Global Warming- It's too late to stop now... So

[John Uskglass]

By "environmentalists" CCR means environmental scientists, as do I.

......................no?

By Enviormentalists I mean Enviormentalists. People who key random SUVs, go to rallies, support VHEMT and other such stupidity and nonsense. Frankly, the 'Enviormental Scientists' are scientists in the same way that Marxists can be Political Scientists.

 

[Brother None]

If scientific findings were nonchalantly disregarded because they aren't always right, then we would still be living in the 17th century.

Equally, if scientific progress was pointed at at any given moment and said of "This time we're right" without any direct emperical evidence, we'd be in a boatload of shit too.

Is there evidence of global warming? Sure, well, duh. Is there evidence that any of the theories or models put forth by enviromentalist scientists are right in an absolute, scientific sense? No. And from an emperical viewpoint, such evidence would be hard to gather.

You are wrong. Methodology of environmental sciences is based on observation, experimentation and mathematical models, unlike anthropology, sociology and other pseudosciences. All of the aforementioned methods have been proven as reliable more times than anyone can count. A few decades ago that methodology was incomplete and lacking, but back then environmental research didn't possess nearly as much resources, theoretical and practical knowledge as it does now.

40 years from now Ratty Jr. will be sitting at his (still Pentium) laptop running his (still iexplorer) browser and posting on a message board (NMA?), saying "A few decades ago that methodology was incomplete and lacking..."

Apart from the fact that it's convenient for you, I see no clear reason why we're not able to predict the weather for tomorrow, but are capable of foreseeing and analyizing earth's weather cycles for the next half-a-century.

(Saying anthropology and sociology don't use observations and mathematics or even experimentation just show your ignorance of these sciences, by the way)

Let me guess, Kharn. You haven't been conclusively proven wrong (however you define being proven wrong) so you must be right? That mentality is very common.

It'd be pretty common because people that are not wrong do tend to be right, more-or-less inevitably.

But there is far more evidence to support Global Warming than evidence to reute it.

I explained why this is so a few posts up. I feel no need to repeat m'self

Is it all some kind of global conspiracy? You of course will almost certainly claim detached skepticism as your motives, but I find that a spurrious claim under the circumstances of this debate.

Your face is spurrious.

Frankly, I think you misunderestimate my viewpoints. I have no qualms with open discussions about global warming based on scientific findings and am in favour of actual moves fighting this upsetting trend (which, as one may note, does note include Kyoto, one of the most useless treaties of all time that I do not shed a tear over Bush discarding, even if he did it for all the wrong reasons).

I'm not the one poisoning this debate. I'm simply pointing out the very painful fact that we're going to have to keep a clear head about this debate. The future and present of global warming and other enviromental occurences are heavy unknowns, which upsets a lot of people in our current science-based society. So what's the solution? One side shouts that we should ignore the problem and keep on trucking. The other side stands on its head predicting models that the other side can easily ignore because they're not realistic in any sense.

Even if Ratty is right and enviromental science has reached the point where it's perfect, that's too bad. The entire science has been poisoned by hippy enviromentalists over the past 40 years. There's no value in this discussion anymore because the only valid alternative offered is living in hippy communes with Ozrat. An alternative I, for one, would not look forward to.

It'd be darned useful if the panic-mongering and propaganda-spreading from the opposing sides could end. Maybe then someone could, y'know, do something, other than the US abusing anti-enviromentalism to excuse its abuses and the EU abusing eviromentalism to try and weaken the economies of the US and other potential threats (China)

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Equally, if scientific progress was pointed at at any given moment and said of "This time we're right" without any direct emperical evidence, we'd be in a boatload of shit too.

I can't straight-facedly say that this time we're absolutely right. There is no doubt, however, that this time we're much *closer* to being right than we were some decades ago. That's why modern-day environmental research has more credibility than that of earlier eras and shouldn't be so easily disregarded.

40 years from now Ratty Jr. will be sitting at his (still Pentium) laptop running his (still iexplorer) browser and posting on a message board (NMA?), saying "A few decades ago that methodology was incomplete and lacking..."

I probably will. I will probably be saying the same for any scientific methodology. The point is, methodology becomes more and more sophisticated with time.

And I'm using Firefox, bitch.

Apart from the fact that it's convenient for you, I see no clear reason why we're not able to predict the weather for tomorrow, but are capable of foreseeing and analyizing earth's weather cycles for the next half-a-century.

You are confusing meteorology and climatology. Anyway, it's possible to forecast weather with near-absolute accuracy. Thing is, that kind of forecasting requires extremely powerful supercomputers which only a few meteorological institutes in the world can afford, which is probably why your everyday weather forecast tends to be erroneous every now and then.

(Saying anthropology and sociology don't use observations and mathematics or even experimentation just show your ignorance of these sciences, by the way)

It doesn't, because I didn't say that. I said they weren't based on observation, experimentation and mathematical models (though for many branches of sociology and anthropology that doesn't hold true, so it may not even be reasonable to speak of them as homogenous entities), whereas in all fields of physics, astronomy and suchlike those methods are the only ones employed.

Frankly, the 'Enviormental Scientists' are scientists in the same way that Marxists can be Political Scientists.

Environmental science is a science. A *real* science. Some (many?) environmental scientists may be political environmentalists, but that doesn't make their research any less relevant.

 

[John Uskglass]

I can't straight-facedly say that this time we're absolutely right. There is no doubt, however, that this time we're much *closer* to being right than we were some decades ago. That's why modern-day environmental research has more credibility than that of earlier eras and shouldn't be so easily disregarded.

What is it Chesterton said? The only diffirence between what the Pastors and the Scientists say is that everything the Scientists say is proven false while nothing the Pastors say is proven at all.

Environmental science is a science. A *real* science. Some (many?) environmental scientists may be political environmentalists, but that doesn't make their research any less relevant.

It does. Frankly, if every Economist was a graduate of the Frankfurt School, I'd say something similar about them and would be just as likely to question their 'scientific' results whenever they come out.

Frankly, I don't trust Scientists with an expressed ideology.

For the record, I'm not anti-enviormentalist. I think there is quite a bit to be concerned about in terms of human destruction of the wild and our eco-destructive ways. However, I don't think that crying wolf makes anyone pay attention to the real issue: it simply makes people act like idiots. See: Marxism. Calling for radical solutions to massive problems does not make much better for anyone. Let alone making asinine, unscientific predictions and making up bullshit excuses everythimg things do not happen a certain way. Frankly, Ice caps = MELTING is starting to sound a lot like proletariat = REPRESSED and REBELLING!!!

And it's nice to be on the same side as Kharn in a debate for the first time in ages.

 

[Jarno Mikkola]

The real problem is that we don't know how to cure the environment, it's already in chaos, the global warming(the radiation from the sun stays in the atmosphere, caused by C2O +...) is already in too far, and the global dimming(the radiation of the sun doesn't get though the clouds,caused by other bigger pollution particles produced by mostly humans, planes...) is what keeps us from being frayed. The iceage comes when the dimming gets too intense. But it won't happen, the Kyoto air conference assured that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
The real problem now, is that we don't know what to do now, if even we stopped to polluting now, it would not help, it might even worsen the situation.

Global dimmings relationship to global warming.

Some scientists now consider that the effects of global dimming have masked the effect of global warming to some extent, and that resolving global dimming may therefore lead to increases in predictions of future temperature rise.

The phenomenon underlying global dimming may also have regional effects. While most of the earth has warmed, the regions that are downwind from major sources of air pollution (specifically sulfur dioxide emissions) have generally cooled. This may explain the cooling of the eastern United States relative to the warming western part.

The tragic New Orleans storm is partially blameably by not polluting the right stuff.
Or actually by polluting the wrong.

 

[Montez]

Frankly, I don't trust Scientists with an expressed ideology.

Like Einstein? Or Newton? Or pretty much everyone?


Edit: Pre-emptive reply; the wonderful thing about science, in fact the only thing that makes it worth anything at all, is that it deals in the provable. Or more correctly, as close as we can get to the provable, which is the reliable. If a scientist asserts that (A) always results in (B), then any other scientist should be able to verify it. If (A) does not result in (B), then the assertion is false. If (A) sometimes results in (B), but not reliably so, then the assertion is not true but may serve as the basis for a better assertion. If (A) can not be proven to result in (B), then it is speculation, not science. If (A) always results in (B), or does so the vast majority of the time, then it is true, or as true as we can ever expect anything to be.

Show me where ideology factors into the above at all in a way that someone can criticise it on those grounds. Either a scientific theory is provable and reliable or it isn't, regardless of your views, my views, or the scientist's views. Someone's ideology may direct them to research or experiment in certain areas, but the end results are either facts or they aren't, end of story.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

CCR, by comparing scientists to pastors you are trivializing science. Quite frankly, I find it disrespectful. Yes, a lot of scientific theories are bullshit. Yes, most of them are sunk. But a scientific theory that has been proven mathematically and through practical methods is never false. Mathematical models used in climatology are still incomplete and approximative - mainly due to technological limitations -, while data reaped through practical methods is always somewhat unreliable, but to dismiss that scientific discipline entirely is ridiculous, and to correlate research results and conclusions drawn from them with political factors is just plain stupid. Political outlooks have no place in science, because science itself is very objective and exact. For example, theory of relativity wouldn't have had a different form had Einstein been a fascist instead of democratic socialist.

 

[welsh]

A bit of confusion here.

Ratty, I think you are missing the point of falsification which I think is what CCR was pointing out (I think) in that quote.

A hypothesis or even a causal claim, needs to be subject to falsification. We don't really prove theories though we hope that our theories allow us for more prediction. Rather we spend much of our time trying to falsify theories. And scientific theories exist until they are replaced with better theories that survive falsification.

So we should expect scientists to flaw, because that is part of the entire enterprise- to test and replace theories or models of how we see the world. The more we learn, the more we account for deviant cases or discover new variables- the better our understanding of the world. And so old theories are replaced by new ones.

The point is to be able to make generalizable inferences about how the world works. Ideally those inferences should allow us to make calculable predictions. Yet we should distinguish whether we believe the world is deterministic or probablistic. If the world is probablistic, perhaps do to many variables that we have not completely understood, than we can expect that science will, on occassion, make mistakes.

As Montez points out- scientists are not immune to having political ideals or ideologies, or faith. But that is irrelevant to the power of their theory to stand up to scientific scrutiny through methods.

If Kharn is disappointed because scientists often fail or make mistakes, well yes. But that's what we pursue knowledge through scientific methods- to get a better understanding of how the world works. Does that mean we should abandon the scientific enterprise? Without that we might still believe that the sun rises by Apollo's chariot and lightning is the spear of Zeus. It is human nature to construct a workview with which to understand one's surroundings.

I am concerned about John's position- give up a theory merely because he doesn't like it or even if the theory has problems. Theories evolve to give us a better view of the world. To discount a theory because you don't like it is merely a matter of ethical bias, but also self-inflicted ignorance.

Marxism is not Poltical Science? Or is it not Economics? Or any of the other social sciences? Damn- you are throwing away a lot of very good theory development and ideas merely because you are ethically opposed to Marx. One can appreciate Marx as a liberal or conservative without becoming a Marxist. To throw out the insights developed by Marxists thinkers is to throw away a lot of understanding. It's rather foolish.

Do environmentalists have an agenda? Perhaps. They are part of an epistemic community, a community based on shared knowledge and often shared values. they email each other, go to conferences, read the same papers. So yes, often they share the same agenda- much like accountants prefer certain calculations, or lawyers have a preference for predictable law. Perhaps, but as Montez points out, it's still an enterprise subject to rigorous testing.

In contrast nothing the pastor says can be proven at all, because it's all a matter of faith. "God Exists!" is an unfalsifiable proposition- it cannot be tested, proven or disproven. It is merely a declaration of faith, not a testible hypothesis (at least not yet).

Personally, I would rather be empowered to think about things critically than be subject to accepting a world view on faith alone.

 

[Brother None]

For example, theory of relativity wouldn't have had a different form had Einstein been a fascist instead of democratic socialist.

I think the problem lies here. Einstein's philosophy would not have influenced his theory necessarily, but wouldn't it have influenced the long-term results? "Science pour le science" as a counterweight to its art equilevant doesn't work.

The 17th century ideal of "pure knowledge" unhampered by morals, politics or whatever has been proven to be unuseable for sciences a long time ago.

The social sciences, especially following Marx, had a lot less trouble accepting this, because they found themselves simply incapable of meeting the requirements of this legendary pure science.

I think the concept of "valueless" science has been dropped for "real" sciences a long time ago too, but nobody is willing to accept it because, like with our legends about Roman and Greek heritage, we're still stuck in the Enlightenment thinking.

Not only do sciences not have any inherent value above other factors of human life, even if they did make a part of humanity prosper over the year, (which makes your remark about the scientist and the pastor very offensive), they've been faced for many years about problems inherently against the philosophy of pure science.

I mean to say that not only is "pure science" a philosophical, theoretical and *unproven* ideal (which in itself is amusing), but it has also suffered from several setbacks to its purity. Not only from the nazi's steps forward in medical science by inhuman experimentation, but also from such things as physicists working for oil companies to make gas production more efficient or, YES, enviromentalists *justifying* their own existence by spelling out doom.

The problem I have with your viewpoint is twofold. Not only do we simply disagree about enviromentalists; you saying that they're neutral scientists labouring for truth and me saying that they're researching in a still-unknown field and will thus bring forward many arguable points, many of which again have (scientific) weaknesses.

We also disagree about the basic philosophy. I believe most strongly that conducting science for science is not necessarily worth dick, that writing a paper about scientific models that serve no purpose is the productive equilavent of writing a novel (and just like one can once turn out to be useful, the other can start a whole social movement, so they're not completely useless).

I'd be a bit more *useful* if these scientists further developed their methods, stayed quiet until they're sure or at least until people forget their idiocies and come up with practical (NOT FUCKING KYOTO) solutions.

What you're missing is that this is not leading to anything. They've cried wolf for 50 years now, and crying wolf louder and more reliably is not going to work. At this rate, a large part of humanity will die in the next century, even though I don't doubt that it will then scramble up and find a solution. Because you don't seem to realise that humanity's greatest impulses never came from scientific models about the future, but about direct needs. The Russian revolution wasn't a result of Marxism, it was a result of people being really hungry and repressed.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

I think the problem lies here. Einstein's philosophy would not have influenced his theory necessarily, but wouldn't it have influenced the long-term results? "Science pour le science" as a counterweight to its art equilevant doesn't work.

I'm not sure what you mean by "long-term results". The core of every successful scientific theory is a correct mathematical model. That underlying model is absolute, unique and irreplaceable. As such, it would always be the same, regardless of whether it was discovered by a Christian fundamentalist in Denver or a socialist-leninist in Novosibirsk. The only things in science that are affected by non-scientific outlooks and circumstances are applications of scientific theories and direction and dynamics of continued research. But ultimately, it is scientific discoveries that shape people's philosophies and not the other way around.

I'd be a bit more *useful* if these scientists further developed their methods, stayed quiet until they're sure or at least until people forget their idiocies and come up with practical (NOT FUCKING KYOTO) solutions.

What you're missing is that this is not leading to anything. They've cried wolf for 50 years now, and crying wolf louder and more reliably is not going to work. At this rate, a large part of humanity will die in the next century, even though I don't doubt that it will then scramble up and find a solution. Because you don't seem to realise that humanity's greatest impulses never came from scientific models about the future, but about direct needs. The Russian revolution wasn't a result of Marxism, it was a result of people being really hungry and repressed.

I must disagree. It is important to present scientific problems, efforts and discoveries to broad public through media. The most efficient way to do so is to spice them up with a bit of sensationalism. So if research indicates there is a realistic possibility of catastrophic climate changes in near future, environmental scientists should damn well cry wolf and let the whole world know what (they think) is going on, because that is the only way to increase public awareness and get the people to contemplate and debate the issue. It is better to have public heavily polarized on a topic than wholly ignorant on the topic.

 

[Brother None]

But ultimately, it is scientific discoveries that shape people's philosophies and not the other way around.

We've had this debate before. I'll repeat that with the possible exception of Enlightenment thinking, science is a tool of philosophy, not the other way around.

Seeing science as more than a tool is a dangerous form of thinking that has been discarded some time ago.

Because while I'm sure that somehow science can be irrefuteable and impossible to influence by politics, the way it is used, including Einstein's theories, are BY FAR more relevant than whether or not they're discovered. Odd as that may sound, but imagine that on the scale of world events, the atom bomb being used is a bigger event than Einstein discovering it.

I must disagree. It is important to present scientific problems, efforts and discoveries to broad public through media. The most efficient way to do so is to spice them up with a bit of sensationalism. So if research indicates there is a realistic possibility of catastrophic climate changes in near future, environmental scientists should damn well cry wolf and let the whole world know what (they think) is going on, because that is the only way to increase public awareness and get the people to contemplate and debate the issue. It is better to have public heavily polarized on a topic than wholly ignorant on the topic.

Nonsense. Pure nonsense. This is EXACTLY what they were saying 40 years ago and thanks to that demagogy and popularism we're now completely incapable of finding solutions to the problem.

The masses are shrugging it off because the cry wolf principle, as scientists have cried wolf so many times that people are too tired to come running and fail to care whether or not there even is a wolf, kind of assuming that there's not.

Enviromentalism by this point is nothing more than a political tool. A means to the ends of economic games being played worldwide. Publicising these articles is just supporting the EU's attempts to stiffle development of other countries "to save the planet".

Disgusting. I don't care how pure their science is, if all it's going to do is lead to harmful shit, it'd almost be better to shut them up.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

We've had this debate before. I'll repeat that with the possible exception of Enlightenment thinking, science is a tool of philosophy, not the other way around.

Seeing science as more than a tool is a dangerous form of thinking that has been discarded some time ago.

But science *has* influenced mankind's ideologies and belief systems. There are many examples of that, such as the Catholic Church having to accept the Big Bang and theory of evolution etc. While I agree that letting science shape our ethos could be potentially disasterous, you can't deny that science has affected not only the way we live, but also the way we think.

The masses are shrugging it off because the cry wolf principle, as scientists have cried wolf so many times that people are too tired to come running and fail to care whether or not there even is a wolf, kind of assuming that there's not.

Um... I still care? I think people are more interested in the topic than you claim. It's natural that prophecies of climatic doom and gloom are nowadays met with a greater dose of skepticism and reserve, but you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who actually *denies* that global warming is happening. It's not the research itself that bothers people, though, but the political aspect of the issue.

Enviromentalism by this point is nothing more than a political tool. A means to the ends of economic games being played worldwide. Publicising these articles is just supporting the EU's attempts to stiffle development of other countries "to save the planet".

Disgusting. I don't care how pure their science is, if all it's going to do is lead to harmful shit, it'd almost be better to shut them up.

I disagree. To halt scientific progress or keep it concealed from public because it carries certain connotations, political or otherwise, is unacceptable to me. It's not the fault of scientists that certain political circles would use their work to their own ends, nor should they reject principles of their profession because of it.

 

[John Uskglass]

But science *has* influenced mankind's ideologies and belief systems. There are many examples of that, such as the Catholic Church having to accept the Big Bang and theory of evolution etc. While I agree that letting science shape our ethos could be potentially disasterous, you can't deny that science has affected not only the way we live, but also the way we think.

The Catholic Church was the Catholic Church and it remains the Catholic Church. Even Secular Humanism is not based on science, just look at the Epicureans.

Um... I still care? I think people are more interested in the topic than you claim. It's natural that prophecies of climatic doom and gloom are nowadays met with a greater dose of skepticism and reserve, but you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who actually *denies* that global warming is happening. It's not the research itself that bothers people, though, but the political aspect of the issue.

Silly. This whole topic is silly. Global warming occurs in natural cycles that frankly move pretty fast. The research people have trouble with is the end result of Global Warming and humanity's effect on it.

I disagree. To halt scientific progress or keep it concealed from public because it carries certain connotations, political or otherwise, is unacceptable to me. It's not the fault of scientists that certain political circles would use their work to their own ends, nor should they reject principles of their profession because of it.

What? I don't know what this has to do with anything Kharn said. I don't think Kharn has a problem with the hardcore science but the doomsday prophets and the ways people abuse this science to further their own perverse ends.

Should evolution have been banned because it resulted in Social Darwiminsm? No. That does not make Social Darwinism acceptable.

CCR, by comparing scientists to pastors you are trivializing science.

Science remains science and will be science long after I am dead. It is neutral, it is uninvolved even by the vast majority of people who use it, no matter how much it improves people's lives.. It does not even try to adress most of the important questions Religion and even more so Philosophy adress.

Anyway, this topic has really started reminding me of Watchmen, which I suggest Ratty reads. He's really starting to remind me of

 

[Ashmo]

Yeah, quite a lot of people remind me of FortuneCity.com as well.

Anyway. It's ignorant to think severe manipulation of the ecosystem has no consequences.

You're right, the cycle has always been there, but we're not exactly reducing the impact of its consequences.

 

[RPGenius]

Scariest Picture Ever in papers a bit ago

Couldn't find the pic, but it showed the ice in Siberia, never before recorded melted, melting.

 

[Kilus]

I think I understand the point Kharn is trying to make. Say you take all the best predications and computer model results for global warming and put them in a time capsule for 20 years. When that time capsule is opened there will be things that were right but most probably things that weren’t exactly right or completely wrong. And that’s assuming there is no change with how things are progressing now(for example assuming no super volcano will erupt).