4 ms·

There are numbers. They may be too correlational for your liking, but there is significant data. I think you have to be careful here. Saying the data are inconc

by robg 17y ago

There are numbers. They may be too correlational for your liking, but there is significant data. I think you have to be careful here. Saying the data are inconclusive, because controlled tests are difficult if not impossible, is one thing. But dismissing the data embraces the same fanaticism that you seem uncomfortable with. Science demands skeptics but deniers get thrown out of the tent. The difference might seem like a religious dispute but it really comes down to productive criticism versus unproductive needling. The emotion probably comes from seeing something that seemed permanent, like permafrost and Arctic ice, melting away. Humans don't tend to like instability. And instability on a global scale is a relatively new phenomenon. Sunspots might be the next worry but what could we possibly do about that? It's an interesting point on the cycle of religious movements (and it reminds me of deathbed confessions - what do you have to lose?). But what's an alternative explanation for rising temperatures? That's science. There's an existing and prevailing hypothesis that attempts to explain that data. You need another hypothesis that explains the data just as well. It could be that the Earth is simply repeating normal warming trends. The problem is, that's not a testable hypothesis. There is no experiment that could reject that hypothesis. By contrast, if man is playing some role, then if we change our behaviors we should see a change in temperatures. If we see some reduction in global temperatures coincident with climate change interventions, that's another data point in favor of the hypothesis that man has some role to play. To me, that's another clear reason to pump research dollars into the problem. And sure, nuclear plants should be a part of the solution. My point on not waiting is what can be gained by running interventions. Sure, it might be a wasted effort, but either way you gain knowledge you didn't have previously from simple observation. I really don't know what the alternative is. The planet appears to be changing. We're unsure of the cause - some more so than others. What's the problem with trying to figure out things through the scientific method? Wasted resources? Unnecessary hysteria? So what? Research and development is like insurance. You may not need it, but if you do, you'll be happy you put in the effort years ahead of time.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago
Nobody is throwing out all of the data. The data, last I checked showed no warming over the past decade or more, even though greenhouse emissions continue to rise. The data, last I checked showed temperatures much warmer and much colder at many times in our past (assuming we can extrapolate, which is a big assumption). The data, last I checked, is inconclusive over whether CO2 is a leading or trailing indicator of warming -- we've just assumed it's a leading indicator because of what we know about greenhouse gases. Nobody is talking about not using the scientific method and continuing to take measurements and observations. Almost all of the types of data we are recording now have never been recorded in history, which means we have absolutely nothing to go on except some guesswork about cores and such. Nothing wrong with that either, but one has to put these observations of melting arctic ice in their place -- nobody knows what arctic ice was like back when Iceland was lush with farms in the during the Maurader minimum. Nobody had any idea of what arctic ice looked like from a low orbit view until we started launching satellites! And as for Antarctica, we haven't even been there that long, much less established any kind of track record to make comparisons. Cores can only take you so far. I'm not a big fan of running interventions for half-baked fear-mongering masquerading as science. But let's assume for a moment that I were. How would you know what to measure, what to control, and whether or not anything was working? You pull on rope A and bell D rings, does that mean that rope A is connected to bell D? Or just that bell D was going to ring anyway? I'm telling you it's no better than bearskins and sky gods.
- robg 17y ago
  If you're questioning the existing data, you're doing science! That's all I'd like to see. And if that data is being collected for the very first time, isn't that the point? Then re-evaluate each year thereafter. What's interesting to me about science in a democracy is the experiments can only be as grand as the public allows. The interventions now being discussed, even cap and trade, are more like small fixes. And look at the political difficulty of passing that! The difference with bearskins and crystals is you can measure and contrast effects. The system may be too complex to truly pull it apart and reduce it, but I still don't get what you're against exactly. You're for nuclear plants and for measurements. What's the problem then? Doing science is simply about trying to isolate causation. With more data and more interventions, it should be possible to see if man can have a causal effect on global temperatures. Most climate scientists think that we'll see positive changes. If they're wrong, we'll find out in our lifetimes. What's the alternative hypothesis you're pushing? Giving out large numbers of sky god dolls and watching for an effect? I don't think you really want to cut all research funding in the area, do you?
  - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
    Yes. Absolutely continue the science -- data gathering, looking for patterns, proposing hypotheses, and testing. I'm all for all of that. Perhaps in a few hundred years we'll know enough to have something interesting. Lord knows it took Physics longer than that. Perhaps the climatologists will get lucky. Who knows? Although if I understand Wolfram's work, some chaotic processes may be simply incalculable. I think there's a huge gap between "continue the science" and "turn over large sections of the world's economy to climatologists to make the earth their private lab" My contention is twofold: the use of the word "science" to describe the barest minimum of data collection when science is much more than that, and the mingling of scientists and politics. Flimsy science with a lot of unknowns and public policy are a really bad marriage. Sounds to me a lot like the medieval church and the early nation-states. When Newton observed an apple falling, he didn't need a theory of gravity because he could take a million more apples and make them do the same thing. That means that even though the theory of gravity is in the same epistemological place that global warming is, we can have a lot more confidence in it. We only have one earth, and little data. Right now we have science-based conjecture, which is nothing as firm as proven theories. That means I'm not supporting huge changes in public policy. If we were talking an asteroid coming towards earth, you can better believe I'd have a much different position.

by robg 17y ago

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

Nobody is throwing out all of the data. The data, last I checked showed no warming over the past decade or more, even though greenhouse emissions continue to rise. The data, last I checked showed temperatures much warmer and much colder at many times in our past (assuming we can extrapolate, which is a big assumption). The data, last I checked, is inconclusive over whether CO2 is a leading or trailing indicator of warming -- we've just assumed it's a leading indicator because of what we know about greenhouse gases. Nobody is talking about not using the scientific method and continuing to take measurements and observations. Almost all of the types of data we are recording now have never been recorded in history, which means we have absolutely nothing to go on except some guesswork about cores and such. Nothing wrong with that either, but one has to put these observations of melting arctic ice in their place -- nobody knows what arctic ice was like back when Iceland was lush with farms in the during the Maurader minimum. Nobody had any idea of what arctic ice looked like from a low orbit view until we started launching satellites! And as for Antarctica, we haven't even been there that long, much less established any kind of track record to make comparisons. Cores can only take you so far. I'm not a big fan of running interventions for half-baked fear-mongering masquerading as science. But let's assume for a moment that I were. How would you know what to measure, what to control, and whether or not anything was working? You pull on rope A and bell D rings, does that mean that rope A is connected to bell D? Or just that bell D was going to ring anyway? I'm telling you it's no better than bearskins and sky gods.

robg 17y ago
If you're questioning the existing data, you're doing science! That's all I'd like to see. And if that data is being collected for the very first time, isn't that the point? Then re-evaluate each year thereafter. What's interesting to me about science in a democracy is the experiments can only be as grand as the public allows. The interventions now being discussed, even cap and trade, are more like small fixes. And look at the political difficulty of passing that! The difference with bearskins and crystals is you can measure and contrast effects. The system may be too complex to truly pull it apart and reduce it, but I still don't get what you're against exactly. You're for nuclear plants and for measurements. What's the problem then? Doing science is simply about trying to isolate causation. With more data and more interventions, it should be possible to see if man can have a causal effect on global temperatures. Most climate scientists think that we'll see positive changes. If they're wrong, we'll find out in our lifetimes. What's the alternative hypothesis you're pushing? Giving out large numbers of sky god dolls and watching for an effect? I don't think you really want to cut all research funding in the area, do you?
- DanielBMarkham 17y ago
  Yes. Absolutely continue the science -- data gathering, looking for patterns, proposing hypotheses, and testing. I'm all for all of that. Perhaps in a few hundred years we'll know enough to have something interesting. Lord knows it took Physics longer than that. Perhaps the climatologists will get lucky. Who knows? Although if I understand Wolfram's work, some chaotic processes may be simply incalculable. I think there's a huge gap between "continue the science" and "turn over large sections of the world's economy to climatologists to make the earth their private lab" My contention is twofold: the use of the word "science" to describe the barest minimum of data collection when science is much more than that, and the mingling of scientists and politics. Flimsy science with a lot of unknowns and public policy are a really bad marriage. Sounds to me a lot like the medieval church and the early nation-states. When Newton observed an apple falling, he didn't need a theory of gravity because he could take a million more apples and make them do the same thing. That means that even though the theory of gravity is in the same epistemological place that global warming is, we can have a lot more confidence in it. We only have one earth, and little data. Right now we have science-based conjecture, which is nothing as firm as proven theories. That means I'm not supporting huge changes in public policy. If we were talking an asteroid coming towards earth, you can better believe I'd have a much different position.