Globe causing Global Warming
--posted by Tony Garcia on 7/25/2006
It seems the culprit to global warming may be...well...the Globe!
Gas escaping from the ocean floor may provide some answers to understanding historical global warming cycles and provide information on current climate changes, according to a team of scientists at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The findings are reported in the July 20 on-line version of the scientific journal, Global Biogeochemical Cycles.Really!?
But it is not "methane" that is the REAL danger. It is carbon monoxide, right?
Atmospheric methane is at least 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide and is the most abundant organic compound in the atmosphere, according to the study's authors, all from UC Santa Barbara.Hmm, so it is not really the cow farts either, huh? Too bad, cuz then the Left could have blamed global warming on McDonalds and Burger King.
The conclusion of the report?
The authors explain that these results show that an important piece of the global climate puzzle may be explained by understanding bubble-plume processes during blowout events. The next important step is to measure the frequency and magnitude of these events. The UCSB seep group is working toward this goal through the development of a long-term, seep observatory in active seep areas.This is going to throw yet another monkey wrench into the blame-SUV-blame-humankind crowd of the Global Warming theology.
The article is an interesting read so go read it.
********** UPDATE **********
From the "right-wing mn blog where they're using one misinterpreted paper as a basis for not buying global warming"...I bid a welcome to the readers of Pharyngula.
Please feel free to read the archives...I'm using much more than just one article to justify my position that man is not causing universal warming or (in the sliver that the Theologians of Global Warming wish to maintain the focus) global warming.
I assume most of you are new to this blog so I will state up front my rules of "engagement". I play by the same rules as the person I am responding to. If you are respectful so will I be.
Labels: Global Warming
20 Comments:
Are you people for real?
"Gas escaping from the ocean floor may provide some answers..."
"...an important piece..."
So let me get this straight. Basically all other evidence points towards ourselves as the major cause of global warming; a incredibly tiny fraction of scientist refute this, and you grasp onto one paper that describes one possible, partial cause that isn't us, and think this means we should just chill out, not worry, and keep doing what we're doing?
The description of your blog says you promote "rational thought". Being that science is the best that humans can really do at "rational thought", maybe it's RATIONAL to believe the scientific consensus instead of attempting to pick apart one paper out of thousands, ignoring the fact that you lack any qualification to do so anyways.
Science isn't partisan, and this isn't a partisan issue. Stop making it one.
Science SHOULDN'T be partisan...but let's see, there is global warming, Kyoto (based on NO science), abortion, stem cell...and on and on.
"maybe it's RATIONAL to believe the scientific consensus instead of attempting to pick apart one paper out of thousands, ignoring the fact that you lack any qualification to do so anyways."
Actually, two things that you are failing to consider.
1) Most of the "scientific consensus" regarding human caused global warming is by SOCIAL SCIENTISTS or scientists whose fields are not related to understanding/studying the CAUSE of global warming.
2) I have as much (and in some cases more) meteorlogical qualification to pontificate the causes of global warming as many of those making up your "scientific consensus" as I have studied meteorology and my wife was a meteorologist (and it is her expertise that I use to verify my conclusions on matters of weather/climate). So, to imply that for some reason these social scientists have more qualification than myself is incorrect in most cases and to imply that they have more qualification on the field of study than the people in the field (in this case at UC-Santa Barbara) is false to the point of being irresponsible.
I offer this challenge to you...prove this study wrong.
Clearly a social scientist has about as much credibility to comment on global warming as a ditch digger, but the claim that the scientific consensus is made up of social scientists is completely ridiculous. this wikipedia article summarizes the opinions of the major scientific organisations that have some stake in this, and the consensus is clear. Furthermore, you are apparently at odds with your own collegues who claim "Human activities have become a major source of environmental change."
I'm in no place to "prove the study wrong", nor am I even claiming that it is "wrong". I'm only claiming the study is one shred of evidence, and further, the authors of the study are quite clear that what they're descriping is PART of the cause. The two arn't mutually exclusive.
The authors of that article make no claims about the relative scale of this effect - only that it exists and they plan to study it more.
Bobby,
if that statement isn't true, what's your source? How can you (royal you) sit there and disagree with an enourmous body of highly trained individuals on this? Are you currently sitting on a thick binder full of papers you've written but haven't yet submitted for peer review that collectively refute the giant body of evidence that's been collected by the scientific majority?
This isn't relative. This isn't "my opinion" or "your opinion". This is just the way facts line up, as studied and interpreted by the people we train to do this. Us sitting here and arguing about one stupid paper that we barely understand doesn't do us a heck of a lot of good - it's like arguing with your doctor whether or not you have a tumor. We're used to trusting experts all of the time in our lives - why do you think you know the big secret about this?
I'm not saying that we shouldn't think for ourselves, or study these things if we're interested (and I read the summary of the paper and already pointed out how you guys were misinterpreting the results). I'm simply saying that, as a matter of policy, we have experts telling us right now that we're in danger and there are some things that we need to change. It being time for action, I'm content to trust 'em, just like I'd trust the doctor about the tumor.
Global warming
OK, I get that the Sea levels will rise because of all of the Ice that melts in Antarctica.
New york City is in big trouble.
Venice is toast.
No sense in Rebuilding New Orleans.
But why does Global warming only cause bad things?
Will winter be a little nicer in Fargo?
Will the rising tide create new wetland habitat?
Will the next ice age be postponed?
It's all Doom And Gloom.
"Basically all other evidence points towards ourselves as the major cause of global warming"
Hard not to take that first comment as implicitly stating that, well, everything else on the topic says humans are causing global warming.
One thing I find fascinating is that this study states methane is more impacting than CO in the "greenhouse effect".
Another item that gets no mention in the Church of Global Warming is the fact that the temperatures on Venus seem to be rising also AND the ice caps on Mars seem to be diminishing. How are humans causing a warming trend on one planet while the other planets have similar "climate changes"?
Next...there are many, many pieces of evidence that are themselves suspect (methodology, scale, etc) or where the abstract of reports are not representative of the report itself. So, frankly, the truly honest answer is that the jury is still out on the human addition to the changes.
Finally, the reports. This will be a bit lengthy.
I really do not feel compelled to repeat the documentation I have done previously for classes when I was in school. I documented the fields of those on the IPCC board that were involved with writing the summary...a good portion of them social scientists. Tell me, why should even ONE of them be a social scientist?
Keep in mind several things about the various "evidence" that the Church of Global Warming hang their hats on. NONE of them qualify under the Scientific Method as being able to be a "scientific consensus" either definitionally or in practice. What is a "Scientific consensus"? "[T]he term is used to assert that on a given question scientists within a particular field of science have reached an agreement of rational opinion without substantial doubt, through a process of experimentation and peer review".
No experiments means no SCIENTIFIC consensus. No reproducable tests means no theories able to withstand the scientific standard of the Scientific Method. Semantics? Not really...it is important to understand that while the Church of Global Warming throws out phrases like "scientific consensus" and "evidence" that they are actually misrepresenting the truth to further their theology.
As for the reports--keep in mind that the reports are copendiums of essays and articles. Then a small board compiles them and writes a summary. The first problem is it has already been demonstrated by members who actually wrote in the reports that the summaries do not typically reflect the original pieces of the report.
Next is the peer review followed by the governmental review. Guess what happens during the governmental review. THE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES rewrite the summaries. THEN the summaries are released...with the Church of Global Warming lapping up the revised and inaccurate summaries as if they were the reports themselves.
From the very link that Jeff provided to support his theory that "major scientific organisations [sic]" have a clear consensus. Above we understand why the summaries from these organizations are suspect. But keep in mind that even within those organizations the reports and statements by the leaders of the organization do not represent the views of the members. (Analogous is the following: I do not believe President Bush represents in his speeches the views of Jeff or everyone in the country.)
Look at the bottom of the wikipedia article Jeff directed us to.
"A 1993 Heartland Institute publication states: "A Gallup poll conducted on February 13, 1992 of members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society - the two professional societies whose members are most likely to be involved in climate research - found that 18 percent thought some global warming had occurred, 33 percent said insufficient information existed to tell, and 49 percent believed no warming had taken place.""
Does not sound like "a [sic] incredibly tiny fraction of scientist[s]" within one of the few communities that should be given authority on the topic.
Some other problems that never seem to be addressed (and I have a feeling Jeff will not discuss them either--though he claims that "all other evidence points towards ourselves as the major cause of global warming")
1) The models within the reports even admit that the lack of knowledge on cloud physics creates to much variability for reliable models
2) The Church of Global Warming treats the reports as proof of causality. In order to do so they need to prove why the findings are nothing more than a correlation. (Hence the Mars ice cap issue is also unanswered by the Church.)
3) Scope Issue--namely that only a limited data set (reliable temperature gathering for only about a century in a small number of locations) for making projections over a space equal to or exceeding that scope is not scientifically sound practice.
So many other issues, but those are a start.
Global Warming is awesome...
because Ice Ages are bad.
"Hard not to take that first comment as implicitly stating that, well, everything else on the topic says humans are causing global warming."
Don't misrepresent me. - "the major cause" isn't the same as "the only cause".
You cite a poll from 1993. This is a current issue, and it's now 2006.
"In December 2004, Science published an opinion essay [8] by History professor Naomi Oreskes [9] that summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change. The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change."
I'll take the more recent data, which reflects the scientists that are actually currently doing research in relation to global warming, rather than a 15-year-old poll of whoever they bothered to ask.
One thing I find fascinating is that this study states methane is more impacting than CO in the "greenhouse effect".
The study says no such thing. CO isn't even mentioned. It just so happens that *this* particular study is about methane.
How are humans causing a warming trend on one planet while the other planets have similar "climate changes"?
Coincidence? Probably. What is the significance of two data points? Even if there was one common cause of this, it doesn't mean that we can't add to the problem.
Tell me, why should even ONE of them be a social scientist?
There is no reason. This is regrettable. Let's ignore these particular people and move on from this, shall we?
No experiments means no SCIENTIFIC consensus. No reproducable tests
Are you claiming that all of the studies on global warming havn't involved experiments and repoducable tests? I'm sure the scientists that did them would beg to differ.
All of this said, I return to my point that us squabbling over this is silly. The fact that you have a plethora of questions about global warming, which I am not qualified to answer, only shows you don't properly understand the science, not that the science is wrong. You can sit here and fire questions all day long - and I'm sure a scientist in the right field could answer them for you, given an infinite amount of time, that is, enough time to catch you up on all of the course work you'd need to have to make possible a real scientific debate on this issue. If I'm having coffee with Stephen Hawking and I say, "but, but, why don't black holes act this way instead?!", I have not refuted him, I have only exposed my ignorance.
I don't care what laundry list of questions you've thought up - it would be good, in fact, to have lots of questions of scientists - if you were asking them to learn, rather than believing that every gap in your understanding somehow refuted years of research.
And referring to the "Church of Global Warming" only makes the situation more clear - the strategy of the right these days is to make everything relative, to obscure truth at all costs, to keep casting doubt where there is no doubt. Science isn't a Church. That's why it works. If your kind were as prevalent 400 years ago as they are now, scientists would have spent years wasting their time answering questions like "you said that the earth is round - so how come people in africa don't fall off? huh?? tell me, smarty-pants scientist! Clearly because I'm asking this question, you must be wrong!"
I'm sorry, your statement "all other evidence points towards ourselves as the major cause of global warming" does imply (actually, it is not stated implicity but explicity), that beyond the one study I'm posting about everything else on the topic is "evidence point[ing] towards [humans] as the major cause of global warming".
Let's be straight about this. You are relying on a summary about reports on global warming. I am relying on, essentially, a summarizing article on a report about global warming.
And in that article is the following quote: "Atmospheric methane is at least 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide and is the most abundant organic compound in the atmosphere, according to the study's authors, all from UC Santa Barbara."
Your response: "CO isn't even mentioned." Sorry. Loss of credibility points on that one.
Now, let's break down the issue. There are two major questions. Is GLOBAL warming occurring? If so, is the warming manmade or natural?
The interesting thing here is that most of the evidence that those blaming mankind use is questionable. The questions I posed in my last comment are, well, unaddressed by the blame-man side of the issue.
I personally know many people (admittedly on the Right) who do not believe man is behind global warming. Empircally, there are too many questions out there unanswered, too many facts refuting the idea that man is at the cause of any "climate change", etc. Additionally it is the same people claiming doom through global warming who were proselytizing to the kids in the late 70's and early 80's about doom through the next ice age. Both of these were given a time table of...the next 100 years tops. Loss of many credibility points there.
"Are you claiming that all of the studies on global warming havn't involved experiments and repoducable tests" Yep, that is what I'm saying. Care to tell me otherwise? I would love to know which scientists have published their findings which include how to reproduce another 10 year warming trend.
"I have not refuted him, I have only exposed my ignorance." Actually, challenging his premise is good. It is his failure of providing an answer that indicates a problem...with HIS tellings. But what your comment is telling me is that you are unwilling to ask challenging questions of the "experts"...worse, you are unwilling to demand answers to those challenging questions.
Hmm, do you know what that is a textbook example of? "authoritative principle or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true."
Dogma.
Now that is a perfect segue to the rebuttal of my use of the term "Church of Global Warming" and similar labels. To believe something without proof, without questioning and with such zeal as to demand social changes without a secular discussion is, well, very similar to a religion.
I tell the theocrats on my side of the spectrum that they cannot make a case for social laws unless their arguements appeal to the non-believe through secular rationales. Those who wish to prove man has caused global warming need to prove why...and proof comes through answering the challenging questions.
Asking a question is not showing ignorance, necessarily. Running from answering does. Asking a question is not proving a contrary. The absence of answers does prove the questioners premise more plausible. Asking for a resolution in a conflict of data with a conclusion may show my ignorance of a topic, but it does show the conclusion is weak even to the ignorant.
To extend your example...Yes, I likely would have asked, "You say the world is round but it looks like it is flat and Capatin Roberts sailed 4 years ago to prove it is round yet has not returned. How can this be?"
There is the Church of Global Warming's response: "You cannot ask questions. Naval experts unanimously say the world is round. Dock Hands Union says so. Tugboaters Guild says so. Leaders of the Sailors Brotherhood say so." Does not really show anything, does it.
There could be the winning arguement (the one that proved it to me when I was a kid) which used mathematics and geometry to prove that the angle of the shadows shows a curvature in the ground...blah, blah. The Ancient Greeks actually were able to mathematically figure out the diameter of the Earth. THAT is proof.
So again I pose the questions...and Jeff you seem well versed enough to believe humans are the "major cause" based on "everything else on the topic" outside of the ONE article I discussed yesterday. You should be able to find the answer somewhere in your VAST array of documentation, summaries and such.
If man is the "major cause" of global warming on Earth then why are the Martian ice caps also shrinking? Actually, a follow up question. If man's power to cause global warming on Earth is so much stronger (being a "major" cause) than the universal causes which are affecting Venus and Mars, then why is the problem not out of proportion to the relationship of increase in weather and the distance from the sun?
In other words, it seems that Venus is having a larger increase than Earth and Earth more than Mars. This implies solar causes. If "all other evidence" shows humans as "the major cause of global warming" that means humans are more powerful than the solar effects. Why are we not surpassing the effects being seen on Venus?
Let me first clarify this so we can drop it. The study in question is not literally the only paper to posit another cause of global warming. Nor is it wrong. My claim, very specifically, is we are a major cause, and that there are things we can do to solve this problem.
"Atmospheric methane is at least 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide and is the most abundant organic compound in the atmosphere, according to the study's authors, all from UC Santa Barbara."
Good find, I overlooked that when I scanned the article again trying to figure out where the talk of CO was. Still, we have no idea what they mean by "potent". Even if they mean "contributes the most to the greenhouse effect", it's still an issue of balance - small changes in the composition of our atmosphere causing big changes in temperature. Regardless, I don't know what more can be learned from this one out-of-context quote.
Here's a lesson in science - we can say that the earth is round and we know that it's round due to "reproducable tests". This doesn't mean we need to somehow re-create the earth. Scientists can do reproducable experiments in regards to atmosphere without re-warming the earth.
Actually, challenging his premise is good.
A trained scientist challenging another scientist's premise is good. A random layman asking lots of questions is also good. A random layman challenging a scientist's premise makes no sense. I'm sorry. I wish it wasn't that way. But it is. We've advanced to the point where decisions of policy based on science should be made by experts.
Let's talk about dogma. The definition you provide is relatively benign, not to be confused with say, religious dogma, which lacks rational basis. Your defition is:
"authoritative principle or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true."
Ok let's see. Global warming. Well, authoritative means "Of acknowledged accuracy or excellence; highly reliable" - ok, I'd call scientists that. It is a principle, and a statement of ideas, and I suppose an opinion, presumably a correct one. And I suppose while it's not "absolutely" true, it's highly likely as far as we know.
Ok, so global warming meets that particular definition of "dogma". So does all other science.
I'm not trying to silence the opposition. There's no conspiracy here. My only claim is that it's impossible for us to teach every person in this country the amount of science they need to know to properly understand these issues before we can make a decision about how to act. Would it be nice? YES! More public knowledge of science is GREAT! But right now, we have 5000 experts who are relatively sure and 100 million laymen expressing "doubt". Science isn't a democracy. You don't get a vote. It's great that you're asking questions (I'm a physics student and can't answer most of them), but you are not rocking the establishment with them. Sorry. The only reason people are "running from answering" is that it would take each scientist we have 300 years to sit down with each person that has all these questions and answer them all. I'm sure if you spent a year or so doing some serious reading and studying and then politely approach a scientist in the right field, they'll help you out.
This is a specialized capitalist society. We are all trained people, who mostly only know our own jobs. We rely on each other. That's the nature of it. I can reason as such: "I am a science student, so I know how science works. Therefore, I trust my collegues in other fields. Therefore, if they say this is probably going to happen, I support them". It sure would be nice if we could have a seriously educated opinion, but the world is too complex. And to dabble and be curious and ask questions is great. But to think that you're right is arrogant and silly. I trust my mechanic to fix my car and that guy went to school for a year and he's trying to bilk me for as much money as he can get. Needless to say, I trust these people who've gone to school for 10 years and continue to study, and have no reason whatsoever to lie.
On a lighter note, I won't miss Florida. Cockroaches and alligators I can do without.
Can you please find the scientific refutation to the premise that climate is controled and affected more by solar influences than anything else.
It seems to me that if the other planets are experiencing the same thing as Earth the idea that humans are the "major cause" of Earth's climate is faulty.
Furthermore, it seems that the predictions based on solar activity seem to be a lot more accurate and with fewer scientific flaws. (The humans-causing-warming crowd have as yet been able to account for the methodology issues relating to unknown cloud physics...which incidentally are the big part of the 'greenhouse effect'.)
It is not that I am formulating these questions on my own...it is that I look at the various evidence and wonder why there are inconsistencies. Surprisingly you seem content to just accept the "experts" summaries. After all, in your previous example it was the experts who maintained the world was flat. It was the experts who maintained that the Earth was the center of the universe. It was the few who questioned the premises and demanded answers to the questions begged by inconsistencies that eventually brought the 'consensus' to reexamine what they thought was proof.
"A trained scientist challenging another scientist's premise is good. A random layman asking lots of questions is also good. A random layman challenging a scientist's premise makes no sense." You are missing one step...A scientist's premise being question yet unanswered is questionable. I would have expect you would be able to find these answers somewhere in the "evidence".
I find it interesting that instead of finding/providing the scientists answers to the Solar Effects conflict in the human-caused-global-warming theory you have instead tried to diminish the necessity for "science" to answer such questions.
The shows that (1) there is a legitimate discrepency in the theories and (2) there is not any existing response.
Again, I did not discover the Martian ice caps melting and I did not theorize the temperatures on Venus are increasing. I did not predict climatology based on solar activity. I have seen those stories from NASA and other organizations. But reasonable people look at that and wonder...how does man fit into the picture as a cause?
And hearing no response makes the reasonable person wonder...maybe there is no response possible. I'm in that camp.
Please, by all means, continue to tell me why the questions posed based on inconsistencies are not worthy of being answered. It further emphasizes (1) there is not valid response, (2) regardless the Global Warming Cause by Man crowd are unable to digest this objectively...which is why I refer to them as the Church of Global Warming, (3) the actual drive behind the Church has less to do with climatology and more to do with some political agenda instead. This last item I submit that you on your website refer to here in political terms ("right-wing") and you initiated the same here in the comments.
As for the definitions...those are not MY definitions. Those are from dictionary.com. You mentioned "And I suppose while [global warming caused by humans is] not absolutely true, it's highly likely as far as we know." Not really...that is the question. What are you basing that on? The reports from committees, basically. Yet, as demonstrated by your discourse here you are unwilling to challenge the premises of those reports. Instead you defer knowledge to those who claim they have it and stating this is the way it goes because we are a "specialized capitalist society". However, I do not hand my car over to the mechanic and take his word for what the problem is. I ask the doctor many questions about his diagnosis. I ask roofing company many questions about their work. True, we don't have the experience or education, but we do ask questions. We should.
What would the average person do if they their doctor said the pain in their wrist is caused by fallen arches in the foot. They would ask, "How is that?" Here is where you & I differ. You think the expert (the doctor) should simply say, "Because we know that is how it happens" and we should just accept it. I say, if that doctor cannot explain why fallen arches makes my wrist hurt then I rightfully doubt the conclusion...need a new doctor.
I doubt there is any refutation to the idea that Solar Activity is THE primary cause of climate change. For THAT primary reason I find suspect all of the preachings from the Church of Global Warming.
Let me say it again: I am not science personified. I don't know the answers to your questions, and if I did, you'd just make up more. And while that's good, it doesn't enter into the real debate among people who know what they're talking about. Because I personally am not sitting here with an answer, does not mean that the answer doesn't exist.
A scientist's premise being question yet unanswered is questionable.
How is it unanswered? Because I don't have the answer? I'd bet my left nut that if you asked the right person or read the right paper, you would find the answer.
Your questions ARE worthy of being answered. But their existence does NOT refute the scientific consensus. I find it highly unlikely that the thousands of professionals studying this stuff have not already thought up the exact concerns you bring up. You're right. There WERE experts who thought the earth was the center of the universe, and they were proven wrong. Science works differently now than it did then - it is a highly organized system of thousands of people, and it proceeds slowly and methodically. There hasn't been an instance in many years were some random layman showed that a huge amount of science was wrong. And while it's not inconceivable, I'd rather not risk the global warming on the chance that you're the next Einstein. If you are that confident, go talk to people in the field and tell them why they're wrong. Change science all by yourself, please - convince them, and you'll convince me.
It's good that you ask your roofing guy questions - I would too. But the odds that you might be right when you question some dude's shingling job are simply higher than the odds you're right when you take on thousands of scientists.
Quick redirect:
1) I do not think you are science personified. However, you seem to have the answers based on studies, reports and polls that support your side...yet unable to find the deeper support of a valid question. I'm not smart enough to formulate these questions challenging the Church of Global Warming. I have read very much on the topic (including the IPCC's SAR on the matter cover to cover...blegh...would rather read USSC decisions) and know that these challenges are being asked and are left unanswered. I am simply keeping the challenges on the front burner because the Church clergy cannot be trusted to be fair in the discussion.
2) Again, it is not that YOU are leaving the challenges to the Church's dogma unanswered. The Church is doing that and you are an echo of that.
3) I bring up the mechanic, doctor and roofer because they are experts in their fields. Leaving their conclusions unchallenged is assinine...and so it is with the Church's experts' conclusions.
It is ignorant to embrace the mechanic, doctor or roofer opinions without questioning them. As it is ignorant to be confronted with questions and refusing to find the answers.
Would you stay with the aforementioned doctor?
I bring up these 3 professions as examples because with each of them they have given to me a diagnosis which I then researched, challenged them on and later found that I was right.
Maybe it is necessary to join the "sliver" of people asking questions if only to emphasize your belief. After all, it turned out that the sliver was right about the round earth, more than 4 elements, etc.
It is like I say to religious people...if you are unwilling question the premises of your faith how do you know your faith is not misplaced? Maybe the answer is not Catholocism but instead Scientology or vice-versa...but by simply accepting what you are told you (a) don't honestly understand the belief and (b) are ill-equipped to spread the validity of the belief.
And it seems you are running that course with the Church of Global Warming. In being unwilling to question the premise of manmade global warming vs solar activity global warming you have rendered yourself unable to (a) appearing without understanding the foundations of the belief in the face of valid contradictory beliefs and (b) ill-equipped to spread the validity of the belief.
The result...reaffirming that there is a political drive behind the Church of Global Warming; reaffirming also that most of the humans-caused-global-warming is closer to a theology than science.
Hmm, combine those two things and you have science-theology...sounds almost like scientology!
I'm unable to find deeper support because I'm not looking. My goal has been to avoid a discussion about the science, which would be infinitely time consuming and make fools of both of us, and simply try to make a point about why it is a reasonable action to trust science on this issue.
I still think you need to elaborate on "unanswered". So it wasn't answered in the report you read? (Commendable - I certainly haven't read it). They can't anticipate every question that might pop into your head. If you researched every relevent paper, while simultaneously having a significant understanding of the underlying science, I suppose you could decide something was "unanswered". But I'm sure you have better things to do than that. Which is exactly why there's an entire field of people devoted to this very task.
"Leaving their conclusions unchallenged is assinine."
Fair enough. But when it comes to this instance, I'm asserting that you're completely unqualified to challenge their conclusions - that being because of the difference between one roofer and thousands of scientists. Consider your doctor example: certainly I've also argued with one. But if 3000 doctors told me the same thing?
Don't compare science to religion. It's insulting to millions of scientists who have devoted their lives to furthering our knowledge of the natural world, and its effectiveness is evidenced not only by what we've learned but by the application of it - ie the car you drove it work in.
Just to add yet one more aspect, consider motivation for a second. A religious person is motivated to think that there's 70 virgins waiting for them. A global-warming denier is motivated to keep driving their hummer. Scientists have no motivation here - they only report it as they see it.
"I'm unable to find deeper support because I'm not looking."
That is my point about your personal analysis in this conversation.
"So it wasn't answered in the report you read?"
Very few of the critiques are answered or addressed. That is not atypical in first editions, but the SAR (2nd edition) and TAR (3rd edition) are supposed to answer as many of the critiques as possible. They cherry pick the critiques...and in doing so leave the substantially damaging ones alone. Works in the court of law, but is offensive that scientists allow this practice.
"I'm asserting that you're completely unqualified..."
That is giving a blank check to "qualified" people...and that is the problem here. You neglect that I am taking my challenges from "qualified" people and THOSE are unaddressed. But it alarms me when I encounter people who think that sheer number of people constitutes 'correctness'. "3000 doctors told me the same thing"--it does not in any stretch of responsible thought mean those doctors are right. Remember, pork was bad for us, then it was good for us, then it was bad for us...science requires challenging constantly. And those were QUALIFIED people.
"Don't compare science to religion. It's insulting to millions of scientists..."
1) Interesting how the comparison is only insulting to scientists. 'Who gives a damn about the religions!'
2) Now that you mention it being insulting I say...GOOD. What I am comparing between the 2 worlds is how some in the science community embrace a THEORY and find a few correlations to justify (not necessarily support) their THEORY. Ignoring the crucial distinction between causality vs. correlational they parade the justifications as unrefutable facts...so unrefutable that opposition is demeaned (as you do...more on that in a moment) and dismissed. Oh, and ignored. I keep drawing your attention to past examples of how science became a religion in the past...Round Earth; Fire, Earth, Water, Stone Elements; Earth at the Center...because by abandoning the willingness to question one's own assertions, and unwillingness to consider that the majority could be wrong the conclusion becomes dogma, the supporters theocratical in their presentation and religiously attached to their theory.
If you do not like the comparison, if you are insulted by the comparison then I suggest you begin to engage in scientific approaches to the topic of global warming. Stop with the "right wing" dichotomy, it is not an "issue"; the words you (and members of the Church of Global Warming) are not accidental. They may not be consciously used, but they are not accidental and the vernacular reveals the idea that this is not about science for the sake of discovery and knowledge. It is misusing science for political, economical and social justice purposes. (To some it is for more sinister ends, but I don't think that is representative of the Church's membership.)
I have to take the next paragraph in pieces.
"A religious person is motivated to think that there's 70 virgins waiting for them."
Again with the disrespect towads religious people. Understand that I am not a religious person as I make this response. It is offensive to religious people to be pigeon-holed with Muslims who believe in killing non-believers. The cynic in me wants to say that this was intentional. Either way, even as a non-religious person I will state that motivation for religious people (with the exception of Muslims) is peace...inner peace and/or outer peace...salvation and betterment of self, surrounding and society. That is the nutshell and it is telling that you are so far off with this. It explains why the disconnect in the entire discussion exists: the unwillingness to respect those you are not a member of.
"A global-warming denier is motivated to keep driving their hummer."
Not really. I don't drive a hummer and never will. For me there are three things. For everyone I talk to it is one of these three things at least.
1) Freedom. The Church's intended results will be a removal of freedom. And it is all based on a shaky foundation of blaming humans for climate changes. ALL freedom loving people will die before relinquishing freedom...and the Church threatens freedom without justifiable merit.
2) Knowledge. Is global warming occurring? 15 years ago the Church said we were en route to an Ice Age? Why the change in data leading to these vastly opposing conclusions? What is the correlation of solar activity to the climate? Which is stronger, local acitivity (geological, human, etc) or astronomical? These questions ought to be answered, but because they threaten the Church's dogmatically held beliefs these go unanswered...intentionally.
3) Truth and Justice. Earlier you proposed to weigh which field was more important based on the effects of being right and wrong. A roofer being wrong is rather insignificant and can be tolerated. A Church member's "expert" cannot be wrong or some type of holy hell will occur. Frankly, I would rather have the full truth be revealed before engaging in the impeding trying to cause major overhauls and throwbacks in society...as is the Church's goal. To claim as fact what is actually a theory and then demand treaties, legislation, etc from that basis is, well, a rather large injustice in the "freedom" and "sovereign" scope of things.
"Scientists have no motivation here - they only report it as they see it."
I would not disagree if you are talking about scientists who are not engulfed in dogmatically asserting their infalliabilty...in doggedly asserting they are not wrong.
We are not talking about that. There are a number of reasons speaking from the human nature side that would suggest motivation to maintaining the facade that the THEORY is a fact. I'll skip those. However, as I have explained already there is a political motivation that is easily transparent. Maintaining funding sources is one constant compromising position for scientists...and this is no different.
Honest scientists would never allow theories to go unchallenged as is happening with the global warming question. This is EXACTLY like the state of science regarding the Universe and the sun rotating around the Earth...even in the face of the observations of Mars' retrograde they held to their theories. They tried to explain them away. They just could not be wrong. Ego? Maybe. Something more...probably. But the same rhetorical things were being said then. "Scientific consensus", etc.
So these scientists who are preaching the Church's doctrine on human caused global warming are motivated by some combination of politics, ego, greed...and using science like a 'john' uses a whore for pleasure.
Motivation...as I have pointed out on only a few instances your own motivation is seeping through. This is not "science" as you would like to believe. It is political. There is a social agenda behind this. For you specifically I do not know and likely it will never be admitted. But it is clear with each of your postings in the style of discourse and the vocabulary used that "science" is only a tool for some political and/or social agenda.
Here where I live the majority of people use the Church for their own efforts of social justice. With Global Warming being blamed on man it would justify rolling back capitalism and thus moving closer to a social justice model where everyone is equal economically. Your agenda? I don't know, but it is painfully clear it is not science for the sake of science. If it were then you would be willing to seek answers for the "deniers" statements.
Find the "scientific experts'" answers to the question about solar activity and the Martian ice caps and you will be back on track with a science-for-the-sake-science approach. Until then...it is just not believable.
If the scientists doing the research arn't qualified, just who is? You? I'm not going to sit here and say that scientists have never been wrong in the past, but I will say that if we don't base our policies on their research, just what are we going to base them on? Sure science changes. Sure we could always be wrong - is that a reason to not use our best abilites to make intelligent choices about how to act?
"They cherry pick the critiques"
While I havn't read this paper, let me posit a possible explaination - what someone with a fraction of the knowledge on this issue of an expert may deem a damning critique could be so trival to an expert that it's simply not bothered with. What you see as the smoking gun may well have been covered and dismissed by these people years ago, or may be completely nonsensical and based on a misunderstanding of the material, a likely scenario given your lack of education in this field.
Interesting how the comparison is only insulting to scientists. 'Who gives a damn about the religions!'
Exactly. Nothing has less credibility than religion. For science to be compared to religion is an insult, and not the other way around.
"THEORY"
Good gravy, not that shiat again. The meaning of "theory" in science.
"Ignoring the crucial distinction between causality vs. correlational."
Scientists have a good grasp of this concept. A scientist who can't understand that is about as good as one who can't add. I'm going to assume that these people who have spent years doing this job have that one under control.
Let me reiterate, again: nobody is saying that we shouldn't question assertions in science. As someone that's spent hours listening to scientists bicker and argue with each other, I can assure you this is an important part of the practice. That doesn't mean we can sit around and do nothing until we convince each and every non-scientist who still has questions left to act. That's not practical. In the real world, we're forced to act on the best information and analysis we have, and the consensus on this is clear enough to believe we could have some serious problems. Of course, we'll continue to study, and question.
"Again with the disrespect towads religious people."
As an aside, I'd say they've earned it, but it doesn't change my point about motivation.
1) Freedom.
I like that too. Let me assure you my "social agenda" does not mean I'm not a huge advocate for it. But it's when our freedom causes us to bump into each other that we need to work things out as a community, and right now, I'm being told by the most qualified people available that some people's freedom might do some serious damage to the place I live. I'd love nothing more if people simply worked to change this out of the goodness of their hearts, making whatever anti-freedom legislation you're imagining unneccesary.
"Let me reiterate, again: nobody is saying that we shouldn't question assertions in science."
Actually, according to you only the "experts" should be allowed to be taken seriously on a topic and if a majority agree then the discussion should be ended.
I think this back & forth has gone in circles enough for my own taste...I rest my case. Anyone else is welcome to engage. I think the past 48 hours demonstrate exactly what I have been saying on the air and on the blog about the Church of Global Warming.
If we took every non-expert seriously, we'd never get anywhere. If you're a not-expert who has some serious issue with existing science, and you're right, I really hope it gets discovered by the establishment - and you have a long road ahead of you. It would be nice if that wasn't the case, but it's simply not possible for it to be otherwise.
I appreciate this discussion having been kept relatively civil.
And just for fun, I've found an answer to your questions about mars.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Question for you Jeff.
If man is causing global warming (which we are not), Then how did it get hotter then it currently is... without us?
Refer to the Earth's estimated temparatures over the past 600 thousand years. even Al Gore missed this one in his fantacy movie.
Click
here
thats an image of the average global temperature durring diffrent ages of time. It would appear to me that the average global temparature is quite higher then it is right now. so when it goes up, how is it our fault this time, when the earth has spent more time MUCH hotter then it is right now?
its estimated humans have been around for the last 10-15 thousand years... industry for the last 150 years, Chevy Tahoe only for the last 10 years, and my Pontiac Trans Am for the last 5 years.
So, Was it SUVs and Industry that caused the earth to get warmer 100, 240, 325, and 400 thousand years ago?
If not, is it possible that Industry isn't causing it not?
oh yea:
Jeff:
You cite a poll from 1993. This is a current issue, and it's now 2006.
how much has the earth's weather patterns changed in 13 years comapired to the last 450 Thousand? When it comes to the lifespan of the planet, 13 years ago is current.
"Let me first clarify this so we can drop it."
that sounds like what happens everytime I get into a conversation with a Liberal and they can't seam to hold thier Dogma up to fact. way to keep the trend going Jeff.
""Again with the disrespect towads religious people."
As an aside, I'd say they've earned it, but it doesn't change my point about motivation."
May I suggues for your reading pleaseure: GODLESS: The Church Of Liberalism
Post a Comment
<< Home