[Goober5000]

Right.  Because, of course, scientists always agree, and every scientific interpretation must always be accepted without question.

Neither science nor religion should be mixed with politics.

[Flipside]

I think the difference was best explained as 'In science, everyone wants to prove one of the old established truths wrong, in religion, everyone is terrified they might.'

[Bobboau]

Explain what the hell Al Gore has to do with any of this?

if you don't know, he made a documentary about global warming recently and like won an emmy and ****. to be honest even if I agree with a position ANY politition makeing a "the world is comeing to an end" style documentary about it gives me cause to question it.

[Flipside]

I think the point Aldo was trying to make was that Al Gore did not invent Global Warming. Yes he probably used it as a platform for personal gain, it was, and obviously still is, a contentious issue, but whilst Al Gore might be a moron, that does nothing whatsoever to affect the Global Warming case, it merely means that someone tried to profit from it.

You only have to see the sheer volume of books coming from both sides of the Evolution debate to realise where the current Gold Mine is.

[Bobboau]

in any event
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BjrOi4vF24

[MP-Ryan]

Global warming is an issue with so much political blarney attached to it it's impossible to get an accurate scientific assessment (if such a thing actually exists to begin with).

Look on the bright side:  no matter what humans do to this rock, life will go on.  Just maybe not human life.  And really, is that such a bad thing?

[Ford Prefect]

Eh....

Yes?

[aldo_14]

Explain what the hell Al Gore has to do with any of this?

if you don't know, he made a documentary about global warming recently and like won an emmy and ****. to be honest even if I agree with a position ANY politition makeing a "the world is comeing to an end" style documentary about it gives me cause to question it.

As Flipside pointed out already, my point is that Al Gore has nothing to do with the realities of global warming - at best he cobbled together the 'cream' of scientific awards into a documentary, at worst twisted them.  In any case, a serious discussion about this issue does not reference Al Gore nor the 'documentary' linked at the top of this thread, but uses actual first-hand sources.  Otherwise you get into the risk - as we see in this case - of these authoritative sources having their words and work edited into a soundbite that says the opposite of when it really means.

Al Gore is just handy for the Exxo-Mobil mob et al because it attaches a personality to the issue - and it's far, far easier as we can see here to attack a 'figurehead' personality than actually discuss the science behind the whole controversy.

[DeepSpace9er]

the temperature has gone up 0.6* C in the last century as a global average and you are talking about the end of human life? You do realize that people live in the desert and the most fridgid of temperatures? I dont deny that the world is warming but what i do think is bogus is the apocalyptic outcome if we dont do the silliest of things like switch to florescent lighting, put bricks in our toliets, unplug electronics that are off, even building houses out of recyables like tires. If we dont do that, oh and stop driving SUVs we will all die! (not now, but in 100 or 200 years so we dont have to be held accountable when our predictions are wrong)

[aldo_14]

the temperature has gone up 0.6* C in the last century as a global average and you are talking about the end of human life? You do realize that people live in the desert and the most fridgid of temperatures? I dont deny that the world is warming but what i do think is bogus is the apocalyptic outcome if we dont do the silliest of things like switch to florescent lighting, put bricks in our toliets, unplug electronics that are off, even building houses out of recyables like tires. If we dont do that, oh and stop driving SUVs we will all die! (not now, but in 100 or 200 years so we dont have to be held accountable when our predictions are wrong)

Firstly, 0.6C is a very significant change in global terms.  Secondly, the average global temperature has risen (based on the latest IPCC report, which determined a >90% probability of human cause) 0.15-0.35C alone since the last IPCC report in 2001; that's at the very top end of estimates.  Thirdly, we're not talking about humanity raising the temperature to, say 5C - we're talking about humanity raising the temperature enough to go past the 'tipping point' into a self-reinforcing heating (followed by ice age due to the heat creating more cloud cover) cycle.  Fourthly, it's daft to suggest the survival of a limited number of people in the desert (sand or ice version) means the human race could survive the conversion of the planet to such a state (one which would wipe out most ecology and agriculture) - just look at mass starvation and famine already happening in Africa thanks to record droughts.

The IPCC report - which, being a multi-governmental document is conservative by nature - predicts climate changes will result in major increases in tropical storm intensity, seal level rises of up to 50cm, more frequent deadly heatwaves, and the acidity of the sea rising and wiping out corall atolls.  The consequent ecological as well as physical (storm) damage would create hundreds of millions of refugees, who would inevitably seek to move to industrialized 1st world countries, creating an economic and humanitarian crisis. 

This is ignoring, of course, the possibility of the release of methane from Siberian peat or trapped under the ocean, which would be disasterous and would mirror the likely cause of the Permian mass extinction.

[Goober5000]

I think the difference was best explained as 'In science, everyone wants to prove one of the old established truths wrong, in religion, everyone is terrified they might.'

Uh, no.  The only religious people who are afraid of being proved wrong are those who use religion as a means to exert control.  Since they're afraid of losing control, they stifle dissent.

And guess what -- you can say the same about science too.  Watch:

The only scientists who are afraid of being proved wrong are those who use science as a means to exert control.  Since they're afraid of losing control, they stifle dissent.

In any case, those who use religion as a belief system rather than a political system aren't afraid at all of being proved wrong.  If they happen to doubt something enough to disbelieve it, they would most likely switch to a more compatibile belief system.  The core beliefs aren't really something that can be "proved" or "disproved" anyway.

The IPCC report - which, being a multi-governmental document is political by nature

Fixed that for you.

[Flipside]

The only scientists who are afraid of being proved wrong are those who use science as a means to exert control.  Since they're afraid of losing control, they stifle dissent.

I actually completely disagree with that statement. Some scientists don't like to be proved wrong because of ego, but any scientist who thinks their arguments are infallible or give them some kind of 'control' over what they are studying is no scientist at all. Science is the art of Theory and Research, the first job of a scientist is to prove themselves wrong, the second job is to try and find someone else who can prove you wrong. That is how science tests itself.

Yes, you get 'political' scientists, just as you get 'political' religions, but I don't think science has ever gone for 'control', that's been far more a case of Media using science. Which is a long long way from the case in religion.

Look at it this way, last time someone tried to say the Quoran may be wrong they got Death threats, last time someone said Newton was wrong they got told, 'Ok, we're game, prove it.'. And they did. That guy was called Einstein.

[aldo_14]

The IPCC report - which, being a multi-governmental document is political by nature

Fixed that for you.

Yes, because the politicians have shown great impetus and desire to tackle the issue of emissions control.

Oh, wait, the other one.

What, may I ask, on earth was your point?

[Bobboau]

they have shown great impetus and desire to act like they will tackle the issue of emissions control as a means of gaining power. well half of them have the other half have done everything in there (vast) power to to twist any science and/or scientist into 'proving' that global warming either doesn't exist or is a natural phenomenon, to which the first group counters with similar tactics. in the end it becomes imposable to tell with any degree of certainty what you can actually believe, because there are so many people on both sides of the issue who take there position as fact and consider any decent from there position on the issue as a political power play, and the greatest tragity is it might very well be. it's pretty much imposable for anyone outside of the people actually drilling in Antarctica to know with any certainty how accurate there research is.

thus: politics +  science = politics.

also: politics + religion = politics
and: war = politics^n

[aldo_14]

Except that the IPCC has historically [/i]under[/i] estimated climate change, and the Bush administration has in the past lobbied a change of IPCC chairman on behalf of ExxonMobil.

I'd still like to know why 'political' is replacing 'conservative'.

[Flipside]

Unfortunately, some people are not going to accept Global Warming, whether man-made or Natural cycle, until they are wading their way to higher ground in 40 years. The sad fact is that even if those who are accepting that there is a problem manage to turn matters around, that just means that in 50 years time the people who don't accept it will be saying 'See! We told you it wasn't going to happen!'

Unfortunately there appears to be only one way to find out for sure, and, being humanity, I have little doubt we will blunder ever onwards and make a half-assed attempt at too little too late. It's odd, the North Pole has melted entirely away in the last few years and people still don't think there is a problem.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1678441&page=1 - Report on the melting of both poles.

http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update8.htm - More info on the above, obviously biased.

http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/media_coverage/SanDiegoUnionTribune/Ice-has-melted-at-north-pole-site/Ice-has-melted-at-north-pole-site.shtml

- Report on the North Pole melting entirely for the first time in an estimated 50 million years in 2000.

[Bobboau]

I'd still like to know why 'political' is replacing 'conservative'.

because 'conservative' is only one half of the problem.

[Flipside]

Just a slightly abstract thought, but wouldn't people who oppose Evolution have to be in favour of Global Warming, after all, a lot of the alleged defence for it not happening seems to come from before the Earth was created?

[Goober5000]

The only scientists who are afraid of being proved wrong are those who use science as a means to exert control.  Since they're afraid of losing control, they stifle dissent.

I actually completely disagree with that statement. Some scientists don't like to be proved wrong because of ego, but any scientist who thinks their arguments are infallible or give them some kind of 'control' over what they are studying is no scientist at all. Science is the art of Theory and Research, the first job of a scientist is to prove themselves wrong, the second job is to try and find someone else who can prove you wrong. That is how science tests itself.

Aside from the fact that you came rather close to the No True Scotsman fallacy there, you don't seem to have followed my post.  If the only scientists who are afraid of being proved wrong are those who use science as a means to exert control, then logically, those who don't use science as a means of control are not afraid of being proved wrong.  So we agree on that principle.  Where we seem to disagree is whether the "stifling of dissent" is actually taking place.

Yes, you get 'political' scientists, just as you get 'political' religions, but I don't think science has ever gone for 'control', that's been far more a case of Media using science. Which is a long long way from the case in religion.

You can't have it both ways.  If you can argue that science has never gone for "control", that it's all the fault of unscrupulous people hijacking it for their own ends, then I can argue the same for religion.

Look at it this way, last time someone tried to say the Quoran may be wrong they got Death threats, last time someone said Newton was wrong they got told, 'Ok, we're game, prove it.'. And they did. That guy was called Einstein.

Okay, then given that claim, explain why global warming is currently presented as a foregone conclusion, proven beyond all doubt, despite the considerable number of scientists who can't agree on whether global warming exists, what the extent of humankind's impact on the climate is, and what sort of results we can expect.

Science has been co-opted for control before, and will be again.  Phrenology has been used to justify jailing innocent people, Darwinianism has been used to justify eugenics and racial cleansing, and global warming is being used to justify, as Bobboau said, increased government power.

Oh, and the last time someone said global warming was wrong, he got death threats.  Not "okay, we're game, prove it".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml

Except that the IPCC has historically under estimated climate change

Under-estimated by whose definition?  Their own.  (Or, equivalently, other global-warming proponents.)  Nobody has yet offered any sort of hypothesis that has borne out under testing; all we have is wild speculation.  Back in the seventies the climatologists' claim was that the Earth would undergo a new ice age within twenty years, and that prediction turned out to be completely false.

because 'conservative' is only one half of the problem.

I'm pretty sure he meant conservative as in "erring on the side of underestimation", not conservative as in politically conservative.

[aldo_14]

I'd still like to know why 'political' is replacing 'conservative'.

because 'conservative' is only one half of the problem.

Oh, FFS.

Go read a dictionary.