No, we're not discussing the deity/no-deity hypothesis. Arguing about whether there's a supreme deity or not is kind of like arguing about whether or not John Edward can talk to the dead - it's a waste of time because you can't prove one way or the other. Although it's a great way to give your more gullible friends apoplexy.
Today's round is about that misunderstood and generally maligned topic GLO-BAL WAR-MING (for the pronunciation, just imagine I'm discussing the dreaded gum disease GIN-GI-VI-TIS). It's a popular pastime for people that don't know better (and some that do) to go on national television and say some shit like "I don't believe in global warming". Here's the problem: it's not a question of belief. Scientists aren't asking you to believe in the volcano god or that Gaia is pissed. There's nothing to believe or disbelieve. There's only evidence. By definition, a belief requires no evidence. Hence, there's no rational way to argue that there is or isn't a volcano god. Go Vulcan!
You can, of course, have different interpretations of evidence. But when all of the evidence is consistent with only one hypothesis, that hypothesis wins by default until a better one comes along or until contrary evidence shows up. So...does the evidence point to warming? Yes. Does the warming correspond almost one-for-one with increases in industrial activity and agriculture? Yes. Can the amount of warming be explained by natural processes (changes in sunlight, ocean circulation, Earth's orbit, volcanic acitivity)? No. Therefore, simple logic tells you we are responsible. Humans are the cause of the warming. There's nothing to believe. And so far, there is no explanation that has been put forward that is as consistent with the evidence. So stop bitching about it and start doing something to change it.
If you don't "believe" in global warming then I guess you don't believe in electricity, the ozone hole, or gravity (or as its known to those in the loop "God's magical fall-down formula" - wish I could take credit for that, but it's all Ben). So instead of spreading misinformation, pseudo-science, and poorly supported but loud and authoritative-sounding rhetoric, why don't you crawl back under your rock and let the people that want to face reality do so without you.
3 comments:
I think one of the major problems in the Global Warming "Controversy" is that evidence is not usually presented in the layman's news source and, when it is, the layman cannot understand the evidence. Most people don't trust the scientific evidence because they are bombarded with all sorts of ridiculous pseudo-scientific devices and ideas. They know not to stop eating eggs, gum, yogurt or whatever the latest cancer causing substance is this morning. Even you don’t believe the “scientific evidence” that little foot pads can suck the bad chemicals out of your body. So how can we expect people to understand the difference between real and pseudo-science? (I can’t answer that question completely but I’ll start with just one word: profit.)
I think the bottom line is this:
The data, methods, results, and conclusions for climate science have been peer reviewed, are publicly available, and have been summarized repeatedly for "lay-people" to understand. There is nothing hidden or mysterious about the science and conclusions for anyone willing to take even 15 minutes to look. This is in stark contrast to those ridiculous foot pads, dick creams, and dietary supplements. Those data and studies have NOT been peer reviewed, are NOT publicly available, and have NOT been scrutinized for methodology and results. Oftentimes their results are actually at odds with fundamental chemical and physical principles. Therefore, they fall under the "pseudo-science" category. If they are ever made public and are peer reviewed, maybe they can move from the pseudo realm in the actual world of science.
Another part of the problem I see is information overload. And the fact that people are never taught the critical thinking skills necessary to distinguish good information from bad information. One study does NOT make a point. Several independent studies, using various methods, are necessary to justify wide sweeping scientific claims. Obviously people don't have time to read every report or wade through the scientific jargon. But a modicum of common sense and realistic expectations would severely limit the impact that pseudo-scientific claims have on the general public. This is a problem that can only be resolved by both better communication by scientists and better reasoning skills by the public and policymakers. Otherwise, the cluster fuck will continue.
Agreed, with an emphasis on: the-powers-that-be-and-love-and-profit-from-fossil-fuels know that the one way to make people ignore blatant fact is to bombard them with so much bombast that they just stop caring.
Everyone knew Bush was a douchesicle who lied his ass off to take us to war, but by 2004 we were so tired of hearing it that a lot of people either 1) stopped caring, or 2)experienced a backlash of anger at the people "complaining" as opposed to the people who lied (similar to not voting for your favorite candidate because the fucker won't stop calling you before the election). Somehow, we put that same douchesicle, but now with a side of asshat, BACK into office.
I might also point out that a lot of the nay-saying about global warming is not merely the fact of it-- much of it has to do with the issue of projections, because decently reliable data can be dug up that supports Gore's 'the world as lava in 50 years' hypothesis, as well as the 'world as exactly the same minus a light jacket' camp. Example: record ice breakage in the arctic, vs. thickening ice in some parts of Antarctica-- what you see depends on what you're looking at.
Also at issue is how exactly to slow down or stop a process which, basically, has been caused by overpopulation-- if there had been SUVs in 1820 it wouldn't have mattered because the world's population was only just reaching 1 billion (and things like the Amazon rain forest still existed).
Sure, cities could be better designed, mass transit could be improved, people could paint their roofs white, we could stop burning coal altogether, but is that really going to change anything?
And are we talking about fundamentally altering the econopolitical foundations of modern society over something that might turn out to be more pussy fart than great wind of change?
35 years ago there was a scare over global cooling, with scads of reliable data saying it was happening, and projecting a man-made ice age within a few generations. Yes, we know better than that now-- but will we know better about this in 50 years?
I don't know, I'm just arguing for the sake of the morning, and pointing out that there are way more camps on the global warming debate than just 'OMG its hapenin' and 'ROFL you dumb 4 believin dat'.
When the fuck are we tackling marriage?
Post a Comment