Global Warming. Fact or Fiction?

Post Reply New Topic

The debate about the reality of global warming is actually an argument about faith/beliefs not facts, about whether matter exists/whether there is an objective reality, whether there is anything between measurable cause and effect, etc; no wonder it gets so heated. "Dangerous human-caused climate-change"is an artefact of a certain philosophical position.

Global Warming reads like a story/moral tale about science/the scientific method. Scientific philosophy led to the creation of greenhouse gases etc in the first place. Science as the prodigal son.

Wow I didn't realize this topic was still alive, I posted this ages ago.

People can believe in global warming if they want, I don't really care. It's just when the hype starts affecting business and economic things in a negative way that it starts to bug me. Even if the temperature does rise who's to say we won't survive it (we've been through much more masive climate changes in the past and we lived, and that was before modern technology!)... and who's to say we can do anything to stop it? WE CAN'T CONTROL THE WEATHER.

Global Warming doesn't look like much of a threat when you start to look at other natural occurances that are without-a-doubt going to happen. Example: Studies show that the Earth's magnetic fields have become significantly weeker since, say, the time of columbus (the fact that the crude compasses used at that time and in earlier times could pick up the magnetic field at all is testiment to this). What this indicates is that the Earth is getting ready to switch it's poles (North charge become ssouth, and South becomes north)... before this switch occurs there will be a period of time when the magnetic field will virtually disapear. Think about all of the technoloogy and animal navigation systems that rely on the earths magnetic poles and you can imagine the impact such an event will have. Or think about Yellowstone National Park it is nothing but a giant volcano if that thing were to go off it would destroy most of North america and have long lasting effects on the rest of the world.

So worry about a few degrees of weather change if you want but this earth (and the human race) has seen much worse and survived it. The link below is from another article that suggest we have better things to worry about.

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.asp ... 9412587175

Nothing being said here is anything new. I've heard all of these views countless times before. I'm mainly just amused that people can fool themselves into believing they have a good understanding of the world and actually take these ideas so seriously.

This "debate" isn't new. It happens every couple years, but no one remembers anything. would say more but I have a test I have to get to...

for me it's new.

I had certainly not imagined that i would discover i don't believe in science because iam not 100% convinced by its fundamental tenets. ...suddenly realise why have been so recalcitrant about glob.

Thanks to the postings on both sides of issue, I have understood that science is a philosophical position. I feel more sympathetic towards the people freaking out about global warming now cos i see where it came from, from the immense arrogance of western scientific philosophy's basic assumptions.

Last edited by ouinon on 29 Feb 2008, 2:26 am, edited 3 times in total.

Be careful that you're not assuming too much yourself.

what do you mean? ?

well, that certianly explains a lot. If you don't believe in facts and data, then facts and data certianly won't convince you.

That facts did not convince me is what led me to this realisation that i do not entirely believe in the existence of objective reality, for which i thanked you and your lists of links to goodish articles, because it is quite a revelation.

Just found this http://www.cttbusa.org/other2/buddhism_science.htm

Last edited by ouinon on 29 Feb 2008, 2:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

Dear, facts come *from* objective reality. There is no other source. Our interpretations of the facts and data may sometimes be in error, but that dosen't change the fact that reality exists.

It's funny - the people who generally treat science as a religion, both those who are 'true believers' and those who accuse others of being true believers, are generally not scientists.

it's precisely because I understand that "facts" are the product of belief in "objective reality" that i was forced to realise that i simply don't believe 100% in science.

I don't think that many people engaging in scientific activity admit that in order to practice that activity as it currently stands ( ie; not as in china in the 16th c) involves using a massive/highly significant cognitive tool/framework, a "belief in objective reality". Science is generally presented as if it were free of beliefs. (despite Heisenberg's principle which in stating that the act of observing an event interferes with it seems to suggest that ALL experienced/observed reality is subjective; specific to that moment of observation by that or those people).
This pretence to a privileged ( as in "most free" of personal limitations in perspective) therefore superior viewpoint is as alienating as religious belief which refuses to acknowledge that belief in god is a cognitive construct.

Last edited by ouinon on 29 Feb 2008, 12:35 pm, edited 10 times in total.

Having said that, and having integrated this into my understanding of things, i discover that the scientific story that there is such a thing as "dangerous human-caused climate-change" is swallowable. ( taken with a pinch of salt)! I am prepared to accept that within the limits of the framework "objective reality" it is a "possible reality". ( but not the whole story!)

This does NOT mean that scientists are necessarily best able to judge what should be done about it. As Bjorn Lomborg, and Denis Rancourt, and others say, social scientists and economists may be better qualified for that part of the job. As in"there is going to be a flood" style prophecy ; do we try to stop it or do we build an ark/protection systems( relocation of agriculture, better disease control, lowland-dykes etc)?

I think it is an exciting opportunity for transformation.

As Earth's temperature increases more water evaporates, reflecting more infrared light.


Without the greenhouse effect Earth would be too cold to support life.

I was wondering whether the fact that so many people
( thousands of them, to the tune of billions of dollars, for about the 15th year running),
are so concentratedly observing the climate is having any effect on it.

Yes, but in the contemporary context concerning the dangers of "the greenhouse effect," it's intended to mean a rampant greenhouse effect.

See previous statement though, the warmer the oceans get > more water evaporates > more infrared light reflected. Besides, we're almost out of petrol anyway. Not much more damage can be done.