Does anybody have a problem with a particular quote from the following excerpts?

"ASSUMED????"

Am I over-reacting to a non-issue or is assuming something in the scientific world considered sound science?

Kramer

__________________
“We should never be more vigilant than at the moment a new dogma is being installed. … The left has been swept along, entranced by the allure of weather as revolutionary agent, naïvely conceiving of global warming as a crisis that will force radical social changes on capitalism.”

TheNation, June 7, 2007

There is nothing wrong with making an assumption when discussing a scientific question. However, that assumption's validity better be addressed in the conclusion. It doesn't appear that this assumption ever was until now.

Yes in both cases.

We assume the world is round until it turns out that it's not. We assume a stone will fall down when dropped until it turns out that it doesn't. We assume that planes can fly until it turns out that they can't.

No problem at all.

I agree. If an assumption was made, it should be noted at the time of it being made.

Kramer

__________________
“We should never be more vigilant than at the moment a new dogma is being installed. … The left has been swept along, entranced by the allure of weather as revolutionary agent, naïvely conceiving of global warming as a crisis that will force radical social changes on capitalism.”

TheNation, June 7, 2007

A couple of related links:
Larsen B Ice Shelf Collapses in Antarctica (March 2002)
Antarctic Ice Shelf Collapse Triggered By Warmer Summers (2001)
Based on the above, it seems that glaciologists knew the effects of meltwater at the time of the collapse, that they had been modeled decades before the collapse, and that they were due to warming climate.

A search for "hidden bias" in this case will probably be fruitless.

__________________
"Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity, myself especially, are in a state of shock and disbelief." - Alan Greenspan

The word "assumption" can be ambiguous. One can make an assumption with no basis, or one could make an assumption based on the best information that is currently available. All scientific theory is assumption of a sort, hopefully based on what science knows and open to revision when new information is available. The way the ice shelf behaved gave us new information.

__________________
The apocalypse is coming... we're gonna need more ammo.

In good science, there is nothing ambiguous about assumptions. They are clearly stated as such and acknowledged as such. The conclusion will also acknowledge that the assumption must be valid in the first place. or not, for the remainder to follow. This is how science continues to develop. It's just good science and good reporting of science - taught and strictly enforced, at the lastest, to sophomores.

I'm probably rehashing what Si Modo has already said, but it is pretty impossible to conduct a scientific study without an assumption somewhere. Almost always you are building on previous work that was not done by you, and there are often variable, especially in environmental work, which you cannot control. It's not fatal to a study, it's just reality. What is important is that you recognize where your assumptions are, state them, and try to lessen their impact on your results as best as possible my modifying your procedures (you figure this out when by doing a pilot study beforehand). It is probably one of the more challenging (and frustrating) aspects of doing research.

But, to do it properly, you have to do it. Otherwise, you're leaving the door open for strong bias to creep into your data and/or overextending yourself on interpreting the data.

__________________
He who learns but does not think is lost! He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger. --Confucius

Smooth seas do not make skillful sailors.
--African proverb

Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it.
--Albert Einstein

Yes, in good science there is nothing ambiguous about the assumptions. I meant the way the word is thrown around in general. Assumptions in science are based on what we know, the assumption is valid when it is made BUT it must always be remembered that if new information becomes available then the assumption may be proven wrong. For quite a long time all the evidence we had indicated that matter could neither be created nor destroyed. Decades later that assumption was challenged and eventually disproved.

All of this is part and parcel of the debate about global warming. People are demanding absolute PROOF with no questions or caveats before they are willing to do anything to address the issue. This is silly, we should do what we can to alleviate the problem right now because the ecosystems may be irrevocably damaged before we have that proof. There are many things that could be done to increase the efficiency of our power usage without destroying the economy, but it will mean that some people in places of power are going to lose some of that power and therein lies the resistance to ANY kind of rational response. Exxon comes to mind.

__________________
The apocalypse is coming... we're gonna need more ammo.