EU should give more Money?

I was writing a homework assignment on corn ethanol and I remembered a post of inamlist's that I had not responded to (there are 3 others, besides this one, that I have not responded to, excluding the youtube video reply I promised about athletes).

Enjoy:

Originally posted by Oliver North
look, here is my take on it

about objectivity: I don't even care about this argument. It is impossible for anything to ever be objective, and what you define as objective is based upon the beliefs you hold prior to encountering the information, not after. For instance, it is because you think there is a valid scientific controversy that you think sources that incorporate such a controversy are more objective, not the other way around.

I disagree, here. Science is definitely about questioning the world around you. Could could even say, tautologically, that science is about knowimg the things you know: correcting prior "knowledge" to more correct knowledge.

A skeptical perspective cannot simply be dismissed because it is skeptical.

Originally posted by Oliver North
The consensus among scientists who work in fields relevant to climate is astounding, and the lists of so-called-experts who question anthropogenic global warming, when not full of entirely invented individuals, is normally full of lobbyists, meteorologists and other people who really don't have the credibility to speak on the matter with any authority.

Well, you are committing a logical fallacy, here: argumentum ad populum. And not all of your active and relevant climate scientists agree with that 90+ (isn't it like 96%?). That does not mean that the skeptics are automatically more correct but it also does not mean that consensus is correct.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Further, when you look at the science itself, for the past 20-30 years there are incontrovertible documents showing that political and corporate interests involved in stifling research that showed man's impact on the world.

This, alone, does not make the "science" of what you're supporting correct, however. Just because some corporations can stand to lose quite a bit of money over having to adjust business practices to make the world at least appear more friendly to "climate peeps", does not mean that the science itself is right: they are just operating in their own self-interest regardless of what the actually objective truth is.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Scientifically, it was known in the late 80s that man was impacting the arctic and antarctic regions in a very negative manner, but this has been attacked by those with vested political and financial interests, and a "controversy" has been created in the media and in the minds of the non-scientific public.

That's not really true. It was assumed with some science to back it but not all science agrees with it. And "very negative" is an exaggeration, even if anthropogenic global warming is the prime cause of the current climate change.

Originally posted by Oliver North
With a couple of exceptions, the "skeptic" crowd does not have a model of global climate.

I'm quite sure there are more than just a "couple". 😐

Originally posted by Oliver North
Largely, the arguments against anthropogenic warming come as anomalies or items that don't instantly make sense under the warming paradigm.

You mean like the sun being the primary cause of the warming? As those citations I listed a while back, it is the main reason. That is hardly a dismissable argument: it is the actually reason.

Originally posted by Oliver North
So, if we look at this from a philosophy of science standpoint, we see how weak they actually are.

Scientific consensus does not science make.

Scientific consensus (I guess even the Delphi Method) is not actual science.

Originally posted by Oliver North
For instance: Scientific theories are conceptualized as containing a "core" idea from which research is generated, then layers of facts and findings that support the theory. These facts can be altered significantly without the core needing to change.

But you're leaving out something important: the core can change significantly without the facts changing at all. This is sometimes done in meta-analyses. The facts can be altered very slightly and the core also changes significantly. The facts can be altered significantly and the core has to be changed significantly.

Originally posted by Oliver North
So, if we use the "no warming seen from satelites" fact, we see that it does call into question some of the predictions from the core "man is making the world hotter" theory, but it really doesn't assail it in a significant way.

I believe you said that that particular point was long since debunked as having problems. I offered a rebuttal as the dismissal of the evidence being arbitrary and with contradiction.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Why is this? Well, first, the data is not a competing theory, but would be a fact surrounding the theory "it isn't warming". If we compare the "its warming because of man" and "its not warming" theories, it becomes obvious that the satellite data is likely anomalous and needs to be explained in the context of "man made warming" rather than needing to redefine the entirety of evidence that shows a warming trend.

And that's arbitrary and baseless. Contrary to popular belief, Occam's razor is almost always wrong. Very rarely is Occam's razor correct as we know more about science. The theories and explanations become more and more complex, not simpler. Additionally, there have probably multiple paradigms in climatology over the last 4 decades. The satellite data also could be correct and not anomalous. Additionally, the data collect that supports one position could also be slanted or interpreted with that bias. Additionally, the other science, that is just as legitimate and scientific as the other science you like, could also be correct. You chose not to weigh it equal because it is not agree with your presupposition: the very thing of which you have accused me. Contrary to popular belief, there isn't this massive government and corporate funding for "anti-anthropogenic climate change": that's a myth perpetuated by "greenies". It is popular to associate science with global warming and climate change, not the other way around. If you try to get funding for an anti-antropogenic climate change study, you're definitely far more likely to be laughed at than actually get funding. Is that because of the scientific consensus? Probably. Does not mean the consensus is correct, though. Science should welcome skepticism with open arms and many areas do.

Originally posted by Oliver North
This is largely based on Occam's Razor, but there is another issue too. You posted data that showed a link between climate and CO2, and you have never argued that CO2 did not drive climate.

I have definitely never argued that CO2 did not drive climate...wait, what? Why not just say I have argued that CO2 drove climate? Because I'm not saying that. I think CO2 can drive climate but the "12 times more CO2 for hundreds of thousands of years yet 3 times colder" argument is a pretty healthy stab right into the heart of the "CO2 directly causes all the global warming" arguments.

Originally posted by Oliver North
So, if we accept that the world isn't warming, WTF?

As you know from my past posts, I conclude that man has little to no impact on global warming. However, climate change is real. One would have to be an idiot to deny climate change.

Originally posted by Oliver North
CO2 is higher, therefore it should be warming.

If you consider those other time periods I mentioned, no, that is not a logical conclusion. That would be the wrong conclusion, actually.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Redefining all the theories relating to CO2 and climate is MUCH less desirable than reinterpreting the satellite data as representing a measurement error,

No, no, I agree, here.

Originally posted by Oliver North
In the tradition of Kuhn, it could be said that the current zeitgeist is not challenged enough by opposing fact to require a revolution.

I disagree, here. It is being challenged more than enough. It should only take one credible study that is strong enough to destroy the foundations of the argument. That is all it should take in an open-minded scientific community: a community truly in the search for knowledge instead egos, flexing, and posturing. Showing that the atmosphere had 18 times the amount of CO2 for hundreds of thousands of years with temperatures very similar to what they are, now, should have changed the "core" but it magically doesn't. I seriously cannot comprehend why the CO2 argument is still made with such strength. Sure, man may still be responsible in some way but can we please stop blaming CO2 as much?

Originally posted by Oliver North
So, aside from these "anomalies", there are some actual models that are competing with man made warming [b]in the public sphere (as none represent any real consensus in the scientific community). [/B]

K.

Originally posted by Oliver North
The first is that it is the sun, which has been shown to be false.

You mean true. The sun as been shown to be the primary reason for global warming.

But, I will concede a point on this: you said that even if man is responsible for 1%, that is such a huge difference than the natural progression of climate change that it could drastically change things. I agree with this. I do believe I cited an arbitrary number of .6%.

Originally posted by Oliver North
The second is that the world isn't warming, which is inconsistent with the vast majority of the data,

Not necessarily a reason to dismiss that argument, though.

Originally posted by Oliver North
and finally, that man couldn't be producing enough CO2 to effect the planet, which is, again, false.

If that is false then reconcile the fact that:

"In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm."

"There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming."

Emphasis added.

These periods last hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Clearly, CO2 is not the only factor in global warming. One could even argue that it is the opposite. We should burn more fossil fuels and make as much CO2 as possible to slow down global warming, right?

But it is not that simple.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I was writing a homework assignment on corn ethanol