Global Warming...Fact or Fiction?

[dalem]

\

I never said AGW isn't a belief system, I said that it can be proven right or wrong as compared to a religious system which can't. We really aren't that far apart. I just don't go along with calling AGW a religion, regardless of the fanaticism of its believers. It's semantics perhaps, but the distinction is important because labeling it a religion implies it is beyond the reach of classical proofs, which it is not. The earth was not flat...as it turned out. ; )

Its followers act as if it's their religion, if that's not dancing on too fine an angel's head.

-dale

[gunnut]

I never said AGW isn't a belief system, I said that it can be proven right or wrong as compared to a religious system which can't. We really aren't that far apart. I just don't go along with calling AGW a religion, regardless of the fanaticism of its believers. It's semantics perhaps, but the distinction is important because labeling it a religion implies it is beyond the reach of classical proofs, which it is not. The earth was not flat...as it turned out. ; )

Really? Can you prove "AGW" to be false? Not to me, but to its believers. If you can, then it's not a religion. If you can't, then...

[JAD_333]

Its followers act as if it's their religion, if that's not dancing on too fine an angel's head.

-dale

There's room on the needle for that observation...

[JAD_333]

Really? Can you prove "AGW" to be false? Not to me, but to its believers. If you can, then it's not a religion. If you can't, then...

You are parsing my words incorrectly. Let me try again: AGW will be proven right or wrong. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but eventually. I can't prove AGW right or wrong, nor can you. But what we can do in the meantime is show where scientists have made mistakes in arguing that it is true. In the end science will prove it right or wrong. However, science will not be able to do the same when it comes to the fundamental precepts of the classical religions.

[gunnut]

You are parsing my words incorrectly. Let me try again: AGW will be proven right or wrong. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but eventually. I can't prove AGW right or wrong, nor can you. But what we can do in the meantime is show where scientists have made mistakes in arguing that it is true. In the end science will prove it right or wrong. However, science will not be able to do the same when it comes to the fundamental precepts of the classical religions.

I beg to differ. Religion can be proven right or wrong if given enough time, just like AGW. I have faith in that...

As of now, AGW cannot be proven wrong by any data you submit for examination. Everything is the cause and also the result of AGW. Too much rain? AGW. Too little rain? AGW. Too hot? AGW. Too cold? AGW. Too much wind on a Tuesday afternoon following a full moon in a month that ends in Y? AGW.

Numerous "scientific" predictions have been proven wrong. The believers just make up some new shit and move the goal post. It's 10 years after Katrina. Where are all the hurricanes that should happen more often and more intense? Some "scientist" said in the year 2000 that "our children (in the UK) or their children may not know what snow is." UK has experienced many snow storms much harsher than the norm in the 15 years since that statement was made.

How many failed predictions do we need to cast doubt in AGW?

[SteveDaPirate]

How many failed predictions do we need to cast doubt in AGW?

I think the issue here is that the actual AGW hypothesis, and predictions based upon it are two different questions.

Even if scientists generally agree that human greenhouse gas emissions are largely responsible for the increase in global temperatures, that begs the question of "so what" rather than answers it. Figuring out the implications of AGW is a different animal than determining if AGW is a thing.

I have to agree with JAD that the tenants of AGW are such that they can be tested and measured with increasing accuracy with the passage of time. The existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent guy in the sky not only can't be tested now, it can't be tested ever. Either the all-powerful being reveals itself, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, you can't prove or disprove its existence. If you can prove the existence of an all-powerful being when it doesn't wish to reveal itself, then it isn't all-powerful after all.

[gunnut]

I think the issue here is that the actual AGW hypothesis, and predictions based upon it are two different questions.

No it's not. Predictions are based on AGW. All predictions based on AGW have failed. When does the hypothesis fail when all predictions have failed?

Even if scientists generally agree

But they don't.

that human greenhouse gas emissions are largely responsible for the increase in global temperatures

It is not.

that begs the question of "so what" rather than answers it. Figuring out the implications of AGW is a different animal than determining if AGW is a thing.

That is correct, I agree.

The climate always changes. It cannot stay the same. We should figure out how to cope with it rather than trying to control it.

I have to agree with JAD that the tenants of AGW are such that they can be tested and measured with increasing accuracy with the passage of time. The existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent guy in the sky not only can't be tested now, it can't be tested ever. Either the all-powerful being reveals itself, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, you can't prove or disprove its existence. If you can prove the existence of an all-powerful being when it doesn't wish to reveal itself, then it isn't all-powerful after all.

Nope. Given enough time, we can prove or disprove the existence of god(s).

Watch the episode "Who Watches the Watchers" of Star Trek The Next Generation.

Let me add, the only way that we cannot prove or disprove the existence of god(s) is by moving the goal post. Give a definition of god(s) and stick with it. When science catches up to it, then we change the definition. Kinda like AGW.

[Sanjac]

A note from history: "A lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth." --(attributed to) Joseph Goebbels

[SteveDaPirate]

No it's not. Predictions are based on AGW. All predictions based on AGW have failed. When does the hypothesis fail when all predictions have failed?

Think of it as a rock rolling down a mountain. Determining if the rock is in fact rolling down is one thing (AGW), determining where it will end up going is quite another and more difficult task (subsequent weather predictions).

Figuring out if AGW is a thing is not synonymous with being able to accurately predict the weather.

The climate always changes. It cannot stay the same. We should figure out how to cope with it rather than trying to control it.

On this I wholeheartedly agree.

Nope. Given enough time, we can prove or disprove the existence of god(s).

Watch the episode "Who Watches the Watchers" of Star Trek The Next Generation.

Going by the description of the Christian God as Omniscient and Omnipotent, science cannot measure or test it unless and until it wishes to be measured and tested.

Unlike the events of the listed episode, an All Powerful and All Knowing being (like the Christian God) doesn't make mistakes like the ones that reveal the humans. I think what is really being demonstrated in "Who Watches the Watchers" is Arthur C. Clarke's insightful quotation that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

[Wooglin]

Think of it as a rock rolling down a mountain. Determining if the rock is in fact rolling down is one thing (AGW), determining where it will end up going is quite another and more difficult task (subsequent weather predictions).

No.

It's not question of determining if the rock is rolling, but why. And the predictions are based on the why...in fact, validates the theory of why. When the rock should end up if here if theory A is correct, but the rock is actually over there, is it not reasonable to question the validity of theory A?

[SteveDaPirate]

No.

It's not question of determining if the rock is rolling, but why. And the predictions are based on the why...in fact, validates the theory of why. When the rock should end up if here if theory A is correct, but the rock is actually over there, is it not reasonable to question the validity of theory A?

I keep seeing a lot of "X weather doesn't match predictions therefore Climate Change = False". I think that is incorrect logic.

Screwing up a prediction of where the rock will go doesn't mean it isn't moving, or even that you don't have the right idea as to why it's moving. It may just mean you weren't able to predict all the stuff it would bounce off of on the way down.

Predicting the future, particularly the weather is very difficult, and frankly humanity has never been very good at it. So when I see statements like "No hurricane means scientists fucking lied and should be jailed" it seems like people are jumping to conclusions that aren't warranted.

[Wooglin]

I keep seeing a lot of "X weather doesn't match predictions therefore Climate Change = False". I think that is incorrect logic.

Screwing up a prediction of where the rock will go doesn't mean it isn't moving, or even that you don't have the right idea as to why it's moving.

Again, no. Like so many others, you assumed before, and yet again, that simply showing the rock is moving means AGW is true. Has the earth never warmed before there were people? This is a false assumption.

Second, being able to predict where the rock goes lends support to your hypothesis of why it's moving. If you can't predict it you may not necessarily be wrong, but there's no validation that you're right either. All you have is a an educated guess. Do you want to spend all your money on a guess?

So there are only two relevant questions here:

How is a theory validated?

How does one distinguish AGW from any other warming scenario?

And I'm not, or ever was, talking about whether.

[SteveDaPirate]

Again, no. Like so many others, you assumed before, and yet again, that simply showing the rock is moving means AGW is true.

I see it as 3 major related yet distinct questions. The first being "does the climate appear to be warming?" If the answer is yes, that leads to the other 2 questions of "why is it warming" and "what are the implications".

AGW implies that the climate is warming and human greenhouse gas emissions are a major if not the major contributor. Arguing over what the implications of a warming climate might be (such as weather) are interesting, but don't serve to disprove the premise that the climate is warming since there are so many other reasons predictions could be wrong.

How does one distinguish AGW from any other warming scenario?

That is a question I don't feel qualified to answer. I'm not actually trying to push a definitive answer to the question of climate change here, more trying to work through what I find to be some illogical arguments about it.

And I'm not, or ever was, talking about whether.

The weather comments were actually from Gunnut. I'm not entirely sold on a position on the question, but I don't buy the idea that AGW is just a conspiracy/religion/cult either.

I think most climate scientists are legitimately trying to figure it out, and there is a big jump from making mistakes or pursuing faulty reasoning to deliberate falsification. Too big for me to believe it is happening on any kind of wide scale.

[gunnut]

I see it as 3 major related yet distinct questions. The first being "does the climate appear to be warming?"

We can't even agree on this very first question.

Global warming cult believes it is. The skeptics (sceptics for the brits) don't believe so.

Data shows the earth is warming....until you dig into it. Data released by "scientists" are often "adjusted." They say this is to compensate for whatever. Fine, then give us the raw data plus the exact method which was used to arrive at the "adjusted" data and the reasoning behind it.

Good luck.

[Wooglin]

I see it as 3 major related yet distinct questions. The first being "does the climate appear to be warming?" If the answer is yes, that leads to the other 2 questions of "why is it warming" and "what are the implications".

AGW implies that the climate is warming and human greenhouse gas emissions are a major if not the major contributor. Arguing over what the implications of a warming climate might be (such as weather) are interesting, but don't serve to disprove the premise that the climate is warming since there are so many other reasons predictions could be wrong.

Yes, we certainly agree on the first part.

With regards to "...AGW implies that the climate is warming...[implications of a warming climate] don't serve to disprove the premise that the climate is warming since there are so many other reasons predictions could be wrong"... This is faulty logic. You are suggesting that as long as there is warming AGW could well be true. In other words, it cannot be falsified. If it cannot be falsified, then it is not science. And that is why many refer to it as faith/religion.

You must assume that warming is the same regardless of cause. Are the expected climate responses from GHG induced warming the same as the expected climate responses of solar induced warming? If you can't specifically answer that then you cannot say that the implications don't matter with regards to determining causation. They are in fact not the same. There is an expected distinct signature of GHG warming, so observing (or not observing) specific trends matters very much.

That is a question I don't feel qualified to answer. I'm not actually trying to push a definitive answer to the question of climate change here, more trying to work through what I find to be some illogical arguments about it.

See above.

The weather comments were actually from Gunnut. I'm not entirely sold on a position on the question, but I don't buy the idea that AGW is just a conspiracy/religion/cult either.

I think most climate scientists are legitimately trying to figure it out, and there is a big jump from making mistakes or pursuing faulty reasoning to deliberate falsification. Too big for me to believe it is happening on any kind of wide scale.

There are two groups at play here. One is the majority of scientists and academics in the field, or with related expertise publishing in the field. They tend not to be very outspoken with their opinions on climate change, and very cautious when they do speak. Offering a non-supporting opinion gets them unwanted attention from the other group. Like most people, they like to keep their jobs and get their papers published, and for those academics in particular, getting published is a career necessity. To keep your job and get published you need to not piss off the second group.

This second group is the environmental groups along with their lobbyists and political allies, a small but very outspoken group of prominent, well positioned, govt funded "climate scientists", and sensationalist idiots in the media usually known as environmental journalists (which is really just an extension of the environmental movement). Environmental groups fund websites for the sole purpose of promoting AGW and denigrating anyone who speaks out against it. The message is well coordinated. Almost all of what people "know" regarding global warming seems to come through these sites and the media (somewhat redundant here as they often one and the same) , and it's no coincidence it's always the same "climate scientists" that are used as sources or for quotes. It's not a conspiracy. It's a well orchestrated, extremely well funded, powerful environmental/political movement that dominates and shapes the discussion, and it's probably not a coincidence that they all tend to fall on the same side of the political spectrum. If you are some no name climate scientist who wants to publish you have to deal with these people, and they better like your results. "Figuring it out" is not always in your best interests, and if you do figure something out, good luck getting it published if it doesn't please the powers that be. However, every now and then some come out from under the rug, and their actual viewpoint tends to be quite enlightening.