2011-11-06 14:18:37the artful conflation of engineering standards of science to Earth Science's standards. . .
Peter Miesler


Lately I've been struggling with trying to define that difference between the technical knowledge so many learned 'skeptics' possess and the different approach that Earth Sciences demands.

Hope you don't mind me sharing the following from over at the Skeptics Society Forum. I could use some feedback or suggestions on developing these thoughts.


Re: Denial In Depth

Post #7  Postby citizenschallenge » Sat Nov 05, 2011 8:52 pm
rickoshay85 wrote:Facts, demonstrated facts... Without them, all you have is theory, supposition, or just plain educated guesswork

Come on defend what you mean.

AGW Facts have been demonstrated right and left...
... and no you can't get proofs like in wind-tunnel tests
... you need to be honest enough to appreciate that the dynamics of our natural planet need to be assessed in a different manner than you would a new product.
Nothing new about that either...
... this conflation is just a nasty political tactic to confuse and manipulate public awareness about standards of understanding.

i know, i know, lots of nit-picking at the fringes of the science, concerning details that have minor effects on the over all situation.  Then the artful inflation of those minor fuzz issues into supposed fundamental game changers... which incidentally, they never turn out to be.
All the while willfully ignoring the substance of the reality of GHGs and how they influence cascading dynamics within our planet's climate and biosphere.
signature ~
The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial


Watts up with Old PI: "Humans adapt nature to our desires, we don't adapt to nature"




If anyone had any thoughts to share I'd love to hear them

2011-11-16 02:15:20
Peter Miesler

For what its worth, more thoughts on the general topic



gotta run