Monday, February 04, 2008
Global Warming, A Left Wing Political Instrument?
I'm sure you all have heard Al Gore's shpeal(sp) about the "global warming crisis". And how the earth is endangered and we need to spend more government funding on reducing emissions for vehicles and reducing waste and pollution from the America's industries and hoping the world follows in our foot steps. I am taking earth science for my last science credit and am always finding myself asking why. When the subject came up about global warming I just found it very hard to believe. I found myself pondering the internet and looking up everything i could about it. I have come to my own conclusion based on the papers i have read on it both for and against the topic that it is a political scare tactic and almost cult like idea. I could not sum up all the scientific proof in one sitting it could take days to write down ALL of the facts proving this "theory" wrong. Lets start off with a few maybe later on I can comment back more. If you search by how many degrees the earth has warmed up in the past, lets say, century. You will see almost every scientist out there has a different answer. From what i have read the most common answer is although a whopping .6c increase. You may be thinking "duh", the increase is caused by the use of energy by human beings. This rise in temperature in the past century started in the 1940's. The amount of industry during this time period is minuscule compared to the 80's and 90's when global warming became the hot topic. In the late 60's and 70's the issue was the opposite. Global cooling was the hot topic. Yes, global cooling the almost exact opposite of the global warming scare. This semi-scientific hypothesis did not have the effect and political backup like global warming does today so it petered out in the late 70's. These are just a few assumptions and a few ideas and "facts" from reports i have read. Its so hard to sort out all of the bull on the internet these days. Maybe it is true, after all Al Gore invented the internet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
This post is borderline. Much of what you are saying here is misleading. As I mentioned in class, most of what is on the Internet is crap, and almost everything on the Internet dealing with this issue is crap. The scientific evidence is overwhelming on this issue. A few years ago, a review of the scientific research on the topic was done by Science, a peer-reviewed scientific journal (read it here). They found that in addition to all major world scientific organizations concluding that global warming is a legitimate threat, that of the actual research articles over the previous decade on the topic, of which their were 928, not one found evidence to oppose the "theory" of global warming. That means no valid scientific articles published over a decade, almost a thousand articles, even remotely disagreed with the "theory" that global warming is a threat.
One of the biggest misconceptions in your post is the use of the global cooling trend you mentioned. it is true that the scientific consensus back then was that we were in a cooling tend. That is because we were. In fact, based on the natural historical fluctuations of the global climate, we are supposed to be in a cooling period right now. the fact that we actually aren't is strong evidence that something bad is happening. There has been so much of an increase in the things that cause global warming, that we have reversed the natural trend and we find that the top 10 warmest years in recorded history are all within the last 14 years, with 2007 being the warmest year on record.
Again, keep in mind that this blog is part of a political science class and you should be using only reliable science in making arguments here or in class.
I am not disagreeing nor excluding the fact that the climate is changing right now. Ever since the beginning of the study of climate it has been known to cycle, no one can disagree with this. I am arguing that the earths climate change is being affected by humans minimally. I am not disregarding the whole greenhouse effect, its pure physical fact. From what i read in the link you posted i saw very little pure science and a ton of the term "likely".
"The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue"
This statement right here backs up that global warming will probably never become a fact.
At least we agree on one thing most of the internet is crap, and i am certainly very careful on what i read and how i take the information in.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_originals/fallacies_about_global_warming.html
theres a cited link pretty much arguing the opposite. I am still young and open minded, i can't wait to read more responses and see what some of you have to say.
>I am arguing that the earths climate change is being affected by humans minimally.
But this isn't backed up by legitimate science.
>From what i read in the link you posted i saw very little pure science and a ton of the term "likely".
Then you didn't read it carefully. The link I posted was a summary of the research, it was not the research itself. As mentioned in class, "likely" is as strong as scientists ever say things, since we never have 100% of the information. When a scientific analysis says something is "likely," that's about as strong a statement you can find in support of the claim.
>This statement right here backs up that global warming will probably never become a fact.
No, you are misunderstanding the way science works. Scientists rarely, if ever, use the word "fact," that is a layman's terms. Scientists, by definition, talk about likelihoods. You are engaging in the "Desire for Certainty" fallacy mentioned in class.
You linked to the Science and Public Policy Institute to back up your argument. But as I mentioned in class, you have to ask who is giving you information and why. Looking that information up is quite easy. While SPPI bills themselves as nonpartisan, even a quick look around the Internet would take you to information like this:
"The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), formerly the Center for Science and Public Policy for the Frontiers of Freedom [1], is a conservative think tank founded by former Republican senator Malcolm Wallop...The organization's Executive Director is Robert "Bob" Ferguson, a former Chief of Staff to Republican Congressmen Jack Fields (1981-1997), John E. Peterson (1997-2002), and Rick Renzi (2002). The chief science adviser to the institute is Willie Soon, PhD an astrophysicist and geoscientist, an opponent of man made global warming and advancer of the theory that climate change is caused by solar variation. The chief policy adviser is Christopher Monckton, a former special adviser to Margaret Thatcher and one of the UK's most prominent climate change sceptics. Further science advisers include William Kininmonth, Robert M. Carter, David Legates, Craig D. Idso, all known skeptics of man made climate change, and James J. O'Brien. Joe D'Aleo is the institute's Meteorology Adviser."
This is an organization made up of Republicans, conservatives and notable skeptics of global warming. This organization is not engaging in science. They were formed to debunk the science on global warming, not to discover the truth. The particular article you linked to is so filled with logical fallacies, that it would take a ten-page paper just to discuss the fallacies and misuses of science.
Just as one shouldn't take Al Gore's word for it, one shouldn't take Republicans word for it. One should turn to scientists on this issue and the science is very, very clear.
Why is it now referred to as climate change?
Scientists use the word law instead of the word fact.A theory which has been proven on numerous accounts. It isn't newtons theory of universal gravity, its newtons law of universal gravity. Until someone can prove that gravity is made up, this is the way it will stand on how stuff hits the floor when dropped. Same thing applies with global warming, until it is proven it will just be a theory. I bet in 10 years people will have forgotten all about it and we will be onto another made up theory based on minuscule change, until i can see some real proof i wont be sold on this topic, too much flaw on both ends. They say c02 overload to the atmosphere is going to cause us to fly into an ice age. How did the last one occur, did the dinos drive SUV's? On another note, who funded that research you posted?
Global warming is not referred to as climate change Josh. Climate change or cycle is the earths natural course. The argument of the global warming "theory" is that human interference with greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is altering the climate change.
>Why is it now referred to as climate change?
Actually, global warming and climate change are now used interchangeably by politicians because the phrase "climate change" isn't as controversial (politically speaking) as "global warming."
There isn't a whole lot of logic behind a first- or second-year student lecturing a trained scientist as to how science works, particularly when you do so incorrectly as in this case.
>A theory which has been proven on numerous accounts.
Such as the theory behind global warming. Again, if you actually look at the scientific research I showed you, you'd see that 100% of scientific research done in the way that professional scientists do research shows that human causes are proven to be the most likely cause of global warming. If you were to go to find the research that supports Newton's claims, you would go to the scientific journals, the very same place all of this global warming research appeared.
>It isn't newtons theory of universal gravity, its newtons law of universal gravity.
This is why critical thinking requires you to go beyond what's inside your own head. Even a simple web search would turn you up with countless references to "Newton's Theory of Universal Gravity."
>Until someone can prove that gravity is made up, this is the way it will stand on how stuff hits the floor when dropped.
This isn't actually a valid statement. No one would attempt to, nor could they prove that gravity is "made up." At best, they could disprove previous explanations of the phenomenon and replace it with a different theory.
>Same thing applies with global warming, until it is proven it will just be a theory.
You are using words here that have multiple meanings and are mixing and matching those words in inaccurate ways. If when you say "proven" you mean "100% proven," then you are way, way off. As mentioned before, nothing in science is 100% because we never have 100% of the relevant evidence and things change. The word "theory" has multiple meanings, one of which is "something some random person thought up," which is the way you use it here -- which is incorrect. Another definition of theory is basically a synonym for "law" as you used it above. From dictionary.com: "Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena." Global warming is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory, the "technical use" mentioned in the definition. Hundreds upon hundreds of properly-conducted scientific studies have confirmed this. No properly-conducted scientific studies that I am aware of have ever rejected it.
>I bet in 10 years people will have forgotten all about it and we will be onto another made up theory based on minuscule change
You would lose this bet horribly. And the word "minuscule" here is another very bad usage of a word. Scientific analysis suggests that the extinction of the dinosaurs was due to a change of only a few degrees in average global temperature.
>until i can see some real proof i wont be sold on this topic, too much flaw on both ends.
A perfect example of the "Desire for Certainty" fallacy. I have actually shown you the best possible scientific evidence that I could show you for any scientific theory and you have chosen to reject it because it doesn't fit with your preconceived notions.
>They say c02 overload to the atmosphere is going to cause us to fly into an ice age. How did the last one occur, did the dinos drive SUV's?
This is a really bad "False Analogy" and a good example of the "Straw Man" fallacy. Of course the dinosaurs didn't drive SUVs. One of the most prominent theories about the extinction of the dinosaurs is that a minor change in the overall global temperature led to their extinction over a long gradual period of time. In the present, the "long gradual period of time" that killed the dinosaurs has been greatly, greatly sped up and reversed a natural cycle that was headed in the other direction.
>On another note, who funded that research you posted?
Good question. Since there were hundreds of studies involved, we would have to talk about many, many different funding sources. Most of the researchers that conducted those studies would be employed by public and private universities and much of the funding would come from the government (including both Republican and Democratic administrations), although some of it would come from private donors. In many cases, the funding sources would be shielded from the scientists and neither side would be aware of who the other side is -- meaning the scientists wouldn't know who funded the project and the funders wouldn't know who the scientists were. On top of that, it would in many cases be illegal or unethical for the funders to have any input on the research. The site you linked to would do none of this and the "scientists" there would be paid to come to a certain conclusion, something forbidden in the realm of science. Scientific journals would reject potentially biased research like this in pretty much any case they knew about it.
I need to look over my professors notes from the beginning of semester on theory vs law. Either I didn't capture the full meaning of both/either, or from what i understand i was mis-informed.
Other then that, great replies Mr Q! Hopefully i can use the information you stated to further assess this subject. I wish someone else would chime in, your putting me to shame! cheers!
>A theory which has been proven on numerous accounts.
I worded this wrong, looking back at it...
What i meant to say is: from what i understand a law is a theory proven on numerous accounts.
If you could please try and explain in further detail theory vs law vs hypothesis. If you feel that it doesn't pertain to this class i can stop by during office hours or we can talk via email, thanks!
Yes, the earth naturally heats up, and it naturally goes through ice ages, but you cannot exclude what we as an industrial world are adding and what we could do to prevent more damage to the earth. It is true, you have to be careful where you get your information. Most science books are meant to be unbiased, just giving the facts alone. But you look at say, Exxon(sp) Moble company, they will try to deny it. Everyone has something that they specialize in, Gore specializes in global warming issues, and there is nothing wrong with that either. You have to be careful where you get your information however, just like how everyone is sarcastic over the "Gore invented the net" phrase.
Andrew, it is with great zael that you have presented you arguement. However zeal without Knoweldge, is like a plane without wings. You however were not affraid to oppose Mr. Q's, veiw on this issue. It appears that we are all learning more than we think, we must question everthing most definity our sources of information. If you ever get a chance goto a big city with a mountain near it, then get out of your car and walk to the base of the mountain. You will quickly notice the difference in air qaulity and oxygen qaunity for sure. Although this is not very scientific it also is not political but if it has such a noticeable effect on you why wouldn't it have an effect on Global Warming. People use to not believe that plastic and styrofoam was bad for the earth but we now know very different. I think Mr. Q, has reffernce material readly at his disposal.
There are just so many things in science with remarkable research dating back to the 17th and 18th centuries, and even earlier that prove quite a few things to be true scientifically. Some of these things are disregarded weather it be due to social standards or religious views. I just don't see how a study so new can be so widely accepted amongst society. I'm still reading though and thank you for your replies ladies and gents.
>If you ever get a chance goto a big city with a mountain near it, then get out of your car and walk to the base of the mountain. You will quickly notice the difference in air quality and oxygen quantity for sure.
The reason why you make think this is because the air outside of a city it proven to be denser in oxygen. It is also proven to be cooler which may or may not be the major cause of this. There is a theory that argues against this. I believe the theory states that the heat is generated from traffic and friction on the pavement as well as the air on the car. Energy can not be created nor destroyed, only converted. And in this case converted to heat. I am well aware of pollution in cities though, I've been to Newark, New Jersey and i have seen the Hudson river. I however do not believe that that type of pollution is the effect of the theory of global warming. On another note, man... what i would do for a vacation right now in the mountains skiing.
As a United States Marine, we spent many great hours on mountains Climbing them, running them and studying them. Most often then not there were no roads close to them, plenty of trees and pollution though.
"The reason why you make think this is because the air outside of a city it proven to be denser in oxygen. It is also proven to be cooler which may or may not be the major cause of this. There is a theory that argues against this."
Proven you say by who and were can I find this scientific infromation on this matter, for that matter how many sources did you confrim it with? In closing I to could use some time to get away.
I think that styrofoam may be the fossil fuels of the next human-like life on earth. Of course I mean millions of years from now.
>"The reason why you make think this is because the air outside of a city it proven to be denser in oxygen. It is also proven to be cooler which may or may not be the major cause of this. There is a theory that argues against this."
>Proven you say by who and were can I find this scientific infromation on this matter, for that matter how many sources did you confrim it with? In closing I to could use some time to get away.
Your kidding me right... open up a science text book, any science text book. The cooler oxygen is the more dense it is. Also. I would recommend downloading Firefox and/or spell checking.
...And if you were referring to the theory... it is called Urban Heat Islands(UHI). You can see it on the EPA website, NASA, and various other non biased eco-type websites.
Andrew, I'm not kidding, unlike you I assume I graduated in 1986, a "great deal of information has change" the information you now see or are being thaught in books is very different now. Most often than not it deepends on the author's view or position. At the base of the mountain the air was hotter not cooler, unless you were on the shaded side, so much for that theory.Are you very good with computers? Good then you can e-mail me and walk me threw the process of downloading "fire fox." For some reason my spell check does not work when blogging or responding to bloggs, however I hope that you don't allow it to take away from what is being said. Some day I will so you the perfect example of that!
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/wdensity.htm
If you can take a minute read that whole article.
>There are just so many things in science with remarkable research dating back to the 17th and 18th centuries, and even earlier that prove quite a few things to be true scientifically. Some of these things are disregarded weather it be due to social standards or religious views. I just don't see how a study so new can be so widely accepted amongst society. I'm still reading though and thank you for your replies ladies and gents.
Keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of things that were accepted as scientifically true back then aren't accepted any more. A few are still around, but many are gone. Think of things that were common knowledge and "proven" science then -- leeches, "bleeding" cures, racial inferiority, the belief that women were mentally weaker than men, the idea that beating someone made them work harder, etc. The global warming theory isn't that new, and it's based on evidence that goes back hundreds of years. The reason that it is so widely accepted is that the scientific experiments that have been conducted it are pretty solid evidence and the conclusion has been replicated enough times that it's unlikely to ever be proven false at this point.
>I wish someone else would chime in, your putting me to shame! cheers!
Don't take it personal, my responses aren't about you, they're about the evidence I've seen and the training I've had, which goes back to 1996, so I've got a bit of a head start on you.
>What i meant to say is: from what i understand a law is a theory proven on numerous accounts.
Close, a law and a theory are basically interchangeable in the scientific context. A law/theory is a hypothesis that has been proven on numerous accounts.
>If you could please try and explain in further detail theory vs law vs hypothesis.
A scientific theory is the same thing as a law. A regular person's theory is the same as a hypothesis.
Left wing or not we need to be aware of our impact on the earth and space.
Post a Comment