Observations on Global Warming.
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 09:10:43 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Observations on Global Warming.
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Observations on Global Warming.  (Read 2939 times)
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 19, 2007, 07:44:59 PM »

This is a sort of personal blog-like post about a couple of things I've noticed about the global warming "debate" on the internet, this is not directly aimed at either right or left nor is this directed entirely at this website alone as I have noticed this perception on most websites and on every medium.
Perhaps Here I should point out as someone whose formal science Education finished at 16, I admit complete ignorance of the scientific details and arguement. I don't know whether Global warming is actually a total myth, a natural occurance or a manmade disaster but that isn't my point here. My post has to do with how the issue is being perceived.

1) It's quite clear to me (and I don't know about anyone else) that the global warming debate has nowadays has almost nothing to do with Science; science is just background to which seems at times to be little more than the old "Free market: good or not?" debate (see point #3) . Whenever GW is brought up it seems to bring out the sort of people with my level of scientific training showing bar charts and graphs of CO2 emissions and weather changes (or whatever) in order to "prove" something - how much people in the world could honestly say they are informed enough to make an honest assessment of this issue (a couple thousand maybe?).

Side note: the science of Climatology in the modern sense was pretty much invented in the 1970s in order to investigate the strange levels of climate change going on in that decade (and to cool fears of Global cooling or the nascent Global warming idea) and so to claim that scientists themselves would have a fantastic knowledge of climatic changes would be false (though one thing we do know is that Climates have changed very rapidly in the past; with no apparent reason. But that's going outside my field.)

2) The smear claims by "the left" against Scientific sceptics of Global warming goes against the Scientific method - under this theory all these scientists are little more than quislings hired by powerful corporations to put out knowingly false information to woodhink the public into doubting the "Scientific Consensus" on Global warming so that these corporations can continue polluting without any fear of action against them. Ignoring that in the long term this really doesn't make much sense, why would a business, any business, want to deny something which could seriously dent (to put it mildly) it's long term profitability - after all we are talking about the near future here?, there is one seriously act of groupthink going on here - The idea of all knowing Scientific consensus which holds all the knowledge is somewhat unfalliable and that rogue scientists are easily explained. This is a strange idea, for a start history has shown over and over again that a vast majority of scientists tend to be wrong until proven otherwise - So using this logic light would travel within a mysterious substance called the Ether until Einstein came along and created a "new Scientific consensus" or that Earth really was the centre of the universe and the Sun circled around it, until that damn Gaillieo chap showed otherwise (an Idea which in it's day was far too dangerous for the guardians of truth - here being the Catholic Church - to handle.) The idea of Science is based around constant questioning of the physical properties of the world and so the idea of a "consensus" is itself against the idea of Science as it accepts a widely held universal truth, like well, the idea that sun revolves around the Earth. (This is also why, btw, rejecting the idea of god is also unscientific.) This is of course not to say that the majority of Global warming scientists are wrong (but it is very, very wrong to state that the only ones who doubt Global warming are corporate scientists.) but that the way of thinking of this issue is totally skewed.

3) The Desire to do nothing (or to wish it away) about Global warming is driven by ideological and not practical goals; this is mainly the "conservative" or "libertarian" position. I've long noticed how the greatest spectics on GW tend to those who would have their ideologies washed away should the dire prophecies come true - such as well, "libertarians" and "conservatives". While those who accept the Scientific consensus are those who would have their ideologies confirmed by it, such as "liberals", "socialists", all forms of "anti-Capitalists", etc. This is because fundamentally the issue is seen as one rooted in the Economic system; due to the doctrines of Capitalism and free market competition there is increased enviormental pollution, etc in order to gain efficiency so to gain profit. And if only we instead had one provider of services, energy, etc than there would be less businesses to cause enviormental damage and so on (And that's the simplified "centre-left" view, I haven't even mentioned the Neo-luddites, or for that matter on the other end, the Al Gorists.) but instead of saying this out loud the "liberals" resort to scientific evidence they often know little about in order to back up this prejudice. Those of the "right" do likewise in order so they could defend the free market against accusations that it has failed somehow. As GW in a very concrete sense is still a few decades away; should it be true - then it is still seen as an abstract issue; with forces such as those of the much reviled "Meeja" hyping up the issue and with people like Al Gore sparking 'awareness' (though this has been a debate for almost 20 years now.) and is still thus seen as a way of making political points over "the other side" than an actual attempt to do something lasting. Though it should be pointed out here I'm mainly referring to people on the internet like us; not the politicians or scientists.

Side note: Another thing I happen to notice is that those who tend to be most in favour of "action" against GW among my age group tend to have learnt about it in school (this is certainly true in Europe) and tend to be politically minded - showing once again the stupidity of relying on schooling for one's education (Actually a school is the last place someone will ever get educated) and that the idea that the "yoof" ignore what exactly they learn in school (or at least the level of it) is complete nonsense. In the school I went to, the attitude to GW was so PC it was almost offensive and yet among the more intelligent people I know there is a much stronger acceptance of GW than those I would consider less bright. Perhaps because we have strange notion that Intelligent equals "ability at school"?

More to come.. but space.
Logged
Јas
Jas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,705
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 20, 2007, 05:17:15 AM »

Perhaps Here I should point out as someone whose formal science Education finished at 16, I admit complete ignorance of the scientific details and arguement. I don't know whether Global warming is actually a total myth, a natural occurance or a manmade disaster but that isn't my point here. My post has to do with how the issue is being perceived.

And in the interests of disclosure, not a climatologist am I (indeed some of my later education has been dubbed by some commentators to be in 'psuedo-science' Wink)

I'm certainly not preachy on the subject nor do I recall ever condemning anyone's expressed views on the subject, but I tend to accept what appears to me to be the consensus position among what experts there are in the area - that the planet is undergoing climate change and that man is contributing to this effect. What the ultimate change will be and just what contribution man is making to this, I can't pretend to know, nor does it seem that there is a great deal of agreement on this issue.

I tend to support movement away from fossil fuels towards alternative energy sources as much because the fossil fuels are finite energy resources which may come under significant strain in my lifetime as much as because of any environmental factors - though I would give credence to the better safe than sorry view.

1) It's quite clear to me (and I don't know about anyone else) that the global warming debate has nowadays has almost nothing to do with Science; science is just background to which seems at times to be little more than the old "Free market: good or not?" debate (see point #3) . Whenever GW is brought up it seems to bring out the sort of people with my level of scientific training showing bar charts and graphs of CO2 emissions and weather changes (or whatever) in order to "prove" something - how much people in the world could honestly say they are informed enough to make an honest assessment of this issue (a couple thousand maybe?).

Side note: the science of Climatology in the modern sense was pretty much invented in the 1970s in order to investigate the strange levels of climate change going on in that decade (and to cool fears of Global cooling or the nascent Global warming idea) and so to claim that scientists themselves would have a fantastic knowledge of climatic changes would be false (though one thing we do know is that Climates have changed very rapidly in the past; with no apparent reason. But that's going outside my field.)

Certainly most of the debate we are being presented with in the media has little to do with actual science and more to do with politics, but I think it's fair to say that that may be true of most areas of scientific controversy. Scientists after all don't seek truth or to convince others through debate or discussion (usually), but through experiments and publication of results thereof. Those who step before a camera or whatever are much more likely to have an 'agenda' of some description.

I would tend to agree that some people making a lot of noise of this issue (on both sides) would seem to me to be found wanting in terms of actual scientific acumen.

2) The smear claims by "the left" against Scientific sceptics of Global warming goes against the Scientific method - under this theory all these scientists are little more than quislings hired by powerful corporations to put out knowingly false information to woodhink the public into doubting the "Scientific Consensus" on Global warming so that these corporations can continue polluting without any fear of action against them. Ignoring that in the long term this really doesn't make much sense, why would a business, any business, want to deny something which could seriously dent (to put it mildly) it's long term profitability - after all we are talking about the near future here?, there is one seriously act of groupthink going on here - The idea of all knowing Scientific consensus which holds all the knowledge is somewhat unfalliable and that rogue scientists are easily explained. This is a strange idea, for a start history has shown over and over again that a vast majority of scientists tend to be wrong until proven otherwise - So using this logic light would travel within a mysterious substance called the Ether until Einstein came along and created a "new Scientific consensus" or that Earth really was the centre of the universe and the Sun circled around it, until that damn Gaillieo chap showed otherwise (an Idea which in it's day was far too dangerous for the guardians of truth - here being the Catholic Church - to handle.) The idea of Science is based around constant questioning of the physical properties of the world and so the idea of a "consensus" is itself against the idea of Science as it accepts a widely held universal truth, like well, the idea that sun revolves around the Earth. (This is also why, btw, rejecting the idea of god is also unscientific.) This is of course not to say that the majority of Global warming scientists are wrong (but it is very, very wrong to state that the only ones who doubt Global warming are corporate scientists.) but that the way of thinking of this issue is totally skewed.

Ah, now here I do have some disagreement. I think there are logical reasons why a company would seek to deny global warming even if they believed it was happening and would hinder long term profits. Companies don't necessarily think in the long term (certainly not in the term lengths such that global warming would hinder them) - because the company's direction is set by director's with short to medium term profitability goals. And, of course, if the company by its nature (e.g. oil production) would be damaged in the short term if it became accepted that man made factors were driving significant climate change, necessitating radical lifestyle change to accomodate the fight against such change - then it's rational for company's to actively seek to deny it. (An analogy may be there somewhere with the denials by tobacco company's for so long about the health implications of smoking.)

You are right that history has shown that 'rogue scientists' are oft proven right - they are however moreoften proven wrong. In an age when our lives are more dependent than ever on scientific developments in many aspects of our everyday living, if a significant majority of scientists (in the relevant field) tell us that there research leads them to believe something, I'll tend to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Side note: Another thing I happen to notice is that those who tend to be most in favour of "action" against GW among my age group tend to have learnt about it in school (this is certainly true in Europe) and tend to be politically minded - showing once again the stupidity of relying on schooling for one's education

I'm not sure if your conclusion necessarily follows logically from the preceeding statement here.
I'd comment further here but the effect fot hat may be to derial the initial subject matter, so I'll hold for the time being.
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 20, 2007, 05:32:05 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would agree with this. The Arguement against action seems to mainly driven for political reasons (see point #3) - I never said that GW was a lie or a hoax; I just said there was room for doubt but I tend to sympathize with the "Better safe than sorry" view against those "conservatives" who say we should do nothing because GW is a hoax led by Al Gore, blah, blah, blah

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never said there wasn't a campaign against GW led by certain companies; it's just that it is against the companies long term interest to create "pseudo-scientific" data. Though I must admit your analogy is pretty appropriate.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, I never said that GW wasn't true or the Scientific consensus is incorrect. But I was merely pointing out that the idea of some all-knowing Scientific consensus is itself anti-science.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wait a minute, you still expect consistency in thought and completeness of mind and no going off on Tangents from me? Have you been reading my posts at all? Tongue

I'm actually quite curious on what you have to say this; simply because you are the only one here who went through the same education system as yours truly. (Well not quite, I went to a Rugby school on Dublin's Southside - A fact which will shame me till the day I die.)
Logged
Јas
Jas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,705
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 20, 2007, 05:54:06 AM »

First things first, it wasn't my intent to label you as being on either side of the global warming debate, just trying to deal with the points you raised. Sorry for any inference otherwise.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wait a minute, you still expect consistency in thought and completeness of mind and no going off on Tangents from me? Have you been reading my posts at all? Tongue

Grin

I'm actually quite curious on what you have to say this; simply because you are the only one here who went through the same education system as yours truly. (Well not quite, I went to a Rugby school on Dublin's Southside - A fact which will shame me till the day I die.)

And I to a gaelic football playing school in rural Monaghan...but anyhow...

I suppose it depends on what you expect/want out of an education system. Our system wasn't developed with the aim of producing a large number of citizen philosophers certainly.

It's more a matter of teaching basic skills with the hope of ending up with at least the semblance of a capable workforce. In primary school the focus is on literacy and numeracy (and on Irish - but this is for cultural and historical reasons more so than for any educational benefit - which isn't to deny that there may be educational benefit to it). In secondary, this process continues with more developed literacy and numeracy skills, languages, and some vocational subjects (sciences; accounting; woodwork; tech graphics; home ec; etc.).

And I think, by and large, the system reaches its primary objective - it does produce a capable workforce.

Almost quite ancillary to that process, it does allow for a certain amount of 'education' in the meaning which I think you intend, but this is almost circumstantial as it's not really the intent. And with the development of the 'points race', education in this sense will only be hindered as both student and teacher must focus on a fairly rigid structure which becomes much more a test of memory than of intelligence.
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 20, 2007, 06:17:21 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well Obviously. I don't want "Citizen philosophers" - Citizens yes, the basis of our modern civilisation is the idea of constant questioning and participation with the processes which dominate the world around us (the most Irish people do in that regard is vote; if even that and most don't vote on the basis I've just mentioned.) yet the ability to ask questions is not even taught in school. I don't want to spend too long on this as this distracts from the basis of this thread (Though I *Could* bore for Ireland on this topic.) but it seems pretty obvious that the why Global warming is debated has it origins in the way these things are taught in School.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I didn't say that the system doesn't work in what it's aims are. Just that it's aims are alot of crap - I don't like the idea of entire generations being processed in this way so that they work for some business and consume more. Is there any wonder therefore that our Democracy is so degraded and our culture is so mind numbingly dumb?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

No doubt about that on any of the points you've mentioned; Personally I still consider it a great achievement of mine that I just didn't give a Sh!t when coming onto my Junior and Leaving certs unlike all those "Daddy wants to me to do Medicine" types (For the Americans here; getting into a Medicine or law course in Ireland has obscene requirements; The Leaving cert exam is the final exam taken at the end of your final year at Secondary school which alone determines how one makes it into college.) who were usually I found were rather notable of their airheadness despite their getting 500+ Points. The people I would consider most intelligent in School who were often the ones you didn't at all give the system any respect while still playing an active role in the school and had a genuine curiousity about "The Real World" (So not the Rugby Jocks).

In short, Exams are the dumbest possible way in the history of mankind to test intelligence.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 20, 2007, 09:44:24 AM »

My main problem with the global warming debate is that some people, especially in the media, like to make it out that there is a consensus. It's true that in the scientific community certain aspects of global warming theory are widely held as true, but there is not a consensus on many of the specifics such as how much is natural and how much is man-made and the overall effects. I'm fine if people simply have a differing opinion on the subject than I do, but I don't like it when people pretend there's a consensus that doesn't exist.
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 20, 2007, 04:58:22 PM »

My main problem with the global warming debate is that some people, especially in the media, like to make it out that there is a consensus. It's true that in the scientific community certain aspects of global warming theory are widely held as true, but there is not a consensus on many of the specifics such as how much is natural and how much is man-made and the overall effects. I'm fine if people simply have a differing opinion on the subject than I do, but I don't like it when people pretend there's a consensus that doesn't exist.

True.

But I also hate the fact that certain ideologues try to rubbish that said widespread view without any scientific knowledge so they defend their previous ideology.

I also hate the fact that enviormentalism is often in my mind associated with a form of Societal masochism, perhaps neo-Puritianism comes to mind? Though that's something I shall have to expand upon.
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 20, 2007, 06:05:14 PM »

With regards to education, Gully... I think you're on the right track, but you might have taken it too far.  School is certainly not where you will learn everything.  What school will hopefully teach you is HOW to learn things and instill you with a passion to go out and learn them.  Learning is something you must do on your own, though.  People always say here that you keep learning the same things over and over.. and indeed we do.. we have American history all through elementary school, more formally in 7th or 8th grade, and again in 11th grade.  Each time, the thinking becomes more critical and specific and it falls more and more on the student to make the learning process run smoothly and not the teacher.  They become more and more of a "consultant" if you will and the learning is left up to you.

Schools that have some basic requirements but allow the student to explore subjects that they excel at will bring the most positive results in society.  As children develop, their gifts and talents become more and more defined and they should be able to have a little "wiggle room", if you will, to explore the things they like.

By the university level, it becomes apparent that it is no longer plugging in information to get a degree and move on.  It continues to instill a passion for learning in you and stresses the point that learning is a life long venture.

Concrete public schools that wish only to prepare the student for the work world are completely lacking and that is why most schools, at least in the U.S., do not follow this concept.  We don't separate our children according to their future careers at age 11 like they do in Germany, for example.  Everybody develops at different times and many don't know what they want until after they start doing it.  The least we can do is throw people together from all walks of life and help them learn from each other.

Sorry this is completely off topic, but I do want to post in response to your thoughts about Global Warming.  I think what you're saying is certainly an opinion that a lot of people hold but don't share because, like you, they feel they might not be the best qualified.  But i has become much more than a science issue and I think every person is at least someone qualified to say something about it, since if true, will affect each and every one of us.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 20, 2007, 06:22:07 PM »

I don't agree with your second point about 'smear claims.'

Certain people do have an agenda to make it look like there is not a consensus on a scientific theory when there really is-- oil corporations say that there are plenty of credible scientists who don't believe in man-influenced global climate change, and creationists say that there are credible scientists (mostly pediatricians, probably) who don't believe in natural selection.

Now, I would be willing to acknowledge that smear claims largely politicize science, which is something which should be free of political influence, but the issue arises in that the converse is not necessarily true- you and I probably agree that politics should be influenced by science.  For example, a homosexual cannot "turn" straight through therapy and prayer, so, scientifically, it is logical to support equal rights for homosexuals.  More broadly, scientists (climatologists in particular) do tend to agree that the reason for global warming is the influence of man, so it would be reasonable to implement policies to attempt to repair the damage done by man in the last hundred years.

Naturally, if we allow science to influence politics, it is inevitable that politics will influence science, if we aren't careful.

That being said, there are some issues where I am willing to disagree with the scientific consensus.  For example, I largely feel that the reason so many countries are enacting smoking bans is because of influence by pharmaceutical companies, who use anti-smoking efforts as a way of increasing sales for nicotine patches and gum.  I'm not sure who profits off of the idea that global warming will kill us all (maybe hybrid car manufacturers), but it's obvious who profits off the idea that it won't.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 20, 2007, 06:48:40 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Case closed.
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 20, 2007, 07:15:42 PM »
« Edited: October 20, 2007, 07:38:17 PM by Gulliver T. Foyle »

For anyone to wishing to debate Education it has been to moved to a different thread: here


The 1904 worldwide Physicists convention thanks you for proving the existence of Ether. Move along now.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes I have no doubt that certain interest groups are trying to manipulate facts to pull the situation in their favour; that I am in no doubt of. What I am critical of is tarring all skeptical scientists with the same brush.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I totally agree.. ish, I was merely referring to how the debate is being conducted. I am being critical of those who seem to put their faith in some "scientific consensus" or use the potential findings to gain political points.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 20, 2007, 07:41:19 PM »
« Edited: October 20, 2007, 07:42:53 PM by ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ »

Nice try, hack, but the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment didn't fit with the ether model, which had no evidence for it. You lose. I really hope that you aren't going to try to claim that science in 1887 is the same as science in 2007.
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 20, 2007, 07:48:05 PM »

Nice try, hack, but the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment didn't fit with the ether model, which had no evidence for it. You lose. I really hope that you aren't going to try to claim that science in 1887 is the same as science in 2007.

I really hope you don't think that science can't be influenced by outside factors today like it was in 1887 (and not just Ether; Evolutionism, anyone? Funny I should mention that in regards to science, whether modern or Victorian) anyway while I'm not an expert on this by any means Ether wasn't really disproved until another hypothetical model came along - also known as Einstein's theory of Relativity.

Of course I'm not saying that all those 928 reports are wrong; just that they could be wrong and there is some historical basis to believe that. Which is quite different.

I fail to see how I am a hack.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 20, 2007, 07:58:31 PM »
« Edited: October 20, 2007, 08:01:27 PM by ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ »

Nice try, hack, but the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment didn't fit with the ether model, which had no evidence for it. You lose. I really hope that you aren't going to try to claim that science in 1887 is the same as science in 2007.

I really hope you don't think that science can't be influenced by outside factors today like it was in 1887 (and not just Ether; Evolutionism, anyone? Funny I should mention that in regards to science, whether modern or Victorian) anyway while I'm not an expert on this by any means Ether wasn't really disproved until another hypothetical model came along - also known as Einstein's theory of Relativity.

Of course I'm not saying that all those 928 reports are wrong; just that they could be wrong and there is some historical basis to believe that. Which is quite different.

I fail to see how I am a hack.


Two points.

First, we are talking about the general idea of global warming, which is definitely not wrong. This is separate from a discussion of climate models, which can always be refined to be better and better.

Secondly, about science in 2007 versus science in 1887 or 1904. There are most likely more peer reviewed scientific papers published every year now than there were total in all of human history then. 

Your argument shows a grave misunderstanding of the scientific process. You can be dead wrong in science, this isn't humanities "you are always right" bullsh**t. It's one thing to question the whether the correct scientific model is completely accurate, it's another thing to put your head in the sand.

The clear scientific consensus is global warming is happening. What's not so clear is what is the best scientific model for climate change. Ice is melting faster in the Artic than predicted.
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 20, 2007, 08:08:23 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was taking Global warming = That mankind is to blame for said hypothesis in my first post; GW is just simple shorthand and I think everyone can realize what I mean. I don't think anyone doubts that the earth is getting hotter; the question of why is another matter.

As for Science now compared to Science in the early 20th Century\late 19th well I'm sure what you said is semi accurate; but it still doesn't exclude possibility of a hive mentality - or for that matter, people just being wrong. (Or as the Scientists of Haliburton show, have a special interest in maintaining hysteria.)

Basically if you want my position it's this: I don't know whether GW (caused by human activity, etc) is real or not nor does every scientist (though the majority do) and I think the debate on this is being totally distorted by those on the both the left and right to make this scientific hypothesis fit into a mere political agenda. But furthermore and not just because of the above scientific data it would be immoral given our position not to take action to stop global warming. That is the Action meaning actually doing things and not Action the word.
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 20, 2007, 08:13:33 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Where did I say Science was similiar to the humanities? Yes I know in the end there can only be one final answer on this issue (whether or not Humans are responsible for Global warming or not) and whatever that answer is, I don't happen to know it, but neither does everyone else on this forum and sometimes I wish that people would stop acting otherwise.

(As an aside; knowing a geologist who has worked with many soil samples, etc he told me that in previous eras there is significant evidence that the climate can change very rapidly, often for none too obvious reasons. Of course this may or may not have any relevance to the above debate. And if I was you, I would dismiss what I've just said as just some random ancedote. But still, just an aside.)
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 20, 2007, 08:25:27 PM »


I was taking Global warming = That mankind is to blame for said hypothesis in my first post; GW is just simple shorthand and I think everyone can realize what I mean. I don't think anyone doubts that the earth is getting hotter; the question of why is another matter.
Lots of non scientists completely don't believe in Global Warming

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
If there was legitimate evidence otherwise, they would get it published. The fact is, that there have probably been many many times more peer reviewed papers on climate change than there were peer reviewed papers in Physics in 1904.



Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Where did I say Science was similiar to the humanities? Yes I know in the end there can only be one final answer on this issue (whether or not Humans are responsible for Global warming or not) and whatever that answer is, I don't happen to know it, but neither does everyone else on this forum and sometimes I wish that people would stop acting otherwise.

(As an aside; knowing a geologist who has worked with many soil samples, etc he told me that in previous eras there is significant evidence that the climate can change very rapidly, often for none too obvious reasons. Of course this may or may not have any relevance to the above debate. And if I was you, I would dismiss what I've just said as just some random ancedote. But still, just an aside.)

There are plenty of things we don't know, but it is clear that humans have a significant impact on current climate change. You can argue over how much that impact is, and how accurate the models are, but that we have a significant impact is scientific fact.
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 20, 2007, 08:30:42 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's a difference between dismissing or questioning hypotheticals (like man made climate change) and dismissing clear and indisputable facts (such as that the average global temperature has been increasing for some time now.) Though one can always quibble and nit pick at how those statistics are gathered; they certainly show a major trend.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now I should perhaps stay silent; as I don't really know in full detail how the process of peer-reviewing papers actually works.. all I will say is that sounds like a system which is open to abuse especially if one ideology tends to be dominant among scientists. (Going back to the 19th Century, how widely accepted was Social Evolutionism again? Though I accept your point on peer reviewed papers.)

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

For the moment anyway.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: October 26, 2007, 06:50:24 PM »

I don't agree with your second point about 'smear claims.'

Certain people do have an agenda to make it look like there is not a consensus on a scientific theory when there really is-- oil corporations say that there are plenty of credible scientists who don't believe in man-influenced global climate change, and creationists say that there are credible scientists (mostly pediatricians, probably) who don't believe in natural selection.

Now, I would be willing to acknowledge that smear claims largely politicize science, which is something which should be free of political influence, but the issue arises in that the converse is not necessarily true- you and I probably agree that politics should be influenced by science.  For example, a homosexual cannot "turn" straight through therapy and prayer, so, scientifically, it is logical to support equal rights for homosexuals.  More broadly, scientists (climatologists in particular) do tend to agree that the reason for global warming is the influence of man, so it would be reasonable to implement policies to attempt to repair the damage done by man in the last hundred years.

Naturally, if we allow science to influence politics, it is inevitable that politics will influence science, if we aren't careful.

That being said, there are some issues where I am willing to disagree with the scientific consensus.  For example, I largely feel that the reason so many countries are enacting smoking bans is because of influence by pharmaceutical companies, who use anti-smoking efforts as a way of increasing sales for nicotine patches and gum.  I'm not sure who profits off of the idea that global warming will kill us all (maybe hybrid car manufacturers), but it's obvious who profits off the idea that it won't.

Science cannot influence politics because it doesn't take normative stands. It does for instance not follow from the fact that homosexuality is genetically determined that gays should have equal rights. It also does not follow from the fact that global warming is man-made that we should implement policies to amend it. You would have to introduce ideas about equal rights or the welfare of humanity that have nothing to do with science in order to reach those conclusions. The idea that ideological view-points should be based on and are legitimized by scientific findings is generally quite dangerous.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: October 26, 2007, 06:56:05 PM »

I will add that Gully's view on this is pretty much my own, so no quibbles there. Though, like Jas, I will go with the scientific consensus in lack of anything better. Unlike Jfern though I won't be a bitch about it. I have made personal aqquintances with climatologists who are sceptical towards the idea of global warming and are certainly not bribed by oil companies.

That the Earth is getting hotter is pretty obvious. That it is caused by humans is pretty likely and is something I will accept (even though theories of causal inference are always difficult to keep check on). What to do about it is a whole other issue and much less easily answered.

And anyone who's taken economics knows that the free market can't handle externalities. I don't really view it as a right-left issue in an economic sense.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.077 seconds with 12 queries.