Scientists agree ... Consensus on Global Warming
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Friday, February 10, 2006 11:42
VIEWED: 22755
PAGE 9 of 21
So, what is my position?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Apparently, it is the belief that there is a scientific consensus that the affects of global warming are necessarily apocalyptic. But if you don’t know then perhaps you would like some time to contemplate that for yourself, as that is hardly something I can tell you?
Originally posted by rue:
So, what is my position?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I hate to quote myself b/c it seems egotistical, but after some specfic corrections to data on volcanoes, I've said (in various postings):
Science goes where the data takes it, dogma does not.
Right now, global warming IS the better understanding. As scientists do more to understand more, that future understanding will then be the 'better understanding', b/c that's where the data will have led. And you won't see me clinging to the old model either. Neither should you be clinging to the old model now.
Then I posted nearly a dozen references to research articles, websites and news reports with REAL SCIENCE addressing global warming and other environmental problems.
My position has been clearly to always insist that people go where the data leads.
As to what is science, it is PROACTIVE, ONGOING and OPEN investigation, observation, experimentation, evaluation and interpretation to test theories. Without continued effort, transparent methods and data, and a forum for debate, it's not science. The website you posted dates to 1997, the date at which the signatories seem to have stopped considering data. There are no peer-reviewed papers, and no ongoing evaluations of current studies. If you read what it is that people actually sign, it's a conclusion about global warming saying it just ain't so. That's not science, it's dogma.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That’s all well and good, but many of the articles that you posted largely seem to hold to the ‘doomsday’ scenario which is neither the only or most prominent scientific opinion, although it may be largely the only one that gets much political coverage. And I believe your characterization of an article that I posted, which disagreed with this doomsday scenario, was “nonsense.” Granted the article was dated 1998, which is hardly old news, but admittedly not the most recent, however your immediate dismissal (without cause) of this article should be somewhat alarming given your aversion to ‘dogma.’
Incidentally the article that I posted was dated January 1998, not 1997, and it IS a peer-reviewed published scientific article. I’m not certain that any of the articles that you have posted or linked to have been peer-reviewed at all. (Which, by itself, doesn’t really mean the information is necessarily wrong, but if you want to be snobbish about it I think you’ve lost.)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry it took me so long to come back. Been terribly busy.
Quote:Yesterday, the temperature where I live was 20 degrees F. Today it is 40. There is no doubt it is 20 degrees warmer here, and all in one day no less. What does it mean? Does it mean anything at all?
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Since there has been an increase of about 1 degree C in the last century in average global temp. there is no doubt that the earth is warming. I would think that the only arugment here is whether we are causing it or at least helping that along or not.
Yeah, 1 degree C in the last 100 years. Scientists ask questions about such observations. First we ask, in context of earth's ENTIRE history, is this random fluctuation, or is it a significant statistical change? What parts of the earth do these measurements represent, and can these temperatures be taken to be representative of the entire planet?
IF this 1 degree is statistically significant (which has been disputed) and IF it can be taken as representative of the whole planet, THEN we can ask what could be causing it. Is it CO2, is it the orbit of the earth, is it changes in electromagnetic forces because of the increased use of TVs and cell phones? IF it is CO2, is it because of the 1 billion people breathing in China, or the deforestation of the planet, or increased use of fossil fuels amongst many other possibilities? How can we tease out these variables without any direct experimentation?
My point is there are a lot of assumptions involved in the global warming hypothesis, and no way to truly test the hypothesis, let alone the assumptions. All we have are computer models--these are the only venues we have for "experimentation." EVEN if these models are reasonably accurate (which is highly disputed), they are still a far, far cry from true experimental data. So armed with only modeling data, the best scenario for the global warming idea is that it is plausiblethat CO2 is causing significant global warming IF our computer models and our assumptions are accurate. IF. There are scientists who say those models and assumptions are unbelievably faulty.
One of the most strenuous tenets of scientific reasoning is that "correlation does not equal causation." All we have in real world data is that 1 degree in 100 years, and oh yeah, a whole lot of CO2 produced at the same time. That is a correlation, which of course, does not mean causation. If you look at the last 100 years, you'll find a lot of other variables that can be correlated with this temperature change. The number of hair dyes, vaccines, microwaves, and cesarean births have all gone up. The number of buffalo has gone way down. What PROVES that CO2 is causing that temperature change more than any of these other variables?
The important thing is, real science is painstakingly cautious and tentative about its reasoning and conclusions. Politics is not. The pronouncement of global warming, in the end, is a political agenda, not a scientific one. This is a crucial distinction. It doesn't much matter that the agenda is promoted by people who happen to do research in their day job.
Quote:
But, even if we are not causing global warming, things should change anyway. The health hazards that go along with production that produces greenhouse gases, etc are an argument unto themselves. Look at all the chemicals that enter our food chain that are harmful to us, etc. ie Even if we aren't harming the planet, it is undeniable that we are harming ourselves.
I actually have no argument with you there. The toxins in fossil fuel emissions and the conventional production of energy itself should be of *immediate* concern. Even if global warming were true, it would be like worrying about high cholesterol when you're popping cyanide pills.
Quote:Unless the second bird is imaginary. Personally, I'd prefer to save my stone chucking
So, lets huck that stone at that bird as save ourselves, and we just might kill two birds with one stone as well.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
One of the most strenuous tenets of scientific reasoning is that "correlation does not equal causation." All we have in real world data is that 1 degree in 100 years, and oh yeah, a whole lot of CO2 produced at the same time. That is a correlation, which of course, does not mean causation. If you look at the last 100 years, you'll find a lot of other variables that can be correlated with this temperature change. The number of hair dyes, vaccines, microwaves, and cesarean births have all gone up. The number of buffalo has gone way down. What PROVES that CO2 is causing that temperature change more than any of these other variables?
Ummm... do you have ANY background in science??? You're correct- correlation does not equal causation. Generally in order to show that A causes B you need to show not only correlation, you need to provide a MECHANISM. It is an undeniable fact of physics... and an easy high school demonstration... that CO2 (and methane) absorb strongly in the infrared range. (If you don't know what infrared is, perhaps RADIANT HEAT will give you a clue.)
Just sheer physics alone (X CO2 increase causes Y absorption of heat) should tell you something. Tossing in a bunch of red herring doesn't change that calculation.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
In fact, it does. If the data and/or method used to come to the conclusion is faulty, then the conclusion cannot come close to even be considered correct.
And you presume to call yourself a scientist?
All experiments have flaws and limitations. Are the conclusions of every scientific pursuit then rendered null?
There is a difference between within statistical error and faulty method. If you were a scientist you would be aware of this.
If these "conclusions" that you speak of were actually attainable by proper method, then those scientists would have retracted there paper, fixed there method, etc and re-submitted a paper that had conclusions based on proper methods (read: proper science) in it.
But all I see is retraction. Kind of telling, isn't it.
I might add that you still have yet to answer my first question posed. But, then again, from your history, I hardly expect an answer.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Yesterday, the temperature where I live was 20 degrees F. Today it is 40. There is no doubt it is 20 degrees warmer here, and all in one day no less. What does it mean? Does it mean anything at all?
There is a difference between weather and climate. So, this point is rather moot given the topic at hand.
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
My point is there are a lot of assumptions involved in the global warming hypothesis, and no way to truly test the hypothesis, let alone the assumptions. All we have are computer models--these are the only venues we have for "experimentation." EVEN if these models are reasonably accurate (which is highly disputed), they are still a far, far cry from true experimental data. So armed with only modeling data, the best scenario for the global warming idea is that it is plausiblethat CO2 is causing significant global warming IF our computer models and our assumptions are accurate. IF. There are scientists who say those models and assumptions are unbelievably faulty.
Actually, these models are tested against data taken over the last... quite some time. So, there accuracy is tested against real data.
I might note that I've never seen any predictions beyond 100 yrs. This isn't an accident. Round off error and not fully understanding things reduce the amount of time in the future that we can predict.
Also, given that the models tell a grim tale within 20 or 30 years is rather telling.
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
The important thing is, real science is painstakingly cautious and tentative about its reasoning and conclusions. Politics is not. The pronouncement of global warming, in the end, is a political agenda, not a scientific one. This is a crucial distinction. It doesn't much matter that the agenda is promoted by people who happen to do research in their day job.
There is a major problem with this statement.
The real problem is that people in general don't understand statistics and probability. So, the science has to be "dumbed down" for general consumption.
If you asked any real climatologist about the situation, (s)he'll tell you about probabilities and statistics and say that given the current information we're headed for a very warm future.
Problem is, and I re-state, people can't handle these ideas. They just don't understand them.
[note: this is the reason why I don't like books at the highschool level. They can't describe what is actually going on because they assume a level that is insufficient for the topic at hand.]
See also, SignyM's post.
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:
So, lets huck that stone at that bird as save ourselves, and we just might kill two birds with one stone as well.
Unless the second bird is imaginary. Personally, I'd prefer to save my stone chucking on only birds that demonstrate empirical threat, and save birds that pose hypothetical threats for further study.
I think you missed that "might" that I typed.
To be clear, if we adopt certain policies, then we save ourselves by way of not poisoning ourselves to death. Also, if global warming is happening, then we've just killed two birds with one stone.
In either case, one stone is used. So, there is no wasting of stone throwing, period.
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
If it is still unsatisfactory, email me
How about just posting some sources here to benefit us all.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Incidentally the article that I posted was dated January 1998, not 1997, and it IS a peer-reviewed published scientific article. I’m not certain that any of the articles that you have posted or linked to have been peer-reviewed... if you want to be snobbish about it I think you’ve lost.)
Finn, you aren't referring to that CO2 paper from that other "Oregon Institute", are you?
Because if you are, well, no it did not appear in any peer-reviewed journal.
You're involved in the sciences, you must remember that particular to-do, as it was delivered in that oh-so-thorough bulk mailing, right?
Remember how the NAS had to put ouut a rather odd statement to the press, and everybody was in a stir about how to protect the reputation of the Academy from such flim-flammery?
Oh Google, your all-seeing eye finds the source again,
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/s04201998?OpenDocument
Ah yes, here's the relevant portion,
Quote:
The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal.
So to reiterate, not peer-reviewed, disavowed by the NAS, perilously close to forgery and fraud, big scandal in the scientific community (I mean, I don't pay much attention to such things and I was aware of it at the time.).
Hey, kinda like that Dan Rather fella, huh? Maybe y'all shoulda been more Christian to him when you had the chance.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Just because one variable is more plausible than others for being involved in a mechanism doesn't PROVE it is the cause. The very purpose of science is to tease out this sort of intuitively compelling, but spurious reasoning.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Just sheer physics alone (X CO2 increase causes Y absorption of heat) should tell you something. Tossing in a bunch of red herring doesn't change that calculation.
I threw in less plausible correlations to highlight the point that correlation does not equal causation. I'm glad to see you agree. Can we agree then that any correlation of CO2 to increased temperatures itself (if such a correlation truly exists) does not prove manmade global warming?
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME