Anonymous
Anonymous asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 9 years ago

I would like to found a REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION?

In response to the following question (paste the link into the URL and delete the blank)

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt =ArjYBD0enPDO2gipQxXoVuvty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20110723045227AApWwvH

One responder said;

<I also wonder what is meant by "REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION". Does it mean that the organization

<- supports what they consider to be the "consensus" opinion?

<- does not make statements against against the "consensus" opinion?

<- does not attempt to settle scientific questions by voting?

<- is at least partly a government organization?>

Is it that easy to become a REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION?

I doubt it. Is the American Chemical Society, the Australian Coral Reef Society, the Canadian Meteorlogical and Oceanographc Society, the European Physical Society or the Royal Society of the UK REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS because of any of the above criteria? If any one of these organizations came up with new evidence that humans were not causing global warming, that they would be drummed out ot the group of REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS?

Update:

Ooops! The actual link to the question I refered to is

http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ag...

Update 2:

Dave Mar

<Any group that uses consensus to determine what is science is not a scientific organization.>

That statement betrays a misunderstanding of what scientific consensus is. A scientific consensus is not scientists holding a vote. It is where scientific evidence is so overwhelming that scientists agree that the evidence is overwhelming.

Update 3:

Mister Zedd

<Do you comprehend that the two statements, <<Humans are causing warming>> and <<Humans have caused the warming>> are entirely different?>

The first is present tense and the second is past tense. There is a similar difference between the statements, "CO2 lags temperature," and "CO2 has lagged temperature." The critical difference between past tense and present tense, is whether or not anything has changed. In the case of the statements about humans have been causing warming, I doubt that you are suggesting that humans have converted to renewable power, given that you sceptics love to claim that the sun will stop shining when we do so.

In the case of the statements about CO2 lagging temperature, thousands of years ago, CO2 was added to the atmosphere by rising temperatures reducing the solubility of CO2 in sea water, a feedback effect and the oxidation of methane, a cooling effect, because CO2 is a weaker greenhouse gas than methane. Today, CO2 is being added to the atmos

Update 4:

Today, CO2 is being added to the atmosphere by the combustion of fossil fuel, a forcing.

Update 5:

antarcticice

That is an interesting commentary about denier paradoxes. Of course, many denier arguments contradict other denier arguments.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/contradictions.php

Update 6:

Moe

Prior to AAPG issuing its "neutral' statement, did anyone claim that "NO REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION CLAIMS THAT AGW IS NOT REAL"? Is AAPG considered to be a REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION just because of its "neutral" statement.

5 Answers

Relevance
  • 9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Nope. As far as I know, to become a reputable scientific organization, you need... a group of scientists who have a reputation for doing good science. That does not mean "science that gets the accepted results", that means "science that follows the rules of science". Things like "don't distort your evidence to get the results you want", "don't lie", "fairly weigh the evidence to find the genuinely most likely conclusion", "consider all reasonable alternative hypotheses", "keep good records", and so forth.

    The reason that people who are doing good science tend to get the same results, or at least overlapping sets of results, is that people who are doing good science are at least approximating the actual physical reality of the universe, rather than just what they want the universe to be like. If the evidence was showing a world warming primarily or exclusively because of non-anthropogenic factors, or if the evidence was showing a world that was not warming, then that's what reputable scientific organizations, and reputable scientists, would be finding.

  • 9 years ago

    Welcome to the denier paradox, most of the time it is "peer review is no good" "peer review can't be trusted" "it's all a con" etc etc etc

    Unless of course they occasionally get a paper into an actual peer reviewed journal then they dance around like giddy school kids, ranting about how they have proved AGW wrong.

    I think the problem is they actually think peer review is the couple of reviewers who vet the paper, it isn't, it is the thousands of other scientists in the field who read the paper after it is published they discuss it and publish further papers citing the first paper, that is true peer review, many papers are published that go nowhere (and deniers have tried dredging a few of them up, in their sad efforts at generating other theories) most of the papers deniers reference come from a couple of journals that were created just for them, but that is something that didn't really fool the scientific community for long. A good example of this is cold fusion (one, deniers try to use to run down science) in fact it shows science and peer review works, they published their work, others in the field read and tried to follow what they had done and could not, You may indeed be able to "buy off" a limited number of scientists (as deniers appear to have done) but the majority are more interested in the science than money, they are also highly trained they would not be fooled if it was being faked, and they would most certainly be telling people if they thought it was

    The other denier paradox is consensus, they chant constantly that consensus means nothing, yet they also push large petitions with thousands of names that are seeming nonexistent, when it comes to actually appearing at any rally or conference, they also send smaller petitions to Presidents and organisations and even Popes, that are quite certainly weak attempts at trying to show consensus.

    It would also seem that those pretending to be geologists can do little more than correct your grammar rather than try and answer the question. I think you will also find Moe has exactly the same opinion as the pretend geologist, on everything, probably another twin brother.

  • Moe
    Lv 6
    9 years ago

    I'm not sure what your question is but if you want to know if organizations can be drummed out of being accepted? We already know that should a publication publish an article that doesn't meet the standards of the consensus the goal is to rid the world of that publication.

    The AAPG did little more than claim they respect the scientist opinions on the issue but add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. This won them a NO REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION CLAIMS THAT AGW IS NOT REAL wiki entry that alarmist love to bring out as proof that AGW has a concensus. I agree with the AAPG statement, except sequestering air part, so I must agree that I don't not think AGW is real. Where do I get my carbon foot print?

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Any group that uses consensus to determine what is science is not a scientific organization.

    That leaves out NASA, all left wing universities, the UN and the fat fraud Al Gore.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • JimZ
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    Do you comprehend that the two statements, <<Humans are causing warming>> and <<Humans have caused the warming>> are entirely different? The first is pretty much meaningless and is the statement from most of these wishy washy political hacks who are invested to come up with these statements. The second is a completely erroneous statement that would only be made by an imbecile and or ignoramus. I notice the incessant ridiculous attempts to blur these statements by alarmists as they attempt to claim a scientific consensus.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.