.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Visit Freedom's Zone Donate To Project Valour

Monday, August 08, 2005

Highlighted

Sigmund Carl and Alfred point out Kobayshi Maru's discussion of the religious qualities of the global warming fanatics, and asks:
Has enviromentalism become a religion? Do we cut the science some slack because the worship of environmentalists demands so? Do we accept on faith environmental claims, simply because environmentalists make them?

The questions need be asked. Should not environmental claims be put to the same scrutiny as the theories of Intelligent Design?
A very logical question and it cuts both ways. You can't logically defend the global warming hypothesis because it's "responsible" while laughing at intelligent design theorists, and you can't demand that intelligent design be taught as science while claiming that the theory of anthropogenic global warming should be ignored because it hasn't been proven yet. Take your pick!

And this is just funny. Howard at Oraculations points out a couple women bloggers he likes and fears he may have to resort to porn or sports in order to ward off the malign influence of women who can think. No, I'm not making this up. This guy's really cool (but profane). He seems to exist in a permanent militantly maintainedNo BS zone. Ever since I was a kid I have always liked obstinately independent-minded people, and he's definitely that. (And he will correct himself if he believes he's wrong. It doesn't get much better than that.)


Comments:
Thanks for the link!
 
there is a big difference between the two.

In global warming, even if it turns out to be complete bunk, theoretically, it should be true per the most basic of scientific knowledge.

In intelligent design, there is no scientific knowledge to even base a theoretical basis on. We just have to take it on faith.
 
Great aricle, as a regular reader of Kobayashi, allow me to second your opinion of him.

I realize the comment is not adressed to me. But, Dingo, the question that I believe both the authors in are adressing is how the politization of science distorts facts & hinders real science.
 
Yes, that's correct NY Girl.

Dingo, you could say with equal assurance that the birth control pills we women take are introducing artificial hormones into the environment, and theoretically it should be true per the most basic of scientific knowledge. It does not, however, measure effect. For that you need the science.

So I do disagree with your point. "Theoretical" is not enough to qualify as science.
 
To warm up the total is a measurable fact, when it will have attempts
some, that suggest it religion is applicable. Only dream. In my
country it is the warm very and it is much due to chemical agents, of
that the pulverizer in air. It would prefer that you if he you
arrested, Abdul
 
"Dingo, you could say with equal assurance that the birth control pills we women take are introducing artificial hormones into the environment, and theoretically it should be true per the most basic of scientific knowledge. It does not, however, measure effect."

ahhh, but this is my point exactly. Thresholds. And that is where I think most people have a problem understanding the whole global warming issue and what "theoretical" means in the debate.

If you dump enough hormones into the environment, it will have an effect. This is not theoretical, it is fact. The problem is, we don't know at what threshold. It is the threshold that is theoretical, not if it would happen. The same thing is true with the atmosphere as it is with the human body. You dump enough CO2 into the atmosphere and it will have an effect. We know this as certainty because of ice core records. The question that we don't know is where the threshold is for this to occur. For instance, much of the CO2 is being absorbed by the ocean, but we don't know what the saturation point will be due to many factors. More CO2 will mean more plants which means the ocean can absorb more... but, CO2 is also one of the few gases that absorbs better in cold water than warm water. This is why if you leave one open coke (and chose coke since you are from Georgia) in the refrigerator and one open coke on the kitchen counter, the one on the kitchen counter will go flat first because it will be warmer. So, if the oceans warm, they can't absorb as much CO2.

For another threshold, the oceanic currents has a moderating effect on the global temperature. cold water from the north and south flow along the bottom and cool warmer areas and the warmer water is pushed back to the poles to be cooled. It is a global conveyor belt of sorts. We are fairly sure (but no, not 100% certain) that a reduction in the ice caps will slow or stop this process. The problem is, we don't know at what point.

the theoretical is "what will happen at which threshold," not "will anything ever happen." Maybe the threshold is very high, maybe it is not, but there is not a credible scientist in the world that will tell you that the is NO threshold and there is NO limit to the CO2 we can put into the air.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?