Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Monday, September 19, 2011 18:34
VIEWED: 4620
PAGE 6 of 7
Fascinating discussion, shows me how smart and thoughtful most of you are. I'm impressed. What the scientist is saying is "incontrovertable" is that the world is warmer than it was before, and that, to me, scientific measurements are showing that to be true. Unless there is some way in which 7 is a smaller number than 2 is possible, as we measure it, to simplify it. Certainly science may find a way down the line to prove that false, so it isn't incontrovertable, but there are some things which I believe will never be "proven" wrong, so while I don't like the word used in the context of science (which is always evolving), I don't have that much difficulty with the claim.
As far as the original article, when I read it I saw it as something worded to convince of one thing, while the actual facts of the matter are different than the conclusions pushed. The conclusion pushed seems clearly to highlight that someone in authority is protesting a statement of the truth of man-made climate change, when that is not what he actually DID. A casual reader might see this as "proof" that someone in authority has stated that man-made climate change is false, and that's what I believe it was worded to indicate. When I got to the bottom and saw it was from FauxNews, it all fell into place. They chose someone who would be viewed as reputable, from the "Nobel Prize winning" bit and the fact that he's a scientist, then twisted his protest to cast doubt on something which a) he was not protesting, and b) he has such a strong reason not to believe in that he's gone to considerable lengths to align himself with the belief it is not. That makes him prejudiced, in my view, and his conclusions questionable. He appears to be more someone who has already made up his mind and has an investment in being right, from having a website to argue against it to resigning from a scientific body over it.
The other thing I noticed was how Raptor's posts were completely at odds with the debate being held; except for his last post, he offered nothing but snarks and visceral language which was intended to elicit responses. Everyone else was debating science and language; he was just popping in to snark about liberals and call himself "fair and balanced". It reminded me yet again how irrelevant he is to any serious discussion.
The third thing that struck me is that science, being a evolving thing, and unable to prove or disprove anything to the point where everyone will agree with it, means that we can debate endlessly just about anything. This means that man-made climate chance can never be completely agreed upon. Ergo, it can never conclusively be used as a reason to do anything about it. Ergo, as humans, we will never make a sincere effort to combat it, we'll just go on arguing about it, which means we are doomed if it is real. It's a failing of human nature which leaves loopholes for those who want nothing done to use effectively to combat any effort to take any action.
Given we don't need man-made climate change as a reason to try and mitigate man's continued toxification of our environment, I wish less attention could be paid to the possibility and more attention paid to reversing the myriad negative effects on us and our environment, of which (proven absolutely, universally true or not) we have plenty of examples to convince us. There are too many ways we are willing to engage in doubt of negative effects, or absolve ourselves of blame for same, which can be used to keep us from taking action, and those who have an investment in keeping us from taking action know how to keep that debating going for their own profits.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
sign
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I guess the problem we're running into here is that I view all facts as subjective, and facts are correct until proven wrong. As such, I tend to think there's always an inherent uncertainty about everything.
Which is why I'm simply unable to agree that anything is incontrovertible, including data or well-supported scientific conclusions, even if I might agree with the sentiment that those conclusions are true.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The third thing that struck me is that science, being a evolving thing, and unable to prove or disprove anything to the point where everyone will agree with it, means that we can debate endlessly just about anything. This means that man-made climate chance can never be completely agreed upon. Ergo, it can never conclusively be used as a reason to do anything about it. Ergo, as humans, we will never make a sincere effort to combat it, we'll just go on arguing about it, which means we are doomed if it is real. It's a failing of human nature which leaves loopholes for those who want nothing done to use effectively to combat any effort to take any action.
Oh, that might not happen. Science may not be absolute, but science and policy are by necessity two different things, and policy is determined by compromise. Eventually if enough people decide, maybe if not to do something directly about climate change, they might be willing to do alter personal habits to reduce their own personal ecological impact for different reasons. Which would be a win for everyone whether they believe in climate change or not.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I also googled for the actual text, given the "..." in the posted article. The actual text was revised to includeQuote:
The evidence for global temperature rise over the last century is compelling. However, the word "incontrovertible" in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the 2007 APS statement is rarely used in science because by its very nature science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century. (Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html), to me, they were correct in clarifying the statement. Nonetheless, I disagree with scientists stating "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring" insofar as it is within text which begins "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate." Saying the EVIDENCE (of warming) is incontrovertible is one thing; beginning the treatise the way they did and following "incontrovertible" with "global warming is occurring" evidences for me very close to a clear statement that global warming is man made. That's not what it says, but that's what it's intended to be read as. That makes their statements as biased as the dissenting scientist's in my view.
The statement is worded in such a way as to use the "fact" of warming to extrapolate it being man made, and uses sentences such as "Greenhouse gas emissions are changing", which is stated as fact, rather than "greenhouse gas emissions appear to be changing". In that respect, the APS is definitely unscientific.
The wording is cute, but has some validity:Quote:
"Enhanced effort to understand" is valid, providing technological options is an assumption that it is man made.
Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms.
I can see why someone who didn't believe climate change is man made would be angered by the statement. I also think the scientist in question goes beyond dissent in his disagreement. Both the statement by the scientists in favor of believing it is man made and the article about him resigning over it are propanganda, in their ways.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Byte, agreed (your second post). But people doing so on an individual basis would never have sufficient effect, in my opinion, to counteract the volume of what is being done with negative consequences. There is too much power pushing for no change, it would take at LEAST a nationwide effort to counter the myriad ways in which our environment is changing which we can be relatively certain industry, etc., are causing. As long as "scientists" debate, there is fodder for those against change to use. They're already winning, on this issue, given fewer people believe climate change is man made than did before. They've cast enough doubt, carefully worded (and I believe bought off enough "scientists") to keep the debate going. While we debate, little or nothing gets actually DONE.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"unable to prove or disprove anything to the point where everyone will agree with it"
So, do we use the Polish veto to determine science? Do we put it up to a vote and if one person disagrees that the earth is a globe we have to put that fact in our 'unproven theory' bin?
Wow.
Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?
Yeah, me neither....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, btw - I also read the complete statement. I thought there was an deplorable level of weasel-wording and implication. That said, the 'incontrovertible' statement itself was limited. And that is the only statement I am defending.
Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?
Yeah, me neither....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just adding my 2 cents, which ain't exactly 'inconvertible' but I suspect the real argument for most folk is whether or not the climate change is the problem we think it is and if our CO2 emissions are really the cause. That would be my argument anyway.
It's my understanding we have some evidence of a 'Medieval Climatic Anomaly' from around 950–1250 and much evidence of a 'Little Ice Age' that occurred from around 1550-1850. I think it's evident that the Earth's climate has and will change, but how much of that is the fault of our CO2 emissions? Is it really more closely linked to destruction of forest and the like or is it something that's just going to happen anyway, with or without our help?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Both the statement by the scientists in favor of believing it is man made and the article about him resigning over it are propanganda, in their ways.
Agreed. This is why I lament the direction the discussion has gone. It's "We're all gonna die!" and "We'll be fine. Drill drill drill!" Meanwhile big oil and energy plays both sides to the hilt and profits obscenely, with built in loopholes to any legislation that might be passed to prevent us all from going over a cliff.
No discussion, in my experience, can lead only to stagnation and corruption. It never leads to better understanding of anything or improvement of conditions.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kiki: Quote:
No, my point was that until enough of THOSE IN POWER are convinced there's a problem, little or nothing will be done. It's happening right now, and will probably go on happening until (if it's true), it's too late to reverse the effects. I believe we should continue to investigate, but in the mean time, given we have what I believe is enough evidence of the negative impacts of the current situation (whether it's causing climate change or not), we should be doing something about it rather than waiting for a consensus that something should be done.
Do we put it up to a vote and if one person disagrees that the earth is a globe we have to put that fact in our 'unproven theory' bin?
Could you clarifyQuote:
for me, please? The two sentences seem to be a dichotomy, the way they read.
No discussion, in my experience, can lead only to stagnation and corruption. It never leads to better understanding of anything or improvement of conditions.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME