Sign in or 
Location: Nuclear Winter
Discussion: From a scientist
Category:
Discussion Forum /
General Discussion
Share this|
Posted Anonymously |
20. RE: let's not get started on global warming.
Apr 4 2007, 7:05 PM EDT
I had a whole bunch of stuff already written in response to you message and I got to the end and deleted it. I started over because I reread your post and realized you're not worth it.If you think that all scientific theories are indeed "facts" then you need a serious history lesson. Actually a LAW is considered absolute scientific fact. The whole reason why they even say THEORY is because it is not absolute proof. Scientists know that they can't test their theory in every scenario in the universe, therefor it may be possible to disprove it. Scientists know they can't prove anything because of this. All they can do is theorize the most probable and likely thing that will happen each time the experiment is run. The current experiment is the planet earth. They create computer models to simulate the way the climate works and try to prove or disprove global warming. That is the reason why there is so much debate. There are many many models that say different things and none of them have the same results. Global warming is "A fact as much as gravity is a fact." I don't suppose you can OBSERVE global warming can you? It IS still in debate and will continue to be in debate because we simply do NOT have the technology yet for indisputable evidence. I do not agree or disagree with the Global Warming theory because every time I find some data for it, I find other data that contradicts it. If I were a scientist, I would try to find my own. Therefor I will combat this possible warming of the globe just in case by buying a hybrid car once I can afford it. On the other hand, I personally think the changes that are being made to combat global warming are helping the earth and cleaning up our air. That I can agree is observable and a very nice side effect of ignorance. 6 out of 6 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
21. RE: let's not get started on global warming.
Apr 4 2007, 9:26 PM EDT
You need to get your definitions in order, and I know that definitions tend to be confusing and I think you are confusing theory with hypothesis .. A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis. Both scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community ... he biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. In other words a law describes something simple whereas a theory describes what is complex. I will not attempt to delve into falsifiability ... Suffice to say that recently scientists from 83 different countries came together SCIENCE PANEL SAYS GLOBAL WARMING IS 'UNEQUIVOCAL'In a grim and powerful assessment of the future of the planet, the leading international network of climate scientists has concluded for the first time that global warming is ''unequivocal'' and that human activity is the main driver, ''very likely'' causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950. ...February 3, 2007, Saturday By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL AND ANDREW C. REVKIN; ELISABETH ROSENTHAL REPORTED FROM PARIS, AND ANDREW C. REVKIN FROM NEW YORIK. FELICITY BARRINGER CONTRIBUTED REPORTING FROM WASHINGTON. (NYT); Foreign Desk Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 1, Column 5, It is not about affording a hybrid car or not ... nor is it about needing a history lesson ... continued 0 out of 4 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
22. RE: let's not get started on global warming.
Apr 4 2007, 9:43 PM EDT
It is about understanding the difference between scientific data and evidence as opposed to ideologically driven notions. I know it is hard to give up things you want to take for granted and I do recognize that I am in a position that affords me the opportunity to have solar panels on my house and put my name on the list for a "zap" car and that comes with privilege. Please do not for a moment think I am trying to put you down or anything since that is not what I am trying to do. I believe strongly that people for a whole host of reasons do not understand the scientific method and I know as Americans we tend to try and reach consensus (looking for fairness and rationality) but science has far more to do with meritocracy and is not subject to the same sort of debate as if you like something or not. I think the issue of hegemony might play into this given your comments ... it is not that you cannot afford it rather it is using the reactions of people to play into the interests of large corporate capital (as in the documentary what happened to the electric car) it is up to us to put pressure on the government and industry to do everything that we can to transform this. At worst let's say hypothetically that you are correct and there is no such thing as global warming then ---- what would be lost by trying to transform the use of limited natural resources? But, if scientists are correct then to do nothing would be catastrophic. Finally, if you want correct data consult juried academic publications on the topic ... remember anyone can write anything they want on the net or for a vanity press 0 out of 4 found this valuable. Do you? |
Dukenuchem |
23. Thank goodness for the Net
Apr 6 2007, 12:47 AM EDT
"It is about understanding the difference between scientific data and evidence as opposed to ideologically driven notions. ...The idea that scientists and juried academic publications are free of bias, fad, and ideology is not consistent with my observation. Is "cold fusion" research dead because it is discredited, or because it does not have the research grant potential of the Tokamak. I have heard the "hot fusion electric power in your home in ten years" for forty years. Did the scientists opposing atomic bombs after VE-Day really care for the Japanese, or were they more afraid of the US having a trump card over the Soviet Union? Hint: protests "spontaneously" appeared at every US test, but Soviet tests were never protested at the Soviet embassy. Last item. Alan Alda appears on "Scientific American Frontiers" exploring evidence of global warming in Alaska. Every piece of evidence is followed by Alda saying "Wouldn't that be a global catastrophe!" Then a researcher shows Alda five computer plots explaining that only human carbon dioxide emissions explain the current trend, and that otherwise we would be entering a glacial epoch. Alda does not opine that a glacial epoch would be a global catastrophe. Bottom line. I respect the scientific process, but it has not yet achieved the Platonic form. D. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
24. RE: Thank goodness for the Net
Apr 6 2007, 1:56 AM EDT
As much as I understand what you are trying to say ... and it is interesting to me because my area of research is how science is interpreted in the public imagination via popular culture. When any academic journal goes through a process of jury ithe attempt is to look at the merit of the research and the data (a lot of science is statistically or data driven). I am not saying by any means that anything in the world is neutral ... because we are (happily) human: rather there is no such thing as objectivity --- things are subjective because we are limited by perception. Although science attempts to reach objectivity and here is the part that I left out in terms of basic science definitions for the last gentleman because it was not at issue really and I wanted to stick to the specific point the scientific method must be subject to falsfiability ... I read somewhere a good example of this in regards to Intelligent Design )aka Creationism) since thenotion cannot be falsified it is not science --- it is religion. Not that there is anything wrong with religion. It is just not science. What you are discussing in relation to the scientists is something that is not part of the research findings on the bomb --- rather it is what transpired in the social-political world after the bomb dropped. In other words it is social science and the historical fact is that the bomb was created (it was first called the device not the bomb) and it was dropped on 2 cities. The consequences of the bomb in terms of destruction etc are of course well documented but what you make of those historical facts are subject to interpretation. It is irrelevent how Oppenheimer or Einstein etc felt in terms of the science, but it is relevent in terms of history and politics and philosophy. continued Do you find this valuable? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
25. RE: Thank goodness for the Net
Apr 6 2007, 2:09 AM EDT
lan Alda much as I like him as an actor and have enjoyed some of his recent movies is not a scientist. And often when complex scientific issues are presented in sound byte form it is given to hyperbole and cut and done with regard to the film-makers ideas not the scientist being interviewed. The interview is a whole other process that has to do with narrative and interpretation and how the reader is actually the one with the author-ity (aka Bakhtin) ... so we need to be specific with the definition. I am not one who is a big giant fan of the platonic ideal (and although fascinating philosophically is more than a bit anachronistic given the development of the field of philosophy since the Greeks) The idea of universals in highly problematic and probably better discussed by a socio-linguist or post structural philosopher ... human reactions to situations ... we might see the same thing and interpret it differently ... nevertheless there are some basic scientific realities that exist ... such as gravity ... I am not a chemist or a physicist as I said my doctorate is in a different field and Jeircho along with other post apocalyptic scenarios in the public imagination at this historical juncture is m y field of research. I had to do some reading t o find out what you meant about cold fusion and it was discredited for a time because scientists were unable to replicate the experiments. Continued Do you find this valuable? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
26. RE: Thank goodness for the Net
Apr 6 2007, 2:21 AM EDT
But this past month in March the American Chemical Association 12 people presented their findings stating "said the phenomenon now known as low energy nuclear reaction, is supportable by "rigorous, repeatable experimental data," the ACS said in a release." (physics.org). Scientists will then test the data and try to replicate the experiments ... and it will be subject to scientific scrutiny. I have no idea if there were protests at the soviet embassy or not but again that is a historical perspective not a scientific fact. Was the USSR our ally in WW2? Yes. That is a historical fact. How you translate what happened after WW2 in the Cold War has a great deal to do with ideology, position, perspective etc .. Did the USSR develop the atomic bomb too? Again, that is a historical fact.. Why and what that signifies is open to historical debate. Thank you for your comments ...I am having an insomnia but am going to try and go to sleep Do you find this valuable? |
MichalNancyKarni |
27. Global warming is not an accepted scientific fact
Apr 6 2007, 4:38 AM EDT
"There are such things as opinions which everyone can have, and opinions can be about epistemology, ontology or axiology. In other words you can have an opinion about how you feel about something aesthetic: say a tv show, music or a work of art. You can have an opinion or interpretation of history up to a point. For example the Iraq War is a historical fact. How you feel about that fact is contingent on ideology. Opinions cannot be about scientific facts. The debate over nuclear winter is not a scientific debate it is a policy debate (actually a military policy debate). Global warming has ceased to even be a policy debate and it is better to call it global climate change. It is an accepted scientific fact and a reality which we will have to grapple with and it is a legacy that we pass on to our children.sorry, but this is just a polemic for a very sorry state of affairs in the western world. every generation has it's boogey man some of the threats facing the world are/were real: Nuclear war-? would any one of the super powers really push the button; fascism-real threat in the 30's and 40's; communism-real, millions of people suffered and died from 1920's to 1990; Science is also a form of beliefs. In my opinon there is not much difference between science and religion. neither can be "proven" as such.both require "belief" inorder. Science abhores this idea, believing that it is above "faith" and is rational and logical but the bottom line is that it doesn't know anything 100% of the time and can almost ever explain the "why" of anything in the world, only the "how" or "how much". Most of the ideas that are marketed( and I mean actively MARKETED) as facts by the scientific community are nothing more than theories that cannot be conclusively proven one way or the other. There is statisical evidence that some of these theories "COULD" be real or true, but there is very little more to substanciate them other than the opinons of persons in the particular field of study who consider themselves in a position to decide. Global warming is not an issue like the Iraq war or speed of light or the evaporation rate of water. It is an opinon of many persons with a great deal of education and that is all it is. I have listened to so many of theories over the years (+40)and I am of the opinion that this is just another fashionable Idea. Fashionable ideas are are not the stuff of public policy. Global warming is not an accepted scientific fact and is still the subject of a great deal of debate in the scientific community. Most of critics of global warming have been attacked in an attempt to discredit them by claiming that they have been "bought" by business interest. But these people are legitmate scientists 3 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
28. RE: Global warming is not an accepted scientific fact
Apr 6 2007, 5:55 AM EDT
I appreciate your comments first of all ... BTW I am 51. You say this is a polemic, but there is nothing political in my comments. And I am not arguing theology so the use of polemic from my vantage point may be misunderstood ... I like your comments about how science and religion are parallel ... I have often written that science is the faith of the enlightenment with its reason and rationality ... However, I can prove gravity exists I have to have faith in God. And it is kind of ironic for me to have to defend the enllightenment The word theory in science means fact. I explained that several posts back. A scientific theory is comprised of facts except that it is far more complex than a scientific law for example think of it in metaphorical terms as the diffreence between a nail (a law) and a house (a theory). Global warming is an accepted fact, there is a meeting of the he Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, which was scheduled to end yesterday in Brussels. The only debate right now is one of language over a single word : the use of high confidence'' indicating a certainty of 67 to 95 percent and ``very high confidence'' exceeding 95 percent. I live in Florida and if that was the probability of rainfall I would totally be taking my umbrella. There are no credible scientists that I know of who debate global warming. Senator Inhoffe may do so but Oklahoma is an oil producer so perhaps there are other interests involved. I think you misread my statement I said the Iraq War is a global fact. The debate surrounding the Iraq War ifs if it is right or wrong over policy and ideology: not over its existence. That is a historical social fact which will always be different than a scientific fact or religious faith ... I agree many ideas are marketed which is the problem with hyperintensified capitalism that needs to constantly expand into new markets. Perhaps global warming will precipitate an economic boom as we transform our economy conti Do you find this valuable? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
29. RE: Global warming is not an accepted scientific fact
Apr 6 2007, 5:59 AM EDT
I do not know why people resent those with education or in other posts people with capital both financial and cultural. Why the anti-intellectual or anti-scientific argument? Academics do not decide policy. Legislative bodies do.
0
out of
2 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
MichalNancyKarni |
30. this a healthy open debate-
Apr 6 2007, 10:06 AM EDT
"I do not know why people resent those with education or in other posts people with capital both financial and cultural. Why the anti-intellectual or anti-scientific argument? Academics do not decide policy. Legislative bodies do. "I have an education from two major US universities. A college degree I would hope would give you the ability to analyse and think for yourself . I don't resent science. I'm very skeptical of science. I work as an admin assistant for an MD and a neurobiologist who are journalists. I have a degree in Chemistry. Academics push agendas in the legistature of every country and they seek funding from goverments . Gov't representatives get their info from academics, among other sources. No one is impartial and no is above politics and every one believes in something. There is a controversy on the issue of global warming even if it is being accepted by some governing bodies as "fact". Personally, I don't live an excessive life style: I don't have a cell phone, credit cards, or insurance except where mandated by law. We are 7 in my household and we have one car and use our feet and public transport for the majority of our travels. We have solar hot water heating. we have Aircond, but don't use it. we don't have a clothes dryer. We use low wattage bulbs in most places in the house. We bake our own bread in an electric oven and we don't eat almost any processed foods( some canned foods and a few frozen vegetables). I do most of those things to save money because we live on less than 50k USD a year. I'm not politcally correct or interested in saving the enviroment but I know that the way I live impacts very little on the environment relative to the community I live in. I sincerely believe that there is simplily not enough evidence to support the idea of global warming. Not enough historical evidence, and not enough solid studies to support the idea. I doubt that the solutions proposed will have much if any impact on the so called crisis. But it should give future generations a good laugh. 3 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
31. RE: this a healthy open debate-
Apr 6 2007, 12:08 PM EDT
We applaud you living frugally and making a small carbon impact on the environment. I am typing for my husband who believes there has been a significant disinformation campaign on global warming.Suffice to say the C02 levels in the atmosphere have been 650,000 years (which is as long as people can measure) eg greenhouse gases.It is not that we are saying there are not non man made things which can effect the environment but we are so far outside the curve of cyclical natural variation I am not saying you have an excessive lifestyle and I am embarrassed to say how much my husband and I make per year ... that is not the question or the issue ... however I will say this it may well be if you are right and this is a hoax or a joke and people do nothing what would the consequences be? But, if the scientific community is correct then what would the impact be if we did nothing. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
32. RE: From a scientist
Apr 6 2007, 12:38 PM EDT
"from another scientistIn the late 70's; the great fear was global cooling. They were "SURE" that we were going to enter another ice age. ahem...yeah, right. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
33. RE: this a healthy open debate-
Apr 6 2007, 12:40 PM EDT
"however I will say this it may well be if you are right and this is a hoax or a joke and people do nothing what would the consequences be? But, if the scientific community is correct then what would the impact be if we did nothing.This is not a good method for motivation. Some people are religious for this reason; and it makes for a whoreable believer. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
34. RE: this a healthy open debate-
Apr 6 2007, 1:42 PM EDT
I am a parent and like any parent I want to leave the world in better shape for my children. I am not going to debate scientific evidence but I will say this --- if someone says there is the potential that my child could be protected from a disease by a shot or medicine I will give him or her that medicine ... even if s/he does not have the disease. If we can all act globally we cannot prevent this from happening but can prevent the worst of the consequences. I have no idea about your last sentence the context is unclear
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
Dukenuchem |
35. RE: Einsteins Opinion
Apr 8 2007, 2:24 AM EDT
The interaction of politics, discovery and exploitation occurs at every level. The Nazi's unified Germans in anti-Semitism. Hungarian Jew, Leo Szilard, left germany
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
Posted Anonymously |
36. RE: this a healthy open debate-
Apr 8 2007, 2:47 AM EDT
" if someone says there is the potential that my child could be protected from a disease by a shot or medicine I will give him or her that medicine ... even if s/he does not have the disease. If we can all act globally we cannot prevent this from happening but can prevent the worst of the consequences."And if a teacher says your kid needs riddelin you'd gladly drug your child I'm sure... The problem is, whenever someone with a PHD speaks they are treated as a god. Doctors are wrong ALL the time...Doctor/pharmaceutical errors within the last century have accounted for MORE deaths than the US military has caused in war during the same span. You need to think for yourself and stop listening what people tell you. Ever wonder why SIDS and Autism are on the exponential rise since the conception of vaccinations? Ever wonder why the Amish community never has a problem with either? 3 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Dukenuchem |
37. RE: Einsteins Opinion
Apr 8 2007, 3:02 AM EDT
"The interaction of politics, discovery and exploitation occurs at every level. The Nazi's unified Germans in anti-Semitism. Hungarian Jew, Leo Szilard, left germany"(too much help from my cat). So Leo Szilard brought the significance of Uranium chain reaction to the United States. There he lobbied Albert Einstein to write a letter to President Roosevelt requesting work be started on an Atomic bomb, to keep Hitler from having an atomic monopoly. Once Hitler was defeated, many scientists lost their ardor to continue the research. Joseph Rotblat resigned. Klaus Fuchs sent secret information to the USSR, which may have helped their atomic bomb program immensely. The opinions of Szilard and Einstein lead to the research program that gave the US the atomic bomb. Without the Manhattan project the same discoveries would have eventually been made, but perhaps exploited for interplanetary spaceships or powerplants that do not emit carbon. D. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
38. RE: Einsteins Opinion
Apr 8 2007, 3:25 AM EDT
"Without the Manhattan project the same discoveries would have eventually been made, but perhaps exploited for interplanetary spaceships or powerplants that do not emit carbon. D."I'm hearing a Nuke in Jupiter could set off a chain reaction that turns it into a star. 0 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Dukenuchem |
39. RE: scientific facts and social policy
Apr 8 2007, 3:52 AM EDT
I understand the Earth is warming. Human activities such as rice farming, raising cattle, and burning fossil fuels probably play a pivotal role. Could global warming result in a world better able to support humanity with longer growing seasons? I see little research being funded and published on this aspect of the debate. Yes, the transition would be expensive. So would transforming the US economy, or the rice culture.
In the 1960's, one-hundred rats were fed a 50:50 mixture of the artificial sweeteners saccharin and cyclamates. A detectable number (5%) of the rats developed bladder cancer. That was replicable scientific fact, as provable as gravity. The resultant policy was to ban saccharin and mandate cyclamates. The obvious problem was that when the sweeteners were separately tested, about twenty years later, cyclamates were the culprit. Cyclamates in that high concentration crystalized in the bladder and the scraping action induced cancer. Other problems? The FDA standard was to ban chemicals that caused one excess cancer death in a million people. That is not a detectable level of morbidity as about 20% of rats and people die of cancer by random chance. The 5% excess cancer deaths that is detectable is 50,000 times higher. Which means a lot more sweetener given to the rats. Do you find this valuable? |
