Haha, calling climate change science "pop science".

People like to keep saying this but I've never seen any proof behind it. This sums it up quite well:

http://www.popsci.com/science

Most popular tag? Oh, right.

Global warming is the definition of "pop science".

And to add validity to my argument (because you apparently think attempting condescension makes you look intelligent): Haha


If you looked as hard for proof as you do for smart-looking picture diagrams that grossly simplify a complicated situation into a biased misrepresentation of facts, then you'd probably be better informed on the subject.

To get you started, the funds available to a field of science and the size and number of the research grants is directly proportional to the demand to have it researched. If global warming wasn't a household term being used as a scare tactic, the researchers involved wouldn't have a fraction of what they're getting. That's before taking into account the massive investment going into green technology, which some of the most vocal advocates of global warming have already made millions, and in some cases, billions of dollars from.

Also, since you apparently missed it while skimming around a whole page of text to select two sentences you could extract and make almost witty replies to, I'll quote myself to respond to the claim that oil is manipulating the scientific skeptics of global warming.


I would continue quoting things from my post and the rest of the thread that you either missed or purposely ignored, but considering much of what is being said now is objective facts, I'm sure you would simply ignore it yet again.

The only assertion being made here is that global warming is being purposely sensationalized. Considering that the documents leaked from the CRU have them saying that much themselves, there's no room to argue it.

I would suggest spending some time understanding the topic and then informing yourself on the subject matter instead of copying images someone else made that don't even remotely give an accurate representation of the state of things.

Actually Az brings up some interesting points. I remember this one thing about some "trick" mentioned somewhere concerning tree ring data.

This. There's no point trying to educate someone like yourself. We'll find out within 20-30 years who was right, one way or another.

Or, actually, it really is the biggest threat to modern civilization that there has ever been. But hey, continue to treat it as if it's "just a theory" if that fits your worldview.

I understand the topic quite well, which is why I'm not going to bother wasting my time arguing with someone like yourself.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 31 2012, 4:18 am by Lanthanide.

Haha, clearly there's no point trying to educate someone like yourself. I think your reply speaks for itself.


No.

The people who support the theory of global warming swindle aren't being payed by the big oil companies... Don't get me wrong i still think the environment is important and we should converse our resources. Its just that co2 via gas and oil is nothing compared to the co2 produced by animals, volcanoes, and dead organic matter from the sea.

I know it may be hard to accept all new science is... tesla one of the great inventive minds became a poor man after the people became fearful of his inventions, people once thought the solar system orbited around us, and we once thought the earth was flat.

The way I've heard it explained is that human CO2 production produces a tipping factor of an otherwise balanced natural CO2 production. Even though human CO2 production is relatively minor, it is enough to tip the environment into warming, which is why the change is not instant but rather gradual.

Not that I agree with that theory, but that is the only way of saying the global warming theory without getting laughed at.

It would also be good to note that there is 800 year lag time.

Tempz, making stuff up

As much fun as it is to watch Az manipulate you all, I'm afraid I can't allow myself to get distracted.



Getting laughed at? The only people laughed at are the people who actually give credibility that this is all a lie.

I like how it's implied CO2 is the only or even most worrisome greenhouse gas (hint: it's not). The current supported theory is a runaway effect created by a positive feedback loop.




Kay.

Yes, that's the theory I explained in simpler terms. If anyone says any other theory other than that one they will get laughed at. Case in point, you saying those that theorize that global warming is a lie will get laughed at.

This is a very dangerous attitude. There's a huge stigma against questioning global warming claims because skepticism has been associated with simple-minded denial, conservative ignorance and because "Duh global warming's happening".

I'll quote Richard Feynman on Cargo Cult Science (medium-long read):
When the answer is "duh, global warming" it becomes very difficult to think/show/publish otherwise which further perpetuates the stigma. For people who understand this susceptibility, it only makes the claims harder to believe because they, in fact, hold less value.

My point is not to harp on global warming, but to say that we should never make skepticism taboo. Global climate is an enormously complex system. If every climate scientist in the world agreed that in 50 years the world with freeze over, I would believe them, but I would not be the least bit surprised if they turned out to be wrong.

This is so disingenuous. 99% of the world's scientists are not climate scientists and if 90% of scientists believe in climate change its because the general consensus of the 1% is that it does exist. That false dichotomous graphic only serves to make both sides more adamant in their beliefs, and frankly leaves me disappointed in you. If you want to sway someone, you don't do it with condescending, fallacious garbage.

I disagree. I've worked in an advanced scientific environment for a year and I can tell you right now that it, like any other field of human activity, is filled with big egos, ignorance and agendas. It's definitely not what we've dreamed up science to be as a form of gaining knowledge without any bias. The closest thing to that is mathematics.

It's not skepticism, it's gullibility.


WRONG!

In science it is acceptable to be wrong. There is no direct stigma attached to overruling a previous theory (like the models of the atom! Also luminiferous aether!). The stigma is attached to not carefully and meticulously evaluating evidence to be sure it was correct. Milikan ran the experiment with enough methodology to get pretty good results when there were no results before. To undermine his accomplishment because he wasn't right enough is like undermining the work of Eratosthenes because the Earth is oblong and not a perfect sphere.



No actually, there are genuine scientific skeptics of the theory that humans are causing global warming. The theory proposed is called cosmic ray forcing.


It is a weak theory because it has very little real evidence, but you don't see it shot down when people suggest it because it implies they actually know a thing or two about climate science. Mostly because they don't suggest dumb shit like the sun or equivalent garbage (we just connect the dots on a graph when we do mathematical models, right?).

It's shunned to use your, "common sense" in science because it's wrong, a lot. It often comes down to people outright not knowing basic science but then declaring a very complex and evidenced theory to be false.

The equivalent here is declaring with fervor that Einstein was wrong because he didn't account for gravity. Yes, you would get laughed at for that.



There are real skeptics, but it's being used as a buzzword to manipulate people into thinking their often rather uneducated position is reasonable, and that without knowing anything much about basic science, they know with certainty that they are in the right.

We don't call that skepticism, we call that gullibility.

How about some skepticism for your current position please? As Tempz stated, there there is a lag time between CO₂ and subsequent rise in global warming. Yet earlier in the thread he stated that a drop in CO₂ production after WWII led to a cooling of the Earth in the 70's and 80's. So what is that little dip in the graph and what does it mean? Why do scientists and experts still advocate that the Earth is warming even with a lag time? And what about that correlation doesn't mean causality thing?

Clearly all good questions brought about by skepticism.

For those that think you are quite well educated in the ways of climate science, and that your position in the face of a large majority of experts is definitely right, ever hear of the 11 year solar cycle or the El Niño-Southern Oscillation? How about that methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide?

No, it isn't, not any more than what you're demonstrating here.

Your post is a good example of the ignorant attitude he's talking about.

If I'm ignorant I'm going to have to pick a stronger word to describe you

Oh I know. I'm very aware of the intrapolitical games that can go on. Here's what Feynman says next:
He was referring to his generation of physicists having learned better.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Skepticism has become stigmatized when it never should be. I'm not talking about people who deny climate change because some radio talk-show host said what they wanted to hear. That's the sort of image that you've conjured up.

No, skepticism has been conflated with outright ignorant denial. People incredulous in any way are labelled "Climate Change Skeptics" within the scientific community. When there is a massive social bias toward one result, that result is self propagating.

This is an idealization of what actually takes place. Confirmation bias is a problem on every level of human endeavor, the incident with Millikan is merely an example of that. It is pretty cool how you can just say "WRONG" to a bit of scientific history like it didn't happen. There's also a stark difference between proposing new models for the atom, and extrapolating hundreds of thousands of years of climate history from ice cores (one is falsifiable). Not all scientific "consensus" have equivalent levels of scientific evidence/confidence and it's important not forget that. That is what I was illustrating when I said, "If every climate scientist in the world agreed that in 50 years the world with freeze over, I would believe them, but I would not be the least bit surprised if they turned out to be wrong". Its clear from your romanticism that you've never worked in any sort of lab.

And what position would that be? That the "its a done deal" attitude is unhealthy? That not all scientific understandings are equivalent? You've assumed my stance on global warming when I haven't given it. As I said before:

More on topic, what it is that makes pseudoscience so appealing to you Tempz? I find that most often people who cling to pseudoscience have underlying beliefs that cause them to deny anything incompatible with it (namely, reality).

Yes, I'm quite aware of all that. Please don't assume that those who take a contrary position to yourself in something are ignorant or stupid.

Earth to Sacrieur, Earth to Sacrieur, this is Earth calling Sacrieur! The scientific model permits people to be wrong, true. Unfortunately, we're not dealing with the scientific model when we do science, we're dealing with other people and real-world constraints. For example, how do you explain to your boss that a 2 million dollar project which took 5 years culminated in results which are useless? Welcome to the real world

I'd say the climate change deniers are definitely winning this argument on SEN.