated because others can demonstrate flaws thru reasoned argument, data, and calculations. If I were you I wouldn't be so quick to look down upon this method. Science and the peer-review process has been "the process" that has developped every technology in our world that makes our lives better. This is the same process that is saying that climate change is real and anthropogenic.
I do no get offended very easily. But I do find it very insulting when people spout out their opinions as if they think they are right when people like myself have gone to school and studied the research and friends of mine are actually DOING the research. Would you not find it insulting if I told you that at your job, as say a doctor, you do not know how to practice medecine, or are doign it incorrectly, all the while all I know about medecine is what I learned watching a hospital-based television drama? For some reason people feel like their opinion on the subject matter of climate change counts for something. Just something for you detractors, and people in general to keep in mind, because what I just said could apply to many things.
Matt,
I find your response curious, as you make several assumptions and implications about me. I have made nothing more than a factual statement of which you agree in your first few words. From there you accuse me of "looking down" on the peer review process. I have done no such thing. You imply that I have forgotten, or discounted that science has developed every technology in the world. I have made no such statement, and hold no such belief that science has little value. As an aside I would point out that "science" has done no such thing. People have. We owe nothing to science, as it is not a living thing. Humans are responsible for our achievements and have developed the enterprise of science and the pursuit of truth. It is to us that we owe our accomplishments.
You go on to become offended because I have spouted opinion; again I have offered no opinion, just a statement of fact. You make an assumption that I must not have gone to school and studied the research. I must also not have friends DOING the research. Further you imply that I must be developing my opinions based on watching TV, or possibly you believe me not to have the mental acuity to recognize the facts for what they are. Wow, you really drew a lot of information from a few short sentences. Well done. I will now retire to my living room for cartoon watching. While doing so I will wipe the drool from my chin, eat the booger I just picked and contemplate how a man with your soaring intellect and brilliant friends managed to twice misspell medicine. Maybe you were speaking French.
Richard,
I tend not to post on these types of threads, as too many folks resort to name calling. You don’t know me, and I don’t know you, so I will not take offense to being called dumb and lazy. Life is too short to engage in discourse with someone that quickly resorts to such tactics. Candidly, I find it rather revealing.
You also have made some incorrect assumptions in your post. I did not state or imply that because humans are fallible, facts are therefore fallible. I believe no such thing. Furthermore, I am not insulting “the amazing scientific discoveries throughout the ages.” The quest for knowledge, truth and the betterment of the human condition is a noble and needed endeavor. I am not someone who believes that the earth came into existence 6,000 years ago.
It is clear from your response that you believe science to be perfect, as you take issue with my claim that it is imperfect. I stand by my statement. Just because scientists have discovered and proven facts, that does not make the enterprise of science perfect. That is a standard that is not reachable. I struggle to see how that is a controversial statement. The peer review process is not perfect either, as it was developed by and is practiced by humans. That does not mean that I don’t feel that it has value (obviously it does) nor am I dismissive of the discoveries that the peer review process has helped scientists achieve and document. To strive for total and perfect understanding is of great value to us. Let’s just not pretend the system in place eliminates the shortcomings of man. Rather it is the best that we can do.
As for climate change being definitively and factually proven to be anthropogenic, I don’t believe that it has. The imperfectness that I mentioned in my original post I believe to go a bit deeper than “bad science” subject to correction by peer review, as it applies to the research on climate change. I’m sure to you this makes me a boob, or whatever other insults you want to pile on. Somehow I’ll live.
As for now, I must retire to the living room as Bugs Bunny is on. Later, when the show becomes too complicated for me to grasp, I will likely blow bubbles and giggle uncontrollably.