Do “Believers” obfuscate Objective Science to falsely advance their agenda?

Question

Believers say that other sciences “predict” their results like a Las Vegas sports book predicts the odds on a football game.

However this is incorrect. If I drop an object, I know how fast it is going, the rate of acceleration, where it is in the fall, and when it will strike the ground. You do as well as we will both use the exact same calculations and the exact same math. There is no predicting when the object will strike the ground, as it is known.

Global warming isn’t like this. With “global warming” you just have to accept what some people tell you. There is no math, there are no calculations, you and I cannot come to the same conclusions independently.

Do the “believers’ deliberately obfuscate global warming with objective science to elevate AGW to real science, or is this done because of a through indoctrination?

Answer 1

STRAW MAN!!! Who says that science predicts results like a Las Vegas Bookie? The greenhouse effect is based on Planck's law[1], infrared spectroscopy[2], Beer-Lambert-Bouguer law[3], quantum mechanics[4], and lots of physics that is way over my head.

The greenhouse theory can never be "proven", and neither can gravity. However, chances are that if you drop an object, then it will fall to the ground; this is because of a natural attraction between objects that have mass. Predicting where the object strikes ground is an educated guess based on our knowledge of gravitation theory.

Likewise, chances are that if humans continue to increase the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, then the planet will warm (global warming). This is an educated guess based on the knowledge that greenhouse gases trap outgoing infrared radiation.

You may not understand physical properties and laws that support the greenhouse theory, but applying theory to the real world is more of a (well) educated guess than a flip of a coin.

Edit: Side tangent for E=MC2

Before you start to question my education, you may want to read a simple definition for the Theory of Gravity. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/t... In daily usage, gravity can be thought of as “weight”. Gravity does not pile cars up because have more of an attraction with the ground (earth) because this is more massive. Also the helium balloon floats because it also experiences an upward force that is equal to the weight of the air it displaces minus its own weight (see laws of buoyancy). Pop the balloon and gravity will cause it to fall back towards earth.

Answer 2

Despite what the environmentalists say; most scientists are coming to the conclusion that increased activity on the sun is responsible for global warming, so there is really nothing man has done or can do to stop it.

Most scientist also concede that the "hole in the ozone layer" has been there all along.

Environmentalists get grants and funding by keeping the "man made crisis" global warming myth alive.

When I was a kid the crisis that was funding environmentalists was global cooling in the late 60's and early 70's, and acid rain in the late 70's and through out the 80's.

The grants and funds dried up on those and they have become extinct, as will happen to "Global Warming" too.

Just follow the money; it will lead you to some really odd places sometimes.

Who says gravity has never been proved?

Gravity is the result of the atomic weight of air. at sea level air has enough weight to exert 14.7 PSIA on the planet.

Anything more dense than air will be pulled toward the earth and anything less dense than air (a Helium filled balloon for example) will rise away from the earth.

And what is that balderdash about objects with mass being attracted to each other?

If there were any truth to that cars left in a parking lot long enough would end up in a big pile, whenever a baseball lost momentum it would not just randomly fall but would always be attracted to what ever object has the most mass, all planets would be magnets for asteroids, and the planets would collide... Even the helium balloon has mass. If all objects with mass are naturally attracted to each other; why doesn't a helium filled balloon naturally fall to earth as soon as you let it go?

BENJAMIN: Rather than hanging out on yahoo answers your time might be better spent in a classroom.

Answer 3

There's also the inconvenient fact that the other disciplines CORRECTLY predict what's going to happen.......

As to deliberate obfuscations, certainly the MWP is an example.     We're constantly being reminded that global warming could produce regional cooling and anything in between on a regional level - yet the same people who remind us of that fact discount the MWP as a "truly global event" solely on the grounds that the medieval warming didn't proceed everywhere at the exact same time.    Unless the climate works differently now than it did then, if there has been a "global warming" in the 20th century, than there was a "global warming" from the late 9th century to mid-12th century.

Answer 4

No.

"With “global warming” you just have to accept what some people tell you. There is no math, there are no calculations"

Completely wrong.  What do you think computer models are based on?  It's science and math.  If you were sufficiently intelligent and educated, you could re-create global climate models.  Of course you're not (and neither is anyone else here), but just because it's beyond your understanding doesn't mean it's not based on math and science.  What an absurd claim.

You're really not doing the denial movement any favors with these questions.  You're just exposing the ignorance on which the movement is based.

Answer 5

Once more a Dr Jello post with absolutely no education or support behind it.  Science exist whether or not Dr Jello can understand it.  Read the studies for yourself and you will be convinced.

Answer 6

A *simple* (and recreational) global warming model is the 'game' SimEarth.  You need an old computer (or simulation of something about MS-DOS level) to run it.  It is based on math and calculations.

Answer 7

Yes! They take temperature data points and show them so they skew the results!

EX) by taking temp readings going back to the 60's to today it will  show a warming trend, however if I take temp results going back to the 50's to today I won't show any significant increase or decrease!

This is just an example of how data can be skewed one way to prove a point and another way to prove another point! Marketing people do this all the time!

Answer 8

No, but "deniers" spend a lot of time characterizing "believers" because "deniers" have no science supporting their claims.

There's plenty of evidence, plenty of math, plenty of calculations, plenty of evidence, and you've been here long enough to see a lot of it, you simply choose not to accept it.  You choose to deny it.  That's fine, you don't have to accept or believe anything.

However, it's pretty obvious that if you had any science whatsoever supporting your position, you wouldn't need to engage in name-calling rants like this one.  Does repeating the same unsupported denial mantras on the Internet over and over again, and finding a person or two that wants to share your opinion, help you feel like your lack of credible evidence is somehow reasonable?

Answer 9

Your right everyone has a different approach to perception. That's what makes us what we are. It's not the preponderance of evidence that already exist. It's the preponderance of inconclusive studying that still needs to done.

Answer 10

Actually, CO2's opaqueness to heat rays is objective science.  It's been known since Tyndall discovered it in the 1800's.  And numerous laboratory experiments have confirmed it.

Given Planks law of black-body radiation and the Stefan-Boltzmann law we can accurately compute the so-called greenhouse effect.  This is all completely objective science.

The complexity enters the picture when you start to analyze the feedback mechanisms.  All things remaining the same, there's no doubt that increasing the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere will cause warming.  

While it would be nice if we could build numerous physical models and experiment with various concnetrations of different atmospheric gases, that's not feasible. Thus computer modeling is the best tool available for analyzing this.  So while you may not trust computer models (few people really understand them), they are a critical tool and provide a significant amount of useful information. They are also objective science.

Answer 11

Yes.  The doom sayers keep saying that they have science on their side, but when the data does not fit their hypothesis they go around and change the data.

Take a new study that recently came out about troposphere warming.  Direct measurements does not get the results warmers need.  So they now use a proxy method to claim they are right.  That is like saying we now from direct measurements that the temperature during the 70's was so much.  Somebody then comes along, finds fault with the thermometers, and says tree rings are a better way of measuring 70's temperatures.

They actually have the nerve to say it is the final nail in the coffin.  When I quoted Christy's rebuttal to the study.  Did these people who have science on their side find fault with Christy?  No.  He just attacked him.  Typical response.  Because when they do not have science on their side, they start attacking who said something, not what was said.  This way they take the debate away from the science, that they claim overwhelmening supports their hypothesis.

Answer 12

In your example, all known variables are measurable and known. Now take AGW--not all variables are known, but many are. Does this simple knowledge negate the value of predicting? No. I don't need to know all the variables that affect my life to respectably predict that, for example,  some day I will buy my first house. Yes, that prediction is not 100%, but it's an educated prediction nonetheless.

Global warming is the same way. To say warming trends are random ('flip of a coin' mantra) is irresponsible; it implies we know nothing of the variables that influence climate, when we do.

Yes, it's not all objective; graph interpretation is just that--interpretative. Again, this doesn't negate the value of predicions.

cc: go back to the 50's and you tell me: no increase?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en...

according to the facts (that graph is factual, not interpretative), we've warmed ~.7 degrees since then.

jello: to use another analogous example: let's say certain evidence collected by NASA suggests an asteroid is coming toward earth. We don't know this for sure, the data gives us a 80-90% probability range, given available calculations. We could do nothing, or we could raise taxes (necessary to fund an emergency program--thus violating peoples' freedom to some extent). You tell me--what should we do? Remember, the data we have isn't objective.