Global Warming: The science is settled

[Guest lostpass]

Maybe it's because of my age but I wonder what happened. It used to be that scientific theory was considered something to study and scientific fact was what you relied on. Now it seems even the scientists confuse theory with fact. Global warming is a theory and should be treated as such. It's time to take the politics out of it and stop teaching our young people that it's fact.

Just my 2 cents.

I think you are confusing the terms. Scientific fact is exactly what? That that is well known and understood like the law of gravity? The law of gravity it turns out is wrong. Repeatable experiments have shown, in fact ,the Newton's Law of Gravitation is in error. Get a telescope and watch Mercury enough and you'll find the error.

Even though you drop something and it falls doesn't mean gravity is as well understood as, say, evolution. Gravity still gives physicists all kids of headaches. Things fall seems to be a fact but the truth is that gravity is only a theory and not a very complete one.

Turns out everything in science is always a theory because science can always change with new evidence. The germ theory of disease is just a theory. A theory with a lot of evidence but a theory nonetheless. The theory of special relativity has a lot of experimental data to back it up, volumes of it, but it is a theory.

So if you want want to reject global warming on the basis that it is a theory you are pretty much resigned to rejecting all of science because in science everything is a theory, everything can change.

One supposes the problem is with the terminology. Most people are used to theory being a reasonable guess. Like with a crime scene or something. In science the word theory means something completely different. A theory is something with lots of evidence, a hypothesis is something that has yet to be tested and is closer to what most people think of when they think of the word theory.

That isn't to say that every scientific theory turns out to be true, that is far from the case. Newton's theory of gravity has already been disproven, Einstein's theory of relativity only works at certain scales, quantum mechanical theory (something you use every time you check out at a grocery store) fails in certain instances.

Do scientists think that global climate change is a "proven" theory, as strong as anything else one might imagine? They overwhelmingly do. Does a lot of scientists believing something make it automatically so? Of course not, history is replete with examples of where the scientific community got it wrong. In fact, the scientific community gets things wrong all the time but the self correcting nature of science refines the theories, or produces new theories, so that the current theories reflect the current data. Though I will note that for some closely held beliefs the time it takes for a better theory to replace an inaccurate theory tends to roughly be the same amount of time it takes for the old professors to die out and new ones to take their place.

Edited September 1, 2011 by lostpass

[Caster]

Al Gore invented theory.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

So if you want want to reject global warming on the basis that it is a theory you are pretty resigned to rejecting all of science because in science everything is a theory, everything can change.

One supposes the problem is with the terminology. Most people are used to theory being a reasonable guess. Like with a crime scene or something. In science the word theory means something completely different. A theory is something with lots of evidence, a hypothesis is something that has yet to be tested and is closer to what most people think of when they think of the word theory.

Words are all we have but they are slippery. For instance in the modern understanding, a skeptic is a disbeliever. But a classical skeptic would carefully avoid final conclusions. A classical skeptic would neither believe nor disbelieve.

Philosophical skepticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Münchhausen Trilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some science perfessors I've met (the favorites who seemed most knowledgable) were skeptics in the greek sense who were unashamed to admit, "I don't know." My least favorites were the ones who know everything. That is mere personal preference. Perhaps the perfessors who know everything really do! Never can tell.

The "scientific method" is a powerful tool but only a tiny corner of epistemology. Classical skepticism isn't quite the same as the scientific method though they share some traits. Science is a fantastic tool for many problems. My prejudice concludes that no one has yet broken the greek concept of skepticism.

A true anthopogenic global warming skeptic, in the classical greek sense, would explain, "I have no firm opinion on anthropogenic global warming." Many colloquial climate change skeptics merely disbelieve it completely. Those guys are not true skeptics. They are merely the mirror-image of AGW true-believers such as Gore or Hansen. It seems that some actors such as James Hansen, Michael Mann or Phil Jones, are no more objective than Steve McIntyre or Ross McKitrick.

Classical skepticism seems the most reasonable approach, which isn't incompatible with a scientific outlook except for a refusal to be "backed into a corner" by the "rules of the game" as compulsively followed by the more hide-bound scientists.

No one is perfect, but my aspiration is to be aware of evidence but make no irreversible conclusions. AGW predictions have been made. Prediction is a risky game. Maybe I'll live long enough to see if the predictions come true. Until then, I strive to have no firm opinion on AGW one way or t'other. Because we can't run multiple double-blind experiments on the environment, all we can do is muddle thru with interventional analysis many years after-the-fact. The "true predictions" will then be vindicated. Or maybe the prophets will only be vindicated of lucky guesses. Got the correct answer using the wrong calculations.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Lester Weevils

[Mark@Sea]

Can somebody please point to a "green" initiative that has actually saved us money - or for that matter, energy?

Windpower - nope, cost us billions and lost jobs

Solar power - second verse, same as the first. Another half-billion lost today, in fact.

Etha-effing-nol? Please - takes more in fuel to produce than you get out of it, not to mention reduced mileage and engine damage. Billions lost in subsidies, to boot.

EPA regs restricting coal power? Yeah, I like the idea of losing 30% of our generating capacity with nothing to replace it.

Flourescent bulbs - I'm gonna beat you with a crowbar until you see the light. Jobs lost. Hazardous waste. Lousy output matched by lousy lifespan.

Carbon trading scams? Uh huh. What color is the sky in your world, again?

Electric vehicles? Say, Sparky, where do you suppose the juice comes from?

So far, every green initiative has cost us billions, lost American jobs, increased consumer costs, and done diddly to "reduce our dependence on foreign oil", "save the planet/polar bears/south sea islanders" or any of the other code phrases used by the watermellon left to attempt to justify the economic, political and in some cases ecological damages their BS has caused.

After being called a "Denier" for years, threatened with all sorts of dire consequences, ridiculed, insulted and slandered - take your green platitudes and attitudes and shove it.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Mark@Sea
Formatting lost - global warming done it

[BigK]

I'm just sick of our gov't propping up initiatives like GW research et al. with money we don't have, just so lifelong congressmen can gain political favor, power, and money.

[MattCary]

Question I'd really like to hear Al "Welcome to Tennessee, home of Vice-President Al Gore (And 11 Electoral College votes for George W. Bush)" Gore:

"How did the last Ice Age end?

[Guest PapaB]

lostpass wrote

I think you are confusing the terms.

Nope. I understand the difference between a fact, a theory, an axiom, a postulate etc. I refer to a scientific axiom by the way, not a mathmatical axiom which is different.

So if you want want to reject global warming on the basis that it is a theory you are pretty much resigned to rejecting all of science because in science everything is a theory, everything can change.

I don't reject global warming on the basis that it is a theory, I reject the teaching that it is fact and that it is caused by man.

You have confused the difference between a fact and a theory based on whether all information on the subject is known. It is an axiom that the Sun warms the Earth but that doesn't mean we know all there is about how it does. The same is true with gravity. We don't know all there is, but we do know it exists on Earth.

Think about our eyesight. We knew for a fact that we saw in color for hundreds of years before we knew how it worked. That didn't make seeing in color a theory, it made it an accepted truth (in other words, a scientific axiom) that was not yet fully understood.

Thanks for the discussion lostpass, I've enjoyed it.

[Guest PapaB]

Al Gore invented theory.

I thought Al Gore was a theory.

Edited September 1, 2011 by PapaB

[Caster]

I thought Al Gore was a theory.

No that was disproved years ago due to a lack of intelligence.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Question I'd really like to hear Al "Welcome to Tennessee, home of Vice-President Al Gore (And 11 Electoral College votes for George W. Bush)" Gore:

"How did the last Ice Age end?

That is a good point MattCary

Another good question might be how the ice age began? Alternately, how did the permafrost manage to freeze in the first place?

Some are fearful of positive feedback runaway warming if the permafrost melts and releases its methane. However, all that arctic rotting vegetable matter was most likely generating the same quantity of methane up to the point that it froze however long ago in the past? If methane is such a potent greenhouse gas, then the cause of the cooling must have been potent indeed to over-ride the effect of the methane and freeze the methane generators?

Nope. I understand the difference between a fact, a theory, an axiom, a postulate etc. I refer to a scientific axiom by the way, not a mathmatical axiom which is different.

I don't reject global warming on the basis that it is a theory, I reject the teaching that it is fact and that it is caused by man.

You have confused the difference between a fact and a theory based on whether all information on the subject is known.

Thanks PapaB. Interesting.

[MattCary]

That is a good point MattCary

Another good question might be how the ice age began? Alternately, how did the permafrost manage to freeze in the first place?

Exactly my point, Lester! I'll promise you it wasn't AGW, or greenhouse gas emissions from SUVs. In fact, I'd argue it was *gasp* Climate Change!

[Guest lostpass]

Words are all we have but they are slippery. For instance in the modern understanding, a skeptic is a disbeliever. But a classical skeptic would carefully avoid final conclusions. A classical skeptic would neither believe nor disbelieve.

Philosophical skepticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Münchhausen Trilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some science perfessors I've met (the favorites who seemed most knowledgable) were skeptics in the greek sense who were unashamed to admit, "I don't know." My least favorites were the ones who know everything. That is mere personal preference. Perhaps the perfessors who know everything really do! Never can tell.

The "scientific method" is a powerful tool but only a tiny corner of epistemology. Classical skepticism isn't quite the same as the scientific method though they share some traits. Science is a fantastic tool for many problems. My prejudice concludes that no one has yet broken the greek concept of skepticism.

A true anthopogenic global warming skeptic, in the classical greek sense, would explain, "I have no firm opinion on anthropogenic global warming." Many colloquial climate change skeptics merely disbelieve it completely. Those guys are not true skeptics. They are merely the mirror-image of AGW true-believers such as Gore or Hansen. It seems that some actors such as James Hansen, Michael Mann or Phil Jones, are no more objective than Steve McIntyre or Ross McKitrick.

Classical skepticism seems the most reasonable approach, which isn't incompatible with a scientific outlook except for a refusal to be "backed into a corner" by the "rules of the game" as compulsively followed by the more hide-bound scientists.

No one is perfect, but my aspiration is to be aware of evidence but make no irreversible conclusions. AGW predictions have been made. Prediction is a risky game. Maybe I'll live long enough to see if the predictions come true. Until then, I strive to have no firm opinion on AGW one way or t'other. Because we can't run multiple double-blind experiments on the environment, all we can do is muddle thru with interventional analysis many years after-the-fact. The "true predictions" will then be vindicated. Or maybe the prophets will only be vindicated of lucky guesses. Got the correct answer using the wrong calculations.

Nicely done Mssr Weevils! A cogent explanation of "skeptic" indeed. Though I might disagree on the prediction bit. If an accurate prediction os made I am much more inclined to accept the hypothesis than if the prediction is unfulfilled. I've been skeptical for year about the Higgs boson, it would explain much but there is little evidence. As much as I want the boson to exist on a personal level it appears that it may not exist at all. I'll be forced to accept that result.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Nicely done Mssr Weevils! A cogent explanation of "skeptic" indeed. Though I might disagree on the prediction bit. If an accurate prediction os made I am much more inclined to accept the hypothesis than if the prediction is unfulfilled. I've been skeptical for year about the Higgs boson, it would explain much but there is little evidence. As much as I want the boson to exist on a personal level it appears that it may not exist at all. I'll be forced to accept that result.

Hi lostpass

Perhaps it depends somewhat on the accuracy of the prediction? There are "pure objective scientific" factors and there are human nature social psychology factors. I'm hopelessly ignorant of everything. Just spouting off.

Though there are many computer models with differering predictions, and "averages of the models", a true ringer would be highly correlated to all details of the "future history". An accurate enough "winning model" would have a low probability of being accurate merely because of chance. On the other hand people win the lottery every day against fabulous odds, but few people consider that unusual. Merely because a fellow wins the lottery against a p < 1e-12 or whatever, doesn't impart "true prophet" or "scientific insight" on the winner. Lucky guess. Somebody had to win it eventually regardless of the odds.

There are three general results-- "It will get warmer", "It will get colder", "It will stay about the same". If it is warmer in 10 years then AGW advocates will take the evidence as vindication even if no models exactly match the results. Similarly if it gets colder 10 years in the future than AGW deniers will take the evidence as vindication. If it stays about the same then both camps will publish reasonable-sounding explanations why they have always been correct even though the results failed to match predictions.

Wish had time to pay more attention to the trivia. A couple of years ago found the time to read some documents explaining the rationale for adjustment and scaling of the meterorological and satellite records. The scaling is a sore spot with skeptics of course. As best I could tell wading thru the papers, the records have been scaled, batched and smoothed because the records are so bad as to be nearly worthless. It must be frustrating because meterologists, sea captains, amateurs and gov agencies have fastidiously to the best of their ability kept records for hundreds of years, but the various data sets are so uncalibrated against each other that you have to do something to try to salvage the data.

Reminds of data processing I know a little more about-- If you have a very noisy distorted audio recording-- If it is not too bad you can understand the speech in spite of all the noise. If it remains unintelligible, but it isn't "unsalvagably bad" then you might be able to apply various DSP to the audio and perhaps one of the DSP methods will make the speech intelligible. But there are many DSP solutions depending on the signal and you can't know beforehand which will work. All you can do is try multiple approaches and hope at least one technique will work. If you apply extreme dynamic techniques it is even possible that the voice could be clarified but the processing could actually change some of the words to different words that were not in the original speech. And if the signal is truly bad, nothing will make it intelligible. Lost forever.

It may be the same quandary trying to clean up climate data. If you don't know what the dataset "ought to have been" then you can't be certain that your processing has made the data "better". That doesn't keep people from trying of course. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is everywhere. Not just quantum mechanics.

Apologies drifting making not much sense. It just seems an example which handily reinforces the classical skeptic attitude that it is difficult/impossible to know anything. Probabilistic knowledge at best. One must however avoid making absolute declaration that knowledge is impossible. Otherwise one would become dogmatic. If it is impossible to know anything then it is impossible to know that one can't know anything.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Lester Weevils
spelling

[Guest nicemac]

I have a problem with scientists attempting to clean up the data, going back hundred years, claiming 1/10 of a degree accuracy, when there is no way to determine the accuracy or placement of measuring devices (thermometers) that were used. I have seen the photos of "official" weather stations perched above a gas grill in the middle of an asphalt parking lot at a fire station…

Then, politicians want me to change my habits and implement trillions of dollars of changes in society (56mpg average cars by 2017) based on the notion that "the science is settled" and we have to go green to save ourselves.

Man is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is.

[G27]

Man is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is.

This times about 1,000,000...

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I have a problem with scientists attempting to clean up the data, going back hundred years, claiming 1/10 of a degree accuracy, when there is no way to determine the accuracy or placement of measuring devices (thermometers) that were used. I have seen the photos of "official" weather stations perched above a gas grill in the middle of an asphalt parking lot at a fire station…

Then, politicians want me to change my habits and implement trillions of dollars of changes in society (56mpg average cars by 2017) based on the notion that "the science is settled" and we have to go green to save ourselves.

Man is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is.

Hi nicemac

Agreed that radical processing might reduce the odds of getting both precise and accurate data. If we start with signal + noise but we are only interested in the signal, then don't we have to discard information in order to accomplish the task? The output will contain less information than the input and AFAIK there is no such thing as a perfect filter. The output may contain less noise, but some noise will remain in the output. The output will also contain less signal, because the filter will remove some of the signal along with some of the noise. On the other hand if one's chosen job is to study global climate, then something has to be done to put the data into usable form.

Its all good academically speaking. If people don't study the climate then we will never learn about it. The computer models are worthy endeavors as well. However, redesigning the world to the tune of trillions of dollars based on wobbly data doesn't at first glance appear a fabulous idea.

As best I recall reading about the rationale and methods to clean up the data set, the math and methods were simpler than expected. Simple isn't necessarily bad. On the other hand, if the climate scientists want as squeaky-clean output possible-- If they could hire a team of top DSP engineers to clean up the data. The fellers who design modern radar or hundreds of channels encoded in a satellite transmission. However it may be considerably more difficult to understand the explanation of what they did to the data, and why.

[Guest nicemac]

I don't think there is anywhere near the amount of data needed to make wholesale changes to every area of our lives, costing trillions of dollars. We just don't know enough. There is no way to clean up data from hundred years ago. The instruments just weren't accurate enough to begin with. We are talking fractions of a degree. Across the globe.

Should we do things we know are responsible? Sure, don't dump chemicals into rivers, etc… But to categorically say that MAN is responsible for "climate change" is wrong. The climate has changed–warmer and colder–since time began and SUVs have only been around a few years. In the April 28, 1975 issue of NewsWeek, scientists proclaimed that we were definitely headed for another ice age.

http://thececils.net/tgo/Global_Cooling_Newsweek.pdf

We just don't know enough and there is no way to use a few years of good data and extrapolate that out to make decisions that negatively impact everyone on the planet.

[kieefer]

Interesting recent article;

Lawrence Solomon: Science getting settled | FP Comment | Financial Post

[Guest lostpass]

lostpass wrote

Nope. I understand the difference between a fact, a theory, an axiom, a postulate etc. I refer to a scientific axiom by the way, not a mathmatical axiom which is different.

I don't reject global warming on the basis that it is a theory, I reject the teaching that it is fact and that it is caused by man..

Are you sure about this? Cause you said...

Maybe it's because of my age but I wonder what happened. It used to be that scientific theory was considered something to study and scientific fact was what you relied on. Now it seems even the scientists confuse theory with fact. Global warming is a theory and should be treated as such. It's time to take the politics out of it and stop teaching our young people that it's fact.

Just my 2 cents.

You have confused the difference between a fact and a theory based on whether all information on the subject is known. It is an axiom that the Sun warms the Earth but that doesn't mean we know all there is about how it does. The same is true with gravity. We don't know all there is, but we do know it exists on Earth..

If you've all the possible information on something you win!

Think about our eyesight. We knew for a fact that we saw in color for hundreds of years before we knew how it worked. That didn't make seeing in color a theory, it made it an accepted truth (in other words, a scientific axiom) that was not yet fully understood.

Thanks for the discussion lostpass, I've enjoyed it.

indeed, I am the one confused. Axiom, fact and theory are muddled in my head. But I am slow that way. Not being smart and such I don't know about this stuff. I do, however, try to admit my mistakes. It was hard at first but I make so many it is getting easier over time.

[tnhawk]

Another good question might be how the ice age began? Alternately, how did the permafrost manage to freeze in the first place?

The next ice age will begin when Agore's bank account melts.

[Guest PapaB]

Are you sure about this? Cause you said...

If you've all the possible information on something you win!

indeed, I am the one confused. Axiom, fact and theory are muddled in my head. But I am slow that way. Not being smart and such I don't know about this stuff. I do, however, try to admit my mistakes. It was hard at first but I make so many it is getting easier over time.

Frankly, I'm not sure where your confusion is with my statements. I originally stated that theory, when taught in my school years, was taught as a theory being studied. I have no problem with teaching about scientific theory as something theoretical that is being looked at. I object to taking a science subject like global warming, now referred to as climate change, and teaching it to children in a way that makes it appear to be fact. There is nothing close to an agreement within the scientific community on the cause of climate change. What they teach isn't really based on science as much as it's based on political correctness.

BTW, if this ("If you've all the possible information on something you win!") is your standard, you're going to be sorely disappointed in life. No one person has all the possible information on anything, not even Stephen Hawking.

[Guest lostpass]

Frankly, I'm not sure where your confusion is with my statements. I originally stated that theory, when taught in my school years, was taught as a theory being studied. I have no problem with teaching about scientific theory as something theoretical that is being looked at. I object to taking a science subject like global warming, now referred to as climate change, and teaching it to children in a way that makes it appear to be fact. There is nothing close to an agreement within the scientific community on the cause of climate change. What they teach isn't really based on science as much as it's based on political correctness.

BTW, if this ("If you've all the possible information on something you win!") is your standard, you're going to be sorely disappointed in life. No one person has all the possible information on anything, not even Stephen Hawking.

So you really still don't get the difference between theory in a scientific sense and theory in the common sense.

Let me help you out. Everything, gravity, quantum mechanics, evolution, global warming, climate change, germs cause disease, light propagation, continental drift, and so forth is theory. Science is only theory. The fundamental basis of science (we can understand the world by observation) is theory.

What you were taught was theory. The only thing about science you've known was theory. The only thing you can now about science is theory.

What you really are disagreeing with is theories you don't like. Which is fine, science is wrong all the time. For years people thought newtons laws were correct after all.

"BTW, if this ("If you've all the possible information on something you win!") is your standard, you're going to be sorely disappointed in life. No one person has all the possible information on anything, not even Stephen Hawking."

If you had all the possible information it wouldn't be a theory. See that was supposed to be an aha moment, where you say "OMG, I don't know everything!"

Here is your chance to educate me on the difference between theory and fact.

Of course you can't. You'll go on about gravity and so forth but you'll fail miserably because you don't really understand science or facts.

I will help you out. Observation: Lead makes people stupid.

This certainly happens. Lead when ingested results in lower IQ scores. (IQ scores are a different matter entirely). So we'll agree that one of the effects of lead poisoning is reduced IQ scores. Observation: We've got a lot more lead in our bodies than we had fifty years ago. Observation: Inner city kids are stupider(as measured by the tests) than non inner city kids.

Solution, this is what you really have a problem with: Ban lead from paint and children's toys and from gasoline.

IT all makes perfect sense, it all adds up. But, as far as I know, it hasn't made inner city kids any smarter.

What you are really objecting to is not the theory, you are objecting to the solution. That is not a bad thing to object to because finding a problem and the solution are not the same thing. One is just a measurement thing the other requires a certain level of creativity.

[Guest PapaB]

You obviously have a definition of "scientific theory" that's different than any I've ever heard. Somehow you've been convinced that something is theory unless everything that can be known about it, is known about it. According to your definition, the existence of the elements is theory

Science is only theory

, the concept of weight is theory as well as simple axioms such as water is wet and sunshine gives light.

Time to end this insipid discussion.

[E4 No More]

Man is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is.

Ding, ding, ding!!! We have a winner!

The pursuit of PhD's and "Publish or perish" has rotted our system to the core.

When I started my first science class in college I was taught that the number one rule for a scientist was to have an open mind. Sure, it's ok to anticipate a particular outcome from an experiment, but you had to have your mind open to the unexpected outcome as well. Unfortunately, this seems to have been thrown out the door by a copious number of "scientists." I have also never seen a time when so much conjecture has been inserted into "science" and passed off as fact to the public.

Am I the only one who's noticed the tendency of scientists to trumpet their findings and mumble their confessions of error?

[Guest bkelm18]

You obviously have a definition of "scientific theory" that's different than any I've ever heard. Somehow you've been convinced that something is theory unless everything that can be known about it, is known about it. According to your definition, the existence of the elements is theory , the concept of weight is theory as well as simple axioms such as water is wet and sunshine gives light.

Time to end this insipid discussion.

His definition of scientific theory is pretty much THE definition of scientific theory. As lostpass stated, you seem to be having trouble grasping the great differences between scientific theory, and common theory.

Time to end this insipid discussion.

Classy.

Edited September 7, 2011 by bkelm18