By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Zucas on 18 February 2010
Edit Thread
Kasz216 said:
Zucas said:
Kasz216 said:
Zucas said:
sguy78 said:
 

But this isn't the only thing that is bringing this house of cards down. The e-mails that were leaked of these scientists showed they were destroying evidence before other people could get a hold of it.

Well let's not sink the whole boat before we know we hit something.  A composition fallacy is where you assert what is true of one part is true of the whole.  Meaning, jsut becuase a little part like this may have come out, we can't assume the whole is false.  It's a fallacy that a lot of people like to use to disprove god as they find something that disproves a part of stated existence of god and then use it to assert it as the whole disproval.  Yes this is damning of the theory but it doesn't disprove the whole theory.  As I said, let's wait for more data to be compiled or data that supercedes other data before we start making truth claims.  Or basically, let's not make the same mistake Mr. Phil Jones made here.

There is a real issue here though... since Phil Jones work is more or less the entire foundation of global warming research. His hockey stick method is basically the very fundamentals of global warming. If this actually is true... it pretty much does bring down the whole science and reset it to it's infancy.

Well even if that, doesn't mean we just let the issue seem solved.  We do the research until we know the answer.  When we know the answer we act upon it.  Maybe the guy was a complete nutcase and complete liar but at least let's prove he is before we drain the tub. 

No, but it does mean you treat global warming as if it isn't true. If you can't prove your theory you have to rely on the "null hypothesis." The fact that he admits he can't prove his theory means that scientifically it has to be treated as false until proven otherwise. Occrum's razor and all that. You still do global warming research.... however you approach that research differently. Treating global warming as an unproven hypothesis. Basically you "flip the script" in how research has been conducted.

Well I doubt he was the only one that says they could "prove global warming exists".  Hell I had a planetary astronomer as an astronomy teacher who said he could prove it as well... did a pretty damn good job of it as well haha.  The only thing I'm trying to say, is don't make any preemptive assumptions.  Even if the founder of something turns out to be a fraud, it doesn't mean the idea is wrong.  Sure, as you stated it does damn the proposal to hell, but doesn't fully destroy it as you stated.  And I do know about Ockham's Razor, but all research in science is always about proving and continuously proving hypotheses in hopes for better confidence or reworking the hypotheses.  So as I've been saying, let's let the people who know how to do their job, do their job and go from there.  Not to mention, we still need larger confirmation on this story that completely damns all the old evidence. 

But I know I'm not reputable enough to go out and damn or confirm any of this which is why I'll keep this neutral state.