# When did science become an opinion? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 26, 2012, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-science-become-an-opinion/629466 "2012-07-26T17:10:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![wiredbadger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/3be4f8/32.png) [@wiredbadger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wiredbadger)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-science-become-an-opinion/629466/41 "2012-07-26T22:57:14Z")
okay i am back , as you can see. got my dr pepper and going to list the ideas you all have offered. reason is because i am curious what we think this would spell for the future of the earth.plus i think it will help us stay focused. i feel it is the least i can do for such wonderful responses. plus for the grammatically challenged i will shorten the question down to a sentence or so format so they can participate. i cherish all thoughts. Socrates believed the dialectic was the way for our souls to remember truth. the more the better. so be right back. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-science-become-an-opinion/629466/42 "2012-07-26T23:00:51Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Humans are human, that’ll never change. **SCIENCE** can change it! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-science-become-an-opinion/629466/43 "2012-07-26T23:01:03Z")
> [@wiredbadger](#): > > The other day my friend calls me up and starts reading to me a book on anthropology. (my university education). the guy’s name i never heard of before, but i instantly recognized a emotional directive as he declares bonobo culture to a female and rational side of humanity. the more i listened to the stuff the more sicker i got. (things like using captive animals behavior as a basis for describing even wild animal). i eventually told her that nothing he says is true. it is not being reported in a responsible way.she says but he is an anthropologist like you and he is saying things like you. when i tried to explain to her the real science and facts. as they are,without subjective interpretation she says: well that is your opinion. i go no! it is the science.there is no opinion. The context of the statement is important. If this statement appeared in a scientific paper, I hope that the paper would be rejected. A book by anyone can be more of an opinion piece even while being educational. And many scientific journals have opinion columns or pages (I edit one.) I encourage contributors to be controversial, but no one should mistake a statement in my column for one in a peer reviewed paper. For example, Hawkings recent book has both information about cosmology and opinions about origins. As a book, that is reasonable. As a paper, it would not be. Textbooks are more like books than papers. They do not go through the same rigorous review process. (I know, my wife wrote a piece of one.) Look at the influence of places like Texas on the content. So, if you find statements like you’ve quoted in peer-reviewed papers, I’d worry. In a book, no. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-science-become-an-opinion/629466/44 "2012-07-26T23:09:59Z")
> [@wiredbadger](#): > > as for trying to tell you that nasa withholds information and only comes clean after pressure from the public. are you really asking me that? that is a whole different debate. i was merely stating that they finally came clean that they found life on mars with the viking lander 30 years after the fact with a procedure that wasn’t really necessary considering about ten or so years ago the guy that created the device did a much more detailed analysis to reprove that there was life in the findings. however, if you are say that nasa has never said there is life on mars then..here you go > [National Geographic](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/04/120413-nasa-viking-program-mars-life-space-science/) > or if you are that picky about the question mark here you go. > [http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4255990/Nasa-Scientists-find-life-on-Mars-and-kill-it.html](http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4255990/Nasa-Scientists-find-life-on-Mars-and-kill-it.html) > i could of course go back into the news archives and do a load of lists which will all drag that to a pile of redundancy. the whole point of me stating that there is to show how due to something which remains intangible, science is being made into an opinion. see, look at it this way, if that viking spacecraft had found bipedal green cheese eaters with green bay packers shirts on , then yea i think they would admit to it. however, since they had no real idea of what they would find out there. any positive off of three radically different tests would be momentous and certainly groundbreaking. plus for the record when nasa finally yesterday admits that there was life in that test, thereby renouncing the very doubt it created , you would think that to would be earth changing news. however, i suspect that because science has been forced into an opinion gamut no one really gets the significance or magnitude of this event. i am not trying to be anything other then a person who lives on earth and sees things that make me question why they happen. things like this are highly questionable and the reason why should be addressed. No, NASA has not “finally came clean that they found life on mars”. You are over- intepreting your own cite. ---
**Author:** ![wiredbadger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/3be4f8/32.png) [@wiredbadger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wiredbadger)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-science-become-an-opinion/629466/45 "2012-07-26T23:15:33Z")
to the question or debate how did science become an opinion and how will this affect the future of our species or race. [i have shortened some of the statements for space. i trust that i manage to keep the relevant parts intact.please let me know otherwise.] also i cherish everyone’s input. anyone that said something that is not in my list is simply because i am trying to create a evolution? of the debate for reference. everything is valuable.plus i have no favoritism.i hope and trust you can see what i am doing. -The minute a scientific fact did not agree with someone’s opinion. All snark aside, I often think the battle over teaching biological evolution in the United States which evolution-deniers successfully got stickers put into textbooks evolution was only one explanation for the development of life was a major starting point to the science is an opinion mentality. - The major problem is that even with scientific evidence, people will argue that it’s “evidence of something else.” - It creates this sort of false dialectic where you say, “Well, it’s just two ways to look at the same set of evidence.”…It’s become a problem because American society has evolved to the point where belief is seen as something virtuous. “I’m in the land of the free and I can believe whatever I want,” even though reality is completely indifferent to it. -The scientific community has never been able to completely be objective when the subject being explored is emotional and controversial. - Another BIG problem is the science coverage from mainstream news. What you typically see is a constant reporting on single studies that might show a statistical inclination toward a particular conclusion, being reported as: “Scientist confirm cancer is cause by kissing frogs! News at 11!!!”. Often times the studies are misrepresented, conclusions that would require a number of follow up studies to determine are brandied about, and occasionally even studies that haven’t been rigorously examined are being put up as news, and then discussed by journalists with an English degree but without an iota of actual scientific training. -That’s true, and it’s the same type of problem. People will tend to find what they want to find when the subject is important to them. Even in noncontroversial fields, if the scientist is really attached to a theory, he’ll defend it until he’s considered a crank. Funny thing is, our movies and books actually glorify these scientists, while portraying the skeptical ones as hard people with no hearts. -Also, controversial subjects tend to make some scientists foray into policymaking, like we’ve seen with climate change. While anthropomorphic climate change is the scientific consensus, it does not follow that their recommended policies are the right ones. If anything, economists might have better insight into how to respond to climate change than climatologists. ---
**Author:** ![wiredbadger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/3be4f8/32.png) [@wiredbadger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wiredbadger)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-science-become-an-opinion/629466/46 "2012-07-26T23:19:11Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > No, NASA has not “finally came clean that they found life on mars”. You are over- intepreting your own cite. sigh.. The morning record and journal -aug 6, 1980 page 7 “ the search for life, a much heralded objective. Produced no equivocal and generally persuasive evidence for living organisms in the soil, but in one of the biological experiments,some oxygen was released when water was added to the soil. This could indicate the presence of some organisms converting carbon dioxide, the planets main atmospheric constituent ,to oxygen, or it could have been an inorganic chemical reaction,as most scientists believe.’ bangor daily news jan 1,1979 page 12 “…two viking landers searched without success for extraterrestrial life.” the evening news august 14 1978 page 6 “if anything lives on the red planet ,it still lives in secret…”the only sense in which it was not a success was that we tried very hard to discover life and did not.” Dr. Levin proposed to NASA and was selected for the Viking Mission to Mars. He was designated Experimenter of the Viking Labeled Release life detection experiment which landed on Mars in 1976. The experiment got positive responses at both Viking landing sites. However, a consensus did not accept his results as proof of life. After years of study, in 1997 Dr. Levin concluded that the experiment had, indeed, detected life on the red planet, and published his conclusion. continuing my expose of what they say and what they dont tell you: 19: [http://news.discovery.com/space/did-we-encounter-martians-36-years-ago-120720.html](http://news.discovery.com/space/did-we-encounter-martians-36-years-ago-120720.html) what this so called article is not telling you: [http://gillevin.com/Mars/reprint106a.htm](http://gillevin.com/Mars/reprint106a.htm) he has been fighting nasa and the sceintists defending his creations validity since 1976 ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-science-become-an-opinion/629466/47 "2012-07-26T23:21:23Z")
Science is a wonderful work in progress and I’m glad scientists continue to work as hard as they do. They might be the most important people on the planet, even if they don’t get it right all the time. ---
**Author:** ![wiredbadger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/3be4f8/32.png) [@wiredbadger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wiredbadger)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-science-become-an-opinion/629466/48 "2012-07-26T23:38:46Z")
anyways, this isnt about the nasa thing, that is intended to be an example of how science is made into an opinion. what i found interesting in adahers response about policy making reminded me of that movie minority report. where it was a really twisted concept of being guilty of murder before actually committing it because some bio-clairvoyance abilities of some people being able to suggest merely the potential of a future. such policies certainly would be manifest in a future earth. not saying one of that type (like future soothsaying) but the concept of mere suggestion being grounds to affront the otherwise innocent person based on a belief system seems quite possible, as long as science continues down this path. i also read someone say that science was always political. i may add that science did not make itself political, the church and it’s condemnation forced science to become political. in fact two of the major advancements that revolutionized the freethinking world is based on religion and its negative influence. though one is indirect. the plague with its two competing popes vying for people and preying on their religious dogma for wealth and prestige forced a considerable doubt in the populace after the plague was over and the true colors of the popes were evident. then Descartes having to sneak off to Switzerland or was it Sweden? in order to write his hidden consensus of the scientific method. after hearing what happened to Galileo his contemporary he is thought to have gone there to escape church prosecution. to doubly insure his safety he created a unlikely premise for a man who is of great mathematical ingenuity. he said what if the god i believe in is a devil and is bent on hurting me. how do i know who i really am. seemingly unlikely premise for the creator of Cartesian math isn’t it? so belief systems have forced science to become political. science itself hasn’t really been political by nature. the very fact they had to sneak ancient Athenian philosophy texts into the cafes and book stores out of fear of being caught alone sort of shows this universality happening long before there was a major global village. though, i may digress, as ww2 certainly did create a political border in science. i guess it remains sketchy if the world has recovered . one thing though , i would be careful to not confuse technology with science. which is often done. so i am not sure of that. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-science-become-an-opinion/629466/49 "2012-07-26T23:38:54Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I think it’s safe to say that any subject that is highly controversial among the public, the science is not going to be reliable. > > Also, controversial subjects tend to make some scientists foray into policymaking, like we’ve seen with climate change. While anthropomorphic climate change is the scientific consensus, it does not follow that their recommended policies are the right ones. If anything, economists might have better insight into how to respond to climate change than climatologists. > [@wiredbadger](#): > > oh another good point. the constant reference to wrong authority. perfect example, is al gore and the meteorologists. how somehow the real science that deals with climate was considered not worthy of reference and he created a climatology. > i remember in one documentary a meteorologist had used a weather balloon and no one would accept his data because it wasn’t modern enough! To begin with, the unfortunate fact is that even the economists that are investigating what we should do are being smeared by the denialists: > **[Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong | William D. Nordhaus](https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/03/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/?pagination=false)** > > The threat of climate change is an increasingly important environmental issue for the globe. At a time when we need to clarify public confusions about the science and economics of climate change, skeptics have muddied the waters. I will describe... > [@](#): > > A final point concerns economic analysis. The sixteen scientists argue, citing my research, that economics does not support policies to slow climate change in the next half-century: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet. > > > > ``` > > On this point, I do not need to reconstruct how climate scientists made their projections, or review the persecution of Soviet geneticists. I did the research and wrote the book on which they base their statement. The skeptics’ summary is based on poor analysis and on an incorrect reading of the results. > > The first problem is an elementary mistake in economic analysis. The authors cite the “benefit-to-cost ratio” to support their argument. Elementary cost-benefit and business economics teach that this is an incorrect criterion for selecting investments or policies. The appropriate criterion for decisions in this context is net benefits (that is, the difference between, and not the ratio of, benefits and costs). > > This point can be seen in a simple example, which would apply in the case of investments to slow climate change. Suppose we were thinking about two policies. Policy A has a small investment in abatement of CO2 emissions. It costs relatively little (say $1 billion) but has substantial benefits (say $10 billion), for a net benefit of $9 billion. Now compare this with a very effective and larger investment, Policy B. This second investment costs more (say $10 billion) but has substantial benefits (say $50 billion), for a net benefit of $40 billion. B is preferable because it has higher net benefits ($40 billion for B as compared with $9 for A), but A has a higher benefit-cost ratio (a ratio of 10 for A as compared with 5 for B). This example shows why we should, in designing the most effective policies, look at benefits minus costs, not benefits divided by costs. > > This leads to the second point, which is that the authors summarize my results incorrectly. My research shows that there are indeed substantial net benefits from acting now rather than waiting fifty years. A look at Table 5-1 in my study A Question of Balance (2008) shows that the cost of waiting fifty years to begin reducing CO2 emissions is $2.3 trillion in 2005 prices. If we bring that number to today’s economy and prices, the loss from waiting is $4.1 trillion. Wars have been started over smaller sums.10 > > My study is just one of many economic studies showing that economic efficiency would point to the need to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions right now, and not to wait for a half-century. Waiting is not only economically costly, but will also make the transition much more costly when it eventually takes place. Current economic studies also suggest that the most efficient policy is to raise the cost of CO2 emissions substantially, either through cap-and-trade or carbon taxes, to provide appropriate incentives for businesses and households to move to low-carbon activities. As for the also usual (and usually baseless) criticisms to Al Gore, I always refer to what a conservative scientist at BYU has to say on the matter: > **[“Why Don’t You Bash Al Gore?”](https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/10/03/why-dont-you-bash-al-gore/)** > > Since I took the plunge and started publicly criticizing certain climate change contrarians, notably certain Utah politicians and Christopher Monckton, people on the other side of the fence have of… > [@](#): > > 1. Gore’s documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth”, is not that bad, frankly. > > Yes, there are a couple errors. Yes, in a few cases he focuses on “worst-case scenarios,” rather than communicating the full range of risk. But the fact is that he got the most important points right, and the problems aren’t that serious from the perspective of most scientists who have examined the movie. Tim Lambert collected reactions from a number of scientists about a list of nine alleged errors in the movie, for example. While they didn’t always agree about the status of individual “errors,” there was general agreement that the list was too long. In most cases, it was questionable whether they were really errors at all. > > In the cases where Gore presented “worst-case scenarios” instead of depicting the full range of risk, try to look at it from the perspective of the scientists involved. The vast majority of scientists are saying, “Human-induced climate change is very likely to be a very big problem, and somewhat likely to be a very, very big problem.” Are they supposed to get all worked up when a popularizer like Gore goes around saying it will be a very, very big problem? The reaction of most scientists has been exactly what it should be. ”Well, maybe he overstated his case somewhat, but he got the gist right.” > > Now, contrast this with someone like Christopher Monckton, who goes about proclaiming that climate change is a “non-problem,” and to support his case he completely misrepresents the scientific literature he cites. Whom do you think scientists are going to want to spend their time criticizing? > > And no, I didn’t vote for Gore. So going back to the first quoted item, the answer is really no, in highly controversial issues among the public, the science \*\*is \*\*going to be reliable still, it is the popularizers of science that will have issues, but not as much as the ones that claim that we should “teach the controversy” when there is virtually none. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-science-become-an-opinion/629466/50 "2012-07-26T23:55:20Z")
I can put this more succinctly. Science should not have opinions (or be an opinion.) Scientists can and should have opinions. You should be able to distinguish the science from the opinion, and it should be clear. I can, and I think most professional scientists can. If someone cannot make this distinction, the problem is with them, not with science. ---
**Author:** ![wiredbadger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/3be4f8/32.png) [@wiredbadger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wiredbadger)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-science-become-an-opinion/629466/51 "2012-07-26T23:59:12Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > To begin with, the unfortunate fact is that even the economists that are investigating what we should do are being smeared by the denialists: > > [Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong | William D. Nordhaus | The New York Review of Books](http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/?pagination=false) > As for the also usual (and usually baseless) criticisms to Al Gore, I always refer to what a conservative scientist at BYU has to say on the matter: > > [“Why Don’t You Bash Al Gore?” | Climate Asylum](http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/10/03/why-dont-you-bash-al-gore/) > So going back to the first quoted item, the answer is really no, in highly controversial issues among the public, the science \*\*is \*\*going to be reliable still, it is the popularizers of science that will have issues, but not as much as the ones that claim that we should “teach the controversy” when there is virtually none. i detest conspiracy. it steals from the inventiveness of the imagination towards greater understanding. however, i have to tell you that in anthropology we learn about this stuff as it has a fundamental part in human evolution. even down to why we survived and homo erectus did not. this doesn’t mean that i had to learn meteorology or geology but i had to be aware of significant events and how these affected the biosphere. i am sorry but al gore’s stuff is more then a little flawed. the ice cores he used in his video did not show what he claimed when it was reviewed by the proper science. it was reported that the co emmission lines were not indicative of causing the climate change but loosely a result of climate change. this fact alone pretty much throws his assertion out the window. that is after all how real science works. further when the meteorologists came forward and displayed how solar wind and coronal mass ejections at various times in history when they were recorded not only corresponded to the mini ice age and other major climate alterations but also when they took that portion and turned it upside down to the chart of the co of the ice core samples, it was nearly perfect and identical. this too is called science. i seek not to cause any argument, but until those two things are addressed with equally tangible evidence it makes mr gores dissertation nothing more then an opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2012, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-science-become-an-opinion/629466/52 "2012-07-27T00:08:51Z")
> [@wiredbadger](#): > > it makes mr gores dissertation nothing more then an opinion. Are you under the impression that Al Gore does science? Are you under the impression that “An Inconvenient Truth” is science? When you want to understand a new discovery in anthropology at any sort of deep level, do you read newspaper accounts of it or do you go to the published papers? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2012, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-science-become-an-opinion/629466/53 "2012-07-27T00:10:06Z")
> [@wiredbadger](#): > > i detest conspiracy. it steals from the inventiveness of the imagination towards greater understanding. however, i have to tell you that in anthropology we learn about this stuff as it has a fundamental part in human evolution. even down to why we survived and homo erectus did not. this doesn’t mean that i had to learn meteorology or geology but i had to be aware of significant events and how these affected the biosphere. i am sorry but al gore’s stuff is more then a little flawed. the ice cores he used in his video did not show what he claimed when it was reviewed by the proper science. > > it was reported that the co emmission lines were not indicative of causing the climate change but loosely a result of climate change. this fact alone pretty much throws his assertion out the window. that is after all how real science works. Not the science I know, so we need a big fat cite from you here. Chances are that you are only relying on denialist sites. The reality is that that item is one of the least controversial ones. > **[CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?](https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm)** > > \When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming... > [@](#): > > A 2012 study by Shakun et al. looked at temperature changes 20,000 years ago (the last glacial-interglacial transition) from around the world and added more detail to our understanding of the CO2-temperature change relationship. They found that: > > ``` > The Earth's orbital cycles trigger the initial warming (starting approximately 19,000 years ago), which is first reflected in the the Arctic. > > This Arctic warming caused large amounts of ice to melt, causing large amounts of fresh water to flood into the oceans. > > This influx of fresh water then disrupted the Atlantic Ocean circulation, in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres. The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago. > > The warming Southern Ocean then released CO2 into the atmosphere starting around 17,500 years ago, which in turn caused the entire planet to warm via the increased greenhouse effect. > > ``` > > Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurred after the CO2 increase (Figure 2). > [@wiredbadger](#): > > further when the meteorologists came forward and displayed how solar wind and coronal mass ejections at various times in history when they were recorded not only corresponded to the mini ice age and other major climate alterations but also when they took that portion and turned it upside down to the chart of the co of the ice core samples, it was nearly perfect and identical. this too is called science. i seek not to cause any argument, but until those two things are addressed with equally tangible evidence it makes mr gores dissertation nothing more then an opinion. And here you also betray your reliance on denialist sources. > **[What does Solar Cycle Length tell us about the sun's role in global warming?](https://skepticalscience.com/solar-cycle-length.htm)** > > The claim that solar cycle length proves the sun is driving global warming is based on a single study published in 1991. > Subsequent research, including a paper by a co-author of the original 1991 paper, finds the opposite conclusion. Solar cycle... > [@](#): > > Claims that solar cycle length prove the sun is causing global warming are based on a single paper published nearly 20 years ago. Subsequent research, including a paper by a co-author of the original 1991 paper, finds the opposite conclusion. Solar cycle length as a proxy for solar activity tells us the sun has had very little contribution to global warming since 1975. In fact, direct measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has had a slight cooling effect on climate in recent decades while global temperatures have been rising. > **[CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?](https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm)** > > \When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming... > [@](#): > > To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things: > > ``` > Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles > CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone > CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet > > ``` > > Overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occurs after the atmospheric CO2 increase (Figure 3). ---
**Author:** ![wiredbadger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/3be4f8/32.png) [@wiredbadger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wiredbadger)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2012, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-science-become-an-opinion/629466/54 "2012-07-27T00:10:28Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I can put this more succinctly. > > Science should not have opinions (or be an opinion.) > Scientists can and should have opinions. > You should be able to distinguish the science from the opinion, and it should be clear. I can, and I think most professional scientists can. > If someone cannot make this distinction, the problem is with them, not with science. very true voyager. however, the lack of information to the public , who relies on the media for intermediary interpretation is being victimized by a media who shows science to be nothing more then a monopoly of opinions. take the statement that recently hawking said about ufo buffs. it was used to inflame the public especially those who believe in the possibility. however as a scientist i knew as well as you that he was candidly referring to the fact that without any real scientific basis to go on the only people that are present in the media are made to be crazy cranks. also using him again as a example , asking him what he thought of alien life and our first contact is like asking a baker what the proper tuning is in a 57 chevy convertible. i mean he is a astrophysicist not a xeno-biologist. but you saw, i am sure how this went over in the media and further how this creates the whole speculation of this science to be nothing but opinion. which is odd, cause if the media were truly responsible and truly our intermediates to the language of science then places like titan would have a more profound meaning .wouldn’t you think? ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2012, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-science-become-an-opinion/629466/55 "2012-07-27T00:13:27Z")
Can anyone give me an abridged version of what the OP is trying to express? I don’t have the necessary decoder ring. Many thanks. ---
**Author:** ![wiredbadger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/3be4f8/32.png) [@wiredbadger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wiredbadger)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2012, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-science-become-an-opinion/629466/56 "2012-07-27T00:26:44Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Not the science I know, so we need a big fat cite from you here. Chances are that you are only relying on denialist sites. > > The reality is that that item is one of the least controversial ones. > > [CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?](http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm) > > And here you also betray your reliance on denialist sources. > > [What does Solar Cycle Length tell us about the sun's role in global warming?](http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycle-length.htm) > [CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?](http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm) i have no idea what you are saying or what a denialist is.but it makes you feel right so ok. go with it.science exists outside opinions. which is what i am questioning. i mean really. you wanna know the main source of climate change? the one that wasted life on possibly three times ? super volcanoes. wanna know the last time one caused a climate change? 14 century. please do tell me that these denialist-whatever or the other source you are using are including that factor in their reports. for the record the reason why erectus died out was because of a super volcanoe that wasted pretty much all the food resource where they were. i can bet that is in the report and of consideration as well. when they do their geological surveys and what not. i know it is in anthropology and in paleontology. the two sciences i learned about. so..if you can demonstrate to me that the 14 century volcanoe and the meteorites that hit both in the artic that they finally verified today and the one in the gulf of mexico and who knows what else , plus the ice age and its wildly not yet finished climate settling…oh wait.. you didnt know? ah yea, its an anthropology thing we learn it in first year, we are not out of the ice age. this is called the miocene and we are still somewhere near to the upper part of the bell curve. see, it was this fact that forced us to leave trees and start looking for hard fruits like nuts cause the sudden erratic clmate shifts would make soft fruits practically non viable .not to mention years of drought etc. oh to give you an idea, they found a completely frozen mammoth that had fresh green leaves in its stomach. which is virtually impossible. meaning the mammoth would have had to been instantly frozen. strangely something co can do rather effectively. so.. before you start labelling me with whatver crackpot label or accusing me of whatever reference suits you, i am just a paleontology student who studied prehistoric humans. i never leave my science. i never have to. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2012, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-science-become-an-opinion/629466/57 "2012-07-27T00:27:51Z")
> [@wiredbadger](#): > > very true voyager. however, the lack of information to the public , who relies on the media for intermediary interpretation is being victimized by a media who shows science to be nothing more then a monopoly of opinions. take the statement that recently hawking said about ufo buffs. it was used to inflame the public especially those who believe in the possibility. however as a scientist i knew as well as you that he was candidly referring to the fact that without any real scientific basis to go on the only people that are present in the media are made to be crazy cranks. Tell me about it.. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/qZzwRwFDXw0/hqdefault.jpg "9. Climate Change - Meet the Scientists") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZzwRwFDXw0) > [@wiredbadger](#): > > also using him again as a example , asking him what he thought of alien life and our first contact is like asking a baker what the proper tuning is in a 57 chevy convertible. i mean he is a astrophysicist not a xeno-biologist. but you saw, i am sure how this went over in the media and further how this creates the whole speculation of this science to be nothing but opinion. which is odd, cause if the media were truly responsible and truly our intermediates to the language of science then places like titan would have a more profound meaning .wouldn’t you think? As for Hawking, he is indeed not an expert on the matter of communications or space exploration, it is very unlikely that we can see an alien invasion. > **[Stephen Hawking warning: What would an alien invasion be like?](https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/0429/Stephen-Hawking-warning-What-would-an-alien-invasion-be-like)** > > Stephen Hawking has warned that extraterrestrials, if they exist, may not be friendly. But other experts say humanity has nothing to fear. I also have pointed before how the media has a long history of misinterpreting scientists and even pushing denialist information, that is not new, it is important to take into account, but it does not deny the point \*\*Voyager \*\*is making. ---
**Author:** ![JackieLikesVariety](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackielikesvariety/32/296_2.png) [@JackieLikesVariety](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JackieLikesVariety)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2012, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-science-become-an-opinion/629466/58 "2012-07-27T00:28:38Z")
re: science always has some opinion I don’t think this has to be true, or should be true, but maybe it is. it’s been a few years but when I read Bill Bryson’s A Short History of Nearly Everything I remember being astonished at how science was held back by all the “fighting” among scientists. like it was junior high or something! ---
**Author:** ![wiredbadger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/3be4f8/32.png) [@wiredbadger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wiredbadger)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2012, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-science-become-an-opinion/629466/59 "2012-07-27T00:33:19Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Are you under the impression that Al Gore does science? Are you under the impression that “An Inconvenient Truth” is science? > When you want to understand a new discovery in anthropology at any sort of deep level, do you read newspaper accounts of it or do you go to the published papers? voyager, i never considered him anything really. but somehow his opinion becomes science and the science against him becomes opinion. you don’t find that troublesome? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2012, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-science-become-an-opinion/629466/60 "2012-07-27T00:36:14Z")
In general, if you go to popular media for science, you’ll find a lot distortions and nonsense. But the OP is about the science of anthropology. That field has always been somewhat of a soft science, and from what a friend who recently obtained a degree in the subject tells me, they’ve gone full bore in that direction. Anthropology now seems to be nothing but Gonzo Journalism. Anthropologists observe and report, and now avoid ascribing cause and effect to their observations, or drawing substantive conclusions. This leaves the creative sort to deal with long time practice of comparing human behavior to that of animals. So the OPs friend is likely echoing the results of some anthropological study which won’t produce anything of substance. It is an opinion, built on a stack of opinions. Anthropology isn’t the only soft science, and the rest employ equally poor practices. And that is a shame because there are some people in these fields and stick to the scientific method and actually try to advance understanding based on confirmable facts. Sadly my friend isn’t one of those people. His thesis was atrocious. This board has many individual posts which are more informative, coherent, and less frequent grammatical errors than his work. If I were his parent I’d demand my money back from that major university. Yes he received a B for it. He has learned something though, a degree in anthropology is not preparation for any kind of career. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-science-become-an-opinion/629466.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-science-become-an-opinion/629466.md?page=4)