OT: I know how to solve global warming

[AMF]

Exactly!

[AMF]

Often, I am literally physically sickened when I see people making important decisions based on their self-interest, ideologies, or dogma, rather than facts and scientific methods. In my line of work, I see it a lot, and it puts people's lives at risk. I can't help but get angry when people make important decisions based not on facts but on what they WANT to believe.

You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts.

The fact of the matter is: there is NO debate on global warming. The only debate that exists is in the eyes of politicians, economists, and political pundits - all of whom have a vested or personal interest in stating that global warming is a hoax, or not a big deal.

The VAST majority of scientists who have studied the various facets of this issue have all come to the same conclusion: the globe is warming, and humans are largely responsible, in one fashion or another. Exactly HOW human activity causes global warming is a legitimate topic for debate, but WHETHER OR NOT humans greatly contribute to global warming is NOT. Sorry if this is inconvienent for some people to hear, but frankly, that's life. Being able to change one's opinion in the face of evidence is a sign of maturity.

But if you're not willing to honestly listen to the experts, then I'll tell you what: go and spend years to get a PhD in atmospheric sciences, physics, chemistry, biology, or some other related field, and THEN spend a decade studying global warming. THEN, and ONLY THEN do you have the right to spout off on this issue. Until then, shut the heck up. You're just making yourself look foolish and helping to doom the planet with shortsighted biases.

If you want to take the time to actually have an informed opinion (and not just an opinion that reinforces what you WANT to believe), then here are some places to start:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/
A bunch of wiki pages such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change
Or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

You want to talk about the temperature record? Go here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempera...ast_1000_years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satelli...erature_record
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...erature_record

Are the EXACT links between human activity and global warming known? Not per se - the causal link between human activity and global warming is clear, but exactly how human activity transmits to higher temperatures is a very complex matter. But reality is complex, and there is no more complex a system then the planet's climate. And, you will almost never find, in any scientific field, a direct link between cause and effect. It's just the way science works (look up Karl Popper, Imre Lakatos, Carl Hempel etc...if you want to know more)

But just because it is a complex issue doesn't mean global warming doesn't exist, no matter how much people whinge and cry. Sorry.

But, hey, don't really worry about it. It's not like we're talking about the future of the entire planet or anything. I mean, I can understand why people don't want to pay a bit more in taxes to save the planet. Makes sense to me. Probably too late anyways, so why even worry about it. After all, probably some conspiracy by those pesky scientists. Not like they're interested in the truth. I'd much rather rely on the opinions of the extremely well informed voting public or the news-radio hosts - they're ALWAYS more objective.

AMF

[Raapys]

It could be argued that even such things as warming up our homes, heat from factories, cars, etc., is all contributing to the world's temperature rise( obviously the heat doesn't just disappear). We're converting more and more of the world's resources into energy/warmth, much helped by our technology advances that let's us exploit nuclear power, for instance.

If the world's temperature is rising, that must mean wind activity is as well?

[Atrocities]

People don't think it will affect them. They don't stop, or worse, don't care to think that their legacy of greed and self importance will leave their childrens holding the bag. And I don't know if any of you have noticed this, but the children of today are not as able or capable as the children of yestarday. (being polite) - they are one step away from grade a morons. Most just don't care, would rather lay around watching spung bob, eating chips and drinking pop. Most think that McDonalds is the dinner room, and that all they need do to get whatever they want is throw a temper tantrum. Gone are the days where parents actually had skill and could and would use disipline, replaced by partents that don't have a clue, are drug addicts, or worse, brain dead retards who just happened to breed by accident and the State is so over whelmed by the influx of BDR babies that they cannot help everyone.

My cusins kids, two girls, are on drugs for depression, hypertension, mood swings, uppers, downers, and god only knows what else and they are only 12 and 10. WTF! They have no respect for their mother, who I might add is a BDR herself. (We are talking white trash, Jerry Springer time here) Yet my cusin loves them, despite wanting nothing to do with them, he does the right thing and tries to take care of them but is forbidden by the state to use any form of disipline other than time outs, talking to them, and professional theropy... one of whom recommened using a belt.

They try their games with me and I won't put up with them. They mind me and when they stay at my mothers, they mind her as well. She is a no hold bard old school women.

There seem to be fewer smart, caring, and well balanced kids than there were in my generation, and I am not that old at 37, than there are today. Of course that could simply be because I only see the punk, smart ***, drug selling, using, trailer white trash, looser lower income, or yuppie 'I get whatever I want' rich punk 'I don't care, I do what I want' teenagers living around this area. (And beyond.)

While there are some great kids to be found, most are like their parents now, "its not my problem, lets do what we want, let someone else deal with it," kind of people.

And knowing that those kind of people seem to be in the majority scares the hell out of me. The last eight or so generations made the problem, and it will be up to the next eight or so generations to live or die by it.

God help them, because we sure as hell won't be.

[Hunpecked]

alarikf, even if there were a "consensus" on anthropogenic global warming and its impact (sorry, there isn't), consider that about three decades ago there was a similar "consensus" on global cooling:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/coolingworld.pdf

If you read the article, you'll find uncanny echoes of today's climate hysteria.

BTW, if you're serious about

"I can't help but get angry when people make important decisions based not on facts but on what they WANT to believe."

then you must be absolutely livid at Al "ManBearPig" Gore:

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=052406F

Right?

[Renegade 13]

Here's a couple links you might find interesting Alarikf.

www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=13830&ch=biztech
www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/136.pdf

Particularly the first one is interesting, as it essentially says that the methodology used by Mann et al. was flawed when they created the familiar "hockey stick" graph that shows warming over the past century or so.

I'd also like to mention that a theory can be proven wrong without other theories to take its place.

The major problem with climatology, as I see it, is the uncertainties inherent in the science. If you think about it, trends in climate aren't always distinguishable over a mere millenia, and as I think both you and I agree, anything beyond a thousand years ago has too much uncertainty as to be nearly useless. When talking about climate, 1000 years is but a blink of the eye. Essentially, we don't know if what we're going through is a natural cycle with a period of a few thousand years.

I admit, global warming is currently a theory that has a lot of acceptance in the international climatological community. Yet I find myself to be a skeptic, in nearly all things. I doubt, I question, and until my questions can be answered, I will continue to doubt and question. I guess it's just the kind of person I am.

Note that I'm not saying we should do nothing. The opposite, actually. I think a lot more money should be put into researching better photovoltaics (solar power cells), tidal generating stations, wind power, hydrogen, cleaner coal powered generating stations (sequester the CO2 and other nastiness underground), and yes even on such dreams as fusion which may prove key in another several decades. The reasons to do so go beyond the global warming argument. As it is, we are all at the mercy of the big oil companies. We'll pay what they tell us to pay, because we have no choice in the matter. Reducing our reliance on oil companies will take away a lot of their power, and in my opinion, that alone is a good reason to pursue alternatives to oil. The fact that they're renewable and oil isn't is another good reason to do so. If global warming is indeed a fact, then it's yet another reason to do so. But it's far from the only reason.

Whew. Didn't mean for that to be so long!

[Renegade 13]

I guess what I consider to be logical and obvious isn't so obvious and logical to others. I've stated my opinions, and the facts they are based upon, for long enough. I've written enough in the past 30 posts or so that explains my opinions and why I believe the global warming hypothesis to be deeply flawed and overstated. Essentially, I see no further constructive purpose in continuing this debate. I guarantee that, unless you provide me with evidence based on much more solid scientific grounds, you won't convince me that the global warming hypothesis is anything other than an idea that a rather large number of people have jumped on. After all, jumping on the bandwagon is easy.

I'll rejoin the conversation if anything new comes up; for the last page of posts, it has all just been reiteration and the same old arguements. Please do note however that my withdrawl from the arguement is not a concession to your points of view; it is merely that I'm tired of repeating myself and getting nowhere.

[AMF]

Renegade,

I know that this all this philosophy of science stuff sounds fatuous, or silly, or pointless. When I was first exposed to it all, it took me many hours over many months to really get my head around it. It is, certainly, counter-intuitive, and I had lots of trouble with it.

But, trust me, this is how scientific progress works - research programs 'compete' in the manner described above. Old theories cannot be disproven without a newer and better theory to take their place. The entire history of the scientific progress of the human race is essentially based on this.

People who are much smarter than I (and probably most people here) have spent decades discussing the issue of "how do we know progress when we see it?" Everything I've sid above, in my own poorly worded way, comes straight out of the mouths of people like David Hume, Karl Popper, Imre Lakatos, and so forth.

I sympathize greatly with your frustration. (I don't mean for that to sound arrogant - it probably does - sorry). I spent many hours in classes arguing the exact same thing as you have been to my professors. Eventually, I came to understand what they were saying, and why they were right. I can only say that it was extremely enlightening for me, and quite formative.

With that in mind, I can only urge you to not give up on this line of reasoning - I'm not trying to make anyone feel bad or stupid (although, again, I recognize that my manner of speech does sometimes come across like that - again, very sorry for that) - I am just trying to impart that same enlightenment that I felt when I really, finally, after years, understood what scientific progress and the growth of human knowledge was all about.

Useful citations for above referenced philosophers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume (see especially the problem of induction)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper (see especially section on philosophy of science)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos (see especially section on research programs)

For a counter-vailing view of all this, Thomas Kuhn is interesting (although largely debunked and I don't think anyone puts much stock in him anymore - I could be wrong on that). The Wiki article on him is sparse, but it has good links elsewhere I suspect - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn)

And let me say "thanks" for allowing me to debate this topic, especially given that I often come across like an arrogant SOB with a bad attidude.

Philosophy of science is a subject I find fascinating and close to my heart, and getting practice in discussing it with critics it is invaluable.

Thanks,

AMF

[Will]

I think part of the confusion is a misunderstanding of terms. In formal logic, there are statements and there are theorems. A statement can be proven false by a single counter-example (which in turn usually means a flaw in logical reasoning to arrive at that statement, or false premises). A theorem is a collection of statements, which counter-examples do not disprove; a counter-example to a theorem merely shows that the theorem is incomplete. It is much more difficult to disprove a theorem, because you need to prove false ALL the statements in the theorem, not just a few. I didn't do much to help in the confusion since I took your example of the algebra equation (normally a statement) and pretended it was part of a model or theorem, when I said it is still right for y=1.

I really would like to understand your reasoning, but from everything you've said, I can only conclude that you haven't had much experience in the hard sciences. It is fine to question theorems to gain a better understanding of them, but to just reject them out of hand you really do need to present an alternative. Otherwise, you are just an admitted novice that is rejecting the claims of experts in a field just because you don't like some of the evidence. That isn't science, that is dogma. Even the articles you linked do very little to the theory as a whole; the author of the Technology Review article claims to still think that human action has caused a rise in global average temperature. The Marshall paper basically says that the 90's was the warmest decade in the approx. 140 year direct temperature record, and held the position that indirect temperature estimates for before 1860 are incomplete in that it only takes into account local temperature (meaning, they want a more widespread and comprehensive study, eliminating as many assumptions as possible from the data analysis). Both basically say we need more information to refine our understanding of human impact, but neither one comes anywhere close to denying human impact. For both, the prevailing theory of global warming still holds.

Anyway, this isn't really a bandwagon issue. Most climatologists say that there is global warming because the data fits, and all competing theories (sunspot cycles, 20th century as end of the ice age, etc.) don't fit the data as well. The best fit model wins, and it has survived quite a bit of scrutiny in the 80s and 90s. After all that scrutiny, it is only natural that the experts would come to accept it as the best current theory.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Ah, but what if you have a theorum that fits some of the facts, but whose use proves futile in solving the problem? Supposing that no-one has a theorum that fits the facts better, and supposing that no-one knows why it doesn't work, does not that disprove the theorum anyway?