More Evidence of Global Warming

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

I(gee, I didn't know that Fred Singer was funded by the Moonies! Fossil fuel companies are prominent among funding organizations)

Naughty Jeff! Ad hominem circumstantial! Who funds them no more makes their arguments wrong than funding by environmentalist organizations makes the advocates of the theory wrong. ( Or right. )

Of course warming exists. The controversy is over whether it's man-made, whether it's significant, whether it's affecting the whole of the earth, whether it will be harmful or not, and whether billions should be spent trying to reverse or retard it.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jBirch

I always wondered if anyone plotted the intersection of depleting Oil & Gas resources with Global Warming projections. The underlying question being whether there is even enough fossil fuel to create a Greenhouse problem.

The argument goes that past fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas releases have already created one---and that it's like trying to brake a freight train at this point: that no matter what is done, momentum is going to cause large changes. And that all we can do is try to keep it from being even worse.

Saith the devil's advocate.

[Robert (2)]

Sorry to disagree, but since my undergraduate training is in archaeology, I feel that I can speak with a minor amount of earned authority on this subject. Archaeology is anthropology. Period.

I'll respect your right to see it in that fashion if you wish, but your statement is still false. Archaeology, though it has borrowed immense amounts of theory and method from anthropology, is rarely placed in the same department, and ussually seen as a branch of history. And it clearly fails Popper's test for a science. So while both anthropology and archaeology have a strong element of physics envy, they cannot seriously aspire to being more than social sciences. Obviously you can rewrite the definitions of 'science' and 'anthropology' if you wish to, and while it might make a serious point it does not answer the original point (namely, that you would have written archaeology where inquartata wrote anthropology).

Robert

P.S

I'm picturing Robert Robert as sort of a puffy-eyed Charles Laughton-esque character, sitting beside a coal fireplace in his stuffy drawing room, which is overly decorated with Sikh relics looted from India. He turns his gaze our way, and in his grating, upper-crust House of Lords accent intones:

[MSU_epeeist]

Originally Posted by Robert (2)

I'll respect your right to see it in that fashion if you wish, but your statement is still false. Archaeology, though it has borrowed immense amounts of theory and method from anthropology, is rarely placed in the same department, and ussually seen as a branch of history. And it clearly fails Popper's test for a science. So while both anthropology and archaeology have a strong element of physics envy, they cannot seriously aspire to being more than social sciences. Obviously you can rewrite the definitions of 'science' and 'anthropology' if you wish to, and while it might make a serious point it does not answer the original point (namely, that you would have written archaeology where inquartata wrote anthropology).

Hmmmm. "Physics envy?" Sorry, but I went that route for three semesters and I don't envy those equation jockeys a bit.

Archaeology, no matter how you may choose to define it, is not a branch of history. Archaeology is placed in the same department as Sociology in my university for administrative purposes, however the laboratories and facilities are quartered with the Geosciences and Digital Remote Sensing. I guess being associated with sociology dq's archaeology as a science, huh?

As for failing Popper's test, just how does it fail? One forms a hypothesis. One gathers data which either proves or refutes your hypothesis. How does this not qualify as being a process of conjecture and refutation, the crux of Popper's test?

Inquartata is correct in that archaeologists are also anthropologists. Additionally, it is not uncommon to see archaeologists collaborating with anthroplogists from other sub-disciplines when necessary, especially physical anthropologists.

Incidentally, I am not attempting to rewrite the definitions of science and archaeology. I use the accepted definitions within the discipline. Your definitions are the ones which deviate from the norm accepted by the scientific community. Narrowly defined sub-specialities, such as historical archaeology, do coincide with history, but the vast majority of archaeology (at least here in North America) deals with the prehistoric period, for which no written records exist, and about which historians really don't care.

Andy

[dunastor]

A point to consider in this discussion about the nature of archeology: In Europe, the field of historical archeology is very large, and is even subdivided. Especially "classical" archeology (the roman and ancient greek world) is very popular.

About science: When dividing science in alpha (literature, history, philosophy, law), beta (physics, chemistry, biology) and gamma (intermediate scientific disciplines, such as medicine) there is a tendency for people to only recognize beta-science as real science. This is a little too narrow a definition IMO.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Rogue

Did we just have a civil exchange?
That's no fun.

Sorry, man - I'm sure we can arrange to sling abuse at one another later on...

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Naughty Jeff! Ad hominem circumstantial! Who funds them no more makes their arguments wrong than funding by environmentalist organizations makes the advocates of the theory wrong. ( Or right. )

A point already ceded to Rogue (see above).

While on the subject: though it doesn't meet the criteria necessary for proof, as you and Rogue note, funding or backing of an organization certainly does influence (and should) our notion of the impartiality of a source, and hence whether or not we believe them. So, when the Coal Board (made up name - I can't remember the name on the bottom of the TV ads) says "Coal is clean energy", or the "Institute for Clean Power" says "Oil is safe, clean fuel, gas is not"), or a Forrester Research white paper paid for by Microsoft stating "Windows is more secure and less expensive than Linux", we naturally have some degree of doubt. It doesn't rise to the level of proof - but it does mean you have to be on guard for bias.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Of course warming exists. The controversy is over whether it's man-made, whether it's significant, whether it's affecting the whole of the earth, whether it will be harmful or not, and whether billions should be spent trying to reverse or retard it.

Ah, so you're already halfway converted, since you acknowledge that there is warming. Quite a few of the factions opposing action on global warming deny that there is any at all. See Reason magazine's http://reason.com/rb/rb111004.shtml which claims that on the contrary, parts of the world are colder than previously, or the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which claims there is no global warming. See http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environ...tion%20project which relates their efforts to convince the world that global warming is fictional (I recall the WSJ part of that)

[Inquartata]

I love the UCCs chosen format for that piece: their view is labelled "fact", and any dissent, "fiction". No, that's not at all slanted or dogmatic...

[Rogue]

MIT Climatologist weighs in on the subject.

http://www.cnsnews.com/Culture/archi...20041202a.html

[Rogue]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041225/D876M1C02.html

[telkanuru]

You have a point? Y'know, one that hasn't been refuted already?

[Inquartata]

"Refuted"? Gee, I must have missed that. Do you mean by the global-warming camp insisting that every condition that occurs somewhere somehow "proves" their case?

Warmer? It's global warming! Colder? Global warming! Wetter? Drier? Windier? More still? More glacial ice? Less glacial ice? Permafrost advances? Retreats? Cloudier? Clearer? El Nino? No El Nino? Hey, they're ALL signs of global warming! Hurrah, our position is impregnable! No counterevidence is possible, because we've already claimed it all!

You mean that kind of "refuted"?

[telkanuru]

Eesh. No, I ment the 'it snows in places it shouldn't, so global warming is bull' claim, which is what I assume he was saying.

[Inquartata]

Ah.


( With the obligatory extra characters. )

[jeff]

(In the spirit of Admiral Hopper's observation on data): I just read in NYT that 2004 will be the 4th hottest since measurements began in 1861. The 10 warmest years are in the band of years 1991 to 2004.

[Rogue]

143 years out of how many thousand or million depending on whom you talk.
Not enough data to draw any conclusion.

[telkanuru]

Yes. Let's wait another 100,000, just to make sure the data charts are right. Good plan!

[Inquartata]

I'll settle for waiting long enough to be sure that the sort of policy prescriptions being advocated will not actually do more harm than good, or be ineffectual. Often it's better to wait until you're sure of what's below before you leap off a cliff....

[jeff]

Well, it is kinda funny in context of Rogue's snowstorm post: 143 years worth of data with a marked recent uptick doesn't count as evidence of global warming, but a single snowstorm in Texas is evidence that there is none?

[Rogue]

Touche`