Science not pseudo-science needed


Calberty
#1
In this whole global warming debate, the evidence has been cherry picked to 'prove' a position rather than to arrive at a rational conclusion;

today:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WEATHER/01/1....ap/index.html

This means what? Actually nothing. But neither does the mild ' 'weather' (as opposed to clmate) across Western Canada this winter.

Pro and anti global warming advocates are often more like cult activists than promoting science.
 
MMMike
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by Calberty

In this whole global warming debate, the evidence has been cherry picked to 'prove' a position rather than to arrive at a rational conclusion;

today:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WEATHER/01/1....ap/index.html

This means what? Actually nothing. But neither does the mild ' 'weather' (as opposed to clmate) across Western Canada this winter.

Pro and anti global warming advocates are often more like cult activists than promoting science.

The general consensus of scientists/climatologists etc.. is that there are increasing data that points to man-made pollution affecting climate change. We are talking about an incredibly complex system we don't fully understand, and only a small amount of data on the time scale, but some of the information is disturbing.

I agree that it does science a disservice to point to every event and say it is because of climate change, or pointing to a single event as disproving climate change.
 
#juan
#3
Calberty

Where have you been? I hate to see about ten thousand environmental scientists, meteorologists, etc. get accused of doing "pseudo-science". There are so many indicators of global warming I don't know where to start. The following is a chart showing mean global temperatures over the last hundred years:




God, talk to anyone from up north about the receding polar ice. They will tell you about the polar bear that will soon be dying off because there is no pack ice for them to get out to their hunting grounds on.

Global warming is not a hoax though the pro-oil crowd would like you to believe that.
 
Jersay
#4
I was in geogprahy class and the professor showed us the spikes of climate change because of pollution.

And he tried to show the other side by showing what a volcanic eruption compared to a man-made pollution was.

Eruption; tiny spike

Man-made pollution; huge spike.
 
Calberty
#5
Juan,

My eyes glaze over when I hear about the'numbers' of scientists who support...blah...blah...

I'm a geologist (paleontologist) and we've had a couple forms come around on global warming asking our position and so on. So what? What the 'beep' do I know as a geologist? As one of my colleagues pointed out when we were discussing our answers, the only thing that either of us know about the climate is what the weather isl ike outside the window. Neither of us had ever studied the property of gases, ocean currents, solar activity, etc. Who are we to make any comment on manmade greenhouse gases and their impact on global warming? Darn if i know. I could describe the evolution and taxonomy of Paleozoic brachiopods but know zip about climate change.

So when I read '20,000 scientists ' agree that...? How the 'beep' do they know? I suppose that 50 million americans agree that ghosts are real and 2 billion people believe in a god .

'Scientists agreeing' on complex phenomena outside of their study is diddly-squat in value and not the same as 'Science has proven'.
 
#juan
#6
Quote:

Who are we to make any comment on manmade greenhouse gases and their impact on global warming? Darn if i know.

I wasn't talking about general scientists.

I was talking about environmental scientists, meteorologists, climatologists. There is no doubt the world is warming up. These scientists are saying it is due to manmade greenhouse gasses we've been pouring into the air since the industrial revolution. From all the evidence available, it looks like they are right.
 
I think not
#7
I don't see how anyone can deny global warming. The debate in science as I understand is how much of global warming is anthropogenic and how much is naturally ocurring and if it is mostly naturally ocurring, what can be done.
 
BorealRock
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Calberty

Juan,

My eyes glaze over when I hear about the'numbers' of scientists who support...blah...blah...

I'm a geologist (paleontologist) and we've had a couple forms come around on global warming asking our position and so on. So what? What the 'beep' do I know as a geologist? As one of my colleagues pointed out when we were discussing our answers, the only thing that either of us know about the climate is what the weather isl ike outside the window. Neither of us had ever studied the property of gases, ocean currents, solar activity, etc. Who are we to make any comment on manmade greenhouse gases and their impact on global warming? Darn if i know. I could describe the evolution and taxonomy of Paleozoic brachiopods but know zip about climate change.

So when I read '20,000 scientists ' agree that...? How the 'beep' do they know? I suppose that 50 million americans agree that ghosts are real and 2 billion people believe in a god .

'Scientists agreeing' on complex phenomena outside of their study is diddly-squat in value and not the same as 'Science has proven'.

No Calberty. You are a geologist and you can think in millions of years. Your geological input into the global warming debate is so important. At the very least you can teach people to think in terms of hundereds or thousands of years. People should know of the last ice age coverage in Canada, the de-glaciation and the northward movement of the treeline. Of past glaciations millions of years ago. We have to have a population who is aware of this timescale and as our earth as a sphere of rock with a thin skim of life on the outermost few kilometers. Then we can make informed choices.
 
Calberty
#9
It's true that geologic-time-scales of perspective is often needed. Sciences cautions however that proving 'a' has nothing to do with the validity of 'b' if a and b are not in the same subset.

I'm all for being environmentally aware (why I'll vote Green Party even though I don't like all of their policies).
Man should err on the side of caution. I don't really have a problem with reducing man's input to a minimum and actively encourage it. It still bugs me, however, that 'the science ' of environmental study gets tarred in ideologiclal debates of left vs right and Democrats versus Republicans , conservatives versus progressives and so on.
 
jimmoyer
#10
Calberty, remember when environmentalists
used to be called conservationists ?

That was the kind of guy my Dad was, getting me up
at 6am to stock fish in a stream, monitor water samples,
build deep dams, trim the creek of litter.

And when we hunted we learned a lot about
the woods we walked in.

We all came to like hiking and exploring and discovery
even more.

Sportsmanship, honor and no waste.

Watch a hundred eyes moving in a farm field just
after dusk, seeing the movement of the deer from
the top of the mountain, along the Appalachian Trail.

It was a symbiosis of guns, hunting, fishing, sportsmanship, respect and knowlege of nature.

There were no divisions.
 
Basic
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

Calberty

Where have you been? I hate to see about ten thousand environmental scientists, meteorologists, etc. get accused of doing "pseudo-science". There are so many indicators of global warming I don't know where to start. The following is a chart showing mean global temperatures over the last hundred years:




God, talk to anyone from up north about the receding polar ice. They will tell you about the polar bear that will soon be dying off because there is no pack ice for them to get out to their hunting grounds on.

Global warming is not a hoax though the pro-oil crowd would like you to believe that.

It is becoming more visible every day how great this problem is becoming. I saw David Suzuki speak on Tuesday and he put this election very much in perspective.
"All the political parties are in a car driving towards a cement wall and they are all fighting over who gets the front seat."
It seems like the Greens and possibly the NDP are the only likely ones to make any movement towards real positive change in this area.
 

Similar Threads

2
Science, Science Fiction
by givpeaceachance | May 6th, 2009
1
Speaking out in the name of science
by Jo Canadian | Oct 14th, 2005
7
Science 101
by peapod | Apr 10th, 2005