[Platt]
Correlation (increase in global warming, increase in
chemical levels in
the atmosphere) does not imply causation (increase in
chemical levels
causes increase in global warming.) Example: Sleeping
with one's shoes
on is strongly correlated with waking up with a
headache. Therefore,
sleeping with one's shoes on causes headaches. For
further information about this logical fallacy, please
go to Wikipedia and enter, "Correlation does not imply
causation."
-------
How do you know it's not causation? I don't know
if it is causation or correlation, but you seem to be
set in thinking it IS correlation and NOT causation.
Here, again, we have a question that scientists
readily know about, and a number of them have
obviously concluded causation. How they met this
conclusion is scientific, hopefully. As far as I'm
aware, scientists are still doing science, unless you
know otherwise when it comes to this specific topic.
[SA previously]
> You asked what samples? Well, in science you have
to
> bring data/samples into the discussion to counter
> scientific views.
[Platt]
OK. "Samples" threw me off. "Data" I understand. The
question always
is, "How accurate is the data and what is its
significance?" For example, there is data showing that
mind can influence matter (the Jahn experiments at
Princeton University). Case, among others, questions
both the data and its significance.
--------
Data is the facts. Data is the material
evidence. I doubt data is questioned. How much data
though does one need to make a more and more solid
conclusion? That is a good question. Also, the
information gained from data, the theorizing from
data, the interpretation of the data, again, this has
to follow the scientific process of more data, and
more experimentation. The longer the
theory/hypothesis holds up (that explains the data)
the more and more accurate it seems to be. I don't
know how new this Princeton study is, and how long it
has been in the scientific process of question,
answer, question again, and answer again, etc... For
example, has there only been 1 study on this mind
influencing matter? The more studies, with each
coming to the same conclusion would further support
this Princeton study. How many studies are needed?
Well, more than 1 would help.
[Platt]
I have referred you to scientists who question whether
human activity
is the cause of global warming.
-----
I wonder what their reasoning is for questioning
human activity influences global warming. This is why
I'm not fully, 100%, sure about global warming. I
just haven't read all the available information, data,
and scientists comments.
[Platt]
For example, a 400 page UN report by the Food and
Agricultural Organization concludes that livestock are
responsible for 18 percent of the gases that cause
global warming, more than cars, planes and all other
forms of transport put together.
--------
Interesting. Also, you understand that as the
world population of humans increases, and the more
domesticated animals needed to feed this population
the more these livestock will admit carbon dioxide.
This is why I believe the number 1 problem that
influences the direction or state this earth is in
stems from this large human population.
[Platt]
It's scientifically. I have referred you to scientists
who disagree
that humans are the source of global warming or that
we face the apocalypse predicted by politicians like
Al Gore or by bible thumpers citing the Book of
Revelation.
-------
Then why the debate between scientists. If you
question the science, then you have to show what
data/the samples in the field questions global
warming. I'm not a scientist. I don't have the data.
I could point out opposition within the scientific
field all day long, but unless I join the scientific
process and know exactly what each scientist is
questioning or supporting and what data each scientist
has to prove or disprove each other; I can't make a
definite conclusion.
[Platt]
You're telling me! So how come Al Gore is worshiped by
Democrats, the
Hollywood crowd and the media and will probably get an
Oscar, not to mention a Nobel Peace Prize?
----
Al Gore showed actual data and had charts to
support his line of reasoning, which makes him more
credible and persuasive as a global warming advocate.
He wasn't just reasoning. He was showing material
evidence graphed onto charts.
[Platt]
Yes, it is difficult, meaning no one, least of all a
politician like
Al Gore, should be relied on for knowing the "truth"
about global
warming. When there is a debate among qualified
scientists as there is today, it means the issue is
not settled. So before politicians start taking away
individual liberties, proceed with great caution.
----------
Debates are in science. This does not mean that
science is wrong. You would need to know how science
works before you say global warming is wrong or right.
Are you concluding global warming is wrong just
because a few scientists disagree with it? If you
are, then you have been persuaded by a few scientists.
Why do you believe them over the majority of
scientists? As for me, I'm not persuaded, fully,
either way.
[SA previously]
> The South American rainforest, African
> rainforest, India forest, Chinese forest, and
Norway's
> forest, etc...
[Platt]
Far from "all" the trees. Exaggeration does your case
no favors.
Well, all the trees, as in I said all the trees
are on their way out. What's stopping this process
from happening? There are no brakes that I'm aware
of. Right now, these forests are being cut and with
no limits set in place as to how much can be cut.
This is why I'm against drilling in Alaska on the
Nature Preserve. It's the principle of the what the
Nature Preserve means. It was set aside as a Preserve
where no human impact, except footprints and photos,
is to occur. To break this principled definition is
to ignore what the Nature Preserve IS. If we can
ignore the meanings and principles that have been
defined, then you might as well throw away the
Constitution of the U.S.
[Platt]
> So why did you criticize me for asking questions?
You never answered the questions I asked first.
Actually this is the first post in several that you've
finally answered my initial questions, but I still
have some questions lingering as I asked above. Why
do you believe a few scientists over many scientists?
[Platt]
No sure what you mean. Neither of us is qualified as
scientists unless
I'm mistaken.
------
Exactly! To criticize the evidence of science is
to bring in your own evidence or to show other
evidence that disproves a current understanding in
science. This is why I'm not 100% sure why the few
scientists are against global warming, and why I'm not
100% about global warming myself, but I haven't
discounted that global warming either. I'm in the
middle of a decision, and unless I find all the data
that has to do with global warming I can't decide
either way.
[Platt]
Neither of us are scientists. We're both relying on
their considered
judgment given the evidence available. That there is
disagreement
among them is about all that either of us can say
except from past
experience the track record of scientific prediction
about the weather
hasn't been that great. Not long ago the "consensus"
among those
who purportedly know about such things was that the
globe was cooling. Maybe that doesn't raise doubts in
your mind, but it does mine.
---------
Yet, you've made up your mind. You've decided
global warming is false. The difference between what
your saying and I'm saying is I haven't made a
decision as to if global warming is false or true.
You just say it must be false because a FEW scientists
say it's false. I don't know either way.
thanks.
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
