That kind of phrasing always bothers me. It's not a matter of belief, it's science.
I'd wager a climate change doubter has no faith crisis when relying on relativity to get an acurate GPS location for their Uber.
Unless you have performed all of the science yourself, all the way "down to the turtles," belief--faith--is involved. You have faith that the chain of science is complete, that each person along the chain has done their part correctly, and that nothing significant has been omitted.
It's especially a matter of belief if you are relying on computer models--nay, the claims about computer models. You trust that these models were written by people with integrity, who would not adjust them to achieve a desired outcome, and who are competent enough to do it correctly. Or do you have access to the source code, and a huge cluster to run it on? If you take these claims at face value, that's faith--by definition.
2) This CO2 does not magically disappear. We can measure it.
3) We know how CO2 interacts with infrared radiation. You can test it yourself with an FTIR machine.
This is all extremely simple. The computer models are just about getting some precision about the broad cause and effect which is utterly obvious to anyone who knows a little physics.
Because anthropogenic CO2 is a tiny fraction of oceanogenic CO2. It's like sneezing into the wind: it does not change the direction of the wind.
We are breaking the equilibrium.
What equilibrium? Equilibrium would imply a stable climate, but the climate has been changing for millions of years, long before humans arrived. Are you saying that the climate wouldn't change without humans?
Really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink
> Oceans are at present CO2 sinks, and represent the largest active carbon sink on Earth, absorbing more than a quarter of the carbon dioxide that humans put into the air.
Next time you want to equivocate, at least try something that can't be falsified by ten seconds of Googling.
| | | Sources | |
| Gas (million metric tons of gas) | Natural | Human-Made | Total |
|----------------------------------+---------+------------+---------|
| Carbon Dioxide | 770,000 | 23,100 | 793,100 |
So I found your table in Table 3 of here:
http://www2.bren.ucsb.edu/~keller/courses/esm202/DOE_US_GHG2...
And you seemed to have cut off two more columns:
Absorption | Annual Increase in Gas in the Atmosphere
-----------------------------------------------------
781,400 | 11,700
I cut them off because they are irrelevant. My point remains: anthropogenic CO2 emissions are approximately 3% of natural emissions. Natural variation in natural emissions utterly dwarfs human emissions. Were the climate so sensitive to +/- 3%, we would not even exist today, because the climate would have gone to an extreme and stayed there millions of years ago. This is a very simple matter of scale and historical data that grossly exceeds human timescales. To think that human CO2 emissions are breaking the planet is ludicrous.
If it were simple there would be one model. There are dozens upon dozens.
There is a consensus that some global warming is happening, there really isn't a consensus on how much other than fairly large ranges calculated by the IPCC.
One is ideological and almost by definition cannot be observed. The other one involves things that can be observed where our faith is our trust of the well credentialed individuals who observe them.
You can choose not to have faith in the second one, but that doesn't make it not real.
What you're saying if you're denying global warming is that you don't trust the thousands upon thousands of trained scientists observing it. That doesn't make it not true whether you believe in it or not.
well credentialed individuals who observe them...You can choose not to have faith in the second one, but that doesn't make it not real...thousands upon thousands of trained scientists...
So, we could quibble over numbers, but there are two problems:
1. You're relying on argument from authority. How is this any different from an ancient person trusting the word of a priest? How is a scientist walking in and saying, "My computer model shows x, therefore it is so" different from an ancient priest walking in and saying, "The gods told me x, therefore it is so"? From the perspective of a non-scientist or non-priest, there is no difference; you cannot verify their claims. If you believe them, you operate on faith.
2. As the history of science testifies, science makes many missteps. For all your talk of credentials, one would think you'd give credence to some of the most credentialed scientists in history, who pointed out that science is not a matter of consensus, that only one correct dissent is required to disprove any hypothesis. Given that, how many dissenting scientists do you require to conclude that the matter is not settled beyond debate? There are many highly credentialed scientists who do dissent on this matter.
denying global warming
Finally, this is muddled thinking. The phrase "denying global warming" is both vague and loaded. Besides, isn't the correct term "climate change"?
The rigor of science says that climate change (global warming) is a real thing. Call it whatever you want.
> I simply believe that science is put to a much higher rigor and standard than any religion or philosophy out there, period. You obviously don't believe that.
Your claim is too general to be useful. What kind of science? Carried out by whom? Under what circumstances?
What I believe is simple: 1) Science is carried out by humans; 2) Humans are fallible; therefore 3) Science is fallible. This is supported by even articles posted here on HN recently, which discuss the corruption of the peer review process.
Tell me, do you honestly believe that science is infallible? That we can trust whatever any scientist says about anything? Or do you believe that if the percentage of scientists that claims x is greater than 50% then it must be so? Or some other arbitrary percentage? That would be simply illogical, as history shows many examples of the majority of scientists being wrong about something.
If you believe that science is above corruption, you have greater faith than most religious people do in their religions.
Finally, you completely ignored my second point: "How many dissenting scientists do you require to conclude that the matter is not settled beyond debate?" It's a simple question; will you answer it?
Or, when presented with a point that challenges your presuppositions, will you ignore it instead of wrestling with it? I can't take you seriously if you do the latter.
You're asking for sources and claiming my argument is too general, yet you provided nothing of the sort for your own original argument. I could link you the hundreds upon thousands of scientific reports/sources that support climate change/global warming, but I'm not going to do that and condone the constant goalpost moving you demonstrate in every discussion I've seen you have on HN.
At this point in time, if you aren't taking the minimal amount of responsibility needed to listen to what is likely one of the most important problems of our lifetime, you have your head stuck in the sand. That's a true disappointment because it seems that you have the intelligence necessary to comprehend it.
Me coming up with a few sources isn't going to fix your willingness to be ignorant on this issue and not get with the program. It's too late for you.
This isn't faith. This is common sense and critical thinking.
Two issues here:
1. You have still missed my point about how faith relates to science and understanding. Please, read it more carefully and try to understand what I'm saying.
2. Regarding your claim that science is always more reliable than religion, you are neglecting a crucial problem: there are issues about which science, by definition, cannot provide answers. I don't know if you are unaware of this, disagree with it, or are just taking it for granted, but you are riding roughshod over this crucially important point. It must not be taken for granted in a discussion about the reliability and utility of science.
> You're asking for sources
I just reread my previous comment, and nowhere did I ask for any sources. What are you talking about?
> and claiming my argument is too general
In the last comment I asked three simple questions:
"What kind of science? Carried out by whom? Under what circumstances?"
In the comment before that I asked another very simple question:
""How many dissenting scientists do you require to conclude that the matter is not settled beyond debate?"
Are you actually unwilling to answer them? These are not trick questions designed to trap you--they are simply intended to clarify the argument so we don't talk past each other. If you refuse to answer them, you must not be willing to have a serious discussion.
> yet you provided nothing of the sort for your own original argument
Please be more specific. I'm willing to have a serious discussion with you, and, within reason, I'm willing to find sources for my claims. (Note: no one else is watching this conversation. It's just you and me now. My only interest is in the truth.)
> I could link you the hundreds upon thousands of scientific reports/sources that support climate change/global warming
There's no need to do that; I'm well aware of how numerous they are. Please understand this: that is not the issue.
Something that is at issue is the vagueness of your claims. For example, "support climate change/global warming" is not a specific claim: do you mean that they support the claim that the climate is changing? That the globe is warming? Or do you mean they support the claim that humans are the primary cause of climate change and/or global warming? These are two distinct claims, and failure to distinguish between them is a chief reason that most discussions about the issue fail to get anywhere.
> but I'm not going to do that and condone the constant goalpost moving you demonstrate in every discussion I've seen you have on HN.
Frankly, when I read this kind of statement from you, I begin to feel like you're not discussing in good faith. I am not digging through your comment history to make ad hominems. I am trying to make specific points, regardless of who I am speaking with. Adding to that the fact that you are ignoring my very simple, specific questions and instead making personal attacks and implying malfeasance on my part--this makes it very hard to give you the benefit of the doubt.
> At this point in time, if you aren't taking the minimal amount of responsibility needed to listen to what is likely one of the most important problems of our lifetime, you have your head stuck in the sand. That's a true disappointment because it seems that you have the intelligence necessary to comprehend it.
Thanks for that backwards compliment! Well, not really, because you also insulted me and made a completely unfounded assumption about me.
You see, by jumping to the conclusion that I have not done any research, and doing so in a way that implies irresponsibility on my part, you have revealed your enormous personal bias on the topic. In your mind, anyone who disagrees with you is willfully ignorant, lacks common sense, and is unable to think critically. These are your words, not mine. This intellectual hubris is quite common today, and it's largely responsible for the inability to have calm, rational discussions and disagreements about anything important.
Please note that I have not insulted you or accused you of failures or flaws in character just because you disagree with me. I have asked simple, straightforward questions, and instead of answering them, you have resorted to personal attacks. Tell me, if you were an impartial observer of our discussion, which one of us would you accuse of willful ignorance and lack of critical thinking? Which one of us would you say was acting close-mindedly?
It just floors me that you imply that you are such a rational, objective, critical thinker, and explicitly accuse me of being the opposite, yet you're the one dodging my questions and refusing to have a simple, calm, rational discussion.
It's an interesting paradox: from one perspective, you have great faith, because you don't consider it necessary to entertain any challenges to your beliefs--you accept them at face value. On the other hand, if you refuse to entertain any challenges to your beliefs, how secure are you in them, really? Do you refuse to challenge them because you have underlying doubts and fear what it would mean if they were found untrue? Are you so emotionally invested in them, are they such a part of your identity, that you cannot see past them?
I don't know what's in your heart; only you do. But if you are really interested in the truth, then I welcome further discussion with you.
I can, however, check the results it gives me and have a degree of confidence based on its accuracy and consistency.
We do just that with climate data and models.
People choose to challenge some aspects of science when it clashes with their interests or system of beliefs while completely relying on others when it's convenient. Even though the process by which scientific knowledge is produced is the very same. That's not only illogical, that's hypocrisy.
There are a variety of arguments to make here, from the flaws in individual models, to the secrecy of source code, manipulation of data, politics, historical examples of incorrect scientific conclusions, and the general fallibility of humans (who perform the science).
But bother with any of those when you are claiming that, if software exists which ostensibly intends to perform a task, it must necessarily do so correctly. And then you accuse others of illogic and selective acceptance of science. That's just...bizarre. In the context of discussing belief vs. knowledge, that smacks of what one might call a "true believer."
Sorry, but how is this point relevant to the discussion?
> more broadly, that one does not need to execute every step of a process in order to have confidence in its results.
That is broad, indeed. I should hope that, before reaching conclusions and making claims and calls to action that would result in the poverty of billions, one would take pains to verify every step of the process used to reach those conclusions.
Of course, what constitutes "verification" is a matter of opinion. To some, the models are sufficient. To others, they are grossly insufficient and have not proven accurate looking forward nor backward. It is a mystery why they continue to be asserted as proof.
It also potentially engages people who continue to think it's a subject of belief. That may provide an opportunity to educate them.