Any other science can be preformed by anyone and if the experiment is done correctly the results come out to what has been calculated. For example, any 4th grader can show Ohm’s law and the relationship of Voltage, Current, and Resistance, or Boyles Law showing the relationship of area, pressure, and temperature. Anyone can calculate the distance the sun is from the Earth, or how fast the Earth spins on the axis. These are all examples of objective science, and since they are objective, no one argues if they are real or not.
2007-08-03 08:16:33 · 11 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
Global warming is subjective science. Only climatologist can read the tea leaves and tell you the answers you seek. And the science is left to the majority to decide as not everyone will read the tea leaves the same. Once the majority agrees, then this is the consensus which speaks as the authority for the subject. They cannot tell you what the temperature will be in the future, they just know it’s getting warmer. And if it cools down for a few years, well, that’s weather – don’t you know the difference between climate and weather?
The consensus of Christian theologians believe that there was a virgin birth, the world and man was created by God, and people can walk on water. Islamic theologians believe that mohammad was given a winged horse to fly to the heavens to talk with god. Does their consensus make their science true?
2007-08-03 08:17:04 · update #1
Good science is not subject to the whims of a consensus. Good science is repeatable by anyone and can be discovered by only one person regardless of what the consensus believes.
2007-08-03 08:17:18 · update #2
you can not use the words subjective or consensus along with science. Just because people have consensus on something does not mean that it has been scientifically proven. The scientific method by definition is void of subjectivness. So should journalism for that matter but it hasn't stopped them from being very subjective as well. That just goes to show that the theories of global worming are not based on scientific study but rather peoples personal motives and opinion.
Dana1981, you don't understand what science is then. science is what is proven and can be duplicated, not a best guess from the evidence. That may be part of the process but you can't say, " so many people agree therefor it is scientifically proven", no, just a lot of people have the same opinion. That is not science!
2007-08-03 08:27:26 · answer #1 · answered by scorpio 2 · 3⤊ 3⤋
This topic is a lot more complicated than that. Most people are not able or willing to go to the scientific websites and read up on it. There seems to be a huge gap between the knowledge and vocabulary level of the climatologists, and the average everyday layperson. There's not alot of places for the average joe to read about the science of it and be able to understand what they're talking about. I personally would love to attend lectures on the subject given by colleges but geared toward the average citizen. Not dumbing it down, just using terminology that could be understood.
I'm sure it must be hard to convey a wealth of knowledge that took years to study in college and put it into a small soundbite that the lowest common denominator could understand!
2007-08-03 15:54:36 · answer #2 · answered by djstocks 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
There are other examples of this so called Subjective Science where people don't know the answers yet...but it doesn't make it any less correct. What about the observation of planets in other solar systems. Are you calling bull*** on the too? It may not be perfect, but should that stop scientists from trying. Same thing with global warming...
Congratulations...you have picked an easy target. Just jump on the "Global Warming Bashing" bandwagon!! Come on...you can do better than that, can't you?
2007-08-03 15:42:05 · answer #3 · answered by xxx 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
By your definition any complicated science is subjective. The fact that the universe is expanding and accelerating is subjective because you can't figure that out by yourself. You have to trust cosmologists who look at their "tea leaves" (a.k.a. scientific evidence) and use it to draw conclusions, same as climate scientists do. Same way you trust a doctor to give you the correct diagnosis and prescription to cure it. Same way you trust a mechanic to fix your car. Same as you trust that the airplane you're flying in won't break apart and send you plummetting to your death because it's been properly designed and maintained.
It's all perfectly repeatable, by people who know what they're doing. Like other doctors, other mechanics, other cosmologists, and other climatologists.
Science is not subjective just because you don't understand it. The consensus is merely indicative of how overwhelming the scientific evidence is for anthropogenic global warming. Other climatologists HAVE repeated the experiments, which is why there is a consensus!
2007-08-03 15:20:29 · answer #4 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 4⤊ 4⤋
"Global warming" (as it is being forced upon us) is NOT science, subjective or otherwise. It is a SCAM designed to seperate YOU from your money and to promote socialism across all the nations of this planet.
Global warming as it really is:
Global warming is one-half of the climatic cycle of warming and cooling.
The earth's mean temperature cycles around the freezing point of water.
This is a completely natural phenomenon which has been going on since there has been water on this planet. It is driven by the sun.
Our planet is currently emerging from a 'mini ice age', so is becoming warmer and may return to the point at which Greenland is again usable as farmland (as it has been in recorded history).
As the polar ice caps decrease, the amount of fresh water mixing with oceanic water will slow and perhaps stop the thermohaline cycle (the oceanic heat 'conveyor' which, among other things, keeps the U.S. east coast warm).
When this cycle slows/stops, the planet will cool again and begin to enter another ice age.
It's been happening for millions of years.
Humans did not cause it.
Humans cannot stop it.
2007-08-03 15:20:59 · answer #5 · answered by credo quia est absurdum 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
It's going to be in the 90s ( closer to 100) for at lest three straight weeks in Ohio. I guess the right wingers reacted the same way when Columbus found out the earth wasn't flat.
2007-08-03 15:26:01 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I'm not sure you've thought through what you've written. You seem to be implying that if something is subjective then it's questionable but isn't if it's objective. There's a very simple solution - make climatology objective and learn it for yourself, anyone in the world is free to do so.
2007-08-03 15:37:14 · answer #7 · answered by Trevor 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
You just make it up as you go along, don't you/ Every thing you post? You think the scientists get together and vote on what is true? (I mean as opposed to drawing lots, or something?) Do you ever have a damn clue what you are talking about? Sorry, forget that last question.
2007-08-03 15:29:31 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's not subjective science, it's just a hypothesis. Where the confusion comes in is when people don't understand that and think it's an undeniable truth.
2007-08-03 15:43:23 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
I agree you..My problem is that they use computers to make their long range forcasts..and they are rarely correct predicting the weather where I live
2007-08-03 15:25:17 · answer #10 · answered by John 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋