Re: Al Gores movie, An Unfortunate Circumstance.. (global warming)

<Russell.Martin@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1153588933.453408.240310@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thomas Bartkus wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 21:32:39 -0700, Russell.Martin wrote:

The shape of the earth is an observation.

So is global temperature.

Agreed.
However - attributing a rise on those temperatures to human produced carbon
dioxide emission is not.

We don't have to analyze a bunch
of questionable measurements and debate whether the correlation to a
sphere is sufficient to support a theory of a round earth.

So what? Science often advances by analyzing many onservations.
You wouldn't deny Kepler's laws of planetary motion would you?

No. But do remember what came before Kepler's (then!) hotly debated laws of
planetary motion. A perfectly viable and rational system that provided
predictive consistency to a universe where the sun and planets orbited the
earth. With the full weight of scientific consensus behind it.

I suggested in the post that google blew away that you read the
research. I estimate it is only a few hundred articles in the leading
journals since about 1990 :-) that have exhaustively studied every
objection to the idea that the globe is warming and greenhouse
gas increases are a significant contributor.

I do think this is the core of the argument here. I don't think a consensus
such as that has much, if any, place in a scientific discussion. The
popularity of opinion or the sheer volume of publication of any one opinion
simply has no effect upon reality. Google searches can be stuffed more
easily than a ballot box.

I do have a very restricted view of statistics. I believe it's only
valid
use is to evaluate the quality of measurement. A useful tool to improve
the utility of the flawed devices we use to measure. A *useless* device
when used to manufacture evidence to relate phenomena that are more than
likely related only coincidentally.

Then you need to ask some statisticians about inferential
statistics, because they certainly do not agree with your
opinion.

I would suggest that inferential statistics is abused by research in other
fields in order to support pet theories and is looked upon with some disdain
by professional statisticians. I don't think that statisticians would
disagree with my statements as you suggest. That personal opinion gets some
support from discussions with the very tiny number of professional
statisticians I do get to talk to.

It is my personal opinion that the use of inferential statistics gets
carried too far and is accorded too much weight in scientific research
today.

Gore's oft repeated phrase ".. can't be just a coincidence" is
nonsensical. It can and probably is just a coincidence. Coincidental
relationships do indeed rule the universe.

Have you read the book _Fooled by Randomness_ that I've
advocated here on a number of occasions? I know about
coincidence, part of global warming ain't it.

No. But it just got promoted to the top of my very ponderous reading list
;-)
The title alone is enough for me. I suspect that many of todays scientists
are "_Fooled by Randomness_". That is a personal opinion and I don't know
what's in that book.

But I will find out ;-)

In any case, the physical world doesn't conform to conscensus of the
day either.

No, consensus of the day should conform to physical reality, which in
this case it does according to my study of the research.

Why? Why should the consensus of the day conform to physical reality?

Because otherwise the consensus isn't correct. I didn't
say it *has to*, just that it should. Actually in the original
post that was lost I wrote "ideally it should" but I was in
a hurry in the rewrite. Is that better? As a scientist you
certainly don't disagree with that, do you?

Nature has no inclination to follow mans consensus.
Consensus is not even a useful tool for revealing nature.
Consensus is very often wrong.
Consensus (when it is on our side!) gives us a false sense of security and
comfort in our beliefs.
Consensus is what we teach students - because we must!
Consensus is how we run our technology because it is what we know.
Science is what we do to rise above consensus.
Consensus is a tool used to squelch scientific debate.
Concensus is what we think we know, science is what we use in an effort to
break out of that ignorance.

Consensus convinces me of nothing other than that most people believe in the
consensus ;-)

Other than mans hopeless desire that it should? Do you not recognize how
often in the past it hasn't.

As I said, ideally it should.

The physical laws of the universe don't
change (I think! ;-) but the consensus of what those physical laws are
sure as heck does.

I never argued that it doesn't, and I don't see how you
could, in good conscience, attribute such an opinion
to me.

Please relax. It is not a personal attack. I have nothing but respect for
your opinions and I will be totally bummed out if my comments chase you
away. But I am stubborn ;-)

What I am trying to tease out are the facts that connect global warming to
human activities.
The fact that global warming exists can not provide evidence for this.

Here a few items from Al Gore -
The scientific consensus says so.
One must hold human activity culpable in order to rally behind
anti-pollution measures.
Climate trends indicate rising temperatures.
Glaciers are retreating, Ice packs are breaking up.
Oil companies killed the electric car.

All may be true. All may be worthy of consideration. None make the
connection between global warming and human activities.

Without more, it's only an hypothesis.
Not that I have anything against hypothesizing, mind you ;-)

The most infuriating thing I find about Al Gore's arguments is the
attempt
to squelch discussion with the logically dishonest assertion that "most
scientists now agree". Even if that were true it would still be an
irrelevancy towards making a case for ones theories.

Whatever those theories might be!

Sorry, but I have a birthday party to go to, so I'm
rushed again and can not be as explanative as I'd
like. Please don't hold that against me by interpolating
any further ideas to cover my silence on some
partuicular points. Thanks.


Please enjoy life.

And respond only if it pleases you ;-)
Thomas Bartkus


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Did I miss this new Global Warming material
    ... The scientists are stating an overwhelming consensus. ... A question which frequently arises in popular discussion of climate change ... US National Academy of Science: "In the judgment of most climate ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: OT - Global Warming For Those Who Claim it is an Al Gore Illusion
    ... While we certainly have no shortage of them reading here, there's no "ass-hole" in the earth in which one can stick a thermometer to find out what the true temperature is. ... who would want to join the scientific community in their consensus? ... American Meteorological Society ... "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: Breaking News (Was Re: Religious right and global warming)
    ... There was a great panic about global cooling a few years ago. ... Scientists were not pushing the global cooling "panic." ... Etymology:Latin, from consensus, past participle of consentire to feel ... In the UK there are many people who doubt global warming, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Breaking News (Was Re: Religious right and global warming)
    ... There was a great panic about global cooling a few years ago. ... Scientists were not pushing the global cooling "panic." ... Etymology:Latin, from consensus, past participle of consentire to feel ... In the UK there are many people who doubt global warming, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Breaking News (Was Re: Religious right and global warming)
    ... There was a great panic about global cooling a few years ago. ... Scientists were not pushing the global cooling "panic." ... Etymology:Latin, from consensus, past participle of consentire to feel ... In the UK there are many people who doubt global warming, ...
    (talk.origins)