The global warming: is the thing really so, how it’s presented by official scientists?

[rotschnjak.livejournal.com]

It’s usually for us to trust scientists absolutely, however the nature of science is so, that each fact must be always under doubt. Science without doubts and alternative points of view transform to religion. Albert Einstein has made his theory of relativity because of doubts in classical Newtonian physic science; Nikola Copernicus had doubts in quite convenient and proved geocentric system of Ptolemaist, and he was right.

What is it properly the theory of anthropologically caused global warming? It’s the scientific theory that dominates in modern official science. Is it the truth? If you are really honorable scientist, you must answer: “May be…”. There are many facts that make this theory liked truth, and many facts that aren’t convenient for this theory… For real proving we must to research punctually many items, which are not so well calculated and searched.
The first problem is in global warming events in pre-historic times. In those times we haven’t any anthropological influence, but we have global warming periods. What factors were caused such climatic changes? Glaciologists say that during the whole such periods are the high concentration of carbon dioxide. But there is a question, is this high concentration really a reason or a result of warming (with increasing of temperature the ocean and moors release carbon dioxide from water solutions), or it was synergetic a reason and a result simultaneously (the model of positive reverse relation, when warming causes increasing concentration of carbon dioxide, and carbon dioxide causes warming).
Real problems the theory of global warming is in the question of oceanic steams self-regulation. If there is a greenhouse effect, the differences between equator and both poles will decrease, so the oceanic streams will be not so powerful. If the warm oceanic streams are not so powerful, it causes the refreezing of polar zones. If the polar zones are cool, the oceanic waters of these regions can solve more carbon dioxide from atmosphere…. Generally, the thing isn’t so easy, I suppose.
The next problem lays in the calculation of phytomass (biomass) of plants. If we have more carbon dioxide, plants growing is faster, so it cause the increasing of carbon deposition in moors, ocean and in organic stuff of the soil. But decay of this mass is faster too, and it causes the producing of methane, the more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
So, for real research we must calculate all this and many other factors in the unite punctual computer model, but today there are not even possibility such model to create. All models, which exist now, are worked not with factors, but with statistical correlations. Each statistical correlation could be not real, but pseudoreal.
The pseudoreal statistical correlation is the weak place in each mathematical model. We can find correlations between independent events or to understand this correlation not so, that it is really. For example, it could be correlation between the level of consummation of Coca-Cola and the level of crimes in some city, but all of us understand that these things are not caused by each other. Or it could be caused by each other, but the mechanism isn’t so easy. Not Coca-Cola in our city caused the increasing of crimes, but, for example, the Coca-Cola bar is used by drag-pushers as covering.
The theory of anthropological cause of global warming is very convenient for politicians. It is something like the actions of ancient priests. Politicians can not say: “The climate changes crucially. It’s dangerous, but we don’t know, what we can to do”. They say ‘Offer to our Gods, and they will be gracious’ ‘Decrease the emission of carbon dioxide’
For politicians it’s very dangerous to say that they don’t know what the people can to do for saving the situation. So, the struggle with global warming through the limitation of carbon dioxide emission (it’s really a new tax that help to support state expenditures, a positive moment for each politician) is the best way for them.

Comments

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Yay, we have an unintentional monthly topic now! Like in the good old times. Guy A posts something, Guy B responds with a post, Guy C responds to the response and so forth!

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

that each fact must be always under doubt

I think it's around 95% certain that human activity is the cause of contemporary global warming.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Sometimes, in our attempt to open our mind, we leave our fontanelle wide open and the brain leaks out.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Sure, but there is more money to be made on the 5% side of doubt.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Scientists studying the climate account for no complications in their models at all. Tru fax, yo.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

It’s usually for us to trust scientists absolutely

Actually, some of us have subscriptions to journals that allow us to read all the science, no trust needed!

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

But those journals are restricted. They do not include the "science" that Jesus killed off the dinosaurs, for example.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Restricted in what way?

And there's plenty of science about Jesus killing off the dinosaurs; there's all the work done in the Humanities that puts the date of Jesus' death at somewhere around 2000 years ago, and the extinction of the dinosaurs at around 65 million years ago. This is peer reviewed to the point of there being little disagreement over these general figures. This would mean that Jesus didn't kill off the dinosaurs.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Albert Einstein has made his theory of relativity because of doubts in classical Newtonian physic science.

That's one way of putting it.

Another, and in non-scientific language for those unfamiliar with such, would be that all though Newtonian physics described the world we lived in to a hitherto unprecedented level of accuracy, experimental data on the very-small and very-large levels meant it needed overhauling, and in this case was overhauled by a revolution in theory.

The other thing neglected in this summation of scientific theory progression is the fact that each replacement theory is demonstrably better than the preceding one, inasmuch as it models the physical universe better. This is something that climate-change denialism fails to do every time it pitches into the intellectual fray: or at least not convincingly to 95% of the scientists involved in the discipline and the great majority of general scientists and scientifically literate lay-persons.

Science is an idiomatic synthesis of a posteriori and a priori thinking: Theoretical Physics, along with Maths, has tended to be outside the realm of experiment: the testability and falsifiability for which is integral to some of the other scientific disciplines, climate change being among these.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

Relativity and quantum mechanics have been tested over and over and over. They certainly were theoretical physics back before they were tested. And math isn't science.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

It is fortunate that Newtonian physics was not declared "settled science", or there could have been no revolution in theory.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Too many people make the mistake of thinking the conclusion our current scientists came to on the subject of global warming didn't come from research that was full of doubts in of itself, and alternative climate predictions were looked at. They didn't just make this up out of he blue, this came over decades of testing.

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

TL;DR version - Science by its very nature is constantly revising its conclusions and is sometimes wrong (true), also climate change has happened naturally in the past (also true), and politicians just want more money to pay for free shit / buy votes (specious at best), therefore... what? (The implication is we should do nothing until it's too late.) You know, the same old argument.

Sorry, I'll defer to climate scientists on this one. The data and consensus among the experts in this field is overwhelming enough to pay attention.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Want some good face-palming? Here's a video report from the Heartland Institute's ANTI-IPCC convention in Chicago. What some of these folks say is pure wharrgarbl:

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Twenty seconds in, is that Fred Singer?

Oh, and Ted? He actually has a lot of good things to say in his manifesto. A pity he ruined his credibility with the bombs.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

I would ask for citations on how many people global warming advocates murdered, but I'd just expect the typical non sequiturs

And what's that video with all the appeal-to-middle-schoolers? "Cigarettes are not addictive" ... yeah, and 2 + 2 = 5, and Oceania is at war with Eurasia

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Such wise. So smart. Great enlightenment.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

And you're the one who complained about poor contribution from others.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Stop talking to me. You people do nothing but troll me. Please stop.

[papasha-mueller.livejournal.com]

Yes, let's do something about it.
I gonna have a beer.
Anybody?

PS. No, seriously: thank you.
I was surprised to know there's still some people with a faith in all this GW crap.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

You know, never doubt the stupidity of humanity.

I mean, look at how religion has spread.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

I was surprised to know there's still some people with a faith in all this GW crap.

That's deep, man.