Human-influenced Global Climate Change?

[ugabuga]

Believe in Human-influenced Global Climate Change?
How to decide?

Think of some general question for which scientists are seeking a solution.

Assume the principal motivation for the scientists is to come up with the right answer & be recognized for good scientific work.

Assume the scientists don't have a hidden agenda (e.g., political, monetary, religious...) for falsifying their results.

Assume about 98% of these scientists come to more-or-less the same answer.

Although it's possible that 98% of the scientists may be wrong, I'd believe them unless I had a very good reason not to.

Now, let's assume that many non-scientists start disputing the scientists' methods & conclusions, but that it turns out that the disputers have a definite stake--political, monetary, religious--in the issue.

Scientific studies concluded that smoking tobacco had terrible health effects, but smokers and the tobacco companies disputed the studies.

Scientific studies concluded that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, but Biblical literalists disputed the studies.

Scientific studies concluded that seat belts in autos would save lives, but the auto companies disputed the studies.

Scientific studies concluded that global climate change is real and most likely human-influenced, but corporations that would have to spend $ to reduce their carbon footprints dispute the studies.

98% of the scientific community could be wrong on human-influenced Global Climate Change. The scientific community could have a hidden agenda. But...I doubt it.

 

[futurebeachbum]

Believe in Human-influenced Global Climate Change?
How to decide?

Think of some general question for which scientists are seeking a solution.

Assume the principal motivation for the scientists is to come up with the right answer & be recognized for good scientific work.

Assume the scientists don't have a hidden agenda (e.g., political, monetary, religious...) for falsifying their results.

Since you're willing to make these assumptions with no factual basis, then why not just go ahead and assume that you're correct and skip all those inconvenient dissenting opinions? After all, in science there's no room for reasoned dissent when it gets in the way of grants and funding.

Scientific studies concluded that global climate change is real and most likely human-influenced, but corporations that would have to spend $ to reduce their carbon footprints dispute the studies.

Interestingly enough, the earth has been warmer in the past; it has been cooler in the past; it has warmed more quickly and it has cooled more quickly in the past as well. The wolrd's climate is constantly undergoing change (only a fool would expect climate not to change) and it is unclear whether or not warmer is better or worse than colder. On top of that some of the climate 'experts' who are preaching AGW now were predicting that we were on the cusp of a new ice-age a few years ago. That makes me feel a lot better about their findings.

There is also not one study out there that hasn't had to discard 'inconvenient' data points or 'force' the data to fit their model.

Even if GW is AGW, we need to investigate, model and fully understand the impacts of any proposed solutions before we implement them. If we bet the farm (and the world's economies) on a solution and its wrong, it will be too late to fix it.

 

[beachFool]

. If we bet the farm (and the world's economies) on a solution and its wrong, it will be too late to fix it.

If we dawdle around, it will be too late,also.

 

[ugabuga]

Since you're willing to make these assumptions with no factual basis, then why not just go ahead and assume that you're correct and skip all those inconvenient dissenting opinions?.

FBB, I don't think your response/criticism is fair.

The standard way to structure Any argument is to posit premises & then reason logically to a conclusion.

If the logic is faulty, or any of the premises are shown to be false, then the conclusion is not valid.

Here's my argument restated:
Premises
(1) the scientific community (SC) is motivated primarily by finding truth, while
(2) the corporate community (CC) is motivated primarily by profits
(3) the SC knows more about science than the CC community
(4) the SC finds that Anthropic Global Climate Change (AGCC) is likely true
(5) the CC refutes the truth of AGCC
(6) if AGCC is widely accepted, the CC will have to spend $ to reduce its carbon footprint.
Conclusion
The SC is more likely to be right than the CC about AGCC

If you want to refute the logic or truth of the premises, please do--tell me which premises you object to & why. But it's not fair to just dismiss the premises out of hand & to suggest that I've assumed away the problem.

 

[futurebeachbum]

FBB, I don't think your response/criticism is fair.

The standard way to structure Any argument is to posit premises & then reason logically to a conclusion.

If the logic is faulty, or any of the premises are shown to be false, then the conclusion is not valid.

Here's my argument restated:
Premises
(1) the scientific community (SC) is motivated primarily by finding truth, while
(2) the corporate community (CC) is motivated primarily by profits
(3) the SC knows more about science than the CC community
(4) the SC finds that Anthropic Global Climate Change (AGCC) is likely true
(5) the CC refutes the truth of AGCC
(6) if AGCC is widely accepted, the CC will have to spend $ to reduce its carbon footprint.
Conclusion
The SC is more likely to be right than the CC about AGCC

If you want to refute the logic or truth of the premises, please do--tell me which premises you object to & why. But it's not fair to just dismiss the premises out of hand & to suggest that I've assumed away the problem.

First, let's discuss truth. If it hasn't been proven, in a totally objective, repeatable fashion, it isn't truth, its theory. Anytime something that hasn't been objectively proven is considered 'truth', it moves from the realm of science and into the realm of religion. (Which is a pretty apt description of the AGW crowd's approach to dissenters.)

Second, I find it interesting that anyone who disagrees with this 'truth' isn't a scientist, they are 'corporate' (again, this is feeling a lot like a religion.) I'm sure that would surprise the university/agency/government researchers who dispute the current conclusions or methodologies. (Like this paper that totally dismantles the math in Mann's hockey stick: "study on temperature proxy reconstructions " by researchers from Northwestern and U of Penn. I'm sure that they would be amazed to find out that they aren't 'scientists' interested in the 'truth' and are, instead 'corporate'.)

The basic problem with your premises is that they carefully constructed, after the fact to support your conclusion.

That approach just doesn't sound that much like science or 'truth' to me. A 'scientist' would expect each assumption to be carefully validated. This seems a lot more like the approach that a philosopher or theologian would take to prove the existence of their god or some philosophical point.

 

[Lake View Too]

FBB said a few things earlier that may or may not be true. The temperatures on the earth may or may not have risen or fallen faster in previous eras. This is a little bit irrelevent to the main, core arguement that mankind is contributing to global climate change.
Go to this link, read it, and decide for yourself.

World carbon dioxide levels highest for 650,000 years, says US report | Environment | The Guardian

The levels of carbon dioxide are the highest they have been in 650,000 years. This isn't a theory. It is observable data. The levels are 40% higher than the beginning of the industrial revolution. Again, this isn't a theory. This is observable data. What's your conclusion?

 

[ugabuga]

FBB,

Again, I think you're being unfair.
You've twisted my position & accused me of assuming the answer.

I never claimed to have ?the truth? re AWG, nor that the scientific community's consensus re AWG was ?the truth.?
I never claimed that ?anyone who disagrees [with the scientists' consensus] isn't a scientist...?.

My premises are not ?carefully constructed, after the fact to support [my] conclusion.?
BUT, even if they were, if a set of undisputed premises leads logically to a conclusion, then the conclusion is valid.

The conclusion of my argument is not ?strong;? I readily admit that the scientific consensus could be wrong?I simply argue that it's unlikely to be wrong.

FBB, I'm not trying to beat you in an argument.
I'm simply trying to point out that
while a scientist shouldn't really care whether his research shows AGW or not,
that most of those who argue against AWG are not scientists AND have a financial stake in the answer.

Thus, if we can't decide the science ourselves, we should at least be suspicious of those who have a financial stake in the outcome.

 

[Lake View Too]

[

Thus, if we can't decide the science ourselves, we should at least be suspicious of those who have a financial stake in the outcome.[/QUOTE]

I agree with your analysis of this subject. Well said, and well explained.

 

[AndrewG]

If we dawdle around, it will be too late,also.

Says who? That's exactly the point. What's going to happen when global cooling comes around in 10 years? Will the man-made gobal warming nutjobs finally quiet down or will this be another reason to create a global tax?

When man-made global warming is proven erroneous how will they refund everyone for their paid carbon credits?

This is all a hoax in an effort to tax everyone and create a global governance.

 

[Lake View Too]

Says who? That's exactly the point. What's going to happen when global cooling comes around in 10 years? Will the man-made gobal warming nutjobs finally quiet down or will this be another reason to create a global tax?

When man-made global warming is proven erroneous how will they refund everyone for their paid carbon credits?

This is all a hoax in an effort to tax everyone and create a global governance.

Why do you think it's a hoax? The laboratory that first started taking sensor readings of the levels of CO2 started in 1958. They, merely, started accumulating the data. That's what scientists do. About a decade ago, other people (scientists) looked at the data and said, from this data, we think this is what is going on, and this is what, most likely, will happen. If you have data that refutes this, let's hear about it. Otherwise, why do you think it's a hoax?