Global warming is a man-made event. - Page 2

Wagner · #11 12-23-2007, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL

But doesn't that go back to the scare tactics referenced above? Why would we want to turn the world upside down? That seems like a polarizing statement to me.

To follow your weather example, some things are self-evident. If it is raining, we tend to carry umbrellas. If there is a good chance of rain, we tend to take umbrellas with us just in case. Just because we don't know for sure whether it is going to be raining in 7 days, doesn't mean that we should ignore the likely or possible outcome.

Regarding man's effect on climate change, we have a large body of scientists in the world today (but apparently not in the US senate or on various news channels) who have a theory. This is not speculation, but a theory consistent with the scientific method of postulating theories which describe the behaviour of natural phenomena, and then testing them logically and with empirical evidence. That theory is increasingly supported by observation, testing, etc. To use a non-scientific approach and describe it as theoretical because not every element is understood basically abandons the scientific method and takes us into a realm where we are unlikely to move forward because we have abandoned the principles of science, where we are searching for 'truth' as if it is somehow superior to a scientific theory.

Takes me back to university courses in philosophy and the history of the scientific method.

To paraphrase MD, my (philosophical) quarter is up. Looking forward to further discussions and observations. I think the topic is valuable enough not to be dismissed, but that is just me.

Remember, in science a theory can be wrong. And in science you must adjust your 'theory' when new evidence presents itself. So for the majority of the Al Gore types to simply overlook evidence, like ozone coming back and holes getting smaller, as well as an established tradition of heating and cooling of the planet, the theory must resemble the know facts not simply the PC flavor of the day.

Sponsored Links

JCL · #12 12-23-2007, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wagner

Remember, in science a theory can be wrong. And in science you must adjust your 'theory' when new evidence presents itself. So for the majority of the Al Gore types to simply overlook evidence, like ozone coming back and holes getting smaller, as well as an established tradition of heating and cooling of the planet, the theory must resemble the know facts not simply the PC flavor of the day.

The theory about ozone related to the use of CFCs more than fossil fuels, IIRC. The behaviour of the model was predicted, and followed the scientific theory, some would say even further confirming it.

The idea that a theory is 'wrong' is more aligned with non-scientific definitions of theories. A theory is only replaced when a better one is postulated and then later adopted, as a theory is based on a body of knowledge and not single data points.

Good discussion.

JCL · #13 12-23-2007, 03:58 PM

It strikes me as somewhat disconnected that I am simultaneously in a discussion in the lounge on the anthropogenic impacts of climate change, and a discussion in another forum on the benefits of the Dinan ECM map for the N54 engine in my 535. At least I didn't buy a V8 or a large SUV.

Wagner · #14 12-23-2007, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL

The theory about ozone related to the use of CFCs more than fossil fuels, IIRC. The behaviour of the model was predicted, and followed the scientific theory, some would say even further confirming it.

The idea that a theory is 'wrong' is more aligned with non-scientific definitions of theories. A theory is only replaced when a better one is postulated and then later adopted, as a theory is based on a body of knowledge and not single data points.

Good discussion.

We should not, IMO, dictate political and social movements based on a theory that is still being debated in onus. Unlike of course the whole creationism/evolution debate. Again, falls back on using resources efficiently versus condemning their current usage as a the downfall of the planet. And I've yet to see a theory that states that humans are the sole cause of global/climate change, unlike the fact that the earth has its own system regardless of human existence.

JCL · #15 12-23-2007, 04:24 PM

I think the United Nations report moved the debate ahead significantly. Not sure what Al Gore, Politically Correct, and Creationism have to do with scientific debate; they are examples of the problem, not a path forward in having a healthy debate.

What do you think of Marc Morano? The author of the first link posted has an interesting history, spanning Exxon, Swift Boats, Rush Limbaugh, and so on.

I don't believe in any way that humans are the sole cause of global temperature changes. However, we should clarify the specific terms used. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) uses the term "climate change" for human-caused change, and "climate variability" for other changes. In that sense, by that definition, then yes, human activity is the cause of it all. In the broader sense, no, of course humans did not cause it all, as evidenced by ice core samples over the past 800,000 years, which in itself is a drop in the bucket in geological age.

Wagner · #16 12-23-2007, 04:33 PM

Sadly you are in the minority of thinkers, most are simply followers. IMO the line between variability and change too often are hazed by political opinion.

Sponsored Links