Don’t pay any more attention to Crichton than you would to Al Gore.
Of course the experts can never be wrong.
OK, show me something analogous to the 43 arcsecond/century anomalous precession of Mercury, and we’ll talk. General Relativity eventually won out because there were real, measurable phenomena explainable by GR which were not explainable by the other theories against which it was competing.
So your contention, then, is that AGW is a big scam? Some worldwide conspiracy, perhaps? Or is there just one person behind it all?
Yep.
Sure…but it didn’t win immediately. In fact, it took a long time before it finally ‘won’…when photos of the stars during a solar eclipse (in fact the SECOND set of photos, since earlier ones were not conclusive IIRC) finally showed conclusive proof. The point is, that the majority of the scientific community did NOT believe it until they were shown conclusive proof. Same with Darwin’s theories…it took decades before it became mainstream.
This isn’t to say that the GW theories will eventually be disproved, or that some competing theory will eventually win out…it’s to show that science works by constantly testing and refining, and that sometimes the majority opinion among scientists in a given field are wrong. Do you disagree?
-XT
Sure. But what do you do meanwhile? There’s no such thing as a proven theory, only one that hasn’t been disproven yet. Maybe tomorrow or next year, anthropogenic global warming will be disproven, but then again, maybe tomorrow or next year Maxwell’s equations will be disproven. Should we stop using Maxwell’s Equations now, just in case?
No, not at all…you go based on the best science you have and if you are a scientist in the field you keep pushing, searching, testing, etc etc. For GW you say that, yeah…as of today the best science definitely indicates that it’s real that the humans are a factor.
I wasn’t trying to say we should test every crack pot theory or explore every possible digression or line of inquiry…just that simply because there is currently a scientific consensus in the related fields that this necessarily means that they have to be right.
-XT
I disagree. It seems to me that a theory or hypothesis can be proven (in a scientific sense) if it stands up to testing. Or if there is strong evidence supporting the theory.
For example, most would agree that it’s been proven (in a scientific sense) that regular and signficiant smoking of cigarettes increases one’s chances of getting lung cancer.
At best, the hypothesis which I refer to as “CAGW” has not been seriously tested and is not supported by strong evidence. In particular, the water vapor feedback part of the hypothesis.
But hasn’t global warming gone through this vetting process already? Think about how long it took for it to be so widely accepted, overturning other opinions. AGW deniers are more analogous to Intelligent Design supporters, relegated to criticizing the mainstream theory by nitpicking and by claiming institutional bias in academia.
Not all AGW skeptics are created equal. There are respected scientists who disagree with parts of the hypothesis. That’s what science is all about. Just like some AGW SUPPORTERS do so for political or other non-scientific reasons, some deniers do exactly the opposite…deny purely for political or other non-scientific reasons. But just like the SCIENTISTS who agree with part or all of the hypothesis, there are scientists who disagree with part or even all of the hypothesis.
Personally, and from my own non-scientific perspective I DO think that the majority consensus is by and large correct. That said, I think that some of the data and models are a bit unformed or not as thoroughly tested as it will be in the course of time. I don’t believe that AGW is on par with a fully tested and vetted theory like Evolution or something like General or Special Relativity. YMMV of course, but I just don’t think that enough time has gone by and enough of the data and the models have been firmed up to bring AGW on par with those other, older, tested for decades theories.
-XT
Well of course, that’s why I said deniers, not skeptics. There are still scientists who spend their careers trying to disprove Einstein, and whether they succeed or fail, they add to the collective knowledge. The same is true for global warming.
But those scientists are not the ones leading the public anti-AGW discourse. It’s the people with an agenda, who cherrypick the results or just outright lie to attack the mainstream idea.
With due respect, you are rather blatantly misrepresenting the facts. The page you link you cites a number of people who all make varying claims about a conspiracy, and then mentions Crichton’s novel as containing a story that includes, as an important plot point, a conspiracy. However, the conspiracy in “State of Fear” is not the UN-new-world-order conspiracy being referred to by the other people cited in that Wikipedia entry; it’s a completely different thing made up for the novel.
Not at all. Linking to an information source, (even if it is solely to keep one from having to re-type one’s own words), is fine–as long as it addresses the issue and does not drag personal remarks into this thread.
This is an emotional appeal, based on a form of ad hominem that is not really relevant to the discussion.
Let’s at least wait until page three before we start hurling insults around as a way to poison the well.
[ /Modding ]
Sure…I agree. Of course, a lot of the folks who are pro-AGW are also people with an agenda…and also cherry pick their own sides facts to present a picture that is not the consensus of the majority of climate scientists.
Even though they may be on the right side of the science doesn’t mean they are right. However, I was just pointing out in my earlier comments that a solid scientific consensus in any given field does not necessarily mean that in the long run this will remain so…that’s how we get a big scientific break through. Like I said earlier, look at Einstein and General/Special Relativity. His theories over turned centuries of Newtonian physics, and while adopted fairly early by the public it took a long time for the theoretical physics and related fields to accept the theories. And as you said, there are STILL scientists out there who are trying to disprove parts of the theory…or perhaps, a better way to put is they are testing and pushing that theory to make sure it IS completely correct.
I think by and large you are right…many AGW skeptics are full of shit. But sometimes it annoys me the dismissal of ALL AGW skepticism or the casual way folks who aren’t scientists and aren’t climatologist just dismiss any kind of skepticism, or point at the current consensus as if this means it’s cast in concrete. Real science doesn’t work that way.
-XT
This is the main point in the contention that the majority of scientists could be wrong. Of course they could be wrong, but so far no other theory seems to better explain what we are seeing.
I did mention three different theories in my first post, eco-hippies, UN-new-world-order, and book deals. That there are possibly more than those three doesn’t detract from the point that there are various conspiracy theories which all are negated by the sheer number of professional scientists, the sheer mass of money spent on research, and the sheer amount of time that AGW has been competing against other theories.
Then my good friend Occam (he’s the guy with the razor- I think he was a barber or something) says you’re most likely wrong. People just aren’t that good at keeping secrets. A US President couldn’t keep a blowjob secret- there’s no way a global conspiracy of scientists would be able to keep something like AGW falsification secret.
As a matter of fact, the only evidence we have of AGW falsification was on the part of the oil companies, when Exxon funded anti-AGW sentiment. Exxon, with billions of dollars, couldn’t hide something like that… yet climate researchers across the globe can?
I’m not saying it’s a conspiracy theory. I’m saying that it’s a money grab for a lot of people right now and that the whole AGW theory is false. There is a lot of funding going to people who are involved with this and in my opinion it’s money wasted. There are certainly reasons to be investing in alternate energy sources since oil will not last forever, but AGW is a ridiculous reason: 0.6 degrees C in a hundred years and we’re not even positive that the increase of 100 PPM of CO2 is responsible or not? Please…
I will have to assume that your sources just minimize the problem.