http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/
The issue here under debate is Global Warming. This argument is pro-‘Global Cooling’ which is amusing to say the least. The argument may exist that scientific evidence was doctored, which is a problem .This does not, however, eliminate Global Warming as an issue entirely. I would define the true issue here as scientific ethics and established credibility based upon them. In the event that documents were doctored this is an issue because it seriously degrades the integrity of the argument that Global Warming is a serious issue. I feel that the position being argued against here though is the whole idea of Global Warming. Is stasis a possibility? For the individual who clearly doesn’t believe in global warming? I highly doubt it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Nice job this week, Mick! I especially appreciate the humor you've identified here (re: "Global-Cooling!"). I like, too, that you identified the issue as "scientific ethics." Could you elaborate? In what way is this ethos different from, say, situational ethos?
ReplyDeleteAlso, watch your time... you need to plan ahead in order to make sure these posts are up by the 11pm deadline each Thursday -- so you get credit for your hard work! :)
--DR. SOUDER
That fourth question, "Policy," seems to be tricky in most every article and post I've seen. What can be done? Can we "fix" global warming and scientific ethics? Is that totally out of our hands, our government's hands, and society's hands as a whole, or is there actually a process to aid both of these epic problems?
ReplyDeleteWow, very glad to see comment action on my end... although, Dr. Souder you are quite correct and frankly I'm ashamed of myself.
ReplyDeleteRe: Ruthalyn
Policy is tricky because with most of these issues there is a debatable approach to every little thing. In this instance as well as all others, I think that science should absolutely live up to its name of purity (ie truth through reasoning and reproducible proofs). I think that both the issue of global warming and scientific ethics could be improved, perhaps not fully 'fixed' though. They are indeed epic problems for this very reason. Global warming can be put into check as it needs to be so we rely on scientists to give people a reason to act and act swiftly. When the scientists can't even be trusted in the most basic efforts of study and documentation then it makes the whole issue fit right in with the mentality that 'global warming' is junk science. Wouldn't you agree? As far as scientific ethics... it will be a never ending battle. People will always lie to prove false truths and as history has shown science comes up with some pretty cooky ideas. Modern science should revolve around legitimacy. If some scientists were more focused on endeavors of knowledge and discovery rather than snagging up some more grant money we might not have as great a spectrum of issues revolving around scientific ethics. In both cases, like with any significant issue in America I think it is every citizens DUTY to do their small part for global warming as well as hold scientists accountable for their failures. Any stance or small action may seem meaningless but we must exercise individuality while functioning within the collective... every little thing that we do, or educated opinion we share makes a difference among the whole collective despite what some may believe. What are your thoughts on what we could do to remedy scientific ethics? is a watchdog organization a solution? or simply another addition the already present problems?
Re: Dr. Souder
My definition of scientific ethics pretty much rests on legitimacy of process, research data collection, and results. If any of those three become tainted then the entire purpose of scientific study is lost. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Scientific+study … this is scientific research at its most pure form. Situational ethos dictates that folks who support the findings about ‘Global Warming’ stand directly opposite of folks who believe the ‘Junk Science’ mentality. All I can say is when there is that type ferocious opposition one can ill afford to blemish credibility if they ever wish to change the minds of their opponents. Scientific Ethos in whole boils down to whether or not scientists their selves decide to pursue the legitimate and pure search for TRUTH through reasoning and reproducible proofs via the scientific method.
I think it's wonderful and somewhat sad that a group of college kids can have an honest and earnest conversation about global warming/cooling. We can be respectful of each other's opinions, getting all the way to the fourth question of policy but some bureaucrats who think they are "seriously" debating this issue can't even agree on the first question of conjecture as a whole because they are blinded by their own personal motives and beliefs.
ReplyDelete