I never claimed Philosophy is science.
NiteFly's forum posts
"NiteFly says:"Walkingstone says:"Every piece of evidence, every experiment they have performed, every attempt to disprove Global Warming, has added more proof that it's a real and extremely dangerous threat."
Again this is the type of argument in the debate that I find appalling. This type of argument is unverifiable because it is completely untrue. There is much valid evidence to oppose the idea that humans are turning the world in the sauna. You cannot believe everything that the media, politicians, and many large corporations say about global warming without some bit of skepticism.
Perhaps it would be better to have asked why I believe as I do rather than attack me for having an appalling argument or presenting unverifiable evidence. One could say the same for your perspective and opinions but I see no need to bring this down to name calling and spitefulness. Needless to say, my own beliefs (as we are bringing this down to the level of philosophy rather than facts and figures) are that the evidence so far tends towards global warming. The main argument of those against is that the sun is at a point in its cycle called Solar Max. Recent evidence shows that this is untrue. So, if not from the Sun, where is this additional radiation coming from?"
One could say the same about me, but they would be wrong. My impression is that evidence for global warming is insufficient. The claim you have made is that there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary. There is no need to ask you why you would have formed such an opinion because anyone on either side of the debate that refuses to lend credence to any evidence on the opposing side has already made up their mind without thoroughly examining both sides.
Also there is no need to turn my previous post into an ad hominem attack, because I was attacking the substance of your post, not you as a person. Thirdly please don't confuse my own turn to philosophy as an argument for my position. I made the statement in contradiction to your earlier implication that those who are opposed to the global warming debate just want to "sit around doing nothing and pretending everything's alright". This is an unfair depiction painted by many proponents of global warming to further discredit the opinions of anyone who disagrees with them (a true and highly unfair ad hominem attack). I offer my own personal beliefs only to further explain my own individual stance on the issue, not as factual evidence.
This is a very multi-faceted argument on both sides, and the solar max is far from being the only piece of evidence opposed to global warming. There is very much good literature and scientific study to date (particularly some of the most current research on climate patterns throughout the history of the planet) that should cast at least some small shadow of doubt for even the most staunch advocate of global warming as long as they are willing approach it with an open mind. The problem is that many are not willing to do so. As I have already mentioned I am not opposed to the idea of global warming in principle. I do believe that most of the evidence is misrepresented, misused, or inconclusive. If proper evidence is accumulated to the contrary I am willing to listen and even change my stance.
Finally, any true scientist would vehemently disagree with your stance on the degradation of an argument into philosophy. True science is heavily rooted in philosophy, and to a certain degree the two are inseparable.
"Every piece of evidence, every experiment they have performed, every attempt to disprove Global Warming, has added more proof that it's a real and extremely dangerous threat."
Again this is the type of argument in the debate that I find appalling. This type of argument is unverifiable because it is completely untrue. There is much valid evidence to oppose the idea that humans are turning the world in the sauna. You cannot believe everything that the media, politicians, and many large corporations say about global warming without some bit of skepticism. The opposing viewpoint is highly underrepresented in mainstream culture (at least in America) making it easy to feel that there is no real opposing side to the issue. This is not about sitting on our hands and assuming that everything is alright, it is about understanding an issue that is promoted largely by nut-cases with an agenda and with something to gain.
If you live your life in a frenzy about what could very well amount to be a non-issue you are doing no better for yourself than those who "sit around doing nothing and pretending everything's alright." Not that you sound like you are exactly in a frenzy, but there are many in positions of power who would resort to tragically drastic measures to cure an issue that they don't properly understand.
All of that having said, just because I have not seen enough evidence to allow myself to believe the hype doesn't mean that I am for wasting our resources haphazardly (which is the broad brush that proponents of global warming enjoy painting us with). Philosophically I am in many ways a conservationist, however I have no interest in allowing it to control my life and inconvenience me. I am also susceptible to both logic and proper evidence. If it turns out that proper evidence exists to demonstrate that man is causing the Earth to warm in a way that will cause irreparable damage I will change my tune. The problem is that sufficient evidence simply does not exist. Take away many of the arguments which are constructed purely out of convenience, not scientific research or fact, and you may find that global warming is a limping, dying animal.
If you want a serious argument, ask a serious question. I don't have the time, nor patience to explain the entire issue to you which is precisely what you are asking. I am mainly taking issue with the consensus that has taken hold in much of the general public that not only is Global Warming a problem caused by man, but that the issue is completely cut and dry and the evidence is irrefutable. Climate trend data indicates that the global climate is in a constant state of flux for a number of reasons, and much of it indicates that man is not a major cause (if at all) in climate change. Many reputable scientists and studies exist that seem to refute the idea of man's role in global warming. Based on everything that I have read on the issue I believe that the global warming issue is largely a hoax, and most of the data in support is at best inconclusive.
Who and why in a nutshell:
Scientists: Global warming is a hot issue currently. Fame? Research funding?
Politicians/Corporations: Creating an atmosphere of fear and distrust can be good for a career, so long as you can shift the blame elsewhere. Take a look at the poster child for global warming: Al Gore. Gore strip mines his family's land, his home's energy usage is off the charts compared to the national average, and his partial ownership of one of these silly new "carbon credit" companies gives him personal financial stake in the global warming mentality to take hold. Also acting as a crusader for the environment takes advantage of the growing environmentalist vote.
Global Warming is becoming business for a lot of people. There is reason to be skeptical of certain findings.
"Spectrum says:although the vast majority of the scientific community will say that the recent climate changes are a result carbon emissions"
I really didn't want to comment on this matter, but I don't think you could have made a more grossly incorrect statement. Much of the "data" that supports global warming is either exaggerated, terribly misinterpreted, or completely fabricated.