Global Warming Debate part 2

Continued from part 1..

K: I don't know if I want to agree with that, but it's definitely not scientific. Logical thinking is almost the best exploits of political propagandists. Just like the argument you just presented, Mr. Al Gore said after looking at this diagram, "it's clear that co2 directly affects temperature" and people ofcourse nodded hysterically!! What does that really prove!!?

(See this picture)

At first glance, the CO2 lagging temperature would mean that it’s the temperature that controls CO2 and not vice versa.

Most people only see a percentage of what's visible. We are trained to filter what we don't want to see. Politicians know how to exploit that. Assuming that CO2 doesn't affect temperature, but it's the vice versa, you are yourself a very good example of this filtering.

If you really want to know the truth, find the facts yourself. And another thing, you know nothing about politics. You are really just a little tiny kid!! like many others ofcourse. And I don't mean to offend you but you can't really know the truth if you listen to politicians and can't go beyond it!!

One most glaring example of how politicians affect global judgement is Hitler. To forward his theory that German natives are the purest and best human form, he sent many scientists over to all over the globe, also to India to gather evidence of Aryans being the supreme beings, and guess what, the scientists did, and then they were awarded with high honors. Ofcourse we now know that most of it is faked and it was not scientific. DO NOT UNDERMINE THE POWER OF POLITICS.

And just think about it. If you, probably one of the best at logic, given your algorithmic talent, would resort to logic like .... if most people and scientists say something, then it must be true .... or that if one believes in one of those dogma, he is more likely to believe the other .... to determine the truth, think about the fate of the rest of population, the average of which is only minorly as logical and smart as you are!!

And psychology also has a big part of this phenomena. Take the example of Galileo who was killed cuz he said earth wasn't the center of the universe. People can't accept certain things. Perhaps they are so invested in an idea that denying it is more costly to their survival than to accept a counter idea that might be more true or more honest or more of a value that they honor but doesn't necessarily impact their survival as directly as food or status in society or some other blah.

I couldn't be more sure that you would continue thinking that the CO2 produced by the animals is going to destroy the earth because I know how emotionally and spiritually invested you are in that 'fact'. And it's ok .... whatever works for you ...

By the way the globe is warming!!


Me: In order to avoid digressing too much, I will ignore the euphemisms and criticisms against my psychology and my 'emotional and spiritual investment' (though I could easily overturn these arguments) and the comparisons with Hitler and Galileo (these seem irrelevant to me). You also misquote me: I never said that if most people say something, it must be true . You know quite well that I strongly disagree with most people on certain issues.

I am no fan of Al Gore. I haven't seen 'The Inconvenient Truth' until very recently. He's not a scientist and may have said some things which are wrong. If you are really interested to know the facts you should hear the arguments from climate scientists, and science journalists who write about it. And I hope you know that the overwhelming majority of them are convinced that global warming is happening due to human activity.

The way you disapprove global warming is ridiculous and funny! If it just takes one glance at a picture to disprove global warming, then (virtually) all climate scientists of the world must be f*ing insane and dumb !! I also don't see how you could say 'and not vice-versa'. I think it may be the case that increase in temperature increases CO2 AND vice-versa. Many climate scientists say that the earth has feedback mechanisms: Increase in CO2 results in increase in temperatures which in turn results in increase in CO2 and other green house gases and so on.

You also ignore the explanation about global dimming that I mentioned.

Finally climate and the influence humans have on it is quite complicated as there are too many parameters and factors. Its not as simple as looking at a graph or a bunch of them and deciding for ourselves whether an assertion is true or not. You need rigorous scientific training to do it. And for people like us who don't have this training the best bet is to listen and trust what the real climate researchers have to say.

On the other hand if you believe that (virtually) all climate scientists across the world are involved in some kind of a conspiracy.. I don't buy it.