Winter is coming

[ddstory]

'Mini ice age' coming in next fifteen years, new model of the Sun's cycle shows

"We are now able to predict solar cycles with far greater accuracy than ever before thanks to a new model which shows irregularities in the sun’s 11-year heartbeat. The model shows that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent between 2030 and 2040 causing a "mini ice

Comments

[dexeron]

Michael Crichton is very often quoted by conservatives who want to attack the concept of consensus. They like to pretend that Crichton was a scientist, partly because he wrote about "scientific" things, but mainly because he agreed with their foregone conclusions about climate change. So you will constantly see his words requoted: "If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period." It's a tidy solution to the problem they face: it would be absurd to deny that the vast supermajority of qualified scientists all agree on climate change, so they have to find some way to (laughably) pretend that it doesn't matter what scientists think. "Sure, everyone who is qualified to speak on this says it is X, but I'd rather it be Y, so I'm going to insist that my opinion carries equal (or more) weight to the collective knowledge of qualified scientists. Also, here is some author saying that I'm to do so." How the intellectual bankruptcy, the utter fallacy, of this argument isn't immediately evident to everyone is just completely beyond me.

I mean: "consensus is a shitty methodology?" Seriously? Anyone can say that with a straight face? I mean, I'd laugh if that statement didn't make me want to cry.

I rambled for perhaps too long awhile back about Crichton's statement in this post, but to sum it up, anyone who repeats the idea that consensus isn't a valid part of science (or is "shitty methodology") misunderstands the definitions of both science and consensus, and probably should do more study before speaking on either.

As you said, it is an important metric. Even granting the imperfection of science and the fact that nothing can be every fully proven or "established," we can be damn sure about a lot of things, and the fact that "Science Doesn't Know Everything" (or even that "Science was Wrong Before") doesn't mean that consensus is suddenly an invalid metric with which to judge the current state of scientific understanding.

[sandwichwarrior]

Simple question. Which is better?

Looking for a theory to fit your data, or looking for data to fit your theory?