Log in

View Full Version : Falsifying theories


bouchie
December 12th, 2008, 04:59 PM
I found an interesting article that, originally, I thought was related to global warming. It is, in a sense, but it is really more about how we should go about rejecting theories and hypotheses and how some of those manage to stay around, despite contradicting evidence.

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/12/08/just-what-are-falling-temperatures-evidence-of/

I thought it was a very informative article and certainly (not probably) will help me in my continuous debate against anthropogenic global warming.

sudikics
December 12th, 2008, 05:27 PM
I found an interesting article that, originally, I thought was related to global warming. It is, in a sense, but it is really more about how we should go about rejecting theories and hypotheses and how some of those manage to stay around, despite contradicting evidence.

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/12/08/just-what-are-falling-temperatures-evidence-of/

I thought it was a very informative article and certainly (not probably) will help me in my continuous debate against anthropogenic global warming.
You silly Canadian. Of course we're causing global warming.

Well, maybe not you, strictly. After all, Canadians aren't human; they're just silly.

bouchie
December 12th, 2008, 07:14 PM
You silly Canadian. Of course we're causing global warming.

Well, maybe not you, strictly. After all, Canadians aren't human; they're just silly. No, I don't agree -with either of your statements.

If we are causing global warming, our part is small, if not insignificant, compared to the natural forces that do affect temperature change, like sun-spot activity, El Nino, Pacific decadal oscillation, volcanic activity. There are so many other factors that affect climate change that to point the finger solely at human activity is ridiculous.

But I believe that human activity plays no role in global warming.

rzm61
December 12th, 2008, 08:13 PM
But I believe that human activity plays no role in global warming.

O RLY?


Next time you're near a running car. Suck on the tail pipe.

sudikics
December 13th, 2008, 01:23 AM
No, I don't agree -with either of your statements.

If we are causing global warming, our part is small, if not insignificant, compared to the natural forces that do affect temperature change, like sun-spot activity, El Nino, Pacific decadal oscillation, volcanic activity. There are so many other factors that affect climate change that to point the finger solely at human activity is ridiculous.

But I believe that human activity plays no role in global warming.
I attended a wonderful lecture on global warming a few months ago. I wish you could see it. It's presented by a man who has been studying climate change since rising CO2 levels were observed. He lays out all of the energy inputs into our climate system and all of the energy outputs, and simply shows that if the inputs are greater than the outputs, then the temperature will go up. He is very blunt about what he doesn't know, so it's nothing like An Inconvenient Semi-Truth.

In his first slides he lists all of the inputs and all of the outputs. He then goes through each of the inputs and outputs, and tells you what we know, what we think, and what we have absolutely no idea about. He explains that the climate is extremely complex, and that the huge equations have yet to even be solved.But as he presents slide after slide of unedited data, the message becomes clear: humans are doing something, and that this isn't fully natural.

tagnostic
December 13th, 2008, 07:14 PM
but if humans are 'natural'
isn't everything they do
natural?

bouchie
December 15th, 2008, 05:19 PM
In his first slides he lists all of the inputs and all of the outputs. He then goes through each of the inputs and outputs, and tells you what we know, what we think, and what we have absolutely no idea about. He explains that the climate is extremely complex, and that the huge equations have yet to even be solved.But as he presents slide after slide of unedited data, the message becomes clear: humans are doing something, and that this isn't fully natural. Did his data account for Urban-heat-island? My view on human-made global warming is like my view on god - will not believe in it until it is proven otherwise.

Going that route, my confidence in the human-made global warming theory was severly shaken when it was shown that the IPCC hockey-stick graph is false. The methodology used by Mann and his team was faulty - the team used an algorithm that produces the same graph, even if random red-noise is input into the algorithm. So, the experts have been discredited to a certain extent.

On top of that, there are other theories that account for part, if not all, of the climate change that you don't hear about in the mainstream, but they're not conspiracy theories. They're alternatives to the popular theory.

Now, sciky, I said my confidence in the popular theory, which I believe states that we're are the sole contributors of CO2 emissions and we're are solely responsible for climate change. Had I seen this lecture you refer to, I'm sure I would have learned something new. I can tell you already that I'm looking at the other side again because I just saw a picture of Kilamanjaro (sp?). All the snow at the top of the mountain is gone. I also noticed that in the 1970s there was a lot more trees around the mountain than there are in the current day. Hmm...is it that CO2 levels are rising thanks to our car or is it because the Earth can't absorb as much CO2 as before thanks to a lack of trees?I continuously question my own views on this matter but I don't buy the popular paranoia.

Next time you're near a running car. Suck on the tail pipe. Great argument rzm. Shatner would be. Proud of your. Oral skills.

Seriously, you think I'd be stupid enough not to notice where smog comes from? I don't mind if it gets a little warmer - I do want to breathe though.

rzm61
December 15th, 2008, 05:36 PM
Great argument rzm. Shatner would be. Proud of your. Oral skills.

Next up, rocket man. :D

Seriously, you think I'd be stupid enough not to notice where smog comes from? I don't mind if it gets a little warmer - I do want to breathe though.

Well you are in Canadia....so maybe?
And I hear you on the breathing part.

But yeah, humans play a part in global warming. That is, if global warming actually exists.

bouchie
December 16th, 2008, 02:57 PM
Next up, rocket man. :D And T.J. Hooker.

Well you are in Canadia....so maybe? At the 30th floor of some buildings, you can see the Toronto sky turn brown.

I know smog.

But yeah, humans play a part in global warming. That is, if global warming actually exists. Oh, I don't doubt that the climate is changing. However, I think it's more of a natural thing.

Here's a great website if anyone is interested in the debate: http://climatedebatedaily.com/

rzm61
December 16th, 2008, 05:32 PM
Oh, I don't doubt that the climate is changing. However, I think it's more of a natural thing.

Here's a great website if anyone is interested in the debate: http://climatedebatedaily.com/

Oh yeah, there is definatly a natrual influence. We're just speeding up the process really.

sam the moderately wize
December 17th, 2008, 12:00 PM
The climate is a complicit system, so a negligibly tiny increase in atmospheric CO2 will cause a tiny increase in temperature, causing a tiny increase in forest fires, limestone decomposition, thermal inertia, ocean acidity ect. which exacerbate increases in CO2 and temperature, causing even more of the above.

The tiny part we play has unreasonably huge effects.

shinsukato
December 19th, 2008, 03:26 PM
I am fairly ignorant on the global warming debate, and have found that it is extremely difficult to draw any kind of conclusion due to the absolutely massive bias clearly visible on both sides (at least when doing internet research).

I think I lean toward the believers side, that humans have an effect. I see powerplants pumping all of that gas into the sky and I just can't imagine it having no effect. We are undoubtedly pumping CO2 out into nature aren't we? If that CO2 is not contributing somewhat to global warming than where is it going? The number of trees has gone down due to humans, and the amount of CO2 has gone up due to humans. Doesn't this infer that we are having some sort of effect? Honestly, I hope for this argument to be completely destroyed since there is no research behind it.

Sam, I don't understand what you mean. You say that the tiny (comparatively) part we are playing will have huge effects. Huger than what nature would evoke otherwise? Could you possibly expound on your theory?

Daruko
December 19th, 2008, 03:48 PM
oh brother... another result of neocon propaganda.

Bouchie, srsly. Chemistry dood.

Have you bothered reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_dispersion_modeling

or do you often just jump to these kinds of conclusions based upon political meanderings, rather than actual science?

tagnostic
December 19th, 2008, 06:07 PM
how about volcano's?
i've seen the stuff they put in the air
lets ban/tax volcano's

Daruko
December 19th, 2008, 06:44 PM
I'm making no political statement (other than that the current neocon "global warming is a hoax" propaganda is beyond absurd). I could give a shit less about the "green movement", or oil, or whatever. Al Gore and Rush Limbaugh can suck it.

It's not a game where you just pick teams, and then maintain loyalty to your team. That's not science. That's politics/propaganda. Not many ppl these days are interested in simply trying to understand the science of global warming. What is it really? What is the ozone? What are we talking about chemically when we say "greenhouse effect". Nobody knows or cares. They're too busy picking sides on an issue of whether the right or the left is right... whether it's a hoax, or who is right about what we are doing wrong, or what we should do... if ppl took the time to actually learn about the phenomenon scientifically, and what observations have contributed to current theoretical models, they might be able to come up with their own ideas.

Anyone that says "Al Gore is sooooo right" or "Global Warming is a big liberal commie hoax" or etc. is a fucking tool... srsly.

tagnostic
December 19th, 2008, 06:54 PM
when i was in school
it was 'the next ice age is coming'
now its 'global warming'
note also
sars
bird flu
swine flu
mad cow disease
HIV
comets
asteroids
the list goes on of things that
were going to wipe out humanity.
so far
Humanity 6 billion
global disasters not nearly enough
the point being, no one really knows
and is pretty irrelevant on a day to day basis.
who gives a crap when their starving,
who gives a crap when their kids aren't safe,
who gives a crap when you live in a warzone.
why worry about coulda'-might happens
when you've got a day to day existance to survive?

sudikics
December 19th, 2008, 11:00 PM
Daruko: In case he didn't make it clear enough, bouchie fully acknowledges the existence of global warming; instead, he's just skeptical of our role in it.

bouchie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg

That video, and all of its subsequent videos, should clear up a lot for you.

Fallen Hero
December 20th, 2008, 06:21 PM
The end of anonymous posting will be the end of 4chan. This will also signify the end of the internet.

As cool as it may seem, why don't we take fingerprints of everyone aged 6 and up and put them in a registry so that if anyone so much as breathes, we know who it was. Hell, why don't we put RFID tags in people too? I know this is a slippery slope argument, but the point is: I like being anonymous and not being a dick about it; I don't want to feel like I am being monitored for everything I post on the internet. I'm all for being polite, but running a police state on the internet is just too much.

Tsar Phalanxia
December 20th, 2008, 11:20 PM
The end of anonymous posting will be the end of 4chan. This will also signify the end of the internet.


NOES! THAT CAN NEVER HAPPEN! How can I post obscenities on 4chan if everyone knows I am? O.O
Also, Desu desu desu desu desu desu desu desu desu desu desu desu desu desu desu desu desu desu desu desu desu desu desu desu desu desu desu .

winwun
December 20th, 2008, 11:24 PM
You need look no further than their billfold -- the ones espousing "global warming" are the ones who stand to make money from more persons believing their hype and tripe.

I don't believe for a minute that humans play anymore of a role in the present curve of the cycle than did dinosaur phartz in the earlier cycle.

Tsar Phalanxia
December 20th, 2008, 11:46 PM
I'm making no political statement (other than that the current neocon "global warming is a hoax" propaganda is beyond absurd). I could give a shit less about the "green movement", or oil, or whatever. Al Gore and Rush Limbaugh can suck it.
There is a difference between an environmental crisis and an energy crisis. We happen to be experiencing the latter.

It's not a game where you just pick teams, and then maintain loyalty to your team. That's not science. That's politics/propaganda.
Ofc. But likewise, when something has generally been accepted by the modern scientific community, it's dumb to say that it's wrong without anything to back you up.

Not many ppl these days are interested in simply trying to understand the science of global warming. What is it really? What is the ozone? What are we talking about chemically when we say "greenhouse effect".
Umm, it's quite clearly been demonstrated in the case of Venus. It's further from the sun than Mercury, but it's a lot hotter, thanks to an atmosphere composed mainly of CO2.


Anyone that says "Al Gore is sooooo right" or "Global Warming is a big liberal commie hoax" or etc. is a fucking tool... srsly.
That opinion is a de facto "do nothing". There is no middle ground with this; you wither do something, or you do nothing/do hardly anything.
when i was in school
it was 'the next ice age is coming'

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/
That was due to a lack of knowledge about what pollution released into the atmosphere would do, plus the fact that we'd already had an ice age, and the popular press were able to pick up on it simply.

note also
sars
bird flu
swine flu
mad cow disease
HIV
comets
asteroids
SARS was controlled, thanks to the Chinese government exterminating thousands of chickens, same for bird and swine flu.
Mad Cow Disease was never dangerous on a large scale, and was due only to the idiocy of many farmers.
HIV is dangerous, but it's spreading much slower than we first thought. We are making slow progress in controlling it.
Comets and Asteroids happen occasionally, indeed Tunguska was most likely an asteroid, and had that exploded over Europe/America, you could say goodbye to Western Barbarism.

Humanity 6 billion
global disasters not nearly enough
the point being, no one really knows
and is pretty irrelevant on a day to day basis.
who gives a crap when their starving,
who gives a crap when their kids aren't safe,
who gives a crap when you live in a warzone.
why worry about coulda'-might happens
when you've got a day to day existance to survive?
Indeed. However, when said disaster is approaching, and well affect all of our abilities to stay out of those situations then we should start to worry. Not to the point of paranoia of course, but it would be foolish to gloss over the extremely likely truth.

tagnostic
December 21st, 2008, 06:20 PM
Europe/America, you could say goodbye to Western Civilisation!


civilized?
citation needed

Daruko
December 22nd, 2008, 05:55 AM
Daruko: In case he didn't make it clear enough, bouchie fully acknowledges the existence of global warming; instead, he's just skeptical of our role in it.

I overhear a lot of explanations about the "global warming hoax" around my particular workplace. It's annoying, because it's a scientific issue being predigested and fed back to the public from an irrational hominid political arena, rather than from logical analysis of factual evidence, and/or experiment, and/or a profoundly demonstrated explanatory hypothesis... people are apparently buying it without much thought at all. And then there's the stupid left wing arguments about it, and the whole damn issue is rife with issues that have nothing to do with innovating to accomodate and take advantage of any real problems.

I'd be interested to see some facts backing the arguments Bouchie has put forth. It's significant to find out whether we humans are upsetting the means to our own survival. And if so, perhaps it's a quite soluble problem.

Daruko
December 22nd, 2008, 05:58 AM
You need look no further than their billfold -- the ones espousing "global warming" are the ones who stand to make money from more persons believing their hype and tripe.
I think you're quite right. But here:

I don't believe for a minute that humans play anymore of a role in the present curve of the cycle than did dinosaur phartz in the earlier cycle.
:icon_mad: tssst Perhaps you've fallen prey to the other "espousers".

Tsar Phalanxia
December 22nd, 2008, 01:40 PM
You need look no further than their billfold -- the ones espousing "global warming" are the ones who stand to make money from more persons believing their hype and tripe.

Do you think the left wants to spend money on protecting the environment when it could be building hospitals or schools? :icon_rolleyes:


I don't believe for a minute that humans play anymore of a role in the present curve of the cycle than did dinosaur phartz in the earlier cycle.

To quote Daruko: "Tssst!". Why do you believe such bullshit? Facts plz.

rzm61
December 22nd, 2008, 02:00 PM
wtf is a phartz?

Daruko
December 22nd, 2008, 02:15 PM
wtf is a phartz?
:icon_lol: It's like the force or the schwartz, except stinkier.

Tsar Phalanxia
December 22nd, 2008, 02:43 PM
wtf is a phartz?

"Farts"?

rzm61
December 22nd, 2008, 02:59 PM
"Farts"?

...no shit.

rmw
January 11th, 2009, 02:17 PM
I think Daruko brought up a good point about the political side of the global warming debate. It would be one thing if it was a merely scientific debate, but you also have the left and right calling each other and cherry-picking their data for their own political ends. At this point in time, it seems the left is currently "winning" the global warming debate--how many times do you see commericials for "green" vehicles, carpets, windows, appliances, etc.? I wonder if, right now, the scientific evidence and data is less important than the political "evidence"? Let's face it, it's cool (and profitable in many cases) to be green. Do you think, short of irrefutable scientific evidence that humans are not the cause (or at least the main cause) of global warming, that the scientific debate is less important than the political debate over it?

Kabel
January 11th, 2009, 04:35 PM
...no shit.
That seems to be the general idea of the "fart."
All the fun, none of the mess.

As far as I'm concerned, the planet will be fine, it's the people who are fucked. (TY George Carlin.)

winwun
January 11th, 2009, 05:07 PM
The curve of the cycle is at its proper point, and that humans are around to record/debate the issue is purely co-incidental, and totally irrelevant -- (much the same as were the dinosaur phartz of an earlier era)

Tsar Phalanxia
January 11th, 2009, 09:08 PM
At this point in time, it seems the left is currently "winning" the global warming debate

Define win. In academic circles; yes. In reality? Things are progressing pretty much as before.

how many times do you see commericials for "green" vehicles, carpets, windows, appliances, etc.?
Hardly ever. You've fallen victim to Greenwashing.

fosley
January 12th, 2009, 06:47 AM
Well, it seems clear that there is one pressing, and elusive, fact that will radically advance the global warming debate: the answer to the question "If all the humans were to disappear right now, would the climate changes over the next X years be significantly different from the climate changes over those same X years if the humans continue what they're doing right now?"

The problem is nobody has, to my knowledge, shown any real proof they can answer that question. If and when we can answer that question, then we can start worrying about what we're going to do about it.

Because the question doesn't have a firm answer, it really is impossible to make any determination. Saying we should believe <insert your stance here> is just as silly as saying we should believe in your particular religion over all the other religions for which there's no evidence. Remaining aglobalwarming on the issue is the default stance, not a stance of denial.

sam the moderately wize
January 12th, 2009, 10:01 AM
You need look no further than their billfold -- the ones espousing "global warming" are the ones who stand to make money from more persons believing their hype and tripe.

Don't quote me on this, but I have a feeling that the best-paid scientists are being funded by the rich oil companies to be global warming deniers.

Just a thought.

Well, it seems clear that there is one pressing, and elusive, fact that will radically advance the global warming debate: the answer to the question "If all the humans were to disappear right now, would the climate changes over the next X years be significantly different from the climate changes over those same X years if the humans continue what they're doing right now?"

The climate probably wouldn't be that much different; as we all know, it follows fairly natural cycles. However, the amount of CO2 hanging around would be much smaller. Atmospheric CO2 is really only the tip of the iceberg - the CO2 building up in the oceans and the reduction of rainforest carbon sinks is causing far more problems. Even the tiniest change in ocean acidity can deal real problems to fragile environments such as coral reefs.

winwun
January 12th, 2009, 11:44 AM
Fosley and Sam, you have both given very proper, albeit down-played answers.

Not enough attention and emphasis is being placed on the obvious cycles.

bouchie
January 13th, 2009, 12:56 AM
It's not a game where you just pick teams, and then maintain loyalty to your team. That's not science. That's politics/propaganda. Not many ppl these days are interested in simply trying to understand the science of global warming. What is it really? What is the ozone? What are we talking about chemically when we say "greenhouse effect". Nobody knows or cares. They're too busy picking sides on an issue of whether the right or the left is right... whether it's a hoax, or who is right about what we are doing wrong, or what we should do... if ppl took the time to actually learn about the phenomenon scientifically, and what observations have contributed to current theoretical models, they might be able to come up with their own ideas. The sad truth is very few people actually do understand the science behind global warming. They rely on other sources other than the scientists who put forward the evidence. Unfrotuantely, these sources are the media and charismatic politicians, who have a tendency to bend the science to push forward their own agenda. They're not all malicious - that's just human nature.

I continuously try to learn more about this. Studying the environment itself is a fascinating subject. Trying to figure out what causes the changes adds an enticing layer of complexity. There's a lot of data to sort through, however, so I don't claim to have a definitive answer. However, I'm holding out on the activitists, if only to study the question in more detail and not blindly follow them.



who gives a crap when their starving,
who gives a crap when their kids aren't safe,
who gives a crap when you live in a warzone.
why worry about coulda'-might happens
when you've got a day to day existance to survive? Granted, if the activists are right, those problems will only become worse. Hopefully they don't. This is also a point Bjorn Lomborg brings up in the book Cool It. A must read if you're interested in the global warming debate.

bouchie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg

That video, and all of its subsequent videos, should clear up a lot for you. Excellent video sciky. Kudos to you. I agree with the guy's point, although on the policy side, I fear that the politicians will create instutitions and regulations that will be too extreme. Undrstandable, given the horrifying nature of the consequences should I and the skeptics be wrong. I just hope they do some things in moderation.

Btw, Daruko, I posted a link earlier in the thread. It's a excellent resource, providing links to articles and data presented by both sides of the debate. That's where I get my info from. Here's the link again: http://climatedebatedaily.com/

Fosley and Sam, you have both given very proper, albeit down-played answers.

Not enough attention and emphasis is being placed on the obvious cycles. That's because there's not enough data to prove conclusively that there are 'obvious cycles'. I do believe there is a sunspot cycle (there's some evidence for that) and there are, possibly, larger cycles that are in play closer to home. But that's still in the works, as we weren't always collecting weather data.

sudikics
January 13th, 2009, 02:51 AM
The sad truth is very few people actually do understand the science behind global warming. They rely on other sources other than the scientists who put forward the evidence. Unfrotuantely, these sources are the media and charismatic politicians, who have a tendency to bend the science to push forward their own agenda. They're not all malicious - that's just human nature.

I continuously try to learn more about this. Studying the environment itself is a fascinating subject. Trying to figure out what causes the changes adds an enticing layer of complexity. There's a lot of data to sort through, however, so I don't claim to have a definitive answer. However, I'm holding out on the activitists, if only to study the question in more detail and not blindly follow them.


Granted, if the activists are right, those problems will only become worse. Hopefully they don't. This is also a point Bjorn Lomborg brings up in the book Cool It. A must read if you're interested in the global warming debate.

Excellent video sciky. Kudos to you. I agree with the guy's point, although on the policy side, I fear that the politicians will create instutitions and regulations that will be too extreme. Undrstandable, given the horrifying nature of the consequences should I and the skeptics be wrong. I just hope they do some things in moderation.

Btw, Daruko, I posted a link earlier in the thread. It's a excellent resource, providing links to articles and data presented by both sides of the debate. That's where I get my info from. Here's the link again: http://climatedebatedaily.com/

That's because there's not enough data to prove conclusively that there are 'obvious cycles'. I do believe there is a sunspot cycle (there's some evidence for that) and there are, possibly, larger cycles that are in play closer to home. But that's still in the works, as we weren't always collecting weather data.
The cycles argument and the idea of cloud cover are the two leading opposing scientific ideas against global warming.

I suggest that you watch these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A4F0994AFB057BB8

Daruko
January 13th, 2009, 08:11 PM
However, I'm holding out on the activitists, if only to study the question in more detail and not blindly follow them.

THIS is the correct motorcycle, friends.