Compatibilist
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2010
- Messages
- 775
- Reaction score
- 270
- Location
- Bunkered in 5 klicks from city hall
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Most people are familiar with the phrase lies, damn lies, and statistics
I'm sure Al Gore would like the last part replaced with "prostitute lies". His problems with his marriage and and this "massage therapist" isn't what I'm concerned with... However, this story has him back on the front pages and rekindled opportunities for those who would like to further assinate his character, integrety, and credibility. I must admit I'm not above something like that...
The BP oil gusher off the coast has brought Global Warming discussions back to the front of a lot of media outlets... and since Mr Gore [coincedently] happens to be there too... This seems good timing to question the motives of men like Gore who are making millions of dollars from green issues.* and stand to make billions more.
Educated people know that statistics and use of the scientific method are often subject to the researchers bias and motives. When it comes to power and profits... pure science is rare. One heck of a lotta research conclusions are theory as opposed to fact. Drug companies studies are good examples.
The research behind Gores income and investments essentially claim that science proves humans have caused and continue to significantly impact the heating up of our planet. He and his investors...I mean researchers... promote the idea this has occurred over the last 50-100 yrs. Though I don't necessarily disagree our planet is warmer today then when we first started to measure atmospheric temperature and variance, I question whether we are ready to make the final conclusion that humans are directly responsible.
==========
For something to be considered a scientific fact, it must be testable with the scientific method.
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative explanation, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
Step 4 of the scientific method requires an experiment. An experiment requires a control. What are the controls in climate science?
To infer a connection between man emissions of CO2 and warming is not an easy jump for the scientifically minded
¦First, you have to prove that the increase in CO2 is caused by humans - the venting of CO2 by volcanoes (including those under the ocean) and geysers and other natural sources (and also the natural absorption or sinking of CO2) is a estimate that defies error analysis. To what error band are we certain of the amount of emission of CO2 by natural causes?
¦Second, the elevation of CO2 needs to be shown to be historically real, but there were no analytical tools to measure even crudely thousands of years ago - the best work has been done with ice samples, but there is a great problem with how to calibrate such measurements. What size should the error bands be? I believe that man is responsible for a small increase in CO2 - this is supported by a lot of historical data.
¦Third, there has to be a hypothesis that can predict the past (only then can we start guessing about the future) including the temperatures in the upper atmosphere. Any model that can't fit past data has to be called wrong.
¦Fourth, as this is an open system where we can't build several earths and vary only one constant, any conclusion at best is still just a theory - a educated guess - it is not scientific fact. Science is more than looking scientific; just because things are measured to several decimal points means naught when there is no control or false logic.
¦Fifth, to look at the past temperatures honestly, one would have to show no past periods of higher temperature. The idea that we 'know' the inferred data - is simply wrong. We only have accurate records of solar output from the recent past and we are ignorant of the magnitude of long term historic variations that are possible. Explaining the small drift (less than what appears to be the noise in the system) can be accomplished with confounding variables. It might help to remember that 10,000 years ago Milwaukee was under 40' of ice, so we really do know that temperature can vary on its own. See Dpace Weather at DMI We also have reason to believe that glaciers world wide have been shrinking for the last 300 years - this means that things other than CO2 change our climate.
Real science is humble. Many things are unknowable. It is a human tendency to not to accept the idea that some things are beyond our reach of knowing, but there are things we can't know, no matter how much money is poured into research.**
=================
The problem I have is when you have a politician, opportunist, and capitalist like Gore leading the cause. Thats a sorry ass combination... and one of the main reasons republicans are lining up against this and making it a political issue. They have the former democratic vice president and near president as the accepted leader. It's no wonder he's up against the same combination with this BS 4 yr old sex case. Whats good for the goose....
I can't contest the large majority of "climate scientists" are on the bandwagon in support of Global Warming. but that's not my point. My point is that opportunists like Gore are creating hysteria among the masses and are making hugh profits in the process. He also obviously loves being in the limelight and considered a pioneer. Let's not forget one of his many nicknames that stuck among computer scientists... ALGORITHIM. Do you really believe he continues to advocate environmental change because of his concern for the well being of our planet?
No question we need to invest more money in developing alternative energy sources and the GP disaster reinforces that. However, lets quit allowing politicians, opportunists, and large corporations to push the "panic and fear" buttons to get their agendas quickly accepted into mainstream beliefs.
Sources:
*http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/bu...gore.html?_r=1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...llionaire.html
** Global warming - Scientific conclusions?
I'm sure Al Gore would like the last part replaced with "prostitute lies". His problems with his marriage and and this "massage therapist" isn't what I'm concerned with... However, this story has him back on the front pages and rekindled opportunities for those who would like to further assinate his character, integrety, and credibility. I must admit I'm not above something like that...
The BP oil gusher off the coast has brought Global Warming discussions back to the front of a lot of media outlets... and since Mr Gore [coincedently] happens to be there too... This seems good timing to question the motives of men like Gore who are making millions of dollars from green issues.* and stand to make billions more.
Educated people know that statistics and use of the scientific method are often subject to the researchers bias and motives. When it comes to power and profits... pure science is rare. One heck of a lotta research conclusions are theory as opposed to fact. Drug companies studies are good examples.
The research behind Gores income and investments essentially claim that science proves humans have caused and continue to significantly impact the heating up of our planet. He and his investors...I mean researchers... promote the idea this has occurred over the last 50-100 yrs. Though I don't necessarily disagree our planet is warmer today then when we first started to measure atmospheric temperature and variance, I question whether we are ready to make the final conclusion that humans are directly responsible.
==========
For something to be considered a scientific fact, it must be testable with the scientific method.
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative explanation, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
Step 4 of the scientific method requires an experiment. An experiment requires a control. What are the controls in climate science?
To infer a connection between man emissions of CO2 and warming is not an easy jump for the scientifically minded
¦First, you have to prove that the increase in CO2 is caused by humans - the venting of CO2 by volcanoes (including those under the ocean) and geysers and other natural sources (and also the natural absorption or sinking of CO2) is a estimate that defies error analysis. To what error band are we certain of the amount of emission of CO2 by natural causes?
¦Second, the elevation of CO2 needs to be shown to be historically real, but there were no analytical tools to measure even crudely thousands of years ago - the best work has been done with ice samples, but there is a great problem with how to calibrate such measurements. What size should the error bands be? I believe that man is responsible for a small increase in CO2 - this is supported by a lot of historical data.
¦Third, there has to be a hypothesis that can predict the past (only then can we start guessing about the future) including the temperatures in the upper atmosphere. Any model that can't fit past data has to be called wrong.
¦Fourth, as this is an open system where we can't build several earths and vary only one constant, any conclusion at best is still just a theory - a educated guess - it is not scientific fact. Science is more than looking scientific; just because things are measured to several decimal points means naught when there is no control or false logic.
¦Fifth, to look at the past temperatures honestly, one would have to show no past periods of higher temperature. The idea that we 'know' the inferred data - is simply wrong. We only have accurate records of solar output from the recent past and we are ignorant of the magnitude of long term historic variations that are possible. Explaining the small drift (less than what appears to be the noise in the system) can be accomplished with confounding variables. It might help to remember that 10,000 years ago Milwaukee was under 40' of ice, so we really do know that temperature can vary on its own. See Dpace Weather at DMI We also have reason to believe that glaciers world wide have been shrinking for the last 300 years - this means that things other than CO2 change our climate.
Real science is humble. Many things are unknowable. It is a human tendency to not to accept the idea that some things are beyond our reach of knowing, but there are things we can't know, no matter how much money is poured into research.**
=================
The problem I have is when you have a politician, opportunist, and capitalist like Gore leading the cause. Thats a sorry ass combination... and one of the main reasons republicans are lining up against this and making it a political issue. They have the former democratic vice president and near president as the accepted leader. It's no wonder he's up against the same combination with this BS 4 yr old sex case. Whats good for the goose....
I can't contest the large majority of "climate scientists" are on the bandwagon in support of Global Warming. but that's not my point. My point is that opportunists like Gore are creating hysteria among the masses and are making hugh profits in the process. He also obviously loves being in the limelight and considered a pioneer. Let's not forget one of his many nicknames that stuck among computer scientists... ALGORITHIM. Do you really believe he continues to advocate environmental change because of his concern for the well being of our planet?
No question we need to invest more money in developing alternative energy sources and the GP disaster reinforces that. However, lets quit allowing politicians, opportunists, and large corporations to push the "panic and fear" buttons to get their agendas quickly accepted into mainstream beliefs.
Sources:
*http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/bu...gore.html?_r=1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...llionaire.html
** Global warming - Scientific conclusions?