Deadlier Avalanches? Blame Global Warming

[witch hobble]

Like bunny slippers?

....on a puppy.

 

[riverc0il]

science is not always truthful either.

I think it is an erroneous perspective to see science as not "truthful" -- as if somehow the scientific method is somehow capable of fibbing. Humans are fallible. Scientists setup experiments that are poorly designed, not controlled to the best degree, selectively show results that only favor the conclusion they want to reach, etc. However, that is where peer review and retesting comes in. The scientific method demands repeatability of the results. Fail to repeat in independent repeat testing and you need to go back to the drawing board on your hypothesis. Those that practice junk science aren't going to get any credibility, their work is going to be ridiculed. Science isn't a boggie man that lies.

But media reporting on a single study as if that one study is a major breakthrough is not good, regardless of which side of the scientific isle you are cheer leading. It isn't a "liberal media" but rather a "money media". Media are in the business of selling headlines and shame on them for not putting the proper context on scientific studies.

It seems like climate change is becoming a lightning rod issue like politics on AZ. Threads seem to inevitably devolve into political positions rather than actually discussing facts and issues. It is quite obvious where most people stand, it is quite obvious no one is going to change any view points here. Sure feels great to press the keys for a few strokes despite knowing no one really cares what you think when their mind is already made up.

 

[SIKSKIER]

Don't do it,stay out of this....Sik...

 

[Puck it]

Don't do it,stay out of this....Sik...

Come on in, the water is fine. There is room for everyone.

 

[Puck it]

I think it is an erroneous perspective to see science as not "truthful" -- as if somehow the scientific method is somehow capable of fibbing. Humans are fallible. Scientists setup experiments that are poorly designed, not controlled to the best degree, selectively show results that only favor the conclusion they want to reach, etc. However, that is where peer review and retesting comes in. The scientific method demands repeatability of the results. Fail to repeat in independent repeat testing and you need to go back to the drawing board on your hypothesis. Those that practice junk science aren't going to get any credibility, their work is going to be ridiculed. Science isn't a boggie man that lies.

But media reporting on a single study as if that one study is a major breakthrough is not good, regardless of which side of the scientific isle you are cheer leading. It isn't a "liberal media" but rather a "money media". Media are in the business of selling headlines and shame on them for not putting the proper context on scientific studies.

It seems like climate change is becoming a lightning rod issue like politics on AZ. Threads seem to inevitably devolve into political positions rather than actually discussing facts and issues. It is quite obvious where most people stand, it is quite obvious no one is going to change any view points here. Sure feels great to press the keys for a few strokes despite knowing no one really cares what you think when their mind is already made up.

Okay, I correct the statement. The human presentation of science is not always truthful. I have seen data misrepresented by unethical people and have never been questioned on it.