Observations on Global Warming.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

This is a sort of personal blog-like post about a couple of things I've noticed about the global warming "debate" on the internet, this is not directly aimed at either right or left nor is this directed entirely at this website alone as I have noticed this perception on most websites and on every medium.
Perhaps Here I should point out as someone whose formal science Education finished at 16, I admit complete ignorance of the scientific details and arguement. I don't know whether Global warming is actually a total myth, a natural occurance or a manmade disaster but that isn't my point here. My post has to do with how the issue is being perceived.

1) It's quite clear to me (and I don't know about anyone else) that the global warming debate has nowadays has almost nothing to do with Science; science is just background to which seems at times to be little more than the old "Free market: good or not?" debate (see point #3) . Whenever GW is brought up it seems to bring out the sort of people with my level of scientific training showing bar charts and graphs of CO2 emissions and weather changes (or whatever) in order to "prove" something - how much people in the world could honestly say they are informed enough to make an honest assessment of this issue (a couple thousand maybe?).

Side note: the science of Climatology in the modern sense was pretty much invented in the 1970s in order to investigate the strange levels of climate change going on in that decade (and to cool fears of Global cooling or the nascent Global warming idea) and so to claim that scientists themselves would have a fantastic knowledge of climatic changes would be false (though one thing we do know is that Climates have changed very rapidly in the past; with no apparent reason. But that's going outside my field.)

2) The smear claims by "the left" against Scientific sceptics of Global warming goes against the Scientific method - under this theory all these scientists are little more than quislings hired by powerful corporations to put out knowingly false information to woodhink the public into doubting the "Scientific Consensus" on Global warming so that these corporations can continue polluting without any fear of action against them. Ignoring that in the long term this really doesn't make much sense, why would a business, any business, want to deny something which could seriously dent (to put it mildly) it's long term profitability - after all we are talking about the near future here?, there is one seriously act of groupthink going on here - The idea of all knowing Scientific consensus which holds all the knowledge is somewhat unfalliable and that rogue scientists are easily explained. This is a strange idea, for a start history has shown over and over again that a vast majority of scientists tend to be wrong until proven otherwise - So using this logic light would travel within a mysterious substance called the Ether until Einstein came along and created a "new Scientific consensus" or that Earth really was the centre of the universe and the Sun circled around it, until that damn Gaillieo chap showed otherwise (an Idea which in it's day was far too dangerous for the guardians of truth - here being the Catholic Church - to handle.) The idea of Science is based around constant questioning of the physical properties of the world and so the idea of a "consensus" is itself against the idea of Science as it accepts a widely held universal truth, like well, the idea that sun revolves around the Earth. (This is also why, btw, rejecting the idea of god is also unscientific.) This is of course not to say that the majority of Global warming scientists are wrong (but it is very, very wrong to state that the only ones who doubt Global warming are corporate scientists.) but that the way of thinking of this issue is totally skewed.

3) The Desire to do nothing (or to wish it away) about Global warming is driven by ideological and not practical goals; this is mainly the "conservative" or "libertarian" position. I've long noticed how the greatest spectics on GW tend to those who would have their ideologies washed away should the dire prophecies come true - such as well, "libertarians" and "conservatives". While those who accept the Scientific consensus are those who would have their ideologies confirmed by it, such as "liberals", "socialists", all forms of "anti-Capitalists", etc. This is because fundamentally the issue is seen as one rooted in the Economic system; due to the doctrines of Capitalism and free market competition there is increased enviormental pollution, etc in order to gain efficiency so to gain profit. And if only we instead had one provider of services, energy, etc than there would be less businesses to cause enviormental damage and so on (And that's the simplified "centre-left" view, I haven't even mentioned the Neo-luddites, or for that matter on the other end, the Al Gorists.) but instead of saying this out loud the "liberals" resort to scientific evidence they often know little about in order to back up this prejudice. Those of the "right" do likewise in order so they could defend the free market against accusations that it has failed somehow. As GW in a very concrete sense is still a few decades away; should it be true - then it is still seen as an abstract issue; with forces such as those of the much reviled "Meeja" hyping up the issue and with people like Al Gore sparking 'awareness' (though this has been a debate for almost 20 years now.) and is still thus seen as a way of making political points over "the other side" than an actual attempt to do something lasting. Though it should be pointed out here I'm mainly referring to people on the internet like us; not the politicians or scientists.

Side note: Another thing I happen to notice is that those who tend to be most in favour of "action" against GW among my age group tend to have learnt about it in school (this is certainly true in Europe) and tend to be politically minded - showing once again the stupidity of relying on schooling for one's education (Actually a school is the last place someone will ever get educated) and that the idea that the "yoof" ignore what exactly they learn in school (or at least the level of it) is complete nonsense. In the school I went to, the attitude to GW was so PC it was almost offensive and yet among the more intelligent people I know there is a much stronger acceptance of GW than those I would consider less bright. Perhaps because we have strange notion that Intelligent equals "ability at school"?

More to come.. but space.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would agree with this. The Arguement against action seems to mainly driven for political reasons (see point #3) - I never said that GW was a lie or a hoax; I just said there was room for doubt but I tend to sympathize with the "Better safe than sorry" view against those "conservatives" who say we should do nothing because GW is a hoax led by Al Gore, blah, blah, blah

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never said there wasn't a campaign against GW led by certain companies; it's just that it is against the companies long term interest to create "pseudo-scientific" data. Though I must admit your analogy is pretty appropriate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, I never said that GW wasn't true or the Scientific consensus is incorrect. But I was merely pointing out that the idea of some all-knowing Scientific consensus is itself anti-science.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wait a minute, you still expect consistency in thought and completeness of mind and no going off on Tangents from me? Have you been reading my posts at all?

I'm actually quite curious on what you have to say this; simply because you are the only one here who went through the same education system as yours truly. (Well not quite, I went to a Rugby school on Dublin's Southside - A fact which will shame me till the day I die.)

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well Obviously. I don't want "Citizen philosophers" - Citizens yes, the basis of our modern civilisation is the idea of constant questioning and participation with the processes which dominate the world around us (the most Irish people do in that regard is vote; if even that and most don't vote on the basis I've just mentioned.) yet the ability to ask questions is not even taught in school. I don't want to spend too long on this as this distracts from the basis of this thread (Though I *Could* bore for Ireland on this topic.) but it seems pretty obvious that the why Global warming is debated has it origins in the way these things are taught in School.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I didn't say that the system doesn't work in what it's aims are. Just that it's aims are alot of crap - I don't like the idea of entire generations being processed in this way so that they work for some business and consume more. Is there any wonder therefore that our Democracy is so degraded and our culture is so mind numbingly dumb?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No doubt about that on any of the points you've mentioned; Personally I still consider it a great achievement of mine that I just didn't give a Sh!t when coming onto my Junior and Leaving certs unlike all those "Daddy wants to me to do Medicine" types (For the Americans here; getting into a Medicine or law course in Ireland has obscene requirements; The Leaving cert exam is the final exam taken at the end of your final year at Secondary school which alone determines how one makes it into college.) who were usually I found were rather notable of their airheadness despite their getting 500+ Points. The people I would consider most intelligent in School who were often the ones you didn't at all give the system any respect while still playing an active role in the school and had a genuine curiousity about "The Real World" (So not the Rugby Jocks).

In short, Exams are the dumbest possible way in the history of mankind to test intelligence.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

My main problem with the global warming debate is that some people, especially in the media, like to make it out that there is a consensus. It's true that in the scientific community certain aspects of global warming theory are widely held as true, but there is not a consensus on many of the specifics such as how much is natural and how much is man-made and the overall effects. I'm fine if people simply have a differing opinion on the subject than I do, but I don't like it when people pretend there's a consensus that doesn't exist.

True.

But I also hate the fact that certain ideologues try to rubbish that said widespread view without any scientific knowledge so they defend their previous ideology.

I also hate the fact that enviormentalism is often in my mind associated with a form of Societal masochism, perhaps neo-Puritianism comes to mind? Though that's something I shall have to expand upon.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

For anyone to wishing to debate Education it has been to moved to a different thread: here

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Case closed.

The 1904 worldwide Physicists convention thanks you for proving the existence of Ether. Move along now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes I have no doubt that certain interest groups are trying to manipulate facts to pull the situation in their favour; that I am in no doubt of. What I am critical of is tarring all skeptical scientists with the same brush.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I totally agree.. ish, I was merely referring to how the debate is being conducted. I am being critical of those who seem to put their faith in some "scientific consensus" or use the potential findings to gain political points.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Nice try, hack, but the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment didn't fit with the ether model, which had no evidence for it. You lose. I really hope that you aren't going to try to claim that science in 1887 is the same as science in 2007.

I really hope you don't think that science can't be influenced by outside factors today like it was in 1887 (and not just Ether; Evolutionism, anyone? Funny I should mention that in regards to science, whether modern or Victorian) anyway while I'm not an expert on this by any means Ether wasn't really disproved until another hypothetical model came along - also known as Einstein's theory of Relativity.

Of course I'm not saying that all those 928 reports are wrong; just that they could be wrong and there is some historical basis to believe that. Which is quite different.

I fail to see how I am a hack.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was taking Global warming = That mankind is to blame for said hypothesis in my first post; GW is just simple shorthand and I think everyone can realize what I mean. I don't think anyone doubts that the earth is getting hotter; the question of why is another matter.

As for Science now compared to Science in the early 20th Century\late 19th well I'm sure what you said is semi accurate; but it still doesn't exclude possibility of a hive mentality - or for that matter, people just being wrong. (Or as the Scientists of Haliburton show, have a special interest in maintaining hysteria.)

Basically if you want my position it's this: I don't know whether GW (caused by human activity, etc) is real or not nor does every scientist (though the majority do) and I think the debate on this is being totally distorted by those on the both the left and right to make this scientific hypothesis fit into a mere political agenda. But furthermore and not just because of the above scientific data it would be immoral given our position not to take action to stop global warming. That is the Action meaning actually doing things and not Action the word.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Where did I say Science was similiar to the humanities? Yes I know in the end there can only be one final answer on this issue (whether or not Humans are responsible for Global warming or not) and whatever that answer is, I don't happen to know it, but neither does everyone else on this forum and sometimes I wish that people would stop acting otherwise.

(As an aside; knowing a geologist who has worked with many soil samples, etc he told me that in previous eras there is significant evidence that the climate can change very rapidly, often for none too obvious reasons. Of course this may or may not have any relevance to the above debate. And if I was you, I would dismiss what I've just said as just some random ancedote. But still, just an aside.)

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's a difference between dismissing or questioning hypotheticals (like man made climate change) and dismissing clear and indisputable facts (such as that the average global temperature has been increasing for some time now.) Though one can always quibble and nit pick at how those statistics are gathered; they certainly show a major trend.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now I should perhaps stay silent; as I don't really know in full detail how the process of peer-reviewing papers actually works.. all I will say is that sounds like a system which is open to abuse especially if one ideology tends to be dominant among scientists. (Going back to the 19th Century, how widely accepted was Social Evolutionism again? Though I accept your point on peer reviewed papers.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For the moment anyway.