Is Al Gore's Presentation of Global Warming in An Inconvenient Truth Accurate?

[drankin]

I don't see why the statement "humans cannot have any substantial influence on climate" would be the "default wisdom" statement, which DOESN'T need any scientific argumentation, but that the opposite statement "humans can have a serious influence on climate" would need a proof. BOTH are falsifiable statements (in the long run), so both need, in order for one to take them as "scientifically established" scientific proof in one way or another.

I don't see what the first statement has of "more evident" than the second. The statement "I don't BELIEVE humans are changing the global climate" is just as much a *belief* without foundation as the statement "I BELIEVE humans are changing global climate".

I don't believe anything, either way, but if anything, there are *indications* or *suggestions* of a potential human influence on climate which I find - until someone convinces me of the opposite - not yet sufficiently strong to make me BELIEVE anything, but I take notice of the suggestions.

Ok, let me rephrase this in a way you can digest. Humans ARE NOT changing the global climate. If you believe otherwise, then it's simply a BELIEF that you cannot support.

 

[vanesch]

Ok, let me rephrase this in a way you can digest. Humans ARE NOT changing the global climate. If you believe otherwise, then it's simply a BELIEF that you cannot support.

And if I believe likewise, the same. You cannot prove me either that humans are not changing the climate.

"The moon has no influence on climate"

"The sun has no influence on climate"

"Vegetation has no influence on climate"

"The oceans have no influence on climate"

"Human activities have no influence on climate"

"Plankton has no influence on climate"

"Bacteria have no influence on climate"

"Jupiter has no influence on climate"

"Volcanoes have no influence on climate"

"Computers have no influence on climate"

Which of these statements are "self-evident" and one only needs proof if they are false ? And what makes these statements a priori superior to their negation ? Why does the negation of these statements need proof, but not these statements ?

"Blahblah has no influence on climate" is just as well an affirmative statement which needs substantiation as the opposite.

 

[vanesch]

What's "K/a"?

I think he meant Kelvin per year...

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

And if I believe likewise, the same. You cannot prove me either that humans are not changing the climate.

"The moon has no influence on climate"

"The sun has no influence on climate"

"Vegetation has no influence on climate"

"The oceans have no influence on climate"

"Human activities have no influence on climate"

"Plankton has no influence on climate"

"Bacteria have no influence on climate"

"Jupiter has no influence on climate"

"Volcanoes have no influence on climate"

"Computers have no influence on climate"

Which of these statements are "self-evident" and one only needs proof if they are false ? And what makes these statements a priori superior to their negation ? Why does the negation of these statements need proof, but not these statements ?

"Blahblah has no influence on climate" is just as well an affirmative statement which needs substantiation as the opposite.

I'm going to make a wild stab in the dark on your rhetorical question and say none, and they all need proof.

 

[drankin]

And if I believe likewise, the same. You cannot prove me either that humans are not changing the climate.

"The moon has no influence on climate"

"The sun has no influence on climate"

"Vegetation has no influence on climate"

"The oceans have no influence on climate"

"Human activities have no influence on climate"

"Plankton has no influence on climate"

"Bacteria have no influence on climate"

"Jupiter has no influence on climate"

"Volcanoes have no influence on climate"

"Computers have no influence on climate"

Which of these statements are "self-evident" and one only needs proof if they are false ? And what makes these statements a priori superior to their negation ? Why does the negation of these statements need proof, but not these statements ?

"Blahblah has no influence on climate" is just as well an affirmative statement which needs substantiation as the opposite.

I agree. In order to say that we are impacting the climate, you should provide proof. In order to say that we are not, you also should provide proof. This is why the founder of the weather channel is taking Al Gore to court as far I read it. Because he believes the premises that Gore has been exploiting are not valid. I BELIEVE there is a case.

Are we having fun yet?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I agree. In order to say that we are impacting the climate, you should provide proof. In order to say that we are not, you also should provide proof. This is why the founder of the weather channel is taking Al Gore to court as far I read it. Because he believes the premises that Gore has been exploiting are not valid. I BELIEVE there is a case.

Are we having fun yet?

Al Gores guilty of conflating the issue and over exaggeration, and I for one would not be bothered in the slightest if he lost his court case. However people are saying that more valid science must also be wrong because of what he has said, and the burden of proof is on them. Right or wrong, that is science. Why expect anyone to listen if you can't even overturn a predominant theory? Did Einstein get all bent out of shape because they said his papers were guff at first? If your right, you're right. That's the way it works in science. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen (if you'll pardon the pun)

 

[vanesch]

However people are saying that more valid science must also be wrong because of what he has said, and the burden of proof is on them.

Yes, this is what I also regret: there is no scientific debate anymore concerning AGW: you are a "believer" or a "non-believer", and you have to pick your camp. Also, note that it is not that because AGW proponents are exaggerating the scientific case, that this is a proof that there is no AGW!

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Yes, this is what I also regret: there is no scientific debate anymore concerning AGW: you are a "believer" or a "non-believer", and you have to pick your camp. Also, note that it is not that because AGW proponents are exaggerating the scientific case, that this is a proof that there is no AGW!

Personally I'm in sciences corner until it is refuted. It's probably a bit of a conservative place to be, but as a laymen or semi informed person on the issue, I prefer to await the destruction of science before I switch sides. Which of course will not bother me at all, since it's actually good news in this case to be wrong. You're right exactly: did you not know that if you're wrong about one thing then everything you say must be wrong and by extension everyone else is wrong. That's not a logical fallacy and a half at all either. Belief has no place in science. I believe that the scientists may be right about AGW. But that's all I'm going to say. Hehe.

 

[Art]

Personally I'm in sciences corner until it is refuted.

Which corner is that? What actual science is there to show AGW exists. The whole issue has become simply a religion with believers, agnostics and non-believers. Science has little to do with it.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Which corner is that? What actual science is there to show AGW exists. The whole issue has become simply a religion with believers, agnostics and non-believers. Science has little to do with it.

Agnosticism is the more rational perspective when there is no clear evidence either way, in this case that is not true. Until AGW is dissproven, I'm with AGW, for pragmatic reasons if nothing else. Erring on the side of caution means if wrong we are wrong, if right then we suffer. In this circumstance consider it a Pascals wager without a loss for believing science on AGW side is correct. Instead of the morons with the common sense of a worm in big business, who's only concern is how much their shareholders made last year. I'd rather side with science than a snake.

 

[Art]

Agnosticism is the more rational perspective when there is no clear evidence either way, in this case that is not true. Until AGW is dissproven, I'm with AGW, for pragmatic reasons if nothing else. Erring on the side of caution means if wrong we are wrong, if right then we suffer. In this circumstance consider it a Pascals wager without a loss for believing science on AGW side is correct. Instead of the morons with the common sense of a worm in big business, who's only concern is how much their shareholders made last year. I'd rather side with science than a snake.

So if I state the universe is shaped like a teddy bear the onus is now on you to prove it is not?

I don't think science works like that.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

So if I state the universe is shaped like a teddy bear the onus is now on you to prove it is not?

I don't think science works like that.

No it does, if something becomes the accepted theory, then to disprove it places the burden on you. That is exactly how it works. How do you think the wave theory of light was overturned?

 

[vanesch]

No it does, if something becomes the accepted theory, then to disprove it places the burden on you.

The point is, an "accepted theory" usually has a lot of *precise* predictions, and just as many *precise* verifications on its account. Now, political instances such as the IPCC would like to make it sound as if this was the case, but it isn't, as far as I know. I repeat: I haven't yet seen a clear deductive reasoning, starting from basic principles in science, and from clear and undisputable observations, that lead to an irrefutable conclusion that AGW is there - or at least, that if you refute it, then at least one of the basic principles of physics, or of some observations must be put in doubt, which would be more doubtful. You have a whole lot of vaguely related things, which are sometimes supportive evidence for certain feedback theories, or which are sometimes presented as such, although there is no logical necessity, but there is no coherent deductive scheme which doesn't leave an ounce of doubt to the outcome.

As long as that isn't the case, it is not part of "accepted theory".

Even the solar model wasn't "accepted theory" until the neutrino deficit was explained by observed neutrino oscillations, and it is much simpler! You only have an "accepted theory" when EVERYTHING fits, and when its negation would give rise to much more speculation than its acceptance. When you can make *precise* predictions. And although the IPCC makes it *sound* as if this is the case, it isn't (or they are extremely bad communicators!). This is cargo cult science.

That doesn't mean that each individual element is bad science. I suppose that the people doing the paleo-climate reconstructions are pretty serious about their work. That the people doing all the modelling of soil feedback, vegetation feedback and so on are pretty serious. That those doing the oceanography are serious. And this gives you a whole body of scientific material, which can be seen, with some good will, as supportive, or suggestive for AGW. But it isn't an ironclad deduction, which it would be if it were "accepted theory".

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Well OK point taken, but I still think atm it's best to reserve absolute judgement, but if I'm going to be in anyone's corner it's the scientists, not Al Gore, or people who over exaggerate and ruin it all for the professionals.