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.
Anthropogenic causation has not yet been conclusively proven... that's the big debate, and we simply do not have enough consistent data spanning a long enough period to make a rational conclusion or even get a consensus among experts in the various related fields.
While I, personally, suspect that human actions are a strong contributing factor, I will not state such as a empirically proven fact. My suspicions and beliefs are enough for me to change my actions, but it would be irresponsible and unreasonable to mandate everyone change their actions based solely on my suspicions and a handful of cherry-picked data points. Intuition can get you started, but theories must be validated and supported with proper research and method.
There is no material dispute in the scientific community than anthropogenic CO2 is increasing.
You guys are preaching to the choir... I've already said that I believe humans are a contributing factor and many of our practices are ecologically unsound. I fully support weaning us off fossil fuels for power generation and transportation, implementing renewable energy solutions when/as appropriate, halting deforestation, and promoting conservation. I support all those things regardless of whether or not they make a micron of a dent in the climate change because they would be a net benefit in so many areas.
It is because climate is such a varied and complex area that I say we need to slow down and make sure we've dotted our i's and crossed our t's before we try to fix anything. By all means, (slowly) stop doing the things that we know are harmful in other areas since that certainly couldn't hurt... but don't make any "fixes" until we really know what we're dealing with.
Just because I can argue for the opposition, trying to explain where they are coming from, doesn't make me the enemy. Cautioning us to take a more pragmatic approach isn't ignoring the problem, it's just wise to slow down a bit, put some more thought into thing, and make sure something you're doing to help isn't making matters worse... all that takes time and a level head.
I don't consider you a "enemy." I think you are politely expressing a viewpoint. I don't think it is correct, but the fact that I disagree doesn't make me an enemy. This is actually the way issues should be resolved.
I actually believe that the renewable energy and conservation path we are on is very pragmatic and as you say, even if the climate scientists are 100% wrong, we will end up in a more economic and cleaner world over time.
This is a nit, and I think you will agree. The word 'proven' is a misnomer, and is misused in casual discussions. Scientists show probabilities, not proof. Even Newton's law of gravity is not proven, but the probability that it is not correct is so low that it is accepted as law, rather than hypothesis or simple theory.
Climate is tricky since there are so many fields of science to study that can show some degree of probability that our climate is changing. Scientists in fields as varied as physicists to glaciologists to marine biologists to forest ecologist often work on some aspect of the effect of a long term temperature change.
There is enough data to show that our climate is changing and it is not because of sunspots, water vapor, a 100% natural cycle, or many other things that skeptics reference. Amongst reputable, published scientists in a myriad of fields those who are skeptics are rare.
The argument that there is no consensus is irrelevant, as the number of reputable scientists who do not believe the climate is changing have become negligent. Are there still unknowns? Yes, and plenty. Have all questions been answered? No, and they never will be. We humans never have had and never will have all answers to all questions. However, as research on climate change continues the evidence that humans are the primary forcing continues to build.
Proven as in the result of the scientific method. Proven in that the results consistently match the hypothesis or any divergence can be properly explained as well as these results being replicated by others.
This is what we mean when we say "proven". AGW is not proven as a great deal of its support is based on unverified speculation and assumptive modeling. This is what we mean when we say it hasn't been proven.
This constant claim about irrelevant scientists and consensus is pure political ploy. Scientist do not argue over climate change, or if the planet has had a warming trend. They argue over how much warming, is it significant, what is the main contributor, do humans contribute "significantly", and are the changes happening connected to man.
They argue over these things as well as the details of how each element is explained. Co2 forcing is still a heavily disputed process with much confusion on how elements of our atmosphere even reacts to it.
In science, it matters not how many scientist may agree as science does not require social acknowledgement for its legitimacy. Politics however is entirely dependent on it.
Proven as in the result of the scientific method. Proven in that the results consistently match the hypothesis or any divergence can be properly explained as well as these results being replicated by others.
This is what we mean when we say "proven". AGW is not proven as a great deal of its support is based on unverified speculation and assumptive modeling. This is what we mean when we say it hasn't been proven.
This constant claim about irrelevant scientists and consensus is pure political ploy. Scientist do not argue over climate change, or if the planet has had a warming trend. They argue over how much warming, is it significant, what is the main contributor, do humans contribute "significantly", and are the changes happening connected to man.
They argue over these things as well as the details of how each element is explained. Co2 forcing is still a heavily disputed process with much confusion on how elements of our atmosphere even reacts to it.
In science, it matters not how many scientist may agree as science does not require social acknowledgement for its legitimacy. Politics however is entirely dependent on it.
The scientific community doesn't say proven in open cycle systems where on cannot use a control. We say the hypothesis is consistent with the data. To prove something in science you must develop a null hypothesis and then be able to reject the null hypothesis. You can't establish those circumstances in atmospheric science.
CO2 forcing is not disputed in the scientific community.
You guys are preaching to the choir... I've already said that I believe humans are a contributing factor and many of our practices are ecologically unsound. I fully support weaning us off fossil fuels for power generation and transportation, implementing renewable energy solutions when/as appropriate, halting deforestation, and promoting conservation. I support all those things regardless of whether or not they make a micron of a dent in the climate change because they would be a net benefit in so many areas.
It is because climate is such a varied and complex area that I say we need to slow down and make sure we've dotted our i's and crossed our t's before we try to fix anything. By all means, (slowly) stop doing the things that we know are harmful in other areas since that certainly couldn't hurt... but don't make any "fixes" until we really know what we're dealing with.
Just because I can argue for the opposition, trying to explain where they are coming from, doesn't make me the enemy. Cautioning us to take a more pragmatic approach isn't ignoring the problem, it's just wise to slow down a bit, put some more thought into thing, and make sure something you're doing to help isn't making matters worse... all that takes time and a level head.
I ditto DCForever's post and I appreciate the discussion without the vitriol.
The scientific community doesn't say proven in open cycle systems where on cannot use a control. We say the hypothesis is consistent with the data. To prove something in science you must develop a null hypothesis and then be able to reject the null hypothesis. You can't establish those circumstances in atmospheric science.
Yet you can test your hypothesis in such an open system through observational confirmation. You establish your hypothesis and then with time and testing, you evaluate the consistency of your hypothesis. If the
observation does consistently match the hypothesis conditions and qualifications, then it is plausible that the hypothesis is correct.
Using predictive models to which attempt to speculate on numerous unknown variables and then constantly adjusting observational data to fit into the modeled data predictions is not science, but self fulfilling prophecy.
That said, the issues with consistency and replication are not the issue specifically with an open system. The contests to the positions being made is that research has proclaimed itself with a conclusive result, yet it can not be properly replicated by others without violating basic principals of statistical application.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever
CO2 forcing is not disputed in the scientific community.
Co2 forcing as in its effects on the climate is most certainly a topic of much contention. There are many views on its process and they differ greatly within the community.
Yet you can test your hypothesis in such an open system through observational confirmation. You establish your hypothesis and then with time and testing, you evaluate the consistency of your hypothesis. If the
observation does consistently match the hypothesis conditions and qualifications, then it is plausible that the hypothesis is correct.
The data support the theory of anthropogenic climate change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Co2 forcing as in its effects on the climate is most certainly a topic of much contention. There are many views on its process and they differ greatly within the community.
There is very little contention in on whether climate change is happening and that humans are the forcing behind the warming climate. At least not from reputable scientists.
The data support the theory of anthropogenic climate change.
No, only selective application of the data does. Yet, this conflicts with the scientific method. That is, we do not select data we like and disregard that which we do not. They do not properly explain the divergence of data as it concerns their hypothesis. This is the entire contention between scientists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever
Not to scientists.
There are plenty of scientists who disagree with the conclusions being made, even those who are in support of the AGW position. For instance, you might read a bit of Dr. Judith Curry and her comments and positions concerning the science, as well as the poor behavior of those who purport claims similar to yours.
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.
