[MD] Global Warming: Science or Politics?

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Heather Perella <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com>:

>      [Platt]
> 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."  
> 
> -------
>      How do you know it's not causation?  I don't know
> if it is causation or correlation, but you seem to be
> set in thinking it IS correlation and NOT causation. 
> Here, again, we have a question that scientists
> readily know about, and a number of them have
> obviously concluded causation.  How they met this
> conclusion is scientific, hopefully.  As far as I'm
> aware, scientists are still doing science, unless you
> know otherwise when it comes to this specific topic.

Scientists who say there is no causation are also "doing science."
When it comes to predictions, especially concerning the weather, my
experience tells me to be skeptical

     [SA previously]
>      Data is the facts.  Data is the material
> evidence.  I doubt data is questioned.

Data is often questioned, such as the bones (data) of Piltdown man.

> How much data
> though does one need to make a more and more solid
> conclusion?  That is a good question.  Also, the
> information gained from data, the theorizing from
> data, the interpretation of the data, again, this has
> to follow the scientific process of more data, and
> more experimentation.  The longer the
> theory/hypothesis holds up (that explains the data)
> the more and more accurate it seems to be.  I don't
> know how new this Princeton study is, and how long it
> has been in the scientific process of question,
> answer, question again, and answer again, etc...  For
> example, has there only been 1 study on this mind
> influencing matter?  The more studies, with each
> coming to the same conclusion would further support
> this Princeton study.  How many studies are needed? 
> Well, more than 1 would help.

The Princeton studies have been going on for a number of years. 

           [Platt]
> 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.
> 
> --------
>      Interesting.  Also, you understand that as the
> world population of humans increases, and the more
> domesticated animals needed to feed this population
> the more these livestock will admit carbon dioxide. 
> This is why I believe the number 1 problem that
> influences the direction or state this earth is in
> stems from this large human population.

Do you have data to support your assertion that more people
results in more livestock? To stop global warming would you
favor forcing a reduction in the population of either?  

>      Then why the debate between scientists.  If you
> question the science, then you have to show what
> data/the samples in the field questions global
> warming.  I'm not a scientist.  I don't have the data.
>  I could point out opposition within the scientific
> field all day long, but unless I join the scientific
> process and know exactly what each scientist is
> questioning or supporting and what data each scientist
> has to prove or disprove each other; I can't make a
> definite conclusion.

Seems this whole series of posts began because you had concluded
that humans are responsible for global warming. I'm I wrong?

>      Al Gore showed actual data and had charts to
> support his line of reasoning, which makes him more
> credible and persuasive as a global warming advocate. 
> He wasn't just reasoning.  He was showing material
> evidence graphed onto charts.

You are familiar with the techniques of propaganda I'm sure.

     Debates are in science.  This does not mean that
> science is wrong.  You would need to know how science
> works before you say global warming is wrong or right.
>  Are you concluding global warming is wrong just
> because a few scientists disagree with it?  If you
> are, then you have been persuaded by a few scientists.
>  Why do you believe them over the majority of
> scientists?  As for me, I'm not persuaded, fully,
> either way.     

That's news to me. I thought you were fully persuaded by Al Gore
and others.

      [Platt]
> Far from "all" the trees. Exaggeration does your case
> no favors. 
> 
>      Well, all the trees, as in I said all the trees
> are on their way out.  What's stopping this process
> from happening?  There are no brakes that I'm aware
> of.  Right now, these forests are being cut and with
> no limits set in place as to how much can be cut. 
> This is why I'm against drilling in Alaska on the
> Nature Preserve.  It's the principle of the what the
> Nature Preserve means.  It was set aside as a Preserve
> where no human impact, except footprints and photos,
> is to occur.  To break this principled definition is
> to ignore what the Nature Preserve IS.  If we can
> ignore the meanings and principles that have been
> defined, then you might as well throw away the
> Constitution of the U.S.   

I think you'll find that modern forestry replaces the trees
it harvests.

       [Platt]
> No sure what you mean. Neither of us is qualified as
> scientists unless 
> I'm mistaken. 
> 
> ------
>      Exactly!  To criticize the evidence of science is
> to bring in your own evidence or to show other
> evidence that disproves a current understanding in
> science.  This is why I'm not 100% sure why the few
> scientists are against global warming, and why I'm not
> 100% about global warming myself, but I haven't
> discounted that global warming either.  I'm in the
> middle of a decision, and unless I find all the data
> that has to do with global warming I can't decide
> either way.

Well, the politicians who are proposing regulations based on what scientists
tell them aren't scientists either. But they seem to have no trouble deciding
to take away our liberties for the sake of something which may not happen, or
as some scientists say, will happen no matter what the politicians do. That
bothers me.  
  
>      Yet, you've made up your mind.  You've decided
> global warming is false.  The difference between what
> your saying and I'm saying is I haven't made a
> decision as to if global warming is false or true. 
> You just say it must be false because a FEW scientists
> say it's false.  I don't know either way.    

No. I'm saying the cause of global warming is not settled. So don't use
the issue as an excuse to increase government control over our lives.

Platt



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