[MD] Global Warming: Science or Politics?

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Heather Perella <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com>:


>      [Platt]
> > When scientists disagree, who do you pick? Why?
> 
>     Ok, for example, the global warming issue.  Much
> of the evidence points towards humans causing the
> earth to warm up faster.  The increase in different
> chemicals in the air and water is an increase greater
> than ever before.  These same chemicals go directly
> into the air and water.  We see the smoke stacks and
> pipes and know what chemicals are coming out, and
> these are the chemicals found in very increased levels
> in the air and water.  Never have these chemicals been
> found to be at such high levels.  Can you explain why
> these chemical levels are higher than ever before? 

Correlation (increase in global warming, increase in chemical levels in
the atmosphere) does not imply causation (increase in chemical levels
causes increase in global warming.) Example: Sleeping with one's shoes on
is strongly correlated with waking up with a headache. Therefore, sleeping
with one's shoes on causes headaches. For further information about this
logical fallacy, please go to Wikipedia and enter, "Correlation does not
imply causation."  

> You asked what samples?  Well, in science you have to
> bring data/samples into the discussion to counter
> scientific views. 

OK. "Samples" threw me off. "Data" I understand. The question always is, "How
accurate is the data and what is its significance?" For example, there is 
data showing that mind can influence matter (the Jahn experiments at Princeton
University). Case, among others, questions both the data and its significance.   

> As to what is the table?  Well,
> this is a metaphor for 'where the action is'.  So, in
> this discussion the action is at the scientific table.
>  Now, I've asked you if you have philosophical grounds
> that quarrel with science or scientific trust v.
> distrust, then that's fine.  But one can't argue
> against what science finds unless when joins the
> scientific process to show what other possibilities
> data/samples might be suggesting.     

I have referred you to scientists who question whether human activity is
the cause of global warming.

>      [SA previously]
> > Do you have samples/data that you've collected? 
> 
>      [Platt]
> No. Do you?
> ---------
>      No, I don't.  That's why I rely upon other
> people, scientists, that do. 

Me, too. 

      [SA previously]
> >What samples have you recently found to
> > counter what scientists say?
> 
>      [Platt]
> Samples of what? 
> 
> ---------
>      Samples of the chemical content of the air,
> water, and ice cores, etc...

To my knowledge no one knows the amount of carbon dioxide (the main chemical
identified as the cause of global warming) emitted by all human activities or
the amount already present in the atmosphere. For example, a 400 page UN report
by the Food and Agricultural Organization concludes that livestock are
responsible for 18 percent of the gases that cause global warming, more than
cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

>      [Platt]
> Where did you get the idea I discount everything about
> science. 
> Are you suggesting scientists should never be
> questioned?
> 
> ---------
>      About your first question, I probably was
> assuming, my mistake.  Referring to your second
> question, what I'm saying is that it is very difficult
> to question scientists, unless, you have searched all
> the data/samples/the 'stuff' gathered in the field,
> and made comparisons.  To rely upon other scientists,
> one would have to go through their objections or
> supportive statements and for each reason they give,
> they must support their reasons with material
> evidence.  Not all scientists match their theorizing
> with material evidence, and this doops the process. 
> I've been reading in a book that Gould (a scientist)
> wrote called "An Urchin in the Storm".  Gould mentions
> how some scientists have gotten so wrapped up in the
> adaptation in evolutionary explanations that a number
> of the 'stories' about evolution just thoughtfully
> weave a 'what could have happen at such and such a
> time, place, and with this creature' using adaptation
> as the explainer, but no material evidence is given to
> support their 'story'.  This is why I keep asking you
> 'On what grounds do you counter global warming?'.  Is
> it philosophical?  Or is it scientifically? 

It's scientifically. I have referred you to scientists who disagree that
humans are the source of global warming or that we face the apocalypse
predicted by politicians like Al Gore or by bible thumpers citing the Book
of Revelation.

     [Platt]
> You don't listen to what all the scientists say. And
> yes I do listen to
> politicians because they can directly affect my life
> with their 
> proposed laws. 
> 
> ------------
>      You see.  This is how the mixing of science and
> politics can become dangerous.  Politicians are NOT
> scientists.

You're telling me! So how come Al Gore is worshiped by Democrats, the Hollywood
crowd and the media and will probably get an Oscar, not to mention a Nobel
Peace Prize?


> Scientists are NOT politicians.  But when
> certain questions, such as global warming, would
> endanger a whole country, then politicians will have
> to trust scientists, the ones that know the evidence. 
> As to the scientists that are few in number that
> oppose global warming, serious consideration would
> have to be given as to is their opposition legitimate
> or not.  And the only way to know is to rely upon
> other scientists to look at the opposition and go
> through the theorizing and material evidence the
> opposition has to see if it's valid opposition.  As
> long as scientists are following science, then we can
> trust that scientists have researched the opposition
> to global warming.  Unless, as I've pointed out, we
> research the material evidence and the corresponding
> theories to see how many ways the scenario may work. 
> I can't just say well, the scientists are arguing with
> each other so they MUST not know.  I must find out WHY
> the scientists are debating, and see if the supporters
> and oppositional factions of global warming have done
> correct science.  See how difficult this is?  Just
> because a debate is happening, doesn't mean the truth
> about global warming is known or unknown.

Yes, it is difficult, meaning no one, least of all a politician like 
Al Gore, should be relied on for knowing the "truth" about global warming.
When there is a debate among qualified scientists as there is today, it
means the issue is not settled. So before politicians start taking away
individual liberties, proceed with great caution.

>      [Platt]
> What do you mean, "take care of the earth? 
> 
> --------
>      Keep it clean.  Don't just kill off animals and
> plants to extinction for $, etc...

Nature does a much better job of that than humans could ever dream of.  

>      [Platt]
> To log all the trees? What are you talking about? 
> 
> -----
>      The South American rainforest, African
> rainforest, India forest, Chinese forest, and Norway's
> forest, etc...

Far from "all" the trees. Exaggeration does your case no favors. 

      [Platt]
> > Because I don't understand you. 
> 
>      If you don't understand me, then ask questions,
> right?

So why did you criticize me for asking questions? 

>      [Platt]
> > I have never concluded science being a lie. I have
> concluded science
> > is not always right like you seem to think. 
> 
>      Science is not always right, but scientists have
> to fix the mess that science makes.  Unless we're
> going to go through all the material evidence and
> theories.

No sure what you mean. Neither of us is qualified as scientists unless I'm
mistaken. 

>      [Platt]
> The deal is you are never satisfied with my answers.
> Do you remember my referring you to Wikipedia? Why do
> you ignore my references?
> 
> --------
>      From what I've said above, when it comes to
> science, do you see why I asked you to take the next
> step when it comes to questioning science.  The next
> step is not references, and more references.  The next
> step is how well are these references comparing the
> material evidence and their hypothesis.  This is why
> it is difficult to question science.  I don't have all
> the material evidence and theories/hypothesis right in
> front of me.  I could go through all the oppositional
> factions to global warming and see what their reasons
> are for their opposition and see if they have any
> material evidence to support their reasons, but I
> don't have the time and gumption.  That would be a lot
> of work.  Especially, now-a-days, where there is a
> huge body of material evidence and access to this
> evidence is difficult.  I won't know if I've looked at
> all the evidence either.  I can rely upon charts and
> graphs that helps to condense evidence, but I haven't
> looked at all the charts and graphs and oppositional
> material evidence.  Do you know what the material
> evidence/samples/data is that those opposed to global
> warming have?

Neither of us are scientists. We're both relying on their considered
judgment given the evidence available. That there is disagreement
among them is about all that either of us can say except from past
experience the track record of scientific prediction about the weather
hasn't been that great. Not long ago the "consensus" among those
who purportedly know about such things was that the globe was cooling.
Maybe that doesn't raise doubts in your mind, but it does mine.

   [Platt]
> More importantly,
> why don't you look yourself for scientists who
> disagree with what you 
> think
> is true. Why do you seem to accept without question
> conventional 
> wisdom? Are
> you not curious about opinions other than your own?  
> 
> --------
>      Sure I'm curious, and I don't accept conventional
> wisdom without question.  But I don't accept
> oppositional wisdom without the correct methods and
> questions.  I don't rely upon politicians either, for
> did they do the leg work to really find out what
> material evidence exists to oppose or support global
> warming.  When science is questioned, science must be
> the questionnaire, unless you are philosophizing about
> if scientists are doing correct science or not.  Yet,
> to this latter (the philosophizing) specific points
> must be brought up, one by one, as to why a scientists
> is or is not doing correct science.  What is the
> material evidence and what is the theory?  That is the
> question to explore.
 
Exactly. Maybe we should become qualified as climatologists. :-)


-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/