Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The very basis of scientific method is that a conclusion must be verifiable, repeatable and capable of being disproven. Global cooling/warming/climatechange (GC/W/CC) fails as science. Proponents of GC/W/CC first claimed that human activity was causing cooling. Later when that didn't pan out, they claimed that human activity was causing warming. When that didn't pan out, they settled on just calling their belief that humans were causing something, "climate change." Over time, their definition of what constitutes GC/W/CC has come to include:
You're making a giant strawman of the "global warming alarmist" boogeyman. "They said this, then they changed it to this! Then changed it again! See, they're all wrong!" ..... it's not an argument based on logic.
Do you even know what scientific evidence is? There is no scientific proof that driving drunk makes a person more likely to get in a crash, under your semantics. But there is a lot of scientific evidence that leads to the conclusion that driving drunk is dangerous. I don't get climate change denial. I understand being skeptical about it. But denial with lack of evidence in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence against your view is just plain illogical.
I generally agree, but I do have a few issues that gives me some doubt.
First, if you are unfamiliar, Google "science wars" or the "Sokal Hox." Occasionally academia will take a politically correct turn, and some of the normal protocols tend to go the the way sides. There is a feeling of a lack of objectivity starting to evolve in climate science. Like they have a higher obligation than just to report the results with neutrality.
Also I would note that the IPCC reports themselves use the language of uncertainty in many of their predictions, but for some reason the public discussion always assumes every question is neatly asked and answered. When they ask "is there a consensus on climate change," the only real answer can be that there is for some of it, and there is not for other parts. There are lots of hypothesis in the theory that one can agree and disagree with. More C02 in the air? Yep. Man made? yep. Is that going to account for a certain amount of temperature increase? probably. Will feedback effects amplify the termperature increase 5 fold?... that's not so certain. There is room there for legitimate people to have questions.
The climate is enormously complex. We don't really have our heads wrapped all the way around it.
My BS was in physics before I went on to getting a masters in structure engineering. During my undergrad, I worked for some time with a research group on chaotic systems. My main task wasn't anything fancy relating to the experiments themselves. My purpose there was to write out codes for the computer to communicate with the various devices that they had set up for data collecting.
Anyway, from what I've learned, the thing that makes the layman confused about chaotic systems is not that they're incredibly complex. As a matter of fact, some of them are downright simple. An example of this is the double pendulum. The pendulum is a very simple system that is 100% completely predictable. Any high school kid with the most basic algebra math skills can work out the motion and position of a pendulum. But a double pendulum, while still incredibly simple system, is an incredibly impossible to predict mathematical nightmare.
The waterwheel is another one. There's not much to it. But goshdarnit, trying to work out the equations gave me nightmares back then.
What really makes the layman confused about chaotic systems is the fact that very small changes can have incredibly huge effects. This is where the so-called "butterfly effect" came from. On this board alone, there are laymen from time to time who makes fun of the butterfly effect without knowing what it actually means. The phrase literally describes a butterfly flapping its wings in South America the resulting wind would eventually turn into a hurricane in Florida. It's just a dumbed down phrase to describe an incredibly impossible to predict mathematical nightmare.
If you've made it this far in my post, know this. Just because we can't accurately predict with mathematical precision results of chaotic systems doesn't mean we can't know the trend of it. It is impossible for us to predict the waterwheel's turn and motion, but with enough data we can predict very accurately which way the waterwheel will turn at what time.
Again, I'm not a climatologist. But I've worked with chaotic systems just enough in the past to know that certain trends of such a complex chaotic system can be predicted while the details are still being worked out. From what I've read in scientific journals, 99% of climate scientists have agreed on the trends of the data collected. What's being disputed among those scientists are the details like when, how long, and what areas will be affected how much.
Like I said, let's leave the bridge building to engineers, the disease curing to doctors, etc. and the climate science to scientists.
How comfortable are you with using a bridge that was designed and built by Rush Limbaugh? Would you feel comfortable moving into an apartment building designed and built by Glen Beck?
Climate change is not a religion. It is a scientifically supported phenomenon based on data analysis of real instruments over real time. (Surface temperatures, melting of 2 of 3 major ice blocks on the Antarctic peninsula, glacier retreat shown in meters in Govt-backed credible diagrams, record-breaking high temperatures in various parts of the world, persistent evidence of a global surface average temperature increase, without reversal, CO2 levels, ozone holes, satellite observations, etc.
Once can of course choose to ignore these findings for an unspecified period of time until real life adversities ultimately will expose the truth to greater numbers in society.
For now, the aboriginals of arctic communities are the ones most affected, a few who have lost their lives due to following the same hunting and nomadic practices of their forebears, only to find themselves drowning under ice flows that never melted before. These negative experiences were not warned to them and their ability to survive in their habitat is and has always involved teaching by word of mouth from one generations to the next.
Also it is interesting to note the presence of noctiluscent clouds over the US, (photo physical evidence) and no documentary historical evidence showing these clouds have ever been in the middle latitudes before. Ozone thinning would explain part of surface warming and in turn, cooling of the stratosphere upon which the noctiluscent clouds form where they normally would only appear at polar latitudes.
Human involvement in the warming process is some component of the warming, evidenced by some environmental practices in the 1970s "CFCs in A/c units, overuse of chlorine)...that caused ozone depletion in places...once alternative chemicals were applied there was some ozone repair ...directly correlated to human activity.
You're making a giant strawman of the "global warming alarmist" boogeyman. "They said this, then they changed it to this! Then changed it again! See, they're all wrong!" ..... it's not an argument based on logic.
Do you even know what scientific evidence is? There is no scientific proof that driving drunk makes a person more likely to get in a crash, under your semantics. But there is a lot of scientific evidence that leads to the conclusion that driving drunk is dangerous. I don't get climate change denial. I understand being skeptical about it. But denial with lack of evidence in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence against your view is just plain illogical.
Where is the overwhelming evidence that proves man-made activity is causing global warming. Cite it!
The issue is one of causation; i.e., what factors are the proven cause of a trend or statistical variance.
In my mind, one thing you said applies: "it's just a dumbed down phrase to describe an incredibly impossible to predict mathematical nightmare."
If any alleged man made effect on global warming (or whatever) can't be proven, there's no reason to take action. Just as there was no reason to take action when the same "scientific community" warned of global cooling -- are you enjoying the ice age? -- in the seventies.
I was really into physics back in my undergrad. Had the economy not tanked and research money not pulled, I would have stuck with it to become a physicist. But because the economy tanked and research money pulled, I went to grad school for structural engineering.
Part of my undergrad research was on the magnetosphere of various bodies in the solar system, including Jupiter and the Sun. There are a vast amount of data publically available for any research institution to analyze. At one point, I was hired by a researcher to write a program to analyze the vast data he had gotten from NASA.
The data I had to put into account for my program to work properly went all the way back to the 70's. This was about the time when NASA started launching a series of satellites to study *ding ding ding* the Sun. The initial results were that the Sun's output was decreasing cyclically. There wasn't any conclusive evidence yet. But some scientists began to speculate that if this trend continued the Earth might not get enough solar energy from the sun to maintain the current climate. Less solar output would mean global temperature drop.
Again, it was a few scientists giving out suggestions after the preliminary data were in. The press got a hold of this and it made a great sensational headline.
But rest assured, there was never any scientific consensus about this.
As a matter of fact, as more data were analyzed, questions began to arise. If solar output was steadily and cyclically decreasing, why in the world was the global average temperature increasing? Something must have been retaining more heat from the sun than before.
And you can read about the rest of it and how more and more climate scientists began to agree that climate change is inevitable.
Any more disinformation you want to throw out there?
I have 3 large problems with the entire global warming debate that keep me a skeptic:
1) If the "science is settled" and the "debate is over" as we have been hearing for years now, why do we need to spend BILLIONS of dollars for more research every year? I will grant that some of that research money goes towards studying ways of mitigating the effects of climate change but most of it seems to be used to generate more alarmist reports which constantly tell us it's worse than we thought.
In my mind, if there's this huge consensus and no doubt in our minds, ALL of that money should go towards mitigating the effects of climate change or towards cleaner energy. If I were a believer on this issue, I would be VERY ANGRY that so much time and money were being wasted on more studies when we have apparently already reached a conclusion. As a skeptic, this just leads me to believe that there is more money in alarmism than there is in studying mitigation or alternative energy and no one is willing to stop that gravy train.
2) Climategate. The leaked emails are a big factor in my skepticism. Here we have scientists openly admitting that data was manipulated or withheld in order to advance an agenda. Yeah, the spin doctors have managed to do damage control and convince people it wasn't that big a deal but if you actually read the emails, they are shocking. These are also just the ones that we know about. Imagine the private conversations that we were not privy to. How can impartial science be conducted in an environment like this?
The believers here hold the science up as bulletproof and infallible because it was produced by scientists.
In other words, BLIND FAITH! They never take into account politics, activism, dogma, group think or greed and how that corrupts the scientific process. As programers say, Garbage In, Garbage Out. I am not saying all of the research is rendered inaccurate but it makes me highly skeptical of the many conclusions being drawn from it.
3) Marginalizing the non-believers. I am really sick and tired of skeptics being framed as ignorant, old-testament bible quoting rubes who watch Fox news, listen to Rush Limbaugh and who have no understanding of science. I am tired of the snark and the supposed superiority complex of the believers.
As I have stated many times, I am not a climatologist and am not qualified to get involved too much indepth in a discussion about it. I have some understanding of the science behind it and can only go so far with it. I do, however, respect the profession and that I expect them to respect my profession.
Are you claiming to be a climatologist?
Edit.
The reason I suspect you are a layman is because you keep bringing up the word "prove" in our discussion. Take a hint.
I have never claimed to be a climatologist. Nor have I, in any way, alluded to being one. Oh, nor do I divulge personals.
Nonetheless, if I wanted to try to assess evidence from which I might possibly adduce what skills a person might possess, I would certainly review their posts.
I see you have down ratcheted my status from your prior holding that I am layman to your current holding that you now "suspect" I am a layman. You're moving in the right direction.
As regards my need for "proof", would you believe that "proof" (reliable, relevant, material and competent) is a key element of our system of jurisprudence, both civil and criminal?
And once again I ask you to please cite the highly reliable evidence that proves man-made activities have caused global warming.
Your opinion seems to be you are better qualified to make the judgment call than the entire scientific community. So, let me ask again. What are your qualifications? An expert googler?
No, actually what happened was that I expressed an unpopular or threatening OPINION and was almost instantly attacked for it. I never claimed to be an expert and I never claimed to be "better qualified than the entire scientific community" as you put it.
I said that I thought climate change was treated as a religion, that I was a skeptic and I listed my reasons why. The responses that I've received have all but come short of calling me "infidel" for daring to take a position contrary to the present dogma. Hence reinforcing my contention that this is treated like a religion!
As it does with all of the left's hot-button issues where they mandate-for-all their ideological fringe point-of-view.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
