bcheary Loc: Jacksonville, FL

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Oh yeah. You take what these wokesters say seriously after their past track record? Gullibility runs deep among Dems.

The article says, "the Antarctic ice shelf could shatter within the next five years, and is hanging on “by its fingernails” as the planet warms". And the same article states further up that, "While it could take hundreds or thousands of years, the ice shelf could disintegrate much sooner."

That's a good timeline, somewhere between 5 years and a few hundred thousand. So we should all end fossil fuels right now. Hurry.

bcheary Loc: Jacksonville, FL

Some Canadians are not too bright. Must be all that snow!

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

I never stated my take on the veracity of the article. I simply provided counterpoint. Seems you have made some wide-ranging ASSumptions.

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

”That's a good timeline, somewhere between 5 years and a few hundred thousand. So we should all end fossil fuels right now. Hurry.” — Fotoartist

If the timeline is altered just slightly, then it could be
“Tomorrow to a few hundred thousand years” for just about anything:
earthquakes,
sea level rise,
responsible government,
volcanic eruptions,
mass disease-deaths,
glaciation,
drought,
good politicians,
asteroid hit,
flood,
war,
alien invasion . . . .

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

Oh, now this I have GOT to have explained:
"the Antarctic ice shelf . . . is hanging on ‘by its fingernails’”

Alliteration aside, I was not aware glaciers possessed fingernails!

If this is actually the belief of some vapor-brain democrat or democratic-viewpoint supporter, it is even stupider than some of the Biden AND Trump supporters.

Haenzel Loc: South Holland, The Netherlands

I can present you a scientific article from the seventies stating "we're about to enter an Ice Age". Did that happen? Does this article speak for all scientists and more importantly, does it tell the truth?

Instead of cherry picking you better get out and observe......

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Good “science” requires that published theories and studies get questioned critically. But good scientists don’t simply claim that a study’s conclusion is absurd without looking at what may be flawed in the methods or analyses. The data, if accurately recorded and collected, is never wrong; what that data implies is open to conjecture and speculation. When the truth is finally known ALL of the data — including apparent contradictions — will fit the picture.

bcheary Loc: Jacksonville, FL

Read what John Frim posted!

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

Regarding your statement: ”The data, if accurately recorded and collected, is never wrong . . .”
Data (observations) are indeed not “wrong” — they are just facts.

There is however a problem with data if it is the result of an experiment that is SET UP to test a hypothesis in such a manner to bias the result.

Examples of this abound in the claims of persons such as Flat-Earthers, Young Earth Creationists, Pyramidologists, Crystal-healing practitioners, ancient advanced-civilization believers, and other Science-Deniers and their ilk.
They have supposed “data” to back claims, however this “data” (often anecdotal, and not repeatable in controlled conditions) is only gathered in experiments or observations specifically designed to prove the validity of their claims!


”. . . what that data implies is open to conjecture and speculation.”
I regard this statement as factually untrue. The data in and of itself “implies” nothing, it is only recorded information of the result of an experiment or observation gathered to support or reject a specific hypothesis.
Any “implications” are solely the interpretations and conclusions drawn by analysis of data. “Implications” may or may not be revealed by analysis in relation to other observations, previous experiments, or known facts.

I actually consider the use of the term “implications” in the context of your posting to be a poor choice of words. Any implied harm or benefit of a scientific study (experiment) should be analyzed of course.
Results of a study or experiment do not, however, imply any widespread implication unless and until the results are verified by further experiment, case studies, trials and are then implemented.


”When the truth is finally known ALL of the data — including apparent contradictions — will fit the picture.”.
In most cases “the truth” is never completely known — there is always the possibility new data will contradict current understanding(s).

The quoted statement does not agree with any true scientific-methodology: Hypothesis-experiment-observation-analysis-conclusions-theory-reformed hypothesis-experiment . . . The cycle never (or rarely) ends.

There are no experimental analytical procedures—no scientific procedural experimental modes—that claim to know all the truth, or even be in possession of “all the data”.

That is not how “science” works. That is why, even though a thing may be observable in practice, and may be found to fit predictions at even the six-sigma or greater level (99.999999 percent level of confidence), they are regarded as [b]Theory(/b] — not unassailable fact.

”The meaning of the term scientific theory . . . as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory. In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and is widely accepted as valid.

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.
Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment. In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

A scientific theory differs from a scientific fact or scientific law in that a theory explains "why" or "how": a fact is a simple, basic observation, whereas a law is a statement (often a mathematical equation) about a relationship between facts.” —Wikipedia

Examples abound of theories that have been proven and quantified by mathematical proofs as well as observation. These are regarded as “Laws”.
Hubble's Law of Cosmic Expansion.
Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion.
Universal Law of Gravitation.
Newton's Laws of Motion.
Laws of Thermodynamics.
Archimedes' Buoyancy Principle.
(And more).

There are numerous observed instances of natural phenomena that are not substantiated to the extent of Laws, these are known as Theories, and include verifiable as well as debunked ones.
Examples include:

Quantum theory
Evolution by Natural Selection
General relativity
Gravity
Quantum field theory
String theory
Thermodynamics
Phlogiston theory (debunked)
Uncertainty principle
Plate Tectonic theory
Special relativity
Germ theory of disease
Kepler's laws of planetary motion
Atomic theory
Cell theory
Recapitulation theory (debunked in part).

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

[quote=Wyantry]Regarding your statement: ”The data, if accurately recorded and collected, is never wrong . . .”
Data (observations) are indeed not “wrong” — they are just facts.

There is however a problem with data if it is the result of an experiment that is SET UP to test a hypothesis in such a manner to bias the result.

Examples of this abound in the claims of persons such as Flat-Earthers, Young Earth Creationists, Pyramidologists, Crystal-healing practitioners, ancient advanced-civilization believers, and other Science-Deniers and their ilk.
They have supposed “data” to back claims, however this “data” (often anecdotal, and not repeatable in controlled conditions) is only gathered in experiments or observations specifically designed to prove the validity of their claims!


”. . . what that data implies is open to conjecture and speculation.”
I regard this statement as factually untrue. The data in and of itself “implies” nothing, it is only recorded information of the result of an experiment or observation gathered to support or reject a specific hypothesis.
Any “implications” are solely the interpretations and conclusions drawn by analysis of data. “Implications” may or may not be revealed by analysis in relation to other observations, previous experiments, or known facts.

I actually consider the use of the term “implications” in the context of your posting to be a poor choice of words. Any implied harm or benefit of a scientific study (experiment) should be analyzed of course.
Results of a study or experiment do not, however, imply any widespread implication unless and until the results are verified by further experiment, case studies, trials and are then implemented.


”When the truth is finally known ALL of the data — including apparent contradictions — will fit the picture.”.
In most cases “the truth” is never completely known — there is always the possibility new data will contradict current understanding(s).

The quoted statement does not agree with any true scientific-methodology: Hypothesis-experiment-observation-analysis-conclusions-theory-reformed hypothesis-experiment . . . The cycle never (or rarely) ends.

There are no experimental analytical procedures—no scientific procedural experimental modes—that claim to know all the truth, or even be in possession of “all the data”.

That is not how “science” works. That is why, even though a thing may be observable in practice, and may be found to fit predictions at even the six-sigma or greater level (99.999999 percent level of confidence), they are regarded as [b]Theory(/b] — not unassailable fact.

”The meaning of the term scientific theory . . . as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory. In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and is widely accepted as valid.

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.
Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment. In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

A scientific theory differs from a scientific fact or scientific law in that a theory explains "why" or "how": a fact is a simple, basic observation, whereas a law is a statement (often a mathematical equation) about a relationship between facts.” —Wikipedia

Examples abound of theories that have been proven and quantified by mathematical proofs as well as observation. These are regarded as “Laws”.
Hubble's Law of Cosmic Expansion.
Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion.
Universal Law of Gravitation.
Newton's Laws of Motion.
Laws of Thermodynamics.
Archimedes' Buoyancy Principle.
(And more).

There are numerous observed instances of natural phenomena that are not substantiated to the extent of Laws, these are known as Theories, and include verifiable as well as debunked ones.
Examples include:

Quantum theory
Evolution by Natural Selection
General relativity
Gravity
Quantum field theory
String theory
Thermodynamics
Phlogiston theory (debunked)
Uncertainty principle
Plate Tectonic theory
Special relativity
Germ theory of disease
Kepler's laws of planetary motion
Atomic theory
Cell theory
Recapitulation theory (debunked in part).[/quote]

I tried to keep it simple… for the simple-minded. You don’t have to educate me in the scientific method.

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

An excuse that any explanation required being “dumbed-down” to be comprehendible to members of the UHH is ludicrous. Hedgehoggers are probably some of the more technically educated persons on the net, why would they require anything other than a complete and factual explanation?

It would not appear necessary to inform anyone if incomplete explanations were not made in the first place.

I disagreed with some statements that were made, and to attempted to point out some apparent errors. Along with supporting information.

I realize there is a small minority on the UHH that might not comprehend the difference, but it might be better to inform them correctly rather to have them persist in ignorance.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

OK, you want to have a detailed discussion on science, so let's get at it. My responses are in bold type.

Regarding your statement: ”The data, if accurately recorded and collected, is never wrong . . .”
Data (observations) are indeed not “wrong” — they are just facts.

There is however a problem with data if it is the result of an experiment that is SET UP to test a hypothesis in such a manner to bias the result.

Examples of this abound in the claims of persons such as Flat-Earthers, Young Earth Creationists, Pyramidologists, Crystal-healing practitioners, ancient advanced-civilization believers, and other Science-Deniers and their ilk.
They have supposed “data” to back claims, however this “data” (often anecdotal, and not repeatable in controlled conditions) is only gathered in experiments or observations specifically designed to prove the validity of their claims!

I stated that if the data is properly collected it is not wrong. I stand by that statement.

What you are referring to regarding a biased result is more akin to selective data presentation. That could be from not measuring enough samples, or ignoring data that does not fit a preconceived idea, or using poor methodology. In that regard you are correct... a poorly designed (read biased) experiment can prove almost any skewed result you want it to prove. Hopefully respectable researchers doing good science know how to set up a valid experiment (see my next point).

”. . . what that data implies is open to conjecture and speculation.”
I regard this statement as factually untrue. The data in and of itself “implies” nothing, it is only recorded information of the result of an experiment or observation gathered to support or reject a specific hypothesis.
Any “implications” are solely the interpretations and conclusions drawn by analysis of data. “Implications” may or may not be revealed by analysis in relation to other observations, previous experiments, or known facts.

I actually consider the use of the term “implications” in the context of your posting to be a poor choice of words. Any implied harm or benefit of a scientific study (experiment) should be analyzed of course.
Results of a study or experiment do not, however, imply any widespread implication unless and until the results are verified by further experiment, case studies, trials and are then implemented.

Perhaps you misinterpreted my meaning in the statement "what the data implies." There is nothing wrong with what I said. My use of "implication" had nothing to do with harm or benefit; it was meant only in the context of suggesting an explanation for the observations (ie, the drawing of conclusions, or the development of a theory).

Surely you know the "experiment" with the cricket that was trained to jump on command. The "scientist" ripped the legs off the cricket one by one, and each time the cricket had a more difficult time jumping when commanded. Finally when all 6 legs had been removed the cricket could not jump, and the "scientist" (yeah, a real smart guy) concluded (ie, one implication from the data is...) that a cricket's ears are on its legs. That "theory" is plausible based on that single study; but a "better" scientist would validate that theory with further testing to see if in fact the ears are on the legs. And a "good" scientist would realize that the test criterion -- jumping -- is impossible without legs regardless of where the ears are located, and therefore nothing logical about ears and legs can be concluded from that single experiment.


”When the truth is finally known ALL of the data — including apparent contradictions — will fit the picture.”.
In most cases “the truth” is never completely known — there is always the possibility new data will contradict current understanding(s).

The quoted statement does not agree with any true scientific-methodology: Hypothesis-experiment-observation-analysis-conclusions-theory-reformed hypothesis-experiment . . . The cycle never (or rarely) ends.

There are no experimental analytical procedures—no scientific procedural experimental modes—that claim to know all the truth, or even be in possession of “all the data”.

That is not how “science” works. That is why, even though a thing may be observable in practice, and may be found to fit predictions at even the six-sigma or greater level (99.999999 percent level of confidence), they are regarded as [b]Theory(/b] — not unassailable fact.

Science works by uncovering small truths in piecemeal fashion, and then putting those truths together to fit the bigger picture. It is much like assembling a picture puzzle wherein small sections are often built correctly (truths) before they all come together in the final picture.

I don't agree with your notion that "all the truth" cannot be known, because it depends on how big a picture you want to examine. We do not know everything about the universe (origin, future); but we do know that the earth is not flat (which was a "theory" or "believed concept" at one time). The motions of the sun, the moon, all the planets and stars in the sky can be explained or described by mathematical equations using an earth-centred universe (ie, any frame of reference can be chosen upon which to build a theory of motion); but it all becomes MUCH simpler if we believe that the earth revolves around the sun, and the solar system within the galaxy; etc. When you bounce a ball on a moving train it only bounces up and down to ALL observers on the train; but anyone standing on the ground seeing the train go by concludes that your ball is moving through parabolic trajectories.

My point is that there are many things in science that we know to be true, even to the extent of being 100% true. It is absolutely true -- and always will be -- that to the people on the train the ball ONLY bounces up and down. If we widen the scope of our observation (watching the passing train from the ground) we may have to modify the model that explains the observations (parabolic trajectories) by taking into account the moving frame of reference. The smaller truth still fits within the larger truth.

”The meaning of the term scientific theory . . . as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory. In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and is widely accepted as valid.

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.
Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment. In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

A scientific theory differs from a scientific fact or scientific law in that a theory explains "why" or "how": a fact is a simple, basic observation, whereas a law is a statement (often a mathematical equation) about a relationship between facts.” —Wikipedia

Examples abound of theories that have been proven and quantified by mathematical proofs as well as observation. These are regarded as “Laws”.
Hubble's Law of Cosmic Expansion.
Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion.
Universal Law of Gravitation.
Newton's Laws of Motion.
Laws of Thermodynamics.
Archimedes' Buoyancy Principle.
(And more).

There are numerous observed instances of natural phenomena that are not substantiated to the extent of Laws, these are known as Theories, and include verifiable as well as debunked ones.
Examples include:

Quantum theory
Evolution by Natural Selection
General relativity
Gravity
Quantum field theory
String theory
Thermodynamics
Phlogiston theory (debunked)
Uncertainty principle
Plate Tectonic theory
Special relativity
Germ theory of disease
Kepler's laws of planetary motion
Atomic theory
Cell theory
Recapitulation theory (debunked in part).

Theories can be big or small, tested or untested, right or wrong. A theory is nothing more than an explanation of an observed behaviour of a system. Even your Wikipedia quote says that in reference to common everyday usage, as opposed to referring to a tested and validated theory. For most people the distinction between usages is academic.