[quote=“Timex,post:2778,topic:70401”]
In the case here, neither of your hypotheses are really supported by rigorous scientific studies. They’re just guesses. And honestly, that’s what was contained in “An Inconvenient Truth”. Just guesses. That’s why I stated that they weren’t supported by science, because there was no rigorous study which supported the notion that 2016 constituted some major turning point. It was merely a statement made because it sounded scary.[/QUOTE]
Now you’re moving the goalposts. In my silly example, both hypotheses are supported by 100% of all the data known to the scientists studying the issue. Hypotheses ARE guesses… or, if you prefer, “a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.”
Science is all about gathering new data to support or tear down previous theories. There are a lot of scientists that will hold off on presenting a new hypothesis because the data they have doesn’t make it as solid as they’d like, while others may see that the implications of waiting for more data (your “rigorous studies”) are too dire to do anything but put it out there. Indeed, scientists put hypotheses out there in order to drum up support for gathering more data!
Unless Gore absolutely made up facts or ignored conflicting data to suit his presentation then all he is guilty of is making an educated guess (ie, hypothesis) based on the data he had available at the time. If later data proves that hypothesis to be weak or wrong, that doesn’t make Gore’s presenting it some kind of scientific sin.
Timex
2783
Now you’re moving the goalposts. In my silly example, both hypotheses are supported by 100% of all the data known to the scientists studying the issue.
Perhaps we are talking past each other, so I’m just going to describe here why I disagree with your suggestion here.
For me, being supported by the scientific data means that all of the data you’ve collected supports your hypothesis, and NOT a mutually exclusive hypothesis. If the data supports both, then neither is supported by the data. It means you need more data to support one or the other. Part of this is involved in the testability of the hypothesis… to be supported by science, you don’t just make a hypothesis. You make one, and you design experiments which then test it… And those tests need to be well designed, such as to actually eliminate conflicting explanations.
Unless Gore absolutely made up facts or ignored conflicting data to suit his presentation then all he is guilty of is making an educated guess (ie, hypothesis) based on the data he had available at the time.
The problem is that simply making a guess that fits the data isn’t science. It’s simply the first STEP of science.
Again, this is part of the problem with how all of this stuff is discussed in the media. Science is hard, tedious work… and people on both sides of the issue really don’t want to bother with it. They just want easy answers that they can cling to as gospel.
You are completely wrong.
edit: I should expand a bit: whether the tipping point is 2000, 2012, 2016, 2020 or 2050 are not really mutually exclusive hypotheses whatever the case.
My apologies; I meant you are provably and demonstrably wrong.
Timex
2787
edit: I should expand a bit: whether the tipping point is 2000, 2012, 2016, 2020 or 2050 are not really mutually exclusive hypotheses whatever the case.
You want to think about that one a bit more?
The hypothesis is that there is a tipping point coming, and an estimate is made as to when. The estimate can be inaccurate without invalidating the hypothesis.
Timex
2789
I feel obligated to point out that within the context of the discussion, your suggestion here is clearly incorrect.
The statement by Gore was not simply that at some point in the future a tipping point exists, because such a statement wouldn’t really matter. You could say “if we continue at current levels for only a mere twenty thousand years, we will pass a point if no return!” And clearly it’s a completely different implication.
Gore’s suggestion included a ten year timeline, in order to create a sense of urgency. It was effectively a statement about the slope of a line, not the mere existence of a line. Because the slope of the line has repercussions on policy decisions.
Sure but I still don’t know why you don’t think that estimate is not based on data, simply because you think it’s not a precise estimate.
RichVR
2791
My understanding is that the so called tipping point has come and gone. What can we do, today, that will stop the melting of the poles? Calving glaciers. Polar bear migrations? Just curious.
Well I pretty much agree; all we can do is mitigation.
The USA is making some positive moves to reduce it’s CO2 output:
‘US electricity industry’s use of coal fell to historic low in 2015 as plants closed’:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/04/us-electricity-industrys-use-of-coal-fell-to-historic-low-in-2015-as-plants-closed
Now i would add that while this needs to happen in all energy producing countries it really should be done (and probably won’t in most cases) in a smart manner so those communities losing jobs in the coal industry have the best incentives to kickstart jobs in the clean energy sector. That would be the responsible governance thing to do…but you have not elected me your leader so it probably won’t happen like.
More likely will be to see a ‘Thatchers Britain’ example where vast area’s of the country are plunged into joblessness while extra effort is made to increase the wealth generated by the already richer part of the country ;)
No, he was wrong because he said we’d now be on an irrevocable path to extinction. According to that clown huckster’s prediction, the human race is now over because nothing can save us. Do you really want to again reiterate that you think that’s a fact?
It’s greedy evil motherfuckers like Gore that have made 91% of Americans think that global warming isn’t a serious problem.
Well here is the actual direct quote from Gore in spetember 2006 (from a speech at NYU law school) as opposed to the paraphrasing I have seen everywhere else of what was supposedly said at Sundance:
Of course the right wing did not comprehend this more nuanced position (hence the doomsday clock thing and why the right wing is laughing because the world is not a hellish wasteland today), and I get that you, personally, do not believe him, but that does not mean he is not possibly correct.
KevinC
2796
Yes, it surely has nothing to do with propaganda and massive campaign contributions by the oil industry.
Timex
2797
Well here is the actual direct quote from Gore in spetember 2006 (from a speech at NYU law school)
That’s actually a different quote then the one being talked about, which was originally given by Gore at the sundance film festival. He actually said it a few times.
See, the thing is, Al Gore tends to make a lot of statements which aren’t accurate, and that’s exactly the problem… Like when he said in 2008:
Scientists with access to data from Navy submarines traversing underneath the North polar ice cap have warned that there is now a 75 percent chance that within five years the entire ice cap will completely disappear during the summer months.
Now, as is part of the problem, Gore doesn’t tend to cite sources for these claims. Of course, in a speech you wouldn’t expect him to, but I don’t know what study in 2008 was suggesting that there was a 75% chance of the polar ice caps completely melting within 5 years (by 2013). I don’t think any actual climatologists were making such a claim… and then it didn’t happen… which ends up giving climate change skeptics ammunition because they are able to argue against unsupported statements by Gore as a strawman for real climate change arguments.
How about a major political party that has bent a significant portion of its resources toward convincing the populace that it’s a hoax?
Timex
2799
I found the stuff that Gore’s statements about the arctic ice were based on… It was actually a scientist at the Naval Postgraduate School. But the thing is, that scientist then complained about Gore’s statements, because Gore took his scientific work and then made gross exaggerations about them.
And this is the problem with Gore. Now, the actual scientist actually pushed back his predictions to 2020, not 2013, and he was not at all claiming a 75% liklihood, nor a completely ice free arctic. But Gore exaggerated the science, instead making claims that were not actually supported by rigorous scientific research.
And in doing so, he harms the cause in order to put himself into the limelight. He gives climate change skeptics ammunition, allowing them to pretend like people like Al Gore are the actual climatologists. But Gore’s not a scientist. He’s an idiot with a major in Government.
Can’t find the quote, I can only find fairly unspecific paraphrasing, as I said. But clearly from the later-that-same-year ACTUAL direct quote, you can see what his position is… even if you think he walked it back from a more extreme statement (which again is hard to know because I can’t find a direct quote from what he said at Sundance).
Timex
2801
The bigger issue though, within the context of the discussion, is his pattern of action which you can see in repeated exaggerations. The one with the ice caps that I posted is perhaps even a better example, as even the scientist whose work he was talking about was like, “Whoa there, that’s not what I said.”
The thing is, exaggerating the issue does not serve a useful purpose. It just clouds the issue, and gives ammunition to skeptics.
Al Gore is not, by really any stretch of the imagination, a scientist. And as such, his statements really have no place in the larger discussion, beyond “random dude says X”. He’s not an authority on the topic at all, and he should largely be ignored. But his statements tend to carry more weight than they deserve, and then he provides an easy target for people who point out (correctly) that his statements are bullshit… and then the problem becomes that they (incorrectly) extend that to ALL climatologists, suggesting that they are ALL full of shit… but they aren’t.
Exaggeration of the facts is always a bad move… because eventually, the lies will always come to light, and then you destroy the credibility for your cause.
And there’s honestly no need for such exaggeration.
