Wondering how biassed the media can go - MMGW

[Thorin]

Cows people, COWS!!!

 

http://www.popsci.com/files/imagecache/photogallery_image/articles/cowoct08.jpg

[Tannhauser]

mate on the grand scale of things, we can't change anything, if i stop using my sex toys and mobile phone - you can bet you're pretty penny someone somewhere else who's never had a sex toy or mobile phone will buy them instead

 

That's a tu quoque line of thinking, though. It's like saying 'I'm going to throw this litter out of my car window. Everyone else does it, it's only one piece, and it's inconvenient to me to have it in the car'.

 

If everyone believes 'somebody else will do it anyway' then no one changes, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Tannhauser]

Cows people, COWS!!!

 

http://www.popsci.com/files/imagecache/photogallery_image/articles/cowoct08.jpg

 

It must be a constant temptation to attach a lighted taper (or tapir) to a stick and apply it to that container.

[Matt H]

It must be a constant temptation to attach a lighted taper (or tapir) to a stick and apply it to that container.

 

I just fancy a double cheese.

[Thorin]

It must be a constant temptation to attach a lighted taper (or tapir) to a stick and apply it to that container.

 

I like tapirs

[penguin]

That's a tu quoque line of thinking, though. It's like saying 'I'm going to throw this litter out of my car window. Everyone else does it, it's only one piece, and it's inconvenient to me to have it in the car'.

 

If everyone believes 'somebody else will do it anyway' then no one changes, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

 

you've missed the point i was trying to make

[AJI]

Spot on, baby.

 

Science is inductive - it deals with weight of evidence, not with absolute certainties. The phrase 'scientifically proven' is usually used by total non-scientists. Moreover, "science" is a set of conclusions reached by a community.

 

Not sure which brand of science you follow but science always strives towards absolute certainties. Otherwise what you use describe the world is just a form of religion based on beliefs.

 

The term 'scientifically proven' is something used by all scientists when the result is repeatable by anyone gaining similar raw data.

Take gravity for example....using an object, a timing device and a known height anyone can calculate the acceleration by gravity in a vacuum. The result is certain and repeatable by anyone with access to the same data.

How accurate you want to go is a different question however...(fractals).

But saying that science does evolve, and accepted results in one era can be shown to be inaccurate enough for another era.

 

 

just how strong the consensus is and how few dissenters there are.

I think you'd find there is much more of a balance between the two sides than you suggest here.

 

There are the many people who are not scientifically minded and follow or deny the media hype. These people would normally just base a decision on 'hunch' or religious persuasion.

Then there are the people who have a grasp of what is happening (to whatever degree) and base their view of their limited knowledge of science for the need of proper results and evidence.

Then there are the scientists who are interpreting the data and finding all manor of extrapolated results and basing a viewpoint from that. (And as mentioned there maybe vested interest input in here).

[AJI]

So by your argument, we would never do anything about it until it was too late.

 

Too late for what is the question?

 

If there are no results that give clear proof that human CO2 emission are causing global warming, then if we did stop human CO2 emissions by 100% (for arguments sake) how could we have proof that this would alter anything to do with effects and timelines?

 

 

Even if human CO2 emissions were totally stopped we would still see climate change as it is a natural cycle.

[Tannhauser]

Not sure which brand of science you follow but science always strives towards absolute certainties. Otherwise what you use describe the world is just a form of religion based on beliefs.

 

The term 'scientifically proven' is something used by all scientists when the result is repeatable by anyone gaining similar raw data.

Take gravity for example....using an object, a timing device and a known height anyone can calculate the acceleration by gravity in a vacuum. The result is certain and repeatable by anyone with access to the same data.

How accurate you want to go is a different question however...(fractals).

But saying that science does evolve, and accepted results in one era can be shown to be inaccurate enough for another era.

 

No, 'scientifically proven' is something that isn't used widely outside of hair gel adverts.

 

'Proof' is correctly used to describe conclusions arrived at deductively. So, in Maths you can have deductive proofs, and in other deductive arguments, too.

 

A deductive proof works like this:

 

All scientists are men

Aji is a scientist

Thefefore Aji is a man.

 

Here, if the two propositions are correct, the conclusion has to follow.

 

Science, by contrast, is INDUCTIVE. It seeks to establish the likelihood of general propositions by repeated observations.

 

The classic example used for this:

 

All swans ever observed so far are white

Therefore, all swans are white

 

Now, obviously, the general conclusion does not necessarily follow from the observations since we can never observe all swans. We cannot prove that all swans are white.

 

The same applies to any other scientific theory, including gravity. The fact that Newtonian mechanics makes a prediction that you can verify over and over again, all over the world, makes it a really good theory. Unfortunately, it's a bad choice for you because it shoots both feet off your argument. Here's why:

 

Until 1919, Newton's theory of gravity was good enough to predict virtually every observation. Now according to you, that makes it scientifically 'proven', because its verifiable all over the world. But Edington's observations of Mercury during a solar eclipse showed that Newtonian mechanics could NOT account for the observation. It was the single black swan that came along to wreck the general conclusion.

 

General relativity, however, could explain the results - as well as all the observations made elsewhere. Therefore, it replaced Newtonian mechanics as the widely accepted paradigm. But no one says that General Relativity is 'proven', not even people who use its applications everyday, because there are anomalies that will persist untl the next, better theory comes along.

 

Science itself is a belief system, it's just one that (in my opinion) is the best description of reality we have, because its based on balance of evidence and falsifiable hypotheses.

[marbleapple]

And the picture is this: (a) the earth is definitely warming (b) IPCC now estimates probability that its man-made as 90% or over © it's likely to be serious. The rest is quibbling about the details.

 

I agree 100% with Tannhauser.

 

Debate on the topic is nothing to do with the environment but simply an attempt by economic powers to discredit the argument and therefore not be forced to change (costing them money).

 

The problem with Capitalism is it all comes down to money. Saving the environment isn't profitable and cutting emissions will cut (for a lot of nations) growth, competitiveness and profit. People like the idea of saving the world but dont want to pay for it.

 

THe UK creates so few emissions compared to China, India etc I don't know why we aren't investing in improving those countries (i.e. UK companies building clean power stations in India etc).

[AJI]

 

Unfortunately, it's a bad choice for you because it shoots both feet off your argument.

 

 

Hence why I said this :

 

But saying that science does evolve, and accepted results in one era can be shown to be inaccurate enough for another era.

 

Already fully aware of Newton's theory and its development into General Relativity and so on.

 

When you say 'science seeks to establish the likehood of general propositions' I have to disagree... the purpose of science is to establish a certainty. Certainty may not be achieved but the purpose of science is attempt to get it. Hence why maths is used a lot.

Maths attempts to reach certainanty through definitive values.

But at the same time there are also assuptions which is where certainty may not be achieved.

 

I do not see any belief system required in science. I do accept it is the best method to describe the environment we live in however and is based on a world of maths mainly.

 

I guess this is why I (and many others) are not simply following the media hype about MMGW. I need to have published results and evidence of the human link and then this verified through the established scientific tradition.

A lot of the 'climate science' I read about simply states the fact that the globe is warming through natural cycle..yes this is measurable and generally undisputed, but the main problem is that it just 'believes' it must be controlled by humans.

 

But as there is no clear link between the human contribution being a cause factor then what effect are we really having in terms of controlling the earth's temp?

If no link can be found then this surely points towards there being no effect.

 

Can current human CO2 emissions really compete with the CO2 and H2O coming from oceans that cover 70% of the planet, on top of the CO2 emissions from the rest of the planet's land mass biosphere?

 

Will we ever get an answer?

 

 

Its the last day of the Copenhagen talks today, it will be interesting to see all the final deals that take place.

I am hoping that many countires will seek to reduce pollution as many local environments are currently being affected.

Deforrestation is a big issue which I hope has some positive outcomes.

But I know the big issue will not be tackled...that of the out of control global population increase. This being the biggest single factor of the state of any future environment issue.

[tbourner]

But I know the big issue will not be tackled...that of the out of control global population increase. This being the biggest single factor of the state of any future environment issue.

 

This I can completely agree with, reducing population is the single stone that will kill hundreds of birds. SO MANY of the worlds problems can be attributed to it, it's quite amazing that it hasn't come up as a major factor to be dealt with (because of human rights I guess).

[Tannhauser]

When you say 'science seeks to establish the likehood of general propositions' I have to disagree... the purpose of science is to establish a certainty. Certainty may not be achieved but the purpose of science is attempt to get it. Hence why maths is used a lot.

Maths attempts to reach certainanty through definitive values.

But at the same time there are also assuptions which is where certainty may not be achieved.

 

It's your prerogative to disagree, but you can look in any standard text on the philosophy of science and find the same thing as I'm saying.

 

We can agree that science tries to gain as much support and evidence for an explanation as it can. But science can't 'strive towards certainty' because 100.000000% certainty is something that doesn't exist outside of mathematical equations.

 

I agree that maths strives toward certainty, because it's deductive in nature. And though maths is used in science, that's the only part of it that is cerain.

 

Look at it this way:

 

1) Science is based on observation and careful measurement.

2) We can only ever do a finite number of observations and careful measurements

3) Science only forms conclusions based on evidence.

 

If these three things are true, then the phrase 'scientifically proven' makes no sense. The best a scientist can ever do is to say 'it's very, very, very likely this general conclusion is correct'. However, it can't be certain because of (2). And he can't say 'I'm striving towards certainty' because there will always be more observations, which means more occasions on which his general conclusion may fail.

 

I do not see any belief system required in science. I do accept it is the best method to describe the environment we live in however and is based on a world of maths mainly.

 

That's a whole other can of worms, and a very interesting one. I have work to do now (coincidentally looking at belief systems, faith, paranormal and pseudosciences), but quickly:

 

Science itself is a belief system. It's the belief (for example) that measurement and observation can uncover deep truths about the universe. Important not to confuse it with a faith (although historically, there's an awful lot of faith and wanting to believe in phenomena in Science too).

[Max Headroom]

I shall continue to drive my car and leave the light on as it has been scientifically proven that a scientists proven research is often disproven at a later stage by another scientists proven research.

 

What is happening here is natural, the Earth will heal itself, just mankind will go the way of the dinosaurs...eventually

[AJI]

I agree that maths strives toward certainty, because it's deductive in nature. And though maths is used in science, that's the only part of it that is cerain.

 

In a world wereby science is trying to produce a general theory of everything and is basing this on maths formulas, then from your agreement above it must mean that science is striving towards certainty. (Or have I read your text wrong? - appologies if I have).

 

The best a scientist can ever do is to say 'it's very, very, very likely this general conclusion is correct'. However, it can't be certain because of (2). And he can't say 'I'm striving towards certainty' because there will always be more observations, which means more occasions on which his general conclusion may fail.

Yes agreed. Which is why I also recognise that '100% certainty' is in itself analytical. For example.... a sceintist can go out in the world and travel in the same direction from a starting point and eventually reach back to where he set off. From this he can determine the world is round and not flat. He can use other measurement devices such as an optical telescope in earth orbit and visually see the earth is round. But then in maths, a 'round' shape can be defined as circular, but the earth may not be 100% circular, more eliptical. But for the sake of certainty we can say the earth is not flat.

But I think we are straying into other areas of definition.

 

 

Science itself is a belief system. It's the belief (for example) that measurement and observation can uncover deep truths about the universe. Important not to confuse it with a faith (although historically, there's an awful lot of faith and wanting to believe in phenomena in Science too).

 

The word belief to me automatically introduces faith and religion into the equation.

And this is where I think my meaning of the word 'belief' is different to yours.

I accept that scientists start with a theory, but this theory requires no belief factor. For example I do not have to believe the world is round for an experiement to actually show me that it is round.

To have a starting point of a belief would no doubt bias your interpretation of data and what you observe. But to have a totally open minded none objectional start point of a theory derrived from pure train of thought would produce untainted results and more likely to be a step to certainty that we mention earler.

 

 

As with a number of threads on here in the past, I think we again must agree to dissagree.

After all, it would be a boring place if everyone had exactly the same view on everything.

[Soop Dogg]

I don't agree at all, for several reasons:

 

1) It's not like the UEA is at the bottom of a Jenga data tower, and if their results are deiscredited, anthropogenic global warming collapses. The evidence comes from multiple sources and from multiple independent researchers.

 

Aah - that's ok then - as long as there's plenty of people saying the same thing then it must be true. I work among some of the worlds most eminent scientists in an institute that's not far off being within a stones throw of the UEA Climate Research Unit (Literally) There are many scientists who say the same thing about science these days - if you can link your research to climate change, you're far more likely to obtain funding than if you don't. No wonder many scientists won't stand up and discredit the thoeries of MMGW - it's the horse they're riding to enable them to do their work! (And make a living)

 

 

3) There's no reason for GB to ask for a debate on 'real science based evidence'. That's the debate that scientists and their professional associations have had. And the picture is this: (a) the earth is definitely warming (b) IPCC now estimates probability that its man-made as 90% or over © it's likely to be serious. The rest is quibbling about the details.

 

I have no argument that the earth is warming. What annoys me is how people jump on the GW bandwagon and distort the truth to help hammer their points home. Take Al Gore and his 'Inconvenient Truth' which turned out to contain many claims that were nothing like the 'truth'. Sitting on the couch with Oprah talking about how many Polar Bears are drowning because they swim around trying to find ice and eventually drown. He said this was happening in 'significant numbers' when in fact the only Polar Bears found drowned died in a storm. (There were 4 of them) In fact, their numbers have doubled sonce 1960, so why the panic? Why put them on the 'endangered species' list? How about just stopping hunting them if they're really at risk? Perhaps because they're not.

 

The debate has been ongoing as the data has rolled in. The result of that debate is that year on year the probability of climate change being anthropogenic has risen.

Similar data was being bandied around in the 1970's - but guess what? It was saying back then that man made pollution was blocking out the sun and would lead to another ice-age. Some of these claims came form respectable scientists in respectable agencies & institutes around the world - most noteably would probably be claims issued from the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Colorado. Were they any less correct or creditable than todays scientists?

 

If you're going to throw out computer modelling as 'not real science', you're going to end up losing a huge amount of fluid mechanics, behavioural ecology, cognitive science, drug research, theoretical physics and so on.

 

I'm not saying you should 'throw out computer modelling. What I'm saying is that the computer modelling should support science - not the other way around. It's putting the horse before the cart!

 

Can i just also say here that I think it's a good idea to stop chucking bad things into the air we breathe. I just object to being taxed on the back of unproven 'facts' so that the taxes I pay can be used towards something completely different

[Tannhauser]

Aah - that's ok then - as long as there's plenty of people saying the same thing then it must be true. I work among some of the worlds most eminent scientists in an institute that's not far off being within a stones throw of the UEA Climate Research Unit (Literally) There are many scientists who say the same thing about science these days - if you can link your research to climate change, you're far more likely to obtain funding than if you don't. No wonder many scientists won't stand up and discredit the thoeries of MMGW - it's the horse they're riding to enable them to do their work! (And make a living)

 

Hi Brian

 

If you agree that climate change is happening, as you say in the next paragraph, and the evidence shows that its likely to be a very serious environmental change, then why wouldn't you throw money into researching it?

 

But the accusation that scientists are somehow cooking the books because that's what pays the mortgage is flawed. For a start, a researcher is funded for a research project, not for producing the right results. If a scientist produces a negative finding, they don't stop their pay as a result.

 

Secondly, this would require funding bodies for hundreds of independent universities, as well as all the major governments, to be pushing to find the same thing. This seems unlikely, as (a) if anything, there has been pressure in the opposite direction (i.e. "we don't want to hear it"). This was especially true in the USA, where the energy lobby exerted strong pressure. (b) the governments can't manage to come to a working agreement on how to tackle it, let alone collude to push scientists in the same direction © it would mean that thousands of scientists worldwide, including the major scientific institutions had sold out. This is unlikely, since we know that in every other area, science daily produces models and theories that work and are unafraid to publish the results that they see.

 

I have no argument that the earth is warming. What annoys me is how people jump on the GW bandwagon and distort the truth to help hammer their points home. Take Al Gore and his 'Inconvenient Truth' which turned out to contain many claims that were nothing like the 'truth'. Sitting on the couch with Oprah talking about how many Polar Bears are drowning because they swim around trying to find ice and eventually drown. He said this was happening in 'significant numbers' when in fact the only Polar Bears found drowned died in a storm. (There were 4 of them) In fact, their numbers have doubled sonce 1960, so why the panic? Why put them on the 'endangered species' list? How about just stopping hunting them if they're really at risk? Perhaps because they're not.

 

I can't comment on the Al Gore material other than to say that he's communicating the science rather than doing it, and he undoubtedly gets it wrong sometimes. If he is a polemicist for anthropogenic climate change, it would be interesting to compare his efforts with the opposition - say, "The Great Global Warming Swindle". This contained so many incorrect assertions that climate scientists didn't know where to start with it.

 

Journalists and other interested parties on both sides make mistakes.

 

Similar data was being bandied around in the 1970's - but guess what? It was saying back then that man made pollution was blocking out the sun and would lead to another ice-age. Some of these claims came form respectable scientists in respectable agencies & institutes around the world - most noteably would probably be claims issued from the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Colorado. Were they any less correct or creditable than todays scientists?

 

They were less credible and less correct. Essentially, a handful of scientists, on the basis of evidence then available, speculated that we were overdue for an ice age and that aerosol effects of pollution could outweigh CO2. New Scientist points out:

 

A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.

 

I'm not saying you should 'throw out computer modelling. What I'm saying is that the computer modelling should support science - not the other way around. It's putting the horse before the cart!

 

Can i just also say here that I think it's a good idea to stop chucking bad things into the air we breathe. I just object to being taxed on the back of unproven 'facts' so that the taxes I pay can be used towards something completely different

 

Of all the arguments put forward by those sceptical about anthropogenic CC, I just can't get my head around the 'It's to raise taxes' one. It makes no sort of political sense to me. 'Green taxes' have got everything against them politically, because (a) they are hugely unpopular (b) reduced carbon = reduced revenue from the massive fossil fuels industry © increased transport costs and manufacturing costs cut into profit margins and harms commerce, hence meaning less govt revenue (d) it plays into hands of the right wing backlash, especially in the USA.

 

And to end on a quibble, for "proven/unproven", see above posts.

[tbourner]

For example.... a sceintist can go out in the world and travel in the same direction from a starting point and eventually reach back to where he set off. From this he can determine the world is round and not flat. He can use other measurement devices such as an optical telescope in earth orbit and visually see the earth is round. But then in maths, a 'round' shape can be defined as circular, but the earth may not be 100% circular, more eliptical. But for the sake of certainty we can say the earth is not flat.

 

It's still not 100%. We might discover the theory of everything has to involve us living in a 5th dimension where there's another fundamental force (the electro strong semi weak nuclear graviton magnetic force?), which just happens to tie everything together in some clever way, but means the Earth is actually polyhedronal and it is our vision and measurement type which is skewed to make the Earth appear round. OK it's a long shot but that's what they said when they 'knew' the Earth was flat.

[Soop Dogg]

But the accusation that scientists are somehow cooking the books because that's what pays the mortgage is flawed. For a start, a researcher is funded for a research project, not for producing the right results. If a scientist produces a negative finding, they don't stop their pay as a result.

 

Don't have time to reply to the rest at the moment, but I'm glad you brought this bit up as it forms part of the work I do.

 

Scientists compete for funding from a number of sources - governments (UK/EU etc), private companies etc. They compete in 'open competition' for a finite amount of funding. Some or all may come from each source - many projects get money from multiple sources, but in all cases, the scientist who is the project leader will spend many weeks and sometimes months (depending on the size and duration of the project) preparing his case for why he should get the funding in his lab/institute and not someone else. If he fails in his bid, then that time is wasted and he'll have to find something else to make a project out of. It's a bit like tendering for a contract. Much work can go into preparing the tender, but if they don't get it they've wasted a lot of effort for nothing. That's why (have to be careful here) it would be very tempting for a scientist to, shall we say, 'embelish' or 'make more relevant' the case for carrying out a particular piece of science.