Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DavesM who wrote (187643)	5/29/2006 2:16:44 PM
From: neolib	Respond to of 281500

Your post is very confusing to me. Especially this: As for Temperature driving CO2, there is no doubt (IMO) that temperature drives CO2 (because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it should be able drive global temperature as well)! I believe this is well known and is established. I don't believe that there is paleo climatologist, geologist, or astronomer who would dispute that temperature drives atmospheric CO2 concentrations. It is very clear that CO2 drives temp. It is also known that temp can drive CO2. But that is not the argument. The argument is that if you lock at temp and CO2 (both reconstructed) you see increases which are time and magnitude correlated with the industrial revolution and the burning of fossil fuels. There are clearly additional factors which do drive either as well. The global warming theory says: 1) We know from chemistry/physics that CO2 is a "greenhouse" gas, that is it will trap planetary heat. 2) We know historically that both temp and CO2 fluctuate, and that they are somewhat correlated. 3)There is clearly some sort of approximate natural balance in CO2/temp cycles, since they don't saturated one way or the other. 3) We know that humans started increased consumption of fossil fuels in the 1700-1800's a trend which has continued, and increased to the present. 4) By direct measurement of atmospheric CO2 and temps in the later part of the 1900's till now, and by painstaking reconstruction of earlier conditions, we have a historical data set which shows CO2 & temp rising consistent with the onset and increased consumption of fossil fuels by humans. 5) There are of course errors in all measurements and estimates, and models continue to be refined, but there is approximate agreement with the data. 6) A major part of continued scientific work is trying to understand the complete carbon-atmospheric cycle, as there are a number of interactions, with an aggregate volume of carbon transfer which is large compared to the incremental human component. That is an example of a theory. The anti-global warming crowd don't (at least I have not seen any good ones) have a theory. What they have is the classic argument from incredulity, or argument of the gaps. It goes like this: 1) In reference to 6 above, if you scientists are off by a few % on process X, it totally swamps the human component. 2) Your models are not in real good agreement. Not enough to rule out 1) 3) Therefore I'm correct, and humans are not causing the problem. You will note that this is not a theory. It does not explain the data, which is that CO2 and temps have risen in a manner approximately consistent with human activity. If, instead, they could but forward a theory which matches the data BETTER than the global warming theory, then they have something. Otherwise not. Many people completely fail to understand the above distinction. IMO, this is the result of the legal profession, which is predicated on incredulity. The entire point of defense in law, is to cast doubt on the prosecutions case, i.e. to inspire incredulity in the jury. It is not about being accurate and understanding what happened (although if the accused is innocent, the defense will undoubtedly spend some effort looking for accuracy as well, so they can present this to the jury). The average American is much more familiar with the drama of court rooms, both from fiction and TV than they are with how science works. The argument from incredulity is of course, the anti-thesis of science. Science is predicated on taking data, and finding the explanation which best fits the data, i.e. it is about understanding as accurately as possible. It is not very concerned with those who scream, "But you have not explained everything to my satisfaction". Fine, go produce a better fitting theory yourself. Just remember, until you do this oh so important part, you have nothing to show for your side. An example you might want to look at is the fake "science" of Intelligent Design. It was started by a lawyer, Philip Johnson, and LOL, it is entirely based on the argument from incredulity. Well, no surprise there I guess.