2 ms·

Anthropogenic global warming is not a theory being put forth, it's the logical consequence of physical principles that are well established. It's not at all lik

by lutorm 17y ago

Anthropogenic global warming is not a theory being put forth, it's the logical consequence of physical principles that are well established. It's not at all like Einstein proposing General Relativity. What (serious) people are arguing over is details of the analysis and the magnitude of effects. Those uncertainties are real, but it is no different from any other scientific debate. The article I linked, if you actually read it, does not advocate skepticism at all. It claims in no uncertain language that the greenhouse effect violates all kinds of established principles, but it's hogwash. I saw that article cited in The Nation, and it aggravated me enough that I wrote up a response (http://www.familjenjonsson.org/patrik/research/greenhouse http://www.familjenjonsson.org/patrik/research/greenhouse, if you are interested).

CWuestefeld 17y ago
Anthropogenic global warming is not a theory being put forth, it's the logical consequence of physical principles that are well established. It's not at all like Einstein proposing General Relativity. I'm sorry to be blunt, but this is just plain wrong, and shows a profound misunderstanding of the scientific method. First, do you think that Einstein was just making stuff up from whole cloth? No, he was working from well-established physical principles, building onto it using logical reasoning. Despite the fact that his reasoning was logical, there was still every reason for requiring verification (and indeed, Einstein insisted on it) because there could be alternative explanations. Similarly, AGW builds on known principles like the "greenhouse effect". But the way it seeks to apply these to a hideously complex, chaotic system requires extensive verification. What's known to be true at the micro level might not be applicable to the entire system at all. Thus, the theory of AGW is precisely like that of General Relativity in that it absolutely requires verification. (Unfortunately, it's unlike GR in that it's not so easily experimented upon) The scientific method requires that the burden of proof is on the claimant. The one proposing a theory has the responsibility to prove it; the world at large need not disprove it. It must work this way, because it's generally not possible to prove the opposite. When you say you saw Elvis, you can't require that I prove that you didn't. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof#Burden_of_proof_in_epistemology_and_scientific_methodology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof#Burden_of_proof... [Edit: spelling fix] [Edit #2: I'm really dismayed to see the parent post getting up-voted. I can't fathom how you can assert that AGW is not a "theory being put forth", and thus escapes the requirement of proof.]
- lutorm 17y ago
  Sorry, but if you think that AGW and General Relativity are statements of similar stature, you need to learn more physics. General Relativity could not be derived from the prevailing paradigm at the time (Newtonian physics). It was a completely new framework proposed to explain certain observations that could not be explained in Newtonian physics. In contrast, AGW was not proposed to explain any observation. It was derived from accepted physics. Not that I ever said that you don't need to subject either to tests. You absolutely do. But if you think you can "prove" a scientific theory, I think it is you who is showing a profound misunderstanding of the scientific method. You can never prove a scientific theory, you can only disprove it. You can confirm a theory a million times but that does not imply that it will work the next time. It does however give us some amount of confidence that it will. My point is that as far as scientific statements go, that AGW happens is like saying "I think the ball will fall", while to say that it doesn't happen is to say "I think the ball will fall, but imperceptibly slowly.". Both should be tested, but given that one agrees with known physics and one does not, I think the latter should be viewed with more suspicion. But maybe that's just me.
  - CWuestefeld 17y ago
    You can never prove a scientific theory, you can only disprove it. You can confirm a theory a million times but that does not imply that it will work the next time. It does however give us some amount of confidence that it will. Your definition of "prove" is too narrow. From my online WordWeb dictionary: Verb: prove (proved,proven) 1. Be shown or be found to be 2. Establish the validity of something, as by an example, explanation or experiment 3. Provide evidence for 4. Prove formally; demonstrate by a mathematical, formal proof 5. Put to the test, as for its quality, or give experimental use to ...etc... Many senses of this word relate to subjecting something to a test, rather than proof in the mathematical sense.
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    AGW is the claim that human emission of CO2 (rather than other causes) has caused most of the warming trend that the earth has seen since the industrial revolution. Please explain how to derive this conclusion from accepted physics.

by lutorm 17y ago

Anthropogenic global warming is not a theory being put forth, it's the logical consequence of physical principles that are well established. It's not at all like Einstein proposing General Relativity. What (serious) people are arguing over is details of the analysis and the magnitude of effects. Those uncertainties are real, but it is no different from any other scientific debate. The article I linked, if you actually read it, does not advocate skepticism at all. It claims in no uncertain language that the greenhouse effect violates all kinds of established principles, but it's hogwash. I saw that article cited in The Nation, and it aggravated me enough that I wrote up a response (http://www.familjenjonsson.org/patrik/research/greenhouse http://www.familjenjonsson.org/patrik/research/greenhouse, if you are interested).

CWuestefeld 17y ago

Anthropogenic global warming is not a theory being put forth, it's the logical consequence of physical principles that are well established. It's not at all like Einstein proposing General Relativity. I'm sorry to be blunt, but this is just plain wrong, and shows a profound misunderstanding of the scientific method. First, do you think that Einstein was just making stuff up from whole cloth? No, he was working from well-established physical principles, building onto it using logical reasoning. Despite the fact that his reasoning was logical, there was still every reason for requiring verification (and indeed, Einstein insisted on it) because there could be alternative explanations. Similarly, AGW builds on known principles like the "greenhouse effect". But the way it seeks to apply these to a hideously complex, chaotic system requires extensive verification. What's known to be true at the micro level might not be applicable to the entire system at all. Thus, the theory of AGW is precisely like that of General Relativity in that it absolutely requires verification. (Unfortunately, it's unlike GR in that it's not so easily experimented upon) The scientific method requires that the burden of proof is on the claimant. The one proposing a theory has the responsibility to prove it; the world at large need not disprove it. It must work this way, because it's generally not possible to prove the opposite. When you say you saw Elvis, you can't require that I prove that you didn't. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof#Burden_of_proof_in_epistemology_and_scientific_methodology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof#Burden_of_proof... [Edit: spelling fix] [Edit #2: I'm really dismayed to see the parent post getting up-voted. I can't fathom how you can assert that AGW is not a "theory being put forth", and thus escapes the requirement of proof.]

lutorm 17y ago
Sorry, but if you think that AGW and General Relativity are statements of similar stature, you need to learn more physics. General Relativity could not be derived from the prevailing paradigm at the time (Newtonian physics). It was a completely new framework proposed to explain certain observations that could not be explained in Newtonian physics. In contrast, AGW was not proposed to explain any observation. It was derived from accepted physics. Not that I ever said that you don't need to subject either to tests. You absolutely do. But if you think you can "prove" a scientific theory, I think it is you who is showing a profound misunderstanding of the scientific method. You can never prove a scientific theory, you can only disprove it. You can confirm a theory a million times but that does not imply that it will work the next time. It does however give us some amount of confidence that it will. My point is that as far as scientific statements go, that AGW happens is like saying "I think the ball will fall", while to say that it doesn't happen is to say "I think the ball will fall, but imperceptibly slowly.". Both should be tested, but given that one agrees with known physics and one does not, I think the latter should be viewed with more suspicion. But maybe that's just me.
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  You can never prove a scientific theory, you can only disprove it. You can confirm a theory a million times but that does not imply that it will work the next time. It does however give us some amount of confidence that it will. Your definition of "prove" is too narrow. From my online WordWeb dictionary: Verb: prove (proved,proven) 1. Be shown or be found to be 2. Establish the validity of something, as by an example, explanation or experiment 3. Provide evidence for 4. Prove formally; demonstrate by a mathematical, formal proof 5. Put to the test, as for its quality, or give experimental use to ...etc... Many senses of this word relate to subjecting something to a test, rather than proof in the mathematical sense.
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  AGW is the claim that human emission of CO2 (rather than other causes) has caused most of the warming trend that the earth has seen since the industrial revolution. Please explain how to derive this conclusion from accepted physics.