Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

More Warming News!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Leonhard
    replied
    Originally posted by Jesse View Post
    It's a claim that shouldn't be made in a scientific field that is largely variable, period.
    The facts I put on the table about global warming in post #31, haven't varied for decades now. Point to anyone one of them that's undergone any significant amount of change. The only one I can even think of is the holocene warming period, but we've known that one wasn't global and its only only been confirmed later. That's it.

    physics, and biology
    Plenty of settled things within biology and physics. The theory of general relativity is largely correct, even if we'll one day discover some extreme (likely Big Bang or blackhole related) extreme cases where something different will occur, the fact that GR describes the motion of things in the universe is utterly settled. Ain't gonna budge. No matter what the Einstein haters will say, clocks slow down when things go faster.

    Too many examples from physics to list.

    The same with biology.

    Fundemental revolutions in science are rare.

    It doesn't matter to me what conservatives/liberals do or don't do.
    It does to me, because conservatives playing the "global warming is a liberal conspiracy" strategy is a bad game. First of all its wrong, so they'll never have the evidence on their side on it, those politicians who try to play that game will inevitably smell of crank.

    I say, change the game and beat the liberals on their own turf.

    Or go on losing. Its up to you guys. At least in Denmark we don't play this game.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jesse
    replied
    Originally posted by Leonhard
    I didn't mean it in that sense, and I don't think anyone means it in that sense. I believe its "possible", in that I know what it would take for it to happen, I just don't believe there's a snowballs chance in hell that we'd ever find such evidence, that would overthrow everything.

    Basically I think anthropogenic global warming is basically correct. The rest of the questions are: how much, how quickly, how bad?
    It's a claim that shouldn't be made in a scientific field that is largely variable, period. It matters not to me how it is meant. If anyone in the AGW field wants to be taken seriously, claiming "settled science" should be dropped. It does no one any good.

    Originally posted by Leonhard
    In general inside the hallways of academia, settled science is not a word you use. In discussions in the public I've encountered it in other places. Usually when people try to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt about things which scientists aren't debating anymore. Such as whether vaccines work (the science is settled, they work and they don't cause autism), and whether homeopathy doesn't work (it really, really, doesn't, its water).
    The field of medicine is not as widely variable as global temperatures, physics, and biology. These are two completely different things. I think people have forgotten that science is a process, not a conclusion. It will be interesting to see how the "settled science" crowd reacts when there will be an inevitable change in the data.

    Originally posted by Leonhard
    Conservatives are also starting...
    It doesn't matter to me what conservatives/liberals do or don't do. I only care that people do not fall into the trap of believing that science is "settled" and won't change drastically.

    Leave a comment:


  • Leonhard
    replied
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    I did not mean to say that they were adding something new, but rather that their behaviour fits with the well-known pattern to explain away troublesome data.

    Originally posted by Leonhard
    As for the pause, most scientists that I know of have held that its mostly due, if not entirely, due to random fluctuation.
    Exactly. See above.
    In that sense I agree, however they would not be able to do this if it wasn't in fact within the confines of a random fluctuation. If temperature growth has actually flat-lined, they'll be able to find that out eventually, at some point you simple couldn't explain it as a random fluctuation. According to their report it was inconsistent with the worst case model. Again, for reasons I've outlined, that's going to be very unlikely that they suddenly discover that the Earth has stopped warming, as the evidence for anthropocentric global warming is very strong.

    In fact I'm not really sure what you and I are discussing right now. We seem to be in agreement, except we hold different opinions (maybe?) about whether the evidence supports the science of global warming.
    Last edited by Leonhard; 04-26-2015, 02:41 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
    They're not adding any new explanations here.
    I did not mean to say that they were adding something new, but rather that their behaviour fits with the well-known pattern to explain away troublesome data.

    As for the pause, most scientists that I know of have held that its mostly due, if not entirely, due to random fluctuation.
    Exactly. See above.

    Leave a comment:


  • Leonhard
    replied
    Originally posted by Jesse View Post
    My only bone of contention lies in the idea of claiming "settled science" in an area of science where it could not possibly be the case.
    I didn't mean it in that sense, and I don't think anyone means it in that sense. I believe its "possible", in that I know what it would take for it to happen, I just don't believe there's a snowballs chance in hell that we'd ever find such evidence, that would overthrow everything.

    Basically I think anthropogenic global warming is basically correct. The rest of the questions are: how much, how quickly, how bad?

    Originally posted by Jesse View Post
    For the area is too wide. I have only seen the proponents of AGW use this terminology. You do not see scientists in the area of physics, biology, etc. make such a claim. Nor would they ever dare too because they know their field is too wide and variable.
    In general inside the hallways of academia, settled science is not a word you use. In discussions in the public I've encountered it in other places. Usually when people try to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt about things which scientists aren't debating anymore. Such as whether vaccines work (the science is settled, they work and they don't cause autism), and whether homeopathy doesn't work (it really, really, doesn't, its water).

    Does that mean it's man made? No. The jury is still out on that part of it.
    The jury was in already in the seventies. There was no global medieval warming period, only a local one in europe. The basic outline of the hockey stick graph is pretty much spot on, and can be explained in large part by the greenhouse effect of CO2 combined with the positive feedback of water vapour (increased temperature gives increased moisture with an increased greenhouse effect). We're by far the largest CO2 producers on the planet, dwarfing even volcano emisions.

    The rise in CO2 over the past half century is due primarily to us.

    Conservatives are also starting to change their opinions on this, and I really don't see why they shouldn't. Go back ten years and you'd see politicians arguing that the Earth is actually cooling down. Whatever the scientists said, they'd say the exact opposite. I really don't know what the point of that is.

    Lets say anthropogenic global warming is real. All I'll see happening is that conservatives simple switch statements, act as if they've never been against it, which is what politicians usually do when they change their mind. If they do that they'll be able to take the narrative of the global warming scenario away from the liberals. It'll be about the success stories of free market, companies like Silevo and First Solar, Tesla Motors and free market electricity exchange.

    They can talk about how the free market ultimately handled this problem as effectively as possible, which is what I believe it will, rather than what the great government handouts could.

    If Fox News can change their mind about electrical cars (they haven't had a negative opinion on them in a while now, and now they have commercials for the those luxury sedan type electrical cars). I think the conservative political landscape can do something similar.

    I mean imagine a big throbbing vein on a liberals face as he watches commercials like this, and politicians stealing away one of their talking points.

    Last edited by Leonhard; 04-26-2015, 02:13 AM. Reason: Silevo not Silvio

    Leave a comment:


  • Jesse
    replied
    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
    That depends on whether you dismiss the notion of objective truth, if you do, nothing can ever really be settled and will always merely be a question of political narrative.

    And sure I don't think science will ever get everything 100% certain, and there will always be finer points to fiddle with. However fundamental revolutions in science are extremely rare once things have been settled for a while.

    Is it possible that the theory of anthropogenic global warming is fundamentally flawed and that its main conclusion is false? Yes, and I can imagine the evidence that would show this, but at this point its really unlikely.
    My only bone of contention lies in the idea of claiming "settled science" in an area of science where it could not possibly be the case. For the area is too wide. I have only seen the proponents of AGW use this terminology. You do not see scientists in the area of physics, biology, etc. make such a claim. Nor would they ever dare too because they know their field is too wide and variable.

    Is there global warming? I personally believe there is since we should be naturally warming from the last ice age. Does that mean it's man made? No. The jury is still out on that part of it. There is no "settled science" here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Leonhard
    replied
    Originally posted by Jesse View Post
    No, you actually can't. That is not how science works. There has never been, nor will there ever be such a thing as "settled science". All science is variable. The only thing you can be sure of in science is that it will change as new data and hypotheses are introduced.
    That depends on whether you dismiss the notion of objective truth, if you do, nothing can ever really be settled and will always merely be a question of political narrative.

    And sure I don't think science will ever get everything 100% certain, and there will always be finer points to fiddle with. However fundamental revolutions in science are extremely rare once things have been settled for a while.

    Is it possible that the theory of anthropogenic global warming is fundamentally flawed and that its main conclusion is false? Yes, and I can imagine the evidence that would show this, but at this point its really unlikely.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jesse
    replied
    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
    You can actually be fairly well justified in this...
    No, you actually can't. That is not how science works. There has never been, nor will there ever be such a thing as "settled science". All science is variable. The only thing you can be sure of in science is that it will change as new data and hypotheses are introduced.

    Leave a comment:


  • Leonhard
    replied
    Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
    But as they say, "the science is settled."
    You can actually be fairly well justified in this, when the core assumptions hasn't changed, and only been ever more verified over a period of several decades. I think american conservatives (and it is a very american phenomenon), underestimate how much evidence actually support this.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jedidiah
    replied
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    As Lakatos would say, these critical parts of the core will not be easily attacked as auxiliary hypothesis will be formulated to explain away the data.


    It could. It would be much more likely that the scientists would double-down - precisely as they have been doing - and come up with more reasons (eg. 'natural variation', 'we didn't model the heat absorption of the oceans properly in prior models' etc) to explain away the findings.

    The consequence is not that research programmes cannot fail due to abandonment, but that within the programme all data contradictory to the core will be explained away; to deny the core wholly is to abandon the programme.
    But as they say, "the science is settled."

    Leave a comment:


  • Leonhard
    replied
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    I didn't say "denied". Don't put words in my mouth.
    I apologize, you're right, the quote tags shouldn't have been there.

    The greatly reduced rate of warming is being explained by 'natural variations', as I said.
    They're not adding any new explanations here. Those random fluctuations are present. The models remain unchanged. Cutting out all the technical description they simple compared the models to these fluctuations. I wouldn't call making a comparison, and concluding one of the models might not fit will anymore, to be explaining things away.

    As for the pause, most scientists that I know of have held that its mostly due, if not entirely, due to random fluctuation.

    Indeed. Lakatos wasn't endeavouring a negative critique but a description of how science works; no one is saying it is all bad. ... But what the core-protecting phenomena he describes can also lead to, for example, is ossified group-think where the core is to be protected in spite of varied contraindicating or contradictory evidence.
    I don't disagree with you. Though that cuts both ways. In the seventies Ronald Reagan could get away with saying things like "Trees pollute more than cars." which he did. After the academia became overridden with liberals, and the conservative party started losing their hands on the engineers and physicists... in the sixties if you were an engineer, you were typically a conservative, I think there's been this mentallity of suspicion against anything scientists come up with.

    Historically it makes sense, but I don't think its productive to disagree with them on the issue of global warming. So far it means that the liberals in the US gets to look like the scientifically suave platform.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
    I'm not sure what you're getting at. What findings are being "denied" by scientists here?
    I didn't say "denied". Don't put words in my mouth.

    If you read the article you'd see that they're genuinely comparing the data to the predictions, and finding that this might not be consistent with the worst case scenario. So I think you're reading way too much into what's happening here, or you don't quite understand what they're doing.
    The greatly reduced rate of warming is being explained by 'natural variations', as I said.

    It makes sense, and that's the current view of the science of philosophy, when contradictory evidence to a given model comes in you don't automatically dismiss the model, as there's a whole number of reasons why you have such evidence. Could be simple that some variable is off somewhere, some auxiliary assumption is wrong, rather than the core principles themselves.

    To not do this wouldn't make for good science. Then we'd be throwing out the theory of electromagnetics the moment someone had a glitch in a detector.
    Indeed. Lakatos wasn't endeavouring a negative critique but a description of how science works; no one is saying it is all bad.

    But what the core-protecting phenomena he describes can also lead to, for example, is ossified group-think where the core is to be protected in spite of varied contraindicating or contradictory evidence.

    Leave a comment:


  • Leonhard
    replied
    ...as they have been doing - and come up with more reasons (eg. 'natural variation', 'we didn't model the heat absorption of the oceans properly in prior models' etc) to explain away the findings.
    I'm not sure what you're getting at. What findings are being "denied" by scientists here? Their article was published in Nature, so its not as if anything that's being discussed here is being "hidden under the mat", and they're not inventing whole cloth any new theories to "explain away" any findings here.

    If you read the article you'd see that they're genuinely comparing the data to the predictions, and finding that this might not be consistent with the worst case scenario. So I think you're reading way too much into what's happening here, or you don't quite understand what they're doing.

    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    As Lakatos would say, these critical parts of the core will not be easily attacked as auxiliary hypothesis will be formulated to explain away. The consequence is not that research programmes cannot fail due to abandonment, but that within the programme all data contradictory to the core will be explained away; to deny the core wholly is to abandon the programme.
    It makes sense, and that's the current view of the science of philosophy, when contradictory evidence to a given model comes in you don't automatically dismiss the model, as there's a whole number of reasons why you have such evidence. Could be simple that some variable is off somewhere, some auxiliary assumption is wrong, rather than the core principles themselves.

    To not do this wouldn't make for good science. Then we'd be throwing out the theory of electromagnetics the moment someone had a glitch in a detector.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
    This is not true, it would be possible to falsify the theory of anthropogenic global warming, if say one identified a greater cause of CO2 in the atmosphere, if one disproved the water content positive feedback cycle
    As Lakatos would say, these critical parts of the core will not be easily attacked as auxiliary hypothesis will be formulated to explain away the data.

    Even the notion that the Earth is getting warmer, which is well attested now could be disproved by say... three straight decades with no indication of warming.
    It could. It would be much more likely that the scientists would double-down - precisely as they have been doing - and come up with more reasons (eg. 'natural variation', 'we didn't model the heat absorption of the oceans properly in prior models' etc) to explain away the findings.

    The consequence is not that research programmes cannot fail due to abandonment, but that within the programme all data contradictory to the core will be explained away; to deny the core wholly is to abandon the programme.
    Last edited by Paprika; 04-25-2015, 08:10 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Leonhard
    replied
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    Note how the core theory will not be exposed to falsification by data, in line with Imre Lakatos' observations:

    All scientific research-programmes may be characterised by their ‘hard core‘. The negative heuristic of the programme forbids us to direct the modus tollens at this ‘hard core': it bids us to articulate or even invent with great ingenuity touchstone theories ‘auxiliary hypotheses’, which build up a protective belt around this core, and redirect the modus tollens on to these. It is this protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses which has to bear the brunt of tests and get adjusted and readjusted, or even completely replaced in the defence of the thus hardened core.


    In this instance the core of AGW is protected from falsification by the auxiliary hypotheses such as 'natural variation', 'we didn't model the heat absorption of the oceans properly in prior models' or the like.
    This is not true, it would be possible to falsify the theory of anthropogenic global warming, if say one identified a greater cause of CO2 in the atmosphere, if one disproved the water content positive feedback cycle, all that would effectively decouple human activity from the rise in temperature. Then it would just be a mystery why the Earth is getting warmer... pure divine act?

    Even the notion that the Earth is getting warmer, which is well attested now could be disproved by say... three straight decades with no indication of warming.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
16 responses
132 views
0 likes
Last Post One Bad Pig  
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
53 responses
351 views
0 likes
Last Post Mountain Man  
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
25 responses
112 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
33 responses
197 views
0 likes
Last Post Roy
by Roy
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
84 responses
361 views
0 likes
Last Post JimL
by JimL
 
Working...
X