Global warming on trial in the US

[Mr Skeptic]

Phlogiston and caloric were discredited because better science came along, not because a judge said they were wrong. I can't think of any examples of science being changed because of a legal (or even non-scientific) influence. I can, however, think of several examples of ideology being refuted by scientific findings.

 

What about stuff like theoretical physics? I'm fairly sure new data has very little to do with these, as they are an attempt to explain existing data better. As for stuff like phlogiston and caloric (or economics or sociology), this sort of theory seems to arise when data is poor or lacking, so that a poor relation between prediction and experiment is hard to notice. On that note, what sort of error margins are there between the predictions of global warming models and what has actually happened?

 

As for influencing scientific consensus without facts, I'm pretty sure things like scientist-celebrities, changes in government funding, or disillusionment with a "stale" theory would all have a significant effect. And yes those things would affect the "scientific consensus" but not the "science" but how to tell the difference between the two?

[iNow]

Are you aware of any legal courts making rulings about findings or interpretations in theoretical physics? I mean, seriously people... How many nits are you going to continue to pick on this semantic tangent which has zero to do with the article shared in the OP?

[swansont]

What about stuff like theoretical physics? I'm fairly sure new data has very little to do with these, as they are an attempt to explain existing data better. As for stuff like phlogiston and caloric (or economics or sociology), this sort of theory seems to arise when data is poor or lacking, so that a poor relation between prediction and experiment is hard to notice. On that note, what sort of error margins are there between the predictions of global warming models and what has actually happened?

 

As for influencing scientific consensus without facts, I'm pretty sure things like scientist-celebrities, changes in government funding, or disillusionment with a "stale" theory would all have a significant effect. And yes those things would affect the "scientific consensus" but not the "science" but how to tell the difference between the two?

 

 

You seem to be focusing on areas of science that are new discoveries; in that sense there is no consensus, because the science is new. Competing models/theories exist (as phlogiston competed with oxygen). I don't see this as relevant to the current discussion.

[Mokele]

Look, it's perfectly simple - the law is irrelevant to scientific fact. Any decent laywer could convince a jury that God made the Earth 6000 years ago, especially given the rules of jury selection and our population's staggering ignorance, and it would mean nothing.

 

How you argue a case in court is VERY different from how you do science. In science, you cannot exclude evidence, rule out lines of questioning, hand-pick the jury, or rely on fallacy and argument from emotion. If you try, you'll get slammed.

 

Is it right all the time? No. But a) science *eventually* gets it right, and b) it's probably got a higher rate of accuracy.

 

 

 

The entire idea is a farce. Anyone who thinks this will be worth the effort it takes to laugh at it is deluded, stupid, or both.