More global warming, please!

Beer Baron wrote: As a former science teacher... This is the same cultural denial of science that leads to evolution being dismissed as "only a theory"

I realize that this is the Internet and probably a waste of time, but...

I hate to point out to a (perhaps for the best; former) science teacher, but "only a theory" is correct. Theory has a specific, scientific definition and despite all the emotion and agenda sometimes surrounding them, a Theory is not fact. A Theory cannot be proven as fact, only disproved. That is basic science. When I hear the phase "only a Theory" when applied to scientific phenomena, it is immediately clear that the person saying it has minimal understanding of scientific "things" and the same is also true when someone with an opposing viewpoint takes issue with the phrase. Scientists do not use the phase in either context.

Not to brag, but to possibly offer some real-world reality on climate change and to a lesser extent evolution, I have a few degrees in those subjects, I have worked exclusively in the data collection side for over 20 years, which includes experiment design, and I am currently employed by everyone's favorite government environmental entity (collecting ambient air data for the last nine years) - to date, I have not met a counterpart (individual or Division or Group) that wished to conduct a scientific study that did not have an agenda beyond hypothesis before the data collection started. Sometimes it's a slight leaning, sometimes it's a clear bias. People nowadays seem to have such a low tolerance for differing opinions that the resulting smug war overshadows any substantive facts.

Furthermore, the methods and equipment used in the collection of atmospheric data are often laughable. For example, I can make the ambient SO2 readings on my monitors go up if I change the temperature in the room where the monitor is kept. The end user of my data would never know about the temp drift unless I flagged the data and even then sometimes they do not care. We have years of data that would be just a valid if it had come from a random number generator rather than an ATEC Toxics Sampler. Again, people use that data despite knowing it's no good. I'm not saying that all scientific evidence is fraudulent, just that there is a margin of error that can never be eliminated.

As Dr. Meredith said in Real Genius "Always... no, no... never... forget to check your references."

Nick_Comstock wrote:

Flight Service wrote:

yamaha wrote: In reply to Hungary Bill: Berkeley, CA has been the laughingstock of America for awhile now.

The Walking Dead pulled double the viewers than election coverage. I don't think Berkeley being a laughing stock would actually offend anyone that actually lives in Berkeley. But what do I know. I have a nick name from jumping my truck across railroad tracks and into a intersection.

I jumped my truck across railroad tracks and into a Buick Grand National

I successfully missed everyone. I was young and stupid. I am 50% better now.

Bobzilla wrote: Can you elaborate? I'm truly curious and all I can find are mathematics definitions.

Creation of intelligence smarter than humans. Coles notes; if truly intelligent (and sentient, whatever the crap that means), the goals of a superior intelligence will more than likely not align with humanities and can continually improve itself to infinite smart (especially if following moores law). Good possibility of it happening within the 21st/22nd century.

Im being slightly facetious in order to bring the seriousness down in this thread. :p

yamaha wrote: In reply to HiTempguy: I'd be more worried about fusion experiments going awry.....

I wasnt aware fusion was that dangerous, unless thats the joke ;)

In reply to Apis_Mellifera:

Thank you for that, this is the info that those not "in the know" don't get. Everyone has an agenda and the sides are so disparaging of each other that the common/(possibly) truthful area is inaccessible.

If you want to talk nuts and bolts regarding atmospheric data, I could go on and on. The main issue is data quality and relevance. Take something as benign as your local Air Quality Index. They use the previous day's data, which is basically the weatherman telling you how cold it will be yesterday. This is because although the data is collected real-time, it is reported days or months later. So the AQI is worthless as far as planning goes. Ground-level Ozone data, for example, is pretty solid because of the method and equipment (heated 99.99% pure silver wool). Other things like VOC, CO, and SO2 can be all over the place. The end user, however, treats the data with equal value, uses it to build a theory, and in the case of greenhouse gases, it's pretty easy to poke holes in some of the claims. It's also easy to find evidence of environmental change directly connected to human activity. The entrenchment on both sides means neither "wins" the debate.

No matter how much you think you're right, you still may be wrong and just because you're positive something is false, doesn't mean it's not true. In science, Theories are on equal footing. If you want absolutes, stick with math.

In reply to HiTempguy:

Well, it is, but also more likely to be a threat to us within 3 generations than climate change.

Just save me a spot when they turn the earth into a mini sun please.

As a scientist, I've given up on explaining what a theory is a long time ago.

A theory explains the why of a scientific law. For example:

Fact/Law: There is gravity. Theory: Gravity works because of x.

Theories can only be disproven; when they are disproven, we study and try to come up with another theory that explains what happened. The term isn't just thrown around without supporting evidence.

That said, people are people, and some of them will lie and such if it's in their own best interests.