Going Beyond Post-Normal Science in Oxidation of Hydrocarbons

I have always been a little skeptical of all the Global Warming Theories. Not because I don't believe the fundamental premises, no, I think the fundamental premises are sound. My skepticism comes from the fact that Weather Physics is ridiculously complex. We can't say with any certainty to what degree all of our activities impact the Earth...

But....

I am a firm believer in the saying, "It is never wrong to do the right thing..."

We have reached a technological state where we "can" ween ourselves off of fossil fuels and resort to other technologies to meet our energy needs. The only arguments against employing said technology are Economic ones. Mainly we are just addicted to oil and too much of our economy is tied up in oil. Furthermore, every politician on this planet is (to some extent) bought by oil and energy companies...

So it comes down to simple math for me.
A) If Global Warming is correct and we do nothing, the end result is catastrophic and irreversible
B) If Global Warming is correct and we do everything we can to move off of fossil fuels, the end result is we save the planet
C) If Global Warming is incorrect and we do nothing, end result is neutral
D) If Global Warming is incorrect and we do everything we can to move off of fossil fuels, end result is neutral

So one alternative ends up in our destruction, the other 3 alternatives end up with either neutral or positive results...

So why not just do B or D???

You can make a very strong case that moving the economy from oil and fossil fuels to "other" technologies will be good for the overall global economy creating tons of opportunity and beneficial technologies. Sure, there will be some growing pains but overall it would be a good thing...

Heissonear said:

Some are ignoring the uncertainty recognized in "Post Normal Science ". When complexity is so great uncertainty is significant.

Click to expand...

Heissonear, let me help you again! In real science there is an entire area of study related to uncertainty that has been a part of good science for a century. It's called STATISTICS.

Statistics helps us understand how likely something is without perfect knowledge. People who are trained in science usually learn about statistics.

And how this is applicable to the pharmaceutical, climatological, and other domains.

Click to expand...

You should try reading a science article. You will often see discussions of uncertainty.

Some may have failed to comprehend and face up to Post Normal Science.

Click to expand...

No, some have overblown this whole "post normal" science based on some article someone wrote once. In climate science the sceince is going on exactly as it always has. In other words it utilizes solid scientific principles and an understanding of real world uncertainty expressed in the statistics.

If you would like some help on geology, chemistry or statistics, I can provide that for you.

Heissonear, I'm serious. If you have any questions about earth science, chemistry or statistics, I'm more than happy to see if I can answer them for you.

Geology is kind of a hobby of mine! I'm more than happy to help you. (I don't know why you ignore my offers...it's kind of rude when someone is willing to help you.)

Heissonear said:

Some are ignoring the uncertainty recognized in "Post Normal Science ". When complexity is so great uncertainty is significant.

And how this is applicable to the pharmaceutical, climatological, and other domains.

Some may have failed to comprehend and face up to Post Normal Science.

Click to expand...

Some here are ignoring replies to their previous posts because they contain inconvenient truths!

I'll try again:

I notice you seem to focus exclusively on Glacier Bay? Could it just be that this particular glacier has local climatic reasons for the way it behaves? Got some glaciers from, say, Asia, or Europe, or South America, to compare this to? ... It's a great big planet, yet you always come back to this particular glacier. Why is that? Maybe the trend below?

Heissonear said:

It needs to be stated again. How many times till understood I'm not sure!!!

Click to expand...

I know! Like I said, Heissonear, I'm more than happy to explain geology, chemistry and statistics to you anytime you need it!

Some are ignoring the uncertainty clearly recognized and addressed in "Post Normal Science ".

Click to expand...

REAL science contains an appreciation of uncertainty which is why they use statistics.

Like I said, Heissonear, I'm more than happy to show you some real science for a change (rather than the politics you post here)

Alarmists may not face up because they would need to change. It exposes their foundation.

Click to expand...

I think the only person exposing anything on here is you exposing a desperate need for education in geology, chemistry and statistics.

I'm happy to help you if you like! Like I said, these things are kind of a hobby of mine!

I'll try again:

I notice you seem to focus exclusively on Glacier Bay? Could it just be that this particular glacier has local climatic reasons for the way it behaves? Got some glaciers from, say, Asia, or Europe, or South America, to compare this to? ... It's a great big planet, yet you always come back to this particular glacier. Why is that? Maybe the trend below?