What do you think about the climate change?

[Sharkull]

Gotta love forums with an Ignore feature.

:)

 

/on topic.

 

Instead of adopting the opinions of others as my own, I think for myself and form opinions on what I consider to be most plausible using deductive and non-deductive reasoning to consider the available information. (John Burbidge's "Within Reason" is good as an introduction to non-deductive reasoning for those interested... it was on the reading list for a Logic course I took in University many, many years ago).

 

On the subject at issue here, I find it highly plausible that scientists have been influenced by the funding of research into climate change... on both sides of the debate. Big oil $'s on one side, and petrified politicians (backed by government $'s, motivated by panicking populations) on the other, with the flames of controversy being fanned by media who profit from hysteria. Each side's scientists aren't motivated by pure scientific curiosity anymore... if results don't agree with their employer's desire, the scientist risks their career / funding. It has happened... more than once. Scientists are human beings, and the profit motive is strong. Employers of scientists use this to advantage.

 

A constant companion to hot button issues are claims of conspiracy being flung around trying to discredit the position of the other side. This leak is just one more such instance of the same pattern. People start buying into the hype of one side or the other, dogma taking hold, reasoned thought is brushed aside. It becomes "us" vs. "them".

 

Since I cannot take the scientific community at it's word here (for reasons I've just explained), I am forced to look at the issue myself. Back to basics. The Scientific Method. Without a controlled experiment, isolating the causal link you are trying to study from all other potential causal factors, the proof of any causal-link hypothesis with anything close to certainty is absolutely impossible. (If someone challenges that statement, please provide reasoning). Any hypothetical causal-link between human activity and climate change is unprovable.

 

Knowing this fundamental aspect of the Scientific Method, and considering the polarizing vehemence with which climate change positions are presented, I find it more plausible that this vehemence is motivated by self-interest vs. the strength of the science. I don't buy into either side's hype. Climate change happens completely naturally (as any geologist knows), and it is also possible that human activity can have an affect on climate change.

 

In closing, I'll quote myself:

All that being said, investing in smarter energy technology and conservation is something I can agree with (for more reasons than the climate change debate).

:)

[myrmaad]

Let me get this straight. You're the only one who has ever had an independent thought.

And this is your conclusion.

 

 

I see. You know, critical thinking is not taught in schools, generally. It would be extremely unwise for those in power to teach critical thinking, and they don't. And this is how we get people making connections based on those half-remembered factoids and believing that they are thinking critically.

 

 

I confess I rarely look at these debate threads because it's kind of pointless--arguing with a bunch of people I don't know, not really worth my time. I would explain it, but for a fee.

Edited December 2, 2009 by myrmaad

[Vagrant0]

I confess I rarely look at these debate threads because it's kind of pointless--arguing with a bunch of people I don't know, not really worth my time. I would explain it, but for a fee.

Even though I do, from time to time get involved with these threads, I've tried to stay out of ones like this. There are simply too many special interests involved with any and all of the data. About the only thing I'm willing to entertain on the matter is as follows:

 

There is more CO2 in the atmosphere than there was 50 years ago, however the cause of this increase has likely more to do with natural sources than man-made ones. Humanity could vanish from the planet, factories and engines could cease functioning, and the CO2 levels would likely still increase at a similar rate until plantlife could overtake the cities. It is likely a natural cycle that we are just experiencing the other part of. Dirty industry and pollution are still bad in many environmental aspects, but are not the sole contributors. We've been experiencing generally mild climates for the last few generations, so naturally see any change as being evidence of catastrophe. The environmental "crisis" of the time just seems to naturally coincide with about every other prophetic tale of Armageddon simply because people choose to believe it (and for some crazy reason, like it).

 

But that's just my uninformed opinion on the matter.

 

I still think there are some positive aspects of getting people concerned about the environment, but find the fear-mongering and lies used to get people off their lazy, greedy, self-absorbed asses to be doing more harm to those aspects in the long run.

[myrmaad]

I confess I rarely look at these debate threads because it's kind of pointless--arguing with a bunch of people I don't know, not really worth my time. I would explain it, but for a fee.

Even though I do, from time to time get involved with these threads, I've tried to stay out of ones like this. There are simply too many special interests involved with any and all of the data. About the only thing I'm willing to entertain on the matter is as follows:

 

There is more CO2 in the atmosphere than there was 50 years ago, however the cause of this increase has likely more to do with natural sources than man-made ones. Humanity could vanish from the planet, factories and engines could cease functioning, and the CO2 levels would likely still increase at a similar rate until plantlife could overtake the cities. It is likely a natural cycle that we are just experiencing the other part of. Dirty industry and pollution are still bad in many environmental aspects, but are not the sole contributors. We've been experiencing generally mild climates for the last few generations, so naturally see any change as being evidence of catastrophe. The environmental "crisis" of the time just seems to naturally coincide with about every other prophetic tale of Armageddon simply because people choose to believe it (and for some crazy reason, like it).

 

But that's just my uninformed opinion on the matter.

 

I still think there are some positive aspects of getting people concerned about the environment, but find the fear-mongering and lies used to get people off their lazy, greedy, self-absorbed asses to be doing more harm to those aspects in the long run.

 

Why assume that we've only got records from fifty years ago.

 

In fact we know precisely what the temperatures were from 950 to 1300 AD in western europe, for example. It's not simple which is what makes it a debate for simpletons. I don't trust the people who are so loudly against it, as I actually value my education.

 

I tend to be highly skeptical of people who have an expensive education trying to convince the masses that "education is worthless". This is what I see happening every morning when I turn on CSpan. I also think it's laughable that people actually believe they don't need an education in critical thinking in order to draw a critically thought conclusion.

 

Not because I think people are necessarily stupid, on the whole, but more because, people do not understand that their conclusions are colored to a degree they can't imagine by their own biases. In fact, unless you have been educated to have a hyper-awareness of it, all people are "Predictably Irrational", and actually cannot draw a critically thought rational conclusion. I believe the only way around this is to be armed with the knowledge that we are prone to make irrational decision and conclusions.

 

So, this is not a class, these are not scientists, they are certainly not 'experts' by any stretch of the imagination, and in fact it's a room full of people who not only are predictably irrational but do not give a rat's butt about what I think.

 

Better for me to spend my time educating those around me who I actually can reach and teach.

[JimboUK]

It doesn't help that there are vested interests on both sides. We have governments always looking for new ways to tax and control people, scientists more concerned with funding than they are facts, businesses busy selling us new "greener" products and a far too powerful green lobby who won't be happy until we're back living in caves. On the other side there are the oil companies and others who stink the place up. Is it any surprise that people are sceptical?

[Vagrant0]

Why assume that we've only got records from fifty years ago.

I never said anything of that sort. I simply stated that:

 

There is more CO2 in the atmosphere than there was 50 years ago

 

No other conclusions or points of reference were drawn although I am well aware that they exist. Although this may be undoubtedly true over the majority of the last 3000+ years, most would agree that it is only within the last 50 has global industrialization been in the spotlight as to the causes of this increase. Seemed a better place to illustrate the point from.

 

As to the critical thinking argument, it's kinda a lost cause. Those who have it should be thankful, and those without won't care either way. Some people just prefer to be told what to think as long as it doesn't impact their own lives in any significantly negative way. It's a poor commentary on humanity, but is not with purpose. And that's about all I'll say on that.

[Alexspeed]

I confess I rarely look at these debate threads because it's kind of pointless--arguing with a bunch of people I don't know, not really worth my time. I would explain it, but for a fee.

 

THIS sums up quite well what i think everytime when i look into the debates forum.

 

Ive read a good part of the active threads in here, and it is aggravating me, and makes me loose my faith in humanity (the little that is still there).

 

I dont want to explain it further, it could lead to a Ban.

 

I guess i will just dont read this Forum any more, problem solved.

[Sharkull]

Let me get this straight. You're the only one who has ever had an independent thought.

...

I don't believe I ever made such a statement. I simply explained how I form opinions and how I apply that method to this subject. Everyone is of course free to form their own opinions however they choose.

 

...

I tend to be highly skeptical of people who have an expensive education trying to convince the masses that "education is worthless". This is what I see happening every morning when I turn on CSpan. I also think it's laughable that people actually believe they don't need an education in critical thinking in order to draw a critically thought conclusion.

...

Education is indeed a great asset. However, the educated are still human beings, subject to all the strengths and weaknesses therein. Human beings make mistakes (sometimes being deceptive on purpose). When considering any information I also consider the integrity of the source, qualifying reliability accordingly.

 

...

Not because I think people are necessarily stupid, on the whole, but more because, people do not understand that their conclusions are colored to a degree they can't imagine by their own biases. In fact, unless you have been educated to have a hyper-awareness of it, all people are "Predictably Irrational", and actually cannot draw a critically thought rational conclusion. I believe the only way around this is to be armed with the knowledge that we are prone to make irrational decision and conclusions.

...

On this point I agree completely, as evidenced by my signature.

:)

This is the main reason I enjoy debates: to challenge my beliefs, seeking out any biases I have but am not aware of.

[Harabec Weathers]

It doesn't help that there are vested interests on both sides. We have governments always looking for new ways to tax and control people, scientists more concerned with funding than they are facts, businesses busy selling us new "greener" products and a far too powerful green lobby who won't be happy until we're back living in caves. On the other side there are the oil companies and others who stink the place up. Is it any surprise that people are sceptical?

 

"Clowns to the left of me

Jokers to the right

Here I am

Stuck in the middle again"

:D

[Sharkull]

Rex Murphy hits the nail on the head with this one (link to video):

http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/indepthanaly...phy-091203.html

 

Partial quote from the video:

...

 

Climate science has been shown to be - in part - a sub-branch of climate politics.

 

It is a situation intolerable even to serious minds who are onside with global warming, such as Clive Crook, who wrote in The Atlantic magazine about this scandal as follows: "The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering”.

 

Climate science needs its own reset button. And Climategate should be seen, not primarily as a setback, but as an opportunity to cleanse scientific method. To take science away from politics, good causes, and alarmists, and vest climate science in bodies of guaranteed neutrality, openness, real and vigorous debate. And away from the lobbyists, the NGOs, the advocates, the Gores and professional environmentalists of all kind. Too many of the current leadership on global warming are more players than observers, gatekeepers, not investigators, angry partisans of some global reengineering rather than the humble servants of the "facts of the case”.

 

...

:thumbsup: