Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Folks,

This topic has come up a couple of times and been locked down because it is so controversial.

For those of you who really want to talk about and learn some more on this and other important topics, I suggest visiting the forums of Asimovs and Analog. These are both science fiction magazines published in digest form. You may have seen them on the magazine rack at your local B&N. The forums feature some smart and in my opinion enlightened folks(real scientists, published science/science fiction writers, college professors, science teachers) who are regular participants.

Oh, and they also talk about science fiction books and movies too!

The sites are asimovs.com and analogsf.com

D.C.

Edited by DutyCat
Link to post
Share on other sites

An excellent idea. Both magazines are excellent reading. I had a subscription to Analog a few years back, but let it go as I simply didn't have the time to read it! It may sound strange that science fiction journals might be a place for "real science" rational inquiry, but recall that many (most?) scientists are avid science fiction fans. I wonder if it should be a prerequisite to being a scientist--without imagination, is research possible?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a cosulting atmospheric scientist and climate researcher I would make the following recommendations:

1: Educate yourself on both sides of the argument and place it into the bigger picture of politics, energy needs (and its hard facts of the capabilities/limitations of our technologies), land usage, and wrap it into the context of earths history regarding how humans and other lifeforms can cope with an ever changing climate and environment.

2: *THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT * DECIDE FOR YOURSELF

These are some (not all) the points that you will need to study up on.

1: Solar radiation (Radiation Balance) and the effects of our planets' orbit (including inclination, distance from sun, etc)

2: General Atmospheric circulation and pressure patterns

3: Composition of the atmosphere (gases, water vapor and clouds and thier properties)

4: The Ocean circulations and transport of heat and moisture

5: Geography and Geology (you need to understand how it has changed over the the millenias as that impact on the climate records)

6: Proxy data and it's limitations (tree rings, ice cores, sediments cores, etc)

7: Our cryosphere (the Poles, glaciers, permafrost) -- For example : a loss of ice is usually not associated with warming atmosphere in the poles...usually it's a result of warming seas and land itself and pervailing winds moving the ice around on the water's surface

8: How temperatures are recorded and archived

9: How siting the temperature sensor and it's microclimate affects the data points

10: Gear up on your statistics and calculus if you can

These are sites that a lot of scientists participate in in this battle:

"Deniers"

Climate Audit

WattsUpWithThat

Roger Pielke

Lubos Motl

"Pro Warmists"

Real Climate

Science of Doom

Sci Blogs

Dr Paul Mann

Here's another site that is documenting the issues regarding actually recording of temp:

Surface Stations

Problem Sites

Hope this gets you started.

- Matt

Link to post
Share on other sites
An excellent idea. Both magazines are excellent reading. I had a subscription to Analog a few years back, but let it go as I simply didn't have the time to read it! It may sound strange that science fiction journals might be a place for "real science" rational inquiry, but recall that many (most?) scientists are avid science fiction fans. I wonder if it should be a prerequisite to being a scientist--without imagination, is research possible?

Great post and I could not agree more.

There is a good book entitled SPACE AND THE AMERICAN IMAGINATION which is devoted to this very topic. It is written by a gent named Howard E. McCurdy and published as part of the Smithsonian History of Aviation Series. The book focuses on American contributions, as that is where the bulk of modern science fiction(1930's and later) has originated, but gives due credit to the many familiar non-American visionaries we are familiar with (Verne, Wells, Clark, etc.) Recommended.

Edited by DutyCat
Link to post
Share on other sites

I might also urge that people look beyond journalism. Newspapers, television news, and even many news magazines have always tended to be sensationalist. Contrary to many people's assumptions, television news was never really "non-political," as it always embodied somebody's politics, or at least limited the spectrum on which in provided multiple viewpoints. Newspapers never claimed to be non-political, and so have committed no crime by taking an editorial political stance. Works that are better or more thoroughly researched are arguably never without politics--the researcher(s) are people, after all--but at least they argue, more or less well, a case. Journalists operate under deadlines that due to the internet age are increasingly frantic, and frankly, rules of evidence that are not as easily accepted by other research professions, usually specialists. The key is to listen to a variety of specialists, so as avoid simply taking on the assumptions and possible short-sightedness of any given research specialization.

If you're really, really intent on the subject, or any other in science, and so long as you've brushed up on such arcane subjects as calculus and statistics, you could try tackling Thomas Kuhn's classic The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Not light reading at all, but it gets one thinking about how the scientific community has historically formed knowledge, and how what we thought "we know" has changed several times in the past.

Link to post
Share on other sites
...If you're really, really intent on the subject, or any other in science, and so long as you've brushed up on such arcane subjects as calculus and statistics, you could try tackling Thomas Kuhn's classic The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Not light reading at all, but it gets one thinking about how the scientific community has historically formed knowledge, and how what we thought "we know" has changed several times in the past.

We are indeed fortunate to be living in an age & culture where there are a number of readily available, cheap and good to excellent books written by practicing scientists that explain not only what we know in science, but how we know it. Another good read, and considerably less "chewy" and more current than Kuhn is Massimo Pigliucci's "Nonsense on Stilts: How to tell Science from Bunk", which covers a number of relevant current issues of concern. Might want to check it out the next time you're at your LBS....

- Dan

Edited by Vpanoptes
Link to post
Share on other sites
We are indeed fortunate to be living in an age & culture where there are a number of readily available, cheap and good to excellent books written by practicing scientists that explain not only what we know in science, but how we know it. Another good read, and considerably less "chewy" and more current than Kuhn is Massimo Pigliucci's "Nonsense on Stilts: How to tell Science from Bunk", which covers a number of relevant current issues of concern. Might want to check it out the next time you're at your LBS....

- Dan

So reality is they do not know Science, and that is why we can only study it.

To be truthful I am all for changing the realm/name of Mathematics and sticking parts of Physics that are known and true into it, pretty much Mathematics is the only science one can truthfully say they "know". In my Reality Math the true physics cannot be a science, it is what is known "It is what it is". Science on the other hand is based off of theories "what could be or might be".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...