Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Climate Change 12

Journal by pudge

From Lou Doubbs last night:

MICHAEL MANN, CLIMATE SCIENTIST: Well, there's clear agreement among the leading scientists in this field that humans are having an influence on the climate. There are several different lines of evidence that are independent. Just the basic physics of how the atmosphere and the climate system works tell us that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations should warm the surface.

DOBBS: Well, if you all as leading scientists, with your best science, your best minds working in the field, agree that there is global warming and that greenhouse gases emissions are responsible for all or part of it, what can we do, Gavin, to deal with the issue?

GAVIN SCHMIDT, CLIMATE SCIENTIST: First of all, we have to understand the physical basis for those changes. We need to understand the greenhouse gases, we need to understand the effects of ozone and black carbon. And then, once we've understood the question, we can come back and say, well, what are the behaviors that we have as a society that are creating these problems? And then what we need to do is stop doing those behaviors and transfer our skills to another kind of...

DOBBS: To get on with the solution.

SCHMIDT: Right, to get on with the solution. ...

DOBBS: Well, what are we going to do? Let's on this broadcast tonight, LOU DOBBS TONIGHT, this broadcast decides global warming is caused by emissions. That discussion is over here. Let's talk about what we should do next.

MANN: Well, you know, first we have to start -- we have to stop the sort of the false debate that has been placed in the public discourse about the science. The science is agreed upon. And unfortunately, because it's an inconvenient conclusion...

So we don't know the physical basis for the changes, we don't know what behaviors we as a society engage in that cause the changes, but ... we sure do know that humans are influencing those changes! And we should stop having this "false debate" about whether it is true that we are influencing something that we don't understand!

I've come to the conclusion that most scientists simply do not understand the basic concepts of philosophy, and cannot be trusted to tell us what is and isn't true. They may be good at conducting experiments, but they suck at coming to conclusions. We really do need actual philosophers for these things.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Climate Change More

Climate Change

Comments Filter:
  • We need better scientists.

  • is the source of most greenhouse gases.

    I say we cut his emissions.

    There are a lot of things that we're doing that affect the climate and environment and a lot of things we know how to do to mitigate our impact. We don't need all the science to be 100% complete to take this seriously.
    • There are a lot of things that we're doing that affect the climate and environment and a lot of things we know how to do to mitigate our impact. We don't need all the science to be 100% complete to take this seriously.

      I am not arguing against that. I am arguing against the silly notion that the debate questioning the truth of the notion that we are affecting climate is a false one, or that the debate is over. That doesn't mean we shouldn't work with what we think is most likely right now. But a good scie

      • I am not arguing against that. I am arguing against the silly notion that the debate questioning the truth of the notion that we are affecting climate is a false one, or that the debate is over. That doesn't mean we shouldn't work with what we think is most likely right now. But a good scientist who understand the philosophy of science would never say the debate is over when there are so many unanswered questions.

        Can I just add an "amen" to that? :)

        That's my frustration as well. For them to say the debate

  • That probably should've been the title of Al Gore's movie, as there are probably more people bothered by any questioning of global warming than the thought of global warming itself. He could've made it about how "leading scientists" (most of whom are not climate scientists) are more interested in dictating how people live, than science. The movie could've explored how maybe they've simply grown impatient, and are getting a little bored with the science or the pace of progress they've been making in understa
    • Maybe some of the leading scientists, ignorant of what actually needs to change to stop global warming, have seen the historical record of the medieval warm period in Europe, and the future climate forecast models. And they're really really worried we just don't have a few spare decades to figure out the right course of action, because by then it will probably be too late. Some very significant things are on the line, such as the possible extinction of all calcium carbonate shelled ocean-life, the innunda
      • I basically agree with that, except that it in no way excuses them incorrectly saying that the debate is over. It's the scientific community that has been up in arms against their perception that scientific truth is being manipulated to suit policy, and they are doing the same damned thing.
        • Exactly. We need a few more logged-in editors that can see this on wikipedia, by the way.
        • Kant would agree with you, but the scientists would say the perception of unity is important to swinging public opinion to their side. They would say there is no spare time left until action is necessary, so what they're doing is justified. Five years ago it seemed the big pollution-creating industries were winning the perception battle with their influence that global warming wasn't happening and even if it was, humans weren't to blame.
          • Kant would agree with you, but the scientists would say the perception of unity is important to swinging public opinion to their side. They would say there is no spare time left until action is necessary, so what they're doing is justified.

            First, it may be philosophically justified to lie, but it is not scientifically justified. It's an embarassment.

            Second, again, these are many of the same people who criticize the Bush administration for doing the exact same thing.
      • See the part in pudge's JE of how scientists != philosophers. I can appreciate that some people are really, really worried. But logically, that doesn't strengthen the argument that global warming is occuring, and furthermore that it's a problem, and furthermore that it's partly/mostly man-made. If your child is a little worried about a monster in her closet, do you tend to discount it, but if she's very, very worried, do you tend to believe in the closet monster? No, you don't, the existence of a closet mon

Slashdot Top Deals

He who is content with his lot probably has a lot.

Close