sid, at what point can the context be seperated from perspectives or perceptions? Reality is thought in terms of actuality, so where does one draw a distinction of what exists?
Now, now you're gettin all existential on me, I am but a simple man. It is what it is; all that fancified stuff is for the philosophers.
Actually, it seems you have missed the salient point and for some unknown reason, over-stated what the article actually says. One more time:
"Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings." This study had ... "confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."
But hey, thanks anyways for your even-handed contributions to this topic.
umm... what's your point? That the scientists are not infallible or that the study does not actually support the conclusions of the 2007 report?
A "couple out of context"?!?!? Its pretty clear you haven't been paying attention one iota. You're far, far behind in staying up with where this story has gone since.
The IPCC 4th Assessment Report predicted sea level will rise between 18 to 59 cm by the year 2100. Many consider this a conservative estimate as observed sea level rise is tracking at the top range of IPCC estimates (Rahmstorf 2007, Allison 2009). However, a study led by Mark Siddall examined how sea levels have changed over the past 22,000 years in response to temperature change (Siddall 2009). This enabled them to predict how sea level would respond to future warming, estimating sea level rise between 7 to 82 cm by the year 2100. Siddall's paper concluded that this increased confidence in the IPCC projections.
However, a later study using similar methods to Siddall 2009 came to dramatically different results, estimating sea level rise of 75 to 190 cm by 2100 (Vermeer & Rahmstorf 2009). Why the discrepancy? Judging by the acknowledgement in Siddall's retraction, one speculates that Vermeer and Rahmstorf discovered flaws in Siddall's methodology and notified the authors. Siddall saw that the errors undermined their results and retracted their paper. So we have two papers using similar methods - one predicting low sea level rise, the other predicting high sea level rise. The low sea level rise is found to be in error. While some are spinning this result to imply no sea level rise, in actuality it increases our confidence in high sea level rise.
I am talking about what already exists; not the actions of people based upon his or her beliefs. Different context.
sid, at what point can the context be seperated from perspectives or perceptions? Reality is thought in terms of actuality, so where does one draw a distinction of what exists?
A "couple out of context"?!?!? Its pretty clear you haven't been paying attention one iota. You're far, far behind in staying up with where this story has gone since.
While the Met Office announces a “do over”, the much anticipated report from Environment and Public Works (EPW) minority leader Senator Jim Inhofe has been announced in the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works” hearing.
SENATE EPW MINORITY RELEASES REPORT ON CRU CONTROVERSY
Shows Scientists Violated Ethics, Reveals Major Disagreements on Climate Science
Washington, D.C.-The Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works released a report today titled, “‘Consensus’ Exposed: The CRU Controversy.” The report covers the controversy surrounding emails and documents released from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU). It examines the extent to which those emails and documents affect the scientific work of the UN’s IPCC, and how revelations of the IPCC’s flawed science impacts the EPA’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases.
The report finds that some of the scientists involved in the CRU controversy violated ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and possibly federal laws. In addition, the Minority Staff believes the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC-based “consensus” and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes.
Yeah,, you would bring this up. Of the thousands of emails they take a couple out of context to make some irrelevent point. You understand that that scientist do agree about the under-lying science? You know nothing I say or link to will change your mind. It is as fruitless as arguing with someone who doesn't believe in evolution or thinks the earth is flat, as far I am concerned.
I think you've fallen into a stereotype blackhole and can't find your way out.
Y'know we all go to church too, and praise the righteous dude Jeebus...
That's just the very nature and definition of the word conservative, wasn't even talking about religion or politics, just in relation to change and new ideas.
Perhaps, but I don't think that the nature of the political conservatism label cuts quite deeply enough in the analysis. There is a human propensity to manipulate and be easily manipulated that lies still deeper. From the beginning of the notions of rationale this is apparent. Men setting their own designs up to be unquestioned. Sprinkle some evolving scientific theory or cosmic consciousness and voila! The truth emerges on stage as if in a puppet theater. The mathematics of the surreal.
I think that is due to the very nature of "conservatism"; a holding on to the old ways if you will; cautious to or even denying change.
Perhaps, but I don't think that the nature of the political conservatism label cuts quite deeply enough in the analysis. There is a human propensity to manipulate and be easily manipulated that lies still deeper. From the beginning of the notions of rationale this is apparent. Men setting their own designs up to be unquestioned. Sprinkle some evolving scientific theory or cosmic consciousness and voila! The truth emerges on stage as if in a puppet theater. The mathematics of the surreal.
I, too, have a family member who has edged into the denier camp with help from various right-wing demagogues. As someone who uses reason to seek truth and is open to evidence that might disprove my beliefs, it's hard for me to understand those who form and hold beliefs that are apparently contrary to the truth. I gave up trying to persuade them, though, after studying the research released last year that shows that people will cling to their beliefs even when given concrete evidence that the belief is based on a false premise. Amazingly, the belief often becomes stronger when factually disproved. This phenomenon holds across the ideological spectrum but is particularly strong among cultural and political conservatives.
Beaker wrote: Removing the last line of your post just for ... clarity. Now apply the exact same words you've posted to the believers, as viewed by the skeptics. Funny how that shoe fits equally well, huh? Or perhaps you can't see that?
I, too, have a family member who has edged into the denier camp with help from various right-wing demagogues. As someone who uses reason to seek truth and is open to evidence that might disprove my beliefs, it's hard for me to understand those who form and hold beliefs that are apparently contrary to the truth. I gave up trying to persuade them, though, after studying the research released last year that shows that people will cling to their beliefs even when given concrete evidence that the belief is based on a false premise. Amazingly, the belief often becomes stronger when factually disproved. This phenomenon holds across the ideological spectrum but is particularly strong among cultural and political conservatives.
I think that is due to the very nature of "conservatism"; a holding on to the old ways if you will; cautious to or even denying change.
I, too, have a family member who has edged into the denier camp with help from various right-wing demagogues. As someone who uses reason to seek truth and is open to evidence that might disprove my beliefs, it's hard for me to understand those who form and hold beliefs that are apparently contrary to the truth. I gave up trying to persuade them, though, after studying the research released last year that shows that people will cling to their beliefs even when given concrete evidence that the belief is based on a false premise. Amazingly, the belief often becomes stronger when factually disproved. This phenomenon holds across the ideological spectrum but is particularly strong among cultural and political conservatives.
Is that sort of like saying that if you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything?
My own brothers' ratinale for being a denier. Nevermind the actual under-lying science, and of course, the flip side of where the funding for the deniers is coming from. I took to educating myself a few years ago. Places like realclimate.org provide more of the raw science that I prefer, though it did force me to learn alot of other fields like paleo-climatology and a lot of new terminology, but it gives me a better feel for it overall. I still can't talk to my brother about it though, because he is that entreneched in his thinking. At that point, I like to bring up simple questions that I know they have no clue about, like "what causes ice ages?".
I, too, have a family member who has edged into the denier camp with help from various right-wing demagogues. As someone who uses reason to seek truth and is open to evidence that might disprove my beliefs, it's hard for me to understand those who form and hold beliefs that are apparently contrary to the truth. I gave up trying to persuade them, though, after studying the research released last year that shows that people will cling to their beliefs even when given concrete evidence that the belief is based on a false premise. Amazingly, the belief often becomes stronger when factually disproved. This phenomenon holds across the ideological spectrum but is particularly strong among cultural and political conservatives.
I am but a simple man. It is what it is; all that fancified stuff is for the philosophers.
spot on.
