[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by rawlus

i know i am not qualified to interpret scientific data. i never claimed i was qualified.

Ok, so we agree that you are not qualified to interpret scientific data; then who is? Maybe climate scientists who have actually spent most of their adult lives studying this stuff?

IDRGAF about the last political campaign - that's an obfuscation argument.

my remarks were about the intent of the fiction novel. what the book was attempting to portray as part of the storyline.

First a correction; I was not talking about a political campaign, but rather the last (and for a few months anyway) and current political administration. I.e. the people who control NASA and NOAA where much of the information on climate change is coming from. The scientists in those organizations were in fact risking their political capital in taking their positions while the Bush Administration is in power.

Secondly, you were defending the position of the book, not as if it was a story set in a fictional universe but as if it was set in essentially our own world. Therefore, my point was not in fact an obfuscation, but in fact directly contradicted your point that scientists talked about global warming purely for their own political or financial gain.

i don't see the correlation between boeing engineers and global warming.

Its an analogy. Aerospace science and Climatology are both very complicated subjects where the layman is not likely to make significant progress. I wouldn't trust you to design a new Jet Boeing and I won't trust you to interpret climate data.

actually. correlation is a good word here, as i think laypersons often confuse correlation and causation. more importantly, mainstream media is likely a bit sloppy in the distinction between the two. it is common for an everyday person to make a statement like "polar bears are dwindling because of global warming" - now that is certainly a sensational statement and perhaps even tragic in that polar bears may be dwindling, but the statement implies that global warming is CAUSING polar bears to dwindle. that is certainly one theory in explaining the correlation, but it is hardly a fact.

there may be a correlation between rising temps and polar bears. but that does not mean we should pull out our jump to conclusions mats and start playing.

Single correlations used as evidence of causation are a logical fallacy, but when you get enough correlations, you certainly have enough data to start developing hypothesis. The simple fact of the matter is that we have thousands of pieces of data that seems suggestive that global temperatures are in fact increasing and some of that data (from the ice cores taken from ice-shelves for example) strongly suggests that there is a strong correlation between increases in CO2 levels and global mean temperatures. Further scientists actually understand to a great degree how CO2 and other gases can actually trap heat on the planet.

So lets see here:

1. Scientists know that CO2, methane and other gases can trap heat on the Earth.
2. There is enough data to suggest a strong correlation between global CO2 levels and global temperatures.
3. Currently we know global CO2 levels have increased significantly over the last century and apparently so have global temperatures.

I can throw in lots of other data but the point here is that it is not simple single case correlation here.

Oh I should point out that science relies on correlation far more than you might think. Its how the first practical vaccine, the small pox vaccine, was developed back in the 18th century and it is still a very important tool for science.

even the term global warming is in dispute - and the layperson's definition of it is manufactured by media reports and accepted at face value without any understanding whatsoever as to it's meaning and implications. largely those definitions typically include doomsday scenarios, death and destruction, etc. presumably because that puts a picture to the idea and makes it more emotionally relate-able.

the book is a novel, with a storyline that takes a certain point of view and validates it within the structure of it's characters. i think those who immediately cry foul, who claim the author is the devil, part of a right-wing conspiracy, an enemy of science, a bush-appointee or secret confidant, etc. are a little too attached to their own dogma. but in that way, the book is very effective in touching something deep inside the reader too. taking some of the theoretical counter-arguments to popular belief and posing them as legitimate ideas in the context of the storyline can be very entertaining, even informative!

But see Crichton was not simply writing a novel. He could have diffused the whole argument with simply stating that it was a novel not reality.

Ultimately, authors of novels, often chew their own political agendas in their novels. None more so than Science Fiction authors.

Scientific data is always tentative, subject to revision based on new information. That does not mean that a counter argument is legitimate just because the main theory might be wrong. Real information has to be produced to undermine the existing theory. Otherwise scientists would have to answer every individual who claims the Earth is flat or that it is the center of the Universe.

i stand by my earlier statements that the sciences posing the arguments supporting the theory of global warming are politically and financially motivated. that their field is based upon interpreting inaccurate data and/or relying upon subjective computer simulation models. that the media plays a large role in the spread of disinformation and that the fear-mongering is part of a larger objective to pacify and make submissive the population.

i could not agree more. given that it is so complex and that we barely understand even a little bit - it seems a little premature to begin issuing doomsday press releases for the purpose of instilling fear, making money, securing support or winning elections, adoration or ego-building.

First I didn't say we understood a little bit, I said we were only beginning to understand it. The two statements are very different. We actually understand a lot, and a lot more every day.

Secondly, during the Bush Administration, pushing climate change as an agenda was not the way for a NASA or NOAA scientist to make money. Quite the opposite.

Thirdly, the arguments almost seem paranoid. As if there is a crypto-kabal out there of liberals, climate scientists and the media who are all working together to push the issue of global warming for their own benefit. At the same time, you ignore the fact that even more powerful interests such as the oil companies, and most other corporations for that matter have a powerful interest in proving global warming to be false.

Finally, I would like to know why, after yourself claiming to not be qualified to interpret the scientific data, you insist that you can know whether or not the scientists are essentially cooking the books? You can't have it both ways.

the challenge is not in understanding what is happening in the here and now - the challenge lies in understanding the WHY and how past events have affected or not affected the path to here. those issues may never be fully understood due to their complexity and our lack of ability to measure our own impact upon natural events.

Sigh.. Why is a question for philosophers. Science may occasionally hit upon a why, but ultimately, they are all about developing theories that make predictions. If A. happens then B will also happen stuff. We don't really understand the why Gravity for example but it hasn't stopped us from sending a man to the moon.

--
Bill