Cowpie1 wrote:
Regarding global warming/cooling or any other cause celeb, I also know that most scientists are hardly objective. They all bring their own bias' to the table. Case in point: After Olaf Roemer determined that Light had a finite speed based on his calculations involving the eclipse of moons around Jupiter, It took the "scientific" community over 50 years to finally concede that his assertions were correct. Even after he had repeatedly confirmed his results and been "ridiculed" by the "scientific" community. Now the scientific community looks at light being a finite speed as a indisputed fact. But then comes along a number of scientists that have, based on the calculated evidence, determined that light speed has been slowing down over the millenia. The process repeats itself and these scientists are ridiculed for even contending that light may be slowing down instead of the "scientific" community taking their data and confirming or disproving it.
This is a common misconception of how science works. A scientist never actually 'proves' anything, that is not how the scientific method works. A scientist observes phenomenon, creates a theory to explain that phenomenon, and then writes the rules of the theory up in an article for publication. That article is peer reviewed by other scientists, who's job it is to criticize it from every possible angle. The scientific method works like Sherlock Holmes: You do not prove the case directly, you simply eliminate all other options and what remains is the truth. Even then the theory is never considered 'proven' since future knowledge may reveal other facts that can change the perception of the theory. For instance, Einstein's relativity did not 'disprove' Newton's laws, it simply encompassed them in a much larger theory. This is exactly what happened to 'global cooling', the evidence is still intact, its the predictions that have changed based on new evidence.
Quote:
What this is to show is that the "scientific" community will ridicule anyone who differs from their consensis. That is what is happening with the global cooling/warming debates. If you don't agree with the "scientific" community you are considered a nut at most and not a legitimate scientist at the least. Also, there is no government candy to be had in researching any other side than the Al Gore side. A lot of "scientists" are just after grant money and global warming is where the money is going. Very little is going to alternative research. Therefore, the "consensus" amoung the scientific community is that global warming is real and needs to be addressed so they can get in on the governement money being thrown at a problem that no one can prove that it can be solved or even needs solving.
First off, the 'ridicule' angle is wrong. While there certainly are egos in science, part of a scientists job is to take the position of Devil's Advocate regardless of how compelling a theory is. Accepting theories simply because they look good is bad science, its the type of thing that make Intelligent Design appear to be the real deal. A good example is with Steven Hawking and black holes. Hawking famously bet another scientist that the existence of black holes would never be proven. They were, of course, but the point of the bet was not so much because Hawking did not believe in black holes(his own theories require them), but because he was attempting to motivate a group of scientists to prove him wrong.
Secondly, as many who know me are aware, I do NOT buy into the hype regarding global warming. I do believe Gore is a loon, and that its hardly the greatest threat we face. In fact if you follow my statements on this board you'll know that I consider the impending water crisis to be the largest issue humans face currently, and its due to be here at full force in the next five decades, long before the supposed effects of warming would be at their most harmful. Other potential major problems would be global economic collapse due to a shortage of energy, and population pressures forcing China to go to war with their neighbors(specifically Taiwan for cash and Russia for resource rich Manchuria). I think these issues are far more pressing than Global Warming.
That said, I do not think we should stop the quest to minimize human impact. There is no doubt in my mind that humans can have every bit as dramatic an effect on the planet as nature itself, and in fact ecologists see evidence of this every day.
Quote:
Is global warming occuring? Of course. Just like it has in the past. Is man the primary cause? The evidence does not support that contention. Volcanos have spewed more "greenhouse gases" and ozone depleting materials in just 1 or 2 eruptions than man has in his entire existence. Volcanos have been popping for a long time, yet there is still an inhabitable environment. Remember, CO2 is a plant food, not just a "greenhouse gas". Ozone is created by impacting of solar radiation on the upper atmosphere, there is not a "limited" supply of ozone in the upper atmosphere. The earth in its natural processes emits far more CO2 on a daily basis than man ever could. It has been shown that man accounts for roughly less than 4% of the emitted CO2.
In terms of the atmosphere, 4% is actually a huge number. Increase several other items in our atmosphere by 4% and human life simply ceases to exist.
Whether or not man is the primary cause really isn't relevant. Even if man is not, we still need to figure out whether this is a bad thing or not if we wish to continue to exist as a species. Mitigating our impact is a positive step, but I do agree that we should not go overboard. BTW, volcanically speaking this past few hundred years have been relatively quiet, yet CO2 has risen. Thats a fairly big deal when you think about it.
Quote:
That doesn't mean that we should not "wisely" use our resources and protect our environment. It means that we should not make the issue a political one that has, as its goal, the restriction of both economic growth and standard of living.
I fully agree with you here. I also feel that economic growth must be maintained. That said, one also has to acknowledge that the current situation does not allow for the rest of the non first world to raise themselves to our standard of living.....
Quote:
Oh... and Wikipedia is hardly a scientific reasearch journal.
No kidding. But thats why I link to cited articles. Feel free to read the cites in the link I gave you.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
... No in fact, I'm a Fiscal Conservative and a Social Liberal who believes in Personal Responsibility. The personal responsibility clause puts me outside the libertarian hard core values.