The Scientific Method (A Review for the Global Warming crowd)

University of Rochester ^ | Frank Wolfs

[Reaganesque]

Given the current man-made Global Warming hype, I felt I should post an explanation on the Scientific Method as it would seem that those who support the hypothesis that man is creating Global Warming have no understanding at all of this concept. It's a long-ish read, but worth the effort. Pay particular attention to section III, Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method. Sound familiar to anyone?

[xcamel]

FReepmail me to get on or off

[BuffaloJack]

The Global Warming Croud does want to listen. It isn't about whether or not global warming it true. It doesn't matter. It is a means of promoting socialism and the global distribution of wealth.
Kyoto is the manifesto and global warming is the new religion. This is just socialism. Nothing else.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

The Global hoax is a self loathing, guilt obsessed cult. You probably won't hear that from its champions in academe and the MSM but that's what it is.

[hosepipe]

Observation Ping

[Radix]

I have not read the article yet, but feel that a comment is necessary.

When I first took a Science course many years ago, I was taught that the first rule was...REJECTION OF AUTHORITY.

That no longer seems to be the case, and I have had discussions about it over the years, sometimes contentious.

IMHO, ROA should be the 1st rule and I am a bit alarmed that this process has seemingly been somewhat nuanced in recent years.

[3AngelaD]

I was wondering when someone was going to point this out. I had it drilled into my head in 9th Grade biology. I think maybe the reason the college age kids (and younger) have all bought into global warming is that they were never taught anything about the scientific method and the difference between a theory, a proof, and a belief, and their teachers don't know anything about it, either.

[Minnesoootan]

Reverse Scientific Method:

1)Draw your conclucion.

2)Select data,no matter how flawed,to support you conclusion.

3)Discard any data,no matter how valid,which does not.

[GBA]

The scientific method is one of the greatest contributions science has made to human progress and the evolution of thought. Too bad it's not being used in the global warming or climate change debate...wait a minute, there is no debate on climate change...never mind.

[AFPhys]

A good review.

[r-q-tek86]

yeah... but I don't FEEL like this is correct.

/chicken little

[Rodney Kings Brain]

Another really important part of the scientific method that the global warming folks seem to be overlooking is analysis of competing hypotheses' - there are many other good explanations for global warming (sun activity being one) that explain the phenomena. The fact that there were periods during the early days of the industrial revolution when the temps. were warmer and C02 levels lower shows that there at least has to be some other explanation for warming because C02 alone does not account for it.

[HaveHadEnough]

I think there are two questions:

1. Is global warming taking place?

2. What is the cause of it?

[gilor]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4480559399263937213

Language alert

this is priceless

BAN Dihydrogen Monoxide, NOW!

[Kirkwood]

"When I first took a Science course many years ago, I was taught that the first rule was...REJECTION OF AUTHORITY."

That is not a requirement or a part of the scientific method. Much of the time authority is correct. However, one should feel free to reject authority if the results suggest or demand it.

[Dr.Deth]

[Kirkwood]

"Reverse Scientific Method:
1)Draw your conclucion.

2)Select data,no matter how flawed,to support you conclusion.

3)Discard any data,no matter how valid,which does not."

There are a number of scientific discoveries based on this approach. You might be surprised by that, but brilliant men knew what the principle should be and when the data didn't fit they found reasons why it didn't fit. So they didn't throw away good data, but bad data in order to get to the truth. Sometimes this method is needed to have progress, although before you publish the results you go back and redo the study the correct way.

[newguy357]

I think maybe the reason the college age kids (and younger) have all bought into global warming is that they were never taught anything about the scientific method

Excuse me, but it's not the college science kids that are pushing the global warming farce down the collective throat of the world. They wield no authority in the scientific community as yet. The politically-charged scientists who tell us to panic and redistribute our wealth to save the world from global warming are the ones presently controlling science departments at universities--i.e., they are among that same disgraceful lot who protested the vietnam war. The young people entering grad. school must comply with the misguided beliefs of their foolish elders in order to:
1. be accepted to the top schools
2. get jobs afterwards
3. get tenure track positions
Notice the new MIT prof. who is launching a fast because he was denied tenure for this reason as an example.

The GW scare is thanks to Baby Boomer scientists who wield authority, not the newly minted scientists trying to put bread on the table and establish their reputations.

[Rodney Kings Brain]

I think he meant reject arguments from authority (logical fallacy) when the person making them (e.g. Al Gore) is not an authority on the subject they are talking about.

[T-Bird45]

Excellent and timely post -- should be referenced and appended in every Global Warming post so readers can check for blatant bias and scientific malpractice.