Global Warming - What do you think (and tell kids)?

[TAHAWK]

I tell them that there is only so much air to breath, water to drink, and land to farm.

 

I tell them we should conserve resources.

 

I point out that the world's population has more than doubled in my lifeime.

 

I tell them that the seas have risen over 300 feet in the last 18,000 years.

 

I point out the sources of added carbon load (Do you know? It's easy to find.) and tell them there is a relationship between "greenhouse" gases and temperature.

 

I tell them water can hold less gas in solution as it gets warmer.

 

I tell them it is getting warmer and that 75% of all recorded annual temperature increase was measured before 1800.

 

I point out that the temperature is also rising on Mercury, Venus, Mars, and Jupiter.

 

I invite them to investigate further and ask them to report back on their conclusions.

[Gunny2862]

My comments in brackets[Hello;)]

 

Brent Allen posts - June 30, 2007

BY JAMES M. TAYLOR

In his new book, The Assault on Reason, Al Gore pleads, "We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. [The church says only its knowledge is infallible] We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the publics ability to discern the truth."[Those who disagree with the church are errant in publishing their heresy and confusing the masses] Gore repeatedly asks that science and reason displace cynical political posturing as the central focus of public discourse.[Our theologians need to displace the errant communications being sent out by the "seekers" of reason]

If Gore really means what he writes, he has an opportunity to make a difference by leading by example on the issue of global warming. [Our point will be proved by sending a condemned man on a journey off the end of the earth - if he returns we are wrong and he will face his execution, if he fails to return we are right - he has fallen off the end of the earth, he is free and the world is flat.] [Tee Hee]

 

[No really, we need to put an end to the "show of political posturing" about everything and get back to actually dealing with issues.]

 

[Global warming is somewhat of a concern but I fail to be convinced. I remember being convinced of the "Next World Ice Age" when I was around seven or eight and a particular Newsweek(I think it was Newsweek but that was a long time ago)that showed a graphic of how Missouri would be under the Great Polar Ice Cap before I was forty and how I was really disturbed that these great and recognized scientists(they had to know what they were saying was true! They were in a national "News" magazine right!)

Scare tactics are scare tactics - drop the agenda - stop doing peer review only with those who agree with you, the weakness of peer review. Theologian's did that in the dark ages and to try to stop the renaissance(which would weaken church control) and start doing real verifiable science that even your opposition cannot help but duplicate. Then let's talk about the issues.]

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

It always surprises me when believers try to disparage science by saying it's a religion; it's like they know religion is just a baseless argument from unseen authority, and (since they don't understand science) accuse scientists of having the same faulty reliance on authority.

 

I have no problem with the scientific method & peer review being applied to climatology. If you want to argue against the current scientific consensus, you have to convince scientists.

[Gunny2862]

I think that's the worst argument I've ever seen you post Merlyn.

 

Let's turn it around; If Scientists want Theologians of the Renaissance era to believe the results of the scientific method and peer review then they must "argue against the current theological consensus, you have to convince theologians".

 

So whoever one wants to say is in power must be convinced before you can say that the challenger has PROVED their argument? If you really understand science then you must agree that there are very, very few scientific facts if any, the more we learn about quantum mechanics the less we find we really know...(proven beyond any and all doubt), and a lot of theories and "proofs" - that have stood up over time, but aren't exempt from the possibility of error, or misinterpretation.

 

Remember that these folks, the theologians, were no stranger to peer review and had higher authorities with agendas watching over that process also. Think the National Academy of Sciences watching over scientific findings. My problem with peer review is that any group of ninnies can get together and vouch for the accuracy of the groups findings, and when challenged fall back on their accumulated aggregate credentials and attack the challenger on the basis of not knowing enough to understand what the experts are really talking about.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Gunny2862, scientists would only have to argue theology if they want to convince someone on a point of theology. It would be fairly easy to demonstrate how scientific theories describe how the universe works fairly accurately (but there will be those who refuse to even look through the telescope).

 

"power" isn't the issue; science works by the scientific method, so if you want to change what the current scientific consensus is on any issue, you need to convince scientists, particularly scientists in related fields. And there are no "proofs" outside mathematics; science isn't about proof, it's about observations, evidence, and theories.

 

And peer review isn't just any group of ninnies. That would better describe this forum, especially when arguing scientific questions using bogus arguments from authority.

[packsaddle]

I could be wrong but I suspect that Gunny2862 is not a scientist, at least not one who knows how science is supposed to work. I can't speak for persons who attempted to find rational explanations for observable phenomena during the first century or the first half of the second. However, since Copernicus, Galileo and some others who contributed to modern scientific method...and especially since Popper, Kuhn, Kant and a few others, science does not strive to make anyone believe anything. In fact, a scientist engaged in a good experiment is trying to make observations that provide evidence that can allow him(her) to REJECT an idea. If he fails to find such evidence and if previous evidence supports the idea, then it is tentatively accepted pending further examination.

 

Gunny2862's assertion that scientists gather in order somehow to find a way to agree is incorrect if his assertion assumes the scientists are willing to set aside evidence to the contrary.

"My problem with peer review is that any group of ninnies can get together and vouch for the accuracy of the groups findings, and when challenged fall back on their accumulated aggregate credentials and attack the challenger on the basis of not knowing enough to understand what the experts are really talking about."

 

The above characterization is an incredibly ignorant view of the scientific process and I challenge Gunny2862 to provide a detailed account for one such example. In fact most scientists tend to argue, sometimes bitterly, over minute details that most of the rest of us would just shrug at. This is one reason that attorneys don't particularly like to put scientists on the witness stand.

 

At the same time, those contentious scientists ARE quite happy to subject all the other ideas to the same level of critical scrutiny (some of which have been mentioned in this thread) and if the preponderance of evidence is against those ideas, then the ideas sometimes become a target for criticism or ridicule. And where ideas are not available to rational or objective observation, they are sometimes merely ridiculed as such (this may be one source of resentment for some persons of faith).

Anyone who attempts to publish something that is even remotely controversial in a scientific journal is opening themselves to a withering attack by anonymous reviewers itching to carve another notch on their rejection lists. It isn't a perfect system but it tends to self-correct for any mistakes that a scientist might make along the way (I submit the sad story of cold fusion as an example). It isn't perfect but it is the system that has brought us the technologies that we take for granted today...yes, and many of the associated problems. Every last one of us is free to reject it all and put their lives purely and completely in the hands of faith alone. Not many of us choose that path...for good rational reasons.

[BrentAllen]

packsaddle,

You obviously haven't been following the 911truth.org folks. You wanted an example - check them out. They claim to have all kinds of scientific evidence that the jets did not bring down the towers, with plenty of peer review (from those with similar conspiracy beliefs).

 

You know, I remember sitting in "science" class in the 3rd and 4th grade, watching movies about "healers" removing tumors from bodies using nothing but their hands, without creating any wound. That was taught as "science." Of course, it turned out to be slight of hand, instead of science. When reading all the global warming stories, I have a strange feeling of deja vu, all over again.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Yes Brent, they claim they have scientific evidence (just like the ones who say there's no global warming due to human activity). The scientific community at large doesn't agree with either of these groups; they're both outside the scientific consensus.

 

And Brent, what some incompetent schoolteachers teach in 3rd and 4th grade can't be confused with real science, since there's no limit on what they can teach; some even teach creationism, which isn't a science either. Psychic surgery has never been part of the scientific consensus, so again frauds are excluded.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[BrentAllen]

Merlyn,

Those 3rd and 4th grade teachers didn't go out and make those movies - they were supplied by the school system. I've talked to other adults, not from my county, who saw the same films. Point is, plenty of people were fooled into thinking what they saw was the truth.

 

I have all the evidence I need that humans aren't causing global warming. It is called documented past history of climate change. Tell me - when did the earth's climate stop changing on its own? Just at the time that humans started changing it?

 

BTW, where are all the severe hurricanes that are supposedly created by AGW?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Brent, "psychic surgery" has NEVER been accepted as anything near science, and your silly misrepresentation that it once was borders on pure kookery. I'm sorry you attended such a science-poor school, but that would explain a lot.

 

I have all the evidence I need that humans aren't causing global warming. It is called documented past history of climate change.

 

Ah, more kookery. Humans can't have gone to the moon in 1969, since they didn't for hundreds of years prior to that.

 

Tell me - when did the earth's climate stop changing on its own?

 

It hasn't. How does that show that humans aren't affecting the world's climate? It doesn't. You aren't arguing science at all.

 

You also appear to have your hurricane question backwards; statistics on the number of Atlantic hurricanes have increased rather dramatically in recent years. The debate is over why (global warming, ordinary climate variation, differences in methodology in counting hurricanes, etc).(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[Trevorum]

My mind is made up.

 

I have all the evidence I need.

 

Y'all stop talking.

 

 

[hands over ears] bahbahbahbahbahbahbahbahbahbahbahaba

 

 

[BrentAllen]

I guess my school system wasn't too bad, since I attended and graduated from Georgia Tech. Where did you attend?

 

How many hurricanes were there last year? What was the prediction? Since the number was so low, and since we aren't seeing any this year, couldn't that mean GW is over? Are we going back into a cooling period, as we were warned about back in the 1970's? Bottom line is there are too many variables for us to understand and measure. You are free to believe all the "kookery" Al Gore is selling (what are his credentials, again?), but just don't expect me to.

 

"The debate is over why (global warming, ordinary climate variation, differences in methodology in counting hurricanes, etc)."

So, what is the "scientific consensus"? That is all that matters, right?

[packsaddle]

Brent, I think I saw some of those same films but at a later age. I'm not sure who made them but as I mentioned in another thread about education, local schools can indeed adopt materials and methods that reflect the interests of the local parents and electorate.

 

You'll enjoy this one...the Gore movie, "An Inconvenient Truth", is available for free to teachers or at least it was recently. The caveat was something along the lines that it must be made part of the curriculum or something like that...I've probably bungled the details but it's something along those lines. As I understand it, there has been a cool reception by educators to this 'freebie'. The most common reason I've heard is the time investment that would take away from more needed, basic topics. I quite agree.

On the other hand, while it is fair for you to ask the question, I note that for you to CONCLUDE that there is no human influence on global climate change suffers from the very same softness of evidence for which you criticize those with the opposite view. I hope that you are susceptible to good solid evidence that might change your mind, if such comes along. But in order to detect that, I ask you, what evidence would you require to cause you to change your view on global climate change?

 

But back to the bogus 911 claims...yes I've heard about these claims too. I find them less entertaining than the alien resistance force literature that I enjoyed in Roswell, NM.

Peer review might imply that such review is done by scientific friends that we know and who agree with us. I am sure that this does in fact happen from time to time. But this associate editor for a scientific journal - (and the others I know) - tries to pick reviewers that are inclined to criticize and find flaws and errors in submitted papers. Ideally, we want to detect flaws or mistakes BEFORE we embarrass everyone involved by putting it all in print. That's why I so often refer to the cold fusion episode. The guys who did that were real scientists who honestly thought they had some real results. There are still a small number of real scientists who still think there's something to the idea. Most scientists don't. Nevertheless, every last one of us would like to see it work. And every last one of us would like to see a definitive experiment that supports the idea. But we'll blow the ideas out of the water with experimental evidence if we can. Same for the 911 claims. If the people promoting those ideas can bring sufficiently good evidence to the table, they will get a fair hearing. They HAVE gotten a fair hearing so far and, as a result, most critical reviewers reject the claims. It has been my experience that conspiracy theorists (and I've grown up with and known hundreds) are highly dependent on blind faith, once they've established their view. Such ideas are crafted to be inherently resistant to contrary evidence.

 

Science is not as clean and clear as it is taught in high school, or college for that matter. We tend to teach the successes and forget the dead ends and failures that, in fact, are also important. There is a good book out now that would make an entertaining read along these lines if anyone is interested, "The Ghost Map". It is the story of several days in London and a cholera epidemic...and the way the cause was discovered. If you do read it, my advice is to pretend that the book ends on page 228 because after that it is rather senseless and the author goes way out of his area of expertise. But before that it is a fun read and it will tell you a lot about how ideas were treated back in the mid-19th century. Plus it's a reasonably good mystery. Bon appetite.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

BrentAllen writes:

I guess my school system wasn't too bad, since I attended and graduated from Georgia Tech.

 

What was your 3rd and 4th grade school that showed obvious fraudulent "psychic surgery" as science?

 

"The debate is over why (global warming, ordinary climate variation, differences in methodology in counting hurricanes, etc)."

So, what is the "scientific consensus"? That is all that matters, right?

 

It's certainly better than your approach; you use an example of 3rd and 4th grade school classes as if that represents mainstream science; you rhetorically ask "when did the earth's climate stop changing on its own?" as if someone has ever suggested it was; you try to suggest that, since the earth's climate has changed for millennia, that somehow shows that humans are NOT in any way affecting the earth's climate now, which isn't even proper logic, much less proper science.

[BrentAllen]

"But in order to detect that, I ask you, what evidence would you require to cause you to change your view on global climate change?"

 

In addition to evidence, I would like to see the following:

Al Gore and Jim Hansen willing to debate the subject, with those they label "deniers."

 

Heide Cullen posting opposing articles on the weather.com blogs, instead of just trying to brainwash her viewers. What is she afraid of?

 

Al Gore significantly changing his lifestyle to show he practices what he preaches.

 

These same models used in long-term doom & gloom predictions be used to predict climate changes in 5 to 10 years, instead of in intervals beyond my lifetime. Prove to me you know what you are talking about.

 

Explanations about why Mars is also heating up, without humans around to cause it, and why those same causes are not responsible for heating on earth.

 

Finally, prove to me that this is not just a natural cycle! Y'all think man is so powerful, that he can change the climate on this huge planet. Think about the changes this planet has seen - Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period. Could man possibly cause anything like that to happen? Did man cause those events? No! To think we can is foolish! We are just too small of a part of the picture to make that kind of a difference. Lay all the evidence out and let it be reviewed. Stop treating "scientific consensus" as scientific fact!

 

Merlyn - I attended 3rd and 4th Grade at Norton Park Elementary School in Smyrna, GA. So, where did you go to school?