Pseudoscience wins

[teancum79]

For those not yet aware Al Gore has won a Nobel peace prize for misrepresenting major scientific evidence and promoting irrational thinking. Gee I can't wait to see his next trick.

[doug]

There is certainly debate around ecological issues. I believe that in fact some of what he said later proved to be incorrect but that it wasn't pseudo-science just a different perspective. As with many things, Europe and America appear to be looking at Green Issues in different ways. Bush dumping the Kyto Treaty being a prime example.

To be honest though I haven't been able to form a firm opinion on this because the case on both sides is well made.

I take the position that anything we can do to stop hurting the eco-system is a positive thing regardless of wether humans are responsible for global warming or not. We are far more aware of the harm our actions can have so if we can do anything to mitigate that we should.

[Amalcas]

I personally believe in the human impact on the environment quite firmly, but I think Doug's point is the best made: whether or not we truly have a lasting or drastic (for us) effect on the environment, the evidence clearly shows that we do have an impact, of whatever sort, and, as the only species capable of such considerations (and such globally pervasive effects), we have a responsibility to attend to and minimalize these effects, irrelevant of their effect upon us ourselves.

For the sake of interest, how has Al Gore misinterpreted scientific data?

[teancum79]

Just to be clear I'm not saying that humans can't have an impact on the environment or that we should not take good care of the earth.

Al Gore has presented as science the idea that humans make more carbon and that causes the earths temperature to rise. This "global warming" is supposed to be a very bad thing and all our fault. Admittedly I'm not an expert here, but I do understand that the sun goes through cycles of warmer and cooler temperatures. I also understand that outside of some time travail theory cause must come before the effect. The rise in green house gasses comes after a rise in global temperature not before. Al however ignored this miner detail.

[jedivelariuskenobi]

teancum79 said:

Just to be clear I'm not saying that humans can't have an impact on the environment or that we should not take good care of the earth.

Al Gore has presented as science the idea that humans make more carbon and that causes the earths temperature to rise. This "global warming" is supposed to be a very bad thing and all our fault. Admittedly I'm not an expert here, but I do understand that the sun goes through cycles of warmer and cooler temperatures. I also understand that outside of some time travail theory cause must come before the effect. The rise in green house gasses comes after a rise in global temperature not before. Al however ignored this miner detail.

Sure the Earth has gone through warming and cooling periods in the past ... but statisitcs show that we are currently warming at a rate of change unprecendented throughout recorded and unrecorded history. Additionally, the rise of greenhouse gases has been occuring since the industrial revolution, however, it is our current rate of consumption that is throwing everything out of balance. The gases are among the most direct causes of global warming, not the other way around.

In Love and Oneness,

Jedi Velarius Kenobi

[teancum79]

This article is on a right winged site, but it had the graphs that make a strong point. Co2 follows not precedes global warming. I also found that www.junkscience.com/ is offering $125k
to someone who can prove that humans cause global warming.

We do have more co2 in the air. The earth is warmer. I'm going to grad school and my broth raises rabbits. just because two things happen at the same time does not mean they are correlated and defiantly does not show causation.



'link'

[Amalcas]

You're right in that the relationship is not definite. The facts are thus: first, CO2 is known to have an effect on global warming and cooling (the processes are so complex and differing in different layers of the atmosphere that its absolute effect is not understood); second, CO2 in the atmosphere has increased far beyond the scale of the known carbon cycle; third, the increase in CO2 and the increase in temperature appear to be proportional (on the right scale, you can lay one graph over the other, roughly -- this suggests a direct relationship, though admitted shows nothing as to the cause); and fourth, we are, according to geological trends, supposed to be entering a period of decreased temperature and atmospheric CO2.
That the CO2 content of the atmosphere is increasing when it should be decreasing, and furthermore the degree to which it has increased, suggests an artificial cause thereof; it is, particularly when one examines the rise of industrialism in comparison, not hard to attribute this to human causes.
However, this has no bearing on whether this increase is actually causing net global warming. Assuming that the apparent proportionality of CO2 and the Earth's net temperature means they are directly correlated, one must still determine which is the cause. The issue here becomes this: we do not have an outside reason for the temperature to be increasing (it should be decreasing), but we do have an outside reason for CO2 to be increasing; thus the increase in CO2 is the most probable cause, given what we know.
Now, this is, of course, based on the assumption I made above: that the apparent proportionality of temperature and CO2 means they are directly related. This is not as far a leap as saying they are correlated; as said, current climate models suggest that CO2 concentration should have an effect on temperature quite strongly, but the nature of this relationship is uncertain theoretically, so we are forced to rely on empirical data (which suggests direct correlation).

That CO2 usually follows temperature rise by a few years is something I find quite interesting. However, it does not necessarily relate; it certainly can't be named as the cause for the natural variations in temperature (to my memory, it is, in fact, not commonly thought to be an atmospheric effect at all, but I am not sure). As the current increase in CO2 and temperature has no appearance of the natural pattern, relating the two problems is a potential logical fallacy (which both sides of the issue appear to fall prey to). On the other hand, it may not be a logical fallacy; the correlation may be truly two-directional (that is, a change in CO2 causes a change in temperature, and a change in temperature causes a change in CO2). Such relationships are common enough in nature -- in fact, they may be more common than any other kind -- and the data appears to support this conclusion. CO2 concentrations have naturally risen after temperature because it was temperature being affected by an outside force; now, temperature is rising because the concentration in CO2 is being affected by an outside force.

[Mestemia]

teancum79 said:

This article is on a right winged site, but it had the graphs that make a strong point. Co2 follows not precedes global warming. I also found that www.junkscience.com/ is offering $125k
to someone who can prove that humans cause global warming.

We do have more co2 in the air. The earth is warmer. I'm going to grad school and my broth raises rabbits. just because two things happen at the same time does not mean they are correlated and defiantly does not show causation.



'link'

Does anyone else see any problems with that challenge?
Seems to be much like the Kent Hovind challenge...

[Amalcas]

While perusing at random, I found this argument. I find his argument to be very persuasive, though he does leave out one important aspect, the comparison of the two "good" scenarios. However, the relative difference between those is far outweighed by the difference between the other scenarios, so this is less a flaw in his argument than it is an omission.
Somewhat unrelated, I also find this to be an excellently constructed piece, which certainly adds to its persuasiveness.
His general point is actually a very good one; if you ignore the likelyhood of human impact on global warming (that is, you assuming it is indeterminable in either direction, and thus assume there is an equal possibility in either direction), then the situation simply becomes one of risk analysis, a familiar, if in this case qualitative, form of probability.

[dianaholberg]

Something's wrong with that link.

Oh, I found it on YouTube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

Pretty interesting.

[Amalcas]

Sorry about that. I managed to fix the link. Kudos for finding the right video just based on my comments.

[dianaholberg]

I was able to get the url by using the Quote button... watched it on the other site but wanted to read the comments on youtube. Can you believe the guy has made over 60 videos in foru months to make his case?

[teancum79]

The video makes a fairly well argued point. The part that is missing (and I think vital) is that by misrepresenting science we run a risk of making some bad decisions. I'm all for improved energy use. What worries me it that for what appears to be nothing but political power and money people are selling a lie.

In the video he talked about all the problems that global warming could cause. He gave token mention to the like problems regulations can cause. What was ignored is that if the economy collapses 1930's like. If I can't feed my kid I'm not going to worry about saving gas. If I'm cold I'll cut down an old growth forest for fire wood. If we regulate ourselves into depression the regulations will be chucked overnight. WE do need to reduce pollution save energy etc. The move to do so must not be based on false science.

[Amalcas]

That is an interesting point. In that case, logical argument would be to not regulate, as the only section left that is non-negative in result would be in that column. However, I think that's stretching a specific outcome over a very general category, so while interesting, it doesn't form a full counter-argument. Especially since, if we regulate ourselves into depression, we will be much less hesitant to throw off these regulations if we find that they have stalled or reversed the current trend in climate change; your scenario fits much more under the cell depicting unnecessary regulations, in which case throwing them off would be prudent, than necessary regulations.
While the science of climatology is certainly incomplete, and, as sciences go, in the infantile stage of its development, I would hesitate from outright calling it false. You have highlighted potential points of error, but error is seldom used to prove something "false" in the scientific community; more so, it is used instead to expand upon the already existing theory to explain the apparent error. Point in case: Einstein (and presumably a good number of other individuals) noticed that Newtonian physics was, well, erroneous -- they found flagrant exceptions to it, and situations it outright could not explain. Their reaction was not to throw out Newtonian physics, but to add another needed layer of complexity: relativistics. Relativistics fully encoporates Newtonian physics. However, Newtonian physics becomes simply a peculiar special case, if one we encounter (in approximate form, at least) more often than not. In other words, the apparently false, the "disproven" Newtonian physics was still valid; it just needed a (large) bit of expansion to explain observations that it, by itself, could not predict or predicted improperly.

[dianaholberg]

I think we resolved the issue teancum raises when we worked through this with recycling in the 70s, 80s, and 90s.

Initially, recycling was purely voluntary. In the 70s, it was really only some wishful-thinking people putting commercials on TV, and leading elementary school children in campaigns to clean up their own street, etc. (I don't think anyone born after 1980 can relate to just how trashy the world had become. Today it is very rare even in the largest of cities to see trash blowing around the way it was even in rural areas in the 70s.)

In the 80s, those wishful-thinkers were a bit wiser and started developing the technology to make recycled materials cheaply enough that they could compete in the marketplace -- so that by the 90s, it became a social no-no in corporate America to use anything but recycled paper, plastics, etc. Once corporations bought into the fact that they could make their employees and customers feel good that they were "thinking green", that's when recycling began creeping into local legislation.

So toward the end of the 80s and early 90s, we saw homeowner's associations, city councils, etc. beginning to legislate recycling: stating that recycling options would by law (or rule) be made available with the expectation that they would be used by citizens, but with penalties only for gross negligence. So participation is, for the most part, still voluntary -- no one is poking through anyone's trash -- but abuses are fined. For instance, where I live, you can put bottles and paper in your garbage every week for years and most likely not be fined. But if you try to take a lot of bottles and paper to the local dump in large quantities, they will require you to recycle it and will not permit it to be dumped. Meantime, everyone on my street recycles bottles and paper -- and I know this because the city gives us blue see-through plastic bags explicitly for this purpose.

So I believe the lessons learned are these: (1) The focus needs to be on finding ways to make doing the right thing as convenient as doing the wrong thing. In other words, make clean energy alternatives competitive in price with dirtier ones, etc. (2) Instill regulation that requires the availability of the alternatives but still permits compliance to be largely voluntary. So, for instance, with alternative power for cars, keep gas stations but raise the prices to a point where the alternatives begin to look more desirable. (I personally believe this is part of the reason we're seeing higher gas prices.) (3) Make it easily visible for compliance to be recognized. For example, in the case of the use of alternate power for cars, give tax breaks and issue specially colored license plates so that everyone can see who is using the alternatives and who is not.

I see us VERY SLOWLY moving in the right direction when it comes to moving away from petroleum products -- but we're so slow in effecting #3 that it's hard to see any differences yet.