Learning to live with Global Warming

[Guest man]

What will happen to the earth and the people who live on it, if we sit back and do nothing?

Will the human race eventually die out?

[Marnie]

What will happen to the earth and the people who live on it, if we sit back and do nothing?

Will the human race eventually die out?

No. The earth will always be here, on into eternity, if you believe the Bible, which I do, which is why the whole global warming ballyhoo is bupkis to me.

[angels4u]

What will happen to the earth and the people who live on it, if we sit back and do nothing?

Will the human race eventually die out?

The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was given power to scorch people with fire. They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him. (Revelation 16:8-9 NIV)

I believe that no matter what we do God has a plan for this earth and we will not be able to change that but yes I do believe in taking good care care of this earth which God gave us to live in just out of respect towards God who created the earth, but the world does want to save this earth in their own way and cannot see Gods plan through it all.

[Guest man]

What will happen to the earth and the people who live on it, if we sit back and do nothing?

Will the human race eventually die out?

No. The earth will always be here, on into eternity, if you believe the Bible, which I do, which is why the whole global warming ballyhoo is bupkis to me.

Actually I was looking for someone who believed in global warming to answer this.

But you're almost right.

[Guest man]

What will happen to the earth and the people who live on it, if we sit back and do nothing?

Will the human race eventually die out?

The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was given power to scorch people with fire. They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him. (Revelation 16:8-9 NIV)

I believe that no matter what we do God has a plan for this earth and we will not be able to change that but yes I do believe in taking good care care of this earth which God gave us to live in just out of respect towards God who created the earth, but the world does want to save this earth in their own way and cannot see Gods plan through it all.

Yes...the earth will burn....but in God's time....not ours.

We couldn't destroy this planet if we tried.

[apothanein kerdos]

It would have been difficult for me to mask my disgust for such an ignorant remark. That comment really challenges the positive impression I have of you, but I am glad that you have elaborated on it so that I know where you are coming from.

Then you should study the philosophy of science. I encourage every biology major, or anyone with a major in the field of science, to minor in philosophy and take classes that relate to science. What I said holds true...I'll unpack this statement further in the post.

Not all, but most. Not that the beliefs of scientists matter any way, according to your prior statements...

Notice what I responded to and I how I responded to it. You wrote:

The IPCC is staffed by thousands of scientists from dozens of countries and they have a far better idea than you, I, Al Gore or Newsweek have about global warming. They represent the biggest, most comprehensive investigation of global warming, and they have concluded there is a >90% chance that the recent climate change is primarily anthropogenic.

To which I responded:

And history has shown us that when a majority of scientists agree on something, it is most likely wrong..

Now, historically, how is this statement false? Can you name one idea that was based upon a non-testable hypothesis that was held by a majority of scientists and still ended up being true? The point being, when these theories were put to the test, most of the time the theories held by the majority ended up being invalidated. You can insult me, say you are shocked by that statement, or say that I have a low opinion of scientists (when I don't)...but none of it addresses the historical validity of what I said.

Instead of reacting to what I said, think about it first and realize that I was making a historical statement. Alternatively, what you did is attack me with rhetoric and was astonished that I could ever question the majority of scientists on an untestable hypothesis...when history has shown us that when the majority agrees on an untestable hypothesis, once a test is finally developed and run, those theories are wrong.

Exactly, the hypothesis is untestable. The best we have is correlations. So I ask you this: how are you so sure of your position? Since your position (that global warming is natural) is also untestable, why do you believe what you believe? How are you so confident in writing off the correlations scientists observe as just random chance?

I'm not confident in writing it off. I am, however, comfortable in writing it off because history is on my side. Likewise, there are other external reasons for denying that man is behind the climate change. For instance, Mars is going through a warming period as well. Likewise, there can be alternate causality for climate change.

The point being, though I have no doubt we are in some way responsible for some of the climate change, or that we are exasperating the problem, I do not believe we are the primary cause of this change. I believe the evidence points toward shifts in the climate.

Does this mean I'll try to defend my position if one day scientists are able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are solely responsible, or the major contributors? Absolutely not. I'll have no problem saying I'm wrong because science will have proven as such. At this moment, however, I believe that the evidence does not favor the majority.

On this same token, my original comment was toward the cataclysmic events that these scientists predict. This is what I find absurd and totally wrong. Every time there has been a warming phase for the earth, especially if drastic, it has led to a cooling stage to balance out the heat. This, in theory, would offset any "green house effect" that Co2 could cause (via excessive precipitation knocking the chemical out of the sky...which still would not bode well for life on earth...). This is generally how it has always occurred...why are scientists coming up with a new way this will happen? Why should I trust them when geological history stands in their way, and they constantly ignore it?

Look at some graphs of global temperature and CO2 levels. They have an intimate correlation, and it's very unlikely to be pure chance. In situations like this, a scientist would perform a chi square test and refute the null hypothesis.

http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exh...istorical02.gif

^ Tell me what you think.

I fail to see how this proves humans are at the center of it though. Yes, it draws a correlation but that correlation cannot be traced back to humans. If it could be, then who was producing the Co2 125,000 years ago? I know China is advanced and old, but not that advanced and old.

The point being, it seems this heating trend occurs every 100,000 - 125,000 years. Every time a heating age occurs, there is a subsequent Ice Age that follows about 50,000 years after the fact. The reason is the North Atlantic current. I'll leave you to look that up, however, and its effects on the climate.

Again, I could be wrong, and if I am I do not care. I am not telling people to go out and pollute because of my theory. I still think that C02 does provide for a dangerous world if used in excess. It has been scientifically proven that areas with higher Co2 rates also have higher rates of asthma, lung cancer, birth deformities, etc. All of this is also per capita. Thus, even if I don't believe it is causing climate change, I still encourage people to cut down on pollution.

I know you are intelligent, which is exactly why I was so surprised by your post. Do you think your low opinion of scientists could have something to do with your studies?

I have an accurate opinion of scientists, not a low opinion. The problem is, too often in our culture, we have too high an opinion of scientists. We almost deify them to a certain extent, to where if a majority of scientists say something, then is MUST be true. This, of course, has never been the case. Historically, whenever issues come up where a hypothesis cannot be tested at that time but can be later, it is generally proven false. My favorite example is open heart surgery, which was called impossible - until someone did it (Dr. Blalock and Thomas). For years the majority of scientists, when discussing the heart, would always say Nolitangere ("do not touch"). Yet, the majority were wrong.

Why are you shocked that I appeal to history? Do not blindly follow science mate, look into the history of it. I am not saying that every major scientific consensus held is wrong. I am saying, however, that appealing to the majority of scientists means literally nothing on this issue because:

1) It hasn't been tested

and

2) Historically, this makes it questionable to begin with

Again, one sign of someone that is intelligent is someone that is not reactionary in their responses, but will sit down and think about what a person is doing. Do not be reactionary.

[The Lorax]

Then you should study the philosophy of science. I encourage every biology major, or anyone with a major in the field of science, to minor in philosophy and take classes that relate to science. What I said holds true...I'll unpack this statement further in the post.

I've been out of school for years but back in the day I took a course on the philosophical history of the sciences. I am familiar with Thomas Kuhn and I'm currently reading The Earth Encompassed by Peter Bowler. Philosophy usually puts me to sleep but not when it pertains to science.

And history has shown us that when a majority of scientists agree on something, it is most likely wrong..

Now, historically, how is this statement false?

Not false, but a little misleading. Many of the "scientists" of the past would not be considered scientists by today's more rigorous standards, nor would their misconceptions be considered scientific. Nonetheless, most scientists are acutely aware of previous misconceptions and I think yesterday's blunders have helped shaped the way the scientific community operates today. I think, in the long run, scientists have learned from the hubris of their predecessors. Then again, I'm an optimist.

Can you name one idea that was based upon a non-testable hypothesis that was held by a majority of scientists and still ended up being true?

Sure. Hutton's hypothesis of gradualism was not testable in his day (due to the lack of absolute dating methods) but his idea of an old, slowly-evolving planet became a majority opinion long before radiometric dating could confirm it. Similarly, natural selection was another consensus that became popular long before it was actually testable in an experiment like bacteria evolving against a toxin in a petri dish. (Note I am only talking about microevolution. Speciation remains untestable.)

The point being, when these theories were put to the test, most of the time the theories held by the majority ended up being invalidated. You can insult me, say you are shocked by that statement, or say that I have a low opinion of scientists (when I don't)...but none of it addresses the historical validity of what I said.

Instead of reacting to what I said, think about it first and realize that I was making a historical statement. Alternatively, what you did is attack me with rhetoric and was astonished that I could ever question the majority of scientists on an untestable hypothesis...when history has shown us that when the majority agrees on an untestable hypothesis, once a test is finally developed and run, those theories are wrong.

OK, how's this: I don't think it is scientifically valid (or logically sound) to reject scientific consensi just because many of them have been wrong in the past.

I'm not confident in writing it off. I am, however, comfortable in writing it off because history is on my side. Likewise, there are other external reasons for denying that man is behind the climate change. For instance, Mars is going through a warming period as well. Likewise, there can be alternate causality for climate change.

The point being, though I have no doubt we are in some way responsible for some of the climate change, or that we are exasperating the problem, I do not believe we are the primary cause of this change. I believe the evidence points toward shifts in the climate.

Does this mean I'll try to defend my position if one day scientists are able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are solely responsible, or the major contributors? Absolutely not. I'll have no problem saying I'm wrong because science will have proven as such. At this moment, however, I believe that the evidence does not favor the majority.

Thanks for clarifying. I have no problem with your reasoning and I apologize for the ad hominem. When I have time I'll try to send some evidence your way.

On this same token, my original comment was toward the cataclysmic events that these scientists predict. This is what I find absurd and totally wrong. Every time there has been a warming phase for the earth, especially if drastic, it has led to a cooling stage to balance out the heat. This, in theory, would offset any "green house effect" that Co2 could cause (via excessive precipitation knocking the chemical out of the sky...which still would not bode well for life on earth...). This is generally how it has always occurred...why are scientists coming up with a new way this will happen? Why should I trust them when geological history stands in their way, and they constantly ignore it?

You are right, the Earth is clearly a dynamic equilibrium. If it weren't, the planet would have long turned into either a ball of fire or a ball of snow. The fact we are still lush and green despite super-volcanoes and meteor impacts evidences the Earth's capacity for self-correction. But I don't think scientists are ignoring this, I just don't think they assume the Earth will equilibrate on our timescale. It is possible humans will screw up the global climate and it will only return to normal after hundreds or thousands of years--a geological timescale that won't do humans any good.

I fail to see how this proves humans are at the center of it though. Yes, it draws a correlation but that correlation cannot be traced back to humans. If it could be, then who was producing the Co2 125,000 years ago? I know China is advanced and old, but not that advanced and old.

Humans have introduced massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere in the past millennia and there is reason to believe this is enough to effect climate change in the here and now. I will post some data when I can.

The point being, it seems this heating trend occurs every 100,000 - 125,000 years. Every time a heating age occurs, there is a subsequent Ice Age that follows about 50,000 years after the fact. The reason is the North Atlantic current. I'll leave you to look that up, however, and its effects on the climate.

I am already aware of the ability of slight changes in temperature to completely restructure the flow of ocean undercurrents, global heat transfer and precipitation.

This post has been way too quote-happy so I think I'll stop here for now. I am not a blind follower of science, at least I try not to be. My greatest fear is that the people on this forum are blind followers of conservative pundits on matters of science. It is a scary world when Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter are considered credible experts on climate.