Friday, June 5, 2009

Our 6000 year old planet is getting hotter all the time

[Editorial note: I am not actually taking sides on either of the following issues. And I am not really interested in arguing the specifics of either. And, in fact, I am not necessarily even presenting my own arguments here. If that's what you come away with, I didn't get my point across.]

This is a tale of two subgroups. Group number one is extremely right wing politically. And extremely religious. They think anthropomorphic global warming is bullshit. And they have a whole list of reasons:

  • AGW takes an extremely complex climate model with millions of variables and makes finite predictions based on very small fluctuations in a single gas (CO2)
  • AGW is generally politicized science -- and government involvement in science is bad for government and bad for science
  • AGW proponents spout: whether we know if this is real or not, we should do something about it. It cannot hurt. (Pascal's wager)
  • AWG proponents pretend to be science by using the word "theory" in a scientific context when they really mean "hypothesis". Theories, in a scientific context are "reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of that class. ... In general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena." (from Wikipedia). AGW is does not meet these baseline requirements... and is certainly not the simplest explanation.
  • AGW proponents ignore theories of cyclical cooling/warming, sun/oceanic cycles, even though these ideas seem to successfully explain past events and have successfully predicted future changes
  • AGW proponents present a whole list of facts that are, well, not facts. This list is long but examples include: Arctic passage is open now for the first time in history, Greenland has always been an arctic climate and is dangerously melting, polar bears are in decline and are going to become extinct, glaciers everywhere are all melting and getting smaller, etc.
  • One of AGW's biggest hurdles isn't a problem with AGW at all. It is that it is represented by hucksters -- like Al Gore -- who obviously do not believe in AGW as they live a lifestyle that is incompatible with their own teachings and seem to be in the game for their own profit.


Group number two is extremely left wing politically. And generally buys into anthropomorphic global warming. They think intelligent design and religion are bullshit. And they have a whole list of reasons:

  • ID takes an extremely complex model of how we got here with millions of variables and makes a finite conclusion based on one or two things it deems "irreducibly complex."
  • ID is generally associated with politicized religion -- and government involvement in religion is bad for government and bad for religion
  • religious proponents spout: whether or not you believe in god or not, you should try to believe. It cannot hurt. (Pascal's wager)
  • ID proponents pretend to be science by using the word "theory" in a scientific context when they really mean "hypothesis". Theories, in a scientific context are "reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of that class. ... In general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena." (from Wikipedia). ID is does not meet these baseline requirements... and is certainly not the simplest explanation.
  • ID proponents ignore theories of evolution even though these ideas seem to successfully explain past events and have led to further scientific discoveries.
  • Religious proponents present a whole list of facts that are, well, not facts. This list is long but examples include: the world is only 6000 years old, the entire world was destroyed by a flood that covered the entire land mass, radiocarbon dating is inaccurate by billions of years, evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics, etc.
  • One of religion's biggest hurdles isn't a problem with religion at all. It is that it is represented by hucksters -- like Benny Hinn -- who obviously do not believe in religion as they live a lifestyle that is incompatible with their own teachings and seem to be in the game for their own profit.


The failure to generalize will one day make your head asplode.

4 comments:

Og Make Blog said...

Ah, yes there you have it. What to do?

Well, if you're not warming, you are cooling (seroiusly not a good option.) I wonder how many folks realize that polar bears are just cold adapted brown/grizzly bears. Probably not many.

The only possible detriment to business as usual might be the acidification of the oceans due to excess CO2. The natural systems seem to scrub over 2 GTons. Something like 4 GTons is being generated annually. Life will adapt, though. Maybe not just as the statists would like. The only thing truly abnormal with the climate is the consistency of the last 5000 years. Stick around... Things are bound to change. Maybe not just the way the human believes to be 'normal.'

Where was I going with this? Who cares? I'm still adjusting to English.

Chris said...

Yup, Global Warming is a religion, or at least a belief system... just like recycling and many others. What they have in common is that they all claim to be the absolute truth. As soon as one believes anything to be the absolute truth you are a prisoner to it.

And, since people tend to fall easily into such things, there will always be hucksters promoting them for power and profit.

Ragtime Joe said...

Politicized science is one example of "science by consensus". If enough "scientists" agree then it must be true -- right? Has science ever advanced in that manner? Ask Copernicus and Galileo -- their notions went against everything "known" at the time and the church made them pay dearly. Never mind that they happened to be right!

Og Make Blog said...

Amen! Er... uhh... well said!