My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[modest]

But where problems exist, denial will never serve as a solution, and it will remain up to those with the courage to face them, if there is to be resolution.

 

Some topics of science can be readily ignored by entire groups of the population without ‘damage’ to the science being ignored or the people ignoring it. If seekers of orthodox religion care to deny cosmology then so be it. Science is not a tool to be used in beating such people about the head into reasoned enlightenment - as satisfying as that may sound.

 

However, this topic, this thread, this discussion is perhaps entirely different. If the science of global warming is to be ignored by large chunks of the populous then real damage can be done to humanity itself by way of the consequences of their actions. This brings up a quandary in my mind:

 

Should science be used as a tool of persuasion in changing the hearts, minds, and most important - the actions of others. I would normally say we should leave such motivations to religion and politics and let science speak for itself on the merits of truth with no motivation other than that truth. If people choose to ignore that truth then scientists shouldn’t come chasing after them with truth in hand. (by the by - ‘truth’ was the wrong word to use in the last two sentences, but hopefully my point is understood). Perhaps in cases like this it is appropriate for not only politicians but scientists themselves to actively try and ‘prove’ what they believe; to actively try and persuade others to share their beliefs.

 

It sounds like a slippery slope. I have not in my own mind reconciled what the role of science or scientists should be in a case like this - I was just noticing it play out between goku and REASON and thought I’d comment. Any thoughts?

 

-modest

[goku]

perhaps the largest reason i reject GW is a lack of faith in scientists.

as for the rest of people like me in america i can't say.

maybe it has something to do with what made this nation the greatest nation ever.

[modest]

perhaps the largest reason i reject GW is a lack of faith in scientists.

 

If this is indeed your motivation then you should equally lack confidence in all other predictions of science. You would doubt salt is made of sodium and chlorine. You would eat lead paint chips and drink antifreeze having no faith that either will kill you. But, this is not the case. You regularly trust scientists on many things that you do not know or determine empirically yourself. You have no reason to doubt them on many issues and you do not doubt them. So, the real question is not your faith in science but your selective attitude toward believing what science tells you.

 

To answer that you're going to have to look at your own motivations because I guarantee you will NOT find it in the science you mock.

 

-modest

[CraigD]

perhaps the largest reason i reject GW is a lack of faith in scientists.

If this is indeed your motivation then you should equally lack confidence in all other predictions of science. You would doubt salt is made of sodium and chlorine. You would eat lead paint chips and drink antifreeze having no faith that either will kill you. But, this is not the case. You regularly trust scientists on many things that you do not know or determine empirically yourself. You have no reason to doubt them on many issues and you do not doubt them. So, the real question is not your faith in science but your selective attitude toward believing what science tells you.

I think we humans, by necessity and without normal exception, make decisions based a combination of authority and consensus seeking. By this explanation, the reason someone such as goku accepts the scientific conclusion that one shouldn’t eat lead in paint, yet rejects the scientific conclusion that the Earth is over 4 billion years old, is because no significant authority or collection of peers in his experience dispute the first, but many dispute the second.

 

I strongly suspect that, although each of us believe our beliefs to be due to reason and/or the direct mystical apperception of truth, the actual complex neurological events constitution the formation of these beliefs have more to do with our very fundamental instincts for identifying authorities and peers, the same by which we distinguish “us” from “them”, or “the others”.

 

I believe, but can’t prove, that we tend to attempt to explain human belief and behavior in cognitive and philosophical terms, but that Ethology, particularly primate, is a more appropriate discipline. To quote Roger Shank’s essay in The 2005 Edge question “What Do You Believe Is True Even Though You Cannot Prove It?”:

I do not believe that people are capable of rational thought when it comes to making decisions in their own lives. People believe that are behaving rationally and have thought things out, of course, but when major decisions are made—who to marry, where to live, what career to pursue, what college to attend, people's minds simply cannot cope with the complexity. When they try to rationally analyze potential options, their unconscious, emotional thoughts take over and make the choice for them.

[tynkyr_belle]

...Science is not a tool to be used in beating such people about the head into reasoned enlightenment - as satisfying as that may sound...-modest

 

Oh, but it IS. Because the alternative is to let THEM have the power to quash science. If the Inqusition, the Dark Ages, The Salem Witch Trials, Morons Against Stem Cells, or any other example of idiots using delusional superstitions to enforce stupidity upon the world aren't enough to convince you, what would?

 

Playing nice and acting namby-pamby with these idiots will get you burned at a stake.

 

I don't have to tolerate people who believe 2+2=5. They can think it - but I do NOT have to tolerate them, or allow them to make laws or policy that will affect my life or our survival.

[InfiniteNow]

So, with all of that said...

 

 

Several pieces of evidence for the existence of a) global climate change, and :hihi: human impact on it have been presented. All information thus far presented to try to counter a&b has thoroughly and consistently been refuted.

 

Would anyone else care to weigh in? I'm truly interested if there is scientific support for the denialism, or if it's just an example of how far off course we are as a culture and a society in the United States relative to the rest of the world.

[modest]

Oh, but it IS. Because the alternative is to let THEM have the power to quash science. If the Inqusition, the Dark Ages, The Salem Witch Trials, Morons Against Stem Cells, or any other example of idiots using delusional superstitions to enforce stupidity upon the world aren't enough to convince you, what would?

I'm not so convinced. I obviously see the appeal of what you're saying. I would that it were the case on an emotional level because I share your sentiments. But I'm also weary of science preaching or persuading. I don't know if the motivation behind science should ever be to affect public opinion in order to change society. Science does and should affect opinion through its own merits and that is good. Hopefully more people will take to that kind of attitude - hopefully politicians in particular will listen more to scientific reason and debate and use that footing to change public opinion especially concerning global warming.

 

Actually, the more I think about it the more I am convinced it is noble for one motivation behind scientific investigation to be the betterment of humankind. Now I’m wondering why I was questioning that... In any case, this is off topic, so I won’t press the issue.

 

-modest

[REASON]

perhaps the largest reason i reject GW is a lack of faith in scientists.

 

Scientists are human and are fallible. I can understand being hesitant when it comes to being trustful of people who are known to keep changing their mind about things.

 

What I hope you will learn to be a bit more trusting of is the scientific method, the process used in the discovery and understanding of our natural world. It is set up to be highly critical of itself. The honorable intention of science and scientists is to challenge information in an effort to develop it and refine it to the point of virtual certainty. Something like that can be very difficult to achieve, because there are always those who will continue to question the informaton, and refine it further.

 

But there can be a point at which concensus is achieved, and everyone agrees, for instance, that the sun is an enormous ball made mostly of Hydrogen gas. Where nuclear fusion is taking place at the core converting the Hydrogen to Helium and releasing photons in the process, allowing it to continue to burn and give off light for billions of years. This information has been deemed by the scientific process a virtual certainty. It is really no longer questioned. But it took a lot of research, study and questioning to arrive at that conclusion from the notion of a Chariot God dragging it across the sky.

 

To me, this is what actually gives the scientific method credibility. The theories and conslusions that are made in science can be tested and repeated, and often contain empirical evidence that has been painstakingly researched and studied.

 

This type of scientific concensus is present in our understanding that global warming is taking place, and is occurring at an accelerated pace. There is proof of it. It is important that we understand this so that we can attempt to understand what may happen if it keeps going. It could have a profound effect on our lives and the lives of successive generations of people, including our children, and grandchildren, etc.

 

Don't you think this is something we should consider, particularly if we are causing it? How negligent would we be if we didn't?

 

 

maybe it has something to do with what made this nation the greatest nation ever.

 

You'll have to be more specific. I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

[REASON]

But I'm also weary of science preaching or persuading. I don't know if the motivation behind science should ever be to affect public opinion in order to change society. Science does and should affect opinion through its own merits and that is good. Hopefully more people will take to that kind of attitude - hopefully politicians in particular will listen more to scientific reason and debate and use that footing to change public opinion especially concerning global warming.

 

I have suggested on other threads that I believe a problem in our society is that scientists, philosophers, and intellectuals in general, have not taken enough of a lead to actively refute much of the disinformation that is continually perveyed through various media sources. In order for science to "affect opinion through its own merits," it has to be properly conveyed to the populus. Who is going to stand up and do the talking? Where is the persistent effort to be heard and understood in our society? Scientific reports on global warming from our government research institutes are being slashed by members of the administration in ways that distort the information. Where is the uproar about this?

 

It is no wonder that the general public is ill informed.

 

If it is the duty of scientists to refute ill begotten theories by other scientists, than it should also be their duty to refute ill begotten scientific notions perpetuated in the media and government, IMHO.

 

Actually, the more I think about it the more I am convinced it is noble for one motivation behind scientific investigation to be the betterment of humankind. Now I’m wondering why I was questioning that... In any case, this is off topic, so I won’t press the issue.

 

-modest

 

To me, it is not off topic relative to a thread discussing shaky beliefs about global warming, since it is clear that people are not properly getting proper information about it in this country. Considering the overwhelming percentage of people in other industrialized nations that understand the reality of global warming, it appears they are better informed than we are. What's happening differently in those countries?

[Essay]

Good points about public perception of science, etc.

I heard someone talk about a sort of checklist of hurdles to overcome before denial of climate change could be overcome (see below).

 

"git-r-done!" ??

 

Speaking of doing something....

 

Sometimes one isn't very far along on the spectrum of "Threshold for Action."

 

1. See that a problem exists.

2. See that it is serious.

3. See that there is a root cause.

4. Be certain of views.

5. Be certain that it is solvable.

 

...and speaking of certainty....

There is a lot of language of uncertainty in those two scientific papers (Schwartz & Levitus) quoted in that previous post #196.

But it is just an uncertainty of refinements and new data (respectively) regarding climate change; not uncertainty in the whole body of climate change science.

 

Did anyone notice that quote at the end of #196 from Beltrami, et al., on Heating of the Earths Crust? :hihi:

"These fluxes indicate that 30% of the heat gained by the ground in the last five centuries was deposited during the last fifty years, and over half of the five-century heat gain occurred during the 20th century."

 

...not equivocal.

 

That's a new, and fairly dramatic, "Hockey Stick!" :lol:

 

Again, it's not widely validated (yet); but taken meta-analytically, it is another point on the Anthro side.

 

p.s.

Schwartz's low, 5 year, quotient of the relaxation time constant (equilibrium climate sensitivity) augers well for the "solvability" part of the equation; but I have to suspect that it's really at least double that.

[Michaelangelica]

i also don't believe the earth is billions of years old or that the dinosaurs where reptiles.

The Earth is about 4.5-5 billion YO

How come you don't believe this?

[Little Bang]

Let us suppose that we find an island that has just enough arable land to support one person for the rest of his life. We build a dome over the island that allows sunlight and is big enough to have clouds form for rain. Now suppose we introduce two men and three women. They will all be dead within six months. Why is it so hard to understand there is no difference between the earth and that island?

[modest]

If it is the duty of scientists to refute ill begotten theories by other scientists, than it should also be their duty to refute ill begotten scientific notions perpetuated in the media and government, IMHO.

REASONed as ever. This is an excellent point and you’re right. I’ve had some time to chew this over and I’ve come to a like-minded position.

 

Theories put forward such as intelligent design and defiance of global warming are or should be scientific theories. As such, they should be criticized on their merits just like any other scientific theory. There’s no religious shield they can hide behind. If they are wrong (and being that they are wrong) they should be debunked. I would now say I believe it is science’s job to debunk those theories with conviction - and yes I choose that word carefully and mean it - conviction. So long as scientists themselves stick to the scientific method and are always open to amending their own theories then they should present their work whole-heartedly and at the same time actively try to debunk the convictions of others whose methods and schemes are not so pure. Absolutely. I don’t know what came over me before ;)

 

-modest

[modest]

perhaps the largest reason i reject GW is a lack of faith in scientists.

If this is indeed your motivation then you should equally lack confidence in all other predictions of science. You would doubt salt is made of sodium and chlorine. You would eat lead paint chips and drink antifreeze having no faith that either will kill you. But, this is not the case. You regularly trust scientists on many things that you do not know or determine empirically yourself. You have no reason to doubt them on many issues and you do not doubt them. So, the real question is not your faith in science but your selective attitude toward believing what science tells you.

 

I think we humans, by necessity and without normal exception, make decisions based a combination of authority and consensus seeking. By this explanation, the reason someone such as goku accepts the scientific conclusion that one shouldn’t eat lead in paint, yet rejects the scientific conclusion that the Earth is over 4 billion years old, is because no significant authority or collection of peers in his experience dispute the first, but many dispute the second.

 

I agree with this. I think it is very true and dominant to human nature. I would add that this is particularly why reading is so important. When a person can step outside their own environment, family, or local network to obtain information that will make an impression on them - nothing could be better for their advancement as an individual. This is exactly why it’s so freakin’ brilliant that someone like goku can be a part of forums like this. Some forums (that I won’t name) work hard at excluding individuals that either don’t share like-minded positions or are less intelligent or less informed. That, I strongly believe, is unhelpful and bad.

[CraigD]

Let us suppose that we find an island that has just enough arable land to support one person for the rest of his life. We build a dome over the island that allows sunlight and is big enough to have clouds form for rain. Now suppose we introduce two men and three women. They will all be dead within six months.

I don’t believe we can say with certainty that all six of the people in this scenario would die. Possibly, some would die (eg: five), but some (eg: one) would live.

Why is it so hard to understand there is no difference between the earth and that island?

It’s not hard, I think, but rather incorrect.

 

In addition to my previous objection, the analogy is very inexact, because the Earth has many times more than enough arable land to support its current population using current agricultural techniques. As noted here

Given current agricultural technology, it requires on average about 1/3 of an acre and 1 day to produce food with a nutritional value of 2000 kcal (about 2 kcal/m[math]^2[/math]), about what one human requires each day. There’re about 21 billion acres (8.5 x 10[math]^{13}[/math] m[math]^2[/math]) of productive land on Earth (sources: http://esa21.kennesaw.edu/activities/foodcalories/foodcalories.pdf; The Population Press) - about 57% of its land area. So, roughly, with current agriculture and perfect management and distribution, no surpluses, and no bad luck, Earth can sustain a population of about 63 billion humans – a bit less than 10 times the current population.

This is not to say that overpopulation is not a serious concern, only that the human population-bearing capacity of Earth is not currently close to being exceeded.

[tynkyr_belle]

I don’t believe we can say with certainty that all six of the people in this scenario would die. Possibly, some would die (eg: five), but some (eg: one) would live.It’s not hard, I think, but rather incorrect.

 

In addition to my previous objection, the analogy is very inexact, because the Earth has many times more than enough arable land to support its current population using current agricultural techniques. As noted hereThis is not to say that overpopulation is not a serious concern, only that the human population-bearing capacity of Earth is not currently close to being exceeded.

 

But more people means less land available for growing. AND - the supposition that a perfect distribution, with no surpluses, etc isn't even laughably achievable. These are human beings you're talking about. Greed. Power. Avarice. How about just plain old malignant psychopathy? We're not going to change. If we don't have the maturity to procreate with ration and logic (much less how we consume the Earth's resources), then what hope do we have as a species to act in the best interest of all? We can't even convince people of the future we face, and you expect people to change our very nature?

 

Science is supposed to be about truth. That scenario isn't, and could never be true. We need to face the facts that we're *not* going to stop global warming, we'll get our chance to say "I told you so" to the morons that refuse to believe, and we'll have to learn to live with the world we created. We survive those changes by adaptation - or we don't.

 

Like I've said before - we can't trust the morons out there to make the right decisions. Why should we let them decide then? Why should we tolerate their stupidity? Educate the ones we can - isolate the ones we can't from decision making positions.

[goku]

If this is indeed your motivation then you should equally lack confidence in all other predictions of science. You would doubt salt is made of sodium and chlorine. You would eat lead paint chips and drink antifreeze having no faith that either will kill you. But, this is not the case. You regularly trust scientists on many things that you do not know or determine empirically yourself. You have no reason to doubt them on many issues and you do not doubt them. So, the real question is not your faith in science but your selective attitude toward believing what science tells you.

 

To answer that you're going to have to look at your own motivations because I guarantee you will NOT find it in the science you mock.

 

-modest

 

there it is again, if they're right about one thing then..............

or maybe there are different types of science and everything gets shoved into one area?