OT: I know how to solve global warming

[Hunpecked]

AT, I saw that episode of South Park. If you hold in your farts, you spontaneously combust.

[Renegade 13]

Will: I must disagree with you as well. Seems like I'm being a rather disagreeable person today, doesn't it?!

To qualify that statement somewhat, I'd say that you're mostly correct, just not totally. For most scientific fields, you would be correct, as the current, most accurate theories in most scientific fields don't require drastic and expensive climatic intervention due to their doomsday predictions.

The whole "global warming" scenario is rather unique. Remember; the global warming theory says that it is an unusual rise in temperature. That has not been proven, therefore the theory can not be accepted as truth. If the day comes when it actually is proven, then it can be accepted as fact.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

I think what Renegade is saying is that the *Data* that the theory is based on is not clear, therefore the theory is too imprecise to base a plan of action on.

What Alarikf seems to be saying is that the theory still has the most consistant data that fits the facts and that the temperature is rising drastically, therefore we must take steps to lower it.

[Will]

We aren't spouting off doomsday scenarios here. The majority of scientists who are studying climate are saying that humans have had an impact on climate, but they don't go saying it's the end of the world either. That's what journalists are for.

What alarikf is saying, and what I'm saying, is: the data supports the model that humans have had an impact on the rise of temperatures in the world. You cannot deny the entire hypothesis that human action has increased global temperatures based solely on a few bits of data that does not fit the model. To deny the hypothesis, you must show that something else accounts for the data. You may introduce doubts about how much data is explained by the model, but by scientific reasoning, you cannot throw it out entirely unless you replace it with a better model OR show that the data does not fit the model after all.

So, sorry, but I'm not seeing why you have an objection. We have very accurate data from late 1800's to present for temperature (to within fractions of a degree). We have fairly accurate data going back several centuries (to within a few degrees when averaged out). We also have data that goes back for millenia from the arctic and antarctic ice shelves. It shows strong correlations between percentage of atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature. The western Industrial Revolution has been steadily pumping more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and the temperature has steadily been rising. Model fits. Where is the problem here?

[AMF]

Exactly

[Renegade 13]

I guess what I consider to be logical and obvious isn't so obvious and logical to others. I've stated my opinions, and the facts they are based upon, for long enough. I've written enough in the past 30 posts or so that explains my opinions and why I believe the global warming hypothesis to be deeply flawed and overstated. Essentially, I see no further constructive purpose in continuing this debate. I guarantee that, unless you provide me with evidence based on much more solid scientific grounds, you won't convince me that the global warming hypothesis is anything other than an idea that a rather large number of people have jumped on. After all, jumping on the bandwagon is easy.

I'll rejoin the conversation if anything new comes up; for the last page of posts, it has all just been reiteration and the same old arguements. Please do note however that my withdrawl from the arguement is not a concession to your points of view; it is merely that I'm tired of repeating myself and getting nowhere.

[AMF]

Renegade,

I know that this all this philosophy of science stuff sounds fatuous, or silly, or pointless. When I was first exposed to it all, it took me many hours over many months to really get my head around it. It is, certainly, counter-intuitive, and I had lots of trouble with it.

But, trust me, this is how scientific progress works - research programs 'compete' in the manner described above. Old theories cannot be disproven without a newer and better theory to take their place. The entire history of the scientific progress of the human race is essentially based on this.

People who are much smarter than I (and probably most people here) have spent decades discussing the issue of "how do we know progress when we see it?" Everything I've sid above, in my own poorly worded way, comes straight out of the mouths of people like David Hume, Karl Popper, Imre Lakatos, and so forth.

I sympathize greatly with your frustration. (I don't mean for that to sound arrogant - it probably does - sorry). I spent many hours in classes arguing the exact same thing as you have been to my professors. Eventually, I came to understand what they were saying, and why they were right. I can only say that it was extremely enlightening for me, and quite formative.

With that in mind, I can only urge you to not give up on this line of reasoning - I'm not trying to make anyone feel bad or stupid (although, again, I recognize that my manner of speech does sometimes come across like that - again, very sorry for that) - I am just trying to impart that same enlightenment that I felt when I really, finally, after years, understood what scientific progress and the growth of human knowledge was all about.

Useful citations for above referenced philosophers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume (see especially the problem of induction)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper (see especially section on philosophy of science)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos (see especially section on research programs)

For a counter-vailing view of all this, Thomas Kuhn is interesting (although largely debunked and I don't think anyone puts much stock in him anymore - I could be wrong on that). The Wiki article on him is sparse, but it has good links elsewhere I suspect - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn)

And let me say "thanks" for allowing me to debate this topic, especially given that I often come across like an arrogant SOB with a bad attidude.

Philosophy of science is a subject I find fascinating and close to my heart, and getting practice in discussing it with critics it is invaluable.

Thanks,

AMF

[Will]

I think part of the confusion is a misunderstanding of terms. In formal logic, there are statements and there are theorems. A statement can be proven false by a single counter-example (which in turn usually means a flaw in logical reasoning to arrive at that statement, or false premises). A theorem is a collection of statements, which counter-examples do not disprove; a counter-example to a theorem merely shows that the theorem is incomplete. It is much more difficult to disprove a theorem, because you need to prove false ALL the statements in the theorem, not just a few. I didn't do much to help in the confusion since I took your example of the algebra equation (normally a statement) and pretended it was part of a model or theorem, when I said it is still right for y=1.

I really would like to understand your reasoning, but from everything you've said, I can only conclude that you haven't had much experience in the hard sciences. It is fine to question theorems to gain a better understanding of them, but to just reject them out of hand you really do need to present an alternative. Otherwise, you are just an admitted novice that is rejecting the claims of experts in a field just because you don't like some of the evidence. That isn't science, that is dogma. Even the articles you linked do very little to the theory as a whole; the author of the Technology Review article claims to still think that human action has caused a rise in global average temperature. The Marshall paper basically says that the 90's was the warmest decade in the approx. 140 year direct temperature record, and held the position that indirect temperature estimates for before 1860 are incomplete in that it only takes into account local temperature (meaning, they want a more widespread and comprehensive study, eliminating as many assumptions as possible from the data analysis). Both basically say we need more information to refine our understanding of human impact, but neither one comes anywhere close to denying human impact. For both, the prevailing theory of global warming still holds.

Anyway, this isn't really a bandwagon issue. Most climatologists say that there is global warming because the data fits, and all competing theories (sunspot cycles, 20th century as end of the ice age, etc.) don't fit the data as well. The best fit model wins, and it has survived quite a bit of scrutiny in the 80s and 90s. After all that scrutiny, it is only natural that the experts would come to accept it as the best current theory.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Ah, but what if you have a theorum that fits some of the facts, but whose use proves futile in solving the problem? Supposing that no-one has a theorum that fits the facts better, and supposing that no-one knows why it doesn't work, does not that disprove the theorum anyway?

[Gozra]

Just a quick note the climate data shows that the rise in CO2 was evident AFTER the rise in temprature. Which is consistant with the arctic tundra and bogs heating up and releasing the gases that have been locked in since they were frozen. Yes Humans have had a small impact on global warming but are far from being the cause. What we are really good at is trashing our environment and we should be concentrating on keeping a clean planet. BTW CO2 causes plants to increase output of food and oxygen.