Anybody who worries about global warming

Kama

The hang-up on 'proof' in global warming...its trivially true that AGW isn't proven; but proof went out with Popper anyways. Its accepted that we can't have certainty (thats why we moved to falsification) much as its generally accepted that we don't need it. Probability is as good as it gets.

Given information being partial, and policy being essentially a bet on outcome, the 'its just a theory' rhetoric isn't justified, and misleads. Agree fully with bonkey, its ignorance or muddying the issue, similar to the Creationist/Evolution 'debate'; frankly, provide a better theory of gtfo. AGW is a very robust theory, with a clear path of causality, and mountains of evidence supporting it. Saying 'we can't be sure' is no excuse for not taking action.

molloyjh

bonkey wrote: »

Theories cannot be proven.

Noone here (AFAIK) is a scientist and therefore I am only talking in laymans terms, deliberately simplifying what I know is a more complex issue, to make it more accessible. I don't want to get into simantics (sp?).

Kama

Its very hard to simplify successfully without knowing a lot about what you're trying to simplify. Theory itself can be viewed as a successful simplification, or a useful one. AGW is a parsimonious and elegant theory, and fits the evidence quite neatly. It can't be proved, but its the best model we currently have, and will remain so unless someone else suggests a model with better descriptive and predictive value. Which thusfar the Other Side have failed to do, to the best of my knowledge.

To say thats just semantics, or thats just a theory, was bonkeys point. Definitions matter, especially since we are talking about a scientific issue; as bonkey said, there's often a conflation between the non-scientific use of the word 'theory', and the generally accepted scientific one.

Jack Sheehan

molloyjh wrote: »

Noone here (AFAIK) is a scientist and therefore I am only talking in laymans terms, deliberately simplifying what I know is a more complex issue, to make it more accessible. I don't want to get into simantics (sp?).

I'm pretty sure DJPB is a scientist, though probably not a climate change specialist.

bonkey

molloyjh wrote: »

Noone here (AFAIK) is a scientist and therefore I am only talking in laymans terms,

I am pointing out where your layman's terms are an inaccurate representation of the true state of affairs.

Don't you think that's reasonable - that I'm suggesting we use accurate layman's terms, rather than inaccurate ones?

deliberately simplifying what I know is a more complex issue, to make it more accessible. I don't want to get into simantics (sp?).

I'm pointing out that your simplifications are inaccurate to the point of being wrong. Each time you've tried to defend them, you made additional statements that were equally inaccurate to the point of being wrong.

Saying "theories are as good as science gets - they are the closest we get to proof" is no less layman-ish then saying "just a theory", but has the advantage of being more accurate and less misleading.

Saying "we can disprove them, although we cannot ever prove them" is as simple as saying "just as we cannot prove them, we cannot disprove them", but has the advantage of actually being correct.

I applaud the intention of trying to simplify the issues to make them more accessible. I am, however, of the opinion that much (but not all) of the confusion surrounding issues such as Global Warming has been brought on by inaccurate simplifications - by people simplifying to the point that what they say is misleading or downright false. I'm not suggesting for a second that everyone who does this does so intentionally, but it being unintentional doesn't mitigate it being part of the problem.

bonkey

Kama wrote: »

It can't be proved, but its the best model we currently have, and will remain so unless someone else suggests a model with better descriptive and predictive value. Which thusfar the Other Side have failed to do, to the best of my knowledge.

I'd settle for the Other Side successfully showing that its inaccurate or unreliable to the point that it cannot be meaningfully used.

They don't need to offer something better, merely show that this model isn't as good as it appears to be.

There are, of course, no shortage of people attempting to do just that. I've yet to see a meaningful critique stand up to scrutiny, however.

molloyjh

bonkey wrote: »

Saying "theories are as good as science gets - they are the closest we get to proof" is no less layman-ish then saying "just a theory", but has the advantage of being more accurate and less misleading.

What I said wasn 't really a million miles away. I said that it is a theory that we can't prove absolutely so its as good as we have.

bonkey wrote: »

Saying "we can disprove them, although we cannot ever prove them" is as simple as saying "just as we cannot prove them, we cannot disprove them", but has the advantage of actually being correct.

This I think is where we differ in this. Your position is a purely scientific one and accounts for the problems of induction (i.e. just because we have always observed that a stone falls to the ground when we release it doesn't mean it always will, therefore we can never prove gravity) whereas, in my view at least, no layman would consider this. To most people gravity is true and there is no disputing it, and statements like "Gravity is a theory and therefore can never be fully proven" is not something that most people would pay much attention to. Therefore I tend to ignore these aspects to the science when discussing them normally.

Of course you are completely right and I probably did phrase what I was saying in an inaccurate way, from a scientific point of view. However the idea that I was getting across, that AGW is a theory that we currently cannot hope to prove or disprove and to state it as fact or fiction would be wholly presumptuous, isn't inaccurate either. I refrained from saying that it is as good a theory as we have because I haven't researched the other theories (like the cosmic ray theory) in enough detail to be able to make that judgement and I'm no scientist myself anyway, so I'd be inclined to go with the consensus argument for the most part, i.e. most scientists believe AGW is true so the chances are they are right.

Also, by not judging which theory is more probable, I was hoping to make the remainder of my argument (re the needs for renewable energy sources) more accessible to the OP as I do believe that climate impacts aside we need to move away from fossil fuels for a number of other reasons.

Burial

To get back to the topic at hand, because your all complaining about something so trivial:

Jimkel wrote: »

Should read this, all of it. and please don't make judgements unless you have read it all.

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

I think it should be understood, that Middlebury.net is about as reliable source as my ass. Sorry for the harshness, but the description of the website states "Provides an online presence for businesses and organizations in Middlebury and the central Champlain Valley." Most business don't want to change due to climate change as it'll be costly for them. Also, Jimkel has a right to discredit Wikipedia, as I think, it's not accepted as credible in the scientific community as anyone can edit it. However, if you were to check peer reviewed articles on the subject, you most surely will find an overwhelming amount finding proof that global warming is being contributed by man. (The little bit that isn't is debatable. Their reliableness is questionable. Like taking limited data-sources as their example) Even your point about Scientists saying there is no Global Warming and they then get discredited. Most were paid in the past to change their results to fit to companies agendas. Also, just because 500 scientists say it's true, DOESN'T make it so. There are hundreds of scientists and historians who believe the Holocaust didn't happen, but just because they said so, doesn't make it so.

*NOTE* I'm not sure on this issue yet, I agree with recycling but Global waming, I've watched a few documentaries on both sides of the issue, and I don't know who to believe. I have however, come to only accepting Peer reviewed opinions. For example, it is common knowledge that the ice caps are melting due to the warming of the Earth. I just can't tell if there'll be a cool period or not or even when that'll be. Also, conserving our fossil fuels is a must. Why would we waste a resource and then decide what to do? Renewable energy as it is now, is not worth it. You waste more energy to get it then by using it. I got this from a guy working on the ESB. Anyway, saying to Jimkel about his arguement being rubbish and saying supply evidence, in honesty, why should he have to? If you can't prove it wrong, then why make him prove it right? If ye both can't do neither then it is a theory until proven wrong. (Though most of his arguements have been steaming piles of lies, that come from just about the most unreliable place on Earth..)

P.S. *From the article on Middlebury.net *

"That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate. "

Please, Please, PLEASE stop posting links that are mis-reading the facts. I have to reject your arguements as this "essay" is absolute biased. I want to accept your facts, but your not providing me with anything that isn't so biased. The guy is on the payroll of the website, who are maintained by Companies in Middlebury who WANT taxes for their pollution abolished. Please post something that isn't made by totally biased people.

Burial

I'm sorry for my post being all over the place, (This one and the one before this one), my mind works that way on issues I haven't decided on yet. (Like Religion, etc) Anywho, another point I'd like to make for anyone who's reading this. Surely there's more evidence of climate cooling BEFORE 2001? That anomaly that occured in 1998, surely there's evidence well before 1996. Use that AND the data after, and see if the temperature is declining. The guy offers no data to back himself up. Just absurd claims, and remarks and ATTACKS against other people who don't accept his opinion. I'm really sorry, but reading that article nearly caused my brain to bleed. It's biasedness and personal attacks, is the reason I DON'T accept your posting as evidence or as an ardguement of any sort. Quite frankly, those type of postings is the reason I'm unsure of who to believe myself. That's why peer reviewed stuff is only accepted by me.

Edit the last line I wish to change it to:

"That's why peer reviewed stuff should only be accepted by people who wish to argue on this debate."

There is more I probably want to change, but I really have to get back to work, and once again I aplogise for my postings being all over the place, and I'm sorry to anyone, if I hurt them personally, it wasn't my intention.

Pgibson

The crust of the Earth is called "SiAl"

Si.............Silicon

Al...........Aluminium.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sial

Pretty natural stuff is Aluminium.


.

Pgibson

Dangerous Graph here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

Looks innocent but it is the most danger-filled graph in human history.

It has the potential to fry us all.

Those who scoff at that graph are fools indeed.

.

You could probably find another graph that shows the global land area of forest going in the opposite direction over the same period!

Pgibson

Forest Destruction Graphs:

http://photos.mongabay.com/07/trop_defor_bar-600.jpg

Those who scoff at those graphs are ALSO fools indeed.

.

Pgibson

Changes in Pedersen Glacier in Alaska over 85 years:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/8/8c/Pedersen_Glacier.jpg

Glaciers don't ask to be "peer-reviewed" as they disappear before our very eyes.

.

Belfast

Jimkel wrote: »

Should read this, all of it. and please don't make judgements unless you have read it all.

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html



And if your still not convinced read this article here:

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html
15. The Global Warming Panic was triggered by an artifact of poor mathematics which has been thoroughly disproved. The panic is being deliberately nurtured by those who stand to gain both financially and politically from perpetuation of the hoax.

16. Scientists who "deny" the hoax are often threatened with loss of funding or even their jobs.

17. The correlation between solar activity and climate is now so strong that solar physicists are now seriously discussing the much greater danger of pending global cooling.

18. Biofuel hysteria is already having a disastrous effect on world food supplies and prices, and current technologies for biofuel production consume more energy than the fuels produce.

19. Global Warming Hysteria is potentially linked to a stress-induced mental disorder.

20. In short, there is no "climate crisis" of any kind at work on our planet.

Using the term hoax implies the the people who say the climate change is caused by man are intentionally deceiving people and they do not believe their own theory, this and implying they are mentally ill does not contribute to a reasoned debate.

Kama

Indeed, pathologizing the opposition rarely inproves the quality of a debate.

Btw Point 20 contradicts Point 17. If global cooling is the problem, as you say, then there is a climate crisis, but a different one.

I am Pedantor! Hear me Roar!

ulysses1

Burial wrote: »

I think it should be understood, that Middlebury.net is about as reliable source as my ass.

Care to provide a more reliable one? Reliability is relative. If you believe everything you're told, then nothing outside official centres will do. See my point?

For those wishing for a more thorough rebuttal of current alarmism, I'd suggest the article below.

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

Macha

ulysses1 wrote: »

Care to provide a more reliable one? Reliability is relative. If you believe everything you're told, then nothing outside official centres will do. See my point?

For those wishing for a more thorough rebuttal of current alarmism, I'd suggest the article below.

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

Reliability can depend on an individual's interpretation but don't try pulling the relativistic argument and insinuate that distinctions cannot be made between a more and less credible/reliable source.

ulysses1

djpbarry wrote: »

Absolute nonsense; I have already provided a link to an article that debunks the “solar warming” theory.

These findings do not by any means rule
out the existence of important links between
solar activity and terrestrial climate. Such links
have been demonstrated by many authors over

the years.

I'm afraid this article does not debunk the solar warming theory. It's largely simple: if the sun cools, then so in time will everything in our solar system. Of course, our atmosphere contains many homostasis mechanisms which are responsible for their being disputable graphical evidence. Disputable yes - not disproven.

I have yet to read credible reasoning as to why Mars, Jupiter, Neptune's largest moon and pluto have all shown increases in surface temperature over recent years. I wonder if their scientists are as alarmed as ours. The undisputed solar "Grand Maximum" could provide a not-so-subtle clue.

ulysses1

taconnol wrote: »

Reliability can depend on an individual's interpretation but don't try pulling the relativistic argument and insinuate that distinctions cannot be made between a more and less credible/reliable source.

Our course distinctions can be made; that was not my point. There is no central bank of approved sources and I realise you are not disputing that. Even if a source is disproven to 99%, then 1% of information in there is credible, so I'm afraid it is relative.

A dot edu or dot gov is just as unrelaible.

djpbarry

ulysses1 wrote: »

It's largely simple: if the sun cools, then so in time will everything in our solar system.

Can you demonstrate that solar activity has been increasing recently, in a manner that would explain the increase in temperature here on Earth?

Scofflaw

djpbarry wrote: »

Can you demonstrate that solar activity has been increasing recently, in a manner that would explain the increase in temperature here on Earth?

It's generally estimated that the amount of sunlight reaching the surface fell by about 4% from 1960-1990. During that period, temperature rises were of the order of 0.036 degrees/decade. The trend has reversed since then, mostly as a result of reductions in aerosol pollution - and we now have a temperature rise trend of 0.38 degrees per decade.

The conclusion is that the increase in sunlight is not driving the warming - since then the reduction would have caused overall cooling - but that what we're seeing now is a no longer masked greenhouse rise.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's generally estimated that the amount of sunlight reaching the surface fell by about 4% from 1960-1990. During that period, temperature rises were of the order of 0.036 degrees/decade. The trend has reversed since then, mostly as a result of reductions in aerosol pollution - and we now have a temperature rise trend of 0.38 degrees per decade.

The conclusion is that the increase in sunlight is not driving the warming - since then the reduction would have caused overall cooling - but that what we're seeing now is a no longer masked greenhouse rise.

Thanks Scofflaw, but my question was somewhat tongue-in-cheek .

bonkey

ulysses1 wrote: »

Even if a source is disproven to 99%, then 1% of information in there is credible,

No. If a source is disproven to 99%, then at most 1% of the information may be credible. It may also be false but not yet disproven.

Also, unless one knows which 1% that is, then the odds are at least 99-1 against any piece of information chosen being correct.

Scofflaw

djpbarry wrote: »

Thanks Scofflaw, but my question was somewhat tongue-in-cheek .

Sure, but the answer wouldn't have been...I thought I might try to pre-empt the inevitable garbling of solar activity.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Macha

Well now we know that according to the Mayor of London, the problem is population.

http://friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/paperstoday/index.php?do=paperstoday&action=view&id=12398

What I find funny about this article is that he flails and spits at the idea that he have one meat free day per week, but is logically in favour of some seriously pervasive population controls. Hmm the spread of China's one-child policy or everybody eat a bit less meat: I know which one I find less preposterous.