Global Warming

[Professor Chaos]

Spherical Bastard wrote

Part of the problem I have with the pro-global warming groups is that I feel that what they are doing is largely a debasement of science and would be more accurately described as a political and social movement than it would a scientific conclusion. I have seen "An Inconvenient Truth" as well as many other programs and read many books in which the majority of the time is spent make appeals to emotion. Hell, last night I saw a television special which was discussing global warming and a marine biologist was on there blubbering about how sad it would to know that her children would never get to see a polar bear. We don't yet have a firm understanding of the interaction between CO2 and Temperature. Some scientists think CO2 causes temperature increase, some scientists think that CO2 increases happen as a byproduct of temperature increases. We are unsure precisely how much CO2 humans influence and all evidence indicates it's a very small amount. We are unsure to what degree we would need to influence the atmosphere in order to have serious consequences. To ignore this and to then try and make policy decisions based on it is, in my sexy opinion, a bad move.

Well of course they're going to appeal to emotion. The consequences are pretty severe. Regardless, Al Gore and "a television special" are not representative of the science behind this. So, in actuality, you're kind of going with your own emotions on this one, because of the negative emotions you have towards them. Just stick to the science of it.

Spherical Bastard wrote

It seems to me, what is happening, is an 'ends justifies the means' argument. I would fully agree that we need an alternate source of energy, that we in general could stand to use less energy than we do and that if we could find methods of energy production that pollute less, then we would probably be better off. However, people by and large will not do any of this unless they think something important, like our very existence, is at stake. So people push problematic data in to the political and social sphere where they try and make changes with it. Doing this is a perversion of science and I oppose that more than anything else. At the end of the day, if human induced global warming is occurring and I am wrong, I will be completely ok with that. The more important thing to me is that premature conclusions based on specious evidence isn't being called science and flaunted around like a $10 whore.

What agenda does the IPCC have? What agenda do all of these bodies have? And why in the world do people keep saying exactly what you're saying about people pushing "problematic data into the political and social sphere," when the scientists are saying the same things?

Professor Chaos wrote

Well of course they're going to appeal to emotion. The consequences are pretty severe. Regardless, Al Gore and "a television special" are not representative of the science behind this. So, in actuality, you're kind of going with your own emotions on this one, because of the negative emotions you have towards them. Just stick to the science of it.

Just because the consequences could be severe doesn't justify emotional appeals. Also, I mentioned previously that I'm not just getting information from Al Gore films. In the book "Global Warming: The Complete Briefing" "The Discovery of Global Warming" "Global Warming, are we entering the green house century?" and multiple peer reviewed papers I have read mention these emotional aspects. That is bad science.

Professor Chaos wrote

What agenda does the IPCC have? What agenda do all of these bodies have? And why in the world do people keep saying exactly what you're saying about people pushing "problematic data into the political and social sphere," when the scientists are saying the same things?

I thought I made this very clear. I agree with all the moves that the IPCC wants to make and all the goals they want to set, I'm just not yet convinced that the data supports the conclusion that they are using to push these new policy changes. It is entirely plausible that they are stressing the global warming issue because it is the one that gets them the most support. I'm not suggesting that they are intentionally lying to the public, but that they are propogating a concept that isn't as solid as it should be because it allows them to get shit done.

[Professor Chaos]

Spherical Bastard wrote

I thought I made this very clear. I agree with all the moves that the IPCC wants to make and all the goals they want to set, I'm just not yet convinced that the data supports the conclusion that they are using to push these new policy changes. It is entirely plausible that they are stressing the global warming issue because it is the one that gets them the most support. I'm not suggesting that they are intentionally lying to the public, but that they are propogating a concept that isn't as solid as it should be because it allows them to get shit done.

Again, why? What agenda would they have? And what training do you have that would lead you to not be "convinced that the data supports the conclusion that they are using to push these new policy changes?"

I'm a skeptic, man. I understand being skeptical. But seriously. Why would they do this? What "shit" would they need to get done? This conspiracy theory would make the "Bush ordered 9/11" people look sane.

"Appeals to authority are never appropriate, whether it be one scientist or a large group of scientists."

This is incorrect. There is nothing wrong with appealing to an authority or to authorities in a given field when making an argument. See here, for example. Problems arise only when the authority shouldn't be appealed to, for example, appealing to lawyers about chemistry.

[Sternwallow]

ocmpoma wrote

This is incorrect. There is nothing wrong with appealing to an authority or to authorities in a given field when making an argument. ... Problems arise only when the authority shouldn't be appealed to, for example, appealing to lawyers about chemistry.

It is also problematic to appeal to an authority who has no area to be an authority in, e.g. theologian.

[DrunkMonkey]

DrunkMonkey wrote

You seem to be employing the strategy of a creationist- implying that there is a serious scientific debate over whether something is true by pointing to a few scientists who agree with you.

(See http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_biosci/ )

Spherical Bastard wrote

Here is a link to the "Mother Fucking" MIT professor: http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/.../reg15n2g.html

Also, I will go ahead and clarify my position on this argument.

As far as I can tell, the evidence for human induced global warming is inconclusive. I occasionally make arguments that make it sound as if I am claiming that human caused global warming is bull shit, but that is only to show you that there is a very real objection to what is being said and I have yet to see any real strong basis for it. Because this is the case, I am forced to the scientific default. However, if evidence comes up which definitively shows that human CO2 emissions is raising global temperatures, then I will accept that in a second.

I agree entirely that it is of the utmost importance that we do our own research on this topic. Appeals to authority are never appropriate, whether it be one scientist or a large group of scientists.

Part of the problem I have with the pro-global warming groups is that I feel that what they are doing is largely a debasement of science and would be more accurately described as a political and social movement than it would a scientific conclusion. I have seen "An Inconvenient Truth" as well as many other programs and read many books in which the majority of the time is spent make appeals to emotion. Hell, last night I saw a television special which was discussing global warming and a marine biologist was on there blubbering about how sad it would to know that her children would never get to see a polar bear. We don't yet have a firm understanding of the interaction between CO2 and Temperature. Some scientists think CO2 causes temperature increase, some scientists think that CO2 increases happen as a byproduct of temperature increases. We are unsure precisely how much CO2 humans influence and all evidence indicates it's a very small amount. We are unsure to what degree we would need to influence the atmosphere in order to have serious consequences. To ignore this and to then try and make policy decisions based on it is, in my sexy opinion, a bad move.

You sound a LOT like a creationist. You keep asserting that there is no scientific conclusion when that is patently false.