|
How Come No One Will Admit To Global Warming? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| NebulousQ |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
pretty much any self respecting scientist accepts the reality of global warming. |
Really? So you have the say on what "self respecting scientists" have to accept?
Just becuase you decide to believe and side with one group does has a certain belief, does not mean all other views are moot.
But your implied ignorance shall redeem you becuase you do not understand what you have said and have neglected to think about an earlier post which said basically this:
Global Warming seems to be happening (most likely is): temperatures are changing, climates are changing, ozone layers are changing, etc.
But what is the cause? Is this a natural cycle of the earth? Are humans speeding up this process? Are they the sole cause?
It is generally accepted that we are not helping (and doing a heckuvalot of harm) with all the different types of pollution and destruction we cause, but how much significance do our actions and their byproducts have on this "Global Warming" is still debated. And both sides spew propaganda and seed misinformation. |
|
|
| NebulousQ |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
Great reasoning there. How about :
Previously pilots have flewn badly, and there's precedence of an airplane hitting the Empire State Building. I conclude that the 911 attacks were simply accidents - caused by bad piloting. |
If you had no other data on the 911 attacks, there would be no flaw in that reasoning. The point you are likely to make is that we do have other data on 911 and we do have data on current global warming, thus to conclude that global warming is a natural event is akin to concluding that 911 was an accident; i.e. the only way to do so is to ignore the most current data.
However, our current data is but a small drop in the bucket. Even if there were scientists studying global warming with modern from the dawn of history to the present, that would only be a few thousand years of data and observations. A few thousand! you say, thats quite alot! But on the time scale of the earth it is nothing. On a geologic time scale a few thousand years mean nothing, and on a atmospheric scale a few thousand years are but a week in the life of an age.
The last ice age occured a million years ago, and other ages can last any length of time. Who knows what fluctations happened in the million years that progressed? No one.
The data we have now is interpreted in many ways, it clearly (well atleast from what i read) shows that the pollution and destruction by humans are causing drastic biodiviersity and the environment. But does it show that we are hastening "Global Warming"? There are differet views on that. |
|
|
| Shakka |
Whether global warming is happening is neither here nor there. What is important to realize is that waking up one morning and thinking, "Hey, it's the middle of January and it's 65 degrees outside!" doesn't necessarily mean that it's a result of global warming. That is just unseasonably warm and is probably due to more cyclical issues with the environment (much like this current 10 year cycle in hurricane severity that we've heard about). Whether or not global warming is occurring, it is something that would barely be noticeable from year-to-year, rather it would be an observable trend in average global temperatures over a long period of time. And even then, we're talking about only a few degrees over a very long period of time.
So, again, just because it is unseasonally warm right now, doesn't necessarily prove that global warming is the direct cause.
That said, it definitely seems like I saw a lot more snow in the south in the 80's than I've seen in the 90's and 00's. With one BIG exception. In 1992, we had the "Storm of the Century" down here. Atlanta received 14 inches of snow in a single day. As far as I know, that may have been the peak.
In the same breath, it may not only be useful to think of how cold it isn't, but to also to consider how hot it isn't during the summer. We've certainly had our share of mild summer weather compared to historical averages.
So I think you may be being a bit of an alarmist whether or not the phenomenon is really occurring. |
|
|
| stevieboy32808 |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
Great reasoning there. How about :
Previously pilots have flewn badly, and there's precedence of an airplane hitting the Empire State Building. I conclude that the 911 attacks were simply accidents - caused by bad piloting. |
It's funny you should mention this since I was reading tons of material on this, but if you want to continue with these analogies then consider this:
Punching a baby in the face is the same as punching a full grown adult in the face. I mean c'mon they're both human.
As you may or may not know a baby is born with soft sponge-like bones (please don't take sponge literally). A full grown adult male has a way harder and more defined bone structure than a baby. The baby will most likely suffer more than the adult. My point is that comparing the Empire State to WTC towers is an unlikely comparison because the empire state was built using a skeletal steel structure and it's walls were three feet thick I believe and very well engineered. The WTC however implemented a tube design consisiting of the core and and the outer skeleton (the steel column stripes) that together supported the floors in between. In additon the empire state was hit by a b-25 bomber versus the boeing 767 that hit the towers. To sum up I disagree with your reasoning. One thing is to compare unlike designs and facts with something that hasn't been proven yet (ie: global warming). |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by stevieboy32808
It's funny you should mention this since I was reading tons of material on this, but if you want to continue with these analogies then consider this:
Punching a baby in the face is the same as punching a full grown adult in the face. I mean c'mon they're both human.
As you may or may not know a baby is born with soft sponge-like bones (please don't take sponge literally). A full grown adult male has a way harder and more defined bone structure than a baby. The baby will most likely suffer more than the adult. My point is that comparing the Empire State to WTC towers is an unlikely comparison because the empire state was built using a skeletal steel structure and it's walls were three feet thick I believe and very well engineered. The WTC however implemented a tube design consisiting of the core and and the outer skeleton (the steel column stripes) that together supported the floors in between. In additon the empire state was hit by a b-25 bomber versus the boeing 767 that hit the towers. To sum up I disagree with your reasoning. One thing is to compare unlike designs and facts with something that hasn't been proven yet (ie: global warming). |
Apparently, you totally missed my point - even when NebulousQ spelled it out for you. The point was as follows: You're arguing that
- natural occurences can cause global warming
- therefore natural occurences must be the cause of global warming.
That's called "affirming the consequent" and its a fallacy. My "argument" was meant to show you how totally ridiculous such reasoning is.
That being said, I'm still bedazzled by this gem you offered in return:
| quote: | Originally posted by stevieboy32808
My point is that comparing the Empire State to WTC towers is an unlikely comparison because the empire state was built using a skeletal steel structure and it's walls were three feet thick I believe and very well engineered. The WTC however implemented a tube design consisiting of the core and and the outer skeleton (the steel column stripes) that together supported the floors in between. |
Did you just argue that the chance of a building being hit by an airplane on accident rather than purpose is influenced by the buildings construction paradigm?:haha:
| quote: | Originally posted by NebulousQ
However, our current data is but a small drop in the bucket. Even if there were scientists studying global warming with modern from the dawn of history to the present, that would only be a few thousand years of data and observations. A few thousand! you say, thats quite alot! But on the time scale of the earth it is nothing. On a geologic time scale a few thousand years mean nothing, and on a atmospheric scale a few thousand years are but a week in the life of an age.
The last ice age occured a million years ago, and other ages can last any length of time. Who knows what fluctations happened in the million years that progressed? No one.
The data we have now is interpreted in many ways, it clearly (well atleast from what i read) shows that the pollution and destruction by humans are causing drastic biodiviersity and the environment. But does it show that we are hastening "Global Warming"? There are differet views on that. |
I've addressed your argument before:
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=251611
The problem is far more complex that you sketch it to be. For one thing, "postponing judgment" on this issue, implies accepting one of the competing explanations (i.e. humans do not contribute to global warming). Another issue is that there are deeply rooted non-refuted scientific theories on the interaction of heat reflection and greenhouse gasses, which implies that emission of greenhouse gasses will lead to higher temperatures. Finally, just because there is no "smoking gun"-evidence that this is happening at a absofreakinglutely alarming rate, that doesn't mean that both conclusions should be equally preferable to a rational decision maker. The impact of each possibility should be taken into account as well. If I told you that your mother was crying her brains out because she'd just gotten raped by some thug, would you also just stay passive, because, you know, I might be lying? Or would you haul ass back home to check up on her?
Finally, this piece
| quote: | Originally posted by NebulousQ
And both sides spew propaganda and seed misinformation. |
is simply crap. Back it up with some examples. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| The data regarding it is simply insufficient to persuade a genuine skeptic. |
|
|
| stevieboy32808 |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
Apparently, you totally missed my point - even when NebulousQ spelled it out for you. The point was as follows: You're arguing that
- natural occurences can cause global warming
- therefore natural occurences must be the cause of global warming.
That's called "affirming the consequent" and its a fallacy. |
Aaah, you were being sarcastic. Sorry I can't tell sometimes. Yes I did miss your point and I stand by my opinion turned fallacy mainly because there isn't solid evidence to support it, just speculation.
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
Did you just argue that the chances of a building being hit by an airplane on accident rather than purpose is influenced by the buildings construction paradigm? |
My mistake, but to clarify I was comparing the buildings structural integrity and not the chances of a building being hit by an airplane. Again I misinterpreted your statement. |
|
|
| josh4 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Whether global warming is happening is neither here nor there. |
choose a side boy :tongue2 |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by NebulousQ
Really? So you have the say on what "self respecting scientists" have to accept?
Just becuase you decide to believe and side with one group does has a certain belief, does not mean all other views are moot. |
Perhaps, but then again we have to examine who exactly is saying what in the scientific field and then examine their argument on the merits. Few notable scientists are arguing against human involvement being a significant contributor to global warming. The vast consensus of scientists who actually study in the field and all the variables involved are in pretty sound agreement to human involvement being a factor:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte.../306/5702/1686#
| quote: | | But what is the cause? Is this a natural cycle of the earth? Are humans speeding up this process? Are they the sole cause? |
No, it seems a bit of both. We as humans cannot be responsible for the natural cycles of the earth. We ARE responsible, however, for our own actions, and if it appears that we are contributing to the warming effect (which by the scientific consensus appears to be the case), then we have an obligation to save ourselves from, uhh, ourselves.
| quote: | | It is generally accepted that we are not helping (and doing a heckuvalot of harm) with all the different types of pollution and destruction we cause, but how much significance do our actions and their byproducts have on this "Global Warming" is still debated. And both sides spew propaganda and seed misinformation. |
Well I guess I don't consider prominent scientists to spew any propaganda - they simply "spew" what is observed in natural phenomena. They have no agenda other than to report sound, peer-reviewed science.
Can we say the same about the other side who refuses to acknowledge in any way the human contribution to the warming effect? Now what do individuals like Bush have to gain by this steadfast refusal?
What connections do folks like Bush have to individuals that have something to lose if we acknowledge and act on the human contribution to the warming effect?
Hmmmmmmmm......... |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Well I guess I don't consider prominent scientists to spew any propaganda - they simply "spew" what is observed in natural phenomena. They have no agenda other than to report sound, peer-reviewed science.
Can we say the same about the other side who refuses to acknowledge in any way the human contribution to the warming effect? Now what do individuals like Bush have to gain by this steadfast refusal?
What connections do folks like Bush have to individuals that have something to lose if we acknowledge and act on the human contribution to the warming effect?
Hmmmmmmmm......... |
Not quite true when it comes to scientists. Unfortunately, and espesically in the US, there is a lot of competition for grants for research. Funding is really the driving source behind science, not sheer curiosity. It's really a shame, because as long as we put money into the hands of the scientist that is the best at writing grant proposals and continuing along already established science, the less chance we have of novel science being performed. You can really see that happening since the 1950's.
Again unfortunately, many grants go to science that is deemed to be "cutting edge" or "hot topic." Global warming is one of them and so is stem cell research/cloning (see S. Korea). I'm not trying to say if global warming does or does not exist, there really is no consensus, I assure you. However, I am trying to say that many scientists' livelyhood can be seen as based on the continuance of its study, and nothing brings attention to the field better than sensationalism. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
Great reasoning there. How about :
Previously pilots have flewn badly, and there's precedence of an airplane hitting the Empire State Building. I conclude that the 911 attacks were simply accidents - caused by bad piloting. |
"I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in and I saw an airplane hit the tower and um uh the TV was obviously on and I uh used to fly myself and I said there's one terrible pilot" - George W. Bush
:stongue: |
|
|
|
|
