Global warming and the "Scientific Method"

[Kittie Rose]

This is driving me nuts. On some other crappy forum people are saying that scientists can't measure human involvement with global warming because of the "scientific method" which can't measure "causation without an expirement".

Now, I'm well aware of the correlation implies causation fallacy. I'm also aware that there is a limit to how many correlations you can have before it just becomes plain unlikely.

But I'm not quite sure how to get across to these people that scientists know what they're doing. One person(though not representative of the opposition as a whole, to be fair) said very proudly that scientists have no say in what she believes. I'm taking her as a lost cause.

[Darth Wong]

They are unaware that the optical properties of gases can be tested in the laboratory under controlled experimental conditions? The underlying mechanism here is quite easy to experimentally verify.

Or perhaps they are arguing that scientists have no way of determining that humans have anything to do with all of those waste gases that are ending up in the atmosphere. Is that their position?

To be honest, most of the pollution apologists you see posting on this subject have no idea what they're talking about, beyond their dislike of science.

[DevNull]

There was a good documentary on today against the idea of man made causes for global warming. They claim that Carbon dioxide is just one of many varibles.
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsi ... index.html

The film argues that rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide have nothing to do with climate change. Further, the present single-minded focus on reducing carbon emissions may have the unintended consequence of stifling development in the third world, prolonging endemic poverty and disease.

Recent research, presented in this film, apparently shows that the effect of cosmic radiation, and solar activity may explain fluctuations in global temperatures more precisely than the carbon dioxide theory.

An alternative explanation for rising global temperatures is based on research by the Danish Space Center. They found that as solar activity increases, cloud formation on Earth is significantly diminished and temperature rises.

‘Solar activity over the last hundred years, over the last several hundred years, correlates very nicely, on a decadal basis, with temperature.’

A respected Kenyan development expert says: ‘I don't see how a solar panel is going to power a steel industry, how a solar panel is going to power a railway network… There is somebody keen to kill the African dream, and the African dream is to develop. We are being told don't touch your resources, don't touch your oil, don't touch your coal; that is suicide.’

The film features an impressive roll-call of experts, in climatology, oceanography, meteorology, environmental science, biogeography and paleoclimatology, from such reputable institutions as MIT, Nasa, the International Arctic Research Centre, the Institut Pasteur, the Danish National Space Center and the Universities of London, Ottawa, Jerusalem, Winnipeg, Alabama and Virginia.

Somone will probably post in on youtube in the next few days, its worth watching.

[Kittie Rose]

It's just all too convenient though, when everything else correlates. Very few experts on the matter seem to think that humans aren't heavily involved.

[Darth Wong]

There was a good documentary on today against the idea of man made causes for global warming. They claim that Carbon dioxide is just one of many varibles.

It's so sad to know that there are people out there who honestly believe that a single documentary has more credibility than the consensus of climatologists all over the world.

[Darth Servo]

There was a good documentary on today against the idea of man made causes for global warming. They claim that Carbon dioxide is just one of many varibles.

Correction. Its one of many contributing factors. Its really sad how certain idiots think they can disprove a known mechanism just because there are other mechanisms at work as well. Typical anti-science retard black and white <cough, cough, lack of, cough, cough> thinking.

[Wyrm]

There was a good documentary on today against the idea of man made causes for global warming. They claim that Carbon dioxide is just one of many varibles.

<snip bullshit>

Somone will probably post in on youtube in the next few days, its worth watching.

Are you retarded?

First it was, "Oh, Global Warming isn't happening!" Then, "Oh, it's happening, but won't be as bad as that!" Then, "Okay, it'll be bad, but it wasn't our fault!" Now we're getting, "You're right, it was our fault, but we can't do anything about it now."

Give this shit up. It's pathetic.

[Zor]

Why do i get the distinct fealing that someone is going infront of the SD.net senatorial firing squad soon?

Zor

[Kittie Rose]

Here's another wonderous gem from this crowd -

"I've been looking over the IPCC website and a good number of their papers, but nowhere can I find that they are comprised of or are backed by a vast majority of scientists whose field of expertise is global warming. Also, if you haven't heard of the many scientists whose credentials were stripped and whose funding was removed, then your own research on this matter is lacking."

Oh, and the "Science changes" argument -

"You go on the idea that because some who is endoctrined as a scientist says it's true by way of theory, that it is complete truth? I wonder if there were a band of scientists who still said the earth was square if you'd believe it. And this isn't even to bring up the fact that in many cases there are alternative or contrasting ideas from another theory (Newton's laws for gravity versus that of Einstein's being an example). So, if there are multiple theories for each aspect of science, which is right? Given your definition, they'd both be right."

[Kittie Rose]

This one really has to take the biscuit though -

"As I remember, it was a small band of scientists who proved that the world wasn't flat. Hence the part about it not being intelligent to disregard a specific argument due to popular acceptance. You speak of not wanting to throw away the work of scientists, yet you're doing that to the group of people who disagree with the idea of global warming being caused by man. This is what is called an oxymoron, incase you didn't know."

Thing is, I can't think of any effective way to get them to shut up.

[rhoenix]

Here's another wonderous gem from this crowd -

"I've been looking over the IPCC website and a good number of their papers, but nowhere can I find that they are comprised of or are backed by a vast majority of scientists whose field of expertise is global warming. Also, if you haven't heard of the many scientists whose credentials were stripped and whose funding was removed, then your own research on this matter is lacking."

Strawman bolded.

In rebuttal, from FOX news, no less:

Washington, DC -- The harmful effects of global warming on daily life are already showing up, and within a couple of decades hundreds of millions of people won't have enough water, top scientists will say next month at a meeting in Belgium.

At the same time, tens of millions of others will be flooded out of their homes each year as the Earth reels from rising temperatures and sea levels, according to portions of a draft of an international scientific report obtained by The Associated Press.

Tropical diseases like malaria will spread. By 2050, polar bears will mostly be found in zoos, their habitats gone. Pests like fire ants will thrive.

For a time, food will be plentiful because of the longer growing season in northern regions. But by 2080, hundreds of millions of people could face starvation, according to the report, which is still being revised.

The draft document by the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change focuses on global warming's effects and is the second in a series of four being issued this year. Written and reviewed by more than 1,000 scientists from dozens of countries, it still must be edited by government officials.

But some scientists said the overall message is not likely to change when it's issued in early April in Brussels, Belgium, the same city where European Union leaders agreed this past week to drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Their plan will be presented to President Bush and other world leaders at a summit in June.

The report offers some hope if nations slow and then reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, but it notes that what's happening now isn't encouraging.

"Changes in climate are now affecting physical and biological systems on every continent," the report says, in marked contrast to a 2001 report by the same international group that said the effects of global warming were coming. But that report only mentioned scattered regional effects.

"Things are happening and happening faster than we expected," said Patricia Romero Lankao of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, one of the many co-authors of the new report.

The draft document says scientists are highly confident that many current problems -- change in species' habits and habitats, more acidified oceans, loss of wetlands, bleaching of coral reefs, and increases in allergy-inducing pollen -- can be blamed on global warming.

For example, the report says North America "has already experienced substantial ecosystem, social and cultural disruption from recent climate extremes," such as hurricanes and wildfires.

But the present is nothing compared to the future.

Global warming soon will "affect everyone's life ... it's the poor sectors that will be most affected," Romero Lankao said.

And co-author Terry Root of Stanford University said: "We truly are standing at the edge of mass extinction" of species.

Looking at different impacts on ecosystems, industry and regions, the report sees the most positive benefits in forestry and some improved agriculture and transportation in polar regions. The biggest damage is likely to come in ocean and coastal ecosystems, water resources and coastal settlements.

The hardest-hit continents are likely to be Africa and Asia, with major harm also coming to small islands and some aspects of ecosystems near the poles. North America, Europe and Australia are predicted to suffer the fewest of the harmful effects.

"In most parts of the world and most segments of populations, lifestyles are likely to change as a result of climate change," the draft report said. "Net valuations of benefits vs. costs will vary, but they are more likely to be negative if climate change is substantial and rapid, rather than if it is moderate and gradual."

This report -- considered by some scientists the "emotional heart" of climate change research -- focuses on how global warming alters the planet and life here, as opposed to the more science-focused report by the same group last month.

"This is the story. This is the whole play. This is how it's going to affect people. The science is one thing. This is how it affects me, you and the person next door," said University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver.

Many -- not all -- of those effects can be prevented, the report says, if within a generation the world slows down its emissions of carbon dioxide and if the level of greenhouse gases sticking around in the atmosphere stabilizes. If that's the case, the report says "most major impacts on human welfare would be avoided; but some major impacts on ecosystems are likely to occur."

The United Nations-organized network of 2,000 scientists was established in 1988 to give regular assessments of the Earth's environment. The document issued last month in Paris concluded that scientists are 90 percent certain that people are the cause of global warming and that warming will continue for centuries.

[Spin Echo]

"As I remember, it was a small band of scientists who proved that the world wasn't flat. Hence the part about it not being intelligent to disregard a specific argument due to popular acceptance. You speak of not wanting to throw away the work of scientists, yet you're doing that to the group of people who disagree with the idea of global warming being caused by man. This is what is called an oxymoron, incase you didn't know."

IIRC, it was pretty common knowledge to the ancient greeks that the world was spherical.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

It was common to the educated people, yes, even during the middle-ages. It was the largely uneducated people who didn't know or care. Most educated people, by the Renaissance, for instance, were not flat-earthers.

[Spin Echo]

It was common to the educated people, yes, even during the middle-ages. It was the largely uneducated people who didn't know or care. Most educated people, by the Renaissance, for instance, were not flat-earthers.

It's not just the educated elite; the sailors also knew because a ship coming into port would appear over the horizon mast first. I'll agree that most of the uneducated masses probably had more pressing things to be thinking about than the shape of the earth. In anycase, it wasn't just a few dissenting scientists that proved the world round.

[Lord Relvenous]

Hell, even theories like Heliocentrism existed back in ancient Greece. These people need to do more research about other theories if they are going to bring them into the debate as examples.

Case in point when referring to the whole "flat-earthers" thing: A Greek astronomer named Eratosthenes used the spherical properties of Earth to determine its circumfeerence by comparing zenith angles to a full circle and distanc to full circumference. (You'd have to read about to understanx that, I think). He was within approximately 2000 km of the real value. This happened in 200 BC.

[Kittie Rose]

This topic just gets worse and worse ;/ This is what happens when you let "Let's make all theories equal!" relativism get out of hand.

http://www.national-anime.com/forum/ind ... opic=30040

Yes I'm arguing over global warming on an anime forum... I'm pretty sad but whenever I click on a topic like that anywhere, I can't help myself...

[Kittie Rose]

The issue with people might be with proving that most scientists back the idea of human caused global warming. Are there any stats on this?