frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Climate Change Science - A neutral, objective and coherent perspective

Debate Information

What I would like to do here is have an objective, neutral and coherent discussion about the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming with respect to the science of climatology. And in doing this I would also like to point out that I will not be providing a case for or against this scientific theory or that would be inconsistent with the discussion that I just stated I'd like to have. However, in order to have this discussion, we need to clear up some misconceptions and misunderstandings of some scientific terminology. One other thing that I think would help us is to also ask ourselves if we currently have strong beliefs that could get in the way of our reasoning to be mindful of that before proceeding engaging in rational discourse. 

So, the first thing I'd like to tackle is the science term "consensus." We need to be aware of what a scientific consensus is and what it is not. What a scientific consensus is not is something that is unanimous. It is also not "just the mere opinions about something in a given field." The former misconstrued use of the term consensus being presented here is used by people that are arguing that humans are causing the current climate change scale; the latter depicts the other misconstrued use of the term used by people arguing against the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming. A great example of what I think epitomizes what a scientific consensus actually is and what it isn't is the following:

Home » Glossary » ABC » Scientific Consensus

Scientific Consensus

Definition: The Scientific Consensus represents the position generally agreed upon at a given time by most scientists specialized in a given field.
More: Scientific Consensus does NOT mean that: all scientists are unanimous: disagreements may occur and can be necessary for science to progress, the position is definitive: the consensus can evolve with the results from further research and contrary opinions. Therefore, Scientific Consensus is NOT a synonym of "Certain Truth". But when the scientific expertise to judge a scientific position is lacking, the best choice is to rely on the Consensus.https://www.greenfacts.org/glossary/abc/consensus.htm
The definition above is a neutral one; it doesn't imply anything about how great or how bad a consensus is.

Now, the next things I would like to explore are the terms "proof," "evidence," and the "Scientific Method." One of the misconceptions here is that it is the job of scientists to "prove their hypothesis" which is incorrect. It has also been said by people that it's the job of scientists to disprove things which I will also contend is not accurate. It is in fact however the job of scientists to obtain evidence that either supports their hypothesis or rejects it. In science, proofs are possible only in the highly abstract world of mathematics. https://oregonstate.edu/instruction/bb317/scientifictheories.html

As for the scientific method, there is only one and it applies to all the natural sciences such as physics, biology, earth science and so forth, including the science of climate change, which is basically earth science anyway. The steps involved in the scientific method are as follows:


The scientific method

At the core of biology and other sciences lies a problem-solving approach called the scientific method. The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:
  1. Make an observation.
  2. Ask a question.
  3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
  4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
  5. Test the prediction.
  6. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.
The scientific method is used in all sciences—including chemistry, physics, geology, and psychology. The scientists in these fields ask different questions and perform different tests. However, they use the same core approach to find answers that are logical and supported by evidence.

The example above is what I think is the best neutral definition I could find of what the scientific method actually is.


Now, taking into account everything aforementioned here I would now like to delve into the theory of anthropogenic global warming and explore what is actually going on from a neutral, objective and coherent perspective. So, without further ado, let's get at it:

  1. The scientific consensus of anthropogenic global warming (AGW for short) - Regardless of what one believes about the consensus of AGW the current fact of the matter is that there is a stated consensus that revolves around it. Regardless of what one believes about the stated level of consensus, it is currently stated to be above 90%. The other fact of the matter is that there was a study conducted some years ago that involved quantifying the scientific consensus of AGW. During this study, the conclusion was that "Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming," "Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus." https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024. The confusion here lies in people misinterpreting this to mean that all the climate abstracts from 1991 to 2011 that there is more than a 97% consensus, which is not what is being stated at all. The 97% consensus refers to all those abstracts that endorsed the consensus position, which also included 0.7% rejecting it and 0.3% that was uncertain. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024. Among all these abstracts which were approximately 12000 "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW." https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024. So in other words, out of all the studies conducted the majority of people were those that took no position on it at all, whereas with those that did have a position there was 97.1% endorsing the consensus. 
  2. Is the scientific theory of AGW a settled science? - Technically speaking, nothing is ever settled in science. That being said however, the current fact of the matter is that there is currently more evidence that supports the theory of AGW than that which rejects it regardless of what one believes about the evidence of which. 
I think I will leave it here for now and update this as I come across other information, and/or as time permits. So, now over to you.
PlaffelvohfenJohn_C_87






Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
Tie
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch