EPTTL vs. Climate Change (Denial) - Page 12
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
PetitCrabe
Canada410 Posts
| ||
|
PetitCrabe
Canada410 Posts
| ||
imallinson
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On December 14 2011 00:57 frogrubdown wrote: I don't have any statistics on this, but it certainly seems that Popper's is the philosophy of choice for working scientists. I've heard tons of them commit themselves to it casually in person, interviews, blogs, and pop science books. That's obviously not rock solid evidence, but it's still a weird trend. As for why, yes falsification is simple and better than nothing, but why not just teach them that our evidence gives us a positive reason to believe in scientific theories (it confirms them)? I know that all attempts to provide a precise account of the logic of confirmation have been failures, but I don't think that should be cause to abandon the idea that confirmation is at work at all. Falsifiability isn't concerned with whether a scientific hypothesis is right. That, as you have pointed out, is dealt with by evidence. Falsifiability is used as a measure of whether a hypothesis is scientific, and more importantly relevant, in the first place. For a hypothesis to be completely unfalsifiable it has to have no measurable effect on the world because measuring it would allow it to be proved or disproved. If a hypothesis has no measurable effects then there is no point in the hypothesis existing. You're hypothesis needs to be falsifiable and have evidence to be valid. | ||
|
KaslimDogs
27 Posts
Also I hate the fact that climate deniers are shot down, i read somewhere that the britain's Royal Society wrote a letter to Exxon-Mobil or Shell (can't remember) to stop funding climate change deniers. I found it pretty damn ironic that the Royal Society's motto is Nullius in verba (Take nobody's word for it) So who's the Society to go around telling other organisations what to do? The reason I can't really believe climate change is the fact that scientific records only go back for several hundred years before they lose their credibility, that period seems so much less significant that the millions of years the Earth has been around. I heard that the climate goes in cycles, so currently we are in a cycle of warming, according to proponents of this theory the climate will experience of cooling after this warming period. What is the science that refutes this hypothesis? It may be similar to tobacco effect deniers, but data along a human lifespan can be accurately collected and analysed, with the Earth however have do not have the big picture, doubt we ever will. The long termin evolution: it is clearly true that Earth has seen a lot of climate changes. Climate reacts to dominant forcings. Nowadays, thats us. In the past it was Volcanic Eruptions, Orbital Changes (ongoing), Sun strength variations, continent movements, extinction events +++ The speed of our Co2 perturbation is unrivalled, though. Past changes strengthen the scientific consensus that a strong change in atmospheric composition will lead to a changed climate. I don't buy this, unless you have actual research or a paper or reference for this? Is it conclusive that CO2 levels are causing global warming? There may be another source. Sorry if this is pretty obvious to you, but I only know as much See the problem is, climate charge supporters often give money to those that provide favorable data that supports their hypothesis, same goes for the climate change deniers. I don't know who to believe | ||
|
ELA
Denmark4608 Posts
Im not a denialist by any means, its pretty obvious that climate changes are happening. However, I do believe that the amount of funds that we currently use to reduce emissions is way way too high, compared to what we spend on solving other problems (Koyoto countries = ~1% of BNP for all of them, some more, some less every year). Would it not be benificial to spend way more money on research in green technology (Wind power, Solar panels, particle filters etc) instead of spending insane amounts of money on the inefficient and very costly practical solutions we have available today? The funds that every year goes into complying with the Koyoto agreement, could solve world hunger and provide basic education for every child on the planet (Lomborg), while the Koyoto agreement it self dosn't have a very big impact on the climate. Basicly: We could do alot more good with the money that we are currently spending on applying inefficient solutions to the complicated problem that is global warming. Spend more money on research in the field, and spend the rest of the money on problems that we actually know how to fix right now (Hunger, sanitation, diseases, education) - The cost would be about the same. I would like to know your thoughts | ||
|
archonOOid
1983 Posts
| ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
On December 14 2011 01:29 imallinson wrote: Falsifiability isn't concerned with whether a scientific hypothesis is right. That, as you have pointed out, is dealt with by evidence. Falsifiability is used as a measure of whether a hypothesis is scientific, and more importantly relevant, in the first place. For a hypothesis to be completely unfalsifiable it has to have no measurable effect on the world because measuring it would allow it to be proved or disproved. If a hypothesis has no measurable effects then there is no point in the hypothesis existing. You're hypothesis needs to be falsifiable and have evidence to be valid. Well, there are two distinct ways in which you can use falsifiability, as the method of science and as a criterion for science. Popper accepted both. As a method, it is the doctrine that the logic of science is exclusively Modus Tollens, that all science can do is show that some theories are false and others have not been shown to be false yet. Although people often gloss the Popperian thesis as being that we get evidence but not 100% certainty by using the scientific method, this is misleading because the doctrine leaves no room for evidence or confirmation of any kind. Falsifiability as the method of science leaves you with an infinity of not yet disproven theories all on exactly equal footing. The theory of relativity is no better off on this account than the theory that relativity will be true of everything except for my laptop 20 seconds from now, which will fly away for no apparent reason. The doctrine is thus deeply skeptical and antithetical to the notions of evidence you cite. As a criterion, it is the claim that falsifiability is what demarcates science from pseudo-science, without any commitment necessarily to whether our theories are confirmed in addition to being disconfirmed. Although it sounds appealing, this thesis is also false. For one thing, pseudo-sciences are often perfect examples of falsifiable theories. Astrology isn't bad because it's unfalsifiable; it's bad because it's been repeatedly falsified. For another, actual science frequently survives seeming falsification simply because we have nothing better to replace it with (with the Quine-Duhem problem keeping this activity from being strictly suspect). The falsifiability criterion would have it that the continued use of these theories amount to pseudo-science, which they clearly do not. Again, Kuhn and Lakatos have shown beyond much of any doubt that actual science doesn't proceed in the way that falsifiability predicts while remaining a rational enterprise. I don't think there's any very important role for falsifiability in philosophy of science. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On December 14 2011 01:35 ELA wrote: @OP: Im not a denialist by any means, its pretty obvious that climate changes are happening. However, I do believe that the amount of funds that we currently use to reduce emissions is way way too high, compared to what we spend on solving other problems (Koyoto countries = ~1% of BNP for all of them, some more, some less every year). Would it not be benificial to spend way more money on research in green technology (Wind power, Solar panels, particle filters etc) instead of spending insane amounts of money on the inefficient and very costly practical solutions we have available today? The funds that every year goes into complying with the Koyoto agreement, could solve world hunger and provide basic education for every child on the planet (Lomborg), while the Koyoto agreement it self dosn't have a very big impact on the climate. Basicly: We could do alot more good with the money that we are currently spending on applying inefficient solutions to the complicated problem that is global warming. Spend more money on research in the field, and spend the rest of the money on problems that we actually know how to fix right now (Hunger, sanitation, diseases, education) - The cost would be about the same. I would like to know your thoughts I somewhat agree with this. I think much of the funds that we relegate to curbing production of CO2 could be much better spent strengthening the response to climate change. I see this as a much more permanent and viable solution, seeing as how climates will continue to shift just as severely if we were to reduce carbon emissions. As for the investment into alternatives to fossil fuels, I believe that is a longer term investment as well. We should be looking at the viability of those technologies to power future energy consumption needs, in concert with future technologies to curb that usage. It makes little sense to spend double or triple the cost of fossil fuel consumption for a wide spread, earnest deployment of technology which can be largely described as "unrefined." | ||
|
Exoteric
Australia2330 Posts
| ||
|
La1
United Kingdom659 Posts
BBC Horizon did a great show on it which you should watch: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming edit: basically if you cba to read or watch.. reducing co2 and other emmisons could be bad as the parcticles block sunlight which heats the earth, the more emmisons are cut the more the sun gets through which means the more the earth heats up .. | ||
|
kef
283 Posts
I like that. I'm saving that for later. | ||
|
Maenander
Germany4923 Posts
On December 14 2011 01:14 PetitCrabe wrote: So if I go to Asia, I will see pollution, from that I should conclude there's global warming due to humans too? Nobody is denying that humans can pollute the Earth, big cities definitely can pollute and have higher temperature compared to the surrounding regions. What is being argued is (I think) is whether humans can pollute to the extend of influencing the WHOLE Earth. FYI, whether the lakes and rivers are polluted or not is really, really, really not a proof of global warming caused by humans. The professors I mentioned do believe there's an increase of temperature at a certain extend, they just don't believe humans are the cause of it. So what exactly do you doubt? That humans are responsible for the increase of the CO2 abundance in the atmosphere? The increase is a measured fact. Or that the increase in CO2 can have any effect on global temperature? Anyone knowing anything about radiation transfer in atmospheres can assure you that it is possible that a substantial increase in CO2 can change the temperature. | ||
|
ElPeque.fogata
Uruguay462 Posts
Yet being the cynic that i am, i feel like i need to at least have a healthy level of distrust or scepticism on the concensus, should there be one, that we are affecting the climate on a worrysome degree (so as to invest/sacrifice so much in 'fixing' it). Because i think most scientists would be biased at least on an unconcious level to find 'proofs' that are good for their careers. It happened lots of times in scientific history. Even with great minds. Yet there may even be right. On a side note. I am from Uruguay, country who's main export by far is cattle meat. I've seen for example vegan arguments that meat consumtion should be banned because meat production produces the most global warming (in the means of cattle farts it sems  butane?). Do you know anything about that? | ||
|
Maenander
Germany4923 Posts
Wouldn't the current interglacial period be ending soon anyway? Doesn't CO2 help to forestall the next ice age? The Sun is more luminous than ever in the history of Earth. Thus the CO2-levels must be unusually low for ice ages to exist. Or are there other factors involved? | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On December 14 2011 02:23 Exoteric wrote: I remember reading some remarks from climate change scientists that it will happen regardless of human intervention, it's just that we're accelerating the process. With that in mind, to what degree are we accelerating it in comparison with a natural change and what sort of government response would be necessary for there to be a noticeable positive impact overall? Some figures would put this into perspective for me. It's hard to break away from the apathetic attitude most people have (me included) towards global warming. I mean, I have solar panels for my household, energy saving light bulbs and whatnot, but I don't really think I'm making any kind of practical difference overall and it's more of a feel-good thing. All of those things are good for reducing energy.consumption and can probably save you some money, which is probably the most important result of those investments. The big issue is where does your energy come from? The answer is that renewable energy in most countries is lower than 10 %(disregarding hydrological energy production) and specifically in Australia it is 5,2 %, which is not bad, but not good either. The rest of the electricity is produced from fossil fuels (and or nuclear). When you are decreasing the need for electricity you will decrease the need for production of electricity. This decreased need for electricity will almost always only reduce the production from fossil fuels, since that is almost always the easiest and most effifient way to reduce production of electricity. If people in general are saving power the production from fossil fuel will fall and the renewable energy will rise and the numbers will look nicer. That is at least how it is for the moment... The renewable energy sources almost universally have a problem though: They will not produce the same amount of power throughout a year or even day. This spiking in energy production makes it impossible to control when there is electricity on the grid and that is not acceptable if such spiking cannot be counterbalanced by controlling the electricity produced from fossil fuels. The big thing that everyone is working on is getting a way of storing the electricity/energy. It has not been that successful yet. When we get a solid technology for storing the energy there is gonna be a much larger incentive for producing renewable energy and a lot more willingness from the politicians to change, Untill then it is a balance of having a sufficient production from fossil fuel consumption to counteract the spiking of reneweable energy sources. The number depends on a lot of things, but in Denmark it is starting to become a problem controlling the spikes at 25 % reneweable energy. The irony in reducing energy-consumption is that if 100 % is produced from reneweable energy it would be unnecessary and potentially bad for society. Btw. Global dimming from SO2 is not a good idea in general to promote since SO2 is toxic and Inhaling sulfur dioxide is associated with increased respiratory symptoms and disease, difficulty in breathing, and premature death. Apart from that SO2 in the athmosphere has several other unwanted effects. | ||
|
Aterons_toss
Romania1275 Posts
We complain about global warming and lack of fossile fuels but than the same people seem to complain about using nuclear power cuz of the "risks". We talk about CO2 from cars but we ignore the fact that animals produce more then 40% of it but there is NO talking at all about a mass killing of all useless animals and what needs to survive for the survival of the plants/avoiding overpopulation of insects...etc . We spend billions of dollars on helping a 3rd world countries that will not evolve past the "survival of the fittest" in the next 50 years and then produce theories about and ice age coming in a few decades, we realize that every year that passes we risk being hit by a asteroid/risking some kind of solar disaster...etc yet we spend more on praying to animals that live in the clouds and what not than what is spend on space travel research. The problem is not the global warming, if you would had given all the money that were donated to poverty in Africa and Asia + what is given to churches around the world and whatever other useless shit like diamonds and "art" then we wouldn't be talking about "how to stop global warming" we would be talking about what is the most cost efficient way to do so. Its honestly a silly thing that global warming is up there with " should Rick Perry be president if he does not know how to read from a note during a debate and does not know what billions of $ worth departments he want to remove" " is there a big dady living in the cloud that can chose what happens to our soul when we die, and if so how much money should we give to him" and "tied goes in, tied goes out, can't explain that" and the problem should not be dealing with global warming, the problem should be how to get rid of those other 3 problems by teaching common sense better. Sry for the rant, but thats just how i fell about it, for all i know atm im just praying for another major conflict since it seems that is the only time when money is given to researching important things ( the huge advancements in medicine that were made during WW1 and the "surprising" advances in nuclear science during WW2 ). | ||
|
hmunkey
United Kingdom1973 Posts
On December 14 2011 04:13 Aterons_toss wrote: Honestly i never saw the point of discussing about it. We complain about global warming and lack of fossile fuels but than the same people seem to complain about using nuclear power cuz of the "risks". This is actually a huge problem within the environmental movement. A lot of environmentalists seem to be driven by emotion, not science, since objectively speaking nuclear power is extremely safe and clean. It's important to make the distinction though -- environmentalists are not the same as scientists. This same rule applies for most popular movements. They just share some key views. For example, Al-Qaeda are not the same as mainstream Muslims. The Tea Party is not the same as Conservatism. The Occupy movement is not the same as the Communists. I could go on all day. It really just comes down to the fact that science is rooted in empirical fact and many environmentalists disregard that in the same way global warming deniers do. | ||
|
Carapas
Canada242 Posts
Also, we are not even sure of the reason of climat changes besides the orbit of the earth and the power of the sun, maybe there is some galactic cycle that cause dramatic change to our climat. Considering the earth was once only a ball of ice and that Mars had probably water and some form of life we must not see the climat as static but more like a wave that we cannot control. Animal species will all disapear someday and probably the human kind too, so for now I don't give a shit about what scientists says about the myth of climat change! | ||
|
MasterBlasterCaster
United States568 Posts
On December 13 2011 10:49 Probulous wrote: This would be true if C02 was the only thing influencing climate. As has been noted other factors are involved. For example on the same page Orbital changes do influence the climate, it is just that the current warming is not due to this. We are putting the globe out of its normal cycle and that is the danger.Can you clarify yourself a little. Are you asking why the globe hasn't experience runaway C02 and corresponding temperature increases before? How do you know this? And for the second question: I am saying that I seriously doubt that the Earth hasn't gone through periods of warming before. | ||
|
hmunkey
United Kingdom1973 Posts
On December 14 2011 04:31 Carapas wrote: I had the chance to assist a conference of a denialist, and I must say that his arguments were pretty strong. Basically he stated that scientist are currently using terrorism to get money to pay their research because climat change was always part of our planet and will always be. CO2 represent a small portion of the problem and its not relevant as we are heading towards a ice age in 10000 years we will pray for hot days. Also, we are not even sure of the reason of climat changes besides the orbit of the earth and the power of the sun, maybe there is some galactic cycle that cause dramatic change to our climat. Considering the earth was once only a ball of ice and that Mars had probably water and some form of life we must not see the climat as static but more like a wave that we cannot control. Animal species will all disapear someday and probably the human kind too, so for now I don't give a shit about what scientists says about the myth of climat change! Did he have any evidence for any of the things he said? Because it sounds like this fellow was basically just rattling off conspiracy theories without any form of evidence and you believed him. Just because something someone says sounds cool doesn't make it true. But since you're already into believing things without evidence, I have some amazing news to tell you -- in 12 days Santa Claus is going to bring you some presents! Edit: Changed proof to evidence because the word proof implies an absolute. | ||
| ||
