[MD] Global Warming: Science or Politics?

[Squonkriff at aol.com]

Quoting Squonkriff at aol.com:

> Quoting Squonkriff at aol.com:
>  
> > Dear Platt,
> > May i ask you  an additional  question please regarding this issue?
> >  
> > The   background:
> > That the Earth's climate is and has been, over   geological  time, 
thermally 
> > fluctuating seems to be broadly  agreed  upon.
> > However, the preconditions for thermal  fluctuation (TF) are  disputed:
> > 1. Natural Solar systemic  cycles.
> > 2.  Technology.
> > Assuming TF is  preconditioned by the relationship between  Earth's orbit 
>  and  
> > the Sun over geological time (1), then   technological influences (2) may 
be 
> > ruled  out.
>  >   
> > Here is my question:
> > How may we be  sure that present TF is not  being catastrophically 
enhanced  
>  by 
> > technological  influences:
> > 3. 1 + 2.  ?
> 
> For the same reason we  can't be  sure that solar  activity won't bring on 
> a period of global cooling, as was  widely  predicted by scientists in the 
> 70's.
> 
> Regards,
>  Platt
>  
> Mark 20-02-07: Hi Platt,
> Thank you.
>  I don't feel you have addressed my question.
> My question asks if  technology may be enhancing TF.
> You state the direction of TF cannot be  reliably predicted by science  and 
> site an example from the  70's.
> Points:
> 1. The 70's scientific prediction of global  cooling is based on the  same 
> science you cite as criteria for  accepting the validity of TF in the  first
> place.
> You  remind me TF is a valid empirical observation and  then bring into 
>  question an extrapolation from the same empirical  observations which  
display
> cyclic 
> behaviour over geological time which may   indicate we are over due for ice 
> age conditions.
> Substituting  the term, 'prediction' for 'extrapolation' may suggest  
science 
> is  on a par with astrology which i feel would be a mistake.
> 2. Therefore,  science was and is correct in its extrapolations; the next  
ice 
>  age is over due but don't hold your breath because it may not even begin  
for  
> thousands of years as observed in the geological  cycles.
> 3. Non of this addresses my question unfortunately, because  there is no  
> previous data concerning the effects of an  Industrialised Global 
civilisation to 
> 
> observe and  extrapolate.
> 4. To sum up:
> a. My question concerns how we may  deal with that which is as yet not  
fully 
> understood.
> b.  Your response deals with that which is fully understood.
>  
>  Please feel free to have another go Platt.

Sorry. I'm too dense to follow  your argument. I just seems to me that if 
predictions based on so-called  science have been wrong about changes in 
global
climate in the recent past in  the past, they can be wrong now, especially 
when
some scientists who  supposedly know about such things say the dire 
predictions
made by Al Gore  and others are wrong. If you see a flaw in that more or less
common sense  argument, please let me know. Thanks.

Regards,
Platt
 
Mark 20-02-07b: Hi Platt,
Platt: '...if predictions based on so-called science have been wrong about  
changes in global climate in the recent past in the past, they can be wrong  
now....'
 
The example you cite from the 70's isn't wrong; our generation cannot live  
long enough to span the geological time necessary to observe the next ice age.  
However, the history of past cycles are written in ice layers for us to 
examine.  If the cycle continues then another ice age will occur.
 
This is how inductive inference works:
"Inductive inferences start with observations of the machine and arrive at  
general conclusions. For example, if the cycle goes over a bump and the engine  
misfires, and then goes over another bump and the engine misfires, and then 
goes  over another bump and the engine misfires, and then goes over a long 
smooth  stretch of road and there is no misfiring, and then goes over a fourth 
bump and  the engine misfires again, one can logically conclude that the 
misfiring is  caused by the bumps. That is induction: reasoning from particular 
experiences to  general truths." ZMM ch. 8
All i am indicating here is that the 70's example you gave is flawed  with 
respect to inductive reasoning.
Platt: "...we cannot be sure that present TF is not being  catastrophically 
enhanced by technological influences for the same reason  we can't be sure that 
solar activity won't bring on a period of global cooling,  as was widely 
predicted by scientists in the 70's."
The current situation regarding TF has no inductive basis like the  70's 
example you gave.
 
"Deductive inferences do the reverse. They start with general knowledge and  
predict a specific observation. For example, if, from reading the hierarchy of 
 facts about the machine, the mechanic knows the horn of the cycle is powered 
 exclusively by electricity from the battery, then he can logically infer 
that if  the battery is dead the horn will not work. That is deduction.
Solution of  problems too complicated for common sense to solve is achieved 
by long strings  of mixed inductive and deductive inferences that weave back 
and forth between  the observed machine and the mental hierarchy of the machine 
found in the  manuals. The correct program for this interweaving is formalized 
as scientific  method." ZMM ibid.
 
I agree with you when you suggest scientific method is fallible.
It is then appropriate to be careful when considering global warming to  
remove any shadow of political influence as social patterns of value and  
concentrate instead on the intellectual patterns of value. If the intellectual  
patterns of value help us to identify danger, then political patterns will have  to 
do the donkey work of change under intellectual guidance. This seems in  
accord with the moq i think you may agree Platt?
 
The question remains: Has scientific method identified a danger?
Best,
Mark