Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Global Warming

Rate this topic


Guest Guest_guest_

Recommended Posts

The temperature today is not what it was in the middle ages, nor during pre-Roman times, when it was clearly warmer. What stands out is that in the last 8000 years the coldest period was about 150 years ago. Not to mention the fact that the temperature trend has been flat since 1998.

The temperature today is of no concern - the observed trend over time is the only thing that matters. Nor does the supposed temperature 8000 years ago matter, as we don't have the corresponding data on how that past temperature affected the people and environment of the time. Saying "it was N degrees warmer 10000 years ago and we're still here" is like saying "there was a Great Flood 10000 years ago and we're still here" (only thanks to the few that survived).

I linked to a graph above showing a continuing increase since approximately 1950, all the way to 2006.

When people use the phrase "Warmest year on record", they are only looking at a short record, probably a hundred years or so. They aren't looking at the full record.

Yes, the statement "warmest year on record" is a joke and anyone who uses it as evidence for global warming is clueless. However if the number of recent "warmest years on record" continues to increase, that statement can be used effectively.

We have a whole thread devoted to this where facts have been sighted, and I doubt you have nearly the knowledge of a Lindzen or a Singer on the matter, anyway.

Again, I know nothing about climatology, just as I know nothing about medicine or engineering. I trust the experts - my physician, the bridge-builder, the car-builder, etc - to do their job and tell me what I'm supposed to do to help the situation and my livelihood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe on CNN or Fox News it means that, but I've never considered it to be that way.
A suggestion then: if you're only interested in the non-political question (and it's clear that your focus is the political question since you keep coming back to the "we should, everybody must help" line), you should speak of "temperature increase".
If other people reject the data, and refuse to help alleviate the situation (or worse, potentially help global warming along), am I left to sit back and say, "hey, it's their right"?
And if you are to make up "data", I am to sit back and say "That's your right". As long as you don't violate my rights, we don't have a problem, although it you act irrationally by making things up or accepting conclusions without valid reasons, you would also have a problem (but I don't have your problem, you do). The notion of property rights ought to be interjected in further discussion of the topic, given the purpose of this forum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A suggestion then: if you're only interested in the non-political question (and it's clear that your focus is the political question since you keep coming back to the "we should, everybody must help" line), you should speak of "temperature increase".

Thanks for the suggestion.

And if you are to make up "data", I am to sit back and say "That's your right". As long as you don't violate my rights, we don't have a problem, although it you act irrationally by making things up or accepting conclusions without valid reasons, you would also have a problem (but I don't have your problem, you do). The notion of property rights ought to be interjected in further discussion of the topic, given the purpose of this forum.

Where is this coming from? I'm not making up data. I'm going based on what I'm hearing the experts overwhelmingly say, as I would regarding any other statement in science, medicine, engineering, etc. Just as it would be irrational for me to ignore the advice of my doctor, it would be irrational for me to ignore the advice of the climate science community, right? Where does this argument go bad?

Can you also please address the scenario I specifically mentioned (even if in your opinion it is not realistic), as the answer in general interests me:

If Person B sees the situation as "your life of excess is contributing to the destruction of the planet, and thus violating my right to life" and Person D sees the situation as "your global warming laws prevent my living however I want, and thus violate my freedom of choice", what does Objectivism say about what to do in this situation? Whose right/freedom trumps the other's?
Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not making up data. I'm going based on what I'm hearing the experts overwhelmingly say, as I would regarding any other statement in science, medicine, engineering, etc.
I'm saying that the experts are not overwhelmingly saying anything that you're reported here. You can try again -- perhaps you just need to be clear on what you claim the experts overwhelmingly say. I'm simply saying that you're wrong about that point.
Can you also please address the scenario I specifically mentioned (even if in your opinion it is not realistic), as the answer in general interests me:
No problem. The answer that both B and D may hold their personal opinions; B and D may act as they see fit, as long as neither violates the rights of the other.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saying that the experts are not overwhelmingly saying anything that you're reported here. You can try again -- perhaps you just need to be clear on what you claim the experts overwhelmingly say. I'm simply saying that you're wrong about that point.

So what is it, a big conspiracy? Are all the leaders of the world acting on bad analysis? Are journals publishing bad information? How is it you can believe you have the understanding necessary to deduce who is correct in their analysis?

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian, Do you think the trend shown in that graph is surprising or significant in some way? If so, do you think so as a layman, or because you have read experts who say it is significant or surprising?

To me, as a layman, at a cursory glance, it shows a significant trend. Then, when I look at the temperature scale (Y-axis) and think of its meaning against other climate temperature scales that I am familiar with as a layman, I find it unsurprising and insignificant. (I can expand on this if you like; but, first, I'm curious to know how you think about that graph.)

Of course, this is as a layman with no expert knowledge. If an expert were to say that it is surprising and significant, despite what I see, I'd be happy to listen to the reasons. Still, I come back to the question of the trend as such and why you think it is meaningful/significant/out of the ordinary, as a non-expert.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what is it, a big conspiracy? Are all the leaders of the world acting on bad analysis? Are journals publishing bad information? How is it you can believe you have the understanding necessary to deduce who is correct in their analysis?
If you return to what you said, you will note that all you did was indicate that you have a hearing problem. If you only listen to environmentalist radicals, even ones who are experts, then you are unsurprisingly going to hear only overwhelming support for the position that you are listening to. I don't thnik there is a big conspiracy -- I think it's a small conspiracy, but one which is effective in seeming to be big because it is loud. Journals, by which I assume you mean relevant reputable scientific journals, publish what's submitted and accepted through to the process of peer review (I can explain the process in more detail if you're unfamiliar with it); I don't see how that bears on the underlying question though. I do conclude that the politicians are acting on the basis of no analysis.

Here are some test questions for you. How many experts are there? How many of them have stated with scientific certainty that the temperature on Earth has risen over a sustained period at a rate unprecedented in the past 500 years? What is your source of information?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The temperature today is of no concern - the observed trend over time is the only thing that matters. Nor does the supposed temperature 8000 years ago matter, as we don't have the corresponding data on how that past temperature affected the people and environment of the time. Saying "it was N degrees warmer 10000 years ago and we're still here" is like saying "there was a Great Flood 10000 years ago and we're still here" (only thanks to the few that survived).

What it shows is that the earth's temperature naturally fluctuates, and we are today in a relatively mild period temperature wise. I think that's a very valuable bit of information. Furthermore, that was during recorded history, so we do have information on what happened.

I linked to a graph above showing a continuing increase since approximately 1950, all the way to 2006.

Sure, that's a small chunk of data, using surface temperatures. Keep in mind that surface level temperatures are much less accurate than balloon and satellite temperatures, because there are many confounding factors, such as the urban heat island effect. Lots of thermometers are located in urban areas, which have become more urbanized, which means that concrete and brick is there, which creates more heat around temperature stations. If you look at balloon data you don't find this kind of problem.

Yes, the statement "warmest year on record" is a joke and anyone who uses it as evidence for global warming is clueless. However if the number of recent "warmest years on record" continues to increase, that statement can be used effectively.

Not in the context of our current knowledge, which is that it was warmer in the middle ages, and even warmer 4000+ years ago.

Also keep in mind that sun activity correlates strongly with the temperature record.

Again, I know nothing about climatology, just as I know nothing about medicine or engineering. I trust the experts - my physician, the bridge-builder, the car-builder, etc - to do their job and tell me what I'm supposed to do to help the situation and my livelihood.

You have to be careful of hanging your hat on experts so easily. It's wise to vet them at least somewhat, especially in a subject where so many are calling for the destruction of our freedoms and economy. Anyway, I’m not convinced that a majority of experts believe the hype. Most climatologists believe there is global warming, because things have warmed since the 1800s, but I doubt that most believe it is man caused. There are many experts named in that thread I referred to. So, you can find lots of experts who are vocal in their disagreement. In fact, do a google for "The Great Global Warming Swindle". It's available on youtube to watch. Lots of top notch scientists are in it. Another one is "Doomsday Called Off" also available on youtube.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you return to what you said, you will note that all you did was indicate that you have a hearing problem. If you only listen to environmentalist radicals, even ones who are experts, then you are unsurprisingly going to hear only overwhelming support for the position that you are listening to.

How are you deciding who is and isn't a "radical"?

I don't thnik there is a big conspiracy -- I think it's a small conspiracy, but one which is effective in seeming to be big because it is loud.

Can you be more specific about this conspiracy? Who is involved?

Journals, by which I assume you mean relevant reputable scientific journals, publish what's submitted and accepted through to the process of peer review (I can explain the process in more detail if you're unfamiliar with it); I don't see how that bears on the underlying question though.

Experts in the field of research related to the subject of the journal article review the tests, analysis, results, and conclusions of the proposed article, and return it to the author for further clarification. When they are satisfied, and the journal believes the article to be of enough significance to be published, it is published. These journal articles are the sources for all the data. Nothing is considered scientific without going through enough peer review and replication. For there to be a conspiracy would require experts from all over the country to be in on it, to weed out unfavorable articles and only allow favorable articles to pass through.

How many experts are there? How many of them have stated with scientific certainty that the temperature on Earth has risen over a sustained period at a rate unprecedented in the past 500 years? What is your source of information?

I again point to the graph linked above, which shows a clear trend in the last several decades. What is the mechanism by which this upward trend will cease to continue? Who supports the view that this trend will not continue? What is your source for this information?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What it shows is that the earth's temperature naturally fluctuates, and we are today in a relatively mild period temperature wise. Furthermore, that was during recorded history, so we do have information on what happened.

Relatively mild... compared to what? What order of magnitude of human deaths are we talking about if we reach the maximum temperature we've seen in the last 10,000 years?

Sure, that's a small chunk of data, using surface temperatures. Keep in mind that surface level temperatures are much less accurate than balloon and satellite temperatures, because there are many confounding factors, such as the urban heat island effect. Lots of thermometers are located in urban areas, which have become more urbanized, which means that concrete and brick is there, which creates more heat around temperature stations. If you look at balloon data you don't find this kind of problem.

Are you saying peer reviewed conclusions in the top climate journals have overlooked this obvious fact of yours? The entire world is freaking out about global warming but nobody bothered to look at the balloon data? Or maybe, just for now, I will not be able to accept your analysis as both you and I are clueless when it comes to climate science.

Also keep in mind that sun activity correlates strongly with the temperature record.

Again, I don't care about the source of the temperature change, I only care about how bad it will get and what we can do about it.

You have to be careful of hanging your hat on experts so easily. It's wise to vet them at least somewhat, especially in a subject where so many are calling for the destruction of our freedoms and economy.

What is their reason for "calling for the destruction of our freedoms and economy"? Is it a conspiracy? For what purpose? Couldn't they just as easily be calling it like it is?

Anyway, I’m not convinced that a majority of experts believe the hype. Most climatologists believe there is global warming, because things have warmed since the 1800s, but I doubt that most believe it is man caused.

I don't care who caused it. If it's really happening, it's going to affect us regardless of who caused it. All that matters is what we do about it.

There are many experts named in that thread I referred to. So, you can find lots of experts who are vocal in their disagreement. In fact, do a google for "The Great Global Warming Swindle". It's available on youtube to watch.

Two youtube videos? My Wikipedia graph tops that anyday! Clearly we are both clueless about the issue and are simply taking sides based on our preconceptions. :dough:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying peer reviewed conclusions in the top climate journals have overlooked this obvious fact of yours?

I would say they have deliberately ommited contradicting data, since being pro-AGW (anthropogenic global warming) means research grants, and being against it means ostracism.

Again, I don't care about the source of the temperature change, I only care about how bad it will get and what we can do about it.

You can do absolutely nothing that will affect the climate in any noticeable way. Rest easy.

What is their reason for "calling for the destruction of our freedoms and economy"? Is it a conspiracy? For what purpose?

For the purpose of wielding political power. They couldn't conquer the USA with open communism - but they sure as hell are doing a fine job of gaining the same powers via subterfuge.

I don't care who caused it. If it's really happening, it's going to affect us regardless of who caused it. All that matters is what we do about it.

You don't know if "it" is happening, you don't know why or how. Thus you can't know if there is anything that can be done about "it". Yet you are comfortable with violating peoples freedom and property to "do something". This is why you will be opposed here.

Clearly we are both clueless about the issue and are simply taking sides based on our preconceptions.

That is probably the greatest insult you could throw at an Objectivist. Feel free to talk about your own ignorance, but if you admittedly know nothing, you should not be judging other people's knowledge.

For one thing, every Objectivist on this board knows more about what knowledge is, and how it is obtained, than you can probably imagine. So tread lightly.

Edited by mrocktor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Wikipedia graph tops that anyday!
That Wikipedia graphs shows that global temperature has hardly changed at all. The upward slope is extremely slight -- almost negligible. The really shocking thing would be if the best-fit trend line turned out to be absolutely, perfectly flat. With natural phenomena, that (a flat line) would be the shocking part. As a layperson, you should expect to see some trend line that is almost flat, but not perfectly so. Either, a minute upward slope (as shown in that Wiki graph) or a minute downward slope are to be expected.

That is from a "clueless" perspective. Of course, an expert might tell us why that tiny little slope is actually important. However, in absence of such information how can we clueless folk be alarmed as such a flat line?

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Experts in the field of research related to the subject of the journal article review the tests, analysis, results, and conclusions of the proposed article, and return it to the author for further clarification.
Yes, but experts don't agree that there is global warming.
I again point to the graph linked above, which shows a clear trend in the last several decades.
What is the scientific value of this graph? None. You keep pointing to the political hysteria as though it were evidence of scientific support; I keep trying to get you to prove your contention that there is overwhelming scientific support for the global warming claim, which there is not. Believe it or not, even though Al Gore invented the Internet, he is not actually a scientist. Believe it or not, Wikipedia is not a respectable peer-reviewed journal. What you are doing is acting out the very reason why Objectivts reject the hysteria of global warming -- the a priori commitment to the thesis that the very idea of global warming is so dangerous that we cannot afford to care what the truth is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say they have deliberately ommited contradicting data, since being pro-AGW (anthropogenic global warming) means research grants, and being against it means ostracism.

Yes, but what is your evidence that they are systematically omitting data, besides the fact that it is a possibility, albeit extremely remote considering the size of the community and the nature of scientific progress? It would not simply have to be true that one group is omitting data. This one group would have omit data, publish their results, and other groups would also have to test the original group's claims, also omit data, and publish their results.

You can do absolutely nothing that will affect the climate in any noticeable way. Rest easy.

I didn't say "I", I said "we". In any case, that's a pretty defeatist attitude and Dagny Taggart would likely slap you for that. ;)

You don't know if "it" is happening, you don't know why or how. Thus you can't know if there is anything that can be done about "it". Yet you are comfortable with violating peoples freedom and property to "do something". This is why you will be opposed here.

Again, it is a matter of trust which pervades all of science. You trust your physician, I trust the engineer who built my car. We are left to either trust that climate scientists are doing their job and know what they're talking about, or we breed distrust of all science. Distrust of the peer review process in climate science leads to distrust of the process in all other fields.

I know people are probably sick of the Atlas Shrugged references but I'm reading it now so here goes: when Wyatt says he knows of a method of getting oil out of shale, does Dagny Taggart say "I don't believe you, and I won't until I've got a degree in chemistry and fully studied everything involved in this alleged process". No, she trusts him to do his job.

Anyways, continuing...

For one thing, every Objectivist on this board knows more about what knowledge is, and how it is obtained, than you can probably imagine. So tread lightly.

Clearly knowledge is obtained from YouTube, Wikipedia, and websites with agendas. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep pointing to the political hysteria as though it were evidence of scientific support; I keep trying to get you to prove your contention that there is overwhelming scientific support for the global warming claim, which there is not.

I am not in the position the prove global warming. I am simply saying that I am influenced by the amount of attention this has gotten from experts and governments worldwide, and am asking you why I should go against this. I am not inclined to believe in global conspiracies in science.

Believe it or not, Wikipedia is not a respectable peer-reviewed journal.

Yes, but that graph cites all of its sources. Or are these sources also part of the conspiracy?

What you are doing is acting out the very reason why Objectivts reject the hysteria of global warming -- the a priori commitment to the thesis that the very idea of global warming is so dangerous that we cannot afford to care what the truth is.

What do you mean by "the truth"? If you mean "whether or not man is the cause", that again does not matter. If you get in a bad car accident, do you wait until the fault has been assigned before letting them use the jaws of life to get you out of the car?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean by "the truth"? If you mean "whether or not man is the cause", that again does not matter.

If are willing to conceed that global warming may be occuring due to natural factors which have nothing to do with human activity, why are you so insistant that man take immediate action to counteract an effect that he has not caused? Why are you so eager to violate the rights of people who have not violated your rights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am simply saying that I am influenced by the amount of attention this has gotten from experts and governments worldwide, and am asking you why I should go against this.
You are bordering on intellectual dishonesty. You continue to assert assert that there exists a scientific consensus to the effect that there is global warming, but you have provided no proof that there is such a consensus. Your appeal to government hysteria as a substitute for scientific knowledge is insulting to science and clear thinking. You should either provide the evidence to support your claim that there actually is a scientific consensus that there is global warming, or you should retract the claim. You are evading what you've said, hiding behind this fake innocent ignorance of yours. If you don't have proof of a scientific consensus and won't provide that proof, it is intellectually dishonest for you to continue the argument. I hope the nature of the problem is now crystal clear to you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That Wikipedia graphs shows that global temperature has hardly changed at all. The upward slope is extremely slight -- almost negligible. The really shocking thing would be if the best-fit trend line turned out to be absolutely, perfectly flat. With natural phenomena, that (a flat line) would be the shocking part. As a layperson, you should expect to see some trend line that is almost flat, but not perfectly so. Either, a minute upward slope (as shown in that Wiki graph) or a minute downward slope are to be expected.

That is from a "clueless" perspective. Of course, an expert might tell us why that tiny little slope is actually important. However, in absence of such information how can we clueless folk be alarmed as such a flat line?

The slope only seems slight because you are applying your vast experience with local temperature change to a global scale. They are not relatable.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If are willing to conceed that global warming may be occuring due to natural factors which have nothing to do with human activity, why are you so insistant that man take immediate action to counteract an effect that he has not caused?

Have you read Atlas Shrugged? I'm only halfway through, but everytime someone says "at least nobody will be able to blame me" the main character gets pissed off. I want to take action because I can alter my lifestyle without much difficulty, and if the observed trend continues, it will impact my and future generations' livelihoods. If a car crashes into yours, do you refuse to any medical attention if you are not to blame for the accident?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The slope only seems slight because you are applying your vast experience with local temperature change to the global temperature change. They are not relatable.
The point remains that it is slight by any ordinary standard. So, only an expert might be able to point out why it is not so. Without an expert's testimony, the graph is a yawner. So, why point to it as if it shows something significant?

Look how flat it looks from a lay-person's viewpoint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hypothetical situation (I am not saying it is not currently the case)

Let's say every expert was in agreement that global warming is caused by man and it is going to get worse unless everyone does something about it. Let's say the evidence, analysis, and conclusions were all incontrovertible. How would a free market system bring about increased fuel efficiency in cars, homes, etc? I want to believe in the abilities of the free market, but I am an extreme cynic when it comes to the mob.

Alternatively, what if most of the population chose not to believe the incontrovertible claims and refused to modify their lifestyles accordingly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point remains that it is slight by any ordinary standard. So, only an expert might be able to point out why it is not so. Without an expert's testimony, the graph is a yawner. So, why point to it as if it shows something significant?

No, without an expert, you can't say anything either way. Your preconception about how temperatures work on a local scale must be discarded before even looking at a graph of global temperatures. It would be like an atheist trying to argue with a theist, and the theist says "What does your God do? Nothing? He can't even Exist? That's pretty weak, my God can do Anything. *yawn*"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as it would be irrational for me to ignore the advice of my doctor, it would be irrational for me to ignore the advice of the climate science community, right?

I discarded the advice of FOUR doctors who advised me (after examination) that I merely had acid reflux. The fifth doctor finally realized that my suspicions were correct; I had to have my gall bladder removed. Doctors, like climate science guys, often make guesses based on their interpretation of data. They can still be wrong and it happens all the time.

I don't have a medical degree, but I know sometimes that it isn't proper to blindly trust what my (and several other) doctor tells me. It is not sound to assert that just because you haven't put years into getting a degree that whatever knowledge you do have on an issue is therefore null and void.

So no, it may not be irrational for you to ignore the climate science community, particularly when they do not all agree as is often tauted by the "believers".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...