[Essay]

Good points about public perception of science, etc.
I heard someone talk about a sort of checklist of hurdles to overcome before denial of climate change could be overcome (see below).

"git-r-done!" ??

Speaking of doing something....

Sometimes one isn't very far along on the spectrum of "Threshold for Action."

1. See that a problem exists.
2. See that it is serious.
3. See that there is a root cause.
4. Be certain of views.
5. Be certain that it is solvable.

...and speaking of certainty....
There is a lot of language of uncertainty in those two scientific papers (Schwartz & Levitus) quoted in that previous post #196.
But it is just an uncertainty of refinements and new data (respectively) regarding climate change; not uncertainty in the whole body of climate change science.

Did anyone notice that quote at the end of #196 from Beltrami, et al., on Heating of the Earths Crust?
"These fluxes indicate that 30% of the heat gained by the ground in the last five centuries was deposited during the last fifty years, and over half of the five-century heat gain occurred during the 20th century."

...not equivocal.

That's a new, and fairly dramatic, "Hockey Stick!"

Again, it's not widely validated (yet); but taken meta-analytically, it is another point on the Anthro side.

p.s.
Schwartz's low, 5 year, quotient of the relaxation time constant (equilibrium climate sensitivity) augers well for the "solvability" part of the equation; but I have to suspect that it's really at least double that.

[Michaelangelica]

i also don't believe the earth is billions of years old or that the dinosaurs where reptiles.

The Earth is about 4.5-5 billion YO
How come you don't believe this?

[Little Bang]

Let us suppose that we find an island that has just enough arable land to support one person for the rest of his life. We build a dome over the island that allows sunlight and is big enough to have clouds form for rain. Now suppose we introduce two men and three women. They will all be dead within six months. Why is it so hard to understand there is no difference between the earth and that island?

[modest]

Originally Posted by REASON

If it is the duty of scientists to refute ill begotten theories by other scientists, than it should also be their duty to refute ill begotten scientific notions perpetuated in the media and government, IMHO.

REASONed as ever. This is an excellent point and you’re right. I’ve had some time to chew this over and I’ve come to a like-minded position.

Theories put forward such as intelligent design and defiance of global warming are or should be scientific theories. As such, they should be criticized on their merits just like any other scientific theory. There’s no religious shield they can hide behind. If they are wrong (and being that they are wrong) they should be debunked. I would now say I believe it is science’s job to debunk those theories with conviction - and yes I choose that word carefully and mean it - conviction. So long as scientists themselves stick to the scientific method and are always open to amending their own theories then they should present their work whole-heartedly and at the same time actively try to debunk the convictions of others whose methods and schemes are not so pure. Absolutely. I don’t know what came over me before

-modest

[modest]

Originally Posted by CraigD

I think we humans, by necessity and without normal exception, make decisions based a combination of authority and consensus seeking. By this explanation, the reason someone such as goku accepts the scientific conclusion that one shouldn’t eat lead in paint, yet rejects the scientific conclusion that the Earth is over 4 billion years old, is because no significant authority or collection of peers in his experience dispute the first, but many dispute the second.

I agree with this. I think it is very true and dominant to human nature. I would add that this is particularly why reading is so important. When a person can step outside their own environment, family, or local network to obtain information that will make an impression on them - nothing could be better for their advancement as an individual. This is exactly why it’s so freakin’ brilliant that someone like goku can be a part of forums like this. Some forums (that I won’t name) work hard at excluding individuals that either don’t share like-minded positions or are less intelligent or less informed. That, I strongly believe, is unhelpful and bad.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Little Bang

Let us suppose that we find an island that has just enough arable land to support one person for the rest of his life. We build a dome over the island that allows sunlight and is big enough to have clouds form for rain. Now suppose we introduce two men and three women. They will all be dead within six months.

I don’t believe we can say with certainty that all six of the people in this scenario would die. Possibly, some would die (eg: five), but some (eg: one) would live.

Originally Posted by Little Bang

Why is it so hard to understand there is no difference between the earth and that island?

It’s not hard, I think, but rather incorrect.

In addition to my previous objection, the analogy is very inexact, because the Earth has many times more than enough arable land to support its current population using current agricultural techniques. As noted here

Originally Posted by CraigD

Given current agricultural technology, it requires on average about 1/3 of an acre and 1 day to produce food with a nutritional value of 2000 kcal (about 2 kcal/m), about what one human requires each day. There’re about 21 billion acres (8.5 x 10 m) of productive land on Earth (sources: http://esa21.kennesaw.edu/activities...odcalories.pdf; The Population Press) - about 57% of its land area. So, roughly, with current agriculture and perfect management and distribution, no surpluses, and no bad luck, Earth can sustain a population of about 63 billion humans – a bit less than 10 times the current population.

This is not to say that overpopulation is not a serious concern, only that the human population-bearing capacity of Earth is not currently close to being exceeded.

[tynkyr_belle]

Originally Posted by CraigD

I don’t believe we can say with certainty that all six of the people in this scenario would die. Possibly, some would die (eg: five), but some (eg: one) would live.It’s not hard, I think, but rather incorrect.

In addition to my previous objection, the analogy is very inexact, because the Earth has many times more than enough arable land to support its current population using current agricultural techniques. As noted hereThis is not to say that overpopulation is not a serious concern, only that the human population-bearing capacity of Earth is not currently close to being exceeded.

But more people means less land available for growing. AND - the supposition that a perfect distribution, with no surpluses, etc isn't even laughably achievable. These are human beings you're talking about. Greed. Power. Avarice. How about just plain old malignant psychopathy? We're not going to change. If we don't have the maturity to procreate with ration and logic (much less how we consume the Earth's resources), then what hope do we have as a species to act in the best interest of all? We can't even convince people of the future we face, and you expect people to change our very nature?

Science is supposed to be about truth. That scenario isn't, and could never be true. We need to face the facts that we're *not* going to stop global warming, we'll get our chance to say "I told you so" to the morons that refuse to believe, and we'll have to learn to live with the world we created. We survive those changes by adaptation - or we don't.

Like I've said before - we can't trust the morons out there to make the right decisions. Why should we let them decide then? Why should we tolerate their stupidity? Educate the ones we can - isolate the ones we can't from decision making positions.

[goku]

Originally Posted by modest

If this is indeed your motivation then you should equally lack confidence in all other predictions of science. You would doubt salt is made of sodium and chlorine. You would eat lead paint chips and drink antifreeze having no faith that either will kill you. But, this is not the case. You regularly trust scientists on many things that you do not know or determine empirically yourself. You have no reason to doubt them on many issues and you do not doubt them. So, the real question is not your faith in science but your selective attitude toward believing what science tells you.

To answer that you're going to have to look at your own motivations because I guarantee you will NOT find it in the science you mock.

-modest

there it is again, if they're right about one thing then..............
or maybe there are different types of science and everything gets shoved into one area?

[goku]

Originally Posted by REASON

You'll have to be more specific. I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

if you look on a US dollar you'll see the words "In God We Trust"

scientists say there is no God so people who know God have a tendency to reject anything else scientists say.

the sun burning for billions of years i'd like to take a poke at that.

[goku]

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

The Earth is about 4.5-5 billion YO
How come you don't believe this?

and i would believe this because....................
i think the methods for determining the age of the earth are flawed.