Happy Feet

[Discordia]

make sure to get a fucking nice boat like Costner in Waterworld. Everything else will be ok.

So then we'd be the BMX nautical crew?

[BreakmanX]

The hypocrite principle again comes in, I guess.

Definitely. Prime example of the word hypocrite if you ask me.

"Global Warming!!! Aghhhh!!!!"

The scientific consensus right now seems to think we are causing it and can change it for the better.

[Vamp [Bot]]

Majority consensus !== unanimous consensus.

Majority !== absolute correctness. Remember that Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

[BreakmanX]

I agree with your post Vamp. But, also remember that all the games we play, medicine we take, cars we drive... etc all run on scientific theories from majority consensus.

[Vamp [Bot]]

Not exactly. The difference is those examples of what were originally just theories have all been put through the rigors of peer reviewed testing and have been proven beyond all reasonable doubt, not just flaky computer models based on the assumption that an change in carbon dioxide levels is the lead driver of global temperature change.

[BreakmanX]

Theories HAVE been put through the rigors of peer testing. There is no such thing as a fact in science. I know as I've actually participated in the scientific method here. It is all just theories that have been tested over and over again. Once new evidence comes up they re-evaluate. I think you are treating theories as if t hey are hypothesis. Which is a very common thing. In many of my classes that employ the method, we spend the first few weeks just talking about science and the scientific method.

Theories are only classified as theories after much experimentation and peer review. They start out as hypothesis and then are proven to be falsifiable or not. If they are proven false then the theory is changed to match the new evidence and the process starts all over.

[Vamp [Bot]]

A theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

And yes, I know you can't prove anything as fact through science, but you can disprove. If after extensive scientific testing you still can't disprove a theory, it is "proven beyond all reasonable doubt". For example, there's no serious question these days in the scientific community that the theory of evolution of species in biology is not correct because it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

However, at the same time, if new evidence or observations were to come about that disproves even a rigorously upheld theory, any scientist worth their salt would still disbelieve the theory or at least be open to the amendment of it. On that note, any true man of science should also aim to decide whether or not to believe claims based on verifiability and falsifiability rather than accepting claims on faith, anecdotes, or relying on unfalsifiable categories.

[BreakmanX]

Exactly. And just as there is little question about evolution, there is also little question about global warming.

[Vamp [Bot]]

Not true. The reason you're getting this perception is largely two fold.

1) Most scientists who are labelled as "deniers" for their views on global warming don't embrace this role. They cringe at the thought of disagreeing with colleagues who think that the science is settled, they do their best to avoid making waves, and they fear being marginalized as cranks who disagree with the scientific consensus.

2) The media and the mass hysteria.

[Vamp [Bot]]

Furthermore, all the believing scientists in the world can't change the fact that there still isn't enough evidence to conclude anything as the main attribution for the global warming observation.

[Discordia]

To suggest that the actions of human beings do NOT have an effect on the eco-structure of the Earth seems somewhat illogical given the scientific evidence of the detrimental effects of the destruction of the rainforests, etc. I would accept that the Earth goes through a natural process of warming and cooling in cycles, but it seems reasonable to think that man-made factors, such as pollution, may play a part in accelerating processes that might otherwise occur much more gradually. Nature is all about balance and, unfortunately, mankind has a history of upsetting this balance... which has led to the extinction or near extinction of a number of other species.

It is only our arrogance that leads us to believe that we can do whatever we wish without any consideration of the potential consequence.

Which side of the camp scientists choose to assign themselves to is, at this point, largely academic.

Edit: Edward Lorenz discovered in the early 1960s that relatively small changes in initial conditions produced a large change in the long-term outcomes. He did this while running simulations to predict the weather.

[BreakmanX]

I guess everyone has the right to believe or not believe in a scientific theory. Some people in my state don't believe in evolution, and the Christian Scientists don't believe in the germ theory.

That majority of scientists have made mistakes in the past, but all the advances that have been brought by them are worthwhile enough for me to go on the safe side for the whole possible destruction of the world. Of course they could be wrong, ANY theory COULD be wrong. But, if the majority of scientists support a theory that if I drive a lower emissions car or drive a little less I could be slowing down a process that will harm my children, I will go with my children.

[Vamp [Bot]]

I'd rather be more cautious, and would rather the majority of the scientific community would be as well, before outright accepting this theory without sufficient evidence for a number of reasons beyond just "being correct". Serious harm would be done to the world's economy if some of the more extreme suggestions on how to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide were to come in effect, which would simply decimate developing nations and the world's poor. Additionally, imagine 5 or 10 years after sounding the alarm and completely tear up one of our most important infrastructures if a more likely and better verified attribution is determined completely independent of carbon dioxide... how many people out there would be willing to trust any scientific theory even after being rigorously tested? Not many.

I'm not denying that humans can have an effect on the world around us, that much is plain to see. In fact, I think there is ample reason to cut down on use of petroleum or coal based fuels. For instance, SO2 is a commonly produced chemical created when using petroleum or coal as a fuel and is confirmed to have serious impact on the natural environment as well as human health.

Just as an aside, a lot of people who tend to call themselves environmentalists are just sheep. A few years ago, the TV show Penn & Teller's Bullshit! got hundreds of people at an environmental rally to easily sign a petition to ban the chemical dihydrogen monoxide. Think about that for a second... do you know what dihydrogen monoxide is? Well if you do you're smarter then anyone who signed that petition. It's H2O. WATER!

Break, and anyone else who cares, if you ever have some time it might be insightful for you to read the National Post's series on "global warming deniers". Click here if you're interested (links aren't entirely overt here).

[RurouniQ]

My head a-splode.

[Verence]

Dude, don't joke about it. Dihydrogen Monoxide kills thousands of people every year.